Baha’i Rants

Hi there,

I just found your blog through a reference on another website.

You’ve said some very interesting things here. I’d be really curious to know more about who you are and your history as a Baha’i — e.g. did you grow up in the Faith? do you live in a large community? what country are you in? That would give me a better idea of where you’re coming from on certain subjects.

For my part, I grew up as a Baha’i and in my late teens I really struggled with my own disillusionment in certain aspects of Baha’i culture (from my point of view). Essentially I needed to go on my own ‘independent investigation of truth’. I’m still on that quest, hope I never stop learning and discovering.

A couple of things have helped me along the way. One was reading a book by Justice St. Rain called “Falling Into Grace”. If you haven’t picked it up, I definitely recommend it; it’s really worth a read. The other thing that’s helped — believe it or not — is leaving my country to go pioneering. Being so far from home in a place with few Baha’is has shifted my focus to things like teaching, building, taking an active role in community development — a totally different ‘culture’ from that of my home community. Of course, that’s just my own experience (may not help others).

It would be great to talk to you more, especially about what you believe ‘infallibility’ really means. I’m also slightly curious about your comment which says:

“As Baha’is, we are asked to share our concerns, ciriticisms and feedback directly with the institutions of the Faith. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be working.”

Which institutions are you talking about there? How did you approach them?

Cheers and love,

V

http://www.livejournal.com/users/territory_gal

Hi there,

I just found your blog through a reference on another website.

You’ve said some very interesting things here. I’d be really curious to know more about who you are and your history as a Baha’i — e.g. did you grow up in the Faith? do you live in a large community? what country are you in? That would give me a better idea of where you’re coming from on certain subjects.

For my part, I grew up as a Baha’i and in my late teens I really struggled with my own disillusionment in certain aspects of Baha’i culture (from my point of view). Essentially I needed to go on my own ‘independent investigation of truth’. I’m still on that quest, hope I never stop learning and discovering.

A couple of things have helped me along the way. One was reading a book by Justice St. Rain called “Falling Into Grace”. If you haven’t picked it up, I definitely recommend it; it’s really worth a read. The other thing that’s helped — believe it or not — is leaving my country to go pioneering. Being so far from home in a place with few Baha’is has shifted my focus to things like teaching, building, taking an active role in community development — a totally different ‘culture’ from that of my home community. Of course, that’s just my own experience (may not help others).

It would be great to talk to you more, especially about what you believe ‘infallibility’ really means. I’m also slightly curious about your comment which says:

“As Baha’is, we are asked to share our concerns, ciriticisms and feedback directly with the institutions of the Faith. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be working.”

Which institutions are you talking about there? How did you approach them?

Cheers and love,

V

http://www.livejournal.com/users/territory_gal

I have just been put onto your blog site and found it intelligently refreshing. I have been a Baha’i for many years, and am continually disillusioned with the same ol’ same ol’. Vibrancy , celebration, joy and true vision of service has gone . I am closer to God in a forest than ever within Bahai gatherings. In a world of huge inequities, alarming scientifically verified reports of predicted environmental collapse, the Baha’i administraition is like an ostrich whose long neck is stuck up the proverbial. Communities move to exclude and discriminate, and the healing message for humanity is being lost. Keep writing, and asking questions. I hang onto independent investigation of truth.
Thanks from a kiwi girl.

I have just been put onto your blog site and found it intelligently refreshing. I have been a Baha’i for many years, and am continually disillusioned with the same ol’ same ol’. Vibrancy , celebration, joy and true vision of service has gone . I am closer to God in a forest than ever within Bahai gatherings. In a world of huge inequities, alarming scientifically verified reports of predicted environmental collapse, the Baha’i administraition is like an ostrich whose long neck is stuck up the proverbial. Communities move to exclude and discriminate, and the healing message for humanity is being lost. Keep writing, and asking questions. I hang onto independent investigation of truth.
Thanks from a kiwi girl.

interesting commments. i agree with much of what you say, though i would argue that most of what is going on here is due to two factors:

one, we as individual baha’is are very inexperienced, and much more immeresed in our own cultures than we are in a baha’i culture–something that we are in the process of creating, actually. and i would guess that you are part of the western culture, maybe even north american, considering you have a blog (most likely, statistically). i think much of what you struggle with in the baha’i community are actually features of our dominant culture, not really features of a baha’i culture.

two: the institutions are still immature, and that includes all the institutions. we know that the uhj is infallible and other assemblies are not, even taking into account the immaturity of the institutions.

so this learning process is painful and often slow, but necessary. i would say voices like yours are needed in the community, questioning, struggling, challenging. i don’t know how engaged you are in your local community, but i would encourage you to stay involved in the process. my experience of the five year plan has been that if communities give themselves over willingly to the process–which sounds cold and mechanistic–there is actually a mystical power released. it seems to me that any lack of results during the five year plan are due to lack of willingness to participate. i’ve seen the love, joy, unity, and enthusiasm in several communities increase as a result of this plan.

finally, and please don’t take offense at this, something that has become clear to me in the recent past, mostly as a result of this plan, is that our grounding in the writings is not what it should be. i think we, particularly in the west, are in love with our own opinions (i’m as big a culprit as any). i say this not to put you down, but to simply say that the writings are the right place to find the answers you seek, as well as the most powerful thing to share with others. if you could base your arguments/concerns in the holy texts i think it would be a lot more meaningful and provide a more substantial basis for investigation. to me, this is perhaps the most important facet of the five year plan, when we are all learning and immersing ourselves in the same words of god, we have an unshakeable foundation for unity.

good luck with your struggles and search.

your baha’i brother.

interesting commments. i agree with much of what you say, though i would argue that most of what is going on here is due to two factors:

one, we as individual baha’is are very inexperienced, and much more immeresed in our own cultures than we are in a baha’i culture–something that we are in the process of creating, actually. and i would guess that you are part of the western culture, maybe even north american, considering you have a blog (most likely, statistically). i think much of what you struggle with in the baha’i community are actually features of our dominant culture, not really features of a baha’i culture.

two: the institutions are still immature, and that includes all the institutions. we know that the uhj is infallible and other assemblies are not, even taking into account the immaturity of the institutions.

so this learning process is painful and often slow, but necessary. i would say voices like yours are needed in the community, questioning, struggling, challenging. i don’t know how engaged you are in your local community, but i would encourage you to stay involved in the process. my experience of the five year plan has been that if communities give themselves over willingly to the process–which sounds cold and mechanistic–there is actually a mystical power released. it seems to me that any lack of results during the five year plan are due to lack of willingness to participate. i’ve seen the love, joy, unity, and enthusiasm in several communities increase as a result of this plan.

finally, and please don’t take offense at this, something that has become clear to me in the recent past, mostly as a result of this plan, is that our grounding in the writings is not what it should be. i think we, particularly in the west, are in love with our own opinions (i’m as big a culprit as any). i say this not to put you down, but to simply say that the writings are the right place to find the answers you seek, as well as the most powerful thing to share with others. if you could base your arguments/concerns in the holy texts i think it would be a lot more meaningful and provide a more substantial basis for investigation. to me, this is perhaps the most important facet of the five year plan, when we are all learning and immersing ourselves in the same words of god, we have an unshakeable foundation for unity.

good luck with your struggles and search.

your baha’i brother.

forgot to add my link.

forgot to add my link.

Hi,
Personally, I have found the Baha’i Wrintings so immense and sometimes overwhelming with beautiful wisdom, that I can’t hold it all in my head and process it. What has helped me to process Baha’u'llah’s Revelation is a talk be Adib Taherzadeh in 1984 to the Alaska Baha’i Community “Drawing Nigh to Baha’u'llah”. He touches on some of the questions and concerns you have raised.
Warmly,
Meg

Hi,
Personally, I have found the Baha’i Wrintings so immense and sometimes overwhelming with beautiful wisdom, that I can’t hold it all in my head and process it. What has helped me to process Baha’u'llah’s Revelation is a talk be Adib Taherzadeh in 1984 to the Alaska Baha’i Community “Drawing Nigh to Baha’u'llah”. He touches on some of the questions and concerns you have raised.
Warmly,
Meg

look to the last Hidden word where we are told to live our lives by our calling. This is the golden key to everything. Focus on that. Gillian

look to the last Hidden word where we are told to live our lives by our calling. This is the golden key to everything. Focus on that. Gillian

Hello Everybody
I am afraid there is either two Ramiz Mahers or sombody is using my name to say something that is not my view at all about Bahai institutions in constant growth towards maturity.I (Ramiz Maher)live in Chile as a pioneer for the last 25 years and see our beloved faith in perfect and normal conditions of growth and well protected for error by the Universal House of Justice.
With loving greeting.
Ramiz Maher
Chile

Hello Everybody
I am afraid there is either two Ramiz Mahers or sombody is using my name to say something that is not my view at all about Bahai institutions in constant growth towards maturity.I (Ramiz Maher)live in Chile as a pioneer for the last 25 years and see our beloved faith in perfect and normal conditions of growth and well protected for error by the Universal House of Justice.
With loving greeting.
Ramiz Maher
Chile

Dear Ramiz,

where is this supposed impostor’s comments? I haven’t found it on the blog.

In any case, thanks for your alertness. No ABM for protection has a chance of sneaking up on you.

Dear Ramiz,

where is this supposed impostor’s comments? I haven’t found it on the blog.

In any case, thanks for your alertness. No ABM for protection has a chance of sneaking up on you.

Hi there, I just stumbled upon your blog while surfing the net.

I am a baha’i from Iceland. I find what you write very interesting and I would like to congratulate you for your courage. I have been in correspondance with several people living in the States and many of them have expressed what you have said here. Being an individual within the community can be very difficult.

But I have to agree with V who posted the first comment on your blog. She recommended pioneering to other countries. The situation is not the same everywhere, fortunately. There are still young communities that have not taken this direction. They are in need of vibrant, diverse, happy and mature people.

I am very happy to say that the Five year plan which is about to end has been a big help in my community. We are working hard on developing an A-cluster.

I hope this will make at least some difference in your day,

take good care,
Hugrun.

Hi there, I just stumbled upon your blog while surfing the net.

I am a baha’i from Iceland. I find what you write very interesting and I would like to congratulate you for your courage. I have been in correspondance with several people living in the States and many of them have expressed what you have said here. Being an individual within the community can be very difficult.

But I have to agree with V who posted the first comment on your blog. She recommended pioneering to other countries. The situation is not the same everywhere, fortunately. There are still young communities that have not taken this direction. They are in need of vibrant, diverse, happy and mature people.

I am very happy to say that the Five year plan which is about to end has been a big help in my community. We are working hard on developing an A-cluster.

I hope this will make at least some difference in your day,

take good care,
Hugrun.

Hi, I just wanted to add my website.

Hi, I just wanted to add my website.

hmm…this does not seem to be working well…try to remove the / from the end of the url…then it should work…

Sorry

hmm…this does not seem to be working well…try to remove the / from the end of the url…then it should work…

Sorry

Hugrun, thanks for dropping by. I appreciate and agree with your sentiments… some countries are better than others.

However, many issues like the unenrollment of sincere Baha’is, the pugilistic attitude towards academics, and the lack of due process, are constant whereever you may be. And it is these that are causing real harm to the Baha’i world community.

No matter where you run to, you can not escape from them. Instead, as a Baha’i, I think it is our duty to confront these malevolent forces and to defeat them.

And btw, the corrected link to your MySpace site is here.

Hugrun, thanks for dropping by. I appreciate and agree with your sentiments… some countries are better than others.

However, many issues like the unenrollment of sincere Baha’is, the pugilistic attitude towards academics, and the lack of due process, are constant whereever you may be. And it is these that are causing real harm to the Baha’i world community.

No matter where you run to, you can not escape from them. Instead, as a Baha’i, I think it is our duty to confront these malevolent forces and to defeat them.

And btw, the corrected link to your MySpace site is here.

Salaam Alaikum Dear Friend:
As a Baha’i and a spiritual writer, may I commend to you my book, Master of the Jinn: A Sufi Novel, a mystical adventure tale on the Sufi path of Love. I think you will like it. It has been translated and published in Russia, and will, later this year inshallah, be translated and published in Indonesia, into Bahasa, the national language.
You can view the book and read an excerpt at http://www.masterofthejinn.com
In the Name of the Merciful, 10% of all profits go to charity.

Ya Haqq,

Irving

Salaam Alaikum Dear Friend:
As a Baha’i and a spiritual writer, may I commend to you my book, Master of the Jinn: A Sufi Novel, a mystical adventure tale on the Sufi path of Love. I think you will like it. It has been translated and published in Russia, and will, later this year inshallah, be translated and published in Indonesia, into Bahasa, the national language.
You can view the book and read an excerpt at http://www.masterofthejinn.com
In the Name of the Merciful, 10% of all profits go to charity.

Ya Haqq,

Irving

Thank you for this very interesting and informative site. As a non Bahai and student of your faith for the past 30 years I am very pleased to have come across your blog. I have grave concerns about the lack of freedom of thought in all fundamentalist organizations and I hope and pray that you and folks like you can have some influence against those who seek to impose orthodoxy above all else. Keep up your good work and I looking forward to more insight on yours blogs part.

Thank you again from a universalist follower of Jesus of Nazareth, good luck and God bless all humanity who seek after peace with tolerance and compassion.
Mark from Vallejo, CA

Thank you for this very interesting and informative site. As a non Bahai and student of your faith for the past 30 years I am very pleased to have come across your blog. I have grave concerns about the lack of freedom of thought in all fundamentalist organizations and I hope and pray that you and folks like you can have some influence against those who seek to impose orthodoxy above all else. Keep up your good work and I looking forward to more insight on yours blogs part.

Thank you again from a universalist follower of Jesus of Nazareth, good luck and God bless all humanity who seek after peace with tolerance and compassion.
Mark from Vallejo, CA

Hi,

As I chow down my pre-dawn oatmeal (Fast)I understand the angst that fuels this site. I do. Yet, and yet. As a Baha’i of 30+ years, I have truly seen it all. Hypocrisy, ignorance, abuse, ego-engineered attempts to rise up through an imagined hierarchy of Baha’i “celebrity.” I have seen Baha’is who attend every fireside, every Feast who then go home and flagrantly break some of the most cherished laws of this Dispensation.

All I can tell you is that I am front and center at Baha’i activities because of Baha’u'llah, who gave us the Center of the Covenant. Not because of the perfections of the Baha’is, not because of the developing Administrative Order.

As the Master taught, perfection is endless . . . this applies to the Baha’is more keenly than to any group I can think of. Even Shoghi Effendi said that the greatest challenge to the Bahs’is would be . . . the Baha’is. (And look what he had to put up with . . .)

I found my peace in the Kitab-i-Iqan which informs the reader (sorry, I am not one of those believers who can club you over the head with a quotation) that the transformative power of the Creative Word is such that the lowest, losingest people are always the ones who embrace the new, revealed religion. As such, they are transformed into renewed beings who embrace the great new truths of the age. This transformation is in itself, nothing less than a proof of God, according to Baha’u'llah.

No one has ever tried what we try.

Other than our imperfect but earnest attempts to understand the Writings and to actively employ them, we are just like everyone else, fragile, weak and prone to whiny complaints and power struggle.

That is until we remember Him, Then for a few fleeting moments we are what we are supposed to be. . . united Followers of the Light.

Everything else, in the face of that fleeting moment is inconsequential. Perhaps we can learn to stretch those rare moments into sustained enlightenment.

Baha’is will succeed because of Baha’u'llah, a Person who in 1848, in the town of Amal, went to settle strife aimed at the Babis . . .the authorities decided to punish them with bastinado, a brutal torture in which the soles of the feet are whipped to a bloody pulp. He would not consent to allowing the believers to suffer such abuse.

So He offered Himself to the authorities and volunteered to take the bastinado. The authorities obliged Him. All this, BEFORE the experience in the Siyah Chal.

Baha’u'llah is helping us to unlearn the things that hold the world back. Think about fewer and fewer childen starving in the world and carry on. Baha’u'llah did. ‘Abdul Baha did. So can you. The faster we get the job done, the quicker we get the world we want.

HAPPY FAST!!

Hi,

As I chow down my pre-dawn oatmeal (Fast)I understand the angst that fuels this site. I do. Yet, and yet. As a Baha’i of 30+ years, I have truly seen it all. Hypocrisy, ignorance, abuse, ego-engineered attempts to rise up through an imagined hierarchy of Baha’i “celebrity.” I have seen Baha’is who attend every fireside, every Feast who then go home and flagrantly break some of the most cherished laws of this Dispensation.

All I can tell you is that I am front and center at Baha’i activities because of Baha’u'llah, who gave us the Center of the Covenant. Not because of the perfections of the Baha’is, not because of the developing Administrative Order.

As the Master taught, perfection is endless . . . this applies to the Baha’is more keenly than to any group I can think of. Even Shoghi Effendi said that the greatest challenge to the Bahs’is would be . . . the Baha’is. (And look what he had to put up with . . .)

I found my peace in the Kitab-i-Iqan which informs the reader (sorry, I am not one of those believers who can club you over the head with a quotation) that the transformative power of the Creative Word is such that the lowest, losingest people are always the ones who embrace the new, revealed religion. As such, they are transformed into renewed beings who embrace the great new truths of the age. This transformation is in itself, nothing less than a proof of God, according to Baha’u'llah.

No one has ever tried what we try.

Other than our imperfect but earnest attempts to understand the Writings and to actively employ them, we are just like everyone else, fragile, weak and prone to whiny complaints and power struggle.

That is until we remember Him, Then for a few fleeting moments we are what we are supposed to be. . . united Followers of the Light.

Everything else, in the face of that fleeting moment is inconsequential. Perhaps we can learn to stretch those rare moments into sustained enlightenment.

Baha’is will succeed because of Baha’u'llah, a Person who in 1848, in the town of Amal, went to settle strife aimed at the Babis . . .the authorities decided to punish them with bastinado, a brutal torture in which the soles of the feet are whipped to a bloody pulp. He would not consent to allowing the believers to suffer such abuse.

So He offered Himself to the authorities and volunteered to take the bastinado. The authorities obliged Him. All this, BEFORE the experience in the Siyah Chal.

Baha’u'llah is helping us to unlearn the things that hold the world back. Think about fewer and fewer childen starving in the world and carry on. Baha’u'llah did. ‘Abdul Baha did. So can you. The faster we get the job done, the quicker we get the world we want.

HAPPY FAST!!

Let me paraphrase a Shoghi Effendi quote.

The biggest test once someone is a Bahai, are other Bahai’s.

Very true.

I’m 21 years old, born and raised Bahai. However only until my 19th year, can i truly say I could identify myself as a true beleiver. My reputation among the Bahai’s has not been squeeky clean. However, it wasn’t until I was accepted to go on a Youth Year of Service to the Tongan islands that i found myself, was able to grow without the push from anyone else – and began to truly realise my place in this amazing thing we have – which we all take for granted.

Man, returning to Australia, I still struggle to remain awake at the Feasts, the boring same sh’t that revolves every 19 days – people so willing to make suggestions but hesitant to volunteer for action.

Mate – the point is, I understand your frustrations. Going overseas amazed me, opened my eyes, made me aware of other frustrations that exist in other cultures, but also the power of this Faith to unify this shrinking world. But what one Tongan, new Bahai, ex-alcoholic said to me put it all in perspective. I was shocked at the use of corporate punishment, even among new Bahai families (very common in the Islands). He told me something like this:

“The Faith here is like the sun rising. We can see the light, but the sun hasn’t risen yet. Its still dark, but soon the full light of day will be seen. We’re at our dawn.”

Makes perfect sense. We’re at an early, infant stage. Bahai’s are imperfect, yet we expect so much more from them. LSA’s are imperfect, yet we always feel we can do better. The Faith is new – let it develop. Don’t get pissed off at your kid who can’t run on word “go”. He’ll learn. Let him trip up a few times, hurt his knee etc. He’ll get it.

Sure, frustrations with the Faith are always gonna be there. Watch them now, see whats up, make changes when you’re in the position to in future.

The Faith has saved my life – where would i be without it, … not here

all the best buddy

rayan

Let me paraphrase a Shoghi Effendi quote.

The biggest test once someone is a Bahai, are other Bahai’s.

Very true.

I’m 21 years old, born and raised Bahai. However only until my 19th year, can i truly say I could identify myself as a true beleiver. My reputation among the Bahai’s has not been squeeky clean. However, it wasn’t until I was accepted to go on a Youth Year of Service to the Tongan islands that i found myself, was able to grow without the push from anyone else – and began to truly realise my place in this amazing thing we have – which we all take for granted.

Man, returning to Australia, I still struggle to remain awake at the Feasts, the boring same sh’t that revolves every 19 days – people so willing to make suggestions but hesitant to volunteer for action.

Mate – the point is, I understand your frustrations. Going overseas amazed me, opened my eyes, made me aware of other frustrations that exist in other cultures, but also the power of this Faith to unify this shrinking world. But what one Tongan, new Bahai, ex-alcoholic said to me put it all in perspective. I was shocked at the use of corporate punishment, even among new Bahai families (very common in the Islands). He told me something like this:

“The Faith here is like the sun rising. We can see the light, but the sun hasn’t risen yet. Its still dark, but soon the full light of day will be seen. We’re at our dawn.”

Makes perfect sense. We’re at an early, infant stage. Bahai’s are imperfect, yet we expect so much more from them. LSA’s are imperfect, yet we always feel we can do better. The Faith is new – let it develop. Don’t get pissed off at your kid who can’t run on word “go”. He’ll learn. Let him trip up a few times, hurt his knee etc. He’ll get it.

Sure, frustrations with the Faith are always gonna be there. Watch them now, see whats up, make changes when you’re in the position to in future.

The Faith has saved my life – where would i be without it, … not here

all the best buddy

rayan

If a person has nine good qualities and one bad, look at the good one.
…and even more difficult: if a person has nine bad qualities and one good, look at the good one. (it even feels good).
And be certain of that this is the time when light shall not be followed by darkness.
Encourage the good sides in all of us… many of us never experienced that while growing up.

I am so happy to be …
Hans from Sweden

If a person has nine good qualities and one bad, look at the good one.
…and even more difficult: if a person has nine bad qualities and one good, look at the good one. (it even feels good).
And be certain of that this is the time when light shall not be followed by darkness.
Encourage the good sides in all of us… many of us never experienced that while growing up.

I am so happy to be …
Hans from Sweden

Your blog is well written and of interest. I’m glad to have found it. I wonder how you can be a Bahai in good standing — it makes me chuckle to think of it!

I have believed for years that the writings of Bahaullah have been sanitized for western consumption. He wrote love poetry and was a Sufi with the religious excess (some for the good) that implies. If all His writings were made available most Bahais would not know what to make of them.

Finally I have decided that while He was a great spiritual teacher, His claims are far too extreme even in their sanitized form. Yes there is a new heaven and a new earth — but its because of mankind’s growth and development, not because Bahaullah made it so. Of course that’s my opinion. I have decided to put my faith in mankind and Nature. I’m just sorry its taken me so long to do it.

Your blog is well written and of interest. I’m glad to have found it. I wonder how you can be a Bahai in good standing — it makes me chuckle to think of it!

I have believed for years that the writings of Bahaullah have been sanitized for western consumption. He wrote love poetry and was a Sufi with the religious excess (some for the good) that implies. If all His writings were made available most Bahais would not know what to make of them.

Finally I have decided that while He was a great spiritual teacher, His claims are far too extreme even in their sanitized form. Yes there is a new heaven and a new earth — but its because of mankind’s growth and development, not because Bahaullah made it so. Of course that’s my opinion. I have decided to put my faith in mankind and Nature. I’m just sorry its taken me so long to do it.

Dear friend:
If I may say something to you out of a brotherly/sisterly love; you may have a couple valid points here but the right way to express your frustrations should have been to auxiliary board members or directly to the Universal House of Justice and definitely NOT through this blog. The whole purpose of this wonderful cause is to create unity amongst Mankind and you must agree that starting rage, doubt and discontentment is not the way to deal with your frustrations. Obviously you see beauty in the Faith and that’s why you are sticking around in your membership as a Bahá’i but this membership comes with a responsibility and commitment to protect it’s main principle of unity. Please don’t take this as an insult but deepening more in the Faith will surly give you then answers you need in your quest. The Faith is perfect but us humans will always be imperfect and these imperfect actions done in the spirit of unity will correct themselves eventually. That doesn’t mean that you should stop thinking as an individual but rather channel your frustrations to the right people for an advice. I recommend reading the first section of the annual report by the NSA of the US, which deals with many of your questions. At the end; I lovingly urge you to change the name of your blog too as it expresses negativity and that is also not a Bahá’i teaching. All our actions as Bahá’is need to reflect the principles that we committed ourselves to accept. You sound very intelligent and I have high hopes that your sincere prayers for guidance and steadfastness will illumine your inner being and help you radiate the wonderful teachings of our dear Faith.

A

Dear friend:
If I may say something to you out of a brotherly/sisterly love; you may have a couple valid points here but the right way to express your frustrations should have been to auxiliary board members or directly to the Universal House of Justice and definitely NOT through this blog. The whole purpose of this wonderful cause is to create unity amongst Mankind and you must agree that starting rage, doubt and discontentment is not the way to deal with your frustrations. Obviously you see beauty in the Faith and that’s why you are sticking around in your membership as a Bahá’i but this membership comes with a responsibility and commitment to protect it’s main principle of unity. Please don’t take this as an insult but deepening more in the Faith will surly give you then answers you need in your quest. The Faith is perfect but us humans will always be imperfect and these imperfect actions done in the spirit of unity will correct themselves eventually. That doesn’t mean that you should stop thinking as an individual but rather channel your frustrations to the right people for an advice. I recommend reading the first section of the annual report by the NSA of the US, which deals with many of your questions. At the end; I lovingly urge you to change the name of your blog too as it expresses negativity and that is also not a Bahá’i teaching. All our actions as Bahá’is need to reflect the principles that we committed ourselves to accept. You sound very intelligent and I have high hopes that your sincere prayers for guidance and steadfastness will illumine your inner being and help you radiate the wonderful teachings of our dear Faith.

A

Ally,
thanks for your comments.

you may have a couple valid points here but the right way to express your frustrations should have been to auxiliary board members or directly to the Universal House of Justice and definitely NOT through this blog.

Just a couple? But seriously, why exactly do you think what I’m doing is wrong?

And aren’t you assuming that I haven’t already followed your advice?

Finally, I’m curious. Which are the ‘valid points’ I make? and which are the nonvalid ones? And why?

Ally,
thanks for your comments.

you may have a couple valid points here but the right way to express your frustrations should have been to auxiliary board members or directly to the Universal House of Justice and definitely NOT through this blog.

Just a couple? But seriously, why exactly do you think what I’m doing is wrong?

And aren’t you assuming that I haven’t already followed your advice?

Finally, I’m curious. Which are the ‘valid points’ I make? and which are the nonvalid ones? And why?

Hi Ally,

You wrote to Baquia:

“I recommend reading the first section of the annual report by the NSA of the US, which deals with many of your questions.”

Baquia, of course, posted the entire first part HERE three weeks ago because it came to this Blog through the great unwashed of the rank and file if you would read this Blog a little more astutely.

The entire free and open world can ONLY READ IT HERE ON-LINE!

But it is no longer available to ANY rank and file Baha’i in the U.S. unless they somehow got it in the original mailing before it was officially deep sixed and completely repressed by the UHJ.

As far as I can tell the entire 15 page excellent and prescient report has been completely taken down from the US NSA web site unless you can find it and post a link here for the Baha’is of the world. I hope it is there but I could not find it.

Nor is it’s contents mentioned in any way in the latest “American Baha’i” just three weeks later!

A report written and printed at great TIME and EXPENSE to the American Baha’i community is now treated like it never existed. Now COMPLETELY erased from the official record in an Orwellian orgy of shocking top down mind control.

I have been a Baha’i for 36 years and I am fighting mad.

Your Counselors and Axillary Board members whatever medications they are on had better double them. Because at some public meeting some time I am going to be in the front row and they are going to get an ear full in public. Sometimes unity comes from guts. Sometimes unity comes from a fist to the jaw upon unjust neurotic punks. Not from spineless passivity.

Keep posting brother/sister Ally. We love you!

Best regards,

Craig

Hi Ally,

You wrote to Baquia:

“I recommend reading the first section of the annual report by the NSA of the US, which deals with many of your questions.”

Baquia, of course, posted the entire first part HERE three weeks ago because it came to this Blog through the great unwashed of the rank and file if you would read this Blog a little more astutely.

The entire free and open world can ONLY READ IT HERE ON-LINE!

But it is no longer available to ANY rank and file Baha’i in the U.S. unless they somehow got it in the original mailing before it was officially deep sixed and completely repressed by the UHJ.

As far as I can tell the entire 15 page excellent and prescient report has been completely taken down from the US NSA web site unless you can find it and post a link here for the Baha’is of the world. I hope it is there but I could not find it.

Nor is it’s contents mentioned in any way in the latest “American Baha’i” just three weeks later!

A report written and printed at great TIME and EXPENSE to the American Baha’i community is now treated like it never existed. Now COMPLETELY erased from the official record in an Orwellian orgy of shocking top down mind control.

I have been a Baha’i for 36 years and I am fighting mad.

Your Counselors and Axillary Board members whatever medications they are on had better double them. Because at some public meeting some time I am going to be in the front row and they are going to get an ear full in public. Sometimes unity comes from guts. Sometimes unity comes from a fist to the jaw upon unjust neurotic punks. Not from spineless passivity.

Keep posting brother/sister Ally. We love you!

Best regards,

Craig

that’ s a valid point regarding the name of this blog…
after all the attribute of Creator is “Questions” not “rants”

nevertheless, wise and loving free expression that is free of ego is central to “consultation” and finding something that resembles truth, however relative that true might be etc

thanks

that’ s a valid point regarding the name of this blog…
after all the attribute of Creator is “Questions” not “rants”

nevertheless, wise and loving free expression that is free of ego is central to “consultation” and finding something that resembles truth, however relative that true might be etc

thanks

The only “final exchange” in an organics life Craig is death. In the meantime there is only life.

I left the BF voluntarily because to stay would only deteriorate all the good it did give me. Moving forward to studying the concepts of Transcendentalist.

Here’s a few pearls for you in a treasure chest beyond measure…

Thoreau:

“I am sorry to think that you do not get a man’s most effective criticism until you provoke him. Severe truth is expressed with some bitterness.”

“I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.”

“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”

“As for doing good; that is one of the professions which is full. Moreover I have tried it fairly and, strange as it may seem, am satisfied that it does not agree with my constitution.”

The only “final exchange” in an organics life Craig is death. In the meantime there is only life.

I left the BF voluntarily because to stay would only deteriorate all the good it did give me. Moving forward to studying the concepts of Transcendentalist.

Here’s a few pearls for you in a treasure chest beyond measure…

Thoreau:

“I am sorry to think that you do not get a man’s most effective criticism until you provoke him. Severe truth is expressed with some bitterness.”

