You asked me how I identify myself Anon. Maybe you need to be clearer in what you mean by that? That’s like asking me if identify myself as someon with brown eyes or as a Bahai. So I answered your question. I am a brown eyed person and I chose to be a Bahai. And you don’t need to identify yourself as heterosexual because everything and everybody around you automatically does it for you. NOW, are you asking me how do I identify myself as in the people I associate with, what aspirations I have, my morals…? what?

And I don’t think my sexuality is my lower nature. Maybe you have that view of yours, if so I feel sorry for you. It would be again like looking down on the color of my eyes. It is just what it is. So if it’s not that big a deal, then why are we all discussing it on here? Just accept people and let them live openly in the community. Ahh, wait, that’s right you can’t Anon. Because again you go keep saying that the UHJ has laid it all down, when they haven’t. Show me the law in their own words. Show me where they say if a gay couple with their kids come into the Bahai community (in their own words; legislation on their part, not some secretary) then they can only function in there as Bahais stripped of their voting rights. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. So the locla communities have the obligation first and foremost to show unconditional love and support to all, and the last thing on their mind should be stripping people of their voting rights. Actually I think the only time someone should be stripped of such rights is when it causes real discord/disunity in the community an example being lets say a closeted gay man on the LSA cheats on hiw wife and everyone finds out and it becomes a source of discord in the community- then there is a flagrant violation that is disruptive. Then you deal with it. Otherwise, as you say, live and let live. Which would include Bahais in your local community setting up a booth at your local Pride festiivies to teach teh Faith. Cheers!

Hi Farhan,

You wrote:

[quote comment="61488"]To my imperfect understanding, when the UHJ has elucidated on the meanings of Baha’u’llah’s laws, and this elucidation gives rise to recommendations applied by NSA/LSAs, I understand this as a process of legislation…[/quote]

No, as the House has already pointed out, “the elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function” (25 October 1984) — not the other way around. The way you’ve put it — “the UHJ has elucidated the meanings of Baha’u’llah’s laws” — turns elucidation into something that is functionally identical to interpretation, and that’s a no-no:

“Shoghi Effendi has given categorical assurances that neither the Guardian nor the Universal House of Justice ‘can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other.’ Therefore, the friends can be sure that the Universal House of Justice will not engage in interpreting the Holy Writings.” (25 October 1984)

[quote comment="61487"]Do you identify yourself as primarily gay, or primarily a Baha’i? If it is the latter, then I am sure you know no one can honestly say that they are truly and purely a Baha’i.[/quote]

Hi annonymouz,

I’ve noticed that you invariably communicate in English. Do you identify yourself as primarily English-speaking, or primarily a Baha’i? I am sure you know no one can honestly say that they are truly and purely a Baha’i when they do that.

ka kite
Steve

Baquia wrote:
Thanks Steve. I was about to write a comment outlining the mistake that Farhan is making in mangling interpretation, elucidation and legislation but I think your point made that clear.

Sorry, Steve and Baquia, your points are not clear, but I was not expecting a clarification from you, but commenting on Baquia’s idea that the UHJ elucidations were “mere opinion”.

You know Anon’s question made me think a little bit more about the “gay identity”. It’s kind of like some white people in the US who get annoyed when blacks use the term African-American. They don’t understand why someone should identify themselves by the color of their skin- something which I guess is also part of our “lower nature”. On the surface this question seems very valid. Why seperate ourselves? Aren’t we all human? Aren’t there more important things that define us? But my question then is, why do religions, societies, families then make such an issue of it. Why are they intent at telling our youth that they have a disorder that they must overcome to be good with God? Why do they insist that we don’t need protection under the law from work discrimination (something that NARTH’s buddy Focus On The Family insists in the US)? Why do our servicemen in the US have to hide their sexuality in order to serve? It is teh action of these organizations (which unfortunately includes the present Bahai community) that cause gay people to unite and identify ourselves as gay. I would be very happy Anon for the day when there would be no need for prides, gay soft ball leagues, gay clubs, gay this or gay that. The day when I’m just another person treated equally in all fo society- including the Bahai community.

