Baha’i Rants

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

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.

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.

In order to rescue mySQL database from complete collapse, please continue this discussion at its new location and pick up right where we left off.

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/...

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/LGBTCivilRig...

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!

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

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.

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

Iceland to name first lesbian head of government.

see: http://www.bilerico.com/2009/01/iceland_to_name...

[quote comment=""]Nothing causes me more unhappiness than disunity, and this can only be remedied by obedience to the command of the Universal House of justice.[/quote]

Dear Farhan, you continue to conflate opinion, guidance, suggestion, etc with command, law, legislation, arbitration, etc. This is as wrong as mistaking Baha'i law for mere suggestion.

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.

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 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)

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/27bro...

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.

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

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.

No On 8 Says "We Messed Up"

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2009/01/no-on-8-sa...

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.

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

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

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

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.

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".

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

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!

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?

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.

To put it bluntly, the House has a primary role and that is legislation. They may give their opinion within that process but that is just an opinion.

Along with every Baha'i, it is my duty to abide by the laws that the House lays down. The thing is that the House has legislated precious few times. They seem very reluctant to legislate and for the most part are content to leave things in the hands of individual believers as well as giving their opinion to those that ask for it.

However, it would be wrong for Baha'is to mistake the House's opinion for Baha'i law. Just as it would be wrong to mistake law for opinion.

[quote comment=""]Well Baquia, this is a real profession of faith or should I say of recanting of faith on your part. Thank you for expressing yourself clearly.[/quote]

Yeah, I think I'm going to pass up on this wriggling bait ;)

Hey P,

Believe me if I was on an assembly and those issues came up, I would not push it further. I would let it go. Like I said live and let live. 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. You sounded very fierce in your show of support but frankly it would never get to that with me because I wouldn't be the one waiving around the book. LSAs and NSAs are not perfect in their decision making process and I am sure you will see different results in different localities. An LSA is responsible for the mangement of thier own community and one LSAs decision cannot be considered a precedent for another. I know of LSA decisions where in fact there was little when issues like that came up. it would have cause more problems than the original one.

But when the UHJ has clearly laid down the rules you can't expect them to lay down the rules differently for you. You know thier position. Thats where the buck stops.

You again said something curious. "I am gay". yes, I know. What else are you? Is that the first adjective that comes to mind when you think of yourself, or is it simply a part of you? I would like to think as Baha'i we should put our lower nature at the bottom of the list when trying to describe our roles and function in life. I don't go around and identify myself as a omnivore or a person under 30. All of those things are relative and thus, inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. Being gay isn't a big deal. Only if you want it to be...Am I wrong?

Dan W wrote:
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.

Thanks, Dan for this interesting link.

I see things a little differently. Institutional thinking only concerns complicated “systemic” team work. We can think for ourselves at times, but still be able to cooperate and collaborate in harmony within a planned activity. The plane can go anywhere, but the pilot is bound within a frame-work of safety and navigational rules. I can stab my scalpel anywhere, but I am severely restricted within a frame-work of laws rules and regulations when I decide to operate someone.

In such situations, without institutional systematisation, we can go back to camels and Neolithic brain surgery if don’t want to leave “the independent search of truth” in the cloak room.

Sorry Daniel that the group was disbanded by the UHJ. But I guess that's similar to the NSA & LSA's being disbanded in Iran in loyalty to government. The LSA's disbanded, but the Bahais still created non-adminstrative groups to help keep the communities together. Maybe that's what we'll end up with for now among LGBT and supporters in the Faith. No official groups, but a criss-cross of connections online with each other for support.

Anon. Actually the debate should be INSIDE teh Bahai communities throughout the world. Not pushed into anonymity online. It is inside the Bahai community where actual change would happen. Where a youth considering suicide would be saved. Where a lesbian considering to leave the Faith because fundies in the religion aren't happy that she lives in teh same house with her partner, would be supported by people like me who would fight those who would try to push her out. Actually all this talk online has made me decide to do something that I haven't done yet. I plan to write my local community and explain to them why I have not been active. They keep sending me newsletters, but I don't think they know. It is time they did.
Now to answer your other questions Anon. I AM GAY. I chose to be Bahai when I turned 15. I almost officially resigned, but didn't have the guts to do it because deep down inside I still believe in Bahaullah. It might not be in the black/white fashion that you expect. But I still believe. So wether someone takes my card away (of course I don't know where it is, so they'd have to help me find it first) or not, makes no difference. So I'm fine with however you want to believe Anon. If you think that homosexuality is wrong in every shape and form, I accept your right to that view inside the Bahai community. If I was living in the same community as you, the only time I would intervene is if A)you were sending someone, who does not wish to go through therapy, on a false mission to change themselves. I would offer an alternate view to that individual that they are fine just as God made them B) If you try to take away the voting rights of a gay couple simply for living together and openly saying they are gay, I would fight you tooth and nail. If they haven't done anything to bring disorder to the community, then they are fine as they are. C) If you try to silence honest discourse and varying views on this topic by pulling out a bunch of letters from secretaries or threatening to go to any higher authority to get your community sanctioned, I will fight you to my ultimate breath until the UHJ comes down on me personally and removes me from the commmunity. THAT Anon is my conviction to unconditional love and acceptance for ALL inside the Bahai community. Peace!

Steve wrote:
I prefer the House's version. The thing is, the House does a lot of what Farhan would call elucidation, and what Baquia and I would call giving opinions. But it does very little legislating. I'm not aware of the House ever having legislated on homosexuality, let alone having elucidated (the house's definition) on that legislation.

My apologies for having omitted the quotation marks to end the quote, and thanks for preferring the UHJ version to my paraphrases in English.

After having differentiated between “interpretation” and “elucidation”, which was the object of my post, we now need to differentiate between “elucidation” and “legislation”. 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, but as I said, my understanding is imperfect in an area which is not of my competence and perhaps we should refer the matter for further clarification to the UHJ?

What a good discussion. And P, this outlet, right here on the Rant, is probably the best place to have it. We respectively remain anonymous and at the same time our thinking, points and counterpoints are all chronologically kept. The debate goes on for this important issue.

In regards to what you say about meeting you half way. I would never turn someone who is gay away from a Baha'i function. However, I still think it odd that that person would identify themselves only by that trait. There is the problem for me. As yourself this: 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. Maybe only Abdu'l-Baha. Like I have said before--I dont go around telling people "Hi I am a heterosexual. Can I come in? The emphasis and constant dwelling is what I don't understand.

Sonja, You too are doing the same thing. Widdeling down the Baha'i position to a point of insignificance and near irrelevance does not bode well for your argument. Your statement about the Baha'i Faith is something for everyone and love for all is also naive. The Faith itself, its laws and percepts and its systems must be taken in their entirety and not piece mealed. It is neither a liberal or conservative movement or a social idea that can be fit for each decade of transitory values and priorities.

However, what I do agree with you on is that as Baha'is, as Faran said, and what P is telling me, we should in our own individual capacities show that unconditional love and acceptance that you incorrectly place on the shoulders of the institutions. Indeed I wholeheartedly agree with you and I strive to find this best way of doing this on a daily basis. It is not your position to dictate, or mine for that matter, what the Baha'i Faith and its divinely ordained Prophet, as you said yourself, should reveal or how it should be interpreted. By all means justify it however you will but the constant reality and serious system that is the Baha'i administration today is the result of meticulous and unwavering adhearance to the the directions, documents and position of each of Baha'u'llah's successors. This is a matter of the Covenant--not a matter or intolerance or prejudice. You water down the origins of the position as the words of a secretary yada yada yada. But the reality is that Shoghi Effendi made the call that homosexuality is not acceptable. The message is still the same. Could you possibly justify away to the point of having the exact opposite in meaning, just because it comes from a secretary? Its so clear!

Actually... one of the reasons for the group that met (and disbanded in instant and exact obedience to th UHJ wishes I might add) to write the letter re: homosexuality was, besides the above discussion, a number of kids had committed suicide, a committed lesbian couple had been asked by their LSA to live separately... two mobile home trailers on the same ranch, apparently wasn't enough...

the letter is archived at: http://bahai-library.com/letters/gays.html

Just to let the Aqdas bangers here know, the Gay Baha'i Fellowship was doing great healing work, between communities and their GLBT breathren... we disbanded when asked... it is still very sad to all of us who had so much hope! I pray that someday a similar effort will emerge again.

And Farhan. We are sincere in our beliefs and are putting them into action. By finding partner to commit with and raise wonderful families. And this will continue. But to be clear, I am not as fortunate as Daniel. I'm still single, but hope to be in a committed relationship one day. I fight for this though, because I know what it right. My friend who goes to his Catholic parish is someone that I'm interested in. Our friendship may develop into something greater. And if it does, I can see his congregation fully welcoming us. I can see them even helping us adopt a child one day if that is what we wish. All of this is possible and it would be in Catholic community- a religion that has the exact same dogma regarding homosexuality as does the Bahai Faith. Actually, it is even worse than the Bahai Faith because the words against homosexuality come directly from the Pope's mouth- not some secretary writing on behalf of the Pope. Yet somehow, this parish can accept LGBT people with open arms. Sad that if I were to have a partner and child, they unfortunately would be brought up in a liberal Christian congregation and never be exposed to the Bahai commuity- simply because of the Bahais prejudices against homosexuality.

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/27bro...

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.

Farhan. When the Universal House of Justice. The 9 men sitting up there, get up and write a letter in their own hands and send it off to the world saying "We the UHJ are pronouncing that gay couples are not allowed to openly serve in the Bahai community" then you have something to stand on. Otherwise you don't. So we are left with the local communities and how they wish to treat their members. I'm sure in some cultures (NL; maybe some progressive cities in Canada) where gay couples enter the Bahai community, they are not being told by fellow Bahais that they should turn their back on their spouse because and give up their kids to straight people because their family is not a real family according to Bahaullah. I don't claim it is the majority, but there has to be at least ONE Bahai community in this big wide planet that is acting in justice. Now, when the UHJ comes down directly on such communities and tells them they must disband or they will be kicked out, then and only then will we all have our answer. For now, the choice is left on how we want the Bahai Faith to be. A small, exclusive religion for a select few as you claim it is Farhan. Or a wide, just religion that treats all as equals as Sonja believes. We both are all firm in our beliefs and we all point to passages in letters/writings that confirm our most sincere beliefs. I think a lot of this has to do with the immaturity of the Bahai religion. It is young and small. It doesn't have the luxury of multiple communities in the same city, where one community would be more open to gay couples while the other would shut the door. If the Faith truly grows (and I hope it will), then maybe we'll have that luxury one day as does my friend and his liberal Catholic parish. But I'm not holding my breath. For now, I'll believe in Bahaullah on my own. And if I'm ever in the NL...well at least I'll know I can be open in Sonja's home. :o)

[quote comment="61479"]The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts. The major distinction between the two functions is that legislation with its resultant outcome of elucidation is susceptible of amendment by the House of Justice itself, whereas the Guardian's interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied.

As a result, elucidations result in legislation and not a mere airing of a opinions. When the traffic warden tells you that you are to drive on the right side of the road, and not on the left, this is not a mere opinion or a suggestion, but a binding rule for those who wish to be part of that community, the transgression of which can result in a penalty.[/quote]

The first paragraph, above, is from the 1984 letter from the house to an individual. The second paragraph, I can only assume, is from Farhan -- who is forever counselling us not to take a walk on the wild side of the road, but managed to cross the centre-line anyway

Farhan seems to have got the cart before the horse. The House is saying that elucidation is an outcome of legislation, whereas Farhan is saying legislation is the result of elucidations. Quite a difference.

I prefer the House's version. The thing is, the House does a lot of what Farhan would call elucidation, and what Baquia and I would call giving opinions. But it does very little legislating. I'm not aware of the House ever having legislated on homosexuality, let alone having elucidated (the house's definition) on that legislation.

So all we're left with is opinion.

Doo, doo doo, doo doo, doo doo doo...

ka kite
Steve

Baquia, in reply to your reference to the Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha concerning the issues of interpretation and elucidation, you might wish to refer to the document: The Universal House of Justice's Power of Elucidation dated 25 October 1984. In the W&T we read:

“It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House Of Justice) to ... deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book . . . and bear upon daily transactions, . . . (p. 20)”

Further, in response to a question raised by the American National Spiritual Assembly about the Universal Court of Arbitration, the Guardian in a letter dated 9 April 1923, anticipated its function of elucidation:

“ ... regarding the nature and scope of the Universal Court of Arbitration, this and other similar matters will have to be explained and elucidated by the Universal House of Justice, to which, according to the Master's explicit Instructions, all important fundamental questions must be referred.... “(Baha'i Administration, P. 47)

In a letter dated 9 March 1965, the Universal House of Justice stresses the "profound difference" that exists between the "interpretations of the Guardian and the elucidations of the House of Justice in exercise of its function to 'deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure, and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book."' (Wellspring of Guidance, p. 52) …

The elucidations of the Universal House of Justice stem from its legislative function, while the interpretations of the Guardian represent the true intent inherent in the Sacred Texts. The major distinction between the two functions is that legislation with its resultant outcome of elucidation is susceptible of amendment by the House of Justice itself, whereas the Guardian's interpretation is a statement of truth which cannot be varied.

As a result, elucidations result in legislation and not a mere airing of a opinions. When the traffic warden tells you that you are to drive on the right side of the road, and not on the left, this is not a mere opinion or a suggestion, but a binding rule for those who wish to be part of that community, the transgression of which can result in a penalty.

Bill wrote:
Think dear Mashud and Farhan. This earth is a micro-speck of a micro-speck of dust floating in the Universe, insignificant and probably meaningless. I think that when Baha'u'llah refered to this earth as "God's Footstool" He was speaking allogorically.

Bill, insignificant? only perhaps, because large numbers of insignificant beings in unity can move mountains, but meaningless no. The whole of God’s revelation gives meaning to all this, at least to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see…

Bill wrote:
You mention Galileo and Bruno and how their views eventually proved to be right and the Catholic Church's and the mainline thinking of that age wrong (snip) Many people and many religions thought at that time that it was against the "natural order" of things to mix the races, (snip) Maybe it's time for a new age social order, an new order that's been ushered in by Baha'u'llah Himself…

Thanks Bill for your kind post and I happy to hear that your are happy and balanced;

Yes, I mentioned Bruno and Galileo, because the multitude of those who were wrong are not remembered by history, or only in books read by specialists. I can refer to you ideas about spontaneous generation and other concepts that have fallen into disgrace. As far as I know, Baha’is are not burning anyone at the stake, and if violence was present, I would be ready to defend them.

Yes, marriage is an age old institution, (not very useful for old aged) and Baha’u’llah who has abrogated so many institutions, happens to have insisted on keeping that one, and in order to keep His institutions in tune with the needs of each day and age, He has created a body of arbitration that we are to consider as the law maker and the incarnation of his presence.

It so happens that for the time being this body has not suggested any change in the institution of marriage within which we are to enjoy sexuality, and if ever they did, they would do it under the dictates of their own conscience and not through action of pressure groups.

So, here we are: a community that ahs changed some institutions and not others and who is welcoming those who want to try the prototype. Baha’u’llah is not inviting everyone irrespective of their opinions and behaviours, “marketing” His “product” according to the tastes of the majority, in order to attract masses of people and build a “successful” community that will “compete” with others: He is inviting those who are ready to change their behaviours and participate in elaborating this prototype. Other prototypes are on the way; history will show who was right. Let’s take it easy!

Baquia wrote: 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. That is, unless you want to throw out the Will & Testament of Abdu’l-Baha…

Well Baquia, this is a real profession of faith or should I say of recanting of faith on your part. Thank you for expressing yourself clearly.

I disagree with your point: elucidations are not mere “opinions”. Elucidations are the practical applications of the laws, just as a judge elucidates the implications of the written law to a specific case. I have already posted here the statement about how Abdu’l-Baha Himself would willingly submit to the ruling of the UHJ. Obviously, if you consider the legislation by the UHJ as void, the whole picture becomes clear.

Dear Farhan,
You mention Galileo and Bruno and how their views eventually proved to be right and the Catholic Church's and the mainline thinking of that age wrong. Time, history, and science was on the side of Galileo and Bruno. Unfortunately, it took the Church and society hundreds of years to finally give those men their due. Science and history is on the side of gay and lesbian equality. Do we have to wait hundreds of years before the Baha'i Faith is proven wrong regarding this issue? I don't think so, for unlike the times of Galileo, we are living in an age when knowledge travels around the globe at the speed of light, a time when the mass of humanity can read and decide for themselves what it truth. Remember, it's just a few decades ago that this conversation regarding GLBT equality would have been about interracial marriage and Black equality. Many people and many religions thought at that time that it was against the "natural order" of things to mix the races, let alone have people of different races fall in love, have children and raise interracial families.

You also said that GLBT equality and marriage just doesn't fit into the age-old social structure of society. Well, you said it right when you said age-old or should I say "old-age. Maybe it's time for a new age social order, an new order that's been ushered in by Baha'u'llah Himself and expected by Him to be an "ever advancing Civilization". How can civilization be ever advancing if we are locked into an age-old social structure?

Something else I was thinking this week when going over in my mind the interesting conversation that we are all having here. I watched a National Geographic Special about the Hubble Telescope. Fasinating. The Hubble gave us pictures of the Universe never before seen at such a level of depth and clarity. It showed one piece of the Universe which was filled with Billions of Galaxy’s and Trillions of stars. Now, if there is a God, a Supreme Creator, an Unknowable Essence, etc. Do you think that this Universal Mind cares about who we tiny human beings fall in love with and spend out lives with? Think dear Mashud and Farhan. This earth is a micro-speck of a micro-speck of dust floating in the Universe, insignificant and probably meaningless. I think that when Baha’u'llah refered to this earth as “God’s Footstool” He was speaking allogorically. Is it not true that even the manifestations of God, even Baha’u'llah Himself had no clue what and who God is? Is it not also true that the manifestations are subject and on some level influenced by the times in which they appear and the environment/society into which they are born? So, I think this whole subject of homosexuality wasn’t even on Baha’u'llah’s mind. If it was important He would have spoke about it. Your thoughts?

In Peace,
Bill
BTW Steve, you can add my name to Daniel and P. My partner and I have been together 16 years. Very happy and well adjusted.

[quote comment=""]are you suggesting that we should stick to our own interpretations of the words and consider that the present elucidations of the UHJ are mistaken?[/quote]

You seem to be conflating elucidation with interpretation. Elucidation isn't just a pretty synonym that can stand in for interpretation.

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. That is, unless you want to throw out the Will & Testament of Abdu'l-Baha...

Steve wrote :
[NA - homosexual marriage hasn't been on the table]

Farhan : Steve, on the contrary, it is at the very centre of the discussion, even if some try to keep it under the table. An important part of all religious dispensations, (and the Baha’i Faith is no exception) has been a social structure that is established around the family, itself upheld by the restricting sexuality to within the marriage. GLTBs happen to question this principle, unless and until some arrangement is found to allow other kinds of sexuality outside marriage, or the acceptance of gay marriages. As the Chinese proverb goes, marriage is a strong hold; those who are inside want to get out, and those outside, want to get in.

Steve : Again, what is unchaste about the way Dan and P are living their lives in a long-term committed loving and supportive relationship?

Farhan: As a doctor I see nothing wrong or unchaste, except that it just happens not to fit into the age-old social structure and that many communities are not ready to accept a change in this structure. In the UK or NZ they consider it as driving on the “wrong” side of the road, if you are driving on the right. You can drive closeted when no one else is there, but not at traffic hours, unless and until society decides to make exceptions for this kind of preference.

I can make a plea for tolerance, love and compassion for Dan and P, I will welcome them to my home, but I have no authority to change the regulations to which I myself have to submit, and I will not go around calling people names because they have made a social choice to which they are faithful. However, if I were elected to some kind of social position of responsibility, I would uphold that standard or refuse that position of responsibility. Accepting to be enrolled as a Baha’i is to me already accepting a position of responsibility.

Sonja wrote: whatever the case may be, homosexuality is not mentioned in the authenticated Bahai writings, so all predujice concerning the Bahai principle of equality steams from cultural assumptions presented in various secretaries words,…

Sonja, are you suggesting that we should stick to our own interpretations of the words and consider that the present elucidations of the UHJ are mistaken? Do you believe that gay activities/couples/marriages should be as an acceptable way of life within the Baha’i community? What modification in the Baha’i marriage structure would you suggest?


Steve wrote : Yes, and I fail to see any difference between that sincerely-held view and the sincerely-held views of some Iranian Muslims that Baha’is are not of the book, that their claims insult Muhammad, that they don’t deserve equal rights

Steve, the difference is that whatever our system of belief, some systems turns out to be right, others wrong. Galilee and Bruno suffered, but is so happened that their beliefs turned out to be right and they helped humanity to advance on the path of progress. Scientifically speaking, if you are sincere in your beliefs, and put them into action, in the end we will advance because we find out who was right.

[quote comment="61461"]...your gut reaction is to close the door completely to a greater acceptance of gays in the Bahai community because you fear it would destroy (or water-down) the Bahai Faith.[/quote]

Yes, and I fail to see any difference between that sincerely-held view and the sincerely-held views of some Iranian Muslims that Baha'is are not of the book, that their claims insult Muhammad, that they don't deserve equal rights, that they should just disappear (out of the country or whatever) or at least shut up up in public and limit their activities to consenting adults behind closed doors.

Anon. Don't apologize. I'm actually very happy that you said what you said. Because you are an average, loving Bahai in good standing who I'm sure has many gay friends and would never intentionally harm or be prejudiced towards someone because of their sexuality..yet, your gut reaction is to close the door completely to a greater acceptance of gays in the Bahai community because you fear it would destroy (or water-down) the Bahai Faith. If that is the case, then exactly where is the common ground that you speak of for better understanding? You have shut the door completely. It is your way or the highway. Your way says gays have to remain single (can't live with your partner and bring your kids to the Bahai community without having voting rights removed). Your way says a Bahai teen has to be taught that he has a disorder and should try as hard as he can to overcome, and if he can't well you are always free to leave. And if that teen is so torn inside that he can't live anymore, then you just pray for him because it is all a test and he's in a better place. Maybe I've misunderstoon, but these ARE your views (and Masud's and Farnhans, and the secretaries speaking on behalf of the UHJ and the majority of followers, right? So what have I offered? I NEVER asked that you change the Bahai law of marriage so that two men or women can say "we will verily abide...". I never said that if a Bahai inside the community wishes to control his sexuality and find help to do that so he can marry a woman, that anyone should stand in his way. If that is what he chooses to do, and he doesn't end up hurting himself or anyone else, I would support him 100%. I am more than willing to accomodate you Anon and your views. All I ask is if a couple comes in the community- don't turn them away. Don't oprress a teen in the community by telling pointing to quotes telling him he has a spiritual aberration and leave him with suicidal thoughts. Encourage him to love himself and more importantly tell him the community will fully accept him as an equal. Let a lesbian ring her partner to Bahai activities and make sure she knows that your commnity would never take away her voting rights and treat her as second class. If you can promise these things, then you have met us 1/2 way in what we are saying. Otherwise, I really don't see any compromise on your part. Don't ask don't tell is not a compromise.

[quote comment=""][...] I can’t get over the reality that you are mangling what you all perceive to be the Faith into what you want it to be—an all encompassing unconditional religion for all. Its not. Whatever the case may be, homosexuality is not sanctioned in the Baha’i Faith.[...][/quote]

And I can respond just as adamently, I can't get over the reality that... ... whatever the case may be, homosexuality is not mentioned in the authenticated Bahai writings, so all predujice concerning the Bahai principle of equality steams from cultural assumptions presented in various secretaries words, which Bahais have taken on board because it suits their own prejudice and fears of homosexuality. It's our biggest challenge to face this and to look at what the real universality of the Bahai Teachings. After all in the early days, well meaning American Bahais had separate meetings for whites and blacks.
As a Bahai who believes that Baha'u'llahs teachings really are for the world, not just some types of people or for some types of 'equality', I keep at this. Afterall it really hurts me when Bahais present my faith as if it really is meant to be homophobic. It isn't I cry. Baha'u'llah really is a Prophet, he really instigated a religion that is for all the flowers.
So A, yes, it is no good in going around in circles unless both parties admit some grounds towards a better understanding, and that would start with examining what is really a Bahai teaching from what is written by Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha and interpreted by Shoghi Effendi and not with some gross statement as if the Bahai Faith has closed the door on equality for all.

sorry folks, i'm travelling (Steve, am basking (yes a nice bright pink) in devonport) so my apologies for this stab in the dark into the comments here.