“I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor.”

“If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”

“As for doing good; that is one of the professions which is full. Moreover I have tried it fairly and, strange as it may seem, am satisfied that it does not agree with my constitution.”

Baquia,
I do appreciate your thirst for truth, and I would be happy to discuss some points with you. Questionning is an attribute of God and a virute to be valued.

Many of the mishaps and flaws you point to seem valid to me, but at the same time I do believe that by looking at life “through a lens” you are missing much of the general picture.

In a garden you have flowers, small shoots, budding shrubs and fruits. By concentrating your attentention on the compost you are getting a distorted vision of the garden.

Unfortunately, my comments are being flagged, I am not sure whether it is for a technical reason or because of my opinions.

I would be happy to correspond with you heer or on a private basis if you are open to discussion.

Baquia,
I do appreciate your thirst for truth, and I would be happy to discuss some points with you. Questionning is an attribute of God and a virute to be valued.

Many of the mishaps and flaws you point to seem valid to me, but at the same time I do believe that by looking at life “through a lens” you are missing much of the general picture.

In a garden you have flowers, small shoots, budding shrubs and fruits. By concentrating your attentention on the compost you are getting a distorted vision of the garden.

Unfortunately, my comments are being flagged, I am not sure whether it is for a technical reason or because of my opinions.

I would be happy to correspond with you heer or on a private basis if you are open to discussion.

[quote comment="45182"]Unfortunately, my comments are being flagged, I am not sure whether it is for a technical reason or because of my opinions.[/quote]

Thanks for pointing this out. I just noticed that you were blacklisted for some strange reason by my spam filter. I’ve taken you off that and put you on the whitelist so hopefully everything will be as right as rain – as long as you write from the same IP address. Just to be clear, unlike some other Baha’i bloggers, I don’t censor comments that I may disagree with.

Cheers

[quote comment="45182"]Unfortunately, my comments are being flagged, I am not sure whether it is for a technical reason or because of my opinions.[/quote]

Thanks for pointing this out. I just noticed that you were blacklisted for some strange reason by my spam filter. I’ve taken you off that and put you on the whitelist so hopefully everything will be as right as rain – as long as you write from the same IP address. Just to be clear, unlike some other Baha’i bloggers, I don’t censor comments that I may disagree with.

Cheers

[quote comment="45245"]
I just noticed that you were blacklisted for some strange reason by my spam filter. I’ve taken you off that and put you on the whitelist [/quote]

Thanks Baquia for offering me the right to speak;

Going through the posts here, I notice one outstanding caracteristic: the highly intellectual and well read authors are speaking from the present view-point of an over developped country, wheras the UHJ is speaking from the view-point of all humanity, in the perspectives of what is happening to our planet and will be happening for the next 500,000 years.

Erudite authors are looking at life through a microscope, wheras the revelation of God and the UHJ are looking through a fisheye lens, with a satellite view of life on this planet.

We need our microscopes and critical thoughts for acting locally, but we also need the general view to think globally. Joel De Rosnay calls this the “macroscope”. i warmly recommend his book that has been translated into English

The Ruhi controverse is a typical example of our inability to adopt simultaneosly these complementary “analytic” and “synthetic” views. Intellectuals want to dissect the history of thhe Faith, the Supreme body is drawing our attention to the dire and urgent needs of humanity for now and the decades to come.

The bare-foot doctor experience of China is to me a good comparison; in a response for human ressource shortage, China formed in a shor time millions of peasants in the fundamental sciences of health. working together with other peasants in the fields, they saved millions of lives by building millions of latrines, providing clean water, vaccinating, diagnosing and treating the common disorders. China was highly commended by the WHO at the Alma Ata conference for inventing primary health care.

However, the doctors in the universities were wont to go out and help teach these bare-foot doctors more advanced medicine, and the bare-foot doctors ended up in saying that the scientific rich-man’s medicine in the universities was counter-revolutionnary and should be dismantled;

Finally, in time, the primary heath system having borne it’s fruits, the bare-foot doctors took exams and became real doctors or just medical assistants, moving to the “two legged” medicine, combining traditionnal and primary health care with scientific medicine.

Many of the apparent paradoxes in our Faith are due to a confusion between the teachings adressing the global vision and on their practical applications in a particular place at a particular time.

warmest

Farhan

[quote comment="45245"]
I just noticed that you were blacklisted for some strange reason by my spam filter. I’ve taken you off that and put you on the whitelist [/quote]

Thanks Baquia for offering me the right to speak;

Going through the posts here, I notice one outstanding caracteristic: the highly intellectual and well read authors are speaking from the present view-point of an over developped country, wheras the UHJ is speaking from the view-point of all humanity, in the perspectives of what is happening to our planet and will be happening for the next 500,000 years.

Erudite authors are looking at life through a microscope, wheras the revelation of God and the UHJ are looking through a fisheye lens, with a satellite view of life on this planet.

We need our microscopes and critical thoughts for acting locally, but we also need the general view to think globally. Joel De Rosnay calls this the “macroscope”. i warmly recommend his book that has been translated into English

The Ruhi controverse is a typical example of our inability to adopt simultaneosly these complementary “analytic” and “synthetic” views. Intellectuals want to dissect the history of thhe Faith, the Supreme body is drawing our attention to the dire and urgent needs of humanity for now and the decades to come.

The bare-foot doctor experience of China is to me a good comparison; in a response for human ressource shortage, China formed in a shor time millions of peasants in the fundamental sciences of health. working together with other peasants in the fields, they saved millions of lives by building millions of latrines, providing clean water, vaccinating, diagnosing and treating the common disorders. China was highly commended by the WHO at the Alma Ata conference for inventing primary health care.

However, the doctors in the universities were wont to go out and help teach these bare-foot doctors more advanced medicine, and the bare-foot doctors ended up in saying that the scientific rich-man’s medicine in the universities was counter-revolutionnary and should be dismantled;

Finally, in time, the primary heath system having borne it’s fruits, the bare-foot doctors took exams and became real doctors or just medical assistants, moving to the “two legged” medicine, combining traditionnal and primary health care with scientific medicine.

Many of the apparent paradoxes in our Faith are due to a confusion between the teachings adressing the global vision and on their practical applications in a particular place at a particular time.

warmest

Farhan

Baquia wrote,[quote post="4"]Just to be clear, unlike some other Baha’i bloggers, I don’t censor comments that I may disagree with.[/quote]
For this alone, your victory is assured. You will be rewarded a great many blessed eternities in the worlds to come for encouraging thought. Yours is a rare and dying breed of open-minded Bahá’ís. And verily, you are the Last of the Mohicans.

Baquia wrote,[quote post="4"]Just to be clear, unlike some other Baha’i bloggers, I don’t censor comments that I may disagree with.[/quote]
For this alone, your victory is assured. You will be rewarded a great many blessed eternities in the worlds to come for encouraging thought. Yours is a rare and dying breed of open-minded Bahá’ís. And verily, you are the Last of the Mohicans.

Thanks for the technical help, Baquia,
reading what you have to say, I would have been surprised and disappointed if you censured replies to your queries.

Thanks for the technical help, Baquia,
reading what you have to say, I would have been surprised and disappointed if you censured replies to your queries.

Farhan,

You say “the UHJ is speaking from the view-point of all humanity,”

ummm…so women don’t have a viewpoint, or are not a part of “humanity?” They are 9 men. They do not speak from the viewpoint of women.

Thanks,
Amanda

Farhan,

You say “the UHJ is speaking from the view-point of all humanity,”

ummm…so women don’t have a viewpoint, or are not a part of “humanity?” They are 9 men. They do not speak from the viewpoint of women.

Thanks,
Amanda

Amanda,
you write:
so women don’t have a viewpoint, or are not a part <of “humanity?” They are 9 men. They do not speak from the viewpoint of women.

Well this assumes that members elected on the UHj, on which was loaded a mandate they never volonteered for, go there to advance their own selfish interests and view-points according to national or racial origins and gender. This would not only suggest that they are deprived from Divine Guidance, but would be contrary to their explicit mandate which is being :

“the Trustees of God among His servants”. (Tab Baha’u’llah, p 26)

“…ensure the protection and safeguarding of men, women and children… the utmost regard for the interests of the people at all times and under all conditions…” (Tab Baha’u’llah, p 69)

“fix their gaze upon … the training of peoples, the upbuilding of nations… the protection of man and the safeguarding of his honour… (Tab Baha’u’llah, p 125)

“that they may enforce them according to the exigencies of the time and the dictates of wisdom. (Tab Baha’u’llah, p 134)

The very fact that you imply that women are “deprived” of this “highest privilege” is a violation of the very purpose of the Baha’i administrative service which is a load of servitude, with no privilege, power or advantage.

I believe that once we understand that service within the Baha’i administration for which we are not neither candidates nor volonteers but humble bearers, we will understand that it is a burden from which women have been exempted and not an honor from which they have been deprived.

I have no reason to believe that the rank of Mother Theresa is inferiour to that of the Pope. I would in fact believe the contrary.

If I were to cast a vote for the UHJ, I would be very embarassed to take into consideration whether the person I would like to vote for was or was not engaged in family duties.

Again, if you consider membership in the UHJ as a privilege and an opportunity to advance personal motives, then you objection would be very much valid.

warmest

Farhan

Amanda,
you write:
so women don’t have a viewpoint, or are not a part <of “humanity?” They are 9 men. They do not speak from the viewpoint of women.

Well this assumes that members elected on the UHj, on which was loaded a mandate they never volonteered for, go there to advance their own selfish interests and view-points according to national or racial origins and gender. This would not only suggest that they are deprived from Divine Guidance, but would be contrary to their explicit mandate which is being :

“the Trustees of God among His servants”. (Tab Baha’u’llah, p 26)

“…ensure the protection and safeguarding of men, women and children… the utmost regard for the interests of the people at all times and under all conditions…” (Tab Baha’u’llah, p 69)

“fix their gaze upon … the training of peoples, the upbuilding of nations… the protection of man and the safeguarding of his honour… (Tab Baha’u’llah, p 125)

“that they may enforce them according to the exigencies of the time and the dictates of wisdom. (Tab Baha’u’llah, p 134)

The very fact that you imply that women are “deprived” of this “highest privilege” is a violation of the very purpose of the Baha’i administrative service which is a load of servitude, with no privilege, power or advantage.

I believe that once we understand that service within the Baha’i administration for which we are not neither candidates nor volonteers but humble bearers, we will understand that it is a burden from which women have been exempted and not an honor from which they have been deprived.

I have no reason to believe that the rank of Mother Theresa is inferiour to that of the Pope. I would in fact believe the contrary.

If I were to cast a vote for the UHJ, I would be very embarassed to take into consideration whether the person I would like to vote for was or was not engaged in family duties.

Again, if you consider membership in the UHJ as a privilege and an opportunity to advance personal motives, then you objection would be very much valid.

warmest

Farhan

Now, Farhan, let’s be clear. You say, “Well this assumes that members elected on the UHj, on which was loaded a mandate they never volonteered for, go there to advance their own selfish interests and view-points according to national or racial origins and gender. This would not only suggest that they are deprived from Divine Guidance, but would be contrary to their explicit mandate which is being…”

NO, by saying they do not speak FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF WOMEN assumes that they are NOT WOMEN. Do you follow? To speak FROM someone’s VIEWPOINT means you ARE that someone. They are 9 MEN, who do not have ANY authority to speak FROM the viewpoint of WOMEN. Such an authority would come from BEING WOMEN, which they are clearly not.

As far as I am aware, they have never claimed to speak from the viewpoint of women. That is YOUR claim.

You also say, “The very fact that you imply that women are “deprived” of this “highest privilege” is a violation of the very purpose of the Baha’i administrative service which is a load of servitude, with no privilege, power or advantage.”

Nowhere did I say or imply that. That is entirely your creation.

Having an equal voice in government is not a priviledge, it is a right. I do not wish to be sheltered from the “burden” of self-determination, leadership, or responsibility. Your argument is almost verbatim what came out of the mouths of people who did not want to see women get the secular vote. It’s astonishing.

To accuse women who want to take full and equal responsibility for the well-being and leadership of the world of “personal motive” is perverse. Additionally, your argument that the maleness of your argument makes any sense is completely arbitrary and unfounded.

You also say, “If I were to cast a vote for the UHJ, I would be very embarassed to take into consideration whether the person I would like to vote for was or was not engaged in family duties.”

Farhan- I would be very embarassed for you as well. I AM very embarassed for you that you seem to imagine all women want children or that men do not have “family duties” equivalent to women. Is our place in the home, Farhan?

Your position is utterly sexist and 100% consistent with the Baha’i writings.

Now, Farhan, let’s be clear. You say, “Well this assumes that members elected on the UHj, on which was loaded a mandate they never volonteered for, go there to advance their own selfish interests and view-points according to national or racial origins and gender. This would not only suggest that they are deprived from Divine Guidance, but would be contrary to their explicit mandate which is being…”

NO, by saying they do not speak FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF WOMEN assumes that they are NOT WOMEN. Do you follow? To speak FROM someone’s VIEWPOINT means you ARE that someone. They are 9 MEN, who do not have ANY authority to speak FROM the viewpoint of WOMEN. Such an authority would come from BEING WOMEN, which they are clearly not.

As far as I am aware, they have never claimed to speak from the viewpoint of women. That is YOUR claim.

You also say, “The very fact that you imply that women are “deprived” of this “highest privilege” is a violation of the very purpose of the Baha’i administrative service which is a load of servitude, with no privilege, power or advantage.”

Nowhere did I say or imply that. That is entirely your creation.

Having an equal voice in government is not a priviledge, it is a right. I do not wish to be sheltered from the “burden” of self-determination, leadership, or responsibility. Your argument is almost verbatim what came out of the mouths of people who did not want to see women get the secular vote. It’s astonishing.

To accuse women who want to take full and equal responsibility for the well-being and leadership of the world of “personal motive” is perverse. Additionally, your argument that the maleness of your argument makes any sense is completely arbitrary and unfounded.

You also say, “If I were to cast a vote for the UHJ, I would be very embarassed to take into consideration whether the person I would like to vote for was or was not engaged in family duties.”

Farhan- I would be very embarassed for you as well. I AM very embarassed for you that you seem to imagine all women want children or that men do not have “family duties” equivalent to women. Is our place in the home, Farhan?

Your position is utterly sexist and 100% consistent with the Baha’i writings.

LoL, I don’t know about that… I just put myself in the other person’s place and can’t in good conscience simply erase their words because I disagree with them. It doesn’t seem to be what Abdu’l-Baha would have done.

Unfortunately, although I absolutely hate to erase comments, my hands are forced by those who are not here to contribute their thoughts but rather to disrupt the ongoing dialogue and/or pollute this blog with filth. As much as I hate it, I have to put on my janitor’s overalls and mop it up so others can have a nice place to meet.

[quote comment="45265"]For this alone, your victory is assured. You will be rewarded a great many blessed eternities in the worlds to come for encouraging thought. Yours is a rare and dying breed of open-minded Bahá’ís. And verily, you are the Last of the Mohicans.[/quote]

LoL, I don’t know about that… I just put myself in the other person’s place and can’t in good conscience simply erase their words because I disagree with them. It doesn’t seem to be what Abdu’l-Baha would have done.

Unfortunately, although I absolutely hate to erase comments, my hands are forced by those who are not here to contribute their thoughts but rather to disrupt the ongoing dialogue and/or pollute this blog with filth. As much as I hate it, I have to put on my janitor’s overalls and mop it up so others can have a nice place to meet.

[quote comment="45265"]For this alone, your victory is assured. You will be rewarded a great many blessed eternities in the worlds to come for encouraging thought. Yours is a rare and dying breed of open-minded Bahá’ís. And verily, you are the Last of the Mohicans.[/quote]

Amanda wrote :

<by saying they do not speak FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF WOMEN assumes that they <are NOT WOMEN.

Amanda, I believe you are sexist ; you openly discriminate between the two sexes. I see in Genesis, God creating men as male and female beings ; contrary to you I do not see humanity in two separate categories of males and females ; in the spiritual realms we are one, even if in the biological and social realms we are different and yet complementary. You consider humanity with a huge fracture between men and women ;

This fracture has existed and should now be removed. I do not have my eyes fixed below people’s belts ; I see them as sexless angels, except when sexuality comes into teh picture.

<As far as I am aware, they have never claimed to speak from the viewpoint <of women. That is YOUR claim.
They claim to speak in the name of all humanity, whether male or female, black or white.

<Your position is utterly sexist and 100% consistent with the Baha’i <writings.

Well Amanda, I am happy to hear you say this ;
If my position was not 100% consistent with the Baha’i teachings, I would stop calling myself a Baha’i.

If I did not believe that the UHJ was divinely guided and the continued presence of God amongst us as promised in John’s Revelation chapter 21, I would change religions, and find one that would bring guidance and benefit to my spiritual life.

In any case I would not expect a religion which I believe is of God to follow my instructions. I adhere to a religion to derive guidance from it, not to establish myself as peers and equal to God and guide that religion towards my own concepts of life in this world.

Amanda wrote :

<by saying they do not speak FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF WOMEN assumes that they <are NOT WOMEN.

Amanda, I believe you are sexist ; you openly discriminate between the two sexes. I see in Genesis, God creating men as male and female beings ; contrary to you I do not see humanity in two separate categories of males and females ; in the spiritual realms we are one, even if in the biological and social realms we are different and yet complementary. You consider humanity with a huge fracture between men and women ;

This fracture has existed and should now be removed. I do not have my eyes fixed below people’s belts ; I see them as sexless angels, except when sexuality comes into teh picture.

<As far as I am aware, they have never claimed to speak from the viewpoint <of women. That is YOUR claim.
They claim to speak in the name of all humanity, whether male or female, black or white.

<Your position is utterly sexist and 100% consistent with the Baha’i <writings.

Well Amanda, I am happy to hear you say this ;
If my position was not 100% consistent with the Baha’i teachings, I would stop calling myself a Baha’i.

If I did not believe that the UHJ was divinely guided and the continued presence of God amongst us as promised in John’s Revelation chapter 21, I would change religions, and find one that would bring guidance and benefit to my spiritual life.

In any case I would not expect a religion which I believe is of God to follow my instructions. I adhere to a religion to derive guidance from it, not to establish myself as peers and equal to God and guide that religion towards my own concepts of life in this world.

Baquia wrote:
<As much as I hate it, I have to put on my janitor’s <overalls and mop it up so others can have a nice place to <meet.

Thanks Baquia, and at the same time, I expect you inform those who misbehave why their messages are erased, so that they can avoid misbehaving in the future

Baquia wrote:
<As much as I hate it, I have to put on my janitor’s <overalls and mop it up so others can have a nice place to <meet.

Thanks Baquia, and at the same time, I expect you inform those who misbehave why their messages are erased, so that they can avoid misbehaving in the future

Amanda, you write:

<you seem to imagine all women want children or that men do <not have “family duties” equivalent to women. Is our <place in the home, Farhan?

No Amanda, i did not say that the women’s place was at home, however, I do say that men and women do not always have identical roles, but have complemantary roles in some specific circumstances and at some particular times in life, especially involving the spiritual education of children. I see family life with a “variable geometry” and not with rigidly set roles throughout our lives.

I developped this in detail in a publication in 1993, published under:
LA DIMENSION SPIRITUELLE DES RELATIONS MERE-ENFANT
par le Dr Farhan YAZDANI
(Tiré à part des actes de la VIIième journée d’étude
de l’Association Médicale Baha’ie, Strasbourg, 1993
Relation mère-enfant, p 77 reproduite avec l’aimable permission © Harmattan 1999, ISBN 2-7384-7884-0)

More recent comments on the subject are available at:

DE LA PREVENTION,
VERS L’ERADICATION DE LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE par Farhan Yazdani …
violencesconjugalesyazdaniajpf.blogspot.com/
violencesconjugalesdebatajpf.blogspot.com/ 2007/06/evolution-de-la-
socit.html

I do not believe that an attentive and devoted mother has a lower spiritual rank that a member of the UHJ, but many (excluding yourself apparently) seem to believe so.

Amanda, you write:

<you seem to imagine all women want children or that men do <not have “family duties” equivalent to women. Is our <place in the home, Farhan?

No Amanda, i did not say that the women’s place was at home, however, I do say that men and women do not always have identical roles, but have complemantary roles in some specific circumstances and at some particular times in life, especially involving the spiritual education of children. I see family life with a “variable geometry” and not with rigidly set roles throughout our lives.

I developped this in detail in a publication in 1993, published under:
LA DIMENSION SPIRITUELLE DES RELATIONS MERE-ENFANT
par le Dr Farhan YAZDANI
(Tiré à part des actes de la VIIième journée d’étude
de l’Association Médicale Baha’ie, Strasbourg, 1993
Relation mère-enfant, p 77 reproduite avec l’aimable permission © Harmattan 1999, ISBN 2-7384-7884-0)

More recent comments on the subject are available at:

DE LA PREVENTION,
VERS L’ERADICATION DE LA VIOLENCE FAMILIALE par Farhan Yazdani …
violencesconjugalesyazdaniajpf.blogspot.com/
violencesconjugalesdebatajpf.blogspot.com/ 2007/06/evolution-de-la-
socit.html

I do not believe that an attentive and devoted mother has a lower spiritual rank that a member of the UHJ, but many (excluding yourself apparently) seem to believe so.

I too see humans as sexless angels, except when sexuality comes into the picture, at which point I do not see humans as sexless angels, except when I see them as sexless angels.

What would God think? Let’s ask God and see what God has to say on the subject:

God, what do You think?

God? Hello? God? Hello? God? HELLO? Could you speak up please? Hello?

Hmmm … That’s funny. God isn’t much of a talker. His promo people seem to do all the talking for Him …

I too see humans as sexless angels, except when sexuality comes into the picture, at which point I do not see humans as sexless angels, except when I see them as sexless angels.

What would God think? Let’s ask God and see what God has to say on the subject:

God, what do You think?

God? Hello? God? Hello? God? HELLO? Could you speak up please? Hello?

Hmmm … That’s funny. God isn’t much of a talker. His promo people seem to do all the talking for Him …

Andrew writes:
I too see humans as sexless angels, except when sexuality comes into the picture,

Andrew, thanks for the humour.

My point is that sexuality and gender differences is only part of our human functions and relations, albeit an important one.

Beyond some minor physical differences, we do not need to continually stress on gender differences. We can consider each other as comrades and fellow humans, without constantly bringing up gender differences. We sometimes do as a an attempt to compensation for the centuries of discrimination in a world that was, and still is, however decreasingly, based of physical force.

As spiritual values become prevalent, women might well do better than men.

Andrew writes:
I too see humans as sexless angels, except when sexuality comes into the picture,

Andrew, thanks for the humour.

My point is that sexuality and gender differences is only part of our human functions and relations, albeit an important one.

Beyond some minor physical differences, we do not need to continually stress on gender differences. We can consider each other as comrades and fellow humans, without constantly bringing up gender differences. We sometimes do as a an attempt to compensation for the centuries of discrimination in a world that was, and still is, however decreasingly, based of physical force.

As spiritual values become prevalent, women might well do better than men.

Well, seeing humans as “sexless angels” might have been good advice for Governor Spitzer. Maybe even better advice for the parents of some of the people posting on this blog.

Well, seeing humans as “sexless angels” might have been good advice for Governor Spitzer. Maybe even better advice for the parents of some of the people posting on this blog.

Andrew:
“God? Hello? God? Hello? God? HELLO? Could you speak up please? Hello?

Hmmm … That’s funny. God isn’t much of a talker. His promo people seem to do all the talking for Him …”

I woke up to a really heart warming chuckle on that one.

Thanks for the uplift!

btw- I am going to deepen on Judaism, where “God” first appeared as “God”. For some reason I have skipped this study being born a Christian and moving to Bahai. Time for me to get back to the basics.

Reaching for the stars… and in the world of angels, I am known as Robin

Andrew:
“God? Hello? God? Hello? God? HELLO? Could you speak up please? Hello?

Hmmm … That’s funny. God isn’t much of a talker. His promo people seem to do all the talking for Him …”

I woke up to a really heart warming chuckle on that one.

Thanks for the uplift!

btw- I am going to deepen on Judaism, where “God” first appeared as “God”. For some reason I have skipped this study being born a Christian and moving to Bahai. Time for me to get back to the basics.

Reaching for the stars… and in the world of angels, I am known as Robin

Farhan, this cracked me up:

“Amanda, I believe you are sexist ; you openly discriminate between the two sexes.”

So you view ANY attention to gender as sexist? Are midwives sexist? Gynecologists?

“This fracture has existed and should now be removed.”
That’s all I’m saying, sir. Equal rights.

“Discrimination” is an UNFAIR distinction that is not based on MERIT (like excluding women from the House of Justice.) Not POINTING out that women are NOT on the UHJ.

HEY!!!! It just occured to me, that if you are “gender-blind,” and see all human beings as “sexless angels,” you must be FOR same sex marriage- right? Right??!?

Farhan, this cracked me up:

“Amanda, I believe you are sexist ; you openly discriminate between the two sexes.”

So you view ANY attention to gender as sexist? Are midwives sexist? Gynecologists?

“This fracture has existed and should now be removed.”
That’s all I’m saying, sir. Equal rights.

“Discrimination” is an UNFAIR distinction that is not based on MERIT (like excluding women from the House of Justice.) Not POINTING out that women are NOT on the UHJ.

HEY!!!! It just occured to me, that if you are “gender-blind,” and see all human beings as “sexless angels,” you must be FOR same sex marriage- right? Right??!?

Amanda

Farhan seems to be the micro example of most men, Bahà’í or not. And the UJH just make the discrimination easier by putting a flowery labeling in a “blessing” to women not to “have” to serve.

Being a CEO of a multimillion dollar organization, I wonder what would happen to my organization without my compassion for justice and fairness or my strong leadership through the storms. Frankly, from what I have witnesses, men are scared sh-tless by women who know their place, which is anywhere.

Amanda

Farhan seems to be the micro example of most men, Bahà’í or not. And the UJH just make the discrimination easier by putting a flowery labeling in a “blessing” to women not to “have” to serve.

Being a CEO of a multimillion dollar organization, I wonder what would happen to my organization without my compassion for justice and fairness or my strong leadership through the storms. Frankly, from what I have witnesses, men are scared sh-tless by women who know their place, which is anywhere.

After all, religious conservatives have been mocking and spreading lies about homosexuals and liberals for centuries: now it’s our turn to mock them! Enjoy!

After all, religious conservatives have been mocking and spreading lies about homosexuals and liberals for centuries: now it’s our turn to mock them! Enjoy!

Farhan-

“I do not believe that an attentive and devoted mother has a lower spiritual rank that a member of the UHJ, but many (excluding yourself apparently) seem to believe so.”

FYI- it is men like you who would keep them thinking they are of a “lower spiritual rank” destroying their souls and keeping them in the kitchen. All this does is perpetuate ignorance! With it in your hands and that of the AO, you will keep them there are long as you can. Exclude me too and my sons. –

Warning, you can not keep me quiet. You can not take away my voice. This birds sings – Equal Opportunity. This statement does not make me a feminist, it makes me smart, fair and highly successful. I hire based on skills not gender, time the AO catches up!

Shame on you for your disrespect to women, who without, you could not have been born, and no one would have been there to wipe your butt when you soiled yourself. Maybe you think that all we are good for is just that – wiping butts. NOT! I can wipe a butt and negotiate a contract. Look out buddy, more and more women are waking up knowing in their heart they are equal and because of that the world will change to a more compassionate atmosphere.

Farhan-

“I do not believe that an attentive and devoted mother has a lower spiritual rank that a member of the UHJ, but many (excluding yourself apparently) seem to believe so.”

FYI- it is men like you who would keep them thinking they are of a “lower spiritual rank” destroying their souls and keeping them in the kitchen. All this does is perpetuate ignorance! With it in your hands and that of the AO, you will keep them there are long as you can. Exclude me too and my sons. –

Warning, you can not keep me quiet. You can not take away my voice. This birds sings – Equal Opportunity. This statement does not make me a feminist, it makes me smart, fair and highly successful. I hire based on skills not gender, time the AO catches up!

Shame on you for your disrespect to women, who without, you could not have been born, and no one would have been there to wipe your butt when you soiled yourself. Maybe you think that all we are good for is just that – wiping butts. NOT! I can wipe a butt and negotiate a contract. Look out buddy, more and more women are waking up knowing in their heart they are equal and because of that the world will change to a more compassionate atmosphere.

Bird, I dont know how you read my post, but your comments imply that I consider women of a lower rank, which is not what I said

Bird, I dont know how you read my post, but your comments imply that I consider women of a lower rank, which is not what I said

Amanda wrote:

<So you view ANY attention to gender as sexist? Are <midwives sexist? Gynecologists?

No, Amanda these are part of specific circumstances where there is a distinction between male and female human beings. In most other circumstances, ther is no difference.

<”Discrimination” is an UNFAIR distinction that is not <based on MERIT (like excluding women from the House of <Justice.) Not POINTING out that women are NOT on the UHJ.

So Amanda, you are implying that being called to serve on the UHJ is a “merit”? And that those who are not called upon to that function must feel that they do not deserve it? If a function is a means of exalting a person you would be right. Since a function is just one other form of service, ther is no idea of “merit” but of being in an adequate condition for this particular form of service. someone pioneering to a distant land is no more or less deserving than a person serving on an administration or a person lovingly caring for his neighbour. Our spiritual ranks and merits are unknown to all but God; our area of service is a matter of circumstance and of special talents.

<It just occured to me, that if you are “gender-blind,” and <see all human beings as “sexless angels,” you must be FOR <same sex marriage- right? Right??!?[/quote]

No Amanda, this is again a small part of our functions in this world where there is a difference between males and females; Since I believe that God’s revelation is in advance to our needs, I believe that if same-sex marriages were an asset to humanity, they would have been mentionned in God’s revelation.

Amanda wrote:

<So you view ANY attention to gender as sexist? Are <midwives sexist? Gynecologists?

No, Amanda these are part of specific circumstances where there is a distinction between male and female human beings. In most other circumstances, ther is no difference.

<”Discrimination” is an UNFAIR distinction that is not <based on MERIT (like excluding women from the House of <Justice.) Not POINTING out that women are NOT on the UHJ.

So Amanda, you are implying that being called to serve on the UHJ is a “merit”? And that those who are not called upon to that function must feel that they do not deserve it? If a function is a means of exalting a person you would be right. Since a function is just one other form of service, ther is no idea of “merit” but of being in an adequate condition for this particular form of service. someone pioneering to a distant land is no more or less deserving than a person serving on an administration or a person lovingly caring for his neighbour. Our spiritual ranks and merits are unknown to all but God; our area of service is a matter of circumstance and of special talents.