Seriously is this what God wants for us? Is this what Bahaullah wanted?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_re_us/rel_haggard_s_wife

Baquia wrote:
[quote comment="61470"]The House of Justice has zero authority to interpret the Baha’i texts and their “elucidations” are mere opinion and have no binding authority whatsoever.[/quote]

Farhan paraphrased this as:

[quote comment="61502"]Baquia’s idea that the UHJ elucidations were “mere opinion”.[/quote]

I can see why you might paraphrase Baquia in that way, but I thought Baquia made it pretty clear that he/she was referring only to the “elucidations” (i.e. non-binding opinions) expressed by the House on what the Baha’i texts mean.

Inevitably, the House is going to have to elucidate (explain its thinking about the pertinent Baha’i texts) whenever it legislates. That’s unavoidable. But I don’t think Baquia was referring to that kind of elucidation as “mere opinion” — even though it is intrinsically no more than the opinion of the head of the faith, and susceptible to amendment by the same body.

Practically, though, the real elucidation of the House, is pretty important stuff. Much more inmportant than its frequent opinion-pieces. The real elucidations give us insight into the House’s very rare acts of legislation.

Dan W wrote:
[quote comment="61483"]It is a paean of praise to “Institutional Thinking”, and he even uses the word “covenant.” I believe it is precisely the kind of thinking that every Baha’i has drilled into him or her from the moment of first contact. The principle of “Independent Investigation of Truth” takes a back seat to Ruhi groupthink.[/quote]

Great article, but I disagree in one respect. The article seems to be as much about adherence to principle as it is about adherence to authority. The writer says:

“Bankers, for example, used to have a code that made them a bit stodgy and which held them up for ridicule in movies like ‘Mary Poppins.’ But the banker’s code has eroded, and the result was not liberation but self-destruction.”

I may simply be pointing up a weakness in the writer’s argument. “Institutional thinking” has arguably led to as many disasters as it has prevented. Sometimes the institution gets it wrong, sometimes the individual, and sometimes the crowd.

I thought the Baha’i system transcended that, with something called organic unity:

“The parts are analogous to organs of one body. The heart needs the liver to purify the blood, just as the liver needs the heart to pump it. The ultimate co-ordination of their functions comes not by giving one or other the last word, which would be a mechanical unity. It comes because their inherent natures are in harmony as part of one design.”
House of Justice, House of Worship – Sen McGlinn

…Or you could choose annonymouz’ vision:

[quote comment="61494"]But the voice of one person, or that of a few for the matter must ultimately submit to the will of the majority. Thats the rules of unity in the Baha’i Faith.[/quote]

ka kite
Steve

No On 8 Says “We Messed Up”

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-on-8-says-we-messed-up.html

GLBT community can openly discuss where it went it wrong… I wonder if in the long run this may be one of thousand points that Baha’u'llah pointed out along the line of if the Baha’is don’t get it right then there will “arise in the midpoint of the ocean” folks who will. Tho I would imagine that Steve and Sonja will fight to the end to say it is New Zealand, I rahter thought it was other movements, people… If someone who is better versed at quotes could share it I would appropriate it.

Steve wrote : Practically, though, the real elucidation of the House, is pretty important stuff. Much more inmportant than its frequent opinion-pieces. The real elucidations give us insight into the House’s very rare acts of legislation.

Thanks Steve, for sharing your thoughts; as I understand, (and I am always cautious because of “false friends” between English and French), elucidation is clarification or shedding light on an abstruse or controversial subject. In the process of studying the writings on one hand, and practical situations on the other, we « elucidate » the subject matter for law-making, and when legislating, we also need elucidation to help understand the motifs and purposes of that ruling for those who are to apply them. To my understanding, elucidation is the “humanised” and non-arbitrary part of law-making.

For obvious reasons, in the present situation of the Faith, the UHJ will only legislate on community affairs, which are subjects that will not enter into competition with civil laws that we are to respect.

For example, civil law in France requires civil marriage to be performed before any religious marriage is allowable. Baha’i legislation (or ruling) requires that the civil and ensuing spiritual ceremony should take place the same day. This ruling might be different in the US where I suppose a civil marriage registration can take place later. Or again, they give us general ideas on abortion, and leave many decisions to our conscience, without going into details on which motifs are acceptable.

To come back to the initial subject, the rulings of the UHJ define at this time the standards for Baha’i families that are binding on those who wish to be fully active in the Baha’i community.