I shouldn't have said that and I apologize. I realize it was insensitive but I still hold the opinion that all of this is part of a test. I can't get over the reality that you are mangling what you all perceive to be the Faith into what you want it to be---an all encompassing unconditional religion for all. Its not. Whatever the case may be, homosexuality is not sanctioned in the Baha'i Faith. Suicide is tragic and I know people who have killed themselves and I also knew gay bahais who died of aids. Death in all its forms is something more than we can put into words. Is it sad? yes. Is it always untimely? yes. Is it a reunion with God? yes. You must forgive my cold tone, but thats the reality. I am willing to discuss the issue and believe it or not, I have no qualm or issue with gays. Live and let live. But, more arguments sake, how can you possible justify changing the laws of the Faith for this day to accommodate a few believers?? And please...Dont call me intolerant. I am not. I have gay friends, co-workers etc and I get along great with them. You call me intolerant but I am simply echoing what was is in the books. I think it would be fair to say you are intolerant of people who have faith in the system as it is now.

In other words it does no good in going around in this circle unless both parties admit some grounds to come to a better understanding.

And just for fun

Oh when oh when will these fundie religions learn?

Thanks Steve. It gets tiring to have people throw marriage into your face when you haven't even mentioned it. The secretary speaking on behalf of the UHJ did the same thing when they responded to me- when I never even mentioned the word. If a man enters the Bahai community with two legal wives, he is totally welcome as long as it is part of the culture he is in. The Bahai Faith even "spiritually" recognizes that relationship as ok before God. But if a culture has progressed to accept a same sex couple, then the Faith won't even accept them as full members in the community. No laws changing, nothing dramatic that would get the fundamentalists in arms. But just loving acceptance as Daniel wants, as I want. Again I go back to my friends Catholic parish. Does that parish perform same sex unions at the altar? No. Does it blot out the picture of the Pope or his words? No. But somehow that parish manages to fully accept their gay brother and sisters. It welcomes these families with open arms, with the blessings of the Bishop. My friend doesn't have to hide anything. He is loved and he loves his church because he knows no one is going to pull him aside and tell him "hey God loves ya, but you know you need to get some therapy and change for him." The chance of a gay youth killing himself at least in that parish is way less thanks to some progressive leaders and a congregation that would never stand for such rubbish. I can only wish the same from the majority of Bahais.

Farhan wrote:
[quote comment="61440"]If you see some of the papers I have published on the subject, you realise that a successful ethical decision making takes into account different view points in a given situation at a given time, and this can evolve as the environment changes.[/quote]

I'm not seeing any evidence of taking into account different viewpoints in your posts, Farhan. You simply talk past the viewpoint being presented to you and create so many straw men I feel like I'm in a scarecrow factory.

[quote comment="61444"]As I said, in ethical decision making you do not petition a solution but you try to conciliate different opinions in the same community and here I see a long list of questions to which I have found no solution:[/quote]

Yes, but the questions you've asked either don't apply in the situation P was putting to you [NA], or apply apply equally to heterosexuals [hetero]:

Do I understand that you believe that should the UHJ legislate that homosexual marriages could now be performed, the problem would be solved?
[NA - homosexual marriage hasn't been on the table]

If so, what to do with Baha’is who are against a change in the family structure? (from what you say they seem to be the majority)
[NA and hetero - most Baha'is would be against de facto hetero marriages, but if a straight couple in an established de facto marriage came into the Baha'i community, few would think that the family structure was threatened if they were accepted]

What would happen to gay Baha’is getting married in states where gay marriages were not accepted by civil law? (In France, performing a marriage before a civil marriage is against penal law)
[NA and hetero - same problem with integrating the requirements of civil and Baha'i marriage requirements]

And what happens if parents do not give consent? Should parental consent be required only for non-gay marriages?
[NA, but otherwise a good question]

And what would happen for gay adoption/IVF if state laws did not allow them?
[NA, same problem for "straight adoption" - if that phrase sounds awkward, maybe you should re-think "gay adoption"]

And if state laws did allow them, would it not be discrimination if NHS accepted infertility as a disorder only to be refunded for non-gay families?
[NA - this is a civil matter and doesn't concern the baha'i community]

Or should infertility no longer be accepted as a disorder and no longer refunded for non gay families?
[Farhan, just stop. You don’t get it]

Or else why not then allow/refunding IVF for singles?
[Aaaaargh!]

If no gay marriages were accepted by the UHJ, then would you suggest that the laws on chastity should only apply to non-gays?
[NA. Just asnswer the question that was put to you, not something you've made up. What is unchaste about the way Dan and P are living their lives in a long-term committed loving and supportive relationship?]

And what with people who discovered they had become gay later in life?
[NA. What with people who discovered they had become straight, axe-murderers, recluses, adventurers, asexual. Where are you even going with your question?]

How to deal with people getting married, not knowing if they were gay or not?
[Indeed, and this is an argument for folks who are pretty sure they're gay not being shoe-horned into hetero marriage and a fairly certain divorce. And I know of several instances of that in the NZ Baha'i community]

Would you then suggest that gay relations were to free for non-gay married couples who discovered themselves bisexual?
[NA - Dan and P have already said they are for long-term committed one-to-one relationships. Also married straight Baha'is may look for a bit of variety through adultery, and that's wrong, too]

Or is chastity an outdated requirement to be abolished altogether?
[Again, what is unchaste about the way Dan and P are living their lives in a long-term committed loving and supportive relationship?]

ka kite
Steve

And I'm sure being called unchaste when you are raising a family with your partner will help much either Farhan. So where do we go from here? I guess the only option is to be lucky enough to live near Sonja's community and not yours, or Masud's or Anon's. Which would be fine with me if the Bahai community was as huge as the Catholic church and one could find a parish that accepts you as an equal. But it is not. It is shrinking and going nowhere. As Daniel mentioned the San Francisco Bahai community and how pitiful and small it is. Unfortunately most Bahais would look at that situation and go, we'll it's small because there are so many unchaste people in SF and they just don't understand God's love. So you have a bunch of close-minded, prudish, fundamentalists sitting inside their little fortress in this huge liberal city, just feeling fine and dandy, so proud of themselves from keeping all those bad unchaste people outside of their little shrinking fortress. Great future for the Faith Farhan.

Daniel wrote :
This is good. I think the solution, hope vision I have is that a gay Baha'is being treated just like any other minority in the community... just as a Baha'i. You talk about your fiance, wife, kids, I talk about mine... whats the problem?

Daniel, there is no problem with me, nor with some other Baha’is like Sonja.

The problem is not with individuals like Sonja and I, but with the fact that the Baha’i community life has principles of chastity, and of a structure of family life which is not the one gays and some other minority groups feel inclined to adopt and who are unable to completely integrate the community and are even rejected by prudish community members.

We can do something to help reduce prejudice from individuals, but I cannot see how to change community rules in a community that believes that God’s message is here to change humanity, and not humanity to change God’s laws.

I am sure that being called "fundamentalist" will not help towards a better mutual understanding.

P says "You want a solution you fundamentalists? We gave you the solution a few posts back. Don't bring up the topic of homosexuality PERIOD."

This is good. I think the solution, hope vision I have is that a gay Baha'is being treated just like any other minority in the community... just as a Baha'i. You talk about your fiance, wife, kids, I talk about mine... whats the problem?

Farhan, just stop. You don't get it. Your nose is so stuck in adminstration and sitting silently until the UHJ tells you what your next step is. Yes, you are one of the fundamentalists I pointed out. Your community, all communities will eventually have to deal more and more with the gay condition. No you will not be restructuring the laws to please me. Where in any of my posts did I say anything about gay marriage? I specifically said I don't care about saying "we will verily abide.." with a parnter. I don't care about that. I just want the Bahai community to be a safe environment for ALL of humanity. If a couple comes in- let them serve fully and openly with their kids. That's all. Don't lead a gay youth in the community to believe that he is displeasing Bahaullah if he acts on his feelings. Tell that gay youth that this is what is in these letters, some of us believe them to be teh same as what God said, but many others don't. You are left to decide for yourself. But above all, know that God loves you and you are fine in Bahaullah's eyes. Don't freaking send him on some false quest to change! The only people who have a problem with all this are you fundamentalists because you are so stuck on letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi or the UHJ- administration. You just don't get it.

P wrote:
You want a solution you fundamentalists? We gave you the solution a few posts back.

P, I am not sure if you consider me as a fundamentalist or someone else, but any way, I must have missed “the solution”. As I said, in ethical decision making you do not petition a solution but you try to conciliate different opinions in the same community and here I see a long list of questions to which I have found no solution:

Do I understand that you believe that should the UHJ legislate that homosexual marriages could now be performed, the problem would be solved? If so, what to do with Baha’is who are against a change in the family structure? (from what you say they seem to be the majority) What would happen to gay Baha'is getting married in states where gay marriages were not accepted by civil law? (In France, performing a marriage before a civil marriage is against penal law) And what happens if parents do not give consent? Should parental consent be required only for non-gay marriages? And what would happen for gay adoption/IVF if state laws did not allow them? And if state laws did allow them, would it not be discrimination if NHS accepted infertility as a disorder only to be refunded for non-gay families? Or should infertility no longer be accepted as a disorder and no longer refunded for non gay families? Or else why not then allow/refunding IVF for singles?

If no gay marriages were accepted by the UHJ, then would you suggest that the laws on chastity should only apply to non-gays? And what with people who discovered they had become gay later in life? How to deal with people getting married, not knowing if they were gay or not? Would you then suggest that gay relations were to free for non-gay married couples who discovered themselves bisexual? Or is chastity an outdated requirement to be abolished altogether?

As you see, if we are to consider reforming a legislation, be it secular, we have to consider many such points, and believe you me, it is difficult, even for the least conservative communities amongst us and to such questions, I have no solution to offer at present and I would be happy to have your views.

Also, I understand your attachment to our fore-father’s Faith, whispered into our ears since birth, but I do not believe that spiritual qualities are hereditary.

Craig. Many of us have moved on. Believe it or not- I don't spend 24/7 worrying about getting back into the Bahai community (although it may seem like it by my posts on this one thread). But I will not let lies go unchecked. And I especially do not want one more single "Bobby" in the Bahai community. I've only been posting on a couple of sites because I do have a life and can't be everywhere. But from those two sites, I've heard from so many former Bahais who sympathize. A few gay ones, who went through the same hell that I did within the Bahai community until they finally left. And they thank me for the posts- for telling the truth. And Craig, the goal is a grander thing- not just valuing gay people inside the Bahai community. It is creating a loving, safe, dyanmic religion like you saw back in the 70's- one that values you as well. THAT is the ultimate goal. I don't want to push anyone out- just make the community what it was supposed to be- for ALL of humanity.

You want a solution you fundamentalists? We gave you the solution a few posts back. Don't bring up the topic of homosexuality PERIOD. Let us serve and work at the local level, bring kids and partners and just go with the flow. When a guy youth in the ocmmunity comes to the LSA with their "condition" share with them the writings, but also mention that not all Bahais and science does not necessarily have an answer right now. That they will be loved, and more importantly, that Bahaullah loves them as they are. Let them bring their boyfriend/girlfriend to Bahai youth classes to grow with the other kids. Just let the freakin community grow and accept ALL. IF the UHJ comes down on a community and tells them to disband because they can't stand a bunch of gays being openly accepted in the community, then worry about it. Until then, make the Bahai community what it is so supposed to be- a warm, loving, supportive environment for those who need it most. Not a cultish little group that just sighs "well he's better off now dead than living a gay lifestyle"(God's plan). I still shake my head in disbelief. That my friend's cathocic parish, a religion that doesn't say anyting about unity, that officially has just as ugly a stance against homosexuality as do conservative Bahais- his parish openly accepts hiim. My friend's father told me before he joined that parish to make sure that it wasn't some cultish catholic group that wanted to chage his sexuality. This was a Catholic father who loves his son so much, that he's telling his son "don't join that church if their lgbt group is just a set up to change you". Wow! And what do I have to say about my religion, the Faith that was whispered into my ears at birth with a prayer from Abdul-Baha, the Faith that I personally pioneered for, what?

Grover wrote: Its a bit like expanding Christ's statement (from Life of Brian)"blessed are the cheese makers" to all manufacturers of dairy products

Grover, I find your comment interesting; yes, we can have a lot of unwarranted generalisations: all gays are paedophiles, all gays were born that way, no gays can change their behaviour without being destroyed, anyone suggesting that that at least some gays or bisexuals can change their ways of life are homophobes, all those who defend the age-old family structure are fundamentalists. All this dualistic talk ignores or deliberately avoids the truth.

After some 20 years in decision making procedures, including issues of what in French we call “homoparentalité”, where the goal was not to stigmatise anyone, but to bring about conciliation; I have become quite perceptive to all kinds of activism which in our jargon we call “activist pathology”. These are people deliberately seek non-reconciliation. If you see some of the papers I have published on the subject, you realise that a successful ethical decision making takes into account different view points in a given situation at a given time, and this can evolve as the environment changes.

I see that by referring to the writings, we are forgetting the place of the UHJ as legislator in a given situation at a given time.

Here we have citizens who bring valid comments as how gays suffer and others who bring valid reasons for defending an age-old family structure. By trying to apply reconciliation methods, we realise that the issue becomes very complex when some of those who come into the discussion are not seeking conciliation or trying to defend gays, but are using the gay issue as an instrument for discrediting the Baha’i administration. They are not seeking a solution to a problem, but a problem to the solution.

[quote post="193"]I think, like I have said before, that being a homosexual isn’t a big deal. But what I have a problem understanding is the complete denial of what the guidance says. Ever stop to consider that it may have a ring of truth to it?[/quote]

Well thats the thing Anon, Baha'u'llah only says in the KA "We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys." Difficult to interpret what that means, but he is probably referring to pedophilia. In the KA synopsis, homosexuality is listed by Shoghi Effendi as being prohibited. In the notes it states that SE has expanded the interpretation for the subject of boys to include all manner of immorality, including homosexuality (and this is based on a letter written on behalf of SE). Therein lies the rub... Its a bit like expanding Christ's statement (from Life of Brian) "blessed are the cheese makers" to all manufacturers of dairy products.

So it comes down to the question of

1) where is evidence that Baha'u'llah was opposed to homosexual relations? Or was he only opposed to homosexual relations of a specific kind, i.e. pedastry?

2) did SE have the right to interpret that "subject of boys" implies all kinds of homosexuality?

3) the wisdom of basing a Baha'i stance on a very vague reference, a letter on behalf of SE, and no concrete writings to back it up.

The more sensible argument is:

1) no sex before marriage

2) ignore the mutatis mutandis statement regarding KA and interpreting the statements on marriage literally, i.e. specifically husband and wife, and the purpose of marriage being to "bring forth one who will make mention of Me amid My servants" (i.e. children).

3) therefore no gay sex, no gay marriage

However, including mutatis mutandis statement, you can have all sorts of fun and kinky interpretations (ah the joys of religion and vague writings). Also given that adoption, surrogate mothers and invitro fertilization are all possible now, a gay couple are perfectly capable of raising a child and living according to the "ideals" of Baha'i marriage.

So all we have to go on is SE's interpretation in the synopsis and a letter written on behalf of him.

Because it's not explicit we can all go on ad-infinitum flogging a dead horse. Conservative Baha'is won't budge from their views and will invoke arguments such as obedience and the covenant etc etc etc, and gay Baha'is are stuck in a quandary:

EITHER give up what they are and live according to the conservative interpretation of Baha'u'llah's statement with all the apparent biases and social conditioning that come with that interpretation...

OR live as they are and hope that eventually the conservative interpretation will change because general society is becoming more accepting of homosexuality...

In the end, what does God want (if he exists, if he is a he, and if she really gives a damn) and what is considered a spiritual life? Someone who lives a lie hiding or suppressing what they are for the sake of some vague writings and notions of obedience, or someone who has lived an open, happy and fulfilled life? Personally I'd recommend anyone follow the latter.

Daniel, there are many, many, many, more within the Baha'i community. The challenge however remains because we are the minority.

P, Craig and Bill are far kinder than I am in response to Anon than I am able to be... I will let their words suffice.

I am stunned and deeply disturbed. Thank god there are folks like Baquia, Steve, Sonja, P, Craig and Bill here.

Anon,

You said, "What if his death was a sweet release..." Wow! This is some very scary bull**** going down here. You can't be serious? If you are serious and more Baha'is think like you, then the Faith is in deeper trouble than we've all imagined. This type of fanatical thinking is to me no different that if a Mulla in Iran says, "Oh let's kill the Baha'is and send them to heaven to meet Muhammad so they can know the truth, that there is no God but God and that Muhammad is His Prophet." In the Mulla's mind that's what his scripture says and by killing the Baha'is he is just being obedient to the word of God. Literalist/Fundamentalism exsists in every religion including the Baha'i Faith and if it's allowed to grow unchecked will eventually make ALL religions dangerous to humanity. God help us to overcome our ignorance.

In Peace,
Bill

[quote comment="61420"]

Daniel Orey wrote:

My call to the larger Baha'i community is to just love everyone, unconditionally.[/quote]

Anyone who was in the Faith back in the 1970's saw that once. I have no regrets at all about being in the Baha'i Faith back then. I loved every minute of it. I know what it was like to be in the early church in Jerusalem from that experience. It was wonderful. It was the pure unrestrained Spirit of the World Age.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wle_7Rr1sCA

But neither the lifetime incumbent professional apparatchiks of the American AO nor the Persian refugees from the lock step brain chemistry of Shia Islam could tolerate that. These people need structure. They are insecure addicted ideologies. They are all massively introverted people who need an organization through which to interact with other human beings and the world. It is personality types and brain chemistry. I served as hard as I could to keep the light burning. But I now feel it can never be overcome. These kinds of people need iron tight organizations to be able to live. They need guidance on everything including how to wipe their bottoms. They need to be told when to stand up and when to sit down. I think it is a psychological search for a parent as I have said here. I don't think it can ever be overcome. It is brain chemistry and personality types. People like that would much better pretend about everything in life then actually address any real situation. There can never be any discussion about anything ever because THAT requires courage in life. These people have zero courage in the minutia of every day life.

So why don't you dear souls here torn up with the homosexual issue just move from the now completely degraded pointless Baha'i Faith zero sum game out into the World Age with everybody else now that is trying to actually accomplish something with the life left in them on this planet before they die.

In the 1970's I gave up on the Government of the United States and tried to build something else to address the problems of the world through the Baha'i Faith. I gave it everything I had all these years. It didn't work. So if the Government of my country is back, that is where I am putting my energies. Afterall, I am a veteran and I payed my dues. I am so glad I went back to politics in the recent campaign. THIS, apparently, is where the Spirit of the World Age is going while the Baha'is run their religion completely into the ground. Did anyone here see the latest "American Baha'i" magazine? Just heart breaking Orwellian Newspeak and mind bending apparatchik soulless Newthink.

Meanwhile, this was happening in the world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjnygQ02aW4

God Bless Martin Luther King and the Journey of the 1960's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vhNCRlXm1s

But Anon, I am really glad you made the comment that you did. Those of us who complain about the dire situation inside the Bahai community for LGBT youth keep getting blamed that we are making things up, that we have an agenda, etc. etc. Bahais do not want to be compared to Christian evangelical groups that have the EXACT same attitudes towards its gay members as do the Bahais- as do you. So Bahais I have chatted with online get very defensive and try to paint a rosier picture of the Bahai community. That somehow I'm just over exageerating because I want to attach the Faith. But what you stated in the last post, I hope proves our paint. That in the Bahai community, even the suicide of a Bahai youth because of this issue, is not enough to make any changes. Instead, it is seen as part of God's plan for that individual. God, I seriously want to cry right now at such a sad sad evaluation that you gave to the death of this youth. But maybe your words in that post will wake up others who read the post, if my words haven't.

I take what you say the way you say it, and I'm sorry but what you just said is horrible. What if instead of "sweet release" he lived in a community that valued him as he was. Allowed him to grow and flourish. Imagine if he had found a life partner and adopted some children that were thrown away by some irresponsible staight people. Imagine the beautiful family, love and energy he could have given the Bahai community. THAT my friend anon is what I imagine for the Bahai community. And I WILL fight you and the ignorance that continues to flourish inside the Bahai community. How sad that the ignorance seems to come more and more from the youth in the Bahai community. Maybe I'm wrong in that. I pray so. The test is for the Bahai community and how much longer it will shut the door on us. Obviously you are not willing to change anyting, that is your choice. And you will be responsible before God for that choice.

Don't take this any other way than the way I say it. What if his death was a sweet release and he is now free of the burden and no longer has to deal with people like me? Eternally comforted by his Maker and having played his role in the divine scheme of things. I don't pretend to know everything or have an explanation. However, I do have Faith in the Faith and that means the love and wisdom of God to lay it down through his laws. This goes back to what I was saying and you repeated it...Its not prescribed in the Faith but why change the laws to fit the people. The people need to change to fit the laws. Will it ever happen completely? If it did then what's the point of living an existence where there are no tests?

"With fire we test the gold and with gold we test our servants"

If there were no tests in life and everything was easy then life itself would not be of any value.

Anon. I'm fine with however you wish to believe. We all are. I have no desire to say "we will all verily abide" one day with a man. I don't care about that. If a gay person in the Faith chooses to control his sexuality because he wants to marry someone of the opposite sex, cool I don't care. That's his choice as long as he doesn't hurt himself trying to reach that goal. BUT what about the rest of us anon? What about the majority that can not change. Those of us who have accepted ourselves, accepted scientific truth as it exists today and guess what are actually happy? What does this Faith that prides itself on the elimination of prejudice have to offer us. How can you seriously talk about a world-embracing religion for all of humanity and deny us a part in the Kingdom as equals? Bahaullah himself laid down A LOT of laws that are always ignored by the Bahai community (length of man's hair, dipping your hands in a communal food bowl, not washing your feet etc etc), but no one is discriminated against for these reasons. Homosexuality, something that wasn't even clear in Bahaullah's own words, that needed interpretation by some secretary of Shoghi Effendi is elevated to the point that "well we'll accept you, but just stop being so open about it; don't ask don't tell please". Anon, YOU are the cause of the death of that kid Bill mentioned. Collectively, the whole Bahai community is, including me for having been so ignorant for so many years in the Bahai community. I now feel like Bobby's mom in the movie. I'm making ammends for my foolish stance while active in the Bahai community. Maybe what we post and say here will make a difference and change things. If nothing else, it will make the present Bahai community think a little.

OK so I guess I will stop beating around the bush. I am sure you perceive me as someone who accepts the official position as good enough. You're right, I do. I think homosexuality is a condition that is a natural phenomenon but nonetheless un-conducive to evolutionary science and nothing more than a physiological and psychological condition which can be remedied when the science catches up...either through hormone therapy or something like that.

Cold, insensitive and discriminating? I can see how you would think that, but here is my reasoning: A blanket acceptance of everyone unconditionally is really not what I think unity and acceptance in the Baha'i Faith talks about. If this were the case it would clearly say so. However, there is positions and guidance regarding those whom with we should not associate with and things we should avoid in our lives. Ironically, homosexuals are not among these. Like you said, you have the books and know the law---by inference you are saying yes you know what Baha'u'llah has laid down as law and yet you choose to self justify it and talk it down in importance. Does this mean that Baha'u'llah loves you less or that you are barred from the Abha Kingdom? I don't think that's the case either---however it is your own unique test given in life, we each have ours, that we are supposed to constantly struggle against.

I think, like I have said before, that being a homosexual isn't a big deal. But what I have a problem understanding is the complete denial of what the guidance says. Ever stop to consider that it may have a ring of truth to it?

[quote comment="61420"]My call to the larger Baha'i community is to just love everyone, unconditionally.[/quote]

Yeah, the pagans are capable of it - Enlightened Behavior: Kindness.

I think the Baha'is are capable of such behaviour. The Baha'is are seen as being kind and tolerant, so that kind of behaviour is encouraged by the wider community. However, my experience is that the lower levels of Baha'i administration are much more tolerant than the higher levels. What causes the lower levels to be intolerant is influence and orders imposed from above. Baha'is are very obedient to internal authority, privileging it over independent investigation and due process.

P is awarded 50 pts for a great job with the S Baptist mom.

The point here Anon is that the GLBT Baha’i folks do not, as P says “feel ashamed” of who we are. We reject the sickness label, and want this community to be as loving unconditionally as our work and non-Baha’i environments. Here in California the treatment of GLBT Baha’is is doing far more damage to the image of the Faith than the well meaning fundies want to admit. The Faith has become an insulated, out of touch, intolerant, homophobic (mostly Persian) club that is seen by others as strange if not weird.

