Haven’t seen Juno yet, but now I guess I have to
UPDATE:
I watched Juno and found it to be a charming movie. As Mavaddat mentioned in the comments section, Rainn Wilson’s role was tiny but he still gave a fantastic performance.
So far he has played smaller roles in movies and although he has been great in every movie that I’ve seen him in (Sahara was another) he hasn’t been given a career making role like his TV co-star Steve Carell with The 40 Year Old Virgin.
Steve put up a video of Rainn at the recent North East Baha’i Youth (NEBY) conference in Stamford, Connecticut.
Some disconnected thoughts…
I love Rainn Wilson’s wit. The movie Juno was hilarious, but Wilson plays a very small part. The whole thing is a tribute to the comedic stylings of the young Ellen Page, really.
Chelsea Handler was really funny. I hadn’t ever seen her before this clip, but she had a good charisma about her. Although things went downhill for her in this interview went she started talking about “sucking”. Maybe the word hit a sensitive spot for Rainn…
Regarding celebrating Christmas, I wonder how Rainn would feel if he read this bit of nonsense from Shoghi Effendi:
yeah I thought of that but maybe his wife is not bahai so he makes a compromise
nice about no goats being harmed
and regarding Mavaddat’s post:
The quotation he referred to was not written by Shoghi Effendi but was a letter to an individual written by someone (not named) on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf.
Admittedly the following is also a letter written on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf but being addressed to a National Assembly, it has more authority than a letter written to an individual
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 302)
The exact status which Shoghi Effendi has intended the friends to
give to those communications he sends to individual believers is
explained in the following statement written through his secretary to
the National Assembly on November 16, 1932:
“As regards Shoghi Effendi’s letters to the individual Bahá’ís, he is
always very careful not to contradict himself. He has also said that
whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably
communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general
letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for
their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid
their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the
Bahá’í News. Only letters with special significance should be
published there”
(Shoghi Effendi, Extracts from the USBN)
In googling this quotation, I found the following text which seems to follow on where Mavaddat’s quotation stops but I didn’t find a source for this, other than what was on that website and is cited below. Perhaps someone else can confirm if the following really is part of that quotation or not.
Further, there is no objection to Bahá’ís’ attending religious marriage ceremonies of their friends and relatives or take part in festivities usually connected with these events …” — (The Universal House of Justice, 1998 Dec 16, Traditional practices in Africa)
accessed on: http://bahai-library.org/nsa/distinctive.communities.txt
Anyway, Mavaddat, as Rainn states in his interview, there really are no problem for Bahais to celebrating any festivals and given that Shoghi Effendi didn’t write the quotation you referred to, Rainn wouldn’t necessarally have any problems with this either.
Some Bahais might interpret that quotation to mean that they shouldn’t celebrate Christmas, because they attritube anything written by secretaries as scripture, while others, such as myself, see the quotation being about stressing the importance of developing Bahai celebrations and seeing a distinction between these and other festivals and that this is not scripture anyway.
And here’s are two examples of another approach, just to illustrate that there’s room in the Bahai faith for individuals to choose celebrate other religious events.
bahai children attending sunday school:
125. The changing of teachers should be neither too frequent nor too
much delayed; moderation is preferable. Holding your meetings when it
is the time of prayer in other churches is not advisable; it would
lead to alienation, since the Bahá’í children who have their own
Sunday school would be deprived of it if they tried to attend other
Sunday schools. Moreover, the admission of children of non-Bahá’í
parents to the school for Bahá’í children is permissible. And if, in
this school, an outline of the fundamental principles underlying all
religions be set forth for the information of the children, it can do
no harm.
(Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 143)
ABDUL BAHA AT THE “SALVATION ARMY” SHELTER
London, England, Christmas Night, 1912.
BY ISABEL FRASER.