Hu Farhan,

You’ll need to give some examples of the…

“rulings of the UHJ” that “define at this time the standards for Baha’i families that are binding on those who wish to be fully active in the Baha’i community”

…so I know what you’re referring to. But I suspct you’re either talking about some of the many opinions the House has expressed, or some things it has said to a specific individual or group in response to a specific question or situation. In other words, you’re not talking about legislation, and you’re mistaken in thinking the opinion or response is universally binding on Baha’is.

I’m looking forward to your examples.

ka kite
Steve

Dan W wrote:

[quote post="193"]David Brooks, conservative NY Times columnist, published this article in today’s issue, titled “What Life Asks of Us.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/opinion/27brooks.html?hp

It is a paean of praise to “Institutional Thinking”, and he even uses the word “covenant.” I believe it is precisely the kind of thinking that every Baha’i has drilled into him or her from the moment of first contact. The principle of “Independent Investigation of Truth” takes a back seat to Ruhi groupthink.[/quote]

I can relate to that article as a scientist and teacher. The science community has many rules and codes of conduct that you pick up as you go along. Likewise the teaching community has various rules etc as well. Most of the rules have a sound basis to them and you can see why they’re necessary. But we’re also mindful of getting trapped in the group-think as it limits ones ability to interpret data from experiments and think laterally and creatively. While so much of science is just plain iteration and step by step research, sometimes it takes someone fresh to a field to challenge current thinking and lead that field down a new path or new way of thinking. As a friend of mine said “Rules are for the guidance of the wise and strict adherence of fools.” How much that is true in science.

Steve wrote:
…so I know what you’re referring to. But I suspct you’re either talking about some of the many opinions the House has expressed, or some things it has said to a specific individual or group in response to a specific question or situation. In other words, you’re not talking about legislation, and you’re mistaken in thinking the opinion or response is universally binding on Baha’is.

Steve and Baquia, this subject is important enough to be moved to a specific thread.

Having clarified between “interpretation” and “elucidation”, we might need to clarify between “a mere opinion”, “response” and “elucidation”.

Yes, to me the letters of the UHJ are not “mere opinions”, “suggestions” or “recommendations”. According to the words of Abdu’l-Baha, the “mere opinion” of the UHJ is the opinion of Baha’u’llah, and instant obedience to this arbitration is the necessary condition for unity, since as Abdu’l-baha explains, “Renouncing any word of the House of Justice is like unto the renunciation of a word from the Kitab-i-Aqdas”:

“Nothing causes me more unhappiness than disunity, and this can only be remedied by obedience to the command of the Universal House of justice. Even before the establishment of the House of Justice, the friends must be obedient to the existing Spiritual Assemblies even if they know of a certainty that their judgment is flawed. If this were not complied with, the mighty citadel of the Faith of God would not be safeguarded. 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.”
(Afroukhteh, Memoires of 9 years in Akka, p 169-171)

Grover wrote:
As a friend of mine said “Rules are for the guidance of the wise and strict adherence of fools.” How much that is true in science.

Grover, I adhere to every word of your message and to the words of your friend. It so happens that in any society we have a fair proportion of fools and wise, and the Baha’i community is no exception.

The only way of helping fools to becoming wiser is by associating and working with them and teaching them how to help each other. It can be very frustrating for both parties, but this is the only way of improving our society, unless of course you believe that we can attain wisdom by alienating the fools or burning them at the stake.

Steve,

“But I suspct you’re either talking about some of the many opinions the House has expressed, or some things it has said to a specific individual or group in response to a specific question or situation. In other words, you’re not talking about legislation, and you’re mistaken in thinking the opinion or response is universally binding on Baha’is.”

I think you’re presenting a false dichotomy. In law there is a good categorization that has been put in place to address this issue; on the one-hand we have laws or documents that are “self-executing”; in other, words, they are directly applicable, effective immediately and no ancillary legislation is necessary. On the other hand, we have those which are “executory”. These documents or laws are intended to go into effect or having the potential of becoming effective at a future time. They are therefore contingent. For example, in the Swiss Constitution, article 2, it is stated that “The Swiss Confederation shall protect the liberty and rights of the people and safeguard the independence and security of the country.” This is executory, as it has no application clause. These are mostly general and abstract norms. But does it constitute legislation? Yes.