<It just occured to me, that if you are “gender-blind,” and <see all human beings as “sexless angels,” you must be FOR <same sex marriage- right? Right??!?[/quote]

No Amanda, this is again a small part of our functions in this world where there is a difference between males and females; Since I believe that God’s revelation is in advance to our needs, I believe that if same-sex marriages were an asset to humanity, they would have been mentionned in God’s revelation.

Farhan, please be honest:

Do you think about what you write before you type it down? Or are you just copying-and-pasting from the book of prolix platitudes?

I only ask because the profound irony of your own ideas seems entirely lost on you.

Sincerely,
Mavaddat

Farhan, please be honest:

Do you think about what you write before you type it down? Or are you just copying-and-pasting from the book of prolix platitudes?

I only ask because the profound irony of your own ideas seems entirely lost on you.

Sincerely,
Mavaddat

Farhan-
You wrote:
“I do not believe that an attentive and devoted mother has a lower spiritual rank that a member of the UHJ, but many (excluding yourself apparently) seem to believe so.”

I assume you are using “excluding” correctly here and stating that I DO NOT think mothers have a lower spiritual rank than UHJ members. Which is true. It shouldn’t be either/or, though. I think the world would be better off with more mothers in charge. Even on the UHJ. The world would also be better off with more men being involved in the actual raising, or “spiritual education” of their children, as you say. But then you might have to “consider their family duties” when electing them to the UHJ, and you find that embarrassing.

You say, “I do say that men and women do not always have identical roles, but have complemantary roles in some specific circumstances and at some particular times in life,”

The “complementary roles” required by an all-male supreme body are: Men: In-Charge. Women: Following Orders.

Bird-
You’re awesome.

Farhan-
You wrote:
“I do not believe that an attentive and devoted mother has a lower spiritual rank that a member of the UHJ, but many (excluding yourself apparently) seem to believe so.”

I assume you are using “excluding” correctly here and stating that I DO NOT think mothers have a lower spiritual rank than UHJ members. Which is true. It shouldn’t be either/or, though. I think the world would be better off with more mothers in charge. Even on the UHJ. The world would also be better off with more men being involved in the actual raising, or “spiritual education” of their children, as you say. But then you might have to “consider their family duties” when electing them to the UHJ, and you find that embarrassing.

You say, “I do say that men and women do not always have identical roles, but have complemantary roles in some specific circumstances and at some particular times in life,”

The “complementary roles” required by an all-male supreme body are: Men: In-Charge. Women: Following Orders.

Bird-
You’re awesome.

[quote post="4"]Farhan-
You wrote:
[quote]I do not believe that an attentive and devoted mother has a lower spiritual rank that a member of the UHJ, but many (excluding yourself apparently) seem to believe so.[/quote]

I assume you are using “excluding” correctly here and stating that I DO NOT think mothers have a lower spiritual rank than UHJ members. Which is true. It shouldn’t be either/or, though. [/quote]
Hi Amanda,

Actually, I’m pretty sure he meant “including”. I think Farhan is making the old “we need women to do other equally important work” argument here (if you can call any of his inane and sexist platitudes “arguments”, that is).

The idea is that men and women have different “roles”, and that woman’s role (being a subservient mother to her children) is no less important than man’s role (being in charge of all the biggest decisions of the international Bahá’í community). See? Never mind, of course, that it is men who get to decide what women’s role will be. Wait! I said never mind!

The idea in Farhan’s “Madhouse of Vacuous Defenses for Institutionalized Sexism” is that to object to women’s exclusion from the House of Justice is to implicitly suggest that you think women’s role is inferior to men’s role (“serving” on the House of Justice); since otherwise, why would you want equality of opportunity? Obviously you think that being solely a mother is inferior to being on the House of Justice. OBVIOUSLY.

The problem here, of course, is that Farhan has mindlessly taken it for granted that serving on the House of Justice is indeed a role defined exclusively for men. Thus, he comes to the conclusion that to want women to take up a role that is defined for men is to want women to be men, which is to think that being a woman isn’t good enough.

Welcome to Baha’i land! Where we serve you up our sexism with a smile!

[quote post="4"]Farhan-
You wrote:
[quote]I do not believe that an attentive and devoted mother has a lower spiritual rank that a member of the UHJ, but many (excluding yourself apparently) seem to believe so.[/quote]

I assume you are using “excluding” correctly here and stating that I DO NOT think mothers have a lower spiritual rank than UHJ members. Which is true. It shouldn’t be either/or, though. [/quote]
Hi Amanda,

Actually, I’m pretty sure he meant “including”. I think Farhan is making the old “we need women to do other equally important work” argument here (if you can call any of his inane and sexist platitudes “arguments”, that is).

The idea is that men and women have different “roles”, and that woman’s role (being a subservient mother to her children) is no less important than man’s role (being in charge of all the biggest decisions of the international Bahá’í community). See? Never mind, of course, that it is men who get to decide what women’s role will be. Wait! I said never mind!

The idea in Farhan’s “Madhouse of Vacuous Defenses for Institutionalized Sexism” is that to object to women’s exclusion from the House of Justice is to implicitly suggest that you think women’s role is inferior to men’s role (“serving” on the House of Justice); since otherwise, why would you want equality of opportunity? Obviously you think that being solely a mother is inferior to being on the House of Justice. OBVIOUSLY.

The problem here, of course, is that Farhan has mindlessly taken it for granted that serving on the House of Justice is indeed a role defined exclusively for men. Thus, he comes to the conclusion that to want women to take up a role that is defined for men is to want women to be men, which is to think that being a woman isn’t good enough.

Welcome to Baha’i land! Where we serve you up our sexism with a smile!

Farhan-

Here’s a short story for you about what women are capable in this day in age.

About 7 years ago, when my middle son was about 3 months old, I got an emergency call to go out to a job site and investigate a serious injury. I had to take my baby with me, as I was a nursing mother, strapped closely to my chest. I fed him before I got there and expected to be there about one hour but found there was more to the investigation and also and ideal opportunity to train how the accident could have been prevented. (I am OSHA certified in safety) In a room w/ about 10 men, my baby started to get hungry and began crying. I said to the men, “Gentlemen, I can go out to my car and feed him, or latch him on and keep going, I don’t want to make any of you uncomfortable, the choice is yours, he needs 10 to 15 minutes on each side”.

The men, initially stunned with my suggestion (dropped jaws) opted to keep going in the interest of time management. I placed a blanket over my shoulder, latched him on and kept training with a calm and sincere demeanor. Not only did I obtain their full and undivided attention, I accomplished them really listening to the importance of safety, their responsibility to insure it and the value of life and limbs. I also accomplished my duties as a loving selfless mother by personally caring for my baby and nursing him with my healthy breast milk. Maybe you think I should have opted for formula and child care or more so, I had no business being there in the first place because construction is a male dominated industry?

Surely you can’t be suggesting that I, female, am not qualified for any position of leadership because I am a nursing mother? That is only the first story of many subsequent that involve juggling both my professional and personal worlds. Name one story even remotely similar to the accomplishments of any man on the UJH or not and I will shut my mouth on what equality is.

Amanda, as far as awesome is concerned, it takes one to know one

Farhan-

Here’s a short story for you about what women are capable in this day in age.

About 7 years ago, when my middle son was about 3 months old, I got an emergency call to go out to a job site and investigate a serious injury. I had to take my baby with me, as I was a nursing mother, strapped closely to my chest. I fed him before I got there and expected to be there about one hour but found there was more to the investigation and also and ideal opportunity to train how the accident could have been prevented. (I am OSHA certified in safety) In a room w/ about 10 men, my baby started to get hungry and began crying. I said to the men, “Gentlemen, I can go out to my car and feed him, or latch him on and keep going, I don’t want to make any of you uncomfortable, the choice is yours, he needs 10 to 15 minutes on each side”.

The men, initially stunned with my suggestion (dropped jaws) opted to keep going in the interest of time management. I placed a blanket over my shoulder, latched him on and kept training with a calm and sincere demeanor. Not only did I obtain their full and undivided attention, I accomplished them really listening to the importance of safety, their responsibility to insure it and the value of life and limbs. I also accomplished my duties as a loving selfless mother by personally caring for my baby and nursing him with my healthy breast milk. Maybe you think I should have opted for formula and child care or more so, I had no business being there in the first place because construction is a male dominated industry?

Surely you can’t be suggesting that I, female, am not qualified for any position of leadership because I am a nursing mother? That is only the first story of many subsequent that involve juggling both my professional and personal worlds. Name one story even remotely similar to the accomplishments of any man on the UJH or not and I will shut my mouth on what equality is.

Amanda, as far as awesome is concerned, it takes one to know one

Mavaddat,

I apologise; you are quite right it was a manipulation error; I wrote a long post to Amanda and with my low glucose blood level at the ending hours of the fast, i hit the V button instead of the C button and instead of copying my comment, i pasted a previous copy instead of my long message. I would never dream of jeering at, mocking or belittling opinions that are different from mine, especially other people’s religious beliefs.

sincerely,

Farhan

Mavaddat,

I apologise; you are quite right it was a manipulation error; I wrote a long post to Amanda and with my low glucose blood level at the ending hours of the fast, i hit the V button instead of the C button and instead of copying my comment, i pasted a previous copy instead of my long message. I would never dream of jeering at, mocking or belittling opinions that are different from mine, especially other people’s religious beliefs.

sincerely,

Farhan

Amanda wrote:

<I assume you are using “excluding” correctly here and stating that I DO NOT <think mothers have a lower spiritual rank than UHJ members. Which is true.

Reading Bird’s comment I wondered if my English is understandable.

What I intended to say is that most people consider being a member of an instition as an honour and a position superior to that of a mother. From your last post where clearly you denied this, I understood that this was not your opinion, and we agree on this point. So I said most people (excluding) yourself…

<I think the world would be better off with more mothers in charge.

I agree; Abdu’l-Baha clearly states that mothers should be given special advantages in order to reconcile their family and professionnal lives. In most “dvaced” countries women are led to make an unfair choice. In many instances they are led to doing a full time job in the day and a full time home job at night. this is a handicap they have to overcome before being at equal position with men. Again, I see a difference with our professioal lives and our lives of spiritual service to humanity.

<The world would also be better off with more men being involved in the actual <raising, or “spiritual education” of their children, as you say.

Again I agree, but we have a lot of evidence saying that the role of mothers is specially important for the spiritual education of children is especially up to the age of 5.

<But then you might have to “consider their family duties” when electing them <to the UHJ, and you find that embarrassing.

I agree that your point is well taken, but again I believe that there is a difference between the role of structural education imparted by men, and the affective and personnality role of the mother’s education. I am not competent in this field. The survey of documents I accopmlished in 1993 was specially on the spiritual role of mothers in education. I would be tempted to say that teh ITC would be playing the role of a mother and the UHJ the role of fathers, but this is just an idea I would muse with. Perhaps those well versed with Yin and Yang could comment that idea.

<The “complementary roles” required by an all-male supreme body are: Men: In-<Charge. Women: Following Orders.

This is not what i believe, say, write or practice. I remeber having seen that that women are more widely represented in the Baha’i administration than men. Ther is a big difference between legislating and giving orders.

warmest

Farhan

Amanda wrote:

<I assume you are using “excluding” correctly here and stating that I DO NOT <think mothers have a lower spiritual rank than UHJ members. Which is true.

Reading Bird’s comment I wondered if my English is understandable.

What I intended to say is that most people consider being a member of an instition as an honour and a position superior to that of a mother. From your last post where clearly you denied this, I understood that this was not your opinion, and we agree on this point. So I said most people (excluding) yourself…

<I think the world would be better off with more mothers in charge.

I agree; Abdu’l-Baha clearly states that mothers should be given special advantages in order to reconcile their family and professionnal lives. In most “dvaced” countries women are led to make an unfair choice. In many instances they are led to doing a full time job in the day and a full time home job at night. this is a handicap they have to overcome before being at equal position with men. Again, I see a difference with our professioal lives and our lives of spiritual service to humanity.

<The world would also be better off with more men being involved in the actual <raising, or “spiritual education” of their children, as you say.

Again I agree, but we have a lot of evidence saying that the role of mothers is specially important for the spiritual education of children is especially up to the age of 5.

<But then you might have to “consider their family duties” when electing them <to the UHJ, and you find that embarrassing.

I agree that your point is well taken, but again I believe that there is a difference between the role of structural education imparted by men, and the affective and personnality role of the mother’s education. I am not competent in this field. The survey of documents I accopmlished in 1993 was specially on the spiritual role of mothers in education. I would be tempted to say that teh ITC would be playing the role of a mother and the UHJ the role of fathers, but this is just an idea I would muse with. Perhaps those well versed with Yin and Yang could comment that idea.

<The “complementary roles” required by an all-male supreme body are: Men: In-<Charge. Women: Following Orders.

This is not what i believe, say, write or practice. I remeber having seen that that women are more widely represented in the Baha’i administration than men. Ther is a big difference between legislating and giving orders.

warmest

Farhan

Bird,
you write:
<Surely you can’t be suggesting that I, female, am not qualified for any position of <leadership because I am a nursing mother?

No Bird, I am certainly not suggesting that being a mother excludes professionnal expertise and leadership. I am confident that as an intelligent mother you had taken precautions for the safety of your child. My opinion here is that our family duties change at different times in life. Sometimes the mother would do certain things, sometimes the father. What i am trying to say is that there is no reason to define set rules in a dualistic fashion. We need to adapt to each situation and in many instances the roles are interchangeable.

That is only the first story of many subsequent that involve juggling both my professional and personal worlds. Name one story even remotely similar to the accomplishments of any man on the UJH or not and I will shut my mouth on what equality is.

warmest

Frahan

Bird,
you write:
<Surely you can’t be suggesting that I, female, am not qualified for any position of <leadership because I am a nursing mother?

No Bird, I am certainly not suggesting that being a mother excludes professionnal expertise and leadership. I am confident that as an intelligent mother you had taken precautions for the safety of your child. My opinion here is that our family duties change at different times in life. Sometimes the mother would do certain things, sometimes the father. What i am trying to say is that there is no reason to define set rules in a dualistic fashion. We need to adapt to each situation and in many instances the roles are interchangeable.

That is only the first story of many subsequent that involve juggling both my professional and personal worlds. Name one story even remotely similar to the accomplishments of any man on the UJH or not and I will shut my mouth on what equality is.

warmest

Frahan

Mavaddat,

you write:

<Actually, I’m pretty sure he meant “including”.

No, i was referring to amanda’s post where she denied thinking that a social position was superiour to motherhood; however, in a later post she seemed to contradit by speaking of “merit”

BTW, I never use adjectives such as “inane” and “platitudes” or “Madhouse of Vacuous Defenses” to describe other people’s opinions.

<…to object to women’s exclusion from the House of Justice is to implicitly suggest that <you think women’s role is inferior to men’s role (“serving” on the House of Justice); since <otherwise, why would you want equality of opportunity? Obviously you think that being <solely a mother is inferior to being on the House of Justice. OBVIOUSLY.

You are right, this is the point I was trying to make. saying that “excluding” women is discrimination is to imply that serving on the UHJ is an honnor and not a servitude. This is a major cause of miunderstanding in baha’i service. People exalting themselves, having themselves exalted, being offended at not being exalted. the qoute from Peter Khan confirms my understanding, ans sa he says, we will need many generations to get rid of this disease acquired through centuries of priestcraft.

<Farhan has mindlessly taken it for granted that serving on the House of Justice is indeed a <role defined exclusively for men.

I have thoughtfully arrived at the understanding that this is the age where those who humble themselves will be raised, and those who exalt themselves over others will be abased: the “great reversa” promised in scriptures.

Thus, he comes to the conclusion that to want women to take up a role that is defined for men is to want women to be men, which is to think that being a woman isn’t good enough.

You disagree with me and I respect your views with out jeering at you.

Mavaddat,

you write:

<Actually, I’m pretty sure he meant “including”.

No, i was referring to amanda’s post where she denied thinking that a social position was superiour to motherhood; however, in a later post she seemed to contradit by speaking of “merit”

BTW, I never use adjectives such as “inane” and “platitudes” or “Madhouse of Vacuous Defenses” to describe other people’s opinions.

<…to object to women’s exclusion from the House of Justice is to implicitly suggest that <you think women’s role is inferior to men’s role (“serving” on the House of Justice); since <otherwise, why would you want equality of opportunity? Obviously you think that being <solely a mother is inferior to being on the House of Justice. OBVIOUSLY.

You are right, this is the point I was trying to make. saying that “excluding” women is discrimination is to imply that serving on the UHJ is an honnor and not a servitude. This is a major cause of miunderstanding in baha’i service. People exalting themselves, having themselves exalted, being offended at not being exalted. the qoute from Peter Khan confirms my understanding, ans sa he says, we will need many generations to get rid of this disease acquired through centuries of priestcraft.

<Farhan has mindlessly taken it for granted that serving on the House of Justice is indeed a <role defined exclusively for men.

I have thoughtfully arrived at the understanding that this is the age where those who humble themselves will be raised, and those who exalt themselves over others will be abased: the “great reversa” promised in scriptures.

Thus, he comes to the conclusion that to want women to take up a role that is defined for men is to want women to be men, which is to think that being a woman isn’t good enough.

You disagree with me and I respect your views with out jeering at you.

Amanda wrote: “I am going to deepen on Judaism, where “God” first appeared as “God”. For some reason I have skipped this study being born a Christian and moving to Bahai. Time for me to get back to the basics.”

You might like this:

http://whosoever.org/v12i5/spong.shtml

“Instead of accepting Jesus as a theological construct of God in human flesh, Spong uses his book to reconstruct Jesus as a radical breaker of tribal boundaries, prejudices and religious dogma.”

Sounds like Tahirih too …

Amanda wrote: “I am going to deepen on Judaism, where “God” first appeared as “God”. For some reason I have skipped this study being born a Christian and moving to Bahai. Time for me to get back to the basics.”

You might like this:

http://whosoever.org/v12i5/spong.shtml

“Instead of accepting Jesus as a theological construct of God in human flesh, Spong uses his book to reconstruct Jesus as a radical breaker of tribal boundaries, prejudices and religious dogma.”

Sounds like Tahirih too …

Sorry … I meant Bird, not Amanda … but Amanda might like it too!

Sorry … I meant Bird, not Amanda … but Amanda might like it too!

Farhan,

You write about the unfair double-shift that many women perform, working outside of the home and then returning to a full-days work inside the home: “this is a handicap they have to overcome before being at equal position with men. Again, I see a difference with our professioal lives and our lives of spiritual service to humanity.”

Handicap? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The only “handicap” in that scenario is a mental-cultural-societal expectation that many men have to still be waited on hand and foot and not pull their weight with domestic chores and parenting. That is a “handicap” MEN have to overcome, my friend. Many men either already have or are working on it. Ask around.

You wrote: “we have a lot of evidence saying that the role of mothers is specially important for the spiritual education of children is especially up to the age of 5.”

Oh, do we? “Evidence,” you say? Show me the “evidence,” Farhan. Because you are regurgitating the Baha’i writings here that say women have a special role before 5yrs of age. Guess what- what the writings say is not “evidence.” It’s not supported by anything. That’s what Mavaddat was talking about when he mentioned your platitudes (I’m guessing.) As a forensics expert, you are supposed to know the definition of “evidence.” Show me a single study in the social sciences backing up your claim about women and spiritual education. “Spiritual education” doesn’t quite sound like an area science has really studied, does it? Additionally, when you claim to have “researched” something, and that “research” is just research of what the writings say…that is not really what we mean by “research.” I would welcome the day that the “Research Department” actually broke out some safety goggles, research questions, and did some quantitative OR qualitative research using the scientific method. But let’s be clear, research of the writings-especially from an apologetics standpoint- is not “research.”

You say: “there is a difference between the role of structural education imparted by men, and the affective and personnality role of the mother’s education. I am not competent in this field. The survey of documents I accopmlished in 1993 was specially on the spiritual role of mothers in education. I would be tempted to say that teh ITC would be playing the role of a mother and the UHJ the role of fathers, but this is just an idea I would muse with. Perhaps those well versed with Yin and Yang could comment that idea.”

First of all, I aquired more “spiritual education” from my father than my mother. Wouldn’t it depend on the individual who HAPPENS TO BE the father or mother? Many men have a lot to offer in the realm of “affect,” as well. And secondly, I have a vast amount of “structural education” to offer my future children. I’m a woman. Name the time and place and you and I can have a little “face-off” balancing our checkbooks, changing a tire, and throwing a ball, if you like. It would provide us with ANECDOTAL evidence. *wink!* See how that works? Your ideas are out-dated and reflect a time and place when women were literally not allowed out of the home, and therefore denied the opportunity to learn anything beyond the “spiritual” prerequisites of motherhood. And men were literally beaten to a pulp for crying or showing emotion. I vividly remember being a 17 year old girl, walking around my college campus my very first semester and feeling so profoundly unwelcome in the classes I was actually interested in. Then one day, I saw on the wall the portraits of previous graduating classes and realized women had only been ALLOWED to matriculate about 5 seconds ago historically. No wonder there was a chill in the air. How many male poets of emotion and “spiritual education” have had their spirits ground to fine powder trying to play out the masculine gender role instead of being home playing with their children and writing love letters to their wives? It’s a new era, Farhan. And men and women are BOTH served by not creating arbitrary limits on acceptable behavior and duties based on sex.

To imagine that having a female body better equips one for “spiritual education” is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous to imagine that having a male body better equips one for “structural education” or leadership-servitude. Do you read the comments on this blog? Mavaddat, Andrew, Frank, Craig, ETC have ALL demonstrated enough “spiritual education” to be FINE MOTHERS (by your definition) and it should be clear to you that Bird and I have no trouble with “structure.” Yes, when I do have children I will be the one producing the breastmilk. BUT, like Bird, I could nurse that baby in the middle of the House of Justice chambers if they would only let me in (and if I were so inclined, which I’m not) or I could pump that milk and let the baby’s father do the feeding while I’m off running a company with Bird. The stupid part, is as of today, we cannot go and run a religion. Too bad for the religion.

You brought up Yin and Yang as a support for your gender ideas, and invited someone who is more “well versed” in it to fill in the blanks. I’ll volunteer for that duty. Yin and Yang are theoretical constructs made up by people, and as a philosophical and medical tool have been used to both control and empower women. It all depends on the AGENDA of the person or institution who is applying them. I am doing preliminary anthropological research on this as we speak. Here’s the URL to a paper I wrote that scratches the surface. I promise to post a link to more as it’s available:
Gender, Culture and the Experience of Chinese Medicine
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg28dd59_4jqczz7ds

You also say: “Ther is a big difference between legislating and giving orders.” Oh, yeah? What’s that?

Finally, you wrote this in your letter to Mavaddat:

“No, i was referring to amanda’s post where she denied thinking that a social position was superiour to motherhood; however, in a later post she seemed to contradit by speaking of “merit””

That tells me you are not following my basic argument or the words I use. Please ask for clariication if you don’t understand something. You missed my point ENTIRELY.

You also wrote to him:
“BTW, I never use adjectives such as “inane” and “platitudes” or “Madhouse of Vacuous Defenses” to describe other people’s opinions.

I believe he is addressing your METHODS as much as anything else, Farhan. You don’t follow the argument and traffic in non-sequiturs and very aptly described “platitudes.” I am quite sure that Mavaddat (and myself) would be quite happy and RELIEVED to discuss your actual “opinions” in any kind of sensical, organized, or logical way.

And if you bristle at his descriptions of what you have said here, or even find them offensive- consider this: No matter how thick the layer of sugar you coat your views in, and no matter how flowery the language you use, your VIEWS THEMSELVES are offensive. They are a slap in the face to women. You can write sexist language on a Valentine, but it is still sexist. Honest debate, and calling a spade a spade, is always preferable to disengenuous, patronizing misogyny and prejudice. Slave holders in the American South used to say they loved their slaves. They said they enslaved them because “Black” people could not bear the burden of self-determination. Sound familiar?

And Mavaddat, thanks for your words and your honest assessment. It is ALWAYS nice to know “what a feminist looks like.”

Farhan,

You write about the unfair double-shift that many women perform, working outside of the home and then returning to a full-days work inside the home: “this is a handicap they have to overcome before being at equal position with men. Again, I see a difference with our professioal lives and our lives of spiritual service to humanity.”

Handicap? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. The only “handicap” in that scenario is a mental-cultural-societal expectation that many men have to still be waited on hand and foot and not pull their weight with domestic chores and parenting. That is a “handicap” MEN have to overcome, my friend. Many men either already have or are working on it. Ask around.

You wrote: “we have a lot of evidence saying that the role of mothers is specially important for the spiritual education of children is especially up to the age of 5.”

Oh, do we? “Evidence,” you say? Show me the “evidence,” Farhan. Because you are regurgitating the Baha’i writings here that say women have a special role before 5yrs of age. Guess what- what the writings say is not “evidence.” It’s not supported by anything. That’s what Mavaddat was talking about when he mentioned your platitudes (I’m guessing.) As a forensics expert, you are supposed to know the definition of “evidence.” Show me a single study in the social sciences backing up your claim about women and spiritual education. “Spiritual education” doesn’t quite sound like an area science has really studied, does it? Additionally, when you claim to have “researched” something, and that “research” is just research of what the writings say…that is not really what we mean by “research.” I would welcome the day that the “Research Department” actually broke out some safety goggles, research questions, and did some quantitative OR qualitative research using the scientific method. But let’s be clear, research of the writings-especially from an apologetics standpoint- is not “research.”

You say: “there is a difference between the role of structural education imparted by men, and the affective and personnality role of the mother’s education. I am not competent in this field. The survey of documents I accopmlished in 1993 was specially on the spiritual role of mothers in education. I would be tempted to say that teh ITC would be playing the role of a mother and the UHJ the role of fathers, but this is just an idea I would muse with. Perhaps those well versed with Yin and Yang could comment that idea.”

First of all, I aquired more “spiritual education” from my father than my mother. Wouldn’t it depend on the individual who HAPPENS TO BE the father or mother? Many men have a lot to offer in the realm of “affect,” as well. And secondly, I have a vast amount of “structural education” to offer my future children. I’m a woman. Name the time and place and you and I can have a little “face-off” balancing our checkbooks, changing a tire, and throwing a ball, if you like. It would provide us with ANECDOTAL evidence. *wink!* See how that works? Your ideas are out-dated and reflect a time and place when women were literally not allowed out of the home, and therefore denied the opportunity to learn anything beyond the “spiritual” prerequisites of motherhood. And men were literally beaten to a pulp for crying or showing emotion. I vividly remember being a 17 year old girl, walking around my college campus my very first semester and feeling so profoundly unwelcome in the classes I was actually interested in. Then one day, I saw on the wall the portraits of previous graduating classes and realized women had only been ALLOWED to matriculate about 5 seconds ago historically. No wonder there was a chill in the air. How many male poets of emotion and “spiritual education” have had their spirits ground to fine powder trying to play out the masculine gender role instead of being home playing with their children and writing love letters to their wives? It’s a new era, Farhan. And men and women are BOTH served by not creating arbitrary limits on acceptable behavior and duties based on sex.

To imagine that having a female body better equips one for “spiritual education” is ridiculous, just as it is ridiculous to imagine that having a male body better equips one for “structural education” or leadership-servitude. Do you read the comments on this blog? Mavaddat, Andrew, Frank, Craig, ETC have ALL demonstrated enough “spiritual education” to be FINE MOTHERS (by your definition) and it should be clear to you that Bird and I have no trouble with “structure.” Yes, when I do have children I will be the one producing the breastmilk. BUT, like Bird, I could nurse that baby in the middle of the House of Justice chambers if they would only let me in (and if I were so inclined, which I’m not) or I could pump that milk and let the baby’s father do the feeding while I’m off running a company with Bird. The stupid part, is as of today, we cannot go and run a religion. Too bad for the religion.

You brought up Yin and Yang as a support for your gender ideas, and invited someone who is more “well versed” in it to fill in the blanks. I’ll volunteer for that duty. Yin and Yang are theoretical constructs made up by people, and as a philosophical and medical tool have been used to both control and empower women. It all depends on the AGENDA of the person or institution who is applying them. I am doing preliminary anthropological research on this as we speak. Here’s the URL to a paper I wrote that scratches the surface. I promise to post a link to more as it’s available:
Gender, Culture and the Experience of Chinese Medicine
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dg28dd59_4jqczz7ds

You also say: “Ther is a big difference between legislating and giving orders.” Oh, yeah? What’s that?

Finally, you wrote this in your letter to Mavaddat:

“No, i was referring to amanda’s post where she denied thinking that a social position was superiour to motherhood; however, in a later post she seemed to contradit by speaking of “merit””

That tells me you are not following my basic argument or the words I use. Please ask for clariication if you don’t understand something. You missed my point ENTIRELY.

You also wrote to him:
“BTW, I never use adjectives such as “inane” and “platitudes” or “Madhouse of Vacuous Defenses” to describe other people’s opinions.

I believe he is addressing your METHODS as much as anything else, Farhan. You don’t follow the argument and traffic in non-sequiturs and very aptly described “platitudes.” I am quite sure that Mavaddat (and myself) would be quite happy and RELIEVED to discuss your actual “opinions” in any kind of sensical, organized, or logical way.

And if you bristle at his descriptions of what you have said here, or even find them offensive- consider this: No matter how thick the layer of sugar you coat your views in, and no matter how flowery the language you use, your VIEWS THEMSELVES are offensive. They are a slap in the face to women. You can write sexist language on a Valentine, but it is still sexist. Honest debate, and calling a spade a spade, is always preferable to disengenuous, patronizing misogyny and prejudice. Slave holders in the American South used to say they loved their slaves. They said they enslaved them because “Black” people could not bear the burden of self-determination. Sound familiar?

And Mavaddat, thanks for your words and your honest assessment. It is ALWAYS nice to know “what a feminist looks like.”

Andrew-

Thanks! I’ll check it out.

Loved your dialogue with God, btw.

Andrew-

Thanks! I’ll check it out.

Loved your dialogue with God, btw.

Farhan -

Not to heat seek you like a missile, but your posts leave an open target for discussion. I must add that yes my baby was entirely safe the whole time & yes my male & female clients and employees knew I was not only pregnant (the growing bulge gave it away) when they contracted with me, they knew as CEO, I had granted myself permission to nurse the baby at work as well as other subsequent women in my employ. It’s called terms of service, accommodation and upfront disclosure.

But Sir, and yes you may call me Madame, may I share, I did absolutely nothing extraordinary that day or any other day of the week or for that matter the ability of any woman, mother or not. For the last 100+ years mothers or childless women, young girls, in certain area’s of the world carry themselves and their babies through miles of male made explosive mine fields to get water for their family or their households. For 10’s of thousands of years they nurse through arduous hours of working in fields or textiles.

I often wonder what an unobstructed candid conversation with Martha Root would be like on the subject of no women on the UHJ as a “blessing” for women. A progressive religion with a room closed to women. Would she have attempted to force the door open? She was known to be bold and of great stamina. She certainly had earned the respect of the leaders of the Bahà’í Faith in her lifetime. With both the moxie and tenacity to at least try, would her failed attempt make her a Covenant Breaker or a dissident?