ON Christmas night Abdu’l Baha visited the poor of the Salvation
Army Shelter, Westminster, where each year a Christmas dinner is
provided for those who have no homes and no friends, and but for the
shelter would have no lodgings. There were about 1,000 present on
this occasion. It was a most impressive scene the dinner for the
homeless and the Master from the East delivering Christ’s message to
the poor. …
- Star of the West, Vol. 3, No. 18, p. 8″
hei konei ra / regards, Sonja
Hi Sonja,
You wrote:
I’ve often heard Bahá’ís cop this excuse when met with something unpleasant in Shoghi Effendi’s letters. However, this excuse has no grounding in anything except imagination, since there’s absolutely no reason to think that letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi carry any less weight (authority) than those written by himself.
There is also nothing anywhere in the whole expanse of the Bahá’í writings that acknowledges this heirarchy of authority as depending on the addressee (i.e., individual versus NSA). It is, again, something made-up. Imagination. Fiction.
The fact that Shoghi Effendi’s letters to the National Spiritual Assemblies may be “more important” says absolutely nothing about their authority. It is a principle you have conjured up from your own powers of reasoning, perhaps rightly so objectively speaking, but nevertheless, in utter opposition to the religion for which you supposedly stand.
This is because, in their own correspondence, the Universal House of Justice repeatedly refers to and cites the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi both to individuals and National Spiritual Assemblies with equal authority. They never spare or disregard a quotation on the grounds that it was written to an individual or written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Quite the opposite. This principle you are proposing simply does not exist.
The fact that Shoghi Effendi apparently disregarded the example of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s that you cited from “Star of the West” is simply a contradiction on his part. An inconsistency. And another reason to doubt the collective infallibility of the whole lot. The point about children attending Sunday school is clearly irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with celebrating other religions’ holidays.
Again, we see that this is an issue of picking-and-choosing what to follow when something unpleasant crops up in the writings of Shoghi Effendi. I do sympathize, really I do, because there is so much that is unpleasant in his writings; however, if you want to pick and choose, then you shouldn’t be a Bahá’í.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá writes,
So denounce the nonsense by all means, but be consistent: Don’t pretend that the religion still has authority when you’re choosing what you follow.
Yes, perhaps. More picking-and-choosing — The fun never stops!
I love how Bahai’s hyperventilate with joy anytime the Faith is mentioned in the media. Emergin’ from obscurity. Yeeeah.
Apparently not! And it seems like I’m on a roll these days!
“They hatch the eggs of vipers and spin a spider’s web. Whoever eats their eggs will die, and when one is broken, an adder is hatched.”
In addition to reading a gratuitous hiss thrown toward me, you can also read about “the real Baha’u'llah” here:
http://meditationsonbahaullah.blogspot.com/
“If these reflect the characteristics of a dictator, then may we have more of them!” Indeed! And if we don’t like them, then may we be subject to the indignant wrath of God’s servants! May we be chastised profusely by the Handmaids of Holiness! Sleep in peace, for the spirit of love reigneth and ruleth!
“Empire is sleep. The colonised are Sleepwalkers.”
Ayyam-i-Ha is nearly upon us, a joyful time for those who are Baha’is. Our home has remnants still of visits from Christian and Jewish friends who celebrated their own festivals and with whom we exchanged presents and fun times. But one of our special times is approaching and that is where our hearts lie. What’s wrong with that? Nothing at all. Mavaddat, as you do not accept Baha’u'llah as the Messenger of God for today, why do you bother so much with the Bahá’í Faith? It does not apply to you - not one dotted i of it, or one crossed t. Why don’t you apply your undoubted intelligence and talents to something that will bring you joy?
Wow, Andrew. That is just silly. The analysis given by Juan Cole, cited by Alison, is an attempted philosophical one; but as we know, Dr. Cole is an historian. And here, it shows.
Dr. Cole thinks that he shows that Bahá’u'lláh was not a dictatorial authority of the fascist kind because he, for example, “refused to intervene in the dispute between Jamal-i Burujirdi”. But did he really refuse?
From the text of the epistle, it seems not. Rather, Bahá’u'lláh intervenes quite forcefully, and tells both men that they are right, and that God adores contradiction so long as those contradicting do not contend with one another. That this is pure nonsense and “white noise”, as Christopher Hitchens puts it, is besides the point. The point is simply that Bahá’u'lláh’s word is (supposed to be taken as) final and authoritative.