My call to the larger Baha’i community is to just love everyone, unconditionally. We all know what the rules are, we are adults, we have the books. No one needs to show anyone in a condescending manner the rules. All I know is that until the unconditional love comes on line universally, there is no reason for anyone even to explore the Faith, as so many others offer far more love, resources and inclusion. That is what we are saying, and that is what I am grieving here.

I'm sorry Anon, but what is with you and Masud. You state something ignorant, then you back peddle that you were just trying to be thought provoking or sarcastic. The solution is very simple. If Daniel enters his Bahai community introduces his partner, the Bahais shouldn't say ANYTHING. If he gets elected to an LSA, they shouldn't say ANYTHING. The Bahai community should continue to function. If I adopt a child and he walks into Sunday school class with his two daddies, the other kids accept it as normal and natural. THIS is how it should be. It is happening in my friend's Catholic parish. A religion that does not even have the idea of unity in diversity as part of its core teachings. Will you help bring that kind of change to your local community, or would you tell such individuals "we love you, but uh we need to have a consultation about your condition with the local LSA?

[quote comment=""][...] we had discussed this point before in The Challenge of Homosexuality, Dawkins take on things was rather [...][/quote]

A bit of an extreme attempt to use sarcasm to discuss a valid idea. I am not saying that we should just not talk about our relations...no not at all. After all, the family is the nucleus of the society in which we are trying to change. What I am saying is that with the current standard of Baha'i taboo topics, instead of constantly reminding everyone what they are...focus on what we should be focusing on.

God knows that Baha'i community is far from ideal. Much to learn we still have. I went a long time thinking that all Baha'i youth really do stay celibate until married...I also thought that no Baha'is ever do drugs or drink. We all know the reality of murphy's law, but does that mean we should constantly dwell on it?

We are so easily entrapped by our own justification of things that we often fail to realize that those very same justifications are what must be abolished and the golden standard substituted.

This fact does not go over easily with those who refuse to change. And we all suffer from this in some way or another...All of us.


"We can prove ourselves worthy of our Cause only if in our individual conduct and corporate life we sedulously imitate the example of our beloved Master, Whom the terrors of tyranny, the storms of incessant abuse, the oppressiveness of humiliation, never caused to deviate a hair's breadth from the revealed Law of Bahá'u'lláh.

Such is the path of servitude, such is the way of holiness He chose to tread to the very end of His life. Nothing short of the strictest adherence to His glorious example can safely steer our course amid the pitfalls of this perilous age, and lead us on to fulfill our high destiny."

(In a letter written by Shoghi Effendi, 12 April 1927, published in "Bahá'í Administration: Selected Messages 1922-1932", p. 132)

Wonderful news. A friend of mine, a mother, who is Southern Baptist watched the movie last night because I recommended it on my facebook page. She thanked me for recommending the movie and that it helped educate her. She just couldn't understand how a mother could act that way towards a child she sincerely loved. Wow- this made me feel good. Maybe I didn't reach any Bahais, but a Southern Baptist is better than nothing. :o)

I'm almost guessing Anon is from persian descent. I could be wrong. But being Iranian myself, THAT is the solution to everything. Pretend, put the facade on that everything is all right. Because God forbid, you don't want to embarras the family name and the community. Anon, please understand this, WE ARE NOT ASHAMED. You all are the ones who should be ashamed for asking someone like Daniel to hide his partner and not talk about him. Meanwhile straight Bahai teens talk about their fiance that they plan to marry, straigh Bahai couples celebrate the arrival of their child with the community, etc. etc. When ALL of you hide yourselves and are forced to live as single people, then come talk to me.
Bill I saw the movie too and it was powerful. But I really think I want to read the book. I want to read the very words that Bobby wrote as should every one here. And yes, unfortunately there have been and probably will be more Bobby's in the Bahahi community. Just a few years ago, I heard of young 17 year old Bahai girl who killed herself in my community. We have no idea why, because it was hush hush to protect the family. But it just mkaes me wonder, why? Why would a sweet active smart and artistic young woman from a good solid active Bahai family end her life? And then everyone is told not to say anything and let the family be. I can't because my suspicions and the statistics that point to high suicide rate among gay teens is real.
Fortunately though Bill, times are changing. Individuals like Bobby's mom, who really are loving people just like the Bahais, but lost. They are lost in their own fundamentalism THese individuals will naturally become less and less as the world accepts us more. On youtube, I had a wonderful woman write to me encouraging words. She still believes in Bahaullah, but she resigned from the Faith when her son came out to him. She felt disgusted at the Bahai stance that automatically said her son is being shameful if he wishes to be in a committed relationship with a spouse one day. She probably would be disgusted with Anon's suggestion that well he can participate in the community if he would just not say anything. She is PROUD of him as a true mother should be because he is a great kid. And for that she left a community that as she puts it "pretends to like us" .
How sad that this is the where the Bahais are going right now when they could be harnessing the energy and love of so many gay people.

Annonymouz raises an interesting point. How about if there was an entire new protocol in all Bahá’í activities that said no one should talk about their spouses, families, children, and our weddings? We could just sit around and read the sacred writings, sip tea, and pretend that we are friends. While we are at it, I don’t want to hear about anyone’s pets either… I hate cats. If only our neighbors, best non-Bahá’í friends and colleagues would ever be burdened with the knowledge of who we really are, and since they will never, ever become part of the Bahá’í faith anyway you can really be real, open and close to them, and thereby relieve the burden on your local community. Its so nice. Its great, because if we all pretend in the Faith that everyone is happy and straight, then we don’t have to hear about all that messy human stuff like spouses, kids, friendships. We would be truly happy, and our outside relations can support us with our problems, and our institutions would no longer be burdened. Just don’t ask or tell anything that might be unpleasant, uncomfortable, different, or human its no fun anyway. And yippee! No more cats!

What I can't understand is why its such a big deal. Personally I have great sympathy for gay people and the struggles they go through. But why focus on it so much? Just talking non-stop about the issue seems really counterproductive to me. If I was a gay Baha'i and I couldn't change I would keep my private life to myself. The Baha'i position is not going to change. Its not like we talk about and gossip on relations anyway. I once went a long time without knowing a family in our community had gone through a divorce simply because that was their business. Everyone knows the backbiting and gossip are even more frowned upon..."The most deadly sin". No one felt it necessary to go around and announce that the couple had split.

I think the same principle should apply to gay Baha'is. Don't ask and don't tell. Sexuality is a biological and thus temporal, earthly fact. Its not a definition of who what a soul is. It will not stick with you throughout eternity so why spend so much time on it? If ones own identity is based on their sexuality, I think that's more of a problem then being a gay (if you think its a problem). You're gay. So what. There are much more important things in life to focus on then ones own sexuality.

This principle has helped me get over some of the issues and character traits I thought were too big to deal with or too terrible to have in the community. If you focus on your strengths and ways you can contribute to what the core of the Baha'i Faith is about, building a peaceful world, then and only then will our personal issues seem insignificant--the way they should be in relation to the grand scheme of things.

Hey Gang,

I just watched the TV movie "Prayers for Bobby" that we've been talking about. Sigourney Weaver should get an emmy award for her amazing portryal of a fundementalist Christian mother trying to "cure" her son of homosexuality using religion as a hammer to bang over his head day and night continually telling him that homosexuality is an abomenation and if only he would commit to a 24/7 program using the "word of God" he would be healed of this defect. He ends up jumping off a bridge and being killed instantly by hitting an 18-wheeler truck that's flying down the highway. This horror finally awakens within his mother how wrong the religious views regarding homosexuality are and she then becomes transformed. She becomes heavily involved with the GLBT Equality movement, finds her own forgiveness there and helps other parents to view their gay children with an open heart. This true story is played out over and over again all over the world because of religious prejudice and ignorance. This happens in the Baha'i community frequently. Why wouldn't it? The Baha'i community treats it's gay members the same way fundementalist Christians,Jews, and Muslims treat their gay members. The Baha'i community doesn't put to death it's gay folk like the Muslim community does, but it certainly perpetrates a kind of psychological torture on it's gay members that can lead to death. When I attended the World Congress in New York City back in the early 90's, I attended a meeting of GLBT Baha'is and their families. A photo was passed around the 45 or so people in the circle. It was a picture of a 16 year old young man who had committed suicide because he had been told by his Baha'i community that being gay was wrong and a great disappointment to Baha'u'llah. He felt he couldn't change, and the thought of disappointing Baha'u'llah was more than he could handle, so he killed himself. The Auxilary Board member who was attending just sat there as many of us openly wept for this poor youth and then said something lame, something similar to what the Christian mother said to her son, some stupid religious statement. We all sat staring at him in silence and shock. Like P said earlier, most straight Baha'is will cling to the "letter of the writings" when it comes to homosexuality until something happens to shake their minds from such a rigid view of scripture. I just hope that it won't be in the form of a suicide committed by one of their children, cousins, brothers or sisters.

In Peace,
Bill

Why would that piss me off anon? Of course homosexuality is a condition, so is heterosexuality. Do you really believe that hormones have nothing to do with how you came out, as well as genetics? But you still didn't answer Baquia's question. Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ claim that homosexuality is something that needs the care of doctors to help the individual overcome it. Why do people go to doctors anon? Usually it is because they have a disorder, disease etc. a "condition" that is harmful to their health. So what is harmful about homosexuality? Now some people go to doctors for superficial reasons such as getting a face lift or a tuck here or there. They are not happy with their "condition" of having wrinkles or a little belly fat. Is that what this is all about? Homosexuality isn't a disease, just an ugly condition that Bahais can't have in their community?

My mistake.

I'm trying out a new way to make the blog run faster. 570+ comments on one single post has made it sluggish. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the discussion here but the disadvantage is it gets slow but using a cache rather than dynamic generated pages does not instantly updated to reflect immediate changes made to it (via new comments for example). Maybe it is time for a proper forum. In the meantime, lets see how this "super cache" goes.

Long story short, I don't censor comments :)

Why did you censor my comment Baquia?

[quote comment=""]And science does not agree that homosexuality has any pathological traits.[/quote]


Not exactly true. Moreover, that is not what the Universal House of Justice and the writings say.

During the summer I listed different degrees of sexuality and thier physical and psychological manifestations.

At opposites ends of the physical spectrum we have male on one side and female on the other. There are several degrees in between.

Frankly the literature available from a scientific perspective is overwhelmingly pointing to the evidence that homosexuality is based in hormones, brain structure and a small degree of external stimulus and environmental conditions.

Here are a few sites I was able to reference.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/33
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/bioresearch.html
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/gay-b...

None of this points to homosexuality being a disease or a choice but rather a condition. A condition like that of those with high IQs or ADHD. I know this is going to piss P right the heck off, but I think if you want to be objective about it, you have to look at it from every possible angle. Science included.

I want to second Bill who said " Dear Masud and Farhan, thanks for sticking around. I don't know if you'll ever "get it", but kudo's for hanging in there."

My apologies to all if my mixture seems rich, it comes from my frustration and sadness in seeing the Faith I love shooting itself in the foot...

I too appreciate the dialogue, and community here.

Masud has decided to define for me what homophobia is by saying "Someone who legitimately believes that homosexuality is a disorder and says that it can be "cured" is not automatically homophobic".

This kind of straight lecture to a glbt is offensive, if not jsut tiresome.

To most GLBT's the very attempt to change us, is homophobic. It assumes that being gay is bad and should be changed, that my friend is homophobia... we need no changing, nor do we want it.

I am fine, I am happy, both my husband and I respected in our work and career, we are just not wanted by the Baha'is... unless we, as you suggest convert to being hetero, sell our home, disrupt all our relationships, friends, family... that kind of call and expectation is the essence of homophobia.

Well that's the problem Baquia. In order for them (them being fundamentalist Bahais, evangelical Christians, etc.) to call it a disease they have to point to the problems that do exist in the gay community (as in ALL communities)- things such as depression, STD's, etc. They have to focus completely on the worse case scenario in order to make their point. Acknowledging that there are actually HAPPY well-adjusted gay people, some with children and their children are growing up (or have grown up) great- is something they CAN NOT do. Acknowledging that some teens that have tried reparative therapy have committed suicide because they couldn't succeed is something they can never bring themselves to accept. To acknowledge this destroys the blanket statement that homosexuality is a disorder. And finally it is not about science. As Masud clearly pointed out- he cannot diisasociate his religious convictions when evaluating scientific truth.

What I don't yet understand is how some Baha'is adamantly believe that homosexuality is "curable". A "cure" implies disease. So before we can talk of a cure we must define homosexuality as a disease and outline its pathological traits. Since we believe as Baha'is that science and religion go hand in hand, we must respect science. And science does not agree that homosexuality has any pathological traits.

I agree Bill. I thank Farhan and Masud too. Otherwise we'd just be singing to the choir. My purpose in posting is never so much to change their views. Heck, I'm gay, but if someone had tried to force me to see things differently years ago, when I was heavily involved in the community (maybe even more so than either of them), I would NEVER have listened. Something just clicks in you one day and you do finally listen. I just in my heart can not believe in a relgions that as Masud believes, in the best case scenario, can at this time in history "maybe" help 50% overcome their sexuality using awful tactics such as reparative therapy. I just have to wonder with 50%, what about the other 50%; then? What is their choice? Is living in utter misery, pretending to be celibate, failing and feeling ashamed- is THAT spiritual growth? When the alternative could be creating a community where these other 50% could be encouraged to find partners, be committed, raise a family and harness that wonderful enegery/creativity from these families. If Bahais like Masud and just thought about that for a little bit, they would also wake up.

Dear Masud,

You said, speaking of the fellow in Atlanta, Couldn't his view of homosexuality be in line with his idea of equality in the Baha'i Faith? I don't know how anyone's view of equality can be, "Oh, I believe in equality for all people, except when it comes to homosexuals". Well, then, to me that person doesn't believe in equality for all people no matter how they try and phrase it. What I find so very curious is that so many Baha'is don't see the problematic situation this creates for the Baha'i community in general. On the one hand here is a religious community that prides itself on building a united world free from prejudice and believing in equality for all. Yet, when a seeker or news reporter or human rights organization asks how the Baha'i Faith treats it's gay and lesbian members, they are shocked. And in my experience, walk away shaking their heads in disbelief, confusion, and disappointment. This problem will only increase, as was said a few posts ago, as the gay equality movement continues to find acceptence among the more enlightened people's of the world, as well as the GLBT community being recognized as a legimate persecuted minority by the United Nations, the European Union, and more countries every year. I believe that in the years to come the Faith will continue to appear to be too reactionary, too fundamentalist, and I'm sorry to say too ignorant for the vast majority of young people growing up in the world being educated by the global community via the Internet. Most young people I know from the age of 12 to 25 have no problem with gay people. Many of their friends are gay. The young people today believe that the GLBT community should have equality and be allowed to get married and raise families. And after all, it's these same young people who will be running the world very soon.
Thank you dear Steve for your support and imput. Here is a straight Baha'i man who see's the bigger picture. Bravo!

In Peace,
Bill
PS: Dear Masud and Farhan, thanks for sticking around. I don't know if you'll ever "get it", but kudo's for hanging in there.

Masud I wanted to mention another thing. Lets just say you are correct. That reparative therapy actually does work for some. I'll even say it works for 50%. 50% who turn out either happy single celibate reformed gays or happy heterosexuals who can now get marry someone of the opposite sex. Ok great. Now what about the other 50%? What does the Bahai Faith offer those who keep struggling and struggling for life? Is the answer a life of constant loneliness, struggles, feeling of shame when you give in to your feelings, and then some more struggling? And endless cycle until you die. DO you truly in your heart Masud believe that this scenario is better for a gay person vs. raising a family with a committed partner in a safe loving spiritual community? Think about it Masud. You have the power to change the Bahai community or simply blinded follow in a fundamentalist fashion. Yes Masud, WE ALL have choices.

Daniel,

Someone who legitimately believes that homosexuality is a disorder and says that it can be "cured" is not automatically homophobic; (unless of course, you conveniently CHOOSE the most derogatory connotation of "disorder" or "cure" in order to advance your argument) ESPECIALLY given that that person is a champion of human rights.

P,

I don't think we'll ever agree on this. I certainly don't question your intentions; I think they are noble, as are your prayers for the advancement of the Cause, a goal which I think it's safe to say we share. As I stated a couple months ago, if I see any homophobia within the Baha'i community, I will certainly admonish the trespasser, albeit in loving words. (you are free not to believe me if you wish)

And if my gay friend shows sign of discomfort or anything of the sort, I'll be sure to ask you for your insights, because, in light of your experiences, they do seem to enlightening on this topic.

Remember though, that what you see as stubbornness on the part of so-called "loyal" Baha'is can also be an unfaltering love for the institutions and an unwavering defense of them.

Peace, ¨

Masud

And Masud maybe you don't understand, that what I'm also fighting for is the preservation and growth of the Faith that I love. If the Bahai community continues on the path it is in regards to homosexuality, it will receive more and more condemnation from the world. So one of two things can happen. The shrinking Bahai community can look at itself and realize that maybe it is wrong in the way it deals with the issue of homosexuality. Maybe it will look at happy gay couples raising wonderful families and say we need those people participating FULLY in the life of our community. OR it can take the criticism as an attack, become inward looking and associate itself more and more with groups like NARTH and Focus ON The Family. But I'm telling you now, as more and more gay people become accepted in mainstream society worldwide. As they continue to have their own kids and adopt and become party of society, groups like FOF and NARTH will become a shrinking group of loonies with no power. I pray the Bahai community will not shrink with them.

P wrote "If the Bahai Faith (from its top leadership) was more LGBT supportive, we should have a HUGE community in a city like San Francisco. A city that was blessed with a visit from Abdul-Baha. But alas, even this community is not an example of the progressive community that the Bahais could be."

The weirdest part is that the SF Baha'i center sits just blocks from the Castro... thousands, daily, pass it by on their way to and from work. It sits across the street from one of the more important leather bars, and managed to alienate itself immediately by trying to get them removed... when the bar had been there for decades... so the new kids on the block moved in and wanted everyone to change, when they knew the bar, and the Castro was right there... hmmm... nice neighbors! Most GLBT folks I know in SF think the Baha'is are homophobic and an evangelical cult... it makes me cry.

Masud said "Thank you for your cogent, reasoned, and level-headed response.You are reflecting the same collective, sycophantic group-think often ascribed to me and others that defend the institutions."

No, not necessarily, just as a openly gay male Baha'i, I know homophobia when I see it... as far as "collective, sycophantic group-think" well... not sure that that was about, but as someone who has experienced a great deal of homophobia from the Baha'is in ways that if it were in my work, I could sue... I think I know homophobia when I experience it.

I defend the institutions, I just don't like homophobic bigotry.

Yes but do you understand Masud that providing what you consider to be the correct information, you can be the cause of someone hurting themselves. Educated yourself Masud. Go read up on the ex-gay movement. Listen to the stories of those who lived the trauma to tell it. You keep saying that all of us, the multitudes who are out, who are happier, are blinded. Yet you can't bring yourself to look at the other side. That there are many many more gays who turn their back on reparative therapy and the religions that espouse (and unfortunately it looks like the Bahai Faith has become oone of those religions) and find true happiness when they accept themsleves. What does this mean Masud? It means they don't harm themselves anymore. They don't contemplate suicide. They may go through some termoil, but eventually come to peace with their sexuality. I would venture to guess the one's that do believe they are now "ex-gay" had some traumatic experiences inside the gay world, and for that reason they desperately turned to these therapies. I would never disparage someone that thinks they have gone through such a program successfully. I would just feel sorry for them. Because they could have spent their energy focusing on how to build a healthy gay relationship. This is what is best for the psyche. Science proves it. And by your own admittance you can't put religion/spiritually aside when dealing with scientific truth. How then can you truly evaluate science, if you are being influenced by your absolutist views of your religious conviction.

"But how is denying yourself sex at all for life, and in turn denying yourself a loving/committed relationship good for the psyche? "

My answer is, if it's the wrong kind of sex (just like when it's dangerous) then celibacy could be the answer, if one is not able to change. I'm not denying that it's very difficult or that I understand what those people go through. And sorry, I can't put religion and spirituality aside, even for a second, as these heavily influence my outlook, just as scientific inquiry does.

I only cited that article (associated with NARTH) as an example of how there are
institutions that offer assistance out there.

"How is NARTH helping gays by telling them they should NEVER have sex unless they can succesfully do it with someone of the opposite sex?"

I disagree with the way you formulated that sentence. I would say that the Baha'i Faith helps PEOPLE by advising them on how they should act (e.g. on certain inclinations)

Hi Bill,

You wrote:
[quote comment="61346"]My point is that here is a man who eats, drinks, and sleeps the Baha’i Faith. A man who knows the writings inside and out. A man who puts his very life on the line to prove the equality of all people. Yet, when it comes to homosexuals, all logic goes out the window. He believes that yes, gay and lesbian people can be “cured”[/quote]

Hmmm, the first bit sounds like RP but, whoever it is, you've come up with a great example of the selective application of "unity in diversity" that many Baha'is espouse. They'll stand up and say "we're all one" but they really mean "all races, all religions, all nations, and all cultures -- but on our terms, and not including sexual orientation".

And that's their right -- but they have to live with the effects of that decision.

ka kite
Steve

Daniel,

"Sorry Masud, Bill is right… the dude is a homophobe."

Thank you for your cogent, reasoned, and level-headed response.

You are reflecting the same collective, sycophantic group-think often ascribed to me and others that defend the institutions.

Oh and Masud- none of this is amusing. I never denied that a homosexual can't "control" his actions. But these groups aren't teaching control- they are teaching the false promise of change. It is "reparative" therapy. They see homosexuality as a somethign bad/broken that needs to be fixed. I have no problem with moderation. I don't believe in a free for all attitude towards anything- including sex, because it is dangerous. But how is denying yourself sex at all for life, and in turn denying yourself a loving/committed relationship good for the psyche? Let's put religion and spiritually aside. We are only talking the mind here and actual science. How is NARTH helping gays by telling them they should NEVER have sex unless they can succesfully do it with someone of the opposite sex? They are actually doing the opposite to those that are forcing themselves into a unnatural state of celibacy for life.

Foreman: California's Proposition 8 - Ours to Lose? Nope - It Was Always an Uphill Climb. (see: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diar...)

P,

"I find it amusing that there are TONS of people who you believe "may" have overcome their sexuality, but because of society's homophobia are afraid to stand up and say they are no longer gay"

Thanks for proving my point. In addition to the prevalent homophobia, (which, in fact, may be a reason to suspect that the amount of homosexuals we see and hear about is inferior to the actual number, as I think you've mentioned earlier) if someone were to say that, people like you would probably bash them with remarks to the effect of "how dare you let down the community" or "stop denying who you are" etc...

"You say you don't like Focus on the Family either, but you ignore that NARTH is always involved with their group."

This reminds me of the way Fox News disparaged Obama with the guilt-by-association argument about Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground. Stop trying to discredit the source and actually discuss the grounds on which you disagree with the reasoning.

The APA was pressured in 1973 by gay militants. I do not know if that is the case today, but I'm not sure it's that relevant; according to the theory of "path dependence", the set of decisions one faces for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant. I think this is quite applicable to this case. Additionally, the pressure surely increased over the years, don't you think?

And here is some more proof by association: http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/09/narth-focu...

Now show me Masud how today, the APA is in the pocket of well-funded gay militants who have a stranglehold on all these scientists.

What "facts" have you presented Masud? Show me? Have you overcome your sexuality? If so then please share. I find it amusing that there are TONS of people who you believe "may" have overcome their sexuality, but because of society's homophobia are afraid to stand up and say they are no longer gay. Does that even make sense? Meanwhile there REALLY are tons of gay people who are willing to stand up in society, in their schools, in their churches and yes in the Bahai community to say "enough is enough"- we are gay, we can't change and we should be accepted. And we actually DO face homophobia because of our stance.
You say you don't like Focus on the Family either, but you ignore that NARTH is always involved with their group. And are you still talking about militant gays having a strangle hold on the APA? The APA is made up mostly of straight people- sicentists that are not in the pockets of well-funded Christian groups. What are these gay militants doing right now to keep the APA on their side? I invite you to consider the fact that homosexuality is not an illness to overcome. I invite you to look at the stories of gay people who are attending churches all across the world with their life partners, raising families and ask yourself "What are they doing wrong? Should a psychiatrist be advising them to overcome this for their mental health?" You have that choice Masud.

Sorry Masud, Bill is right... the dude is a homophobe.

Dear Bill,

"A man who puts his very life on the line to prove the equality of all people. Yet, when it comes to homosexuals, all logic goes out the window. He believes that yes, gay and lesbian people can be "cured"."