Talk about a script and movie scene…. The two of us sitting on my couch, her putting her feet up to take a load off from all those extensive selfless yet fully fulfilling and gratifying and exceedingly successful years as an international ambassador of the Bahà’í Faith, largely at her own expense as a writer. I would ask her if she knew the UHJ would be all male someday when she globe trotted and pushed her way past men to get the word out about equality? Would the Queen of Romania bought that kind of pitch that only males were able to determine what is best for humanity of her Kingdom? I’d ask her what went through her mind when she went boldly went against Shoghi Effendi’s own recommendation to her not for her to travel to Iran and did it any way. Or even speculate what would Shoghi have to say on the subject himself if he ever experienced an only child, a daughter. But being that he left no daughters nor any words on the subject during his lifetime and Martha died before I was born so I guess I’ll won’t find out in this existence.

nuff said…

Farhan -

Not to heat seek you like a missile, but your posts leave an open target for discussion. I must add that yes my baby was entirely safe the whole time & yes my male & female clients and employees knew I was not only pregnant (the growing bulge gave it away) when they contracted with me, they knew as CEO, I had granted myself permission to nurse the baby at work as well as other subsequent women in my employ. It’s called terms of service, accommodation and upfront disclosure.

But Sir, and yes you may call me Madame, may I share, I did absolutely nothing extraordinary that day or any other day of the week or for that matter the ability of any woman, mother or not. For the last 100+ years mothers or childless women, young girls, in certain area’s of the world carry themselves and their babies through miles of male made explosive mine fields to get water for their family or their households. For 10’s of thousands of years they nurse through arduous hours of working in fields or textiles.

I often wonder what an unobstructed candid conversation with Martha Root would be like on the subject of no women on the UHJ as a “blessing” for women. A progressive religion with a room closed to women. Would she have attempted to force the door open? She was known to be bold and of great stamina. She certainly had earned the respect of the leaders of the Bahà’í Faith in her lifetime. With both the moxie and tenacity to at least try, would her failed attempt make her a Covenant Breaker or a dissident?

Talk about a script and movie scene…. The two of us sitting on my couch, her putting her feet up to take a load off from all those extensive selfless yet fully fulfilling and gratifying and exceedingly successful years as an international ambassador of the Bahà’í Faith, largely at her own expense as a writer. I would ask her if she knew the UHJ would be all male someday when she globe trotted and pushed her way past men to get the word out about equality? Would the Queen of Romania bought that kind of pitch that only males were able to determine what is best for humanity of her Kingdom? I’d ask her what went through her mind when she went boldly went against Shoghi Effendi’s own recommendation to her not for her to travel to Iran and did it any way. Or even speculate what would Shoghi have to say on the subject himself if he ever experienced an only child, a daughter. But being that he left no daughters nor any words on the subject during his lifetime and Martha died before I was born so I guess I’ll won’t find out in this existence.

nuff said…

I forgot to mention that the best nugget of “spiritual education” I got from my dear, Baha’i mother was her absolute intolerance of racial prejudice and oppression. That has, in many ways, become the template for my own sense of justice and moral responsibility to unequivocally demand the complete human rights of ALL people. She put herself, and even our family, in harms way over and over again in the racist South of my upbringing because she had the knowledge, courage, and leadership ability to know that ultimately justice is worth fighting for. The Baha’i community should not be deprived of that kind of wisdom, moral clarity, and leadership at the highest levels of it’s organizational life.

I forgot to mention that the best nugget of “spiritual education” I got from my dear, Baha’i mother was her absolute intolerance of racial prejudice and oppression. That has, in many ways, become the template for my own sense of justice and moral responsibility to unequivocally demand the complete human rights of ALL people. She put herself, and even our family, in harms way over and over again in the racist South of my upbringing because she had the knowledge, courage, and leadership ability to know that ultimately justice is worth fighting for. The Baha’i community should not be deprived of that kind of wisdom, moral clarity, and leadership at the highest levels of it’s organizational life.

[quote comment=""][...]The survey of documents I accopmlished in 1993 was specially on the spiritual role of mothers in education. I would be tempted to say that teh ITC would be playing the role of a mother and the UHJ the role of fathers, but this is just an idea I would muse with.[...][/quote]

Farhan – interesting idea – are men allowed in the ITC?

[quote comment=""][...]The survey of documents I accopmlished in 1993 was specially on the spiritual role of mothers in education. I would be tempted to say that teh ITC would be playing the role of a mother and the UHJ the role of fathers, but this is just an idea I would muse with.[...][/quote]

Farhan – interesting idea – are men allowed in the ITC?

Beth-

Touche

Beth-

Touche

Farhan says…[quote comment=""][...] Sometimes the mother would do certain things, sometimes the father. What i am trying to say is that there is no reason to define set rules in a dualistic fashion. We need to adapt to each situation and in many instances the roles are interchangeable.[...][/quote]

But by saying that men are suited for one role (UHJ service) and women another (motherhood), you are doing exactly that – setting up dualistic roles.

I do understand that you truly believe that UHJ service should not be seen as a position of honor or power. But regardless of peoples feelings or opinions about it, any position that allows a person to translate, legislate, or interpret laws is an EXTREMELY powerful one. Limiting the pool of people who were allowed to represent the worlds population in such crucially important matters is obviously unjust to everyone with eyes to see. If instead of women, Baha’i Scripture said that Africans were not allowed to be on the UHJ, would you defend it so readily? Would that instance be more or less questionable?

Farhan says…[quote comment=""][...] Sometimes the mother would do certain things, sometimes the father. What i am trying to say is that there is no reason to define set rules in a dualistic fashion. We need to adapt to each situation and in many instances the roles are interchangeable.[...][/quote]

But by saying that men are suited for one role (UHJ service) and women another (motherhood), you are doing exactly that – setting up dualistic roles.

I do understand that you truly believe that UHJ service should not be seen as a position of honor or power. But regardless of peoples feelings or opinions about it, any position that allows a person to translate, legislate, or interpret laws is an EXTREMELY powerful one. Limiting the pool of people who were allowed to represent the worlds population in such crucially important matters is obviously unjust to everyone with eyes to see. If instead of women, Baha’i Scripture said that Africans were not allowed to be on the UHJ, would you defend it so readily? Would that instance be more or less questionable?

Amanda,
You write :
<Handicap? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you <think it means.

LOL, Amanda, part of my work is to estimate handicaps ; in the present context it is like in a race, and some run jumping over hurdles, and others run with no handicaps. Again, although I learn much here with you all, I am disappointed that the tone is not one of mutual exchange and of offering ideas, but a dualistic « us » against « them » Cowboys vs Indians, feminists vs sexists, … the axis of evil?… what stressful lives you must all be living….

<You wrote: “we have a lot of evidence saying that the role of mothers is <specially important for the spiritual education of children is especially <up to the age of 5.”

This is a general statement based on innumerable publications on the educational roles of fathers and mothers, which are obviously interchangeable to some extent. I am glad to hear that your mother made you a gift protecting you from prejudice. The concept of 5 or 6 years is current amongst psychologists; ex Fitzhugh Dodson, in the US. I have seen no Bahá’í writings on this; of course a milk bottle can replace breast-feeding, but it is not as good physically, and spiritually.

Another point I find important is that when Baha’u’llah spoke, he spoke to those present and to those in future generations. I could readily believe that many laws in Aqdas were addressed for the use of those present, pending legislation by the UHJ. This is also true of some comments by Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

<Because you are regurgitating the Baha’i writings here that say women have <a special role before 5yrs of age.

I am aware that you reject Bahá’í writings; I refer to them because you question Bahá’í laws, which happen to be in tune with them. (The word regurgitate applied to someone else’s beliefs is offensive; didn’t your mum say that?)

Scientific evidence is abundant as to the forming of the personality before 5 or 6; The Bahá’í writings insist on the importance spiritual education at that age. As to literature and historical studies, the word research is an accepted one.

<To imagine that having a female body better equips one for “spiritual <education”

Perhaps hormones are the answer to your question. There are interesting studies on treatment of gender ambiguities at birth when a gender is attributed to the person and hormones are prescribed to confirm that gender. Depending on hormone intake, sexual orientation, taste for clothing, and gender behaviours change.

If you wish to believe that men and women are identical, you are free to do so. I happen to express a different view from yours without belittling your view.

<The stupid part, is as of today, we cannot go and run a religion. Too bad <for the religion.

You gave me a long list of churches that are more advanced than the Baha’is in gender equality; why bother wanting to run a religion you have no consideration for?

<You also say: “Ther is a big difference between legislating and giving <orders.” Oh, yeah? What’s that?

I am not quite sure of your legislative structure in the US, but in all countries there is a difference between legislators and those applying the laws (police men, judges, lawyers, prison wardens…)

<That tells me you are not following my basic argument or the words I use.

Maybe you might wish to clarify: being elected to the UHJ, in your view is an honour, a privilege, a high merit, or servitude?

<No matter how thick the layer of sugar you coat your views in, and no <matter how flowery the language you use, your VIEWS THEMSELVES are <offensive.

Interesting that you should take offence in someone’s views. I accept views except when they convey hatred and conflict. I give my own views with respect and love, and I am ready to change views if necessary.

<They are a slap in the face to women.

What did you feel as a slap? The fact that I believe that we are equal, yet different? Complementary and yet able to function in harmony?

<calling a spade a spade, is always preferable to disengenuous, patronizing <misogyny and prejudice. Slave holders in the American South used to say <they loved their slaves. They said they enslaved them because “Black” <people could not bear the burden of self-determination. Sound familiar?

And you dug all that from my postings? Is that not prejudice?

Amanda,
You write :
<Handicap? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you <think it means.

LOL, Amanda, part of my work is to estimate handicaps ; in the present context it is like in a race, and some run jumping over hurdles, and others run with no handicaps. Again, although I learn much here with you all, I am disappointed that the tone is not one of mutual exchange and of offering ideas, but a dualistic « us » against « them » Cowboys vs Indians, feminists vs sexists, … the axis of evil?… what stressful lives you must all be living….

<You wrote: “we have a lot of evidence saying that the role of mothers is <specially important for the spiritual education of children is especially <up to the age of 5.”

This is a general statement based on innumerable publications on the educational roles of fathers and mothers, which are obviously interchangeable to some extent. I am glad to hear that your mother made you a gift protecting you from prejudice. The concept of 5 or 6 years is current amongst psychologists; ex Fitzhugh Dodson, in the US. I have seen no Bahá’í writings on this; of course a milk bottle can replace breast-feeding, but it is not as good physically, and spiritually.

Another point I find important is that when Baha’u’llah spoke, he spoke to those present and to those in future generations. I could readily believe that many laws in Aqdas were addressed for the use of those present, pending legislation by the UHJ. This is also true of some comments by Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

<Because you are regurgitating the Baha’i writings here that say women have <a special role before 5yrs of age.

I am aware that you reject Bahá’í writings; I refer to them because you question Bahá’í laws, which happen to be in tune with them. (The word regurgitate applied to someone else’s beliefs is offensive; didn’t your mum say that?)

Scientific evidence is abundant as to the forming of the personality before 5 or 6; The Bahá’í writings insist on the importance spiritual education at that age. As to literature and historical studies, the word research is an accepted one.

<To imagine that having a female body better equips one for “spiritual <education”

Perhaps hormones are the answer to your question. There are interesting studies on treatment of gender ambiguities at birth when a gender is attributed to the person and hormones are prescribed to confirm that gender. Depending on hormone intake, sexual orientation, taste for clothing, and gender behaviours change.

If you wish to believe that men and women are identical, you are free to do so. I happen to express a different view from yours without belittling your view.

<The stupid part, is as of today, we cannot go and run a religion. Too bad <for the religion.

You gave me a long list of churches that are more advanced than the Baha’is in gender equality; why bother wanting to run a religion you have no consideration for?

<You also say: “Ther is a big difference between legislating and giving <orders.” Oh, yeah? What’s that?

I am not quite sure of your legislative structure in the US, but in all countries there is a difference between legislators and those applying the laws (police men, judges, lawyers, prison wardens…)

<That tells me you are not following my basic argument or the words I use.

Maybe you might wish to clarify: being elected to the UHJ, in your view is an honour, a privilege, a high merit, or servitude?

<No matter how thick the layer of sugar you coat your views in, and no <matter how flowery the language you use, your VIEWS THEMSELVES are <offensive.

Interesting that you should take offence in someone’s views. I accept views except when they convey hatred and conflict. I give my own views with respect and love, and I am ready to change views if necessary.

<They are a slap in the face to women.

What did you feel as a slap? The fact that I believe that we are equal, yet different? Complementary and yet able to function in harmony?

<calling a spade a spade, is always preferable to disengenuous, patronizing <misogyny and prejudice. Slave holders in the American South used to say <they loved their slaves. They said they enslaved them because “Black” <people could not bear the burden of self-determination. Sound familiar?

And you dug all that from my postings? Is that not prejudice?

[quote comment="45457"][quote comment=""][...]
Beth, you wrote:

<Farhan – interesting idea – are men allowed in the ITC?[/quote]

Beth, neither men nor women are “allowed” They can be invited to serve for a periods of time.

[quote comment="45457"][quote comment=""][...]
Beth, you wrote:

<Farhan – interesting idea – are men allowed in the ITC?[/quote]

Beth, neither men nor women are “allowed” They can be invited to serve for a periods of time.

Beth wrote:
<If instead of women, Baha’i Scripture said that Africans were not allowed to be on the UHJ, would you defend it so readily? Would that instance be more or less questionable?

Again Beth i would not say allowed, but invited to serve;
No, i would be shocked; but i am surprised that you consider men and women as a race apart. I consider a married couple as one new being who can underatke actions in harmony. I think we could ask the wives of the members of the UHJ tell us how they participated in the work of their husbands; yes that would be a useful study!

Beth wrote:
<If instead of women, Baha’i Scripture said that Africans were not allowed to be on the UHJ, would you defend it so readily? Would that instance be more or less questionable?

Again Beth i would not say allowed, but invited to serve;
No, i would be shocked; but i am surprised that you consider men and women as a race apart. I consider a married couple as one new being who can underatke actions in harmony. I think we could ask the wives of the members of the UHJ tell us how they participated in the work of their husbands; yes that would be a useful study!

[quote comment=""][...] Yes, really. Its been three whole years (and a fraction more). This is what I wrote as my first foray into this uncharted territory: Introduction. [...][/quote]

Please delete my last comment ( Mar 14th, 2008 at 5:34 am). It was a mistake.

[quote comment=""][...] Yes, really. Its been three whole years (and a fraction more). This is what I wrote as my first foray into this uncharted territory: Introduction. [...][/quote]

Please delete my last comment ( Mar 14th, 2008 at 5:34 am). It was a mistake.

[quote post="4"]LOL, Amanda, part of my work is to estimate handicaps ; in the present context it is like in a race, and some run jumping over hurdles, and others run with no handicaps.[/quote]
Your work is not to estimate handicaps. It is to diagnose people who feel sick. That you apparently do not understand the difference is revealing, but let me explain it for you. People go to the doctor when they aren’t feeling well. They tell you they aren’t feeling well. Follow so far? Good. That’s what you do.

What you don’t do is estimate handicaps. You don’t go around telling people who feel fine that they are sick. Or that they don’t feel well. You don’t do that, now do you? No. No, you don’t.

See, Farhan? It’s really not that difficult to think before writing, is it? Yes, I’m being patronizing. Did you notice? I’m not going to respond to the rest of your post, because it doesn’t merit response. Nothing you write merits response, because it is all typed out as if by rote: without any critical thought or analysis, without ever engaging other people’s arguments, always floating at the level trite clichés, superficialities and empty rhetoric, but never getting down to the bass tax. Am I being insulting? Yes, I am. Have you insulted us all and wasted our time with your long winded, unstructured, unthinking rants? Indeed you have. And as the old saying goes, one good turn deserves another.

But please don’t let that discourage you. Do come back when you learn how to actually engage other people’s thoughts and want to entertain real conversation. Until then, you may expect more of this.

[quote post="4"]LOL, Amanda, part of my work is to estimate handicaps ; in the present context it is like in a race, and some run jumping over hurdles, and others run with no handicaps.[/quote]
Your work is not to estimate handicaps. It is to diagnose people who feel sick. That you apparently do not understand the difference is revealing, but let me explain it for you. People go to the doctor when they aren’t feeling well. They tell you they aren’t feeling well. Follow so far? Good. That’s what you do.

What you don’t do is estimate handicaps. You don’t go around telling people who feel fine that they are sick. Or that they don’t feel well. You don’t do that, now do you? No. No, you don’t.

See, Farhan? It’s really not that difficult to think before writing, is it? Yes, I’m being patronizing. Did you notice? I’m not going to respond to the rest of your post, because it doesn’t merit response. Nothing you write merits response, because it is all typed out as if by rote: without any critical thought or analysis, without ever engaging other people’s arguments, always floating at the level trite clichés, superficialities and empty rhetoric, but never getting down to the bass tax. Am I being insulting? Yes, I am. Have you insulted us all and wasted our time with your long winded, unstructured, unthinking rants? Indeed you have. And as the old saying goes, one good turn deserves another.

But please don’t let that discourage you. Do come back when you learn how to actually engage other people’s thoughts and want to entertain real conversation. Until then, you may expect more of this.

Bird writes:
<Not to heat seek you like a missile, but your posts leave <an open target for discussion.

This is why I am here Bird

You quote Martha Root whom I admire, my own mother and grandmother having been of the same fabric. I am not discussing here such heroines who fought to liberate women from outdated social laws;

What I am trying to discuss here is a provision that Baha’is like myself believe as part of God’s plan. I understand that your views are different, and if a UHJ in the future made different provisions, I would gladly incline, as I do now unhesitatingly with the present decisions of the UHJ for our day and age. Thes decisions for the moment are only binding on Baha’is who believe that in time the world will turn to the UHJ for guidance, most others in the world do not believe that.

This is a matter of Faith and of belief, and not a matter of reason.Although, Faith _must_ be in harmony and in complementarity with science reason, they do not replace one another. It would be against my Faith and reasoning to “discriminate”, but not against my Faith and reason to “dispence” someone with a specific duty. Without being in favour of restricting service on the UHJ to men, I do not find this as being “sexist”. I would consider it as such if serving on the UHJ was a privilege and a source of presonnal gratification or “power” as in a professional or social position.

I am in now way offended that your view differ from mine, and in fact I am eager to hear you so as to better understand mine, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. I thank you for the warm and respectful tone of your postings that are an asset to better exchange.

My reasonning at present is that many meritorious spiritual paths of service are available to all and reserving some paths to certain persons is not to my understanding illogical, although I might not be aware of the specific spiritual reason for it now.

I am not saying that if I had been asked to give my opinion, I would not have found it rationnal in view of the Baha’i teachings to put women on the UHJ. If I am saying that it is not a “discrimination”, it is in the sense that spiritual service is servitude and not a privilege; I am shocked at the many obstacles (handicaps) on the path of women here in France and elsewhere. I would be glad to see women (and Afro-Americans…) at the presidency of the US or of France.

The Aqdas offers dispenses to women for spiritual acts, but Abdu’l-Baha says the greatest pilgrimage is to attend a sorrowing heart. True prayer is servitude of God’s creation (In Arabic doua : prayer and oboudiat : servitude are from the same ethymology) , prayer and meditation are a time of inspiration for that service. We do not pray, fast or give contributions to attain an honorable position, nor do we serve on institutions for that purpose.

As I quoted Peter Khan above, it will take generations to get rid of our heritage of power issues and confrontations running our societies and replace them by concepts of service and collaboration.

Differenciating « servitude » from « power », « merit » and « honours» is hence part of my understanding, which to me does not fully explain why there is a difference. Family making is a possible explanation, but knowing that Baha’is before us did not fully understand many teachings of our Faith that now seem obvious to us, I can presume that Baha’is in the future will better grasp things I am unable to understand now.

You wrote of Martha Root:

<I would ask her if she knew the UHJ would be all male <someday when she globe trotted and pushed her way past men <to get the word out about equality?

I am not well aquainted with the history of the Faith in the US, but I believe that there was a progressive evolution into inviting women to serve on the first Baha’i councils in the US. I am not sure if Martha Root took part in that debate.

In any case, if we are going through a period of men « versus » women now, it is the result of centuries of « powermongery » and I do hope that near future we will come to harmonious relations between men and women.

Bird writes:
<Not to heat seek you like a missile, but your posts leave <an open target for discussion.

This is why I am here Bird

You quote Martha Root whom I admire, my own mother and grandmother having been of the same fabric. I am not discussing here such heroines who fought to liberate women from outdated social laws;

What I am trying to discuss here is a provision that Baha’is like myself believe as part of God’s plan. I understand that your views are different, and if a UHJ in the future made different provisions, I would gladly incline, as I do now unhesitatingly with the present decisions of the UHJ for our day and age. Thes decisions for the moment are only binding on Baha’is who believe that in time the world will turn to the UHJ for guidance, most others in the world do not believe that.

This is a matter of Faith and of belief, and not a matter of reason.Although, Faith _must_ be in harmony and in complementarity with science reason, they do not replace one another. It would be against my Faith and reasoning to “discriminate”, but not against my Faith and reason to “dispence” someone with a specific duty. Without being in favour of restricting service on the UHJ to men, I do not find this as being “sexist”. I would consider it as such if serving on the UHJ was a privilege and a source of presonnal gratification or “power” as in a professional or social position.

I am in now way offended that your view differ from mine, and in fact I am eager to hear you so as to better understand mine, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. I thank you for the warm and respectful tone of your postings that are an asset to better exchange.

My reasonning at present is that many meritorious spiritual paths of service are available to all and reserving some paths to certain persons is not to my understanding illogical, although I might not be aware of the specific spiritual reason for it now.

I am not saying that if I had been asked to give my opinion, I would not have found it rationnal in view of the Baha’i teachings to put women on the UHJ. If I am saying that it is not a “discrimination”, it is in the sense that spiritual service is servitude and not a privilege; I am shocked at the many obstacles (handicaps) on the path of women here in France and elsewhere. I would be glad to see women (and Afro-Americans…) at the presidency of the US or of France.

The Aqdas offers dispenses to women for spiritual acts, but Abdu’l-Baha says the greatest pilgrimage is to attend a sorrowing heart. True prayer is servitude of God’s creation (In Arabic doua : prayer and oboudiat : servitude are from the same ethymology) , prayer and meditation are a time of inspiration for that service. We do not pray, fast or give contributions to attain an honorable position, nor do we serve on institutions for that purpose.

As I quoted Peter Khan above, it will take generations to get rid of our heritage of power issues and confrontations running our societies and replace them by concepts of service and collaboration.

Differenciating « servitude » from « power », « merit » and « honours» is hence part of my understanding, which to me does not fully explain why there is a difference. Family making is a possible explanation, but knowing that Baha’is before us did not fully understand many teachings of our Faith that now seem obvious to us, I can presume that Baha’is in the future will better grasp things I am unable to understand now.

You wrote of Martha Root:

<I would ask her if she knew the UHJ would be all male <someday when she globe trotted and pushed her way past men <to get the word out about equality?

I am not well aquainted with the history of the Faith in the US, but I believe that there was a progressive evolution into inviting women to serve on the first Baha’i councils in the US. I am not sure if Martha Root took part in that debate.

In any case, if we are going through a period of men « versus » women now, it is the result of centuries of « powermongery » and I do hope that near future we will come to harmonious relations between men and women.

Mavaddat,
you write:
<Your work is not to estimate handicaps. It is to diagnose <people who feel sick.

The WHO defines health as a global state of bio-psych-social welbeing. We can add spiritual welbeing as the capacity to intervene in our bio-psych-social lives.

So once the physical diagnosis has been established, the expert has to estimate the impact of that injury on a specific person’s life.

When an expert determines a handicap, for example after an accident, he has to take into consideration the persons psycho-social life; a lost finger is not evaluated in the same way on a surgeon as on a lawyer. A lost leg has different impact on a laboror than on a writer. Things might be even more difficult a handicap for a laboror who is of a different racial or national origine. A scar in the face has a different impact on the professional and social life of an old man than on a young woman. The invalidity rate accepted by the tribunal will not be the same (positive discrimination this time!Yes, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others…)

Depending on the psychological structure, the same simple accident might have different issues on two persons; one can recover with a 2% invalidity, and the other develop post trauma neurosis with a 100% invalidity.

Being a woman can be a handicap when you apply for certain jobs, especially if you firmly believe that working on the UHJ is the best enviable and well-paid job available with lots of power and honours in store in the most secure part of the world.

Not being as smart as you, not mastering English as well as you do, and not mastering my new small laptop screen as well as you master your computer is a handicap to me.

Thanks for allowing me to speak up all the same. I am sure Baquia will protect my right to express my views here.

Mavaddat,
you write:
<Your work is not to estimate handicaps. It is to diagnose <people who feel sick.

The WHO defines health as a global state of bio-psych-social welbeing. We can add spiritual welbeing as the capacity to intervene in our bio-psych-social lives.

So once the physical diagnosis has been established, the expert has to estimate the impact of that injury on a specific person’s life.

When an expert determines a handicap, for example after an accident, he has to take into consideration the persons psycho-social life; a lost finger is not evaluated in the same way on a surgeon as on a lawyer. A lost leg has different impact on a laboror than on a writer. Things might be even more difficult a handicap for a laboror who is of a different racial or national origine. A scar in the face has a different impact on the professional and social life of an old man than on a young woman. The invalidity rate accepted by the tribunal will not be the same (positive discrimination this time!Yes, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others…)

Depending on the psychological structure, the same simple accident might have different issues on two persons; one can recover with a 2% invalidity, and the other develop post trauma neurosis with a 100% invalidity.

Being a woman can be a handicap when you apply for certain jobs, especially if you firmly believe that working on the UHJ is the best enviable and well-paid job available with lots of power and honours in store in the most secure part of the world.

Not being as smart as you, not mastering English as well as you do, and not mastering my new small laptop screen as well as you master your computer is a handicap to me.

Thanks for allowing me to speak up all the same. I am sure Baquia will protect my right to express my views here.

[quote comment="45358"]Thanks Baquia, and at the same time, I expect you inform those who misbehave why their messages are erased, so that they can avoid misbehaving in the future[/quote]

I do in those cases when a valid email has been entered in the comment email field (such as your case). By the way, your comments are still being flagged for some reason!

There is something specific about the way you are responding to comments, perhaps from an email notifying you of a follow up or some other means that is causing my spam filter to go nuts. Also I notice strange little < symbols showing up in your text which makes me believe it has been copied/pasted from an email. Could you please use the function and reply from the relevant post on the blog?

I would really appreciate that since it would save me the hassle of manually approving your comments and it would help you since your comments would appear instantaneously.

allahu’abha

[quote comment="45358"]Thanks Baquia, and at the same time, I expect you inform those who misbehave why their messages are erased, so that they can avoid misbehaving in the future[/quote]

I do in those cases when a valid email has been entered in the comment email field (such as your case). By the way, your comments are still being flagged for some reason!

There is something specific about the way you are responding to comments, perhaps from an email notifying you of a follow up or some other means that is causing my spam filter to go nuts. Also I notice strange little < symbols showing up in your text which makes me believe it has been copied/pasted from an email. Could you please use the function and reply from the relevant post on the blog?

I would really appreciate that since it would save me the hassle of manually approving your comments and it would help you since your comments would appear instantaneously.

allahu’abha

This is an amazing talk given by a brain scientist who suffered a stroke. She recounts how it felt from a very unique perspective. It lasts about 18 or 19 minutes but is well worth listening to.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229

Interesting to see how we have to develop our right brain hemispheres if we want to tune into spirituality. Fascinating!

This is an amazing talk given by a brain scientist who suffered a stroke. She recounts how it felt from a very unique perspective. It lasts about 18 or 19 minutes but is well worth listening to.
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229

Interesting to see how we have to develop our right brain hemispheres if we want to tune into spirituality. Fascinating!

Farhan-

As to your use of the term “handicap,” you say: “in the present context it is like in a race, and some run jumping over hurdles, and others run with no handicaps.” Well, yes. Women face OBSTACLES that are put in their path arbitrarily by society that men do not face. But a HANDICAP indicates that the obstacle to be “overcome” or accomodated is WITHIN the individual, and this is clearly not the case with women. The obstacle is within SOCIETY and the prejudiced minds of those who have not let patriarchy go. Do you describe any human being who faces obstacles as “handicapped?” For example, would Hercules be called “handicapped?” Would Baha’u'llah in the Siyah Chal?

You wrote, “I am disappointed that the tone is not one of mutual exchange and of offering ideas, but a dualistic « us » against « them »”

Yes, it must be very disapointing to have your ideas challenged. How shocking. I seem to recall ‘Abdu’l-Baha saying, “every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should any one oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”

But what about this: “Cowboys vs Indians, feminists vs sexists, … the axis of evil?… what stressful lives you must all be living…” Who is fabricating that division here? Nobody, that’s who. Disagreeing with your views (and being willing to articulate that disagreement) is not the same thing as reductionist us versus them thinking. Straw man much?

Again, you previously wrote: “we have a lot of evidence saying that the role of mothers is specially important for the spiritual education of children is especially up to the age of 5.”

When I challenged you on this “evidence,” you changed your tune: “This is a general statement based on innumerable publications on the educational roles of fathers and mothers, which are obviously interchangeable to some extent.”

Well, then, if they are interchangable, this in no way supports your position that there is a “special” “spiritual” role for mothers exclusively during those years. It also calls into question why you brought up this “evidence” to support that view to begin with, as it doesn’t relate. Again, straw man?

You also say, “Scientific evidence is abundant as to the forming of the personality before 5 or 6.” No one is arguing that with you. You’re shifting the focus here. We were talking about mothers roles speciically, not whether or not children develop extensively before they are 5. Is this extraneous, another straw man, or were you going somewhere with this?

And as to those good old gender differences again, you wrote:
“Perhaps hormones are the answer to your question. There are interesting studies on treatment of gender ambiguities at birth when a gender is attributed to the person and hormones are prescribed to confirm that gender. Depending on hormone intake, sexual orientation, taste for clothing, and gender behaviours change.”

Yes, those studies are “interesting,” in that they have been completely discredited and are appalling:

Anne Fausto-Sterling, 2000: “Of Gender and Genitals, The Use and Abuse of the Modern Intersexual.” Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. NY: Basic Books.

You also wrote: “You gave me a long list of churches that are more advanced than the Baha’is in gender equality; why bother wanting to run a religion you have no consideration for?”

I don’t want to “run” the Baha’i Faith, or any other religion. (I don’t “believe in” religion, as you may recall.) I want all people, including women, to be allowed any office for which their individual MERIT qualifies them. I know it confuses you when I advocate for other peoples rights when my own rights are not directly at stake, but here I am doing it again. Just like I advocate for same-sex marriage. I have seen Baha’i women break down and CRY over this issue. I believe that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

You wrote: “Maybe you might wish to clarify: being elected to the UHJ, in your view is an honour, a privilege, a high merit, or servitude?”