Sure, Bahá’u'lláh didn’t want his time wasted with inane questions; but you can bet that when he did give an answer, that answer was final and binding.
That Dr. Cole think that presenting evidence of Bahá’ís ignoring Bahá’u'lláh’s advice in any way suggests that Bahá’u'lláh was not dictatorial or authoritarian shows Dr. Cole’s lack of distinction between is and ought. I have made this point elsewhere, but it bears repeating.
Thus, the example of Bahá’ís disobeying Bahá’u'lláh is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether they were expected to have submitted to Bahá’u'lláh, which would have rendered him as their personal dictator. That this was indeed Bahá’u'lláh’s secret fantasy is so demonstrated by a preponderance of textual evidence that I leave it to the fair-minded reader to verify this him or her self.
The point I think Alison Marshall is missing is that all totalitarian schemes are guided by the highest moral guidance. I own a book of quotations by Máo Zédōng. Do you have any idea how many beautiful ideas are in that book? How many phrases that literally echo the ideals of the Bahá’í Faith? I could not count them for you. But the fact that they are high ideals is not in anyway contrary to the fact that Mao’s communism was avowedly totalitarian. On the contrary. Totalitarianism positively requires these high ideals. Allison misses this point and misses her mark. This would be a point of mere pedantry of no real consequence, except for the very real consequences that the 20th Century has shown us that this lust for fascism has on the world…
She is a human and has feelings. That counts. Surely we can openly criticize each others beliefs (and even get passionate and angry about it!) without insulting one another personally.
Kate,
What is it about Ayyam-i-Ha that should preclude freedom of thought and respectful dialogue?
And what is it about Ayyam-i-Ha that encourages self-righteous hyper-sensitivity to the clearly articulated (and respectful) opinions of others?
Who has attacked your “special time?” Nobody.
I read your words to Mavaddat as meaning, “Mavaddat, you are not a part of my moral enclave of specialness. Why don’t you just shut up and go away?” Am I wrong? Or was that code for ‘Happy Holidays?’
You say, “as you do not accept Baha’u’llah as the Messenger of God for today, why do you bother so much with the Bahá’í Faith? It does not apply to you - not one dotted i of it, or one crossed t. ” That says to me, and to alot of readers of this blog, that you are not familiar with your own sacred writings, or you choose to ignore them. Here’s what you’re either ignorant of or turning a blind eye to:
1) The concept of the innate “oneness” of humanity. That when ANY group of people are being oppressed by ANY group of people, it is the business of ALL people, regardless of their respective tiny societal sub-group labels to correct this. (Please see below Mavaddat’s defense of YOU in his response to POTA, for an instructional example of this practice in action.)
2) Your religion has as it’s goal the creation of a Baha’i World Commonwealth, where ALL people, Baha’i or not, will be subject to the unjust agendas of the Baha’i Faith. You should thank people like Mavaddat who have the foresight to be worried about the welfare of YOUR great-great-grandchildren. If you find you disagree with him, or anyone, on their specific criticisms of the Baha’i Faith, perhaps a more constructive approach would be to actually try offering respectful, specific criticism yourself rather than volleying irrelevent (and insulting) quotations from scripture, or relying on weak appeals to the spirit of the season to back up your platitudes.
And POTA, everyone on this blog would appreciate you checking your misogyny at the door. We get enough of it from the Writings. Thanks.
Amanda
In retrospect, I think this particular issue is moot (whether celebrating Christmas with non-Bahá’í friends is alright), since it seems that Shoghi Effendi is specifically referring to the Bahá’í communities holding their own Christmas celebrations (amongst themselves) rather than about Bahá’ís visiting their non-Bahá’í friends’ celebrations.
However, the objections still stand regarding the method of dismissing some authoritative texts as somehow “less authoritative” simply on the grounds that they were written by a secretary or to an individual.