So, when the House “[...]define[s] at this time the standards for Baha’i families[...]“, they ARE legislating. They’re just doing so through executory legislation.

Iceland to name first lesbian head of government.

see: http://www.bilerico.com/2009/01/iceland_to_name_first_lesbian_head_of_go.php

Thank you dear Daniel for this great news. Ya-Baha’ul-Abha! The world is moving on toward it’s destiny! True world oneness…The first “out” lesbian Prime Minister in the world. And the people of Iceland approve of her by over 70%!!!! I find it fasinating that Iceland would elect the first openly gay/woman Prime Minister. I recently saw a special on the Discovery Channel about the “Happiest People on Earth”. Iceland was ranked #1 as having a population that felt the most fulfilled and happy with their lives and living conditions. In contrast the USA was ranked at #32…

In Peace,
Bill

This is all so utterly confusing. If this is the system to save humanity, then shouldn’t it be a lot easier to follow? So when is a law a law? Does the UHJ need to actually write a letter stating “Gay couples openly serving inside the Bahai community is not allowed and this is the law?” Because I’m like Sonja, I won’t accept a letter written on behalf of the UHJ by some secretary as law. Masud and Farhan may submit to such letters because of their extreme loyalty. But I’m just as loyal to the Hidden Word of Bahaullah: “..The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice;” So is it left up to the individual LSA to decide what to enforce and how? Kind of confusing.

Hi Masud,

You wrote:
[quote comment="61520"]I think you’re presenting a false dichotomy. In law there is a good categorization that has been put in place to address this issue; on the one-hand we have laws or documents that are “self-executing”; in other, words, they are directly applicable, effective immediately and no ancillary legislation is necessary. On the other hand, we have those which are “executory”. These documents or laws are intended to go into effect or having the potential of becoming effective at a future time. They are therefore contingent. For example, in the Swiss Constitution, article 2, it is stated that “The Swiss Confederation shall protect the liberty and rights of the people and safeguard the independence and security of the country.” This is executory, as it has no application clause. These are mostly general and abstract norms. But does it constitute legislation? Yes.[/quote]

You’ve talked a lot about self-executing constitutional provisions, but failed to link what you’ve said to any alleged false dichotomy on my part. Explanation please.

Also, the self-executing “laws or documents” you’re referring to – the ones that can be given effect without the aid of legislation – are perhaps better described as constitutional provisions rather than legislation. Typically, they’re treaties, constitutions and the like.

Your pairing of “self-executing” and “executory” is unusual to say the least. If anything is a false dichotomy, that is. But perhaps you have an explanatory document you can refer me to.

The distinction between self-executing and non-self-executing (my preferred terms) is important, though, because the House is not an executive body.

“…the House of Justice, whether National or Universal, has only legislative power and not executive power….”
(From words of Abdu’l-Baha in: Star of the West, Vol. VII, No. 15, pp. 138-139)
(Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 315)

When it does execute, one can assume that it’s carrying out out a function in its capacity as head of the Faith — handling an appeal for example.

“This, the House of Justice, will be not only a body for the legislation of laws according to the spirit and requirement of the time, but a board of arbitration for the settlement of all disputes arising between peoples”
(Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 315)

“By this House is meant the Universal House of Justice, that is, in all countries a secondary House of Justice must be instituted, and these secondary Houses of Justice must elect the members of the Universal one. Unto this body all things must be referred. It enacteth all ordinances and regulations that are not to be found in the explicit Holy Text. By this body all the difficult problems are to be resolved [Guardian stuff snipped]. This House of Justice enacteth the laws and the government enforceth them. The legislative body must reinforce the executive, the executive must aid and assist the legislative body so that through the close union and harmony of these two forces, the foundation of fairness and justice may become firm and strong, that all the regions of the world may become even as Paradise itself.”
(`Abdu’l-Baha: Will and Testament, Pages: 14-15)

[quote comment="61520"]So, when the House “[...]define[s] at this time the standards for Baha’i families[...]“, they ARE legislating. They’re just doing so through executory legislation.[/quote]

Let’s not put the cart before the horse with this example. Let’s wait until Farhan has done as I’ve requested and gives some examples of the…

“rulings of the UHJ” that “define at this time the standards for Baha’i families that are binding on those who wish to be fully active in the Baha’i community”

…so we know what he’s referring to.

ka kite
Steve

Hi,

I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:

“Expand the Civil Rights Act to Protect LGBT Rights”
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/LGBTCivilRightsAct?e

I really think this is an important cause, and I’d like to encourage you to add your signature, too. It’s free and takes less than a minute of your time.