You have inserted the word “merit” into this line of thought, when I used it elsewhere, so I will clarify. You said that I was discriminating based on gender by pointing out that women can’t be elected to the UHJ. I then responded by clarifying for you the definition of “discrimination,” that is, “to make an arbitrary and undue distinction NOT BASED ON MERIT.” That means one allows or disallows a person for something based on irrelevant criteria, rather than on the persons qualifications. For example, a black family not being allowed to join a public pool because of their skin color. (This was common where I grew up.) Not allowing women election to the UHJ is based on arbitrary, unfair criteria (their gender) and not the qualifications of the individual. That is discrimination. Please read the word “merit” as “qualifications.”

I believe that the UHJ is the supreme GOVERNING body of the Baha’i Faith, and I believe women should be able to hold office at any level of any system of governance. It is not about “honor” or “privilege,” it is about simple justice.

“Interesting that you should take offence in someone’s views. I accept views except when they convey hatred and conflict.”

That you do not SEE the woman-hating, or woman-denigrating of your views and why this applies is the worst part of all of this.

“What did you feel as a slap? The fact that I believe that we are equal, yet different? Complementary and yet able to function in harmony?”

That you would like to limit women’s access to every sphere of public life based simply on our gender. Slap.

“And you dug all that from my postings? Is that not prejudice?”

No, it’s taking the available EVIDENCE, what you write here, and forming a judgement about it. Prejudice is a priori judgement. You follow?

You wrote: “(The word regurgitate applied to someone else’s beliefs is offensive; didn’t your mum say that?)”

The word “regurgitate” means to “1. to surge or rush back, as liquids, gases, undigested food, etc. 2. to cause to surge or rush back; vomit. 3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: to regurgitate the teacher’s lectures on the exam.”

I was refering to your METHODS, not the content of your regurgitation. When you simply repeat something out of context it is regurgitation. It would be regurgitation if I did the same with scientific facts. The point is the PROCESS.

And finally, Farhan, if we could agree to follow some generally accepted “rules of the road” conversationally, I think we can continue. But I am losing patience with your incessant use of straw men and non-sequiturs, with your parading your opinions as “research” and “evidence” incorrectly without any regard for what those terms mean, and without providing any back-up. It makes me question your good faith and it erodes the good will of people who ARE willing to engage with you. If this does not change, I am afraid this conversation will end.

Farhan-

As to your use of the term “handicap,” you say: “in the present context it is like in a race, and some run jumping over hurdles, and others run with no handicaps.” Well, yes. Women face OBSTACLES that are put in their path arbitrarily by society that men do not face. But a HANDICAP indicates that the obstacle to be “overcome” or accomodated is WITHIN the individual, and this is clearly not the case with women. The obstacle is within SOCIETY and the prejudiced minds of those who have not let patriarchy go. Do you describe any human being who faces obstacles as “handicapped?” For example, would Hercules be called “handicapped?” Would Baha’u'llah in the Siyah Chal?

You wrote, “I am disappointed that the tone is not one of mutual exchange and of offering ideas, but a dualistic « us » against « them »”

Yes, it must be very disapointing to have your ideas challenged. How shocking. I seem to recall ‘Abdu’l-Baha saying, “every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should any one oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.”

But what about this: “Cowboys vs Indians, feminists vs sexists, … the axis of evil?… what stressful lives you must all be living…” Who is fabricating that division here? Nobody, that’s who. Disagreeing with your views (and being willing to articulate that disagreement) is not the same thing as reductionist us versus them thinking. Straw man much?

Again, you previously wrote: “we have a lot of evidence saying that the role of mothers is specially important for the spiritual education of children is especially up to the age of 5.”

When I challenged you on this “evidence,” you changed your tune: “This is a general statement based on innumerable publications on the educational roles of fathers and mothers, which are obviously interchangeable to some extent.”

Well, then, if they are interchangable, this in no way supports your position that there is a “special” “spiritual” role for mothers exclusively during those years. It also calls into question why you brought up this “evidence” to support that view to begin with, as it doesn’t relate. Again, straw man?

You also say, “Scientific evidence is abundant as to the forming of the personality before 5 or 6.” No one is arguing that with you. You’re shifting the focus here. We were talking about mothers roles speciically, not whether or not children develop extensively before they are 5. Is this extraneous, another straw man, or were you going somewhere with this?

And as to those good old gender differences again, you wrote:
“Perhaps hormones are the answer to your question. There are interesting studies on treatment of gender ambiguities at birth when a gender is attributed to the person and hormones are prescribed to confirm that gender. Depending on hormone intake, sexual orientation, taste for clothing, and gender behaviours change.”

Yes, those studies are “interesting,” in that they have been completely discredited and are appalling:

Anne Fausto-Sterling, 2000: “Of Gender and Genitals, The Use and Abuse of the Modern Intersexual.” Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. NY: Basic Books.

You also wrote: “You gave me a long list of churches that are more advanced than the Baha’is in gender equality; why bother wanting to run a religion you have no consideration for?”

I don’t want to “run” the Baha’i Faith, or any other religion. (I don’t “believe in” religion, as you may recall.) I want all people, including women, to be allowed any office for which their individual MERIT qualifies them. I know it confuses you when I advocate for other peoples rights when my own rights are not directly at stake, but here I am doing it again. Just like I advocate for same-sex marriage. I have seen Baha’i women break down and CRY over this issue. I believe that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

You wrote: “Maybe you might wish to clarify: being elected to the UHJ, in your view is an honour, a privilege, a high merit, or servitude?”

You have inserted the word “merit” into this line of thought, when I used it elsewhere, so I will clarify. You said that I was discriminating based on gender by pointing out that women can’t be elected to the UHJ. I then responded by clarifying for you the definition of “discrimination,” that is, “to make an arbitrary and undue distinction NOT BASED ON MERIT.” That means one allows or disallows a person for something based on irrelevant criteria, rather than on the persons qualifications. For example, a black family not being allowed to join a public pool because of their skin color. (This was common where I grew up.) Not allowing women election to the UHJ is based on arbitrary, unfair criteria (their gender) and not the qualifications of the individual. That is discrimination. Please read the word “merit” as “qualifications.”

I believe that the UHJ is the supreme GOVERNING body of the Baha’i Faith, and I believe women should be able to hold office at any level of any system of governance. It is not about “honor” or “privilege,” it is about simple justice.

“Interesting that you should take offence in someone’s views. I accept views except when they convey hatred and conflict.”

That you do not SEE the woman-hating, or woman-denigrating of your views and why this applies is the worst part of all of this.

“What did you feel as a slap? The fact that I believe that we are equal, yet different? Complementary and yet able to function in harmony?”

That you would like to limit women’s access to every sphere of public life based simply on our gender. Slap.

“And you dug all that from my postings? Is that not prejudice?”

No, it’s taking the available EVIDENCE, what you write here, and forming a judgement about it. Prejudice is a priori judgement. You follow?

You wrote: “(The word regurgitate applied to someone else’s beliefs is offensive; didn’t your mum say that?)”

The word “regurgitate” means to “1. to surge or rush back, as liquids, gases, undigested food, etc. 2. to cause to surge or rush back; vomit. 3. to give back or repeat, esp. something not fully understood or assimilated: to regurgitate the teacher’s lectures on the exam.”

I was refering to your METHODS, not the content of your regurgitation. When you simply repeat something out of context it is regurgitation. It would be regurgitation if I did the same with scientific facts. The point is the PROCESS.

And finally, Farhan, if we could agree to follow some generally accepted “rules of the road” conversationally, I think we can continue. But I am losing patience with your incessant use of straw men and non-sequiturs, with your parading your opinions as “research” and “evidence” incorrectly without any regard for what those terms mean, and without providing any back-up. It makes me question your good faith and it erodes the good will of people who ARE willing to engage with you. If this does not change, I am afraid this conversation will end.

Farhan -

Yes the dialog is interesting and I do believe we can agree to disagree. You could not possibly see the side of a woman because you are a man and by the sounds of it, I am assuming you are a multi-generation Bahà’í, Iranian (?). Mastering the English language and understanding Western society is a journey. Maybe if the tables were turned you might see a different point of view, such as men are not “ invited” to serve on the UHJ and you must sit back and adhere to the Divine reasoning in this with an all women UHJ in charge of whether they’ll decide to “invite” you to join them someday.

What ever comes of invitations to serve in the Bahà’í Faith is quite frankly none of my business as I left. I am only one person and I can not change the spiral I see in your religion in the advent of the internet, where one can “key word” any phrase and read the entirety of what is published, approved or not, on just about any subject. Additionally I was raised in a western culture of thinking.

America played a HUGE role in the AO. As so did American / Canadian/ British women like Martha and many more if you would like to discuss them. Not to be insulting and realizing your mother and grandmother worked tirelessly in the caring for their husbands and families and teaching of the BF, they did not come from a society such as Martha had come from, the same society that produces other women like her to this day. I would bet odds, without disrespecting what they did do, your mother and grandmother did not go out and earn their way to teach the Faith on the global level Martha did as a single childless unmarried woman. Did your mother or grandmother cold call a Queen, set a meeting and close the deal? Did they tell Shoghi Effendi, or your own father or grand father – No, I’m going anyway and take off? Martha also traveled solo on much or her journey with or without orders. She took difficult passages over oceans and lands via ship, trains, planes and automobiles without a husband. During the last years of her life she accomplished this with breast cancer. If is it your mother and grandmother served at this capacity in the early expansion, please share their names for my study. Perhaps you may ponder what Tahirah would have thought about an all male UHJ, who is certainly a comparable heroine in her own way to Martha but alas and again the shame is that they both have already fallen in their dedicated tracks long before the Kitab-i-Aqdas was revealed…

Take it a step further and attempt to ponder what Bahíyyih Khánum would have to say about the BF today, the elimination of the Guardian and all male UHJ. She is the only recorded only female who surpasses all females in the BF. “Verily, We have elevated thee to the rank of one of the most distinguished among thy sex, and granted thee, in My court, a station such as none other woman hath surpassed.”

Bahíyyih Khánum factually ran the budding AO of the BF during Shoghi’s grief and made executive decisions on what was “good for humanity” and translations of her fathers words. I’d love to see you tell that woman she is “not invited” into any room.

Farhan -

Yes the dialog is interesting and I do believe we can agree to disagree. You could not possibly see the side of a woman because you are a man and by the sounds of it, I am assuming you are a multi-generation Bahà’í, Iranian (?). Mastering the English language and understanding Western society is a journey. Maybe if the tables were turned you might see a different point of view, such as men are not “ invited” to serve on the UHJ and you must sit back and adhere to the Divine reasoning in this with an all women UHJ in charge of whether they’ll decide to “invite” you to join them someday.

What ever comes of invitations to serve in the Bahà’í Faith is quite frankly none of my business as I left. I am only one person and I can not change the spiral I see in your religion in the advent of the internet, where one can “key word” any phrase and read the entirety of what is published, approved or not, on just about any subject. Additionally I was raised in a western culture of thinking.

America played a HUGE role in the AO. As so did American / Canadian/ British women like Martha and many more if you would like to discuss them. Not to be insulting and realizing your mother and grandmother worked tirelessly in the caring for their husbands and families and teaching of the BF, they did not come from a society such as Martha had come from, the same society that produces other women like her to this day. I would bet odds, without disrespecting what they did do, your mother and grandmother did not go out and earn their way to teach the Faith on the global level Martha did as a single childless unmarried woman. Did your mother or grandmother cold call a Queen, set a meeting and close the deal? Did they tell Shoghi Effendi, or your own father or grand father – No, I’m going anyway and take off? Martha also traveled solo on much or her journey with or without orders. She took difficult passages over oceans and lands via ship, trains, planes and automobiles without a husband. During the last years of her life she accomplished this with breast cancer. If is it your mother and grandmother served at this capacity in the early expansion, please share their names for my study. Perhaps you may ponder what Tahirah would have thought about an all male UHJ, who is certainly a comparable heroine in her own way to Martha but alas and again the shame is that they both have already fallen in their dedicated tracks long before the Kitab-i-Aqdas was revealed…

Take it a step further and attempt to ponder what Bahíyyih Khánum would have to say about the BF today, the elimination of the Guardian and all male UHJ. She is the only recorded only female who surpasses all females in the BF. “Verily, We have elevated thee to the rank of one of the most distinguished among thy sex, and granted thee, in My court, a station such as none other woman hath surpassed.”

Bahíyyih Khánum factually ran the budding AO of the BF during Shoghi’s grief and made executive decisions on what was “good for humanity” and translations of her fathers words. I’d love to see you tell that woman she is “not invited” into any room.

Farhan-
Amanda, you write :

The obstacle is within SOCIETY and the prejudiced minds of those who have not let patriarchy go.

Yes, obviously, a handicap can result from our own bio-psycho constitution, or be a result of a social dysfunction. In a society based on violence and force, men were advantaged and women disadvantaged. In a society where sensitivity and intelligence are now valued, women will be advantaged. In French Polynesia boys drop our of school and invest on their physical assets, girls develop intellectually. Then as married couples, the men realise that they were “cheated” by a misleading social image of the genders. They become resentful violent and resort to alcohol and drugs.

You wrote, “I am disappointed that the tone is not one of mutual exchange and of offering ideas, but a dualistic « us » against « them »”
Yes, it must be very disappointing to have your ideas challenged.

I am accustomed to a constant confrontation of ideas; the “us” vs “them” in not a confrontation of concepts or ideas. It is an emotional attack on the other person with judgmental and prejudiced misconceptions that are projected from the writer’s own emotional dysfunctions. This explains jeering, cynical expressions, sarcasm, calling names, in a context of exchange on internet where it is tempting to project and relieve tension. Virtual punching balls!

But what about this: “Cowboys vs Indians, feminists vs sexists, … the axis of evil?… what stressful lives you must all be living…”

I am again referring to emotional clashes and not the exposition of concepts and opinions. There is a fallacy, which supposes that if the “goodies” oppose the “baddies” we will arrive at a solution. This is not true. A solution will result from loving and honest exchanges. In some cases in fact, emotional disorders are an incitation to seek conflict and strife as an outlet, without addressing the emotional disorders themselves. When the intellectual covering is moved, the emotional disorders appear.

When I challenged you on this “evidence,” you changed your tune: “This is a general statement based on innumerable publications on the educational roles of fathers and mothers, which are obviously interchangeable to some extent.”

I am here to exchange ideas. I have nothing to prove and nothing to defend. When and if I find publications to offer I will do so. I don’t consider this exchange as a sort of a wrestling ring.

this in no way supports your position that there is a “special” “spiritual” role for mothers exclusively during those years.

I am giving you my experience, for whatever you might find it worth; if I find publications, I will share. You can research documentation yourself if you are seeking the truth. I am exchanging ideas, not writing a report to a court that will be dissected by the lawyers.

Again, straw man?

Is that an exchange or a judgmental expression?

We were talking about mothers roles speciically, not whether or not children develop extensively before they are 5. Is this extraneous, another straw man, or were you going somewhere with this?

What do you consider as a straw man?

I advance the idea that election to the UHJ is a burden and not an enviable position, that women are dispensed and not disallowed. I point out to the fact that education between 0 and 6 is essential to the personality of a child. My opinion is that the mother’s role is essential for the spiritual and emotional structure of a child: (perhaps related to the right hemisphere of the brain). This might be a reason for dispensing women. If I find publications, I will share.

Yes, those studies are “interesting,” in that they have been completely discredited and are appalling:

Yes, that might be the opinion Anne Fausto-Sterling which I have not read, , but not that of transsexuals who apply for gender change, a treatment that the UHJ submits to scientific opinion.

I want all people, including women, to be allowed any office for which their individual MERIT qualifies them.

Again, serving on Baha’I institution is not a “merit”, but a mission allocated on spiritual values, the list of which is defined by Shoghi Effendi for the electors casting ballots. The institutions call upon experts to help them in their decisions, amongs which we probably have more women than men.

I know it confuses you when I advocate for other peoples rights when my own rights are not directly at stake, but here I am doing it again.

I have been doing that all my life, including the defence of women’s rights; I am not at all confused, but vigilant when I see a cause of justice abused as a means of discrediting others instead of defending the victims.

For example, a black family not being allowed to join a public pool because of their skin color.

Again you use the concept of “allowed” where I understand the concept of “invited” into servitude. You are applying a concept of prejudice and discrimination that is present in our world to service within a Baha’I institution, which has a totally different purpose.

That you do not SEE the woman-hating, or woman-denigrating of your views and why this applies is the worst part of all of this.

This is your own arbitrary pre-judgment, and not that of people who know me.

That you would like to limit women’s access to every sphere of public life based simply on our gender. Slap.

What is the word “slap” doing here? Your violence or violence you project on me?

Farhan-
Amanda, you write :

The obstacle is within SOCIETY and the prejudiced minds of those who have not let patriarchy go.

Yes, obviously, a handicap can result from our own bio-psycho constitution, or be a result of a social dysfunction. In a society based on violence and force, men were advantaged and women disadvantaged. In a society where sensitivity and intelligence are now valued, women will be advantaged. In French Polynesia boys drop our of school and invest on their physical assets, girls develop intellectually. Then as married couples, the men realise that they were “cheated” by a misleading social image of the genders. They become resentful violent and resort to alcohol and drugs.

You wrote, “I am disappointed that the tone is not one of mutual exchange and of offering ideas, but a dualistic « us » against « them »”
Yes, it must be very disappointing to have your ideas challenged.

I am accustomed to a constant confrontation of ideas; the “us” vs “them” in not a confrontation of concepts or ideas. It is an emotional attack on the other person with judgmental and prejudiced misconceptions that are projected from the writer’s own emotional dysfunctions. This explains jeering, cynical expressions, sarcasm, calling names, in a context of exchange on internet where it is tempting to project and relieve tension. Virtual punching balls!

But what about this: “Cowboys vs Indians, feminists vs sexists, … the axis of evil?… what stressful lives you must all be living…”

I am again referring to emotional clashes and not the exposition of concepts and opinions. There is a fallacy, which supposes that if the “goodies” oppose the “baddies” we will arrive at a solution. This is not true. A solution will result from loving and honest exchanges. In some cases in fact, emotional disorders are an incitation to seek conflict and strife as an outlet, without addressing the emotional disorders themselves. When the intellectual covering is moved, the emotional disorders appear.

When I challenged you on this “evidence,” you changed your tune: “This is a general statement based on innumerable publications on the educational roles of fathers and mothers, which are obviously interchangeable to some extent.”

I am here to exchange ideas. I have nothing to prove and nothing to defend. When and if I find publications to offer I will do so. I don’t consider this exchange as a sort of a wrestling ring.

this in no way supports your position that there is a “special” “spiritual” role for mothers exclusively during those years.

I am giving you my experience, for whatever you might find it worth; if I find publications, I will share. You can research documentation yourself if you are seeking the truth. I am exchanging ideas, not writing a report to a court that will be dissected by the lawyers.

Again, straw man?

Is that an exchange or a judgmental expression?

We were talking about mothers roles speciically, not whether or not children develop extensively before they are 5. Is this extraneous, another straw man, or were you going somewhere with this?

What do you consider as a straw man?

I advance the idea that election to the UHJ is a burden and not an enviable position, that women are dispensed and not disallowed. I point out to the fact that education between 0 and 6 is essential to the personality of a child. My opinion is that the mother’s role is essential for the spiritual and emotional structure of a child: (perhaps related to the right hemisphere of the brain). This might be a reason for dispensing women. If I find publications, I will share.

Yes, those studies are “interesting,” in that they have been completely discredited and are appalling:

Yes, that might be the opinion Anne Fausto-Sterling which I have not read, , but not that of transsexuals who apply for gender change, a treatment that the UHJ submits to scientific opinion.

I want all people, including women, to be allowed any office for which their individual MERIT qualifies them.

Again, serving on Baha’I institution is not a “merit”, but a mission allocated on spiritual values, the list of which is defined by Shoghi Effendi for the electors casting ballots. The institutions call upon experts to help them in their decisions, amongs which we probably have more women than men.

I know it confuses you when I advocate for other peoples rights when my own rights are not directly at stake, but here I am doing it again.

I have been doing that all my life, including the defence of women’s rights; I am not at all confused, but vigilant when I see a cause of justice abused as a means of discrediting others instead of defending the victims.

For example, a black family not being allowed to join a public pool because of their skin color.

Again you use the concept of “allowed” where I understand the concept of “invited” into servitude. You are applying a concept of prejudice and discrimination that is present in our world to service within a Baha’I institution, which has a totally different purpose.

That you do not SEE the woman-hating, or woman-denigrating of your views and why this applies is the worst part of all of this.

This is your own arbitrary pre-judgment, and not that of people who know me.

That you would like to limit women’s access to every sphere of public life based simply on our gender. Slap.

What is the word “slap” doing here? Your violence or violence you project on me?

Farhan,

I am not going to repeat any points I have already made, but it is obvious you are literaly not understanding the English words and phrases I am using.

You wrote:
“Again, straw man?

Is that an exchange or a judgmental expression?”

A straw man argument is “an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.” (wikipedia)

You wrote:
“That you would like to limit women’s access to every sphere of public life based simply on our gender. Slap.

What is the word “slap” doing here? Your violence or violence you project on me?”

Farhan, that was in answer to YOUR question, where is the “slap in the face to women” in your beliefs? Seriously. What in the world are you thinking seeing that as violence towards you?

You also wrote:
“Again, serving on Baha’I institution is not a “merit”, but a mission allocated on spiritual values…”

Please look up the word merit in an English dictionary. You are missing its meaning, and missing my meaning.

You wrote:
“Yes, that might be the opinion Anne Fausto-Sterling which I have not read, , but not that of transsexuals who apply for gender change, a treatment that the UHJ submits to scientific opinion.”

BUT YOUR ARGUMENT was about INFANTS, not adults. You have changed your argument. This is exactly what I’m talking about. This is not a reasonable way to discuss anything.

And finally,
“It is an emotional attack on the other person with judgmental and prejudiced misconceptions that are projected from the writer’s own emotional dysfunctions. This explains jeering, cynical expressions, sarcasm, calling names, in a context of exchange on internet where it is tempting to project and relieve tension. Virtual punching balls! I am again referring to emotional clashes and not the exposition of concepts and opinions. There is a fallacy, which supposes that if the “goodies” oppose the “baddies” we will arrive at a solution. This is not true. A solution will result from loving and honest exchanges.”

I have never called you names, “jeered you” or using you as a punching bag. I have disagreeed with your ideas, and in my last 2 responses questioned your motives and methods. I have also not treated anyone as “goodies” or “badies.” I have simply disagreed with you. The fact that you characterize that disagreement as attack is a fabrication. There is nothing unloving or dishonest in disagreement.

“In some cases in fact, emotional disorders are an incitation to seek conflict and strife as an outlet, without addressing the emotional disorders themselves. When the intellectual covering is moved, the emotional disorders appear…I am not at all confused, but vigilant when I see a cause of justice abused as a means of discrediting others instead of defending the victims.”

This is below the belt and unworthy of response. Ironically, it is exactly what you have accused me of doing.

Enough.

Farhan,

I am not going to repeat any points I have already made, but it is obvious you are literaly not understanding the English words and phrases I am using.

You wrote:
“Again, straw man?

Is that an exchange or a judgmental expression?”

A straw man argument is “an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position). A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent’s actual argument has not been refuted.” (wikipedia)

You wrote:
“That you would like to limit women’s access to every sphere of public life based simply on our gender. Slap.

What is the word “slap” doing here? Your violence or violence you project on me?”

Farhan, that was in answer to YOUR question, where is the “slap in the face to women” in your beliefs? Seriously. What in the world are you thinking seeing that as violence towards you?

You also wrote:
“Again, serving on Baha’I institution is not a “merit”, but a mission allocated on spiritual values…”

Please look up the word merit in an English dictionary. You are missing its meaning, and missing my meaning.

You wrote:
“Yes, that might be the opinion Anne Fausto-Sterling which I have not read, , but not that of transsexuals who apply for gender change, a treatment that the UHJ submits to scientific opinion.”

BUT YOUR ARGUMENT was about INFANTS, not adults. You have changed your argument. This is exactly what I’m talking about. This is not a reasonable way to discuss anything.

And finally,
“It is an emotional attack on the other person with judgmental and prejudiced misconceptions that are projected from the writer’s own emotional dysfunctions. This explains jeering, cynical expressions, sarcasm, calling names, in a context of exchange on internet where it is tempting to project and relieve tension. Virtual punching balls! I am again referring to emotional clashes and not the exposition of concepts and opinions. There is a fallacy, which supposes that if the “goodies” oppose the “baddies” we will arrive at a solution. This is not true. A solution will result from loving and honest exchanges.”

I have never called you names, “jeered you” or using you as a punching bag. I have disagreeed with your ideas, and in my last 2 responses questioned your motives and methods. I have also not treated anyone as “goodies” or “badies.” I have simply disagreed with you. The fact that you characterize that disagreement as attack is a fabrication. There is nothing unloving or dishonest in disagreement.

“In some cases in fact, emotional disorders are an incitation to seek conflict and strife as an outlet, without addressing the emotional disorders themselves. When the intellectual covering is moved, the emotional disorders appear…I am not at all confused, but vigilant when I see a cause of justice abused as a means of discrediting others instead of defending the victims.”

This is below the belt and unworthy of response. Ironically, it is exactly what you have accused me of doing.

Enough.

Bird out of the Cage,

you write:
“Mastering the English language and understanding Western society is a journey. ”

I have been under Western education for the last 56 years and would say that mastering Eastern minds is a journey to me.

you write:
“sit back and adhere to the Divine reasoning in this with an all women UHJ in charge of whether they’ll decide to “invite” you to join them someday.”

I fully understand and respect this view from a non-Baha’i. From the view point of a Baha’i who accepts that the UHJ is divinely ordained and guided, as I do, the point is not to see whether they are wrong or right, but to see what wisdom can be behind that decision.

You write:
“Not to be insulting and realizing your mother and grandmother worked tirelessly in the caring for their husbands and families and teaching of the BF, they did not come from a society such as Martha had come from,…”

Bird, i am not offended at being contradicted ; what I am pointing out to is that elementary Internet ethics call for exchange of ideas without making presumptions and holding pre-judgments on people’s person. Saying I strongly disagree is fine ; saying that you are a « so and so » is not.

Both my mother and grandmother were feminists, and in no way the type of the Eastern women you would imagine. My father had to learn what the new man’s role was, and i knew from childhood. One of my grandmother’s best friends was the minister of education in Iran and publicly hung for refusing to instate the law of Chador in schools. My wife enjoys a very high social position. I am fully concerned of the outcome of my three daughters and two grand daughters.

you write:
“…your mother and grandmother did not go out and earn their way to teach the Faith on the global level Martha did as a single childless unmarried woman.”

You are right.

You write:
“Perhaps you may ponder what Tahirah would have thought about an all male UHJ, who is certainly a comparable heroine in her own way to Martha but alas and again the shame is that they both have already fallen in their dedicated tracks long before the Kitab-i-Aqdas was revealed…”

Bird, i dont know what these heroines would have done ; did they accept the Faith because at that time it was far in advance on other religions as regards to women’s rights, or did they accept the new outlook on women’s rights because they accepted the Faith and this law was part of it ? What we do know is that millions of women consider the Charia as good for them, and even uphold genital mutilation. Opposing these practices in France in the 1980’s , we were confronted by women associations who were accusing us of racial and cultural discrimination for having criticized FGM.

you write:
“Take it a step further and attempt to ponder what Bahíyyih Khánum would have to say about the BF today, the elimination of the Guardian and all male UHJ.”

Well this would be an interesting path of research. Perhaps we could also invite all women involved in the AO to give their views about not being invited as members to serve on the UHJ.

I would believe that Bahiyyih Khanum would say that we have to remain firm in the covenant and see what surprises God has in store for us. She would probably say that the guardianship was a temporary step pending the election of the UHJ which Abdu’l-baha had attempted to instate during his own life time. Ruhiyyih Khanum was revered by the members of the UHJ.

You write:
“She is the only recorded only female who surpasses all females in the BF. “Verily, We have elevated thee to the rank of one of the most distinguished among thy sex, and granted thee, in My court, a station such as none other woman hath surpassed.”

My guess would be that just like Abdu’l-baha She would say :

“All must obey the Universal House of justice. Obedience to it is obedience to the Cause. Opposition to it is opposition to the Blessed Beauty. Denial of it is denial of God, the True One. Renouncing any word of the House of Justice is like unto the renunciation of a word from the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Observe, how important this matter is! The Blessed Beauty has ordained the House of justice as the law-maker. If the votes of the members are not unanimous and there are differences of views, then the vote of the majority is the vote of the Blessed Beauty.”

“He then added: “Take this very moment. Should the Universal House of justice be operating, by the one True God, beside Whom there is no God, I would have been the first to obey its decree, even if it should be against me. It is true that that Body does not possess inherent infallibility, but it is under the shadow of the protection and shelter of the Blessed Beauty. Its command is the Blessed Command. Discuss this matter amongst yourselves, so that it may not be forgotten. Speak of it to one another; even, make a written note of it.”(…)

One night, when He spoke on this subject again He said, “If the House of justice had been operating in this day and pronounced my death sentence, all would have to obey.”
The late Muhammad Riday-i-Qannad was disturbed at this statement by the Master, and he asked, “Is the House of Justice of God, or is it not?” “Of course it is,” replied the Master. “How then is it possible for that which is of God to condemn He Who is of God?” asked he. “My object”, ‘Abdu’l-Baha replied, “is that you may know that on that day the House of justice is the true one of God, for the Blessed Beauty has ordained it to be the law-maker.” (Afroukhteh, Memoires of 9 years in Akka, p 169-172)

Bird out of the Cage,

you write:
“Mastering the English language and understanding Western society is a journey. ”

I have been under Western education for the last 56 years and would say that mastering Eastern minds is a journey to me.

you write:
“sit back and adhere to the Divine reasoning in this with an all women UHJ in charge of whether they’ll decide to “invite” you to join them someday.”

I fully understand and respect this view from a non-Baha’i. From the view point of a Baha’i who accepts that the UHJ is divinely ordained and guided, as I do, the point is not to see whether they are wrong or right, but to see what wisdom can be behind that decision.

You write:
“Not to be insulting and realizing your mother and grandmother worked tirelessly in the caring for their husbands and families and teaching of the BF, they did not come from a society such as Martha had come from,…”

Bird, i am not offended at being contradicted ; what I am pointing out to is that elementary Internet ethics call for exchange of ideas without making presumptions and holding pre-judgments on people’s person. Saying I strongly disagree is fine ; saying that you are a « so and so » is not.