Consider the consequences of this principle: If it is true that Shoghi Effendi’s infallible word somehow becomes less authoritative when it is in a letter written on his behalf, then it means that Bahá’u'lláh’s word is less authoritative when written down by an amanuensis. We know that Shoghi Effendi personally consulted with his secretaries to make sure they conveyed his meaning (if not his exact words) in the letters written on his behalf. This is only one step removed from Bahá’u'lláh’s transcription to a scribe who wrote his words down for him. So are we to pick-and-choose from Bahá’u'lláh’s words too on the grounds that they were transcribed?
But wait, wasn’t Bahá’u'lláh writing on God’s behalf, himself? So should we take Bahá’u'lláh’s word as less authoritative, since everything from Bahá’u'lláh is merely “written on behalf of God,” as it were?
And what of this writing to individuals business? Almost everything Bahá’u'lláh wrote in his entire career as a self-styled representative of God was written to individuals in response to often personal and subjective questions. So should we take Bahá’u'lláh’s answers to these people (which comprises almost everything he wrote, including the Kitab-i-Aqdas) as somehow less authoritative than what he wrote to the nations?
No. Surely, the whole of Bahá’í theology makes nonsense of these two principles.
Amanda,
You are free to voice your beliefs and concerns how you wish and I am likewise free to do the same. We are all so different and we cannot dictate to each other how to be and do. If you find my posts to be unpleasant or insulting, then please skip them.
Hi Kate,
You wrote:
I often wonder this same thing, Kate. It’s a personal question and the answer will have to be personal too, but there really isn’t one reason. There are many.
Firstly, I was raised in a Bahá’í community to Bahá’í parents, Bahá’í cousins and many of my closest friends and family are Bahá’ís. I make this point first because you seemed to have taken it for granted that
but clearly it does, since my friends and family still hold me to standards of conversation and behaviour that I personally no longer accept. So I want to simultaneously communicate my state of mind to them, and to people like you, so that you can understand why people like me might be so unimpressed by your religion.
Secondly, critical examination of my former beliefs is therapeutic for me. You can take this as, “It is healthy for me to vent my frustrations.” If you don’t like what I’m writing, then please follow the advice of this wise woman:
Thirdly, I like to think about questions; and I derive most of my questions about life and truth from my former faith. I am passionate about the truth and how we as a humanity should live our lives. As Amanda pointed out, the Bahá’í Faith takes the pretense to having the only (perfectly) correct answers to these questions, and thus, it demands criticism. By accepting the Bahá’í Faith, you implicitly make assumptions about how I and the rest of humanity should live our lives, and you expect me us not to criticize your dogmas? Please.
Fourthly, I want to help other people avoid the pain I went through. Upon realizing that the faith was built on shallow deceptions and unfounded superstitions, I felt lied to and my whole world got turned upside down. I also wasted thousands of my own dollars travel teaching, serving, and donating to “the cause.” I wasted a great deal of my time, and I don’t want anyone else to have to go through the same thing.
Fifthly, I think that the Bahá’í Faith helps to spread a grossly unjust and perverted picture of human sexuality. This is most especially seen in its condemnation of homosexuality, but also in its obsession with chastity and premarital sex. That these doctrines are unhealthy for society is proved by the comparison of the divorce rate among atheists and agnostics (21%) versus that of Bahá’ís, which (since last count) is actually higher than the national average in the United States.
And lastly, I genuinely love the Bahá’í community. I really, really do. And I think it is suffering from a stultifying group-think that has rendered it well-nigh mindless. I think that the Bahá’í world would be much better served at least adopting the kind of critical approach epitomized by people like Baquia.
Ultimately though, I must admit, I wish that humanity could out-grow its need for myths and superstitions to get along with one another. It is 2008: The time has come for us to love for the sake of love, and not for the sake of impressing an almighty dictator in the sky. No. I take that back. That time has long been here. Religion is holding humanity back. And it’s time to let go.
Does that answer your question?