I think one needs to try to clear out the intellectual clutter that is clouding this discussion.

You believe that this man fights for equality in all domains, but when it comes to homosexuality, he falls short, so to speak. Couldn't it be though, that his stance on homosexuality is ALSO in line with his beliefs about equality? Does it make more sense that a man so eager to fight for equality, despite death threats, gets it all wrong when it comes to the issue that directly involves you or that it is in line with his beliefs, but you can't or refuse to see it, because, as YOU just stated, you're saying “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up”.

I invite you to consider that possibility. You seem to be someone who sees the best in people. It would therefore be uncharacteristic of you to simply label that man as homophobic despite everything he is trying to achieve in similar issue-areas.

P,

"They have sex oh only once/year vs. a few times? Are they now fully heterosexual? "

This is quite amusing. You have previously denied that a "cure" is possible. When I provide you with information showing that it may be possible (notice the word "may"), you then go on to question what it "means" to no longer be homosexual. Interesting. So I ask you, what does it mean to you? What constitutes, in your opinion, no longer being gay? If you can't answer that question, or simply retort "It's impossible", then that means science isn't important to you, and no matter what proof I present to you, you would still question it, which would be a shame.

"They claim to be secular and just professionals, but they are heavily associated with fundamentalist Christian groups, especially evangelical ones like Focus on the Family that primarily exist to deny rigths to gays and lesbians in the US."

...and THEN you go on to attack the credibility of the sources. Great idea. Anything to keep you from actually discussing the CONTENT of the article, right?

Additionally, I would submit that it is almost impossible to prove (to your satisfaction) that reparative therapy works, because a VERY limited number of people are actually going to admit in public that they were once gay but are no longer, due to the prevalent homophobia in society, which, of course, you've baselessly ascribed to me in the past.

I dislike Focus on the Family nearly as much as you do, but that doesn't mean I'm going to fall into the usual guilt-by-association trap, which reflects nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

It is not my place to speculate as to whether you are happy or not, (though it is my aspiration that you remain that way). It is incumbent upon me to voice my opinion about the issue and share my thoughts about its implications, which is what I'm doing.

In the website you provided for me, it states that the APA has indicated that reparative therapy may “lead to depression, anxiety and self destructive behavior, and may reinforce self hatred.” What you don't mention, of course, is the APA's own bias, which stems mostly from the fact that gay militants (and I use that term with no discourteous intent) pressured the APA to remove homosexuality from their list of disorders in 1973. A while back, I made reference to this in one of my posts. Nobody challenged me on this point.

"THAT is why gays and lesbians need more than ever religiougs communities that love and accept them as they are, and give them a sense of worth."

I've never contested that; the Faith doesn't either:

"…the Faith does not recognize homosexuality as a "natural" or permanent phenomenon. Rather, it sees this as an aberration subject to treatment, however intractable exclusive homosexuality may now seem to be. To the question of alteration of homosexual bents, much study must be given, and doubtless in the future clear principles of prevention and treatment will emerge. As for those now afflicted, a homosexual does not decide to be a problem human, but he does, as you rightly state, have decision in choosing his way of life, i.e. abstaining from homosexual acts. "Your plea for understanding and of justice extended to homosexuals is well taken in many respects, and the House of Justice assures you of its concern for the large number of persons so afflicted. Your work with the homosexual community is praiseworthy, and it permits you personally to exercise the support which is necessary for these often harassed persons, support which you call for in your essay. Moreover, your interest cannot but be therapeutic, at least for the more superficial elements of the problem; however, definitive therapy of the underlying predisposition, which you consider to be innate but the Teachings do not, may have to await additional investigations. As for the responsibility of Assemblies and of individual Bahá’ís, certainly all are called upon to be understanding, supportive and helpful to any individual who carries the burden of homosexuality."
(Letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual, 22 March 1987)

What the Faith does say is that since it's a condition markedly different from the Baha'i norm, attempts should be made to try to no longer be reconciled with this condition.

"[...] Thus, it should not be so much a matter of whether a practicing homosexual can be a Baha'i as whether, having become a Baha'i, the homosexual can overcome his problem through knowledge of the teachings and reliance on Baha'u'llah. (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, March 14, 1973; cited in LG, #1225, p. 365)"

An argument I've often heard from homosexuals is that "God made me this way". I don't think this is a valid argument. While it's clear that certain people have more of an inclination to engage in certain acts (positive or negative) than others, we all have free will and can decide whether to act on that inclination or not. The way I see it, a very powerful inclination, as it is quite difficult, is a test from God, and I believe that when God tests us, it's a sign of His love for us. Hence, it's quite clear that God loves homosexuals very much indeed!!

Another argument that is used many times by homosexuals is that it's "part of who we are". (this is implicit in many of your posts) However, I would submit that "who we are" is also a social construct. In other words, there is more to it than just intrinsic/ inherent elements. Often, however, during the process of introspection, one tends to lump the intrinsic/inherent elements in with the socially constructed ones. This non-differentiation means that we identify with certain role models that incarnate socially eulogized characteristics such as wealth, fame and promiscuity. It also means that some tend to deny that social factors influence their behavior at all, as they've already lumped this factor in with the intrinsic/inherent ones in personally defining who they are, as mentioned earlier. This is why I don't think the "this is who we are" argument is necessarily valid.

That's nothing Bill. My own mother. A persian Bahai- generations. Dating back to the time of the Bab, devout as you are going to get to the teachings of the Faith regarding the eliminatin of racial prejudice, accepting all religions, equality of the sexex etc etc...this same woman had some very interesting things to say about homosexuality. Years ago, when I discussed with her how the Iranian government executed a number of gay youth for publicly breaking the law against homosexuality, do you know what her response was? This very spiritual woman said "well that's bad, but it is just as bad as the gays wanting to live together here in America!". So I ask, HOW exactly has the Bahai Faith done to make this woman more tolerant, loving and accepting towards the LGBT community? It has done absolutely nothing. Bahais like to pull out letters from the UHJ and the Guardian stating that we should treat gays and lesbians without prejudice. But these letters seem to be more a tactic to use online to make the Bahai community look good. IN all my active Bahai life, I never remember these letters emphasized. I remember tons regarding the elimination of racial, ethnic, religious, etc etc. prejudices. But never any talk about prejudice against gays. The only time homosexuality was mentioned to me was the ackward youth group discussions about chastity. It really saddens me that clinging to groups like NARTH is the way loyal Bahais are going now. I guess it goes lock in step with things like Ruhi classes. Cultlike acceptance of authority. That is so not the Bahai Faith of independent investigation of truth and harmony with science.

Dear P,

You said in your last post, "So, if that is what Baha'is are aspiring to be...God help us!" I'm afraid my friend that this is exactly what the mainstream Baha'i community has aspired to be. One of the most active, dedicated Baha'is in this country who lives in the Atlanta area and has dedicated his life to the elimination of prejudice between the races, is very active in building bridges of unity between the different ethnic groups in his area, has received several death threats over the past 2 years because of his public stance regarding the equality of the races, especially for Latino and Blacks, said last month on a popular Baha'i teaching website, "We must treat homosexuals with compassion and love, but we must also lovingly guide them to the "NARTH" website because the philosophy of this group is almost identical to the Baha'i teachings on homosexuality." "And, that with their scientific research, NARTH has proven that what the Guardian said about using prayer and medical techniques to overcome homosexuality is true." My point is that here is a man who eats, drinks, and sleeps the Baha'i Faith. A man who knows the writings inside and out. A man who puts his very life on the line to prove the equality of all people. Yet, when it comes to homosexuals, all logic goes out the window. He believes that yes, gay and lesbian people can be "cured". For any Baha'i to view the NARTH organization as sound and scientific smacks of deep homophobia and ignorance. It baffles the mind. Baha'is like this live up to the old adage, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up"! Sad.

In Peace,
Bill

Btw, a lot of that article was based on information from NARTH. Here is a little more info about this organization: http://www.truthwinsout.org/narth/

They claim to be secular and just professionals, but they are heavily associated with fundamentalist Christian groups, especially evangelical ones like Focus on the Family that primarily exist to deny rigths to gays and lesbians in the US.

So if that is what Bahais are aspiring to be....God help us!

Thanks for posting that Masud. It was quiet fun reading. So he has proof that up to 50% of gays that go through therapy get some help. What exactly does that mean? They have sex oh only once/year vs. a few times? Are they now fully heterosexual? What? What I do know, from personal experience in the Bahai community is that there are NO support groups for gay people that say they are now straight, have "overcome" and are either living happy celibate lives as Bahais or married as heterosexuals. NONE. But I do know TONS of people who finally left the community, or live closeted and afraid inside the community. So this may not be statistical proof for you, but it confirms for me the .5% theory that reparative therapy does not work and is actually harmufl to a human being.
Now, in regards to all the other information regarding the mental problems. I say, well of course! You go from a structured society backed by religions that tell you the right thing to do is to get married, settle down and raise kids. These same religions then tell you that you can NEVER do that with someone of the same sex. So when a young person enters the gay world- unfortunatley- sometimes its a free for all. THAT is why gays and lesbians need more than ever religiougs communities that love and accept them as they are, and give them a sense of worth. Your view of the Bahai Faith DOES NOT do that. It just gives them the option- celibacy or go figure it out yourself. I wonder if any studies have been made of gay people who regularly attend the Unitarian Church or maybe the Metropolitan church (MCC), I would be curious to see what the rate of mental problems, druge use, etc. is among this gay population. I can tell you that my friend who is Catholic and gay and goes to a very supportive parish, is 100% happy and "normal". I can also tell you that my thoughts of suicide and depression completely went away when I finally accepted myself as I am; realizing that what I was taught about homosexuality may not be anything coming from God. And you know what Masud. When I have shared this bit of information with "loyal" Bahais online, guess what a lot of them say? Essentially, well you think you are now happy, but are you really? Oh brother!

I came across this website the other day.

http://bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=...

Quite interesting. Has anybody seen this article before?

Ah, are we talking about the same Kamran who wrote this awful piece back in the 90's? http://bahai-library.com/?file=hakim_notes_aqda...

Yeah, I'd be curious to see how many people he's "saved" from homosexuality. Since he considers the blanket term "sodomy" to mean ALL homosexuality. I guess that includes cuddling with a guy on a couch watching a movie. Interesting that as a professional he doesn't take into account the many other understanding of the word sodomy. Maybe we should share with him the movie "For the Bible Tells Me So"- it might broaden his view. But of course then he would only claim that he's being attacked for not being "politically correct".

Anyway, unless much has changed from the above piece he wrote years ago, you are correct- he won't bring ANY considerable change to the social consensus. A consensus backed by the majority of health professionals in his field.

Possibly. But it's hard to be polite when someone is telling you that you have a disorder to overcome. I'd be interested in seeing how many gays he's helped turn straight in the Bahai community. How about starting with a link to his profession and his methodology to make someone straight? I would be curious to see how it differs from ex-gay groups among evangelical Christians.

P wrote:
I would be very worried for anyone coming to you to get cured of homosexuality. IMHO.

P, i am happy not to be involved in such ventures, although again, I would believe that that all gays do not have an identical structure.

How about getting a Baha'i psychiatrist into the discussion? There seems to be a Dr Kamran Hakim who has been involved in this field. If we keep the discussion polite and understanding and avoid rude personal attacks, he might agree to exchange with us here; we might not bring about a considerable change the social consensus, but at least we would all learn something.

Well your personal profession would make a difference if let's say you were a pychiatrist. I would be very worried for anyone coming to you to get cured of homosexuality. IMHO.
There is no difference between a my friend who is Catholic and serving in his church as a laymen with any other member. He has the exact same rights- treated equally. He can help run the church and participate in a myriad of activities- which includes voting on decisions that affect that congregation. More importantly, he is in a supporting environment where the priest never gets on the pulpit to relate to the masses the homophobic remarks of the Pope. He worships in a healhty/supportive environment, regardless of the Pope's words. THAT situation does not exist in the Bahai community. Because invariably, no matter how much "love" you pretend to show homosexuals in the Bahai community, in the end Bahais have to point to the letters written on behalf of the Guardian or the UHJ. A gay couple would be brought into the LSA for "consultation". They would not be given the right to help run the community, serve on various committees, teach children't classes, etc. etc. It's not as simple as- oh well you just can't be an LSA member, that's all. Now all this would be fine if there were at least a few Bahai communities that were a little more open. I think in the NL, from what I've read in Sonja's messages, it seems to be going in that direction. But in the US, hardly. My friend has visited the San Francisco Bahai center and gone to a few activities in the past. SF is the most liberal city in the US. Yet the Bahai community there won't even acknowledge homosexuality in the community. It's basically don't ask don't tell. And the community form what he told me is VERY small for a city that large- with so many people who seek alternative religions to Christianity. That says something to me. If the Bahai Faith (from its top leadership) was more LGBT supportive, we should have a HUGE community in a city like San Francisco. A city that was blessed with a visit from Abdul-Baha. But alas, even this community is not an example of the progressive community that the Bahais could be.

P wrote:

Wrong Farhan. In the Catholic church there are many positions that laymen can take within the congregation to run the church- it is not all in the hands of the priest.

Farhan: Thanks for this information. So in your opinion, there is no difference between a Baha’i enrolled and enjoying administrative rights purposes and a catholic baptised at birth and more or less devoted to St Peter’s successor.

P: I'd rather you spend time answering Amanda's questions of your use of the word "spinster" and exactly what type of doctor you are.

Farhan: I am becoming more and more learned on Baquia’s blog. Yesterday I learnt that in the word “spinster” is an insult in the US; I had no idea of this; in school I had learnt that spinster is to a bachelor what a doe is to a deer, a female deer; My Webster gives me “unmarried woman of the nobility from a viscount’s daughter downwards” and my French dictionary gives me “une celibataire” which is a female for “un celibataire”. BTW, in French the word “female” is only used for an animal and “feminine” is used for humans; referring to a lady as a “female” is very offensive.

As to my professional activities, I am a hospital surgeon involved in general and abdominal surgery and in medical ethics for more than two decades; this included in working on ethical issues raised by gay communities for parenthood and IVF in the 1990s and 5 years as a forensic expert. This being said, I see no reason why my personal status should throw any weight in an ethical issue, unless the person has been named as is speaking as an expert: why should a carpenter’s view have less weight than that of a priest or a scientist? They are each supposed to enrich the debate by contributing their view.

In short, legislation varies from time to time, from state to state and from culture to culture, and as doctors working in a multidisciplinary team with diverging opinions around us, we are still expected to obey the rules of the society where we work. We are note expected to do activism during our practice, but we have to inform patients of their civil and NH rights. This requires decision making procedures and I have some papers on the subject including one in English that you can find in a publication dating back some 10 years on “Ethical decision-making for in vitro fertilisation in a multicultural setting” (in: In Vitro Fertilisation in the 1990s: Towards Medical, Social, and Ethical Evaluation, ISBN10: 1859726852, ISBN13: 9781859726853, dated 2/1/1998, Ashgate Pub Co) and a more recent one on ethical decision making with a slide show available here:
http://www.bahaimedicalassociation.ca/Downloads...

Wrong Farhan. In the Catholic church there are many positions that laymen can take within the congregation to run the church- it is not all in the hands of the priest. And the Bahai Faith is completely a laymen's religion (or are you saying that LSA members are our priests). So the difference is this. A conservative catholic congregation can use the words of the pope to keep gays from serving in any of thse positions in the parish and even keep gays from joining the parish. All they have to do is point to the words of the Pope to justify their discrimination. This is exactly what is happening in the Bahai community worldwide. But it's worse, because we dont' have the luxury of finding another community (another parish) that is more liberal and accepting (well with the exception of Sonjay's house, but it would cost a lot of money to travel to the NL every 19 days). The Bahai community consistently and systematically makes sure gays/lesbians remain in the Faith only if they are closeted, single, pretending to be celibate and "stuggling to overcome". These gay Bahais can serve the Faith like everybody else. But if they wish to enter the community with a partner, they are made so uncomfortable that they will more than likely become inactive. And the best solution that you have offered is that they can participate in the Bahai community as non-Bahais. The difference is if I go to my friend's church, I would be participating as non-Catholic. He is a FULL catholic lovingly accepted as an EQUAL by his fellow parishioners. Ok well I'll leave you on that Farhan. I'd rather you spend time answering Amanda's questions of your use of the word "spinster" and exactly what type of doctor you are. Peace!

Thank you Daniel Orey for sharing your recent experience at the Shrine of Baha'u'llah...It took me back to my own tearful moments in the Most Holy Shrine...I stayed home from work Tuesday to spend the day in front of the TV watching Barack Obama take the oath of office. It was historical, exciting, moving, and monumental. I cried for joy, knowing that now we have the potential to achieve the "inclusiveness" that the founding fathers of this country wanted us to achieve. Part of that inclusiveness will be the acceptance of gay and lesbian couples and their children as true families and equal members of American society. President Obama has stated numerous times that he will do everything he can to advance the equality of GLBT community. I was on "cloud 9" all day...Then I clicked on the link that Daniel sent us showing the many gay and lesbian couples who now are being threatened with having their legal marriages dissolved by the government, having their families annulled, having their dignity stripped away. Again I cried, this time because of the injustice and ignorance that is still so rampant in our society. The terribly sad thing is that the fundamentalists whether Republican or Baha'i don't see any problem with this. When I became a Baha'i in the early 70's the Baha'i slogan at the time was, "Human Rights are God-Given Rights". What happened to that thought? Thank you again Daniel for sharing. You are truly one of the "stars in the heaven of understanding".

In Peace,
Bill
PS: Don't forget this Saturday night to watch "Prayers for Bobby" on LifeTime TV.

P wrote : It is YOU all that have the problem accepting us fully

P, yes, many Baha’is are prude or homophobic and unable to welcome GLTB; this can and should be remedied.
OTOH, I understand that the UHJ has a stand concerning behaviour required from those with voting rights and holding responsibilities within the Baha’i administration, just as Catholics require celibacy from priests and silence from Carmelites and Buddhists have expectations from monks. This can only be changed, if at all, by the UHJ. For the moment, those who want to contribute in those fields, are required to abide by those rules. But again, this does not remove the duty of love and consideration for those not enrolled.

Daniel Orey wrote : To my mind, there is no enrolled vs un-enrolled in most Christianity.

Exactly, since formal enrolments do not exist; if you are born into a Christian family, you are automatically considered as a Christian, baptised or not, whereas in the Baha’i Faith, there is a difference; this is why I would be tempted to consider the enrolled Bahá’ís as those who are in a position to accept responsibilities, and hence act as deacons of the Christian churches, with higher expectations from the community as to their behaviours, and “the community of interest” to the rank and file of Catholics. Many Catholics would accept GLTB from the rank and file, but not from priests and deacons.

P wrote : It is YOU all that have the problem accepting us fully
P, yes, many Baha’is are prude or homophobic and unable to welcome GLTB; this can and should be remedied.

OTOH, I understand that the UHJ has a stand concerning behaviour required from those with voting rights and holding responsibilities within the Baha’i administration, just as Catholics require celibacy from priests and silence from Carmelites and Buddhists have expectations from monks. This can only be changed, if at all, by the UHJ. For the moment, those who want to contribute in those fields, are required to abide by those rules. But again, this does not remove the duty of love and consideration for those not enrolled.

"Infertility for a bachelor or a spinster in most countries does not give way to financial coverage as an insured disorder."

Spinster is a derogatory sexist epithet in modern English. It implies you think a woman's only purpose is to be a "man purse" for a husband's genetic material and last name. You wouldn't want anyone to think you had such a reductionist and anachronistic view of marriage, would you? Or of women?

Also, how insurance companies decide coverage has nothing to do with the nosology, etiology, or diagnostic reasoning a doctor should be using to approach the definition of medical disorders. Insurance coverage has nothing to do with the SCIENCE. It has to do with $$$ and politics. What a bizarre conflation. (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/50infert.htm)

MORE IMPORTANTLY, as a medical practitioner, the INDIVIDUAL potentially expectant parent is your PATIENT. And it is ILLEGAL, and UNETHICAL, to withhold medical care like assisted reproductive technologies, from a patient based on their MARITAL STATUS. That is a violation of a patient's civil rights. The patients personal relationships are none of your business. The patient's healthcare needs are your business. Don't they have anything like HIPAA in France?

This is honestly a shocking statement to hear from someone who claims to be practicing medicine in France in the year 2009. I hope you're not in Obstetrics, Gynecology, or Reproductive Endocrinology.


(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=...)

p.s. It is exactly these kinds kinds of Freudian slips, on your part, however, that demonstrate the actual reasons you don't support Gay Marriage. Gay Marriage undermines the rigidity of the binary patriarchal gender system you carry around in your head.

And I'm totally fine with accepting you as a Bahai Farhan. I just wish the same respect for me and Daniel and others inside the community. It is YOU all that have the problem accepting us fully. Somehow a few Catholic parishes are able to do- this in a religion that really doesn't put unity in diversity on the forefront. It is a shame that the Bahai community that speaks so highly about unity in diversity should be act as fundamentalist towards the LGBT community as does a small southern baptist congregation.

Farhan asks “Do you feel we could also see a difference between the rank and file Catholics and the more engaged ones? Perhaps, as my hunch goes, the rank and file would be comparable to our un-enrolled “community of interest” who might ignore the Baha’i administration, and the priests or deacons to our enrolled Baha’is who have responsibilities?“

To my mind, there is no enrolled vs un-enrolled in most Christianity. You just are or you aren´t. Its hard for Bahaís from non-Christian non-western backgrounds to really understand this I think (gee I sound like EP here). Most Christians and Latin Catholics take religion lightly. They know the rules, but when they have friends and family members who are different, they also make room for them. My mother in law (who attends mass everyday btw), was outraged by the pope´s condemnation of glbt´s. But being a rather groovy old lady, she let us both know that she was upset, and planned to ignore him. The rest of the family agreed.

Our gay newspapers here in Sacramento have adds welcoming GLBT to worship in at least 5 different denominations. That means my husband & I can go to these churches and not have to face stares, glares, clicking of tongues or the cold shoulder, or have to explain a thing.

Let alone the sanction of authority.

P wrote:
Great that the UHJ would accept someone changing their sex. Now if only they would accept gay couples openly living together and raising a family to advance civilization.

P, I have absolutely no doubt that if the UHJ holds a position, it is solely because in their love and conscience for us they deem that position the best possible at a specific time.

For someone who believes they are Divinely guided, haggling with the prescriptions of the UHJ is like haggling with the doctor’s prescriptions that are for our own benefit. We have patients leave a doctor who tries to make them stop smoking and consult one who can better understand them, and perhaps smokes himself.

May Catholics do not believe that the pope’s prescriptions are divinely guided. This is also true for many Baha’is who post here: they believe that by insisting they can bring the UHJ to adopt a wiser stand.

I am amongst those who believe that my spiritual advantage is to change my life to comply with the rulings of the UHJ. I try to do so to my best, although I am constantly aware of falling short. Others believe that the institutions should adopt a position closer to their needs: it is like hoping that the doctor will tell you that it is OK to smoke.

Great that the UHJ would accept someone changing their sex. Now if only they would accept gay couples openly living together and raising a family to advance civilization. But whether secretaries writing on their behalf accept me or not, makes no difference. There will always be Bahais who do. Unfortunately, for now there is only a virtual community that will accept me- made up of people like Sonja, Steve, etc. The Bahai community is too small to have the luxury of various parishes to choose from like in the Catholic Church. So most of us just end up worshiping alone. It is sad Farhan, that if one day I adopt a child, I am being forced to bring him up in another Faith community because the one of my heritage clings to administrative hierarchy more so than Catholics do to the Pope.

P wrote:
SO why can't Bahai communities, who are supposed to be about unit and all-inclusivity, be even more LGBT friendly than these Catholics?

Well, P, with your help, we will progressively find out and remedy this.

I am not saying that I will put pressure in any way on any Baha’i administration to petition them into changing their decisions, but I am willing to study and make suggestions;

However, I firmly believe that so many of us, Baha’is or otherwise make a mistake of judging others, without ever having the slightest inkling as to the true value of that person in the eyes of God; we are to strive to make ourselves ever closer to the unattainably high standard of Baha’u’llah, but we have never been mandated to interfere in the lives of others or to judge them. Only institutions intervene, not for judging, but for protecting the unity of the community.

I will never forget the admiration of the doctors who learnt that the UHJ was submitting to their decision for a gender reassignment surgery in a case of transexuality, nor the bewilderment of so many Baha’is in that community when they learnt that a member was changing gender.

