You are the dawning point of justice. I am the dawning point of justice. You and I are the local house of justice in our community waiting to welcome the entry by troops of those who are right now trying to understand the parable of the golden calf, or the method of jihad, slowly laborously wending their way through the mountains and valleys of fear, pain and misunderstanding as they keep their eye on the dawning point of justice.

Your job, your task in this world is to shine. How well you do that I think might determine your job in the next world.

Robert Clifton

I’m just focussing on homosexuality as one of the things you mentioned. You wrote:

nature of homosexuality, which seems to violate the asymmetrical relationship between religion and science as propounded by Abdul Baha in Promulgation of Universal Peace).

As far as I know there’s nothing scriptual against homosexuality. What Bahais often bring up are the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, but these are not scripture.

What this means is that it is an issue for the UHJ to decide on and currently there is no ruling as such. Various letters from the International centre to individuals over the years indicate that the position is that homosexuality is at worst, viewed as an illness, at best to be tolerated with gays remaining quiet or chaste or both. But this is not a ruling and I personally see it as a wisdom that the UHJ has made no ruling on this (yet).

So the issue in the end is whether Bahais view homosexuality being prohibited as something scriptual (unchangable) or something that is here due to culture (changable or something a future UHJ could rule on).

So for me, a homosexual has, in terms of Bahai scripture the same rights /responsibilities as a heterosexual. In practice, I know that is not the case, but your objection in your post was to Bahai doctrine.

Respond with something specific from the Writings or from what a Bahai have said is scripture on this issue and i’ll respond. Not to knock you down, but to show (I hope - who knows you might find some scripture I haven’t seen) that there isn’t anything in Bahai Scripture that indicates that homosexuality as an orientation and by this I mean a lifestyle equal to a person of any identity, is something less dignified. If you consider letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as scripture, then quote one and I’ll explain why I do not consider it Scripture arguing this from Bahai Scripture not just from my own views.

As this world, by its nature is not just we humans have a responsibility to create justice. The problem as I see it is that if individuals are hurt, even if it helps the Greater Whole, there is a llack of love and justice. If only people and institutions would follow the ‘Golden Rule’ espoused in all the great religions. Isn’t this the fundamental principle underpinning the spiritual teachings of all religions, yet it is so easily overlooked in favour of worldly concerns.

You might be interested in a paper that reaffirms the golden rule and discusses “The Principle of Goodness”

“When we welcome our anger, and the anger of others, when we listen to the messenger, a world of possibilities opens. When we allow our anger to motivate change in ourselves and our surroundings we unleash this powerful tool for good. Let me remind you that Gandhi was angry, angry about being a second-class citizen in his own homeland. And his anger fueled the birth of his nation, India, as well as the modern practice of non-violent civil disobedience. Martin Luther King was angry, and his anger awakened his nation to the insanity of ’separate but equal’ doctrine.” (Dr. Sinan Koray)

“Also, it is significant to note that, as far as Gandhi was concerned, non-violent action was not pacifism or a defensive activity but a way of waging war. This war without violence also requires discipline, training and the assessment of the strength and weakness of the enemy.” (Dr. A.K. Ramakrishnan)

“This is a question that has often been asked: whether Gandhi was really non-violent, or whether he chose non-violence because violence would not have succeeded against the British? If the enemy is powerful, strong, much more capable of violence than you are, then it is stupid to try to overthrow him with violence, he will win. So you cannot fight him and if you cannot fight him, try non-violence! Then it just becomes another weapon to fight with. Then it is not really non-violence, when it is a matter of choice. Or did Gandhi have nothing to do with violence because there was no violence in him? So he refused to kill, refused to hurt anybody, irrespective of what the consequences may be–one may be decimated, destroyed, it does not matter. That is a totally different state from the one of choosing to adopt a non-violent movement as the better choice in a given situation.

“Krishnamurti was lecturing in India when Gandhi was murdered, in January 1948. And he was asked by someone in the audience: ‘Sir, who was responsible for the murder of Gandhi?’ His answer was that each one of us was responsible–each one who identifies with a particular religion, who forms a group, who belongs to a caste, who hates his fellow man either because of his ideas or because of the colour of his skin, who is divided. Of course there were only a few individuals who plotted and pulled the trigger of the gun and according to the law, only those men were responsible and were hanged. But we have all contributed in producing that man.” (Dr. P. Krishna)

Regarding the name, yes, you are right. Many others have said similar. All I can say in response is, there is a method to such madness. It speaks to your character that you didn’t let such a superficial thing deter you from reading further.

And thank you for the compliment. Under normal circumstances I would find myself wholly inadequate to even comment on Baha’i theology but Momen’s recent example of it was simply so egregious and embarrassing (for him) that I couldn’t help myself.

Allahu’Abha

And, okay, this might be tipping a sacred cow here, but the very name “Baha’i Rants”–I think it mistakenly labels you someone needing anger management help. I think your blog is much more even-handed than the title may suggest. Of course there’d probably be negatives to changing it since you already have an established Web presence.

Outside of that, facts are an excellent weapon. Of course this is, and must be an opinionated blog. But I have this memory of an opening scene from the movie “Gandhi” where Gandhi is speaking about the conditions of the Indian people. He avoids name-calling, categorizing and anger, and just basically tells the facts one after another. But in the scene, he’s so good at using the facts, that he sounds both objective and subversive at the same time.

I think you came out looking respectable and shining in your most recent skirmish with those who seek to label you an apostate. More of that, and they won’t know what to do with you.

Allah’u'abha and God Bless,
Gerald