Comments on: Introduction

By: Baquia

Baquia — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 05:11:00 +0000

“I cannot budge from my understanding of the Covenant.”
Did someone ask you to? if so, please point out where.

“As far as what the international health organizations state about homosexuality, I think peer-reviewed literature is a far more accurate source of information.”

What do you think such organizations base their policy upon if not exactly such sources? It is you who is ignoring peer-reviewed literature in suggesting that sexual orientation is an “illness” to be overcome.

“The fact remains that science does not understand the origins of sexual orientation, the extent to which it is affected by our genetic make-up interacting with society, or a myriad other causes.”

True, however, perfect understanding of any physiological issue is a red-herring because it is impossible. In that sense it can be compared to its twin in the spiritual realm, irfan.

Even today scientists are pushing the boundaries of our understanding in such well established fields like “germ theory” which has branched off into microbiology, antibiotics, etc. What we know today far far outreaches what we knew in the past and what we will know in the future will equally outshine what we know today. That is the very nature of scientific progress: every advancing.

To imply that because we don’t have a perfect understanding of sexual orientation, then there is a possibility that everything we do know up to now is false is ludicrous. It betrays a lack of familiarity with the manner in which science moves forward, each step building upon known facts established previously.

By: Ramin

Ramin — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 03:04:00 +0000

At this juncture Baquia, I think there is nothing more that can be said. I cannot budge from my understanding of the Covenant. It is implicit in my faith in Baha’u'llah.

As far as what the international health organizations state about homosexuality, I think peer-reviewed literature is a far more accurate source of information. The fact remains that science does not understand the origins of sexual orientation, the extent to which it is affected by our genetic make-up interacting with society, or a myriad other causes. Either way, there is more that we do not know than what we do.
I appreciate your feedback.

By: Baquia

Baquia — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 23:23:00 +0000

Ramin, I’m not sure what you mean by “remedicalized” – I assume you mean reverting to the previous position that homosexuality is an illness and that people so “afflicted” can change their sexual orientation. If that is what you mean to say, then it is a done deal. Similar to other contentious issues, for example, climate change, science has spoken with an emphatic voice. All major international and national health organizations reject the classification of homosexuality as an illness and even go further to say that attempts at conversion are harmful. Whether we choose to ignore this or listen is another matter.

That is the matter as far as science is concerned.

As you say the main theological issue is this, what does the Baha’i Faith say, exactly, about homosexuality?

It is here that we may differ in our understandings. It is possible that we are both wrong, or that one of us is wrong and the other correct. My suggestion is this, rather than using the covenant as a cudgel (a heinous abuse of such a beautiful concept I’m sure you’ll agree), why don’t we actually investigate the truth of the matter and see what the Baha’i Faith actually says?

It is towards this intention that this blog exists and as stated previously, hopefully soon more will be posted. Thank you for your visit and comment. Please watch this space for more upcoming posts.

By: Ramin

Ramin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:53:00 +0000

Hi Baquia,
Wether or not homosexuality will become remedicalized remains to be seen. As yet, science does not understand the origins of sexual orientation (you can look this up in the North American Journal of Psychology). Remedicalizing homosexuality is not tantamount to reverting to the belief that the earth is flat, especially when one considers the extent to which the politicization of homosexual conduct was fundamental to its demedicalization.

Underlying our conversation is the belief in the creative Word and consequently the Covenant of Baha’u'llah, through which the continuity of that divinely-appointed authority flows from the Source of our Faith to Shoghi Effendi, and now to the Universal House of Justice. I believe, here in lies the departure of our opinions.

Baquia, we have to face the fact that there can no reconciling of our view points if this underlying premis is not shared. I rely on Shoghi Effendi for the unerring interpretation of what has become the source of our disagreement. If I have made the wrong decision, I will find out when the path that I have chosen to take, if it pleases God, leads me to where my sincerity and devotion will be assayed.