Both my mother and grandmother were feminists, and in no way the type of the Eastern women you would imagine. My father had to learn what the new man’s role was, and i knew from childhood. One of my grandmother’s best friends was the minister of education in Iran and publicly hung for refusing to instate the law of Chador in schools. My wife enjoys a very high social position. I am fully concerned of the outcome of my three daughters and two grand daughters.

you write:
“…your mother and grandmother did not go out and earn their way to teach the Faith on the global level Martha did as a single childless unmarried woman.”

You are right.

You write:
“Perhaps you may ponder what Tahirah would have thought about an all male UHJ, who is certainly a comparable heroine in her own way to Martha but alas and again the shame is that they both have already fallen in their dedicated tracks long before the Kitab-i-Aqdas was revealed…”

Bird, i dont know what these heroines would have done ; did they accept the Faith because at that time it was far in advance on other religions as regards to women’s rights, or did they accept the new outlook on women’s rights because they accepted the Faith and this law was part of it ? What we do know is that millions of women consider the Charia as good for them, and even uphold genital mutilation. Opposing these practices in France in the 1980’s , we were confronted by women associations who were accusing us of racial and cultural discrimination for having criticized FGM.

you write:
“Take it a step further and attempt to ponder what Bahíyyih Khánum would have to say about the BF today, the elimination of the Guardian and all male UHJ.”

Well this would be an interesting path of research. Perhaps we could also invite all women involved in the AO to give their views about not being invited as members to serve on the UHJ.

I would believe that Bahiyyih Khanum would say that we have to remain firm in the covenant and see what surprises God has in store for us. She would probably say that the guardianship was a temporary step pending the election of the UHJ which Abdu’l-baha had attempted to instate during his own life time. Ruhiyyih Khanum was revered by the members of the UHJ.

You write:
“She is the only recorded only female who surpasses all females in the BF. “Verily, We have elevated thee to the rank of one of the most distinguished among thy sex, and granted thee, in My court, a station such as none other woman hath surpassed.”

My guess would be that just like Abdu’l-baha She would say :

“All must obey the Universal House of justice. Obedience to it is obedience to the Cause. Opposition to it is opposition to the Blessed Beauty. Denial of it is denial of God, the True One. Renouncing any word of the House of Justice is like unto the renunciation of a word from the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Observe, how important this matter is! The Blessed Beauty has ordained the House of justice as the law-maker. If the votes of the members are not unanimous and there are differences of views, then the vote of the majority is the vote of the Blessed Beauty.”

“He then added: “Take this very moment. Should the Universal House of justice be operating, by the one True God, beside Whom there is no God, I would have been the first to obey its decree, even if it should be against me. It is true that that Body does not possess inherent infallibility, but it is under the shadow of the protection and shelter of the Blessed Beauty. Its command is the Blessed Command. Discuss this matter amongst yourselves, so that it may not be forgotten. Speak of it to one another; even, make a written note of it.”(…)

One night, when He spoke on this subject again He said, “If the House of justice had been operating in this day and pronounced my death sentence, all would have to obey.”
The late Muhammad Riday-i-Qannad was disturbed at this statement by the Master, and he asked, “Is the House of Justice of God, or is it not?” “Of course it is,” replied the Master. “How then is it possible for that which is of God to condemn He Who is of God?” asked he. “My object”, ‘Abdu’l-Baha replied, “is that you may know that on that day the House of justice is the true one of God, for the Blessed Beauty has ordained it to be the law-maker.” (Afroukhteh, Memoires of 9 years in Akka, p 169-172)

Amanda wrote :
« BUT YOUR ARGUMENT was about INFANTS, not adults. You have changed your argument. This is exactly what I’m talking about. This is not a reasonable way to discuss anything. »

Amanda, I see that you are not getting my point.
What I am trying to say is that what people claim as a right in a society is not always what is best for them. But who has the right to decide and on what basis ? To live together we need a common reference which does not always comply with everyones wishes.

Baha’i s believe that the revelation of God provides standards or rules for all humanity, and that these rules change from age to age and can be updated by the UHJ, and that we have to offer these teachings and be patient in trying to change things, as it takes time for humanity to progressively advance towards the ideals set out in Baha’i teachings. Humanity can accept or reject these rules
You reject the idea of revelation, and I fully respect your choice.

What I am trying to ask you, is on what basis do you feel that you can intervene in other communities and tell them that their laws are not good for them ? Are you sure if we polled amongst Baha’i women there would be a majority wishing to be elected to serve on UHJ ?

If you and I are appalled about gender discrimination, inceste and use of children as sex slaves, it is because we have been brought up in a cultural system that has abolished such practices on a moral basis.

Many populations actually resent the interference of Westerners in their traditions. If you travel to some countries and actually discuss with the populations, you will be surprised to see that your opinions as a Westerner are not necessatily accepted as being the best for them. Some of the practices that shock us are traditional values that actually hold these societies together. Millions of women actually favorable to the charia laws and consider FGM as good for them, non excised Westerners being regarded as « impure ».

In New Caledonia traditionnal societies systematically take away children from mothers and offers them as gifts to others. Women who refuse to offer their children are forced to flee. Do you think it is easy to oppose this practice by saying that it is against Western standards ? In Australia the Aborigial children died of disease and were not educated. Some argued that the native populations had to left to their « natural » traditions in reserves. The gvt thought that according to Western standards these children had to be taken away and adopted by Western families « for their own good ». This decision turned out to have other very serious outcomes.

In the struggle towards women’s vote in Switzerland some women’s associations were actually active against women’s vote. On what basis can we intervene from outside and say the rules adopted by a social group are wrong ?

On what basis do we have the right/duty to intervene in other communities and tell them what is good or bad for them ? As a Baha’i I say that we offer hem the spiritual laws and allow them to adapt and organise their societies at their own pace. What do you suggest ?

Amanda wrote :
« BUT YOUR ARGUMENT was about INFANTS, not adults. You have changed your argument. This is exactly what I’m talking about. This is not a reasonable way to discuss anything. »

Amanda, I see that you are not getting my point.
What I am trying to say is that what people claim as a right in a society is not always what is best for them. But who has the right to decide and on what basis ? To live together we need a common reference which does not always comply with everyones wishes.

Baha’i s believe that the revelation of God provides standards or rules for all humanity, and that these rules change from age to age and can be updated by the UHJ, and that we have to offer these teachings and be patient in trying to change things, as it takes time for humanity to progressively advance towards the ideals set out in Baha’i teachings. Humanity can accept or reject these rules
You reject the idea of revelation, and I fully respect your choice.

What I am trying to ask you, is on what basis do you feel that you can intervene in other communities and tell them that their laws are not good for them ? Are you sure if we polled amongst Baha’i women there would be a majority wishing to be elected to serve on UHJ ?

If you and I are appalled about gender discrimination, inceste and use of children as sex slaves, it is because we have been brought up in a cultural system that has abolished such practices on a moral basis.

Many populations actually resent the interference of Westerners in their traditions. If you travel to some countries and actually discuss with the populations, you will be surprised to see that your opinions as a Westerner are not necessatily accepted as being the best for them. Some of the practices that shock us are traditional values that actually hold these societies together. Millions of women actually favorable to the charia laws and consider FGM as good for them, non excised Westerners being regarded as « impure ».

In New Caledonia traditionnal societies systematically take away children from mothers and offers them as gifts to others. Women who refuse to offer their children are forced to flee. Do you think it is easy to oppose this practice by saying that it is against Western standards ? In Australia the Aborigial children died of disease and were not educated. Some argued that the native populations had to left to their « natural » traditions in reserves. The gvt thought that according to Western standards these children had to be taken away and adopted by Western families « for their own good ». This decision turned out to have other very serious outcomes.

In the struggle towards women’s vote in Switzerland some women’s associations were actually active against women’s vote. On what basis can we intervene from outside and say the rules adopted by a social group are wrong ?

On what basis do we have the right/duty to intervene in other communities and tell them what is good or bad for them ? As a Baha’i I say that we offer hem the spiritual laws and allow them to adapt and organise their societies at their own pace. What do you suggest ?

Farhan,

I’m only going to address one of your points because I think each of the others has been amply addressed already, and I’m not interested in just repeating the same thing over and over again.

I will address the following question/statement:

“What I am trying to ask you, is on what basis do you feel that you can intervene in other communities and tell them that their laws are not good for them ?…Many populations actually resent the interference of Westerners in their traditions.”

I think this is yet another way to try to discredit my opinion by labeling me as an “outsider.” I think that’s ALL it is. I think it has NO SUBSTANCE as a claim or a question. 1) You assume alot about my ethnic heritage without knowing me. 2) What if I still had a valid Baha’i ID number…would my “Western-ness” still be cause to discredit my opinions about the Baha’i Faith? Or does that only come into play when I disagree with you? 3) I have spent the better part of my life as a Baha’i in the Baha’i community and still have a preponderance of friends and family who are Baha’is. My opinion IS an “insiders” opinion, whether you agree with it or not. I am speaking to the tradition I was raised in…it’s not “interference” in someone else’s tradition. 4) The UHJ has a charter to guide/lead ALL OF HUMANITY, including through the progressive application of LAWS. I am a member of that humanity, and therefore have every right to chafe at the injustices in a body that claims to be working on my behalf. 5) “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” 6) I agree with Sam Harris that to morally identify only with a segment of humanity, rather than the whole of humanity is IMMORAL. 7) I am a woman, and citizenship to that group crosses all national, racial, political, and religious boundaries. PERHAPS, as a MAN, you might consider how your “outsiders don’t have a right to an opinion” argument might reflect back on YOU as you advocate for maintaining the disenfranchisement of Baha’i WOMEN. If your argument made any sense, which it doesn’t, wouldn’t YOU have no right to an opinion on a matter impacting women?

Thanks.
Amanda

Farhan,

I’m only going to address one of your points because I think each of the others has been amply addressed already, and I’m not interested in just repeating the same thing over and over again.

I will address the following question/statement:

“What I am trying to ask you, is on what basis do you feel that you can intervene in other communities and tell them that their laws are not good for them ?…Many populations actually resent the interference of Westerners in their traditions.”

I think this is yet another way to try to discredit my opinion by labeling me as an “outsider.” I think that’s ALL it is. I think it has NO SUBSTANCE as a claim or a question. 1) You assume alot about my ethnic heritage without knowing me. 2) What if I still had a valid Baha’i ID number…would my “Western-ness” still be cause to discredit my opinions about the Baha’i Faith? Or does that only come into play when I disagree with you? 3) I have spent the better part of my life as a Baha’i in the Baha’i community and still have a preponderance of friends and family who are Baha’is. My opinion IS an “insiders” opinion, whether you agree with it or not. I am speaking to the tradition I was raised in…it’s not “interference” in someone else’s tradition. 4) The UHJ has a charter to guide/lead ALL OF HUMANITY, including through the progressive application of LAWS. I am a member of that humanity, and therefore have every right to chafe at the injustices in a body that claims to be working on my behalf. 5) “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” 6) I agree with Sam Harris that to morally identify only with a segment of humanity, rather than the whole of humanity is IMMORAL. 7) I am a woman, and citizenship to that group crosses all national, racial, political, and religious boundaries. PERHAPS, as a MAN, you might consider how your “outsiders don’t have a right to an opinion” argument might reflect back on YOU as you advocate for maintaining the disenfranchisement of Baha’i WOMEN. If your argument made any sense, which it doesn’t, wouldn’t YOU have no right to an opinion on a matter impacting women?

Thanks.
Amanda

[quote post="4"]I will address the following question/statement:

“What I am trying to ask you, is on what basis do you feel that you can intervene in other communities and tell them that their laws are not good for them ?…Many populations actually resent the interference of Westerners in their traditions.”

I think this is yet another way to try to discredit my opinion by labeling me as an “outsider.”[/quote]
Hi Amanda,

I actually interpret Farhan’s point differently. I think he is making the general argument from cultural relativism, rather than the specific argument that a non-Bahá’í should not criticize Bahá’í laws. That is, I think he is saying that people do not have a right to criticize across cultures, but only within their own culture, because cross culture criticism somehow smacks of cultural superiority. Who are we to say what is right for some other people? We don’t know their situation or their local exigences. What is right for you may not be right for another. That, I think, is the gist of his complaint.

Of course, Farhan will no doubt readily contradict this maxim when it is convenient for him, for example, when he sees it fit to criticize America for its over-emphasis on sexuality, or Iran for its persecution of Bahá’ís, or China for its lack of spirituality, etc.

He will contradict himself, not because he is a hypocrite, but because he does not subject his arguments to any kind of self-criticism. He doesn’t check to see if his beliefs are in agreement with each other — he just believes what the Bahá’í Faith teaches, and he will defend it with any argument that is available to him, irrespective of whether he contradicts his earlier argument with another newer argument. This is, in sum, the depth of intellectual dishonesty that we are supposed to deal with…

[quote post="4"]I will address the following question/statement:

“What I am trying to ask you, is on what basis do you feel that you can intervene in other communities and tell them that their laws are not good for them ?…Many populations actually resent the interference of Westerners in their traditions.”

I think this is yet another way to try to discredit my opinion by labeling me as an “outsider.”[/quote]
Hi Amanda,

I actually interpret Farhan’s point differently. I think he is making the general argument from cultural relativism, rather than the specific argument that a non-Bahá’í should not criticize Bahá’í laws. That is, I think he is saying that people do not have a right to criticize across cultures, but only within their own culture, because cross culture criticism somehow smacks of cultural superiority. Who are we to say what is right for some other people? We don’t know their situation or their local exigences. What is right for you may not be right for another. That, I think, is the gist of his complaint.

Of course, Farhan will no doubt readily contradict this maxim when it is convenient for him, for example, when he sees it fit to criticize America for its over-emphasis on sexuality, or Iran for its persecution of Bahá’ís, or China for its lack of spirituality, etc.

He will contradict himself, not because he is a hypocrite, but because he does not subject his arguments to any kind of self-criticism. He doesn’t check to see if his beliefs are in agreement with each other — he just believes what the Bahá’í Faith teaches, and he will defend it with any argument that is available to him, irrespective of whether he contradicts his earlier argument with another newer argument. This is, in sum, the depth of intellectual dishonesty that we are supposed to deal with…

Hello, Mavaddat.

You’re right.

This part is especially clear:
“he just believes what the Bahá’í Faith teaches, and he will defend it with any argument that is available to him, irrespective of whether he contradicts his earlier argument with another newer argument. This is, in sum, the depth of intellectual dishonesty that we are supposed to deal with…”

It is especially frustrating to counter this particular “argument” of cultural relativism when the Baha’i Faith (and it’s institutions) claim to speak for, and provide for “all of humankind.” They can’t have it both ways.

And of course, the next inconsistent spoke on the wheel of apologetics is to switch positions and assert that Baha’i institutions are “primarly responsible to that [Divine] will, not to the constituency which elected them.” So, they can do whatever they want, and no people on the earth have a right to disagree with or oppose them, outside or inside the Faith.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Amanda

Hello, Mavaddat.

You’re right.

This part is especially clear:
“he just believes what the Bahá’í Faith teaches, and he will defend it with any argument that is available to him, irrespective of whether he contradicts his earlier argument with another newer argument. This is, in sum, the depth of intellectual dishonesty that we are supposed to deal with…”

It is especially frustrating to counter this particular “argument” of cultural relativism when the Baha’i Faith (and it’s institutions) claim to speak for, and provide for “all of humankind.” They can’t have it both ways.

And of course, the next inconsistent spoke on the wheel of apologetics is to switch positions and assert that Baha’i institutions are “primarly responsible to that [Divine] will, not to the constituency which elected them.” So, they can do whatever they want, and no people on the earth have a right to disagree with or oppose them, outside or inside the Faith.

Thanks for your thoughts,
Amanda

Amanda,

you write:
“I think this is yet another way to try to discredit my opinion by labeling me as an “outsider.” I think that’s ALL it is.”

I am sorry that you feel I am here just to persecute you. This is not the case. I have some 20 years of expeience exchanging on internet. Addressing opinions is enriching, presumtion on what people are, trying to judge what they want to do is abortive. Most often we are projecting our own emotions.

As you see, I am interested in what people express and believe, what they live, and specially what handicaps they have weathered in their spiritual paths.

This injunction of Shoghi Effendi is important to me:

To strive to obtain a more adequate understanding of the significance of Baha’u'llah’s stupendous Revelation must … remain the first obligation and the object of the constant endeavour of each one of its loyal adherents.
Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha’u'llah, p 100

Amanda,

you write:
“I think this is yet another way to try to discredit my opinion by labeling me as an “outsider.” I think that’s ALL it is.”

I am sorry that you feel I am here just to persecute you. This is not the case. I have some 20 years of expeience exchanging on internet. Addressing opinions is enriching, presumtion on what people are, trying to judge what they want to do is abortive. Most often we are projecting our own emotions.

As you see, I am interested in what people express and believe, what they live, and specially what handicaps they have weathered in their spiritual paths.

This injunction of Shoghi Effendi is important to me:

To strive to obtain a more adequate understanding of the significance of Baha’u'llah’s stupendous Revelation must … remain the first obligation and the object of the constant endeavour of each one of its loyal adherents.
Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha’u'llah, p 100

Mavaddat,
Thanks for explaining my point perfectly.

This is a major question to me after having lived with populations in developping countries. You have correctly addressed my opinions.

You also write:
“This is, in sum, the depth of intellectual dishonesty that we are supposed to deal with…[/quote]”

Well here I disagree with your diagnosis. In French we call that a “procès d’intention” You are wrongly presuming my sentiments and intentions here. You are again misjudging me, and this is a projection of your own sentiments and intents.

I have nothing to prove to anyone here. Hearing what obstacles you have had to overcome in your spiritual experience, whether by the immature behaviours of fellow Baha’is or of imperfect institutions, your understanding of the writings you are well versed in is precious to me. I have no mandate to save your soul or to prove anything to any one here.

The ideas I read here sometimes confirm mine, sometimes challenge them, obliging me to further research, and for this I am thankful to Baquia.

Mavaddat,
Thanks for explaining my point perfectly.

This is a major question to me after having lived with populations in developping countries. You have correctly addressed my opinions.

You also write:
“This is, in sum, the depth of intellectual dishonesty that we are supposed to deal with…[/quote]”

Well here I disagree with your diagnosis. In French we call that a “procès d’intention” You are wrongly presuming my sentiments and intentions here. You are again misjudging me, and this is a projection of your own sentiments and intents.

I have nothing to prove to anyone here. Hearing what obstacles you have had to overcome in your spiritual experience, whether by the immature behaviours of fellow Baha’is or of imperfect institutions, your understanding of the writings you are well versed in is precious to me. I have no mandate to save your soul or to prove anything to any one here.

The ideas I read here sometimes confirm mine, sometimes challenge them, obliging me to further research, and for this I am thankful to Baquia.

[quote post="4"]I am sorry that you feel I am here just to persecute you. This is not the case. I have some 20 years of expeience [sic] exchanging on internet.[/quote]
What in the Valley of Wonderment are you talking about, Farhan?! Persecute? Who said anything about being persecuted? Did you even read what she wrote? Seriously man, take a second to think. Think! You told her she doesn’t have a right to comment on other people’s condemnation homosexuality. She is saying she does have a right. She never anywhere said she was being persecuted. Seriously, Farhan. How could you become a doctor without thinking? Is medicine really nothing more than memorization?

And what’s this about 20 years on the Internet? Even if you had been around that long (the Internet did not have a public face until 1992 at the earliest), that doesn’t at all mean you have been communicating effectively. For all we know, you’ve been driving people insane with your inchoate meandering thoughts for almost two decades!

It is clear, in any case, that you cannot keep a straight argument on this forum (or any other that I have seen you on). You never stay on topic, you always misinterpret, forget or ignore counter arguments, and you always repeat the same argument over-and-over again even after it has been killed, cooked, and served to you for dinner night after night.

It’s getting old, Farhan. Time for you to retire, my man. “20 years on the Internet” was enough.

[quote post="4"]I am sorry that you feel I am here just to persecute you. This is not the case. I have some 20 years of expeience [sic] exchanging on internet.[/quote]
What in the Valley of Wonderment are you talking about, Farhan?! Persecute? Who said anything about being persecuted? Did you even read what she wrote? Seriously man, take a second to think. Think! You told her she doesn’t have a right to comment on other people’s condemnation homosexuality. She is saying she does have a right. She never anywhere said she was being persecuted. Seriously, Farhan. How could you become a doctor without thinking? Is medicine really nothing more than memorization?

And what’s this about 20 years on the Internet? Even if you had been around that long (the Internet did not have a public face until 1992 at the earliest), that doesn’t at all mean you have been communicating effectively. For all we know, you’ve been driving people insane with your inchoate meandering thoughts for almost two decades!

It is clear, in any case, that you cannot keep a straight argument on this forum (or any other that I have seen you on). You never stay on topic, you always misinterpret, forget or ignore counter arguments, and you always repeat the same argument over-and-over again even after it has been killed, cooked, and served to you for dinner night after night.

It’s getting old, Farhan. Time for you to retire, my man. “20 years on the Internet” was enough.

Amanda,
you quote Mavaddat saying:
“It is especially frustrating to counter this particular “argument” of cultural relativism when the Baha’i Faith (and it’s institutions) claim to speak for, and provide for “all of humankind.” They can’t have it both ways.”

“They” cant have it both ways defines a clash between two groups, and nt between opinions.

As a Baha’i I offer whatever I sincerely feel is precious to humanity. It is up to the hearer to accept or to reject. If they accept we will work together, if not, they do things their way and I my way and in time we will compare results and see who had the best idea.

There is no “us” vs “them” issue. The Baha’is offer a concept of spiritual life that guides the physical one. This idea appeals to a minority of people who are attempting to put it into practice. If it works, others will be tempted to adopt these ideas, ans perhaps in a few centuries, even states will adopt the ideas. If not these ideas will disappear and whatever suggestions others are putting forth will prevail. This is Pascal’s bet.

Amanda,
you quote Mavaddat saying:
“It is especially frustrating to counter this particular “argument” of cultural relativism when the Baha’i Faith (and it’s institutions) claim to speak for, and provide for “all of humankind.” They can’t have it both ways.”

“They” cant have it both ways defines a clash between two groups, and nt between opinions.

As a Baha’i I offer whatever I sincerely feel is precious to humanity. It is up to the hearer to accept or to reject. If they accept we will work together, if not, they do things their way and I my way and in time we will compare results and see who had the best idea.

There is no “us” vs “them” issue. The Baha’is offer a concept of spiritual life that guides the physical one. This idea appeals to a minority of people who are attempting to put it into practice. If it works, others will be tempted to adopt these ideas, ans perhaps in a few centuries, even states will adopt the ideas. If not these ideas will disappear and whatever suggestions others are putting forth will prevail. This is Pascal’s bet.

I wonder if you folks sleep? I think we need a new topic. This one is ready for bed. LOL

Bird

I wonder if you folks sleep? I think we need a new topic. This one is ready for bed. LOL

Bird

[quote post="4"]Mavaddat,
Thanks for explaining my point perfectly.[/quote]
*Smacks forehead*

Hey Farhan, I found this video of you as a Black Knight on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

[quote post="4"]Mavaddat,
Thanks for explaining my point perfectly.[/quote]
*Smacks forehead*

Hey Farhan, I found this video of you as a Black Knight on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

Mavaddat-

Pretty funny and so appropriate for the topic…

Mavaddat-

Pretty funny and so appropriate for the topic…

On gender violence in Tahiti, here is a new book by a collegue of mine on how a traditionally gender violent society has been labelled as a matriarchal society:

Dr Patrick Cerf
“La domination des femmes à Tahiti.
Des violences envers les femmes au discours du matriarcat”
editor: Au Vent des Îles

On gender violence in Tahiti, here is a new book by a collegue of mine on how a traditionally gender violent society has been labelled as a matriarchal society:

Dr Patrick Cerf
“La domination des femmes à Tahiti.
Des violences envers les femmes au discours du matriarcat”
editor: Au Vent des Îles

Mavaddat, when Amanda feels that my comments only aim at: “ yet another way to try to discredit my opinion by labeling me as an “outsider.” I think that’s ALL it is.”

This means that she feels my presence here only to “discredit her ideas and label her as an outcast”. I call this feeling persecuted by me. My aim was to discuss on what basis a society decides what is right or wrong: on what people want, or on the basis of “what is good for them”, and in that case, who can decide what is good for us? I didnt see the issue of homosexuality anywhere in the debate.

You write:
“(the Internet did not have a public face until 1992 at the earliest)”

I started E Mail on Compuserve in 1987 or 1988 and listserver discussions in Ethics around 1990, before the WWW started.

I am pointing out to the fact that useful exchanges are on ideas and not on how we judge people who hold those ideas. Calling each other names or presuming what people might be is often unfounded and a simple projection of our own emotions, as very often we know little about our correspondants.

Mavaddat, when Amanda feels that my comments only aim at: “ yet another way to try to discredit my opinion by labeling me as an “outsider.” I think that’s ALL it is.”

This means that she feels my presence here only to “discredit her ideas and label her as an outcast”. I call this feeling persecuted by me. My aim was to discuss on what basis a society decides what is right or wrong: on what people want, or on the basis of “what is good for them”, and in that case, who can decide what is good for us? I didnt see the issue of homosexuality anywhere in the debate.

You write:
“(the Internet did not have a public face until 1992 at the earliest)”

I started E Mail on Compuserve in 1987 or 1988 and listserver discussions in Ethics around 1990, before the WWW started.

I am pointing out to the fact that useful exchanges are on ideas and not on how we judge people who hold those ideas. Calling each other names or presuming what people might be is often unfounded and a simple projection of our own emotions, as very often we know little about our correspondants.

Remember Mildred Mottahedeh…a famed baha’i from New York?
She was a great friend of mine.
When I “came out” to her in the early 1990s, she confided something precious to me.
She had been a witness at the wedding of Shoghi Rabbani and Mary Maxwell. She remained a close friend of the first Guardian’s widow til her death.
Mildred wanted me to know that I was not struggling alone: That Shoghi Effendi was also a Homosexual, as was Ruhiyyih. They married so that they wouldn’t act out their real feelings. They NEVER consummated the marriage. That’s why they had no children, even though ‘Abdul Baha’s Will made it imperative that the first Guardian appoint the second.

Because Shoghi was himself homosexual, and hated himself for it, he wrote so strongly against it, even though Baha’u'llah never mentioned homosexuality. (He DID mention Paederasty!)

Remember Mildred Mottahedeh…a famed baha’i from New York?
She was a great friend of mine.
When I “came out” to her in the early 1990s, she confided something precious to me.
She had been a witness at the wedding of Shoghi Rabbani and Mary Maxwell. She remained a close friend of the first Guardian’s widow til her death.
Mildred wanted me to know that I was not struggling alone: That Shoghi Effendi was also a Homosexual, as was Ruhiyyih. They married so that they wouldn’t act out their real feelings. They NEVER consummated the marriage. That’s why they had no children, even though ‘Abdul Baha’s Will made it imperative that the first Guardian appoint the second.

Because Shoghi was himself homosexual, and hated himself for it, he wrote so strongly against it, even though Baha’u'llah never mentioned homosexuality. (He DID mention Paederasty!)

That is slanderous hearsay.

That is slanderous hearsay.

[quote comment=""][...] That is slanderous hearsay. [...][/quote]

It may be hearsay, but it is only slanderous if you consider homosexuality a bad thing, which i personally don’t.

I have heard this many times, from many places – all supposedly originating from the Mottahedeh family. I personally believe it. It makes complete sense why someone as supposedly intelligent as Shoghi Effendi would make such an admittedly bizarre mistranslation. He himself acknowledges (in the associated notes in the Aqdas) that the word he translated to mean “homosexuality” was actually “pederasty” a term for the sexual slavery of young boys. Since there is obviously a perfectly acceptable english word to use, why expand this term for pedophilia against boys to mean all homosexual acts instead of expanding it, more accurately, to mean all pedophilia?

Only one reason makes sense to me…

[quote comment=""][...] That is slanderous hearsay. [...][/quote]

It may be hearsay, but it is only slanderous if you consider homosexuality a bad thing, which i personally don’t.

I have heard this many times, from many places – all supposedly originating from the Mottahedeh family. I personally believe it. It makes complete sense why someone as supposedly intelligent as Shoghi Effendi would make such an admittedly bizarre mistranslation. He himself acknowledges (in the associated notes in the Aqdas) that the word he translated to mean “homosexuality” was actually “pederasty” a term for the sexual slavery of young boys. Since there is obviously a perfectly acceptable english word to use, why expand this term for pedophilia against boys to mean all homosexual acts instead of expanding it, more accurately, to mean all pedophilia?

Only one reason makes sense to me…

I do not have any qualm with homosexuals or homosexuality, but to say the Guardian was one is pushing it. What proof is there? And please, I cant just accept the words of some person, or the fact that he didn’t have any kids. I read that either she or he were infertile or sterile…not because they were gay. I also read that their intimacy was strained due to his burden. Moreover, if one never manifests their homosexual impulses, nor ever refers to their attractions, then technically the only way to ever make the assumption is to make an assumption.

I do not have any qualm with homosexuals or homosexuality, but to say the Guardian was one is pushing it. What proof is there? And please, I cant just accept the words of some person, or the fact that he didn’t have any kids. I read that either she or he were infertile or sterile…not because they were gay. I also read that their intimacy was strained due to his burden. Moreover, if one never manifests their homosexual impulses, nor ever refers to their attractions, then technically the only way to ever make the assumption is to make an assumption.

For me there are several issues here:

1) The insulting references to homosexuality were not written by Shoghi Effendi, but were letters written on his behalf. It is an important difference and I know in the notes in the Adqas the authors (the UHJ, I guess) do not make this distinction but it doesn’t mean I have to accept this. I can read for myself and see that a letter “written on behalf of” is not the same as “a letter by”. When Shoghi Effendi had something to say, he wrote it, often as a book. He was very articulate so if he wanted to express any view on homosexuality he could have if he wanted to. He didn’t.

Many many many letters were sent with questions and various secretaries over the years answered these letters. These are the letters referred to as “written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi”. There is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which states that there is no age of consent for marriage in the Bahai Writings, for example.

2) Shoghi Effendi in his behaviour showed no signs of homophobia, as far as I know. I can only relate this to stories I’ve been told of his close friendship with the gay Bahai and artist, Mark Tobey. Mark Tobey lived with his friend for many years and was a member of the LSA of Basel. There is no correspondence to suggest that Shoghi Effendi ever disapproved of Mark Tobey’s lifestyle. So this does not match with the opinions expressed in those letters “written on behalf of…”

3) Those letters date from a time when people commonly thought that homozexuality was an illness or a bad thing and so I see them as a reflectin of the times and because I do not see them as having the same status as scripture, I don’t accept them as the final word.

For me there are several issues here:

1) The insulting references to homosexuality were not written by Shoghi Effendi, but were letters written on his behalf. It is an important difference and I know in the notes in the Adqas the authors (the UHJ, I guess) do not make this distinction but it doesn’t mean I have to accept this. I can read for myself and see that a letter “written on behalf of” is not the same as “a letter by”. When Shoghi Effendi had something to say, he wrote it, often as a book. He was very articulate so if he wanted to express any view on homosexuality he could have if he wanted to. He didn’t.