Mavaddat, you wrote:
and yes, you are correct, I should not have expressed this in my post as if there was a logic there, instead I should have said it was because a letter written on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf states this, quoted in my post above:
However as you wrote, it is true that
and the Universal House of Justice also quotes unauthentic texts such as Pilgrim’s notes in its correspondence as well as making interpretations such as:
and later the Universal House of Justice wrote:
Some individuals might say, this is an example of inconsistency, and yet others might see this as not being scripture to start with.
There are countless unauthentic texts attributed to Abdul-Baha used all the time by Bahais, and likewise the thousands, probably tens of thousands of letters written to individuals which the Bahais use as if they are authorative, even though, Shoghi Effendi clearly (in the quotation above) didn’t want them to be used in this way.
For me it is not a case of picking and choosing, but an attempt to find a principle and to understand Shoghi Effendi’s own thinking as he intended.
Let me explain here: when I first became a Bahai, all seemed to so open and possible and then almost month by month it seemed, Bahai after Bahai would tell me I couldn’t:
1) live as I was in a mixed gender flat with other students
2) work as a nude model for the art school
3) participate actively in the Save the Aramoana campaign (we were against the building of an aluminium smelter at the head of the harbour which was also a breeding area for birds.)
And each time it felt as if Shoghi Effendi was hitting me over the head with a hammer because I was told this is what Shoghi Effendi had said. Fortunately I ignored this because it didn’t seem to match with what I found in the writings myself and I placed a greater importance on this than on what Bahais were telling me, especially when they didn’t come up with support from the writings.
Let me stress here, all the Bahais at the time were wonderful people and that there was no conflict. They gave me advice as a new Bahai and left it up to me to make my own decisions.
Later as I read more and met more Bahais, I realised that my ‘hate’ towards what I was told Shoghi Effendi had said, including homophobia were not penned by him, and it was certainly not as in the case of Baha’u'llah that the secretaries were taking dictation.
You final point about Baha’u'llah’s own writings I agree with. As I stated above that principle of Shoghi Effendi’s letters only has validity because of Shoghi Effendi’s own instruction.
So, for me, it is not a case of picking and choosing or ignoring authentic Scripture, but as an individual Bahai, trying to apply the principle of independent investigation. Since I believe there is authority in the writings, I am motivated to keep digging until I find something that makes sense to me. Of course tomorrow it might not and then I’ll have to start all over.
And… I appreciate your directness in your posts and I object to the comments assuming that such questions are not relevant for a non-Bahai to make. I think they are, but then I’m one of those silly Bahais who thinks that the Bahai Teachings have meaning for the world
This is a beautiful letter, Mavaddat. Thank you for putting your personal experiences and motivations out here for consideration. They are a fine testimony and I think sharing information like this (especially in escalated situations) helps to re-humanize the discussion. Thanks again, Amanda
Dear Kate,
Thank you for your response. Yes, I realize I am free to voice my beliefs and concerns, I am glad you are also aware of that. I responded to your post specifically because I found it unpleasant and insulting, and I imagine that in a similar situation here in the future, I would continue to do the same.
“Discussion” is not fruitful when your approach to those you disagree with is to 1) try to invalidate their very participation in the conversation by questioning their “qualifications” to participate (i.e., “you’re not a Baha’i, why don’t you just go home.”) or 2) inviting those who make specific critiques of your statements to just “skip them,” rather than responding to the actual issues raised. Of course, it is your choice as to whether or not you want to engage in actual discussion here about these issues, but I find your presence in a discussion-forum like this curious if you are here to AVOID discussion. But I could easily be ignorant of other noble motives for participation here, so please let me know if that’s the case.
In any case, I continue to be open to discussing any of the points either you or I have made here.
Thank you,
Amanda
p.s.
Happy Ayyam-i-Ha!
Amanda,
Please do not attribute to me statements that I never made. You are coming across as a bully.
Mavaddat,
Thank you for your heartfelt and honest reply. It does indeed answer my question. You had referred to the directive of Shoghi Effendi about Baha’is building up their own holy days etc., as ‘a bit of nonsense’ and I could not for the life of me figure out why it should make any diffence to you what Baha’is did about their special celebration days!