By: Baquia

Baquia — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 20:03:00 +0000

Ramin, the problem with what you just argued is that science once held true the assertion that homosexuality was an “illness” to be overcome – which is where exactly Shoghi Effendi got his information from and even vocabulary to opine about this matter. However, since then science has used empirical evidence and the scientific method coupled with observation to say that this previous school of thought was erroneous. You see, science marches forward, not backwards.
What you are suggesting is not that science will “catch up” but that it will revert to a previously held position where it had less data, less evidence and less insight about physiology, neurology, psychology, etc. That is just as likely to happen as reverting back to believing that the earth is flat or that disease is caused by “evil spirits”.
Finally, I’m troubled by your mangling of the Baha’i Faith’s views on science. As Baha’is we have tremendous respect for science going so far as equating it with Revelation. To denigrate it this way is a facile attempt at reconciling a troubling dichotomy that it presents.
Another reconciliation attempt which does not violate the sanctity of science within Baha’i theology is to recognize that the Baha’i Faith’s views on this matter are far from clear. They are in fact very poorly understood and can be summarized by the parroting of the words of the Guardian without any further inclination towards true understanding.
My own imperfect attempts at beginning a true process of understanding of this topic can be found here in case anyone is interested: “Baha’u'llah and the Subject of Boys”
This is but a crude beginning and will be supplemented by further posts as the subject is explored in depth.

By: Ramin

Ramin — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:02:00 +0000

Grover,

As we all know scientific theory is always based on empirical evidence, and always remains subject to falsification. Science can never claim finality. The assumption when it comes to religious faith, and specifically to the issue of homosexuality, is that religion, in its most recent form (the Baha’i Faith) is ahead of science. Of course, this is an assumption one willingly makes, one that I make, the truth of which, I believe, will one day become apparent to the world.
I want to talk a little bit about assumptions, which I believe are at the heart of our differing points of view. Under your assumption, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, and you are of course entitled to your opinion. Our differing assumptions will no doubt motivate us to pursue divergent paths that will ultimately lead us to apprehend what is true and what is false – reality, is after all one. Speaking for myself, I can never assume I know more than the Manifestation of God for today, Baha’u'llah. Religion does not sway to the whims of mankind, but directs us to pursue a path, which we do out of our own volition and love towards God.

By: forthelove

forthelove — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:53:00 +0000

Wow. You are brave and I admire your candid response. I am a Bahai in officially good standing but perhaps I should not be – so I do not associate or speak of myself as a Bahai publicly as to protect the Faith from my waywardness. LOL – but it’s true. I fell away from the daily practice and community involvement for many of the reasons you stated plus many of my own. It’s been a struggle of faith for me for a very long time. I don’t quite know what to believe anymore but if there is a religion from the Creator, I do believe it’s the Bahai Faith and I stand by that. And I love Baha’u'llah – enough not to try to represent his teachings. But I pray, I talk to Him, I teach my child prayers and see the world through the eyes of Unity in Diversity. I used to be the staunchest of believers and now I stand on the fence with favor and the utmost respect and love for the Faith. I really found your courage inspiring – it’s part of what I became a Bahai for in the first place – a freedom that spoke to my heart. Thank you for representing the marginal folks. I guess God still loves us too.

By: Fubar

Fubar — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:12:00 +0000

Sar-Mad,

Your ideas are irrational and silly, and a perfect reflection of the
brainwashing and groupthink that has “infected” haifan bahaism and made
it a dysfunctional religion full of empty promises.

haifan bahaism is culturally imperialistic and exploits the people that are converted to it.