Daniel Orey wrote:
We, Baha'is differ from the Catholics in that they practice a more loving and open acceptance of glbt folks... at least with the folks I know both in California and Brasil. They just ignore the Pope for now as well.

Thanks Daniel for this explanation. When you say they are more loving and open, adding that they ignore the pope, I see a great difference between the community responsibilities of active Baha’is and the occasional participation of most Catholics.

Do you feel we could also see a difference between the rank and file Catholics and the more engaged ones? Perhaps, as my hunch goes, the rank and file would be comparable to our un-enrolled “community of interest” who might ignore the Baha’i administration, and the priests or deacons to our enrolled Baha’is who have responsibilities?

Farhan to answer your questions. As Sonja stated many times, everyting written against homosexuality in the Bahai Faith comes from a secretary writing on "behalf of" someone. So it used to upset me greatly when I read that Bahaullah thought that I was giving in to a shameful act, then I got angry at Bahaullah when I realized how much I was hurt by His religion. It took me a long time to realize, wait, that quote was from Shoghi Effendi, and wait that quote wasn't even from the Guardian but some secretary who was telling my what Bahaullah thought. So when I complain online, I NEVER say "Bahaullah said so and so". I only say the Bahai community or the present Bahai Faith. I used to say Shoghi Effendi, but now I know I was even wrong with that, and I have stopped.
Daniel explained the Cahtolic stance better. I also gave you a link before about my friend's local catholic chruch that welcomes him openly. They would probably even help find him a child to adopt should he ever wish to have a family. All this while still in the umbrella of the Cahtolic church. Basically this congregation sees the spirit of the Church to be more than the rantings of the Pope. That all-inclusiveness is a greater calling than the Popes edicts against homosexuality. SO why can't Bahai communities, who are supposed to be about unit and all-inclusivity, be even more LGBT friendly than these Catholics? I can see liberal Bahai congregations doing the same one day- they just have to be made up with more SOnja's in the community, or that mother who has a gay son, or me; and unfortunately less of the other Bahais that cling to these letters written on behalf of the UHJ although in my community you would always be welcome Farhan).

Since my husband is Brazilian Catholic (almost by definition they are liberal, inclusive and unconditional in their love), and this week is the feast of St Sebastian (the gay saint) I think I can answer with some confidence the question re: Catholicism and gay.

Both the Baha'is and the Catholics have just about the same teachings re homosexuality. Tho this new pope is far less loving than former ones, most people see it as temporary.

My husband would never, ever leave the church because of glbt issues. It is his core, it is essential, it is cultural. He has, like me, however quit attending any activity, including mass.

We, Baha'is differ from the Catholics in that they practice a more loving and open acceptance of glbt folks... at least with the folks I know both in California and Brasil. They just ignore the Pope for now as well.

The priest that blessed our wedding is very loving and inclusive - soem are some aren't, the same for different parishes. The down town one is very open in inclusive, the neighborhood one is more ocnservative. They have choices, we don't. partially because there is a global Catholic culture, at this time there is no such thing in the Baha'i Faith.

Overall, I get the vibe, as I do from my Jewish colleagues that to most Catholics (folks vs the Vatican) that it is better to be a gay catholic than a non-gay one...

I still wonder if folks in my community think its better to be a gay Baha'i than a gay non-Baha'i.

Steve Marshall wrote :
Medical people refer to "male factor infertility" and "female factor infertility" when they need to be more specific.

This is correct, Steve, on biological basis. I am referring to infertility that can be considered by the National Health in France and in most other countries as a “disorder” that gives way to financing as an insured NH or Medicare coverage.

Infertility for a bachelor or a spinster in most countries does not give way to financial coverage as an insured disorder.

Steve wrote:
Can you honestly say that a doctor would advise a newly-married gay couple to lay off the contraception and come back after a year of "regular intercourse" if they approached him saying they were concerned about their ability to conceive?

Farhan: Of course not Steve, but in most countries, providing procreation assistance will not even be allowed, for bachelors or same sex partners, much less refunded by NH. The doctor would advise them to consider adoption or medical assisted procreation in a country where it is allowed. As for example in cases of immunological incompatibility, the couple is infertile, although the two partners are not.

If you have specific rules in your country, please share.

Hi Farhan,

You wrote:
[quote comment="61289"]Medically speaking, we refer to a couple as infertile, not a person.[/quote]

That's not correct. Medical people refer to "male factor infertility" and "female factor infertility" when they need to be more specific.

More importantly, the medical definitions of infertility assume the couple is heterosexual, and therefore apply only to a heterosexual couple. Here are a couple:

"The diagnosis of infertility is not usually considered valid until after one year of engaging in sexual relations with the same partner without contraception."

"Infertility is also defined in specific terms as the failure to conceive after a year of regular intercourse without contraception."

Don't believe me about the hetero assumption and application? Can you honestly say that a doctor would advise a newly-married gay couple to lay off the contraception and come back after a year of "regular intercourse", if they approached him saying they were concerned about their ability to conceive?

By labelling a homosexual couple "infertile" you're applying a "heterosexuals-only" definition inappropriately. You wouldn't apply male-only medical and biological conditions to females and vice versa, so don't apply heterosexual-only definitions to homosexuals.

Calling a homosexual couple "infertile" is equivalent to routinely telling a female patient she has a very low sperm count or asking a male patient whether he has any problems with his cycle.

[quote]Uh, just a slow leak in the back tyre, doc...[/quote]

P wrote:
Heck if the Cahtolic congregations can do it, why not local Bahai communities?

P, would you kindly explain what the Catholic congregations managed to do?

Grove wrote :
And as a doctor, surely you can see your statement that homosexuals are infertile was incorrect.

Grover, I am afraid my view differs from yours. Medically speaking, we refer to a _couple_ as infertile, not a person. For various reasons, including same-sex couples, separately fertile individuals might meet infertility in their couple. Medicare in many countries accepts infertility of a couple as a disease subject to refund. Few countries accept to refund medically assisted procreation for single individuals.

P wrote:
The only choice really is to accept those of us FULLY inside the community who don't adhere to the words of secretaries as much as you all do.

P, I am puzzled that you refer to the secretaries and not to the UHJ; if the UHJ choses to recall those writings, to be inspired by them, this is their choice, but IMHO, if they are free to do so, but I am not sure they are bound by them. Does your view differ with mine?

[quote post="193"]Grover, thanks so much for giving your views and permitting me to offer mine.[/quote]

Well, you do choose the most inappropriate examples or analogies, almost all degrading to homosexuality in one way or another. And as a doctor, surely you can see your statement that homosexuals are infertile was incorrect.

No Farhan, there is a solution, but you don't want to accept it. And please stop comparing YOUR "impossible loves" with what gay people have to face in the Bahai community. I've read the heart-wrenching posts of a mother who gave up on the Faith because she had a gay son. She knew intrinsically that denying her son a solid intimate relationship that could produce a family was evil. To teach her son that being in such a relationship is detrimental to his soul is evil. You just can't see that, can you? Maybe you make a distinction between being told a spiritual disorder or acting on something being hurtful to your soul, but it all means the same to a person who is living a good life with his partner and raising a family. I'm glad you mentioned your views on those sites, but I can tell you right now- it won't make a difference. I am gay, generations Bahai who understands both sides (trust me I lived the side you are on for years), so I should understand better than anyone else. Daniel, Dan all of us should really understand what you are trying to say. But in the end we are telling you- your stance is wrong. Your stance will continue to hurt those in the Faith who keep struggling to "overcome" their sexuality without any success. The only choice really is to accept those of us FULLY inside the community who don't adhere to the words of secretaries as much as you all do. I think it is possible. There are people like Sonja who are attempting to do just that. And until the UHJ expels all of us, then we will try. Heck if the Cahtolic congregations can do it, why not local Bahai communities? We'll see...
(ps but thank you for sharing your views)

P wrote:
You were stuck and upset on the words "spiritual disorder" being used online to supposedly bash the Bahai Faith.

Farhan: I would rather say bash the gay community in the name of the Baha’i faith

P: Ok, so what about the words "spritually condemn"?

Farhan: identical to saying adultery is spiritually condemned.

P: What about shameful sexual aberration?

Farhan: Identical to saying adultery is a shameful behaviour. As to the word “aberration” it is defined as a deviation from socially accepted norms.

You believe that not performing gay marriages is a shameful “aberration” the Baha’is believe that gay marriages are a shameful “aberration”; Some would leave the Faith if gay marriages were performed, others leave the faith because gay marriages are not performed.

The French believe that driving on the left is a dangerous “aberration”, the British believe that driving on the right is a dangerous “aberration”. When I go to the UK I abide by their rules, they do the same when they come to France. If we disagree, we stay home and we don’t petition each other for changing sides.

P: Would you like me to go find these sites and advice people to change their terminology so they get it correct?

Farhan: No, thanks; I did that myself.

P: BUT, do you really believe that it will make a difference?

Farhan: I believe that being told I have a “spiritual disease” would be more painful to me that hearing that my behaviour could “impair the growth of my soul”.

P: Why? You seem to want your cake and eat it too.

Farhan: I have been merely attempting to listen and give MHO on issues that I feel important. I am asking for nothing, just learning from your good questions: No cake, no sweets, and no thanks

P: Show the Faith in the best light while maintaining allegiance to those terrible quotes that label homosexuality as a disorder harmful to the soul if one gives in to it- "no matter how devoted and fine the love may be".

Farhan: Here I understand that the quote is speaking about the pure love that should exist between people and which should not be put into physical action. As long as the Faith is shown it it’s true light, I have no objections to make.

P: Don't be upset if people continue to "attack" the Faith- they have every right to get angry at a religion with adherents that try to sell injustice as justice.

Farhan: We are not trying to publicise, but to teach; big difference which might be difficult to understand in a consumer society. Presenting the teachings is teaching. Distorting the teachings is not teaching, whatever the intent: to attack or to protect.

P: But I do think you are trying to portray the Bahai Faith in the best light while at the same time adhering to the words of these secretaries. You can’t have it both ways. Sorry!

Farhan: Behinds the words there is a spirit. I am merely trying to share with you my understanding of the Baha’i Faith; the whole spirit of family making is based on the golden standard of the Baha’i marriage laws which are in the best interests of society and hence of each component part of this society.

Those are the rules of the community life. Some like them, others don’t. Some accept them as God given rules and try to comply as best they can. Others oppose them. Only the UHJ can change them. Whatever the words of the secretaries, the laws of chastity apply equally to all, gays and non-gays.

I agree that unfortunately, no legal outlet is provided for gays. We cannot say chastity is required only with the opposite sex, but same sex relations are OK. They are required to accept family making with the opposite sex or celibacy. This is painful. I have no miraculous solution to suggest. I am not a law maker, and like yourself I abide by the rules, and believe you me, I have had my part of hard experiences in life coping with “impossible loves”.

And Farhan, I did not mean that you are trying to make the Faith look better to attract unsuspecting people. Because eventually they would end up here ranting if they became Bahais- and you wouldn't want that now would you? :o)
But I do think you are trying to portray the Bahai Faith in the best light while at the same time adhering to the words of these secretaries. You can't have it both ways. Sorry!

Thanks for all the flowery words again Farhan. But you are still not answering any questions. You were stuck and upset on the words "spiritual disorder" being used online to supposedly bash the Bahai Faith. This is was upsetting to you because you think it just an attack on the Faith and not true. Ok, so what about the words "spritually condemn"? What about shameful sexual aberration? Would you like me to go find these sites and advice people to change their terminology so they get it correct? Please advise me on which sites you are talking about and I will gladly do that. BUT, do you really believe that it will make a difference? The real words of these secretaries writing on behalf of SE or the UHJ upset people. Why? You seem to want your cake and eat it too. Show the Faith in the best light while maintaining allegiance to those terrible quotes that label homosexuality as a disorder harmful to the soul if one gives in to it- "no matter how devoted and fine the love may be". Don't be upset if people continue to "attack" the Faith- they have every right to get angry at a religion with adherents that try to sell injustice as justice.

Grover wrote:
You can't compare sociology with biology and biochemistry.

Grover, thanks so much for giving your views and permitting me to offer mine.

P wrote :
You just seem to play around the words to make the Bahai community look better.

P, this is a presumption on your part, directly inspired by the consumer-competition society you live in: I seem to be doing a publicity campaign so that I can attract converts, so that I become part of a winning community that can compete with other religious movements, thrive and get power and money. This totally opposed to the Baha’i concept of teaching where the Baha’is are even required to learn the writings by heart so as to be accurate in conveying them.

What I offer you is no doubt different from what you aspire. The best I can offer you is my sincere opinion. You can doubt on my sincerity and motivations if you wish.

I see in our sexual lives a spiritual or personal aspect, a social and community aspect and a legal aspect; and I have given you my understanding on these points.

I encourage all to take part at the spiritual banquet offered by god’s revelation, but the community aspect requires submission to some rules. I most certainly do not wish to do publicity by making the Baha’i Faith “look better” i.e. different from what it really is, attracting people who will not feel at ease. I would not want to bring into a football team someone who insists playing with a tennis racket, would I?

This attitude will no doubt discourage some people and encourage others to join the Faith: birds of a feather flock together. Scientifically, this is a good thing. In time we will be able to do retrospective and prospective studies to see which communities thrive best. It would be a scientific error to try to make the Baha’i Faith “look better” and attract unwilling people.

Farhan wrote:

[quote post="193"]homosexuals are infertile[/quote]

Infertile means being unable to produce offspring. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of producing offspring. There is nothing wrong with a gay's sperm or lesbian's ova. They may prefer to use alternative means other than the traditional intercourse between male and female.

[quote post="193"]Emptying our bladder, breathing, making sounds through our throats and eating are all Gods work; for biological and sociological reasons we need to control these functions, otherwise we cannot integrate a society.[/quote]

Aka doing it in an appropriate place. God didn't tell us about this, we established social norms for this ourselves, but society would still function if we chose to piss against a wall. Look what happens on Friday and Saturday nights down town. Society doesn't grind to halt or fail to integrate as you put it. Breathing is largely involuntary (except when you deliberately restrict or hold your breath if under water or during meditation), no one has said thou shalt breath or else its the nethermost hell for you. Not good examples.

[quote post="193"]Grovers, so many things prevalent in the animal kingdom, including sexual liberty, are not socially acceptable.[/quote]

I'd say for the most part animals behave better than us.

[quote post="193"]Grover, well, I can accept homosexuality as a natural outcome of genetics, biology and psychology, but unfortunately we have so many natural defects that need correcting, otherwise we would not need eye-glasses, shaving our beards, cutting our nails, using insulin or false teeth…[/quote]

eye-glasses - product of old age and environment that forces people to use their eyes in strange ways, reading books for example (and the occasion where kids are born short sighted etc).
Beards - useful when we were Neanderthals in cold places. Still useful now for the distinguished sage look and whisker sex.
Nails - useful back in the days for fighting, getting into fruit and meat etc.
Insulin - largely problem with constantly eating foods with high fat and/or sugar content.
False teeth - problem with old age and bad eating habits.
Not good examples Farhan.

[quote post="193"]Grover, I agree with you here. Believe that we should perhaps avoid suppressing genetically handicapped people as their birth might be a genetical necessity and at least a means of developing generosity and caring capacities in our societies. But again we make efforts in order to enable these people to speak, dress and behave in tune with social standards. [/quote]

Not a good example. You can't compare a homosexual to someone that is mongoloid, spastic, retarded, or been exposed to tertagenic chemicals.

[quote post="193"]Grover, I am sure that it has nothing to do with suppressing what they are or eliminating evil which I consider as void. I believe it has to do with social norms that require organising human society, including the restriction of human sexuality to within marriage; In time, as with the genetically modified foods, we can compare results of this experimentation. [/quote]

Homosexuality was a social norm before Christianity and Judaism came along. Women had a powerful role in society before Christianity and Judaism came along.

[quote post="193"]As to why homosexual marriages are not permitted in the Baha’i Faith, I would rather consider it as a social choice. [/quote]

Social choice implies people are able to choose. Not permitting gay marriage does not give them that choice.

[quote post="193"]In time, as with the genetically modified foods, we can compare results of this experimentation.[/quote]

You can't compare sociology with biology and biochemistry.

So your best argument Farhan is saying that adultery and homosexuality are both condemned? And adultery more so. Sorry, but again that does not make any difference. Let's look at the two. Adultery (if we are talking bout cheating on a spouse) hurts for obvious reasons- the spiritual damage of hurting another soul. Adultery (if we are talking about sleeping around) hurst because it does not create a family unit and help towards an ever-advancing civilization. THAT I can understand. But when a homosexual couple is committed to each other and raising a family in love- the Bahai Faith still points at this relationship as not valid. The blanket statement that Bahaullah considers this a SHAMEFUL aberration includes such a couple. You just seem to play around the words to make the Bahai community look better. Sorry, but that really seems like what is happening. You can't answer any questions clearly- neither of mine or Grover's.

P wrote:
But what about "spiritually condemned"?

P, I am neither playing with words, nor with your emotions. I am clearly stating that in my understanding, speaking solely on spiritually basis, which is our inner relations with God, hence without taking into consideration legal and social aspects of these behaviours, adultery and homosexuality are condemned equally. We read clearly in a tablet that adultery, sodomy and lechery are lumped together:

"Ye are forbidden to commit adultery, sodomy and lechery. … He who relateth himself to the All-Merciful and committeth satanic deeds, verily he is not of Me."

In Aqdas 19 we see adultery lumped with murder, back-biting and calumny; homosexuality is not mentioned:

"Ye have been forbidden to commit murder or adultery, or to engage in backbiting or calumny; shun ye, then, what hath been prohibited in the holy Books and Tablets."

Here we see adultery spiritually condemned:, with no word about homosexuality:

"When we realize that Bahá'u'lláh says adultery retards the progress of the soul in the afterlife, so grievous is it …" (From a letter dated 30 September 1949 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer)

You are free to understand that the Baha’i teachings are “damning” homosexuality in a harsher manner than adultery, this can also be the interpretation of some other Baha’is, and of those who want to prove that the Baha’i Faith is homophobe, but from the documents I have seen up to now, in my understanding, I see no spiritual difference between adultery and homosexuality.

I would even be inclined to believe that in the sight of God, a homosexual having no choice for an outlet of sexual drive within marriage is more excusable than someone committing adultery. If you meet St Peter, tell him this on my behalf.



P wrote:
Sorry Farhan, the world needs to know what it is like inside the Bahai community for anyone that is openly gay. It is not a healthy environment when a community is telling you no matter how great a person you strive to be, you are giving in to a shameful aberration detrimental to your soul.

P, I can only say I understand your view and your question here and say that this point requires study and a better understanding and there is no reason why this aspect of Baha’i teachings should be hidden.

As to the word “aberration” it depends where you place the norm on something that is a social convention. If the norm is to drive on the left, driving on the right is an aberration. If sexual liberty is accepted, obliging people to get married is an aberration; if sexuality is to be contained within marriage, sexuality outside marriage, whether gay or non-gay, is an aberration.





Grover wrote:
How do you know homosexuality is an abberation and not God’s handiwork?

Grover, scientifically speaking, so please excuse the lack of love, here is my present understanding:

Emptying our bladder, breathing, making sounds through our throats and eating are all Gods work; for biological and sociological reasons we need to control these functions, otherwise we cannot integrate a society.

Grover wrote: How do you explain why so many are born gay?

Grover, some are born left-handed; they sometimes manage to change or to become ambidextrous, because in some cases it can be a handicap: using scissors, for example. It can also be an advantage… Infertility is itself a handicap and homosexuals are infertile.

Grover wrote: Why is homosexual behaviour so prevalent in the animal kingdom?

Grovers, so many things prevalent in the animal kingdom, including sexual liberty, are not socially acceptable. There is the story about this foreigner fined in Paris for emptying his bladder against a wall. He complained that foreigners are treated worst than dogs who are allowed to do that.

Grover wrote: Could it possibly be because homosexuality is natural and not a defect?

Grover, well, I can accept homosexuality as a natural outcome of genetics, biology and psychology, but unfortunately we have so many natural defects that need correcting, otherwise we would not need eye-glasses, shaving our beards, cutting our nails, using insulin or false teeth…

Grover wrote: If God’s creation is perfect and all creatures and things have a purpose, could not homosexuals themselves have a unique purpose?

Grover, I agree with you here. Believe that we should perhaps avoid suppressing genetically handicapped people as their birth might be a genetical necessity and at least a means of developing generosity and caring capacities in our societies. But again we make efforts in order to enable these people to speak, dress and behave in tune with social standards.

Grover wrote: I If so, why make homosexuals suppress what they are? Why not let them contribute to their full potential in society and the Baha’i Faith? Why is homosexuality so evil that it must be suppressed and stamped out?

Grover, I am sure that it has nothing to do with suppressing what they are or eliminating evil which I consider as void. I believe it has to do with social norms that require organising human society, including the restriction of human sexuality to within marriage; As to why homosexual marriages are not permitted in the Baha’i Faith, I would rather consider it as a social choice. In time, as with the genetically modified foods, we can compare results of this experimentation.

[quote post="193"]Why worry and get involved in messy issues? Why not be involved with our own business, step aside and let God do His own work when we see we have done our very best? You can’t imagine how much I have preserved my coronary arteries by this strategy![/quote]

Well, for a start, Farhan, you don't know that it is God's work. How do you know know God exists? How do you know God cares? How do you know what God does or does not do or does or does not endorse? Don't tell me its because Baha'u'llah tells you so, you have to have better evidence than that. The reality is you do not know.

How do you know homosexuality is an abberation and not God's handiwork? How do you explain why so many are born gay? Why is homosexual behaviour so prevalent in the animal kingdom? Could it possibly be because homosexuality is natural and not a defect? If God's creation is perfect and all creatures and things have a purpose, could not homosexuals themselves have a unique purpose? If so, why make homosexuals suppress what they are? Why not let them contribute to their full potential in society and the Baha'i Faith? Why is homosexuality so evil that it must be suppressed and stamped out?

I'd like to see if you can provide a decent explanation, preferably a scientific or rational explanation, other than some secretary of Shoghi Effendi said so.

Thank you, Dan Orey! You were an excellent emmisary for all of us to the Shrine of Baha'u'llah.

Keep ranting Daniel, or else no one else will except those inside the community who just want to paint this rosy picture. If the Bahai community was such a great haven for happy celibate single gays, I wonder why there isn't an organization that represents them? Most of the Bahais who are gay and active inside the community are pretty well closeted or basically given up on ever finding someone to love and be with. But once they do, they are out of there.
Anyway, I've done my little part. I forwarded the link to this movie to all friends/family- some of whom may not know about me. We'll see the response, if any.

P says "Sorry Farhan, the world needs to know what it is like inside the Bahai community for anyone that is openly gay. It is not a healthy environment when a community is telling you no matter how great a person you strive to be, you are giving in to a shameful aberration detrimental to your soul."

thank you... I too feel like I am not wanted, when in my work, and friends and neighborhood, I am treated fairly, and well... much better than the Baha'i community wants to at this time.

I have to share here that I just returned from giving a talk and doing research in Haifa. I was given permission to visit the Shrines, and of course I did. I was given the great opportunity to sit alone in the Shrine of Baha'u'llah on Sunday morning during a driving rainstorm, it was, well magical, and a 2 hours that I will never, ever forget. All I felt was his UNCONDITIONAL love for me, I came away feeling that I am absolutely OK, and so are my GLBT Baha'i brothers and sisters.

I share this so that others may know that GLBT Baha'is are not interested in anything but full acceptance and equality in our Faith. I won't make trouble, I will continue to live the life as best as I can, but I also can no longer stand quietly when others are being discriminated against. I will continue to hide under my rock, as far as the Baha'i community is concerned, and be out and honest about our treatment when asked. I cannot lie.

I have to say once again that it is absolutely absurd that I am treated openly and fairly and respected in my career, yet the opposite in my local community.

I was invited to participate in some very prestigious work at the University there. They know and have met my husband, and have no problem whatsoever with my sexual orientation. It just seems absurd, that the last bastion of homophobia is the one community that preaches equality and freedom and love and peace...

One of my colleagues there asked, how the Baha'is treat their gay folks... it broke my heart to have to tell them the truth. I just cannot lie. they were disappointed to say the least.

At any rate, I share this not to blow my own horn, but to share my absolute gratefulness to Baha'u'llah for his love and grace and power.

Know that this "broken winged bird" cried his eyes out in his Shrine for this shameful, cruel, uneducated, homophobic treatment that his servants continue to met out on good people, precisely when this religion needs to open its doors, unconditionally to everyone... and just love everyone, again unconditionally.