Many many many letters were sent with questions and various secretaries over the years answered these letters. These are the letters referred to as “written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi”. There is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which states that there is no age of consent for marriage in the Bahai Writings, for example.

2) Shoghi Effendi in his behaviour showed no signs of homophobia, as far as I know. I can only relate this to stories I’ve been told of his close friendship with the gay Bahai and artist, Mark Tobey. Mark Tobey lived with his friend for many years and was a member of the LSA of Basel. There is no correspondence to suggest that Shoghi Effendi ever disapproved of Mark Tobey’s lifestyle. So this does not match with the opinions expressed in those letters “written on behalf of…”

3) Those letters date from a time when people commonly thought that homozexuality was an illness or a bad thing and so I see them as a reflectin of the times and because I do not see them as having the same status as scripture, I don’t accept them as the final word.

To the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States

Dear Baha’i friends,

The Universal House of Justice has considered your letters of August 27, 1993, and September 19, 1994, in which you describe the impact of the changing sexual mores and the public debate on homosexuality of some of the members of the American Baha’i community who are homosexuals.

We are instructed to provide the following guidance in response to the National Spiritual Assembly’s requests for a clarification of the Baha’i law on homosexual practices and for assistance in guiding the believers.

It is important to understand that there is a difference between the
Baha’i attitude toward, on the one hand, the condition of homosexuality and those who are affected by it and, on the other, the practice of homosexual relations by members of the Baha’i community.

As you know, the Baha’i Faith strongly condemns all blatant acts of
immorality, and it includes among them the expression of sexual love
between individuals of the same sex. With regard to homosexual
practices, Baha’u'llah, in the _Kitab-i-Aqdas_, paragraph 107, and
Questions and Answers, number 49, forbids paederasty and sodomy. The
following extract from one of His Tablets reveals the strength of His
condemnation:

“Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Avoid them, O concourse of the faithful. By the righteousness of God! Ye have been called into being to purge the world from the defilement of evil passions. This is what the Lord of all mankind hath enjoined upon you, could ye but perceive it. He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds, verily he is not of Me. Unto this beareth witness every atom, pebble, tree and fruit, and beyond them this ever-proclaiming, truthful and trustworthy Tongue.”

In a letter dated March 26, 1950, written on his behalf, Shoghi Effendi, the authorized interpreter of the Baha’i Teachings, further explicates the Baha’i attitude toward homosexuality. It should be noted that the Guardian’s interpretation of this subject is based on his infallible understanding of the Texts. It represents both a statement of moral principle and unerring guidance to Baha’is who are homosexuals. The letter states:

“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 look upon as such, besides being against nature.

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.”

It is evident, therefore, that the prohibition against Baha’is engaging in homosexual behavior is an explicit teaching of the Cause. The Universal House of Justice is authorized to change or repeal its own legislation as conditions change, thus providing Baha’i law with an essential element of flexibility, but it cannot abrogate or change any of the laws which are explicitly laid down in the sacred Texts. It follows, then, that the House of Justice has no authority to change this clear teaching on homosexual practice.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The Universal House of Justice
Department of the Secretariat
September 11, 1995

Sonja wrote:

“I do not see them as having the same status as scripture, I don’t accept them as the final word.”

My understanding (please correct me if I am mistaken about this) is that the House of Justice is the highest (and *final*) legitimate authority in the faith community of which you are a member. You may not see these letters as having the same status as scripture, but the House of Justice apparently does. Whether or not Shoghi Effendi was infallible or inerrant on matters of science seems beside the point.

“Baha’u'llah says that all Baha’is must obey the Universal House of Justice because anything they decide is the Will of God.” (Peter Simple, Kolstoe, Baha’i Teachings, Light for All Regions [Wilmette, IL: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1970], pp. 17-18.)

“In brief it is sufficient to know that there is a Baha’i Administration which Baha’is must obey.” (http://www.warble.com/Bahai/BasicFacts/basictext.html)

I don’t see how you can parse the differences, so to speak. The letter is used authoritatively by the House of Justice. Since it is used authoritatively, one must presume that it holds authority.

To the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States

Dear Baha’i friends,

The Universal House of Justice has considered your letters of August 27, 1993, and September 19, 1994, in which you describe the impact of the changing sexual mores and the public debate on homosexuality of some of the members of the American Baha’i community who are homosexuals.

We are instructed to provide the following guidance in response to the National Spiritual Assembly’s requests for a clarification of the Baha’i law on homosexual practices and for assistance in guiding the believers.

It is important to understand that there is a difference between the
Baha’i attitude toward, on the one hand, the condition of homosexuality and those who are affected by it and, on the other, the practice of homosexual relations by members of the Baha’i community.

As you know, the Baha’i Faith strongly condemns all blatant acts of
immorality, and it includes among them the expression of sexual love
between individuals of the same sex. With regard to homosexual
practices, Baha’u'llah, in the _Kitab-i-Aqdas_, paragraph 107, and
Questions and Answers, number 49, forbids paederasty and sodomy. The
following extract from one of His Tablets reveals the strength of His
condemnation:

“Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. Avoid them, O concourse of the faithful. By the righteousness of God! Ye have been called into being to purge the world from the defilement of evil passions. This is what the Lord of all mankind hath enjoined upon you, could ye but perceive it. He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds, verily he is not of Me. Unto this beareth witness every atom, pebble, tree and fruit, and beyond them this ever-proclaiming, truthful and trustworthy Tongue.”

In a letter dated March 26, 1950, written on his behalf, Shoghi Effendi, the authorized interpreter of the Baha’i Teachings, further explicates the Baha’i attitude toward homosexuality. It should be noted that the Guardian’s interpretation of this subject is based on his infallible understanding of the Texts. It represents both a statement of moral principle and unerring guidance to Baha’is who are homosexuals. The letter states:

“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 look upon as such, besides being against nature.

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.”

It is evident, therefore, that the prohibition against Baha’is engaging in homosexual behavior is an explicit teaching of the Cause. The Universal House of Justice is authorized to change or repeal its own legislation as conditions change, thus providing Baha’i law with an essential element of flexibility, but it cannot abrogate or change any of the laws which are explicitly laid down in the sacred Texts. It follows, then, that the House of Justice has no authority to change this clear teaching on homosexual practice.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

The Universal House of Justice
Department of the Secretariat
September 11, 1995

Sonja wrote:

“I do not see them as having the same status as scripture, I don’t accept them as the final word.”

My understanding (please correct me if I am mistaken about this) is that the House of Justice is the highest (and *final*) legitimate authority in the faith community of which you are a member. You may not see these letters as having the same status as scripture, but the House of Justice apparently does. Whether or not Shoghi Effendi was infallible or inerrant on matters of science seems beside the point.

“Baha’u'llah says that all Baha’is must obey the Universal House of Justice because anything they decide is the Will of God.” (Peter Simple, Kolstoe, Baha’i Teachings, Light for All Regions [Wilmette, IL: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1970], pp. 17-18.)

“In brief it is sufficient to know that there is a Baha’i Administration which Baha’is must obey.” (http://www.warble.com/Bahai/BasicFacts/basictext.html)

I don’t see how you can parse the differences, so to speak. The letter is used authoritatively by the House of Justice. Since it is used authoritatively, one must presume that it holds authority.

Sonja wrote:
“Those letters date from a time when people commonly thought that homozexuality was an illness or a bad thing and so I see them as a reflectin of the times and because I do not see them as having the same status as scripture, I don’t accept them as the final word.”

Sonja, your idea of Shoghi Effendi’s position being in accordance to the needs of His specific time is interesting to me. Pending the election of the UHJ, whose function is to adapt legislation to the needs of each day and age, I also believe that some of Shoghi Effendi’s stands could be perhaps considered as provisional legislation and hence subject to reconsideration by the UHJ.

This is the case for abortion: to one question Shoghi Effendi replies that abortion is condemned, and to a later question He replies that it is a subject to be considered by the UHJ.

However, when you say speak about “homozexuality was an illness or a bad thing”, I would like to point out that as a doctor I consider that a person is not held legally or spiritually responsible for a disease, but for a deliberate bad behaviour.

For example, a person apprehended for exhibitionisme is legally responsible and liable to punishment, but if it is established that this behaviour is due to surgery or medication for parkinson’s disease, that are known to modify secxual behaviour, the person is released and of course submitted to medical attention.

Andrew wrote:
“I don’t see how you can parse the differences, so to speak. The letter is used authoritatively by the House of Justice. Since it is used authoritatively, one must presume that it holds authority.”

Andrew, this makes sense to me.
Shoghi effendi interprets the writings, and the UHJ legislates through “elucidation” for the needs of a given time and age.

Sonja wrote:
“Those letters date from a time when people commonly thought that homozexuality was an illness or a bad thing and so I see them as a reflectin of the times and because I do not see them as having the same status as scripture, I don’t accept them as the final word.”

Sonja, your idea of Shoghi Effendi’s position being in accordance to the needs of His specific time is interesting to me. Pending the election of the UHJ, whose function is to adapt legislation to the needs of each day and age, I also believe that some of Shoghi Effendi’s stands could be perhaps considered as provisional legislation and hence subject to reconsideration by the UHJ.

This is the case for abortion: to one question Shoghi Effendi replies that abortion is condemned, and to a later question He replies that it is a subject to be considered by the UHJ.

However, when you say speak about “homozexuality was an illness or a bad thing”, I would like to point out that as a doctor I consider that a person is not held legally or spiritually responsible for a disease, but for a deliberate bad behaviour.

For example, a person apprehended for exhibitionisme is legally responsible and liable to punishment, but if it is established that this behaviour is due to surgery or medication for parkinson’s disease, that are known to modify secxual behaviour, the person is released and of course submitted to medical attention.

Andrew wrote:
“I don’t see how you can parse the differences, so to speak. The letter is used authoritatively by the House of Justice. Since it is used authoritatively, one must presume that it holds authority.”

Andrew, this makes sense to me.
Shoghi effendi interprets the writings, and the UHJ legislates through “elucidation” for the needs of a given time and age.

Oh no, here we go again…..

Farhan wrote in relation to homosexuality:

[quote post="4"]that a person is not held legally or spiritually responsible for a disease, but for a deliberate bad behaviour[/quote]

Well if thats your stance, and the letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi say homosexuality is a disease, therefore homosexuals are not held legally or spiritually responsible for their actions, so whats the big fuss?

Science and reason come into play here, (Bless old ‘Abdu’l Baha). Not in conformity with science and reason = superstition!

A disease implies a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms. A homosexual’s biological function is not impaired, they are physically capable of reproducing, they’d just prefer not to mate with the opposite sex.

From Wikipedia: The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.” i.e. not a disease.

The people I know who are homosexual are no different from anyone else, in some cases, they are more spiritual that heterosexuals. Its just the same as someone liking blondes and another liking brunettes. Explain the cause for that!

Current Baha’i stance on homosexuality = superstition. There is no scientific or rational evidence that supports it. The UHJ, if its worth its salt, has to take scientific evidence into account.

Homosexuality happens. Get over it, stop making a fuss! Shall we start saying people who love blondes have a disease? Oh dear, I must be chronically ill!

Oh no, here we go again…..

Farhan wrote in relation to homosexuality:

[quote post="4"]that a person is not held legally or spiritually responsible for a disease, but for a deliberate bad behaviour[/quote]

Well if thats your stance, and the letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi say homosexuality is a disease, therefore homosexuals are not held legally or spiritually responsible for their actions, so whats the big fuss?

Science and reason come into play here, (Bless old ‘Abdu’l Baha). Not in conformity with science and reason = superstition!

A disease implies a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms. A homosexual’s biological function is not impaired, they are physically capable of reproducing, they’d just prefer not to mate with the opposite sex.

From Wikipedia: The American Psychiatric Association has stated that, “to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality. Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.” i.e. not a disease.

The people I know who are homosexual are no different from anyone else, in some cases, they are more spiritual that heterosexuals. Its just the same as someone liking blondes and another liking brunettes. Explain the cause for that!

Current Baha’i stance on homosexuality = superstition. There is no scientific or rational evidence that supports it. The UHJ, if its worth its salt, has to take scientific evidence into account.

Homosexuality happens. Get over it, stop making a fuss! Shall we start saying people who love blondes have a disease? Oh dear, I must be chronically ill!

Grover wrote:
“Well if thats your stance, and the letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi say homosexuality is a disease, therefore homosexuals are not held legally or spiritually responsible for their actions, so whats the big fuss?”

Grover, I see no fuss, but I am well aware that others are suffering and need to express themselves.

As I see things today, a disease is an impairment in the expression of the soul in the body, and not an impairment of the soul itself, so for one, homosexuality is not a spiritual disease.

The causes and manifestations of homosexuality are to me diverse (genetic, biological, acquired, occasionnal, circumstances…), and I see little in common between G and L on one side, and B, T, Q … ,except that they can involve same sex relations. I see no reason why the laws of chastity applying to non gay relations should not apply to gay, and hence unless and untill gay marriages are accepted in the Baha’i Faith, which is rare amongst churches and states, so I can see no change in the Baha’i attitude in the near future, nor will I ever question a decision by the UHJ, whatever the circumstances.

Besides, what a community is responsible for, is to defend a behaviour that is favorable to it’s wellbeing and development; both excess in restraint and in liberty can harm a community.

And finally, what goes on in private lives is a matter between that individual and God, and no one’s business as long as it does not have an impact on social life. He alone knows the love for Him in a wounded heart as compared to a proud bigot.

Grover wrote:
“Well if thats your stance, and the letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi say homosexuality is a disease, therefore homosexuals are not held legally or spiritually responsible for their actions, so whats the big fuss?”

Grover, I see no fuss, but I am well aware that others are suffering and need to express themselves.

As I see things today, a disease is an impairment in the expression of the soul in the body, and not an impairment of the soul itself, so for one, homosexuality is not a spiritual disease.

The causes and manifestations of homosexuality are to me diverse (genetic, biological, acquired, occasionnal, circumstances…), and I see little in common between G and L on one side, and B, T, Q … ,except that they can involve same sex relations. I see no reason why the laws of chastity applying to non gay relations should not apply to gay, and hence unless and untill gay marriages are accepted in the Baha’i Faith, which is rare amongst churches and states, so I can see no change in the Baha’i attitude in the near future, nor will I ever question a decision by the UHJ, whatever the circumstances.

Besides, what a community is responsible for, is to defend a behaviour that is favorable to it’s wellbeing and development; both excess in restraint and in liberty can harm a community.

And finally, what goes on in private lives is a matter between that individual and God, and no one’s business as long as it does not have an impact on social life. He alone knows the love for Him in a wounded heart as compared to a proud bigot.

Grover wrote:

“Current Baha’i stance on homosexuality = superstition. There is no scientific or rational evidence that supports it. The UHJ, if it’s worth its salt, has to take scientific evidence into account.”

Grover, I really appreciate your ironic sense of humor! This is just too funny!

“With respect to the Baha’i sense of self and other … as with any religious tradition, there are problems here. Foremost among these are the tradition’s struggle to free its remarkable understandings of revelation and religious progress from lingering gender and sexual discrimination, to embrace fully the findings of science (particularly in its evolutionary modes), and to recognize that intellectual freedom is not a human good that can be surrendered to any religious authority, including Baha’i religious authority.” (Jeffrey Kripal)

“The ability of future Baha’i leadership to manifest such wisdom will likely determine its future growth both in the United States and worldwide.” (William Garlington)

Grover wrote:

“Current Baha’i stance on homosexuality = superstition. There is no scientific or rational evidence that supports it. The UHJ, if it’s worth its salt, has to take scientific evidence into account.”

Grover, I really appreciate your ironic sense of humor! This is just too funny!

“With respect to the Baha’i sense of self and other … as with any religious tradition, there are problems here. Foremost among these are the tradition’s struggle to free its remarkable understandings of revelation and religious progress from lingering gender and sexual discrimination, to embrace fully the findings of science (particularly in its evolutionary modes), and to recognize that intellectual freedom is not a human good that can be surrendered to any religious authority, including Baha’i religious authority.” (Jeffrey Kripal)

“The ability of future Baha’i leadership to manifest such wisdom will likely determine its future growth both in the United States and worldwide.” (William Garlington)

Andrew quoted:

“The ability of future Baha’i leadership to manifest such wisdom will likely determine its future growth both in the United States and worldwide.” (William Garlington)”

“The ability of the planet to survive it’s programmed auto-destruction depends on its wisdom to turn in time to the prescriptions provided by a loving creator through His Manifestation, Baha’u'llah.” (Farhan Yazdani, 18 June 2008)

Andrew quoted:

“The ability of future Baha’i leadership to manifest such wisdom will likely determine its future growth both in the United States and worldwide.” (William Garlington)”

“The ability of the planet to survive it’s programmed auto-destruction depends on its wisdom to turn in time to the prescriptions provided by a loving creator through His Manifestation, Baha’u'llah.” (Farhan Yazdani, 18 June 2008)

William Garlington, author of “The Baha’i Faith in America.”

farhanyazdani, author of “If Only Those People Would Shut the F*** Up and Just Obey: Diary of a Mad Spacemonkey.”

William Garlington, author of “The Baha’i Faith in America.”

farhanyazdani, author of “If Only Those People Would Shut the F*** Up and Just Obey: Diary of a Mad Spacemonkey.”

This is all too silly Farhan.

Heres are long list of things that aren’t permitted and current unofficial Baha’i attitude towards them

Masturbation – no worries
Heterosexual couples holding hands – don’t bat an eyelid
Heterosexual couples kissing – no problems
Heterosexuals having sex – bit racey but ah well
Baha’is getting pregnant outside of marriage – as long as the kids are raised Bahai

But the moment a homosexual couple start giving each other calf-eyes, shock horror! Out with the rack! Rampant quotation citing! Outraged Baha’is romping around the place rattling the cages and throwing their toys out of the pram.

Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, wisdom of UHJ = prejudices of old men, half of which grew up in a Muslim country well known for its official intolerance to homosexuals.

This is all too silly Farhan.

Heres are long list of things that aren’t permitted and current unofficial Baha’i attitude towards them

Masturbation – no worries
Heterosexual couples holding hands – don’t bat an eyelid
Heterosexual couples kissing – no problems
Heterosexuals having sex – bit racey but ah well
Baha’is getting pregnant outside of marriage – as long as the kids are raised Bahai

But the moment a homosexual couple start giving each other calf-eyes, shock horror! Out with the rack! Rampant quotation citing! Outraged Baha’is romping around the place rattling the cages and throwing their toys out of the pram.

Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, wisdom of UHJ = prejudices of old men, half of which grew up in a Muslim country well known for its official intolerance to homosexuals.

grover,

Each one of your statements is incorrect. Would you like me to show you the official guidance?

grover,

Each one of your statements is incorrect. Would you like me to show you the official guidance?

Grover wrote:
“Heres are long list of things that aren’t permitted and current unofficial Baha’i attitude towards them…”

Grover, I can well believe that the list you are describing might exist in some communities, but not in the ones I have been in contact with, and in any case, I dont share those values and in my inner being, I consider those holding such values as being less meritorious in the eyes of God than the people they are misjudging.

But who cares what others think of us? Surely not God who I am sure does not appreciate smug people! We read in Gleanings CXII something that makes us envy the sinners, they for whom God manifests His love :

“My God, my God! If none be found to stray from Thy path, how, then, can the ensign of Thy mercy be unfurled, or the banner of Thy bountiful favor be hoisted? And if iniquity be not committed, what is it that can proclaim Thee to be the Concealer of men’s sins, the Ever-Forgiving, the Omniscient, the All-Wise? May my soul be a sacrifice to the trespasses of them that trespass against Thee, for upon such trespasses are wafted the sweet savors of the tender mercies of Thy Name, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful. May my life be laid down for the transgressions of such as transgress against Thee, for through them the breath of Thy grace and the fragrance of Thy loving-kindness are made known and diffused amongst men. May my inmost being be offered up for the sins of them that have sinned against Thee, for it is as a result of such sins that the Day Star of Thy manifold favors revealeth itself above the horizon of Thy bounty, and the clouds of Thy never-failing providence rain down their gifts upon the realities of all created things.”

Grover wrote:
“Heres are long list of things that aren’t permitted and current unofficial Baha’i attitude towards them…”

Grover, I can well believe that the list you are describing might exist in some communities, but not in the ones I have been in contact with, and in any case, I dont share those values and in my inner being, I consider those holding such values as being less meritorious in the eyes of God than the people they are misjudging.

But who cares what others think of us? Surely not God who I am sure does not appreciate smug people! We read in Gleanings CXII something that makes us envy the sinners, they for whom God manifests His love :

“My God, my God! If none be found to stray from Thy path, how, then, can the ensign of Thy mercy be unfurled, or the banner of Thy bountiful favor be hoisted? And if iniquity be not committed, what is it that can proclaim Thee to be the Concealer of men’s sins, the Ever-Forgiving, the Omniscient, the All-Wise? May my soul be a sacrifice to the trespasses of them that trespass against Thee, for upon such trespasses are wafted the sweet savors of the tender mercies of Thy Name, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful. May my life be laid down for the transgressions of such as transgress against Thee, for through them the breath of Thy grace and the fragrance of Thy loving-kindness are made known and diffused amongst men. May my inmost being be offered up for the sins of them that have sinned against Thee, for it is as a result of such sins that the Day Star of Thy manifold favors revealeth itself above the horizon of Thy bounty, and the clouds of Thy never-failing providence rain down their gifts upon the realities of all created things.”

Please ignore the previous comment erroneously attributed to me.

It was written on my behalf by one of my secretaries: a highly intelligent Bonobo chimpanzee named Bonzo Bahai. It was sent without my approval and does not carry any scriptural authority whatsoever.

Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital sex. This should not be misconstrued to imply that such activities carry any sort of divine sanction. Bonobes are essentially ethereal creatures for whom any kind of allegedly homosexual activity is simply an expression of their desire to transcend the acts they routinely engage in. Bonzo Bahai is particularly adept at such acts of transgressive transcendence. He also likes to eat bananas and grapes.

Again, my apologies for any misunderstandings.

Please ignore the previous comment erroneously attributed to me.

It was written on my behalf by one of my secretaries: a highly intelligent Bonobo chimpanzee named Bonzo Bahai. It was sent without my approval and does not carry any scriptural authority whatsoever.

Bonobo males frequently engage in various forms of male-male genital sex. This should not be misconstrued to imply that such activities carry any sort of divine sanction. Bonobes are essentially ethereal creatures for whom any kind of allegedly homosexual activity is simply an expression of their desire to transcend the acts they routinely engage in. Bonzo Bahai is particularly adept at such acts of transgressive transcendence. He also likes to eat bananas and grapes.

Again, my apologies for any misunderstandings.

Good grief Anonymouz and Farhan, I don’t know what planet you guys live on. Sounds ideal.

Regarding my statements being incorrect Anonymouz, did you read what I said?

[quote post="4"]Heres are long list of things that AREN’T permitted[/quote]

I think you must be only 13 years old. Didn’t you notice the AREN’T? I know you have great difficulty with basic comprehension and reading simple sentences, hence the reason why you love Ruhi.

I know full well the writings regarding all those fun activities naughty Baha’is love to engage in outside of wedlock (read Chaste and Holy Life, a compilation by the UHJ; Lights of Guidance). I’d happily ram that guidance up your rear end if you were to present it to me, but thats sodomy, and seeing as you are only 13 years old, pedastry as well. Tarnation! Thats something else I’d better confess to when I bring myself to account tonight. I’ll never get any sleep. Oh its a hard life being a Baha’i!

Good grief Anonymouz and Farhan, I don’t know what planet you guys live on. Sounds ideal.

Regarding my statements being incorrect Anonymouz, did you read what I said?

[quote post="4"]Heres are long list of things that AREN’T permitted[/quote]

I think you must be only 13 years old. Didn’t you notice the AREN’T? I know you have great difficulty with basic comprehension and reading simple sentences, hence the reason why you love Ruhi.

I know full well the writings regarding all those fun activities naughty Baha’is love to engage in outside of wedlock (read Chaste and Holy Life, a compilation by the UHJ; Lights of Guidance). I’d happily ram that guidance up your rear end if you were to present it to me, but thats sodomy, and seeing as you are only 13 years old, pedastry as well. Tarnation! Thats something else I’d better confess to when I bring myself to account tonight. I’ll never get any sleep. Oh its a hard life being a Baha’i!

Get grover an award for sarcasm.

Hey try this. Admit you don’t know everything and maybe you are wrong about some of the things you say.

Here I go…You’re right, I miss-read.

Get grover an award for sarcasm.

Hey try this. Admit you don’t know everything and maybe you are wrong about some of the things you say.

Here I go…You’re right, I miss-read.

Anonymouz wrote:

[quote post="4"]Get grover an award for sarcasm.[/quote]

Well I must confess Anonymouz, you and Farhan do provide a lot of inspiration, so I can’t claim all the credit.

Anonymouz wrote:

[quote post="4"]Get grover an award for sarcasm.[/quote]

Well I must confess Anonymouz, you and Farhan do provide a lot of inspiration, so I can’t claim all the credit.

Response to Andrew’s post from June 17th

My understanding (please correct me if I am mistaken about this) is that the House of Justice is the highest (and *final*) legitimate authority in the faith community of which you are a member.

There are 2 issues here:
the how “final” is interpreted and what “obedience” means in relation to the Bahai Admin.

in the letter Andrew quoted from the UHJ from 1995, they state:

The Universal House of Justice is authorized to change or repeal its own legislation as conditions change, thus providing Baha’i law with an essential element of flexibility,

That’s my position and what I meant when I wrote that as I see it the views in those letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not the final word on Bahais who are Gay. I stated this in my posting that I’m using the Bahai principle of independent investigation, and applying my understanding based on this, even if, as the letter continues:

but it cannot abrogate or change any of the laws which are explicitly laid down in the sacred Texts. It follows, then, that the House of Justice has no authority to change this clear teaching on homosexual practice.

It seems from the letter that the position of the UHJ at the time and most likely still in 2008 is that they interprete this as being an interpretation from the Bahai Writings, basing their argumentation on letters written by a secretary on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Perhaps there is something somewhere penned by Baha’u'llah or Abdu’l-Baha that confirms this. Perhaps there is something somewhere penned by Shoghi Effendi himself?
I think this is unlikely otherwise their reasoning would not be based on letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. As I see it, there is room for a future UHJ to rule on this. And because a past or present one doesn’t, doesn’t imply that I as a Bahai, need to put on blinkers when it comes to examining the Bahai Writings. I can still obey and question. Still obey and debate. Still obey and agitate for change. If not, how is change to occur?
If I don’t, then it means I do not have the faith to believe that the Bahai Writings are really for all. Really are revelation. Really can handle any question anyone might have.

Now this word “obey”.

“Baha’u’llah says that all Baha’is must obey the Universal House of Justice because anything they decide is the Will of God.” Quoted as being written by Peter Semple

The above is a paraphasing (and narrowing in interpreation in my view) of the Will and Testament by Abdul-Baha, which Shoghi Effendi in his role as authorative interpretator wrote a long letter (“The Dispensation of Baha’u'llah”) elaborating on this to illustrate that obedience (my interpretation, here) involves engagement akin to the engagement we expect in society at large, not blindness nor an absence of civil discourse.

Here I quote from Shoghi Effendi:
“It should be stated, at the very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u'lláh should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure the continuity of that
divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer its affairs, coordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is
equipped with its own attendant institutions — instruments designed for the effective discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises, **within the limitations imposed upon it,** its powers, its authority, its rights and prerogatives.

(in Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 147)

So it is a bit like a constitutional system. We all are obliged to obey our governments but we can still question, still disagree and still be loyal.
Because the Guardian, not the UHJ, is responsible for the area of doctrine and the interpretation of the teachings, the rules which the UHJ lays down at a particular time are not “Bahai teachings.” They are just the rules for the present. They may even be against the Bahai teachings, because the Guardian writes:

“the Guardian of the Faith … can never, even temporarily, assume the right of exclusive legislation. He cannot override the decision of the majority of his fellow-members, but is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha’u'llah’s revealed utterances.”

So there is no guarantee that what the UHJ decides will be in accordance with the meaning and spirit of the Scriptures. It has to make its rulings in the light of what it thinks Baha’u'llah intended, but it may be wrong about this. Nevertheless, its rulings must be obeyed, even if wrong. If the Guardian could not overrule a majority vote by the UHJ that *he* felt was wrong, then nobody else does either. We can still say that it is wrong, and hope that it will be
changed.

And finally, if anyone is -still- reading this and still thinks that what the UHJ writes is scripture.

“The divinely inspired legislation of the House of Justice does not attempt to say what the revealed Word means — it **states what must be done** in cases where the revealed Text or its authoritative interpretation is not explicit. It is, therefore, on quite a different level from the sacred Text, and the Universal House of Justice is empowered to abrogate or amend its own legislation whenever it judges the conditions make this desirable.”
(The Universal House of Justice, 1994 Dec 15, Elucidations of the House of
Justice)

Response to Andrew’s post from June 17th

My understanding (please correct me if I am mistaken about this) is that the House of Justice is the highest (and *final*) legitimate authority in the faith community of which you are a member.

There are 2 issues here:
the how “final” is interpreted and what “obedience” means in relation to the Bahai Admin.

in the letter Andrew quoted from the UHJ from 1995, they state:

The Universal House of Justice is authorized to change or repeal its own legislation as conditions change, thus providing Baha’i law with an essential element of flexibility,

That’s my position and what I meant when I wrote that as I see it the views in those letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not the final word on Bahais who are Gay. I stated this in my posting that I’m using the Bahai principle of independent investigation, and applying my understanding based on this, even if, as the letter continues:

but it cannot abrogate or change any of the laws which are explicitly laid down in the sacred Texts. It follows, then, that the House of Justice has no authority to change this clear teaching on homosexual practice.

It seems from the letter that the position of the UHJ at the time and most likely still in 2008 is that they interprete this as being an interpretation from the Bahai Writings, basing their argumentation on letters written by a secretary on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
Perhaps there is something somewhere penned by Baha’u'llah or Abdu’l-Baha that confirms this. Perhaps there is something somewhere penned by Shoghi Effendi himself?
I think this is unlikely otherwise their reasoning would not be based on letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. As I see it, there is room for a future UHJ to rule on this. And because a past or present one doesn’t, doesn’t imply that I as a Bahai, need to put on blinkers when it comes to examining the Bahai Writings. I can still obey and question. Still obey and debate. Still obey and agitate for change. If not, how is change to occur?
If I don’t, then it means I do not have the faith to believe that the Bahai Writings are really for all. Really are revelation. Really can handle any question anyone might have.

Now this word “obey”.