Thanks!

Stop the presses! Ted Haggard, the fallen evangelical who gave in to the temptations of homosexuality, has gone through reparative therapy and now is a full fledged “heterosexual with issues”! What are those issues? Well, he still has thoughts about men.

Anyway, if you want some fun reading, please click on the following. BUT WARNING, if you don’t like profane words and straight (no pun intended) talk, then don’t click on this link. Its from a funny columnist Dan Savage:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/01/28/ted_haggard_puts_his_penis_in

Revealed Baha'i law does not change or undergo new interpretation because of "scientific" discoveries. That is the reality of the situation. Thousands of years of divine revelation have confirmed that homosexual relations are a major sin. In the time of Moses, punishments were harsher and practicing homosexuals were executed. That was God's law at the time. In this day and age, homosexuality could result in administrative sanctions. The House of Justice will probably create other punishments, such as fines, in the future when Baha'i states are established. The reality is, the punishment changes but the crime remains the same. Either God is wrong or does not exist or God is right and homosexual behaviour is wrong.

New discoveries or cultural perceptions will not be problematic for Baha'is. On the contrary, as the Baha'i Faith expands and becomes a state religion in country after country, the position of people around the world will change. Methods, whether psychological or medical will be devised so that homosexuality, among many other disorders, can be finally eradicated.

Those that believe that homosexuality will ever be welcomed into the Baha'i community, or that the infallible House of Justice will change its position, are fooling themselves. They are choosing their own passions over the revelations of God. Religious morality will always be conservative. To think that the House can give up Shoghi Effendi's interpretations is foolish. Whether or not members of the House are "open-minded", the House is inspired by Baha'u'llah, not by the inclinations of its members. Whoever the members of the House are, it would make the same decision. The law against homosexuality will never change, not in this Revelation, not in any Revelation throughout all time.

re: "Thousands of years of divine revelation"

Nicholas,

The whole idea of "divine revelation" is a pure "middle man" SCAM that has only been perpetuated for reasons of "political expediency".

Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture, including bahai, simply seeks to turn the masses of people into "slaves of god" to be manipulated by elites whose egos are inflated far beyond any natural talent they might have in the areas of spirituality or enlightenment (much less government).

The impulse toward transcendence, the human yearning for meaning and belonging, love, compassion, beauty, truth, and the good, existed long before religion was "invented" by the so called "prophets".

Religion was simply a way to control people by scaring them into thinking that if they didn't allow priests to control irrigation canals in ancient times that some thundering sky god(s) would "zap" the "sinners" (non-conformists).

(Religion "appropriated" transcendence for economic, political and military reasons.)

Homosexuality amongst the "slaves of god" (the masses) was prohibited by the (wealthy) priestly elites (who themselves gladly paid for homo-sex) precisely because it was seen as a "competing" belief system based on "sex mystique". Same reason for (stupidly) "banning" worship of the "divine feminine".

The world is sick and tired of the kind of dreary stuff that bahai tradition tries to keep alive.

bahai will never be able to deliver on the promise of being a movement of spiritual transformation and healing if it doesn't THROW OUT THIS KIND OF JUNK in bahai scripture.

all of the resulting lies and deception doom bahai to be an irrelevant, dysfunctional attempt at building a "better bureaucratic mousetrap". mindless. heartless.

bye, bye!

–
http://www.bhavanasociety.org//main/quotes_full_p…

"There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks, there were no unborn… no escape would be discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned. But because there is an unborn…, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, become, made, conditioned.”
~ The Buddha
Ud 8:3

Translator: Bhikkhu Bodhi
Udana 8:3

Nicholas, I share many of your beliefs, but I would not present them in the same way. There is little scientific evidence at this time either ways in the gay debate, and when we come to beliefs and convictions, to which we are all entitled, it is always best to present them in a way which will open the debate so that we can all learn, and avoid judgmental words such as "foolish" that will close the debate by creating tension.