Forgive me for my rant, but if you can't rant on Baha'i rant where can you rant?

aberration: the fact or an instance of being aberrant especially from a moral standard or normal state

"Bahá’u'lláh has spoken very strongly against this SHAMEFUL sexual aberration,”

Can you see Farhan how these words can lead a faithful individual to suicide? There have been many in the Bahai community who ended up the same as Bobby in this movie, and there will be more until the community changes. At this point in history, the Bahai community is absolutely no different from evangelical Christians; no matter how much you all try to paint a prettier picture.

Sorry Farhan, the world needs to know what it is like inside the Bahai community for anyone that is openly gay. It is not a healthy environment when a community is telling you no matter how great a person you strive to be, you are giving in to a shameful aberration detrimental to your soul.

Trying to prove that the Baha’i Faith is homophobe can reinforce homophobia in unwary Baha’i readers.
-----------------------
I don't think so Farhan. It may actually wake some Bahais up to the truth. Btw, the Bahai Faith (Bahaullah) is not homophobic. The Bahai present Bahai community however is a different story. And that story has to be told.

You are playing with words Farhan, I am not. You seem stuck on "spiritual disorder". Ok I'll give you that. There is no where that says it is a spiritual disorder. But what about "spiritually condemned"? What about all the other quotes I posted? I admit that a secretary also wrote on behalf of Shoghi Effendi that no one but God can say what the spiritual fate of a homosexual will be if he lives his life well in every other way, except this way. But that secretary goes on to say that we should still not push the limits on God's mercy. Again, the implication is that if you are a active homosexual, you are on the wrong side of God, your relationship is not equal to a heterosexual marriage that bonds two people together into the next world, and that yes you have a disorder. Sorry Farhan, I just don't see how you can twist these quotes around to make them look bettter. How can gay people participate in the Bahai Faith in any way, when the whole organization continues to justify such horrible quotes?

Here are photos of good decent people and their kids who are not welcome in the Faith see

P wrote:
Any person who feels any sense of justice for gays and lesbians would be repulsed by what I post.

P, I looked up the word “adultery” in my quotes; the quotes you give on the spiritual implications of homosexuality are very similar in every way. Of course the words “against nature”, “aberration” and “disorder” are specific to homosexuality. There is nothing that I have found saying that homosexuality is a “spiritual disorder”; this is a fallacy going around on internet which is detrimental to the attitude of Baha’is towards gays.

The concept “spiritually condemned” refers to whatever has spiritual consequences, such as lying, back-biting, not praying etc as opposed to penal consequences. It does not mean that gay are damned.

Trying to prove that the Baha'i Faith is homophobe can reinforce homophobia in unwary Baha'i readers.

P, following our discussions with “S the seeker” concerning the participation of non-enrolled persons in the administrative part of the 19 day feasts, I have just received a copy of the directives of the NSA of the USA. dated 18th December 2008.

The UHJ is quoted as saying that in order to “find a satisfactory way to resolve each situation that arises” and “apply the requisites of hospitality and love, on one hand, and those of confidentiality and unfettered discussion on important topics on the other”… the administrative part of the 19 day feast can be modified to accommodate the presence of non-Baha’is simply by avoiding “sensitive or problematic issues”.

The 19 day feast is described by the UHJ as a “link that connects the local community in a dynamic relationship with the entire structure of the Administrative Order,” that “new stage in this enlightened age to which the basic expression of community life has evolved.”

Although there is no change in the fact that the 19 day feast is intended only for Baha’is, this new guidance that concerns non-Baha’is that happen to turn up at a feast might assist families such as yours into a closer participation in Baha’i community life.

Hi Bill. Here is the link for the trailer for Prayers for Bobby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBVcTCpKx3g
If you are in the US, it comes on Lifetime tv channel next week Sat. Jan. 24th at 9pm ET. I plan to send the link to ALL- gay, straight, Bahai or not, family and friends, prudish people or not.

Steve wrote:
Analogies are fine, but sport isn't a matter of eternal life and death. It's much more important than that!

Agreed, Steve, but I differentiate between my spiritual life and the messy social/community life which are of course closely linked. I have learnt to let go when I can't do things the way I wish they were done, so I do something else, something that makes me happy, and hey presto, so often, after some time things happen as I wished them to be, if not always in my way, sometimes much better than I would have imagined in someone else's way.

Why worry and get involved in messy issues? Why not be involved with our own business, step aside and let God do His own work when we see we have done our very best? You can't imagine how much I have preserved my coronary arteries by this strategy!

[quote comment="61143"]...just as a referee who asks an undisciplined player to behave properly or leave the ground is safeguarding unity and not destroying it, whereas a player who is trying to substitute himself for the referee, is destroying unity and not safeguarding it.[/quote]

If that's all it takes, I'm happy to be obedient for 80 or so minutes every time the Baha'is have a game. I believe the games are called Feasts and the referee is called a host or a feast chairman.

Baha'i isn't something you go out on a field and play for 80 minutes on the weekend with an agreed on adjudicator and a covenant to accept that person's decisions while the game is being played -- on the understanding that there will be a full post-mortem. And it very seldom requires split-second judgement calls from its administrators.

As a result, referees are as much constrained in what they can do as the players. Consistently poor refereeing decisions result in referees being dropped or not advancing. Post-match complaints about things (other than split-second, sincerely-made judgement calls) are listened to -- and if a referee is shown to have abused their position or due process then they are dealt with.

And referees are appointed by independent bodies. You would very seldom get a situation where new head referees are only drawn from a committee whose members were appointed by the head referees.

According to your analogy, we're both players. If you don't like the way I do things, then you should inform a referee and leave your concerns in their hands. Following on from that, it's unhealthy for you and disruptive to our game, for you to be insinuating that I'm somehow a bad Baha'i because I apparently don't believe in instant, exact and unquestioning obedience.

Particularly when I've gone for 35 years without even a yellow card.

Analogies are fine, but sport isn't a matter of eternal life and death. It's much more important than that!

ka kite
Steve

Steve Marshall wrote:
Sometimes Baha’u'llah suffered silently through injustices, and sometimes he spoke out and did stuff. Ditto for ‘Abdu’l-Baha. Were they “destroying unity”?

No Steve, they were not destroying unity; they were safeguarding it, just as a referee who asks an undisciplined player to behave properly or leave the ground is safeguarding unity and not destroying it, whereas a player who is trying to substitute himself for the referee, is destroying unity and not safeguarding it.

If we voice protest against a referee in a football match, and continue on and on, by saying that the referee is incompetent, and his authority is unwarranted, and that we refuse to play in that match, and that everyone should arise against the referee and even against that stupid game, we are producing disunity.

There is a 19 day feast where Baha'is are supposed to voice their suggestions and recommendations. We cannot oblige others to follow our understanding. If we get impatient with these people who dont advance as fast as we would like them to do, and instead of recommending our view and accepting the majority vote, then we are disowning the whole system, and producing disunity. If we lovingly accept our mutual mistakes, then we can correct ourselves collectively and we will be producing harmony and unity.

Steve Marshall wrote:
I’m sorry,now I’m even more confused about who you were comparing with the “Christian” firebombers.

Steve, I was comparing the fire bombers to the fatwa makers and OPPOSING them to the prude Baha'is who are offended by any talk below the belt, especially if it concerns the central figures of the Faith, who might back-bite, but never throw bombs. They don't deserve the adjective "fundamentalist".

I was only pointing out that these prude and shame ridden people were not necessarily homophobe, but perhaps a little puritan and bigoted when they were brought up in some countries who have a tradition of bigotry. They have much to offer our communities and should not be waived away just because they are prude. they can be lovingly educated towards more open-mindedness.

I know some of them who refuse to take off their underwear for a medical examination, who show disgust at an enlaced non-gay couple in the park, let alone the sight of a same-sex couple.

I was calling for more tolerance and compassion for these prude people, and some consideration in avoiding a language that can be offensive to them.

By being provocative, let us not become prudophobes ;-)

Thank you, Masud, for sharing those links. I've put them up on my blog and will have them up on my YouTube channel soon.

Please do keep us posted on any developments.

Wishing the best to you and your family during this difficult time,
Amanda

[quote comment="61120"]Steve, I am just saying that it is not just because people around us are emotionally unstable to the point that they sometimes offended in seeing couples flirting in the street, that they have to be thrown away or stigmatised as homophobic or fundamentalists. There is room for them in the Faith all the same. Taking offence about someone bringing in Shoghi Effendi's private life is under no circumstances comparable to those who declare fatwas or burn down cinemas.[/quote]

I'm sorry,now I'm even more confused about who you were comparing with the "Christian" firebombers.

[quote comment="61120"]I have no competence to evaluate your wife's situation with the administrative order[/quote]

You don't seem constrained when it comes to evaluating the situation gays face. If you're not willing to criticise the House in any way, just say so.

[quote comment="61120"]...but I have learnt to sometimes let go and do something else if I feel that people in the community are not ready for what I might consider as a bright idea, instead of taking them on in a public duel, acting as Robin Hood, Zorro or Donquichotte. [/quote]

That's good advice, and I'm already doing that.

It is good to hear we are right, but what is the use if in the process we destroy unity?[/quote]

It is good to sufer in silence, but what is the use if tyrants just keep on being unjust?

Sometimes Baha'u'llah suffered silently through injustices, and sometimes he spoke out and did stuff. Ditto for 'Abdu'l-Baha. Were they "destroying unity"?

Thank you Amanda and everyone else for your kind words about my cousin's incarceration. They are much appreciated. I know you're all concerned about human rights; I hope that my comments haven't led anyone to believe otherwise.

I'll let you guys know how the situation unfolds.

Here are some links from the news about the event:

http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jan/1152.html
http://www.iranpresswatch.org/2009/01/ten-bahai...
http://www.bwns.org/story/688

Hi Farhan. Again you state that when individuals speak out against the current stance of the official Bahai Faith in regards to homosexuality, then it is because of the motive to discredit the Faith and not to tell the world the truth. Yet, when people like Amanda speak out, they are showing the world actual quotes from those secretaries that have written on behalf Shoghi Effendi or the UHJ. It comes direct from what you all consider part of the writings of the Faith- these secretaries. So how do you and Masud justify a conspiracy theory around this. I'll just leave you with a few quotes from those secretaries. Any person who feels any sense of justice for gays and lesbians would be repulsed by what I post. It has nothing to do with brainwashing as Masud would like us to believe:
In regards to homosexuality being immoral and spiritually condemned (aka bad for your soul):
"Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, is spiritually condemned."
In regards to LOVINGLY getting a homosexual to drift away from his friends and maybe even a partner in order to conform:
"the Assemblies, whether local or national, should act tactfully, patiently and in a friendly and kindly spirit. Knowing how painful and dangerous it is for such believers to repudiate their former allegiances and friendships, they should try to gradually persuade them of the wisdom and necessity of such an action,"
In regards to homosexuality being a disorder trhat is bad for society and that will not bring two souls together in this world and the next. And worse that it is NOT a means by which a family with children could be established (so much for your belief Farhan that the Bahai community would welcome gay families wihtout administrative rights):
"The Faith, on the contrary, makes it abundantly clear that homosexuality is an abnormality, is a great problem for the individual so afflicted, and that he or she should strive to overcome it. The social implications of such an attitude are very important. The primary purpose of sexual relations is, clearly, to perpetuate the species. The fact that personal pleasure is derived therefrom is one of the bounties of God. The sex act is merely one moment in a long process, from courtship through marriage, the procreation of children, their nursing and rearing, and involves the establishment of a mutually sustaining relationship between two souls which will endure beyond life on this earth."
And finally the worse of all. Secretaries speaking on behalf of Bahaullah!:
"Bahá'u'lláh has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration,"

So where am I or Amanda or anyone else who feels any sense of disgust at these quotes, exaggerating or brainwashing others? Explain please.

Steve wrote:
Thanks for your clarification, although I'm still a little unclear who you were comparing to Christian fire-bombers. Homophobic Baha'is?

Steve, I am just saying that it is not just because people around us are emotionally unstable to the point that they sometimes offended in seeing couples flirting in the street, that they have to be thrown away or stigmatised as homophobic or fundamentalists. There is room for them in the Faith all the same. Taking offence about someone bringing in Shoghi Effendi's private life is under no circumstances comparable to those who declare fatwas or burn down cinemas.

I have no competence to evaluate your wife's situation with the administrative order, but I have learnt to sometimes let go and do something else if I feel that people in the community are not ready for what I might consider as a bright idea, instead of taking them on in a public duel, acting as Robin Hood, Zorro or Donquichotte. Even Baha'u'llah took into consideration the fact that for some reforms it would take generations.

It is good to hear we are right, but what is the use if in the process we destroy unity?

[quote comment="61117"]My point is that if we want to help the community and its members to advance and grow, it is more through loving examples and counsels rather than through provocative attacks that we can get better results.[/quote]

Hi Farhan,

Thanks for your clarification, although I'm still a little unclear who you were comparing to Christian fire-bombers. Homophobic Baha'is?

I agree that loving examples and counsels provide much better results than provocative attacks. But that's true of all sides in a dispute. When gay Baha'is are told they can be "cured" by their assembly in opposition to medical advice who stands up for them? When a provocative attack was made on my wife's membership in the Baha'i community, who stood up for her? When Sen McGlinn was attacked in the same way, who stood up for him?

I spent 25 years trying to be loving, and leaving my concerns in the hands of the administration. My complaints were ignored. Nothing changed, and I ran out of good-will. Now, when I'm attacked, or my friends are attacked, I defend myself and I let the world know what's going on. I suggest that what you see to be provocative attacks may in fact be sturdy defences against ongoing attacks.

If the provocative attacks were originating from folks like me, the Baha'i faith would be booming. I submit that it is in decline, and that the decline is seeping in from the top.

ka kite
Steve

Steve Marshal wrote:
If those arsonists/terrorists didn't want to be shocked, they should have stayed away from the theatre. But no, they wanted to forsefully impose their beliefs on others.

Steve, I found the following link in English:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptatio...)

In fact protests against the movie from religious communities began before the film had even finished production. On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched Molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theatre which was partly destroyed to protest against the film, injuring thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned. In other attacks, including Besançon, one person was killed. In some countries, including Mexico and Chile, the film was banned for several years. It continues to be prohibited in the Philippines, Singapore, and South Africa.

My point is that yes, we do have emotionally driven people amongst the Baha’is; I have met some and suffered through them. I used to call them apparatchiks, and I call them emotionally unbalanced now; In some cases, they can be helped to more flexibility.

My point is that if we want to help the community and its members to advance and grow, it is more through loving examples and counsels rather than through provocative attacks that we can get better results.

Masud wrote:
I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post, but I don't consider all sexuality "dirty".

Yes, Masud, I understand; I was not referring to you, but replying generally to P’s question on WHY some people can be shocked by words or behaviours.

I do understand that those who suffer resort become frustrated and finally react aggressively to try and be understood. However, I feel that the post by Bill goes far more towards a better integration of gays within the Baha’i community than by trying to shock people by suggesting the Shoghi Effendi and His wife were gays or by publicising a fallacy that pretends that the Baha’i teachings consider homosexuality as a “spiritual disease”.

In these actions that in fact contribute to discrediting gays, I feel that there is more an intent on discrediting the Baha’i faith than on improving the situation of gays.

Oh really Masud. Then go through the video, step by step, showing where Amanda is wrong in her statements? She uses quotes directly from the writings of the Faith. You know all those secretaries of Shoghi Effendi that you have such high regard for. What has she stated in her video that is untruthful. Yes she has made a value judgement that to tell gay youth in the Bahai community that they have a spiritual disorder and they need to overcome it is harmful. But guess what Masud, many other people feel the same way and it is not because Amanda is brainwashing them. They had these strong feelings long before they watched Amanda's video. Some of these people feel angry enough to say they will not support the Bahais in Iran since Bahais don't support the rights of gays. Again who's fault is this Masud. Amanda the messenger or the message?

Farhan,

You said, "Some people are educated to consider all sexuality as “dirty”. They will not refer to it in public. How much more a sexuality different from the one they see in mum and dad. The very suggestion of bestiality will make them sick. Perhaps they are shoving all that into their sub-conscious."

I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post, but I don't consider all sexuality "dirty". I grew up in a quite liberal American and European environment, albeit in Latin America. Additionally, I am now living in Europe (Switzerland to be precise). My upbringing has been quite liberal. I've had no problem discussing sexuality and I've done so many times. But just like P and others, I feel strongly about it.

P,

You said, "So if someone reads our comments that the Bahai community expects gays to overcome their sexuality, to consider it a disorder, to turn its back on their partner and possibly child because that is not what a true family is according to Bahais, etc. etc., and then decides that this IS discrimination and wrong. Then who’s fault is it?"

Wrong P. THEY didn't decide it's discrimination, the VIDEO labeled it as discrimination; if it were only facts (or hard news, so to speak) then it would be different, but that specific video and your specific claims are VALUED JUDGMENTS. There's nothing wrong with that, but you must be willing to accept the consequences of someone reading that. And again, I believe those claims, insofar as they turn into generalizations (about the treatment of homosexuals in the Baha'i community) are false perceptions. So you must accept at least partial responsibility (not blame) for the indifference of certain people (caused by your critical statements) with regards to the situation of the Baha'is in Iran which I know you and Amanda and others care about.

[quote comment="61094"]Here in France when the Lost temptation of Christ by Martin Scorsese was projected in a cinema, fire bombs were thrown in the cinema. You know how the Moslems were shocked about the cartoons. So we do have some shy people; is it necessary to shock them ? Or should we be tolerant of their inexperience?[/quote]

The shy, inexperienced people you refer to had to pay for a ticket to the Last Temptation of Christ in order to throw their fire bombs (what actually happened seems to have been a little different, but no matter).

If those arsonists/terrorists didn't want to be shocked, they should have stayed away from the theatre. But no, they wanted to forsefully impose their beliefs on others.

Masud , I'm sorry to hear about your cousin, and I will continue to speak out about the way the Iranian theocrats treat those they consider to be apostates and perverts. But please remember that my wife is treated as an apostate and kafir by the Baha'i administration and many of the Baha'is - yet not a scrap of evidence has been put forward showing why the house says she is to be treated in that way, and she received no warning whatsoever of her removal from membership in the Baha'i community. The only difference is that the Baha'is don't have the coercive power of the state.

Injustices carried out against Baha'is by the Baha'i administration - lack of due process, discrimination and the like - could be resolved in a flash by the Baha'i administration, and this would help the Baha'i cause in Iran immensely. In going after the victims, you're simply perpetuating injustice. Why should the Iranian theocracy put up with stuff it doesn't like if you and the Baha'i administration aren't willing to either?

Also, I am quite sure that no person suffering as a genuine prisoner of conscience in the name of freedom of belief would appreciate being used as a tool/pawn to manipulate others into silence.

Dear Masud,

I am very sorry to hear that your cousin has been incarcerated in Iran for being a Baha'i. That is terrible. If you have any links to press that mention his/her case I would be happy to post it on my blog and upload a video on YouTube to raise awareness about what is happening.

You have scapegoated me before for the persecutions faced by Baha'is in Iran, mostly in the comments sections of my YouTube videos. (I will post the link to my YouTube channel in case anyone wants to wade through them: http://www.youtube.com/user/notmytruname) You have argued that because I state that the Baha'i Faith discriminates against homosexuals, that somehow "people" will feel justified in either persecuting Baha'is, or doing nothing about Baha'is who are persecuted. You have even ascribed malicious intent to me. I have refuted all of this illogic when and were you originally posted it on my videos. I am not going to endlessly repeat myself. I, at least, ask you to be specific in any accusations you make about me. For example, you have said that I have misrepresented the Baha'i position on homosexuality in my videos, but I haven't.

Masud, I can understand that you are extremely upset by the situation in Iran- as am I. But lashing out and blaming me for apathy and prejudice in others is not reasonable. You are angry about people being hurt. So am I. What can we do together to help stop that cycle of violence?

Also, I do not have the physical ability right now to be online as often as I would like, so I have not been able to keep up with comments here or on my videos. If you post something and I do not respond, please send it directly to my blog: www.letters-of-the-living.blogspot.com

Best to you and your family,
Amanda

Right Farhan, thanks for getting my point. I can say Shoghi Effendi had homosexual feelings and it should not be automatically taken as an insult. So what if he did? Maybe he didn't act upon them. Maybe it didn't influence his decisions in life. Maybe he just kept it to himself because he saw it as a personal fault that he had to ignore in order to do his job. Who knows? But to say that someone has these feelings is not necessarily an insult. It's actually insulting to me that anyone would think so.

P wrote:
Farhan, first of all this is a thread on homosexuality.

Agreed, P. this is precisely the place to discuss such things and those who don’t want to hear them, should go elsewhere.

I was merely replying to your question _why_ some people are hurt, offended, shocked etc.

It is not always a symptom of discrimination or of intolerance against gays, but also often just a reaction of shame.

Here in France when the Lost temptation of Christ by Martin Scorsese was projected in a cinema, fire bombs were thrown in the cinema. You know how the Moslems were shocked about the cartoons. So we do have some shy people; is it necessary to shock them ? Or should we be tolerant of their inexperience?

Your reply is that the world should be made aware of this problem that causes much suffering, and I get your point

Farhan, first of all this is a thread on homosexuality. So I can comment all the time, especially when someone like Masud wants to point fingers at my friend Amanda and blame her for telling the truth about how gays are treated in the Bahai community. Amanda has asked Masud to explain, step by step, WHAT it is in her video that is not true. Masud couldn't do it there and he can't do it here, neither can you. So if someone reads our comments that the Bahai community expects gays to overcome their sexuality, to consider it a disorder, to turn its back on their partner and possibly child because that is not what a true family is according to Bahais, etc. etc., and then decides that this IS discrimination and wrong. Then who's fault is it? Mine? Amanda's for posting a video telling the truth? Or is it Masud's fault for not wanting to do anything to make a difference inside the Bahai community? Masud can point his finger towards me with all the feelings of indignation that he wants, makes no difference. If anything, the Iranian authorities knowing that the Bahai stance against gays is similar to their views, should at least make them accept Bahais more in Iran. I think the anger is more against the truth being discussed in the first place. Maybe you all would rather we just shut up- oh yeah, for the sake of the Bahais in Iran. Maybe allow one more bahai youth to contemplate suicide inside the Bahai community- oh yeah for the Bahais in Iran. Maybe allow another dedicated Bahai who has served for decades leave the Faith in disillusionment- oh yeag again to save the Bahais in Iran. You are so pitiful Masud- again change yourself.

P wrote: My gut instinct when I see the knee-jerk reaction by “loyal” Bahais such as yourself, is your disgust at the thought of homosexuality itself. So to even suggest that possibly Shoghi Effendi had homosexual feelings makes you angry. Why?

P, I believe that it is partly experience that that explains why. When I was a child and we arrived in Africa, the little African children would run away as they had never seen whites and they were scared. A beautiful mountain scenery makes some people sick with vertigo. When medical students see an operation or an autopsy for the first time they faint… Some people are educated to consider all sexuality as “dirty”. They will not refer to it in public. How much more a sexuality different from the one they see in mum and dad. The very suggestion of bestiality will make them sick. Perhaps they are shoving all that into their sub-conscious.

I sometimes operate with blood or faeces up to my elbows, and as a forensic expert I have seen things I wish I had never seen. This doesn’t mean that everyone has to become tough skinned like me. I remember I once mixed up my professional pictures with holiday ones; you can imagine the face of the photographer who printed them!

There can be some perversion involved in losing our sense of shame. I remember once finding out that the police specialist taking pictures during autopsy was also taking pictures of his colleagues with the victim in view, as someone would do in front of a hunting trophy.

I understand that your sexuality is an important issue for you, and you need to discuss it with us, but a lot of people just don’t fancy referring to sexuality all the time. They are attracted by other issues and are offended if we bring up the subject all the time. And so what how some people live their private lives? Some people are interested, some are not, and others are offended. Why not take into consideration people’s capacity, feelings? You need to be respected, I agree, but would you not also consider respecting others?

Eric,

No, I meant endogenous change, as in derived or originating internally, as oppposed to exogenous.

P,
Those are false perceptions. It's not about "if you want to change the perception, change yourself". No matter how many times you point to isolated (and deliberately exaggerated) incidents (and canards), it's not true.

That's the truth and the more discerning of this forum's posters and readers already know it.

What I found disgusting about Michael's comment was that just because some disagree with what he says (or, as SOME people baselessly allege, his "interpretation of Baha'u'llah's writings) it must be because he was projecting one of his traits. Pathetic.