You have actually helped me understand a lot more about this site. And I have learned that it is not the place I want to be. Thank you for your open and loving attitude.
Kate wrote:
In all honesty, I assumed this would be the next step. At its core, the Bahá’í Faith’s most effective shield against any outside influence is to teach all Bahá’ís to fear and loathe close critical examination of the teachings of their religion, except insofar as they confirm was is already believed. The most ingenious part of this fear and loathing is that it is instilled under the banner of “unity”, which protects it’s own sinister nature from exposure…
But alas, I type my words only to watch them fall to the ground…
Kate-
How am I coming across as a bully? By voicing objection to your statements? DISAGREEING is not bullying.
What statements have I attributed to you that you haven’t made? If I have misunderstood you, please correct me- I have asked for that clarification several times. It is a sincere request.
Sincerely,
Amanda
I saw Rainn Wilson on the Spirit Awards — he was host for this awards show that honors independent filmmakers — and I was amazed to hear the profanity and obscenity that came from his mouth. He does not seem to be a good representative for a spiritual faith.
Did any one else see these? What are your thoughts?
Thank you, Mavaddat. Your comments confirm my own observations. Alison Marshall could have responded to the perception (in many quarters) that Baha’u'llah was a religious tyrant with no reference to me at all (as if I were the only person who has ever made this point!), but it seems she felt the need to single me out for her own purposes. Or she could simply have informed her readers that I no longer accept that Baha’u'llah was a Manifestation of God. Instead, she chose to reduce a collective process of discernment and reflection that took place over the course of several months with a tetchy “it seems that he has changed his mind.” This seems sadly typical of the approach most often taken by Baha’is (or members of any authoritarian meme-complex who are protected by firm filters from external contamination). Genuine teachers do not need to assert their authority at the expense of others, nor do they need to make thinly veiled threats of spiritual contamination against those who doubt their claims, as in: “Every time the sin committed by any one amongst them was breathed in the Court of His Presence, the Ancient Beauty would be so filled with shame as to wish He could hide the glory of His countenance from the eyes of all men, for He hath, at all times, fixed His gaze on their fidelity, and observed its essential requisites.”
This is all so puerile and absurd that it merits little more than a good laugh and a roll of the eyes. However, between Nima Hazini and Alison Marshall, me and my co-conspirators have been reduced to gales of laughter for days! I guess it’s true: religion really is a great source of comedy, particularly when it reads like the manic ramblings of the inhabitants of an insane asylum!
See also:
http://primordial-blog.blogspot.com
Merry Christmas, Laura!
Happy New Year too!
Whatever…
This is comedic genius…
Did no one else get this?
Rainn is a funny guy, and “Dwight” is a riot. It is so very interesting that he is probably the most well known Bahai in the U.S. There have been a couple mentions of him in the American Bahai, one of which talked about him getting involved in some type of program to publicize the faith. I thought it was a bit strange that the NSA would actually use him in that way, because his comedy can be racy. Rainn is not exactly someone who will try to always portray the pious believer. But who knows? Maybe the NSA wants to be edgy now.
Around the time I read that last year, I saw Rainn on Real Time with Bill Maher. If you know that show (and Bill), you know it’s about politics and current events, and Bill lets it all hang out. I was very surprised Rainn went on the show to begin with. He actually didn’t get too involved in any of the debates, but he did say two things that shocked me a bit: One, that he volunteered to do work for the Green Party (he made it into a joke because he said the group was disorganized and he really didn’t do anything). Two, that his favorite candidate was Hillary Clinton (he also talked about how oddly attractive she is). I wasn’t shocked he did and thought those things, but that he said them on national television. He’s not the only Bahai to volunteer for a political party or have a favorite candidate, but those are two pretty big no-no’s to make in public. And then there was no mention of what he said by the NSA.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rainn didn’t even know about the writings concerning political involvement, or this issue with celebrating Christmas. He was raised Bahai, but I also read that he spent a decade or so as an inactive Bahai and just searched (and all that other fun stuff too, I presume). Or maybe he does know, and that’s just how he chooses to live (or shall we say, picks-and chooses), and we’re just seeing a reflection of a normal Bahai, not one afraid to rock the boat. The things he said and did would be startling to most Bahais I know, but it certainly doesn’t bother me. The thing that wows me the most is that he is saying all this stuff to large numbers of people. Not that I want Rainn to be “punished”, but I look forward to seeing if and when the NSA responds.