“Baha’u’llah says that all Baha’is must obey the Universal House of Justice because anything they decide is the Will of God.” Quoted as being written by Peter Semple

The above is a paraphasing (and narrowing in interpreation in my view) of the Will and Testament by Abdul-Baha, which Shoghi Effendi in his role as authorative interpretator wrote a long letter (“The Dispensation of Baha’u'llah”) elaborating on this to illustrate that obedience (my interpretation, here) involves engagement akin to the engagement we expect in society at large, not blindness nor an absence of civil discourse.

Here I quote from Shoghi Effendi:
“It should be stated, at the very outset, in clear and unambiguous language, that these twin institutions of the Administrative Order of Bahá’u'lláh should be regarded as divine in origin, essential in their functions and complementary in their aim and purpose. Their common, their fundamental object is to insure the continuity of that
divinely-appointed authority which flows from the Source of our Faith, to safeguard the unity of its followers and to maintain the integrity and flexibility of its teachings. Acting in conjunction with each other these two inseparable institutions administer its affairs, coordinate its activities, promote its interests, execute its laws and defend its subsidiary institutions. Severally, each operates within a clearly defined sphere of jurisdiction; each is
equipped with its own attendant institutions — instruments designed for the effective discharge of its particular responsibilities and duties. Each exercises, **within the limitations imposed upon it,** its powers, its authority, its rights and prerogatives.

(in Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 147)

So it is a bit like a constitutional system. We all are obliged to obey our governments but we can still question, still disagree and still be loyal.
Because the Guardian, not the UHJ, is responsible for the area of doctrine and the interpretation of the teachings, the rules which the UHJ lays down at a particular time are not “Bahai teachings.” They are just the rules for the present. They may even be against the Bahai teachings, because the Guardian writes:

“the Guardian of the Faith … can never, even temporarily, assume the right of exclusive legislation. He cannot override the decision of the majority of his fellow-members, but is bound to insist upon a reconsideration by them of any enactment he conscientiously believes to conflict with the meaning and to depart from the spirit of Baha’u'llah’s revealed utterances.”

So there is no guarantee that what the UHJ decides will be in accordance with the meaning and spirit of the Scriptures. It has to make its rulings in the light of what it thinks Baha’u'llah intended, but it may be wrong about this. Nevertheless, its rulings must be obeyed, even if wrong. If the Guardian could not overrule a majority vote by the UHJ that *he* felt was wrong, then nobody else does either. We can still say that it is wrong, and hope that it will be
changed.

And finally, if anyone is -still- reading this and still thinks that what the UHJ writes is scripture.

“The divinely inspired legislation of the House of Justice does not attempt to say what the revealed Word means — it **states what must be done** in cases where the revealed Text or its authoritative interpretation is not explicit. It is, therefore, on quite a different level from the sacred Text, and the Universal House of Justice is empowered to abrogate or amend its own legislation whenever it judges the conditions make this desirable.”
(The Universal House of Justice, 1994 Dec 15, Elucidations of the House of
Justice)

Thank you, Sonja, for your reasoned and lucid response.

I particularly like your interpretation of obedience as *engagement* (just as I prefer the interpretation of fear of God as *respect for* God). Unfortunately it seems as if many (if not most?) Baha’i do not appear to share your latitudinarian views.

“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which….has been invariably upheld by the Law of God…Without such an institution the integrity of the faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives [UHJ] would be totally withdrawn.” (S.E.)

Mutilated, deprived, imperiled, endangered, completely lacking, and totally withdrawn. Now, where are the Baha’i literalists when one needs them? Apparently more concerned over the literal interpretation of Shoghi Effendi’s writings on homosexuality than over the literal interpretation of his writings on the Guardianship. Another triumph for selection bias.

Thank you, Sonja, for your reasoned and lucid response.

I particularly like your interpretation of obedience as *engagement* (just as I prefer the interpretation of fear of God as *respect for* God). Unfortunately it seems as if many (if not most?) Baha’i do not appear to share your latitudinarian views.

“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which….has been invariably upheld by the Law of God…Without such an institution the integrity of the faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives [UHJ] would be totally withdrawn.” (S.E.)

Mutilated, deprived, imperiled, endangered, completely lacking, and totally withdrawn. Now, where are the Baha’i literalists when one needs them? Apparently more concerned over the literal interpretation of Shoghi Effendi’s writings on homosexuality than over the literal interpretation of his writings on the Guardianship. Another triumph for selection bias.

The World is an Unkind Place for Gay Refugees

by Hossein Alizadeh

Just two years ago, Arash and Javad (not their real names), two young Iranian men were building their future together. Arash was pursuing a successful career in Iran’s financial sector and Javad was a university student in Tehran. Now the men live in abject poverty in a remote area of Turkey. They have no income and are frequently forced to scavenge for food in their neighbors’ trashcans. Javad, a diabetic, needs regular monitoring and medication, which he cannot afford. His health has deteriorated to the point where he regularly suffers diabetic comas.

How did two young, upwardly mobile Iranians end up in such dire circumstances? The answer to this question is simple. Arash and Javad are gay men forced to flee their country as refugees. According to the Iranian penal code, homosexual conduct is a crime that is punishable by death.

Arash and Javad met in 2005 and conducted their relationship in secrecy for over a year. But late in 2006, Javad’s father caught them in an intimate act. Incensed at being dishonored, the ultra-religious man locked his son and his partner in the bedroom and rushed to the kitchen to get a knife, intending to kill them on the spot. Arash and Javad managed to escape through a window but knew that if they stayed in Iran either the mob or the morality police would soon catch up with them. Left with no choice, they fled to neighboring Turkey and applied for refugee status.

According to UN statistics, there are currently over 21,000 refugees in Turkey, 2,500 of whom are from Iran. Turkey is the preferred destination for many Iranian refugees because they do not have to get entry visas. However, once gay refugees arrive in Turkey, the situation is bleak. Due to the volume of applications, it normally takes up to two years for them to be reassigned to a country willing to accept them. During the transitional period, gay refugees are only allowed to live in small towns, without the right to work or pursue education. While the UN Refugee Agency may provide some financial aid, the amount is nominal and before they are eligible they must be recognized as “genuine” refugees. This is a process with results that are not guaranteed.

Arash and Javad have been interviewed twice by the UN Refugee Agency since their arrival in Turkey in December 2006. So far they have not been recognized as refugees, and therefore they are not eligible for any financial or medical aid.

This can lead to destitution for gay refugees, like Arash and Javad, who are forced to leave their country to escape persecution and death. Unlike other refugees, who travel in groups and enjoy various degrees of support from their family, church, or party members, gay and lesbian refugees are often disowned by their family members, have no support network, and in most cases do not have enough resources to survive the resettlement process.

The situation of gay refugees is complicated because the Turkish public and law enforcement agents are very hostile to sexual minorities, despite the fact that homosexuality is not a crime in Turkey. In recent years, many gay and lesbian refugees have been subject to verbal and physical attacks. As a consequence, they are often forced to remain indoors during the day for their own safety, and venture outside only at night, under cover of dark, when they are less likely to be recognized as foreign and can more readily hide their sexual orientation.

Tragically, there is no organization that attends to the needs of gay and lesbian refugees worldwide. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, along with a few human rights and resettlement agencies, tries to respond to the refugee crisis but the overwhelming volume of cases makes it impossible to do without large-scale intervention. The US government currently spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to resettle religious and ethnic minorities who are persecuted in their home countries. Isn’t it time for our government to show some interest in protecting this vulnerable population, too?

Hossein Alizadeh, a gay Iranian who won asylum in the United States, is Communications Coordinator at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) is a leading human rights organization solely devoted to improving the rights of people around the world who are targeted for imprisonment, abuse or death because of their sexuality, gender identity or HIV/AIDS status. IGLHRC addresses human rights violations by partnering with and supporting activists in countries around the world, monitoring and documenting human rights abuses, engaging offending governments, and educating international human rights officials. A non-profit, non-governmental organization, IGLHRC is based in New York, with offices in Cape Town and Buenos Aires. Visit http://www.iglhrc.org for more information

The World is an Unkind Place for Gay Refugees

by Hossein Alizadeh

Just two years ago, Arash and Javad (not their real names), two young Iranian men were building their future together. Arash was pursuing a successful career in Iran’s financial sector and Javad was a university student in Tehran. Now the men live in abject poverty in a remote area of Turkey. They have no income and are frequently forced to scavenge for food in their neighbors’ trashcans. Javad, a diabetic, needs regular monitoring and medication, which he cannot afford. His health has deteriorated to the point where he regularly suffers diabetic comas.

How did two young, upwardly mobile Iranians end up in such dire circumstances? The answer to this question is simple. Arash and Javad are gay men forced to flee their country as refugees. According to the Iranian penal code, homosexual conduct is a crime that is punishable by death.

Arash and Javad met in 2005 and conducted their relationship in secrecy for over a year. But late in 2006, Javad’s father caught them in an intimate act. Incensed at being dishonored, the ultra-religious man locked his son and his partner in the bedroom and rushed to the kitchen to get a knife, intending to kill them on the spot. Arash and Javad managed to escape through a window but knew that if they stayed in Iran either the mob or the morality police would soon catch up with them. Left with no choice, they fled to neighboring Turkey and applied for refugee status.

According to UN statistics, there are currently over 21,000 refugees in Turkey, 2,500 of whom are from Iran. Turkey is the preferred destination for many Iranian refugees because they do not have to get entry visas. However, once gay refugees arrive in Turkey, the situation is bleak. Due to the volume of applications, it normally takes up to two years for them to be reassigned to a country willing to accept them. During the transitional period, gay refugees are only allowed to live in small towns, without the right to work or pursue education. While the UN Refugee Agency may provide some financial aid, the amount is nominal and before they are eligible they must be recognized as “genuine” refugees. This is a process with results that are not guaranteed.

Arash and Javad have been interviewed twice by the UN Refugee Agency since their arrival in Turkey in December 2006. So far they have not been recognized as refugees, and therefore they are not eligible for any financial or medical aid.

This can lead to destitution for gay refugees, like Arash and Javad, who are forced to leave their country to escape persecution and death. Unlike other refugees, who travel in groups and enjoy various degrees of support from their family, church, or party members, gay and lesbian refugees are often disowned by their family members, have no support network, and in most cases do not have enough resources to survive the resettlement process.

The situation of gay refugees is complicated because the Turkish public and law enforcement agents are very hostile to sexual minorities, despite the fact that homosexuality is not a crime in Turkey. In recent years, many gay and lesbian refugees have been subject to verbal and physical attacks. As a consequence, they are often forced to remain indoors during the day for their own safety, and venture outside only at night, under cover of dark, when they are less likely to be recognized as foreign and can more readily hide their sexual orientation.

Tragically, there is no organization that attends to the needs of gay and lesbian refugees worldwide. The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, along with a few human rights and resettlement agencies, tries to respond to the refugee crisis but the overwhelming volume of cases makes it impossible to do without large-scale intervention. The US government currently spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to resettle religious and ethnic minorities who are persecuted in their home countries. Isn’t it time for our government to show some interest in protecting this vulnerable population, too?

Hossein Alizadeh, a gay Iranian who won asylum in the United States, is Communications Coordinator at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) is a leading human rights organization solely devoted to improving the rights of people around the world who are targeted for imprisonment, abuse or death because of their sexuality, gender identity or HIV/AIDS status. IGLHRC addresses human rights violations by partnering with and supporting activists in countries around the world, monitoring and documenting human rights abuses, engaging offending governments, and educating international human rights officials. A non-profit, non-governmental organization, IGLHRC is based in New York, with offices in Cape Town and Buenos Aires. Visit http://www.iglhrc.org for more information

Andrew wrote:
« I particularly like your interpretation of obedience as *engagement* (just as I prefer the interpretation of fear of God as *respect for* God). »

Andrew, I agree with your understanding but with some reserve: obedience and engagement go together in Faith, just as obedience to a doctor depends on your trust for him and only concern those who seek his guidance, unless medical data becomes part of adopted laws such as vaccination, declaring contagious diseases, etc.

Hence, love, respect and fear all join in our spiritual engagement. There is a fear of losing we love, and also the fear of the consequences of our acts.

Someone questioned SE on the strong words Baha’u’llah sometimes uses, and SE showed surprise as to how the person could ever imagine those words applying to His loved ones. Those strong words address tyrants and not the humble loving believers.

It is obvious that we should all follow God’s laws out of love, but we have to be conscious that many perverse or immature individuals will only behave if they are subjected to fear of punishment. We start learning music fearing the teacher; we should end up doing music out of love.

As to your much quoted passage on the guardianship, we can consider the institution being established, the process of interpretation having now ended but the results of which provide stability and guidance for the UHJ with an uninterrupted view over a series of generations; the elucidations of the UHJ use those interpretations in order to legislate with elasticity according to the needs of each day and age.

I understand this “elucidation” as the practical applications of laws that are registered in law-books, the laws themselves being much more permanent than the elucidations or enactments in specific circumstances.

It also seems obvious to me that if the interpretations of SE were considered as unfailing, a future guardian would not have been able to alter those interpretations but only provide interpretations on un-interpreted writings. At most, a guardian could request that the UHJ reconsider a decision. We could not imagine a guardian changing His interpretation so as to put pressure on the UHJ in order to change its elucidation and legislation.

No guardian could have, IMHO, modified the interpretations of SE on the revealed word concerning sexuality, but the UHJ can “elucidate” and change its own legislation on the attitude that should be adopted towards sexual acts within the community. This is the immutable part of the revelation explained by SE in the WOB p 23:

« Such is the immutability of His revealed Word. Such is the elasticity which characterizes the functions of His appointed ministers. The first preserves the identity of His Faith, and guards the integrity of His law. The second enables it, even as a living organism, to expand and adapt itself to the needs and requirements of an ever-changing society. »

Andrew wrote:
« I particularly like your interpretation of obedience as *engagement* (just as I prefer the interpretation of fear of God as *respect for* God). »

Andrew, I agree with your understanding but with some reserve: obedience and engagement go together in Faith, just as obedience to a doctor depends on your trust for him and only concern those who seek his guidance, unless medical data becomes part of adopted laws such as vaccination, declaring contagious diseases, etc.

Hence, love, respect and fear all join in our spiritual engagement. There is a fear of losing we love, and also the fear of the consequences of our acts.

Someone questioned SE on the strong words Baha’u’llah sometimes uses, and SE showed surprise as to how the person could ever imagine those words applying to His loved ones. Those strong words address tyrants and not the humble loving believers.

It is obvious that we should all follow God’s laws out of love, but we have to be conscious that many perverse or immature individuals will only behave if they are subjected to fear of punishment. We start learning music fearing the teacher; we should end up doing music out of love.

As to your much quoted passage on the guardianship, we can consider the institution being established, the process of interpretation having now ended but the results of which provide stability and guidance for the UHJ with an uninterrupted view over a series of generations; the elucidations of the UHJ use those interpretations in order to legislate with elasticity according to the needs of each day and age.

I understand this “elucidation” as the practical applications of laws that are registered in law-books, the laws themselves being much more permanent than the elucidations or enactments in specific circumstances.

It also seems obvious to me that if the interpretations of SE were considered as unfailing, a future guardian would not have been able to alter those interpretations but only provide interpretations on un-interpreted writings. At most, a guardian could request that the UHJ reconsider a decision. We could not imagine a guardian changing His interpretation so as to put pressure on the UHJ in order to change its elucidation and legislation.

No guardian could have, IMHO, modified the interpretations of SE on the revealed word concerning sexuality, but the UHJ can “elucidate” and change its own legislation on the attitude that should be adopted towards sexual acts within the community. This is the immutable part of the revelation explained by SE in the WOB p 23:

« Such is the immutability of His revealed Word. Such is the elasticity which characterizes the functions of His appointed ministers. The first preserves the identity of His Faith, and guards the integrity of His law. The second enables it, even as a living organism, to expand and adapt itself to the needs and requirements of an ever-changing society. »

Nice, Sonja and Andrew, and Andrew wrote:

[quote post="4"]“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which….has been invariably upheld by the Law of God…Without such an institution the integrity of the faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives [UHJ] would be totally withdrawn.” (S.E.)[/quote]

Michael wrote:

[quote post="4"]That Shoghi Effendi was also a Homosexual, as was Ruhiyyih. They married so that they wouldn’t act out their real feelings. They NEVER consummated the marriage. That’s why they had no children, even though ‘Abdul Baha’s Will made it imperative that the first Guardian appoint the second.[/quote]

You know, surely if Shoghi Effendi was homosexual, given what he wrote above, he would have got Ruhiyyih Khanum pregnant anyway to produce a heir? I know of plenty of homosexuals that have children.

Infertility must have been the cause for lack of children, but if Ruhiyyih was infertile, would Shoghi Effendi have been within his rights to take a second wife?

If Shoghi Effendi was infertile, which one can easily test for, wouldn’t he have made it a priority to appoint a future Guardian?

Even if most of his relatives were CBs, for apparently trivial things as one blogger wrote, and the pool of potential candidates wasn’t large, would Shoghi Effendi have been within his rights to override the Kitab’i'Aqdas and appoint someone who was not a descendent of Baha’u'llah?

Thats what I find interesting about this whole thing. Why was there no heir? Even if it was as Michael said, surely Shoghi Effendi would have taken one for the team?

Nice, Sonja and Andrew, and Andrew wrote:

[quote post="4"]“Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of Bahá’u’lláh would be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which….has been invariably upheld by the Law of God…Without such an institution the integrity of the faith would be imperiled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking, and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of its elected representatives [UHJ] would be totally withdrawn.” (S.E.)[/quote]

Michael wrote:

[quote post="4"]That Shoghi Effendi was also a Homosexual, as was Ruhiyyih. They married so that they wouldn’t act out their real feelings. They NEVER consummated the marriage. That’s why they had no children, even though ‘Abdul Baha’s Will made it imperative that the first Guardian appoint the second.[/quote]

You know, surely if Shoghi Effendi was homosexual, given what he wrote above, he would have got Ruhiyyih Khanum pregnant anyway to produce a heir? I know of plenty of homosexuals that have children.

Infertility must have been the cause for lack of children, but if Ruhiyyih was infertile, would Shoghi Effendi have been within his rights to take a second wife?

If Shoghi Effendi was infertile, which one can easily test for, wouldn’t he have made it a priority to appoint a future Guardian?

Even if most of his relatives were CBs, for apparently trivial things as one blogger wrote, and the pool of potential candidates wasn’t large, would Shoghi Effendi have been within his rights to override the Kitab’i'Aqdas and appoint someone who was not a descendent of Baha’u'llah?

Thats what I find interesting about this whole thing. Why was there no heir? Even if it was as Michael said, surely Shoghi Effendi would have taken one for the team?

Too funny ! The Baha’i are expected to adhere to the “revealed word” of Shoghi Effendi on homosexuality (not that he ever claimed to be infallible or inerrant on medical or scientific matters) but his “revealed word” on the institution of the Guardianship is subject to interpretation … oh, but of course!

S.E. on homosexuality: Wrong. Immoral. Against nature. An affliction. A burden. A handicap.

These constitute the “revealed word” which must be strictly adhered to.

S.E. on the World Order divorced from the Guardianship: Mutilated. Deprived. Imperiled. Endangered. Completely lacking. Totally withdrawn.

These constitute the “revealed word” which do not need to be adhered to (strictly or otherwise). After all, that wouldn’t be convenient, would it? And those Baha’i sects that do adhere to the “revealed word” of Shoghi Effendi on the Guardianship are, well … Covenant breakers, of course!

Completely unhinged.

Well, this is enough hilarity for one day. I’m sure others will respond to the effect that, of course, one has misunderstood or misinterpreted the “revealed word” of Shoghi Effendi about the Guardianship, unlike the clear meaning of his “revealed word” on homosexuality. Which, unlike his “revealed word” on the Guardianship, is not subject to interpretation or obfuscation.

Blind faith admits of no debate, because it demands an unquestioning, non-evidence-based approach to understanding of the world. Arguments based on reason and evidence are of no avail against such certainty. Despite its claim to promote the harmony of religion and science, Baha’ism is no different in this regard than the Southern Baptists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Bonzo Bahai (one of my simian secretaries) says it is all actually quite simple: there are those who view religion as a guide to know God and find kinship in social justice and humanitarian efforts, and there are those who view religion as the manifestation of God’s divine commandments for a wayward world, programmed to auto-destruct.

Such wisdom. This is why I have appointed Bonzo Bahai as one of the Chimps of the Cause, to be served by the Hands of the Chumps, who will turn over the contents of their hands (and their pockets) to serve the World Order of Bono’baha, the primordial Prophet of the Primates. Those who fail to serve the Chimps of the Cause will be declared Coconut Breakers!

Too funny ! The Baha’i are expected to adhere to the “revealed word” of Shoghi Effendi on homosexuality (not that he ever claimed to be infallible or inerrant on medical or scientific matters) but his “revealed word” on the institution of the Guardianship is subject to interpretation … oh, but of course!

S.E. on homosexuality: Wrong. Immoral. Against nature. An affliction. A burden. A handicap.

These constitute the “revealed word” which must be strictly adhered to.

S.E. on the World Order divorced from the Guardianship: Mutilated. Deprived. Imperiled. Endangered. Completely lacking. Totally withdrawn.

These constitute the “revealed word” which do not need to be adhered to (strictly or otherwise). After all, that wouldn’t be convenient, would it? And those Baha’i sects that do adhere to the “revealed word” of Shoghi Effendi on the Guardianship are, well … Covenant breakers, of course!

Completely unhinged.

Well, this is enough hilarity for one day. I’m sure others will respond to the effect that, of course, one has misunderstood or misinterpreted the “revealed word” of Shoghi Effendi about the Guardianship, unlike the clear meaning of his “revealed word” on homosexuality. Which, unlike his “revealed word” on the Guardianship, is not subject to interpretation or obfuscation.

Blind faith admits of no debate, because it demands an unquestioning, non-evidence-based approach to understanding of the world. Arguments based on reason and evidence are of no avail against such certainty. Despite its claim to promote the harmony of religion and science, Baha’ism is no different in this regard than the Southern Baptists or the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Bonzo Bahai (one of my simian secretaries) says it is all actually quite simple: there are those who view religion as a guide to know God and find kinship in social justice and humanitarian efforts, and there are those who view religion as the manifestation of God’s divine commandments for a wayward world, programmed to auto-destruct.

Such wisdom. This is why I have appointed Bonzo Bahai as one of the Chimps of the Cause, to be served by the Hands of the Chumps, who will turn over the contents of their hands (and their pockets) to serve the World Order of Bono’baha, the primordial Prophet of the Primates. Those who fail to serve the Chimps of the Cause will be declared Coconut Breakers!

Andrew wrote:
“Blind faith admits of no debate, because it demands an unquestioning, non-evidence-based approach to understanding of the world. Arguments based on reason and evidence are of no avail against such certainty. ”

Andrew, Claude Bernard, an outstanding French physiologist whi founded the basis of experimental medicine(1813-1878) wrote about the interactions between science and philosophy; one of his ideas was that science was to seek the path of the unknown, bringing invisible knowledge (inspiration) into reality, and not the other way round.

We have some objective data which cannot and should not be rejected, but we need belief and inspiration as the premises for this objective data. Faith and debate lead us to the truth, and in seeking this truth we learn more and more and become united in our views.

Pending this consensus, we have to keep our minds open, but this does not mean that instead of moving into action we have to spend all our time in futile polemics, but only some of our time

Andrew wrote:
“Blind faith admits of no debate, because it demands an unquestioning, non-evidence-based approach to understanding of the world. Arguments based on reason and evidence are of no avail against such certainty. ”

Andrew, Claude Bernard, an outstanding French physiologist whi founded the basis of experimental medicine(1813-1878) wrote about the interactions between science and philosophy; one of his ideas was that science was to seek the path of the unknown, bringing invisible knowledge (inspiration) into reality, and not the other way round.

We have some objective data which cannot and should not be rejected, but we need belief and inspiration as the premises for this objective data. Faith and debate lead us to the truth, and in seeking this truth we learn more and more and become united in our views.

Pending this consensus, we have to keep our minds open, but this does not mean that instead of moving into action we have to spend all our time in futile polemics, but only some of our time

Andrew wrote:

[quote post="4"]These constitute the “revealed word” which do not need to be adhered to (strictly or otherwise). After all, that wouldn’t be convenient, would it? And those Baha’i sects that do adhere to the “revealed word” of Shoghi Effendi on the Guardianship are, well … Covenant breakers, of course!

Completely unhinged.[/quote]

Yes it is all very amusing when you take a step back and think seriously about it all (very dangerous for the faithful to do). I imagine in the future they could make a bloody good drama based on all the antics, contradictions, etc within the Faith.

The UHJ argues that the institution of the Guardian still continues because S.E. left behind all his commentary, books, etc, which the UHJ refers to for guidance, a virtual Guardianship. My question is how long is that guidance valid for? The world and social conditions are changing and the majority of S.E’s books etc were given in the context of the 1920s to the 1960s. It may be a virtual Guardianship, but it is by no means perpetual. Eventually, S.E.s books will pass their use-by-date so what will the UHJ then do for a “Guardianship”?

Andrew wrote:

[quote post="4"]These constitute the “revealed word” which do not need to be adhered to (strictly or otherwise). After all, that wouldn’t be convenient, would it? And those Baha’i sects that do adhere to the “revealed word” of Shoghi Effendi on the Guardianship are, well … Covenant breakers, of course!

Completely unhinged.[/quote]

Yes it is all very amusing when you take a step back and think seriously about it all (very dangerous for the faithful to do). I imagine in the future they could make a bloody good drama based on all the antics, contradictions, etc within the Faith.

The UHJ argues that the institution of the Guardian still continues because S.E. left behind all his commentary, books, etc, which the UHJ refers to for guidance, a virtual Guardianship. My question is how long is that guidance valid for? The world and social conditions are changing and the majority of S.E’s books etc were given in the context of the 1920s to the 1960s. It may be a virtual Guardianship, but it is by no means perpetual. Eventually, S.E.s books will pass their use-by-date so what will the UHJ then do for a “Guardianship”?

Grover,

Shoghi Effendi left volumes of un-published works…Have you read into any of that?

Grover,

Shoghi Effendi left volumes of un-published works…Have you read into any of that?

Hi Anonymouz, its a bit difficult getting access to unpublished work. Whats your point?

Hi Anonymouz, its a bit difficult getting access to unpublished work. Whats your point?

How can we make such statements without having access to all the information….

How can we make such statements without having access to all the information….

Grover @ the time frame the Bahà’í’s have used to translate or “approve” publishing of it’s writings, what little is authenticated by non-Bahà’í and is available so far, we will all be dead before anyone one really knows anything.

In the meantime, happy guessing!

Much love – Bird

Grover @ the time frame the Bahà’í’s have used to translate or “approve” publishing of it’s writings, what little is authenticated by non-Bahà’í and is available so far, we will all be dead before anyone one really knows anything.

In the meantime, happy guessing!

Much love – Bird

Haha, yeah Bird, always fun to speculate

“Examinations doth trial the soul for the world’s greatest fool can always ask more than the world’s wisest man can answer.”

Haha, yeah Bird, always fun to speculate

“Examinations doth trial the soul for the world’s greatest fool can always ask more than the world’s wisest man can answer.”

Yes, Andrew, you are correct regarding the exchanges of postings here as far as I am concerned.

I find it very odd, that Shoghi Effendi’s own authorative writing on the grave implications on not having a Guardian are glossed over while views on homosexuality, written by secretaries, not SE himself (to repeat the point ad infinitum), have been claimed as “interpretations of the revealed word” in the same sentence as stating that this can’t be changed.

Thanks for the article by Hossein Alizadeh.

Well, I guess, I’m one of those Bahais who sees that, yes it is a great tragedy that there is no Guardianship anymore, but this is what we have and we have to do the best we can, AND do the best we can as individuals to try and not turn Shoghi Effendi’s own writing into SET IN STONE law, something he wrote strongly against. And equally important not to treat letters written on his behalf as if these were authorative interpretations of Bahai Scripture. There’s a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, somewhere in the thousands of these letters, that states Bahais should not use contraception, but i’m too busy to go looking for it.
For the literalists, if they really want to treat letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if this is part of Bahai Scripture they, then, have to accept every single one as such. In fact it was coming across some of these letters after being told as a newly wed 2 decades ago by a Bahai that I shouldn’t use contraception that inspired me to dig deeper. I dug, not because I had doubt but on the contrary I had faith that I would find out why, or at least find an answer that help me to understand.

Yes, Andrew, you are correct regarding the exchanges of postings here as far as I am concerned.

I find it very odd, that Shoghi Effendi’s own authorative writing on the grave implications on not having a Guardian are glossed over while views on homosexuality, written by secretaries, not SE himself (to repeat the point ad infinitum), have been claimed as “interpretations of the revealed word” in the same sentence as stating that this can’t be changed.

Thanks for the article by Hossein Alizadeh.

Well, I guess, I’m one of those Bahais who sees that, yes it is a great tragedy that there is no Guardianship anymore, but this is what we have and we have to do the best we can, AND do the best we can as individuals to try and not turn Shoghi Effendi’s own writing into SET IN STONE law, something he wrote strongly against. And equally important not to treat letters written on his behalf as if these were authorative interpretations of Bahai Scripture. There’s a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, somewhere in the thousands of these letters, that states Bahais should not use contraception, but i’m too busy to go looking for it.
For the literalists, if they really want to treat letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if this is part of Bahai Scripture they, then, have to accept every single one as such. In fact it was coming across some of these letters after being told as a newly wed 2 decades ago by a Bahai that I shouldn’t use contraception that inspired me to dig deeper. I dug, not because I had doubt but on the contrary I had faith that I would find out why, or at least find an answer that help me to understand.

Sonja … good luck! If only all members of the Baha’i Faith (Haifan or otherwise) were as dedicated and courageous!

Grover wrote:

“The UHJ argues that the institution of the Guardian still continues because S.E. left behind all his commentary, books, etc, which the UHJ refers to for guidance, a virtual Guardianship.”

That may be their argument but I doubt if that is what the Guardian himself had in mind! If the Writings were sufficient to provide a form of Guardianship … there would hardly have been any need for a living Guardian in the first place!

I recall having attended a religious ceremony at a Sikh gurdwara in which their holy book (the Guru Granth Sahib) was literally put to bed … escorted into its bedroom. The Sikh holy book travels in specially appointed luxury buses and aircraft. When several copies from Amritsar came to Canada in 2004, each volume had its own linen-covered seat and was transported in and out on cushions carried upon the heads of individuals observing ritual purity. In 2000, the Indian Supreme Court declared the Guru Granth Sahib a juristic person, and as a legal person it holds thousands of acres of real estate in Punjab.

At least the Sikhs are consistent in their application of the idea of a virtual Guru! Will we see the writings of the Guardian given similar treatment?

Sonja … good luck! If only all members of the Baha’i Faith (Haifan or otherwise) were as dedicated and courageous!

Grover wrote:

“The UHJ argues that the institution of the Guardian still continues because S.E. left behind all his commentary, books, etc, which the UHJ refers to for guidance, a virtual Guardianship.”