By: Sarmad

Sarmad — Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:54:00 +0000

Human ingenuity is capable of the most extraordinary achievements. This site presents another demonstration of the endless ability of people to come up with the most sophisticated means of furthering their agenda. You could almost be congratulated for the way you have portrayed this site as somehow designed with good intentions towards the Baha’i Faith. Let there be no misunderstanding: this website is a deeply damaging and hurtful assault on the religion. I am sure that if I had been considering joining the Faith and had come upon this site that you would have succeeded in turning me away. Because this kind of writing is a poison. How glad I am that I became a believer long before the age of the internet. I am also amazed to see that your frame of reference is the same as a well known group of ex-Baha’is who have spent apparently 1000s of hours on the internet attempting to spread your insinuation. Are you by any chance fighting the ‘next generation’s’ battles already? Your list of concerns reads like a list from other documents in the past. In fact, I have a good idea who you actually are and if I am correct I am absolutely bewildered. I apologise in advance for this, and I hope I have got it wrong. But if I have guessed who you are then Janus would be a better psuedonym than Baquia! (My means of guessing is based on a fairly cursory analysis of prose-style and content of multiple sources on the internet. The claim that you are a Baha’i “in good standing” is also telling.) And for the rest of you: how many of you are commenting using multiple pseudonyms? Such a small circle! Such brave radicals! (I know that my sarcasm and ire have taken me well beyond the standards of courtesy and decency required of me as a Baha’i. I’ll regret allowing myself to get so upset, but as I type I really am losing it. This will also explain any weaknesses in my prose as I continue.) Such well-educated, polyglot minds! Such academic liberal objectivity! You probably pride yourselves on hastening the decline of the Faith, as you see it, and in fact you are certainly helping to prove true the predictions made in the past about the kinds of ‘tests’ that would face believers in the West. But you need to remember the following: either the Faith is from God or it is not. If it is not then you are wasting your time! Simply let those stupid believers, as you see it, fall into their foolishness and why don’t you go and enjoy yourself? If this Faith is so broken, why are you so obsessed with it? Go and get some new hobbies and you might feel better! But if this Faith is from God, and the Truths that it proclaims are all Divine in origin, then you are ALSO WASTING YOUR TIME. Yes, you may be able to turn away from seekers. Yes, you may hasten the departure of a certain number of believers. But you will not be able to alter the future outcome. Who knows what may happen before ‘the divine standard is unfurled?’ The number of Baha’is in the world could shrink to 20 and still the victory may come! Oh Lord, my God, I recently found some apparent predictions (in a pilgrim’s note) by Shoghi Effendi a little far-fetched. He, for instance, is supposed to described a decline in the US Baha’i community, to the point where the US Baha’is end up merely as spectators. A website like this is actually helping to create the impression that this prediction has come true! Your attempt to spread a cancerous mentality is almost laughable, were it not so chilling. You have made me very sad, but you have not altered by beliefs. I am only writing in this manner because you have made your ideas so public. I feel that I should simply ignore your site, but, on the other hand I really would like to stress that I do not recognise your portrait of the Baha’i Institutions as some kind of Orwellian construction. My liberty has never been impinged, my thoughts have never been questioned, my conscience has never been challenged, my words have never been attacked, my input has never been ridiculed. And this is not to say I don’t experience tests of my own. (The discovery of your website is one such test.) May I add a little from my own experience that may help to explain a different interpretation of why you claim to have experienced such a malaise? (I use the word ‘claim’ because I wouldn’t be surprised if you are actually a website funded by the Iranian govt.!) Anyway, I have actually in the past had some regrettable experiences in my relationships with other Baha’is. For instance, I knew one who boasted about committing a fraud. This then caused a new believer, stunned by the hyprocrisy, to leave the Faith. In my view both people were wrong. The fraudster was blatantly flouting the teachings of the Faith, but the person who left the Faith should have realised that a single person’s error does not reflect on the essential verity of a religion. I could describe a few other situations. In each case the foolishness of certain Baha’is has tests the faith of other believers. But how many times has that test been caused by the stupidity, or inexperience, or naivety of another individual? Every time! And how many times has it been caused by systemic corruption in the Institutions that you claim to perceive? Never! I really must stress that even if all the members of all the worlds NSAs were hysterical control freaks (again, you are implying this, it seems), this does not in anyway invalidate the truth of the Faith. It simply means we need to vote more intelligently. Anyone of intelligence and a drop of objectivity and justice can readily discern that our votes could change the direction of the Faith in limitless ways. Similarly, no one of intelligence could fail to discern that you are a classic example of the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing that was addressed in the Hidden Words. ”Ye are even as the star, which riseth ere the dawn, and which, though it seem radiant and luminous, leadeth the wayfarers of My city astray into the paths of perdition.” Finally, I must return to my earlier point. If this Faith is not divine in origin then we have a man-made system populated by dupes, about whom you ought not to care so much. If, indeed, this Faith has stemmed from a Divine source, and Baha’u'llah was infused with the Holy Spirit, then the best you can hope for with this insidious attack is a temporary dent in the fortunes of the Faith. And if you manage to precipitate a crisis within the religion please don’t be too proud of yourself too quickly. Because a true religion will bounce back from such a crisis, in the fullness of time, stronger than before.

I am sorry for writing in such stentorian terms, but if you wish to attempt publicly to unravel the tenets of this religion I feel that I must respond.