I can’t wait to see him hosting the awards show. I missed it Sunday but it will be on again on IFC on Friday afternoon. I did see a commercial for it though, where he dresses up like the guy from Juno and has “something” kinda hanging out of his shorts. I’m guessing a tape of this won’t be part of next month’s feast, ha!
David wrote:
and later in your post you wrote:
I haven’t seen the show but just reading your own post, it seems clear to me that Rainn was being witty, making a joke out of joining the Green Party. And if I understand US politics, it really was quite a joke because the US only has two parties - at least at the national level. Someone correct me if I am wrong. So that joke would be even more pointed or funny, whereas in Europe, as voters we have more than a choice of two.
So I find it judgemental that you write in your post that you assume Rainn didn’t know the Bahai writings on this.
Likewise with your other statements as if he has done something wrong because, reading from your posts, you seem to have the idea that there is a “right” way of presenting the Bahai Faith.
Any individual, including UHJ members, when they mention the Bahai Faith, do this subjectively, because we all interprete in some way, whether we dress in a suit to do this, use informal language or jokes to tell our story.
When the book “Vignettes” (which was full of stories about Abdul-Baha) came out in the mid 80s, it inspired me because here we could read about the various aspects of Abdul-Baha as a human, including his sense of humour.
So, when I hear I a Bahai express the judgemental tone I read in your post, I think to myself, why the “fear” and “loathing”. The Bahai Faith is not that fragile nor are the Teachings that narrow.
If we can’t laugh at ourselves, then I think there is something wrong.
For me personally, it is relief to hear from the various posts here (I don’t know who Rainn is.) that there’s a Bahai who is making a bit of an impression who is not dressed up in a suit. I’ve nothing against men wearing suits! Just that after seeing the film, “Bahais in my backyard” (it was aired on Dutch tv recently), that was the impression anyone would have of the Bahais.
I’m arguing here for a diversity of expression!
Please do not shut artists up, just because they have a creative approach
And for your information, I also celebrate Christmas (when I’m with family) as well as the Dutch sinterklaas. There is nothing in the Writings to say I shouldn’t. If a Bahai chooses not to do this, that is their choice and my take on this is, “isn’t it great that Bahais are so diverse”.
I do believe that the Bahai Faith, really, can embrace diversity, but it seems from the posts above, that some Bahais think it doesn’t. However, I prefer to use what is in the Writings for my guidance. So in this case my picking and choosing is choosing not to take too much notice of Bahais who call me “marginal” (and others) because I do not fit within the definition of what they call “core”
Hi, Sonja.
You wrote, “it seems clear to me that Rainn was being witty, making a joke out of joining the Green Party. And if I understand US politics, it really was quite a joke because the US only has two parties - at least at the national level. Someone correct me if I am wrong.”
We actually do have many political parties here in the States, and the Green Party is one of the more prominent “alternatives” to the bipartisan system. So, although the man is witty, I don’t think he was making THAT joke.
We have Green candidates and everything.
I wanted to tell you I appreciate you saying, “I’m arguing here for a diversity of expression! Please do not shut artists up, just because they have a creative approach.” I think there are so many conservative forces within ourselves (like fear and loathing) and within the community (like pre-publication book review, a kibosh on dissent, a general prude-ishness, etc) that it’s become a difficult climate for artists. Or for anyone who is practicing free thought or expression. It is nice to hear people like you voice support. Thanks.