Michael,

Why single out the Guardian's writings on homosexuality? Why not extend it to everything he's written? You cannot claim to be intellectually honest without explaining why that analysis cannot be true about, say, SE's writings on the World Order. Was he a disorganized person who just needed to project?? Come on. Get serious.

P,

"Even Farhan has the decency to admit that prejucides against gays may exist inside the Bahai community and we need more compassion and understanding on all sides."

I've never denied that and no sentient human being can construe my commentary in any other way. If this has been done and offense has been taken, I apologize; this was obviously not my intent. Furthermore, I never compared rape and murder to homosexuality. I did, however, contrast their comparable elements, as can be done with ALL concepts and words. Here's an example: the words "gay" and "goat" both begin with the letter "G". Should I now expect a knee-jerk reaction from you complaining that I'm comparing gays to goats? I believe you're smarter than that. Are you going to prove me wrong?

What I'm saying is that these caricatural assertions about the Baha'i Faith and the Baha'i community are nothing more than fodder for those who might have done something to help protect the Baha'is in Iran (such as my imprisoned cousin), but were thus rendered indifferent. I know this is not what any of you want, but it is what's happening.

Is the Baha'i community perfect? No. Should it change? Yes. Should the pettifogging elements exaggerated frequently by P be an obstacle for action against human rights violations in Iran? No.

Life is about choices. I ask you to make one now.

And what about Michael's comments did you find disgusting Masud? That he made the accusation that SE had homosexual feelings or that those feelings influenced the current Bahai view about homosexuality? I'm really curious. My gut instinct when I see the knee-jerk reaction by "loyal" Bahais such as yourself, is your disgust at the thought of homosexuality itself. So to even suggest that possibly Shoghi Effendi had homosexual feelings makes you angry. Why?

Sonja wrote:
When I see the AO actively encouraging diversity in Bahai community life - and Bahai communities reflecting as much diversity as in the cultures around them, then I'll agree with you.

Farhan: Sonja, the new lines introduced by the UHj in 1996 is not a replacement, but an ADDITIOn to what we had previously, although the stress made on this new “priority” led some zealots into believing that this new line was exclusivity.

I can assure you that when you encourage new believers into teaching campaigns, (i.e. mass teaching and not individual teaching that is to go on as before) they tend to introduce all kinds of very personal understanding and interpretations. It became hence necessary to have them memorize some writings and to standardize the basic essentials they were supposed to share. There is no room here for going into details; We need people capable of giving an accurate as possible view of the Faith in a short time. Once this basic essential has been acquired, those interested can go on to deeper subjects that correspond with their personal research.

For example, I was giving lectures on ethics. I soon realised that this was not what was needed in French Polynesia, and more specially, they could not reproduce this kind of teaching. Whatever I contributed in the Institute, they can and do carry on now that I have left French Polynesia.

To a large extent the Ruhi books contained what I already knew. What I learnt from them was how to keep my teaching work within useful limits for people who could then carry on the same later on; IOW, how to make people independent of me.

Sonja wrote: the AO isn't one thing either: there's diversity among LSAs and even NSAs so you can't really speak of the AO as if there's one seal of approval for all things.

Farhan: Sure! There is an adaptation at local and national levels, with a constant effort to make all this flexibility compatible; You have different programmes, but a same operating system on computers, whether Mac OS or Windows.

Sonja: However so far, the stress on Ruhi and other things like Anna's Presentation is aiming for sameness.


Farhan: sameness in the operating system, diversity in whatever can then be established upon those foundations. For those who wish to participate, we are moving from the kitchen garden to industrial farming, where we need standardisation, specialisation, organisation, etc, but kitchen farms don’t suddenly become outdated and they never will.

Sonja: Give me the diverse flowers of the gay community any day.

Farhan: This is different issue from Ruhi, but again any collective enterprise, like any team work, traffic regulations or computers need a minimum of standardisation; if we allow gay couples without introducing gay marriages, how can we expect chastity from others or parent’s consent? I feel that the new concept of the “community of interest” as opposed to enrolled Baha’is allows for more diversity without forsaking Baha’i standards.

Sonja: Unfortunately this type of event that we organize is in stark contrast with the simplicity and narrowness of the Anna Presentation which is the only other thing happening.

Farhan: I agree that these misconceptions of exclusivity might be difficult to get rid of. In one community I saw people saying that they no longer needed any book other than the Ruhi ones, and a new concept of the “Baha’i cycle” where people would do book 1 to 7 over and over again had crept up. These are human mistakes. Anna’s presentation allows new teachers do a standard job of teaching work without omitting important points, nor adding too much personal interpretations in variance with the teachings. This doesn’t exclude other activities, although agree with you that saying an activity is priority, makes other activities less attractive.

Sonja wrote: So Farhan, if your model of the Bahai Faith is that community development comes top-down via the AO channels, there's a big problem with your model.

Farhan: I have no personal model, but an understanding that I am sharing. Moderation is the answer: a football match is not top down from the captain or the referee to the players, although if we want to play, we need coordination and conformity to some rules. Too much conformity and too much liberty would both destroy the game. We do have excesses amongst Baha’is. We have our own zealots which need guidance.


Sonja wrote: if the AO insists on being the only option for Bahai participation, then in my view this is making the Bahai Faith a lot narrower.

Farhan: I strongly agree. This is an obvious deviation from the directives of the UHJ you can find in the compilation “unlocking the power of action” available through Google and posted somewhere on this blog.

Sonja: If is one thing to say, as a Bahai I prefer to interprete the AO as something with black and white rules to follow, and quite another to say all Bahais must take this route.

Farhan: we play the game, and if the whistle sounds, we try to correct our ways or we discuss the referee’s verdict. If we openly announce that we disagree with the rules of the game, we will be told to comply or to play elsewhere. We have liberty within certain limits, as in road traffic.

Sonja: I find it sad that well meaning Bahais such as yourself, can't see that taking a narrow attitude is reducing the diversity of rhe Bahai community and in turn it's relevence for society today.

Farhan: I am just another player. My attitude is that these are the rules here. I can modify them to some extent by suggestions and recommendations, which is what I did with the Ruhi zealots, without throwing away the baby with the bath water, but here we have a paramount Baha’i principle of unity which it took me time to understand: it is better to make a mistake in unity, realise this mistake and lovingly correct it in unity, rather than end up in chaos.

Masud you've made this sorry accusation against Amanda's videos before. You couldn't prove anything on youtube, so now you are bringing it up on here. Which I find funnys, since you made a post earlier saying that you were done commenting. Yeah, that lasted long.
Again Masud, if you don't like how the world perceives the treatment of gays inside the Bahai community THEN STOP WITH YOUR HOMOPHOBIC remarks. YOu can't compare homosexuality to incest and rape, then back peddle and say you were making some philosophical argument that's all. DO as Sonja is doing and help make the Bahai community more accepting to openly gay people. Ahhh, but see YOU are not going to do that. So when people see and read YOUR remarks, and they rightfully get pissed off, YOU blame on it Amanda, me and anyone else who is telling the truth about the treatment of gays inside the Bahai community. Even Farhan has the decency to admit that prejucides against gays may exist inside the Bahai community and we need more compassion and understanding on all sides. YOU on the otherhand just want to shove your views down anyone that disagrees with you, and if we disagree you throw fundamentalist rhetoric against us. So again Masu, if you don't like the comments that are made against the Bahai community then look in the mirror and adjust your own self.

Sonja,

"I am sure no gay would want any individual to suffer on their behalf."

Really? Are you sure? How do you know the user who made that comment I cited in my previous post wasn't gay and that, because he got the impression from Amanda's video that gays are discriminated against in the Baha'i Faith, he won't help them when the opportunity presents itself? In fact, that's basically what he said. Doesn't that constitute "wanting an individual to suffer on their behalf"?

However, my statement was directed mostly at Michael's despicable and offensive comment, and more generally at the anti-Baha'i (or at least anti-BAO) sentiment reflected in this forum.

And if you say you still fight for human rights, then fine; but isn't it a little bizarre to, on the one hand, say that you're fighting for human rights, and on the other, making it easy for readers to express indifference towards the Faith and its followers (as that previously cited user did) by accusing the Baha'is of human rights violations?

Now let me guess. Somebody is probably going to retort with "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" or something along those lines. Yes, no doubt, but what about wisdom? What about thinking about the consequences of our actions?

I'm going to preempt an argument that I think will be made against my position: that of free speech. It seems that everyone assumes free speech and freedom of action are inherently good, and represent worthy ideals to pursue in their own right - that’s clearly not the case, and in fact to believe that absolute freedom is a ‘good’ in its own right is an absurdity - it’s merely a means to an end, the end being a stable, just and fair society.

[quote comment=""][...] personal AND collective transformation[...][/quote] Farhan, I agree in theory and belief but in practice
there's a quotation from Baha'ullah about trees not producing fruit being only good for the fire and I connect this with one from the Bible about knowing the worth of something by the fruits that are born. When I see the AO actively encouraging diversity in Bahai community life - and Bahai communities reflecting as much diversity as in the cultures around them, then I'll agree with you.
But the AO isn't one thing either: there's diversity among LSAs and even NSAs so you can't really speak of the AO as if there's one seal of approval for all things.

However so far, the stress on Ruhi and other things like Anna's Presentation is aiming for sameness. for fruits for the same type of personal taste. Give me the diverse flowers of the gay community any day.
B.T.W. Daniel, a gay Bahai recently visited and we had 2 wonderful evenings where I was able to invite artists, professors and students. It was a wonderful proclamation for the Faith. These people experienced a Bahai atmosphere where we discussed gay marriage rights along with other issues. One evening was more arty and the other more intellectual. It was a buzz.
Everyone of the 15 or so people asked me to let them know when we would do such an evening again! Unfortunately this type of event that we organize is in stark contrast with the simplicity and narrowness of the Anna Presentation which is the only other thing happening. I wouldn't care, diversity is great, except that we are the exception - it feels a bit false when we are the only Bahais around our area doing this sort of stuff. So Farhan, if your model of the Bahai Faith is that community development comes top-down via the AO channels, there's a big problem with your model. If one's model, as mine is, that community development is a grassroots thing - a dialogue between the AO and individual initiatives of various community members then there's room for the diverse peoples of the world to participate in the Bahai community in the ways that suit them best. My interpretation from the Writings is the later otherwise why bother with the whole concept of feast consultation. I'm not suggesting that it is not important but if the AO insists on being the only option for Bahai participation, then in my view this is making the Bahai Faith a lot narrower. As I see it the UHJ is not, nor is any NSA insisting on absoluteness in the way you have described it above in your post. I mean "arbitration" - LSA's do not break up marriages that are not Bahai marriages for example.
If is one thing to say, as a Bahai I prefer to interprete the AO as something with black and white rules to follow, and quite another to say all Bahais must take this route. I find it sad that well meaning Bahais such as yourself, can't see that taking a narrow attitude is reducing the diversity of rhe Bahai community and in turn it's relevence for society today.

Mashad: about your commnet that someone will not support fighting for Bahai rights. I am sure no gay would want any individual to suffer on their behalf. So please do not blame this forum for that person's decision. I'd suggest that you try and find out why they really withdrew their support and then try remedy that. If it was because of inequality for gays, then do something about this in your local community so this is less an issue. Make your gays feel welcome. Reduce intolerance and so no. It matters.

Sonja wrote:
I agree with P + Farhan's views that the Bahai Faith also is about personal transformation as you mention above.

Sonja, I would like to add: personal AND collective transformation. this is new in religious history. Former religions prepared us for personal acomplishment. Baha'u'llah is preparing us in addition for COLLECTIVE accomplishment. This is why arbitration by an AO has become so important.

EP wrote:
you have used on old rhetorical tactic many times by implying that ex-bahais, dissidents, nonconformists and critics are spiritually deformed or inferior.

Farhan: This is how you interpret my words and you are addressing insults to yourself; what I am saying is that I disagree, at least for the moment. Obviously, each person who disagrees considers his view as better than the other one.

EP wrote: The underlying reality is however, sad and bad. gay bahais are widely subject to stigma and bigotry within their traditional bahai families and communities.

Farhan: I agree; this needs change, but at the same time the golden standard for sexuality within the Baha’i Faith remains a heterosexual married couple with the consent of parents. You may disagree, reject this view, consider it as outdated, inappropriate, or whatever you wish but you cannot force Baha’is abandon their standard; however, you certainly can expect them abandon stigma and bigotry. I might be sad to see that my kids stray from my ideals and use alcohol and tobacco, but I am not allowed to be bigoted about it.

EP: As an ex-bahai I think that those whole structure is rotten, but moreso bahai culture, which has increasingly wandered away from the ideals that are (inconsistently) stated in bahai scripture.

Farhan: Again, I believe that the Baha’i community, although imperfect, is adhering to standards that can help me improve myself. Considering them as “rotten” is insulting to them. I would never say ex-Baha’is are rotten. The statement you make above typically shows that you feel yourself in a position to help the “rotten” Baha’i Faith improve. There is nothing self-referential or condescending about what I say, but in what YOU say. To me this is a typical divergence of opinion: I never said your opinion was bad or junk, but I am saying yours is different and does not suit me. I would be happy to see you follow your way so that in the end we could compare the outcomes.

EP wrote: "Join the herd if you want some bliss."

Farhan: I would say join the orchestra if you fancy playing music with others instead of solo; join the football team if you are bored with cross-country, do industrial agriculture if the kitchen garden is not enough, but then you will have to be ready to obey the maestro, captain, the referee and work in teams with other imperfect people. Difficult, I agree, but the choice is yours.

EP wrote: critics and dissidents are the type of people that are needed to bring a sense of honest, unvarnshed self-examination to the group. to rouse it out of its self-congratulatory comfort zone. to overcome the status quo and again, make people at least start to think that there is a possibility that basic human decency matters instead of mindless orthodoxy and rigid bureacracy.

Farhan: there is much truth in what you say, but a more efficient way to change the world and it’s peoples is to lovingly and patiently help them advance, instead of alienating them by harshly opposing them and rubbing their noses in their own sh... Much more difficult though; I admit I am often not very good at it. People feel me as sugar-lipped, condescending or patronizing... They prefer being shouted at, so they can announce that they are being victimized and hence more lovable. Sometimes people feel more lovable as victimized losers than as winners.

EP: I don't know who you think you are fooling (other than yourself), but it sure isn't me.

Farhan: I am trying to exchange views and understand others. I stumbled on Baha’I Rants one day, looking for Ruhi documents on Google, and I said here I can find first-hand information on how and why people are having problems with it. I am trying to fool no one; there is not always something to be won or lost in this exchange, other than mutual experience. You seem to say that in all human exchanges. There is no constant need for a tyrant on one side and a loser, a victim, someone conned on the other. You are right in not wanting to be conned, and I can imagine that you have painful experiences in life like I do, but I don’t understand why you might feel being conned by me.

EP wrote: what you are saying, and have been saying for a long time, is junk.

Farhan: Ok now, who is insulting, stigmatising and condescending? You or me?

This is sad. You're all trying to brainwash people with Goebellian anti-Baha'i propaganda while Baha'is are being imprisoned in Iran, as recently as a couple days ago (one of which is my cousin)

What is your objective? To turn people away from helping the Baha'is in Iran? It's already happened: a while back, on one of Amanda Respess's youtube videos, about which Mavaddat and myself were having a discussion, a user said "I'm not going to help the Baha'is in Iran if they ask me, because look at what they do."

People, concentrate on the REAL human rights violations.

[quote comment=""][...]all religions offer some model of personal transformation that has merit to some extent or another, and the possibility for such transformation does not have to require blind obedience, superstition, conformism to those that abuse power, and so forth.[...][/quote]

I agree with P + Farhan's views that the Bahai Faith also is about personal transformation as you mention above.

I think too the way forward is for Bahais to think for themselves more and to study the writings for themselves and interprete for themselves. These are Bahai teachings afterall. I cannot imagine for one second that the UHJ would instruct any Bahai to prefer the UHJ's own statements over that of readings from the Bahai Scripture - going to the source and all that. Progress, evolution and development will only continue in Bahai communities if enough Bahai continue to make the Bahai scriptures themselves the source for their independent investigations.

So it is not the case that:
[quote comment=""][...] the "true believer" has to give up on the idea that bahai culture and leadership is capable of improvement in order to get the "payoff": spiritual transformation.[...][/quote]

It is not about improvement but about adapting / being flexible and in turn relevent or meaningful in society. Perhaps because in the past religion has been seen as something unchanging, that people tend to see religious teachings as something set in stone and see that flexibility as some sort of weakness. This would make a good topic for discussion: how flexible is the Bahai Faith?

I'm sorry i'm on the road for 5 weeks now and cannot respond further.

| Farhan said: ... this might be your feeling on what I am writing,
| but I can assure you that i am not trying to prove anything (at
| least consciously) and that I am sincerely presenting what I
| understand as tha truth at a given time. I apologize if my views
| are felt as insulting, but please be assured that my intent has
| never been to insult anyone but to better understand a painful
| situation.

Farhan - this is pure spin. you have used on old rhetorical tactic many times by implying that ex-bahais, dissidents, nonconformists and critics are spiritually deformed or inferior.

You have used this tactic when all of the usual banal bahai rhetoric is shown to be what is is: a cover up for an appallingly dysfunctional religious culture and organization.

On the issue of gay rights: I do see you making some adjustments, and trying to "sound" more compassionate. Which is admirable given that you are a natural target for those that despise traditional religious values.

The underlying reality is however, sad and bad. gay bahais are widely subject to stigma and bigotry within their traditional bahai families and communities.

And the bahai leadership elites have failed to chart any kind of realistic alternative course, and this makes the religion look backward and opposed to progress to many outsiders.

---

| Ep wrote : I find it sad that so many people like Grover and Craig
| and myself have given up after 20 or 30 years on the idea that
| bahai can be reformed and improved and kept at the leading edge.

| Farhan said: I think this is exactly where we diverge : I believe
| (selfishly!)that the Baha’i Faith is here to improve me, by
| helping me to offer better services to humanity, you believe that
| you might be in a position to improve and reform the Baha’i Faith.

Typical self-referential, condescending distortions.

You are confusing bahai culture, which is deeply messed up, with bahai scripture/administration.

According to your conventional definitions, bahai scripture/administration is perfect (not in need of change/reform). As an ex-bahai, I think that you accurately reflect an absurd belief that is common within bahai culture about those topics.

As an ex-bahai I think that those whole structure is rotten, but moreso bahai culture, which has increasingly wandered away from the ideals that are (inconsistently) stated in bahai scripture.

Setting aside quibbles about such definitions, your construction is obviously false: all religions offer some model of personal transformation that has merit to some extent or another, and the possibility for such transformation does not have to require blind obedience, superstition, conformism to those that abuse power, and so forth.

You have, again, provided a perfect crystallation of the weird dualities that exist in bahai culture: in this case, the "true believer" has to give up on the idea that bahai culture and leadership is capable of improvement in order to get the "payoff": spiritual transformation.

The theme in its basic features consists of the following:

"Join the herd if you want some bliss."

At some point, people that are capable of objective, critical thought end up "deconstructing" such gibberish, and realize that bahai culture has been overtaken by the same old scams that people running most other religions have been using to exploit "followers" since the beginning of time.

---

| Ep wrote : we probably mostly became bahai long ago because of the
| human need to belong to semething bigger than outselves and to
| feel part of a group of like-minded people working for something
| good, noble, etc.

| Farhan said: I understand and respect your choice, but again for
| me, the Baha’i faith has long ceased to be a place where I seek
| rest, but a place of effort toil towards something new in human
| history.

Again, distortion. You are implying that dissidents, nonconformists, critics and ex-bahais are lazy, and have no interest in the advancement of humanity. This is how "masters" talk to their "slaves" - "kindly", but pure condescension.

The absurdity is that the critics and dissidents are the type of people that are needed to bring a sense of honest, unvarnshed self-examination to the group. to rouse it out of its self-congratulatory comfort zone. to overcome the status quo and again, make people at least start to think that there is a possibility that basic human decency matters instead of mindless orthodoxy and rigid bureacracy.

bahai culture has betrayed its own highest ideals, and the debased people ("leaders") that continue to stand up and insist that administration is "perfect" are the vilest of the depraved.

---

| Ep wrote: The "AO" is largely "divorced" from the
| spiritual/mystical principles in its own "scripture".

| Farhan said: I disagree ; yes, individuals within the AO make
| mistakes, but the structure is mystically inspired.

Again, this is a distortion. You conflate the "administration" with the "faith", a horrible mistake. you create an opening for depraved leaders and dishonesty. you deflact attention from the real issue: the complete inability of the bahai system to engage in significant self-correcting behavior.

any system that fails to self-correct will go into a downard spiral of decline. such failure is always accompanied by abuse of power, and is always associated with exploitation of followers.

and, the small minded people that produce the apologetics for the failed structure require scapegoats.

I don't know who you think you are fooling (other than yourself), but it sure isn't me.

what you are saying, and have been saying for a long time, is junk.

Steve, thanks for the excellent clarifications.

It appears that NZ has the more sensible approach, and is one of the models that politically moderate americans are discussing as a "way out" of the dead end "culture wars" stuff that gay marriage politics is partly about in the USA.

(American politics is now well into the realm of virtual unreality, political symbolism is more important to lots of people than are pragmatic solutions. As such, extremism tends to dominate.)



[quote comment="60954"]Hi Eric,

[quote comment="60952"]The idea of stopping government involvement in religious marriage ceremonies is simply a point of discussion, an attempt to get people to consider something "different"[/quote]

[In NZ]... if you want to formalise your relationship you can have either a marriage (M/F) or a civil union (M/M, F/F or M/F). If you don't formalise your relationship, it's recognised as being de facto. And in terms of rights and responsibilities, it makes little or no difference which of the three tracks you take.

Government is involved because an important social contract has been made, with many long-term consequences.

In New Zealand, "marriage" remains the exclusive domain of male-female relationships,thus appeasing the traditionals and the religious; and its equivalent, the civil union is made available to all, thus appeasing the modern and the secular.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

I'm surprised that a similar compromise solution hasn't been worked out in the US. Surely it would have taken some of the heat out of the debate (and some of the flip-flop out of the legislation) in the US?

ka kite
Steve[/quote]

A famous Baha'i, who knew I was struggling with my sexaulity, revealed a BIG secret to me: Shoghi Effendi was Homosexual.
The Holy Family new he was "special" and so, arranged his marriage to Mary Maxwell (also homosexual). They NEVER consummated the marriage...and never had a child...thus, the end of the hereditary Guardianship.

Shoghi misinterpreted parts of the Aqdas...because he could not accept his own sexuality. In The Aqda, Baha'u'llah speaks of his shame in mentioning "Boys"...a clear reference to Paederasty...NOT loving and committed Homosexual relationships. Shoghi never knew that was possible...and forbade such for everyone else.

I’m surprised that a similar compromise solution hasn’t been worked out in the US. Surely it would have taken some of the heat out of the debate (and some of the flip-flop out of the legislation) in the US?
---------------------
Yes I agree Steve. I'm not so stuck on the word "marriage". What I want is equal treatment before the law. But unfortunately, the way it is set up in the US, a State can easily get around a Federal civil union. But if the word "marriage" is used, it automatically gives the exact same rights/priveleges to a gay couple that it does to a straight couple. It's complicated, but semantics mean a lot when applying a law here. States in the US have a lot more control than the Federal government when it comes to things like marriage laws, unlike other countries. There is also the pyschological aspect of using the word marriage. My friend in Canada says that he feels gays and lesbians are not truly out of the closet since marriage equality was initiated in his country. But if the US governemnet could gurarantee absolute equality without using the word marriage, I would be for it because it would guarantee rights to all whether lving in California or Alabama.
The word marriage does get in the way a lot though. Just note how when I wrote to the UHJ, I never once mentioned the word marriage. The last thing in my mind was petitioning for a gay couple to say "we will all verily abide..." in the Bahai community. All I asked is a way to allow gay families to openly live insdie the community. Their response letter jumped right into the word marriagea and gave me a resounding NO. Unbelievable!

Steve wrote : In New Zealand, "marriage" remains the exclusive domain of male-female relationships,thus appeasing the traditionals and the religious; and its equivalent, the civil union is made available to all, thus appeasing the modern and the secular.

This is the situation in France, where in addition, a civil marriage is to be performed before any religious ceremony ia at all allowable by law. A civil union does not permit a religious ceremony to take place. Contrary to the US, it is not possible to marry first in a church and be registered by civil authorities later on. I expect it is similar in NZ ?

Ep wrote :
Farhan has of course frequently done the same thing, but he at least tries to put a kafkaesque spin on it by making the insults and condescension sound honey-lipped and "medically compassionate".