I think poor Rainn is in a difficult position. He is just a guy. It’s his job to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable” with his art, and he belongs to a religion that controls human behavior and expression. Like all Baha’is, he is being scrutinized by the people in his community. He just happens to be going through it in the limelight. It isn’t possible for me to know if the suggestion made earlier that he should have cleared his comments with the UHJ/NSA for the INDEPENDENT SPIRIT awards was a joke, I hope it was. (And a good one, if it was….Merry X-Mas) But it is obvious that people do think that way. I think it’s sad that Baha’is feel like they are “representing the Faith” everywhere they go, and that that ALWAYS entails a constant self-censorship and spin-doctoring. That says alot about what being a Baha’i means, in my eyes.
So here’s to artists, to diversity, to Santa, to every filthy word that Rainn Wilson ever chooses to utter in public or in private, and “to opening, to upward, to leaf and to sap…”
Hi Amanda,
You wrote:
“So here’s to artists, to diversity, to Santa, to every filthy word that Rainn Wilson ever chooses to utter in public or in private, and “to opening, to upward, to leaf and to sap…”
Yes to Santa, yes to artists and to deversity. But did you see the Spirit Awards? For example he said he really wanted to f**k an actor who was in No Country for Old Men. He dressed in drag and let Dennis Hopper put him out as a male prostitute in some sort of hazing ritual. After he successfully brought money back from his time on the street he spit in a pathetic fashion as if he had just been forced to put his mounth where it didn’t belong.
I don’t particularly enjoy that sort of low-life approach to art, but — ‘ya know its what they do these days in Hollywood — so what the heck, right? (I saw Once instead of No Counrty for Old Men — much more uplifting!) But after that performance to speak with the same mounth about Bahai or any other spiritual cause seems disrespectful to me. I’d say don’t lick the gutter and then kiss the bible, but I guess that would make me a square.
Frank
Frank, it’s ok to be “square.”
Some even say it’s hip. We don’t all have to have the same tastes in art.
But, I’m okay with the blending of the sacred and the profane. I revere it, personally. I think it’s one of the big Zen-stick moments in life to realize the big, blessed joke that it’s all happening at once, you know? We’re all so blissfully, imperfectly glorious and ridiculous at the same time. The fact that the things we fear and loathe, let’s say excriment, by way of example, actually make the flowers grow. It’s all connected. It is, literally, “holy shit.” Where would any of us be without that? I’ve done some of my best thinking while “licking a gutter” or two.
I have had the obscene blessing of attending many, many, many births. One thing that has given me is an appreciation (and awe and wonder) for the fact that Creation, New Life comes from the raw, unsanitized most sexual and earthy bits of human existence. Again, a Zen-stick: when a woman is pushing out a new, pristine baby earthling, she also invariably pushes out some excriment. It’s all there, present at the birth of Jesus, so to speak. Sure, I think Jesus was “just a man,” but in my book, that is about the best thing a person can be. What wonder to be a man. To be a woman. What infinite mystery.
I think the sacred and the profane are secretly childhood best friends, wandering around life holding hands, giggling that it freaks us out so much.
And a little drag never hurt anyone. Overt sexuality is ok in my book, as well. But we can still be friends if you don’t like it, some of my best friends are “square.”
Thanks for your thoughts,
Amanda
Sonja,
Rainn honestly said he volunteered to do work for the Green Party. I see that in my first post Baquia linked to the entry on this site that has the clips of the show, so you can see it all for yourself. I think Amanda addressed the rest of your thoughts on that matter.
It was not my intention to criticize Rainn for not doing things the “right” way. (Whatever that right way may be???) My point was to show that he is in the public eye and saying and doing things that are not commonly said and done in the Bahai community. Or if they are, people are usually reprimanded (however politely) for doing them. In fact, I even said, “The things he said and did would be startling to most Bahais I know, but it certainly doesn’t bother me.” And it has nothing to do with his comedy, because I think most of the stuff he does is funny.
I am all for individuals expressing themselves in creative ways, and am not interested in shutting people up.
I searched YouTube last night looking for other clips of Rainn and came across this recent talk he made at a Bahai youth gathering a week ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OT8eK84b86E
There are four parts, and even though the audio isn’t good all the time, it’s worth watching.