Ep, this might be your feeling on what I am writing, but I can assure you that i am not trying to prove anything (at least consciously) and that I am sincerely presenting what I understand as tha truth at a given time. I apologize if my views are felt as insulting, but please be assured that my intent has never been to insult anyone but to better understand a painful situation.

Ep wrote : I find it sad that so many people like Grover and Craig and myself have given up after 20 or 30 years on the idea that bahai can be reformed and improved and kept at the leading edge.

Ep, I think this is exactly where we diverge : I believe (selfishly!)that the Baha’i Faith is here to improve me, by helping me to offer better services to humanity, you believe that you might be in a position to improve and reform the Baha’i Faith.

Ep wrote : we probably mostly became bahai long ago because of the human need to belong to semething bigger than outselves and to feel part of a group of like-minded people working for something good, noble, etc.

Ep, I understand and respect your choice, but again for me, the Baha’i faith has long ceased to be a place where I seek rest, but a place of effort toil towards something new in human history.

Ep wrote: The "AO" is largely "divorced" from the spiritual/mystical principles in its own "scripture".

Ep, I disagree ; yes, individuals within the AO make mistakes, but the structure is mystically inspired.

Hi Eric,

[quote comment="60952"]The idea of stopping government involvement in religious marriage ceremonies is simply a point of discussion, an attempt to get people to consider something "different"[/quote]

I'm not clear what you mean by "stopping government involvement in religious marriage ceremonies". What I see happening is that relations are increasingly seen as having a civil aspect and a religious/social aspect. For example, in New Zealand if you want to formalise your relationship you can have either a marriage (M/F) or a civil union (M/M, F/F or M/F). If you don't formalise your relationship, it's recognised as being de facto. And in terms of rights and responsibilities, it makes little or no difference which of the three tracks you take.

Government is involved because an important social contract has been made, with many long-term consequences.

In New Zealand, "marriage" remains the exclusive domain of male-female relationships,thus appeasing the traditionals and the religious; and its equivalent, the civil union is made available to all, thus appeasing the modern and the secular.

Or, from a glass half-empty perspective:

"Many people are critical of civil unions because they say they represent separate status unequal to marriage ("marriage apartheid"). Others are critical because they say civil unions are separate but equal - because they allow same-sex marriage by using a different name."
Wiki: Civil union

I'm surprised that a similar compromise solution hasn't been worked out in the US. Surely it would have taken some of the heat out of the debate (and some of the flip-flop out of the legislation) in the US?

ka kite
Steve

re: endogenous change
(you presumably meant "indigenous" - still an absurd idea in a "univeralist" religion based on "mystical unity" and transcendance)

Masud,

At the end of the great Talisman Culture Wars, the UHJ (or rather, one of their letter writers?) wrote to Dr. Susan Maneck that bahai scholars should (paraphrasing) "persue integrative paradigms" (instead of bickering ~forever~ about the usual, tedious "liberal vs. conservative" issues.)

As far as I know, no bahais have even asked the UHJ (or other bahai leadership elites) what such "integrative paradigms" might be, exactly. However, having talked to a few people, it appears that one good possibility is a set of loose ideas pioneered by Sri Aurobindo, Jean Gebser, Clare Graves, Ken Wilber and others of similar inclination. Sort of like "transpersonal psychology meets evolutionary theory". If you can't see the possibilities in that for going in whole new directions with "harmonizing science and religion", then perhaps you are just a very dull fellow.

I'm a "rights" activist in the libertarian tradition. As such, I do not find any form of prejudice against people because of sexuality to be acceptable. Domestic partnerships should result in the same exactly property rights, and other legal rights, for all. regardless of "sexual orientation", "disorientation", or ~whatever~.

At the same time, as an integralist, I do not wish to have the pc/left impose its own form of thought policing or compassion fascism on me, or anyone else, including people that have traditional religious beliefs and values who are attempting to uphold some tattered shred of moral fabric in society in the face of massive erosion of the culture - a plunge into an abyss of narcissism and nihilism brought about by postmodernism, and so forth.

The idea of stopping government involvement in religious marriage ceremonies is simply a point of discussion, an attempt to get people to consider something "different" outside of the usual hostile, reactionary (oppositional "left vs. right") "taking sides" mentality that actually diminishes an ethos of communal good and working together for the betterment of all.

the pro-gay-marriage people on this thread are almost univerally narrow in their absolutist demonization of dissenting views, and insistent in imposing their views on others (classic jungian projection, etc. - they do what they criticize others of). If you do not like that, then come up with something interesting about how the general decline in morality causes social problems that the pc/left is tone deaf to.

but no. you trot out the tired old malodorous garbage that defenders of the broken bahai paradigm always fall back on: scapegoating and vilifying dissidents, critics and ex-bahais, implying that they are "disloyal", are spiritually deformed/inferior, etc.

in other words - you do exactly the same thing that the Shia persecutors of iranian bahais do.

Farhan has of course frequently done the same thing, but he at least tries to put a kafkaesque spin on it by making the insults and condescension sound honey-lipped and "medically compassionate".

I find it sad that so many people like Grover and Craig and myself have given up after 20 or 30 years on the idea that bahai can be reformed and improved and kept at the leading edge. we probably mostly became bahai long ago because of the human need to belong to semething bigger than outselves and to feel part of a group of like-minded people working for something good, noble, etc.

I do not agree with much of their ideology, but I do respect the "talismanians" - Daniel Orey, Steve Marshall, Sonja, and similar "new" folks (Baquia and all), for keeping alive at least the possibility that bahai culture can somehow still become fundamentally decent and human again, and continue working for "some kind" of social progress.

As far as I can tell, bahai culture has simultaneously degenerated in two main areas:
1) shia inspired fundamentalism, and
2) liberal social engineering bureacuracy.

#2 (the AO) is derived from a broken model of social progress: what Ivan Illich described as a post-WWII cadre of "transnational pedagogues, therapists, and planners" taking modern industrialization to the primitive corners of the earth, rooting out the "snake pits of human nature", placing people on a sanitary, conveyor belt from cradle to grave serviced by technocrats, commoditizing all needs into a model of "homo industrialis".

In other words, rampant dysfunctional bureaucracy.

It appears that Shoghi picked up on the various strands of "technocratic" memes back in the 20s and 30s, and wove a strange tapestry of "global order" that was never much more than a dystopian attempt at grasping at various straws to justofy bahai theology when it first looked like marxism, then clerical conservatism would take over europe, then finally dynamic fascism. SE even hedged his bets by backhandedly flattering americans for their capitalism and innovation.

The bahai "AO" is clearly operating in exactly the mode that Illich described/predicted in the Whole Earth Catalog back in the late 70s and early 80s.

The "AO" is largely "divorced" from the spiritual/mystical principles in its own "scripture".

The "AO" is a hideously distorted version of the best (if impossible) things that bahai scripture says it should be.

Anyways, I do not have any affiliation to a group of "victims" that have defined an "identity politics" for themselves. I get little meaning from the way that others participate in such identity politics. I accept identity politics as a possible short-term evil used by groups fighting for their "slice of the political pie". but little more. and usually less.

identity politics almost always regresses into some form of tribalism, usually quickly.

frankly, your form of traditionalist bahai tribalism isn't any more appealing than is the regressive tribalism of the pc/left.

you appear to be just another tedious blowhard, parroting the boring, uninspiring, party line.


[quote comment="60857"]I don't see much of a reason for me to continue my commentary on this topic. I've said what I thought I needed to say and I got the responses I predicted I would get. I'm just going to give my last response.
. . .


... integral-theory propaganda doesn't move me, though I find certain parts of your assessment interesting. However, the changes that should be made ion the Baha'i Faith must be endogenous and you don't seem to understand this. Furthermore, what you're saying sounds like: "Divorce rates are high, therefore, we should ban marriage"

http://www.sacbee.com/1089/story/1527506.html

Prop. 8 supporters file challenge to campaign donor laws
By Aurelio Rojas
arojas@sacbee.com
Published: Thursday, Jan. 08, 2009

The Proposition 8 campaign has filed a federal suit challenging the constitutionality of California's campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information by campaign donors who they said have been threatened and harassed.

The suit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Sacramento, cites numerous examples of menacing e-mails, phone calls and postcards, including death threats, allegedly made by opponents of the November ballot measure that banned same-sex measure in the state.

"This harassment is made possible because of California's unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules," Ron Prentice, chairman of the Yes on 8 campaign, said in a prepared statement.

Prentice noted that as applied to ballot measure committees, "even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents."

Craig wrote:
Taking Ruhi Book One was one of the worst experiences of my life. It was shattering. It essentially ended 32 years of total dedication in the Faith. When I lived in Germany I knew too many people who told me of their horrible experiences living under Nazi Germany.

Craig, I must be honest with you, I did book 1 and 2 in France and the experience was wonderful. Then I went somewhere where for family and professional reasons I couldn’t continue for some time.

My experience was worse than what you describe: too painful to describe.

I was shattered, suddenly being considered like some kind of a covenant breaker. This gave me time to go back and read every possible message of the UHJ on the subject and I understood that these poor zealots had completely misunderstood, and wouldn’t even want to notice that they had misunderstood, since by finishing book 7, they thought that they had completed the 7th valley. When I happened to quote a passage from the writings, their jaws would fall and they would say: "why, that is in book 6 and you haven’t done it yet!"

The important points I in these messages are put together and found somewhere on this blog.

To make it short, I did book 6 during holidays in France, then book 4 and the counsellor very kindly came all the way from Australia to Tahiti to help us do book 7, and we later did book 5 in France (I very strongly recommend that one to you). A lot of misunderstanding has now been eliminated.

In any case, back in France, where there is a tradition of “moderate anarchy”, Nazism could never really take, and Ruhi never took the coloration we describe.

I understand your fears: Once bitten twice shy, you would say, and a man bitten by a snake fears a rope, the Arabs would say, and to the French, a scalded cat fears cold water.

[quote comment="60883"]Craig wrote:
The Ruhi material is utter c***. The people who wrote it are c***. The people who teach it are c***. And the people who authorized it's use are c***. They will all face a terrible Divine Judgment in the next world for crimes against the human spirit.

Wow, Craig, did your study circles take place in the water closet???[/quote]

Farhan,

Taking Ruhi Book One was one of the worst experiences of my life. It was shattering. It essentially ended 32 years of total dedication in the Faith. When I lived in Germany I knew too many people who told me of their horrible experiences living under Nazi Germany. After Glasnost in 1986 there were many Russian immigrants that came here to where I live. I knew too many of them who yold me of their lives under communism. I could never be part of a top down system of enforced groupthink. This is what my lifetime religion had become. I cannot support anything like that. After i took the course they tried to recruit me to be a tutor. But I saw in the guidance that you are forbidden to give your own thoughts about anything on your own. You have to parrot the book and do exactly what you are told. I could never do that. I do not feel that there should be pressure and compulsion on anyone from any organization to monitor and control free speech. I knew that if I did not comply with those directives I would be accused of ego, self, and passion and being corrupted by Western intellectual ideas and that I would, in the end, sink in their depths. I never wanted to risk being called in by an ABM and interrogated about my thought crimes if I happened to say something wrong as a tutor. What if I slipped and gave an example of some insight from another religion? I just could not risk that so I said no and did not sign up.

Craig wrote:
there are NO simple people on this Earth at all. To even make such a statement is racist. And the Baha’i Faith is now racist by making the distinction at all

Craig, are you presuming that I consider simple folks as inferior to complicated people? I assure you that my belief is definitely the contrary. There are obvious distinctions between the highly educated and the less educated jewels and their needs differ. Both have a right to access God's revelation, and both are entitled to documents and courses adapted to their level of litteracy.

The big deal is how to get highly educated people to offer some of their precious time to the vast majority of humans on this planet who need some litteracy attention. Ruhi is designed for this purpose.

Craig wrote:
The Ruhi material is utter c***. The people who wrote it are c***. The people who teach it are c***. And the people who authorized it's use are c***. They will all face a terrible Divine Judgment in the next world for crimes against the human spirit.

Wow, Craig, did your study circles take place in the water closet???

Farhan,

I have no problem with the level of intellectual discourse in the material. And, besides, there are NO simple people on this Earth at all. To even make such a statement is racist. And the Baha'i Faith is now racist by making the distinction at all. Every person is a genius in something. To use the "class prejudice" argument against people who criticize Ruhi is a straw man argument. It again implies "those who criticize Ruhi are self centered, egotistical, intellectual snobs immersed in self and passion and infected by corrupting Western ideas who will, in the end, sink in their depths." Yawn.

I don't object at all to the "simplistic material" even though alot of it is just certain people's personal opinions and nothing more. I also acknowledge that in some ways it isn't "simplistic" at all and could lead to an interesting discussion if the tutor does not follow the hapless system of mind control indoctrination propaganda in the way people are supposed to teach it. Even though little of it is based upon the actual Sacred Texts of the Faith as has been well documented by many OLDTHINK deepened Baha'is (actually, OLDTHINK deepened Baha'is who have actually studied the actual Writings of the Faith the many kinds of Deepenings over the years that you list are THEMSELVES now labeled as "self centered, egotistical, intellectual snobs immersed in self and passion and infected by corrupting Western ideas who will, in the end, sink in their depths") I am not even objecting to that even though the Ruhi Courses indeed ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOW *THE* Sole Sacred Holy Texts of the Faith. What I object to is this shameful and brutal system of indoctrination upon the hearts and minds of free human souls created in the image and likeness of God. The Ruhi Courses are a system of brutal psychological violence upon people. I was utterly shocked when I took Ruhi Book One. I just could not believe that the once beautiful Baha'i Faith had come to this shameful system of psychological coercion. The Ruhi material is utter crap. The people who wrote it are crap. The people who teach it are crap. And the people who authorized it's use are crap. They will all face a terrible Divine Judgment in the next world for crimes against the human spirit. I am completely ashamed that I was ever a member of the Baha'i Faith. Shame. Shame. A thousand times shame upon the high school teacher dunces who have inflicted this obscenity upon the world. They will dwell forever in the innermost circles of hell. If my son had named this stuff after me in this life, I would be ready to hit him in the face with a lemon meringue pie in the next world when he came through the tunnel after death. Completely embarrassing.

Craig wrote :
In addition, most of the Ruhi Courses are just the private personal opinions forced on the entire world of the current crop of high school teachers who now run the Faith.

Craig, the Ruhi courses are designed to give a would be teacher an accelerated course in teaching talents. It has to be simplified because the would be teachers are sometimes simple people addressing the vast majority of our fellow humans on this planet, sometimes your next-door neighbours, who are also simple people who in turn would want to become teachers of the Faith.

Those of us who want more complicated stuff have plenty of places where to seek them: deepenings, summer schools, Baha’i studies, Internet etc etc. We needed something simpler for the vast majority of fellow humans, and in Ruhi we have it. What we now need are volunteers like you who would be willing to go to these simple pure-hearted folks. Believe it not, in study circles I have learnt loads of stuff I imagined I already knew, by tutoring or being tutored. Unbelievable.

I'll post this link again, in case anyone might have missed it.

Hadley-Ives offers a way forward for the Baha'i Faith. Sadly, given its perpetual domination by legalistic literalists, his advice is apt to be ignored.

And this, for a touch of reality

[quote comment="60863"]I wish to call your attention to certain things in "Principles of
Bahá'í Administration" which has just reached the Guardian; although
the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation
marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various
secretaries, even the Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, are all lumped
together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of
Bahá'u'lláh's Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the
Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are
authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their
style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use
their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He
feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any
quotations from Bahá'u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them,
and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of
his secretaries.

(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i
Community, p. 260)[/quote]

Does anyone know if Shoghi Effendi's request was ever implemented in any subsequent published editions? If anyone reads Sen's book, it appears there has been seriously garbled communication at every step in each stage in the development of the Faith. He makes a very well researched scholarly case that many things people now believe in the Faith are not supported by any authoritative scripture at all. In addition, most of the Ruhi Courses are just the private personal opinions forced on the entire world of the current crop of high school teachers who now run the Faith. Some of it is right out of Pilgrim's Notes which are not supposed to be authoritative scripture in the Faith at all. But as the Faith is systematically dumbed down such analysis will find no audience. Under the NEWTHINK anyone who is a scholar, after all, is the victim of ego, self, and passion infected by corrupting Western ideas like reading and study and will, in the end, sink in their depths. This is the new Party Line. This is the NEWTHINK. And anyone living under OLDTHINK is the Enemy of God. It is the exact same brain chemistry that has destroyed the world and murdered human beings over and over for 3,000 years. The same old, same old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Kznmrc3o4

Now back to Java programming here at work. This kind of writing is the Holy Writ of the Cosmic Powers of the World Age that will achieve greater and greater individual planetary communication and change the world while the Baha'is are living in 1957.

Everyone keep posting!

P wrote:
I'm also sorry that you are disheartened by some of the things you have read against the Bahai community online that you feel is insulting.

I am pretty well vaccinated now, and I fully understand that the misconceptions about homosexuality might be insulting to you.

We need more understanding and more medical data on this subject, as we are in the boundary between biology, psychology, social norms and spirituality, and as uncomfortable as it might be for both sides, we need more frankness, but also compassion, exchange and communication if we want to advance.

Thanks for the quote!

[quote comment="60857"]

Masud wrote:

Craig,

Your integral-theory propaganda doesn't move me, though I find certain parts of your assessment interesting. However, the changes that should be made ion the Baha'i Faith must be endogenous and you don't seem to understand this. Furthermore, what you're saying sounds like: "Divorce rates are high, therefore, we should ban marriage"
[/quote]


You are thinking of EP (Eric Peirce) not me. I think it is a very useful system of insight, but I have not discussed it here as I only know a little bit about it.

I wish to call your attention to certain things in "Principles of
Bahá'í Administration" which has just reached the Guardian; although
the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation
marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various
secretaries, even the Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, are all lumped
together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of
Bahá'u'lláh's Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the
Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are
authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their
style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use
their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He
feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any
quotations from Bahá'u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them,
and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of
his secretaries.

(Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i
Community, p. 260)

Thanks for understanding some Farhan. I'm also sorry that you are disheartened by some of the things you have read against the Bahai community online that you feel is insulting. But also understand that, even when clothed in nice terms, telling gay people that they have a disorder, conidition, situation, whatever that requires medical attention to overcome, that they are "choosing" a life style, that they only need more prayer and determined effort, etc. etc. and that if they don't comply, then they can't fully function in the community (or at best be treated like a non-bahai)- then all these things are just as, if not more so insulting to our ears. Again, no matter how nicely Bahais would good intentions try to tell us these things. In fact, beyond just insulting, they are dangerous for reasons that I already explained (gay youth in the bahai community). Peace!

P wrote:
I don't want a single Bahai youth to EVER again question himself or God forbid attempt to hurt himself because of the views that you all espouse.

Nor do I, P. However, the uncomfortable situation of GLTB is a complex one. No doubt that rejection and humiliation from the part of others is an important part of their suffering, but there are also many reasons to believe that physical factors and mental suffering can lead to a change in orientation. Hence, the same suffering that sometimes leads to homosexuality can lead to self-hurting behaviours. Wanting to entirely attribute all homosexuality to a genetic factor, as in skin colour, can lead to neglecting this line of help.

P wrote:
We are actually Bahais that want to function in a bigger, more embracing community that is vibrant and growing.

P, I appreciate your sincere move, and i understand your stand much better now.

I also understand that you are facing a human community inspired by Divine Guidance; i can only repeat that the attitude of love and understanding is required from all believers and I am ready to stand by your side to defend your rights in the aspects of community life open to you and your family.

I have no authority to question the decision by the elected Baha'i institutions; at most I might make a recommendation for your participation in core activities, but I will never attempt to question the stand of the UHJ on gay marriages or on any other subject.

Thank you for helping me to this understanding that might well change as my information advances.

Also, thanks for the quote about Shoghi Effendi's secretaries; I would be happy to have the reference

Farhan and Masud, your views changing would be akin to my homosexuality going away. Again, the only difference is that I can fully accept you two as equal members of the Bahai Faith, fully functioning in the community. But YOU all will never accept that with someone like me. One of you clothes is in more beautiful terms the other is more abrupt, but it is exactly the same- it is discrimination. We are not folks like some others here who could care less about the community anymore and just feel like bashing it 'cause we are pissed off (no offence to those people though- craig- i can understand yoru frustrations). We are actually Bahais that want to function in a bigger, more embracing community that is vibrant and growing. I don't understand why the Catholic church, as conservative as it is at the top can have congregrations that fully welcome LGBT people at the grass roots level, but Bahais seem to be so stuck in teh past. And we are supposed to be the progressive relgiion?! I don't get it! My friend, an ordained priest in the Catholic church and one of the most spiritual people that I know, said that he was honored when I shared with him something so special as coming out to him. He ministered to LGBT people while he served in Brazil and continues to open the church more to our community. AND Farhan, he is a priest who humbles himself before the Vatican as you do before the UHJ. But he still goes the bat for us, no matter what the Pope thinks. How is that possible, and not in the Faith that I love? It's not that difficult Farhan and Masud.
But as much as I don't want to get angry guys, my anger again goes back to the youth in the Faith who are struggling. I don't want a single Bahai youth to EVER again question himself or God forbid attempt to hurt himself because of the views that you all espouse. THAT Masud is why I worry so much about your friend. What you complacently see as his doing just fine, may not be. So please do keep an eye on him. I don't expect you Masud to stop telling him what you think the Bahai Faith teaches about homosexuality, but love him anyway the day he finally rejects your views. Peace!

I don't see much of a reason for me to continue my commentary on this topic. I've said what I thought I needed to say and I got the responses I predicted I would get. I'm just going to give my last response.

Farhan,

Great comment. And you're right, I do love the Faith and its institutions and it's regrettable to see this kind of contempt toward the AO.

P,

I apologize if my analogies have been hurtful...you've probably noticed by now that I tend to be flippant or facetious. I obviously didn't want the rape/murder analogy to be taken literally, I was making a point, not equating murder/rape with homoseuxality. And concerning the statement about the "reactionary rot", if you read the whole statement, it says "SEEPED into your soul"; the point of the metaphor was to indicate a certain kind of influence (in Persian, we say "kamale hamneshin"), not that your soul is rotten; that is not a judgement for me to make. You said you will pray for my friend. I thank you very much for that. But I would submit that you shouldn't think that just because both of you are gay, you fully or even partially understand what's going on in his brain, because THAT would be groupthink and communitarianism. There's no point continuing our discussion about the Guardian, as we can't agree, given that we don't even agree on the premise of the issue. I pray that you will be happy whatever you do and I'm sorry if you felt offended by anything I said.

Craig,

Your integral-theory propaganda doesn't move me, though I find certain parts of your assessment interesting. However, the changes that should be made ion the Baha'i Faith must be endogenous and you don't seem to understand this. Furthermore, what you're saying sounds like: "Divorce rates are high, therefore, we should ban marriage"

Bill,

I'm sorry to hear that you think that "this type of thinking is what leads many non-Baha’is to view the Faith as very “Cultish” in it’s thinking". But the point is not to change the content of a religion to fit society (that's already taken care of through progressive revelation), but rather the other way around. And if that (calling a spade a spade) makes me a fundamentalist Baha'i, well, so be it. I agree with many of the things Hitchens says about US foreign policy, particularly about the Middle East, but I think his assertions on religion are completely caricatural. His ascerbic wit hides his baseless contentions.

Finally, for all of you still clinging to the idea that psychiatry has proven that homosexual behavior is normal, I would recommend you read "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis." (1981) It's by Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist. He explains, amongst other things, the effects of the protests by homosexual activists in San Francisco amid an APA convention in 1970, namely, APA psychiatrists feeling pressured. There are many other books out there, if one is not afraid to actually look for them, instead of only reading books that feed into our mindsets.

P wrote:
But in order for me, or Masud's friend, or Bill, or Daniel etc. etc. to be in the Bahai community we have to be meek and silent, be told that we have a disease (yes Farhan you too see it as a disease, you are a doctor and keep telling us that science will help us overcome it some way, or at least deal with it)and be expected to overcome this disease for our spiritual growth.

Well, to be quite honest, this is approximately what I believe at this time, although if I take up time here, it also means that I am eventually willing to modify my concepts. There is no point in being here if we are not honest and sincere in our exchanges. There no contest win and nothing to gain by being smarter than others in such an exchange.

Also, I may not have the same concept of “disease” or “handicap” that you might have. This concept has many implications. One is linked with social interests: if you want to make silk, you need to feed the worms and mulberry trees are considered as fodder. If you want mulberries, then the worms are parasites you need to destroy. In the same way, if you feel that sexual satisfaction is the golden standard, we need sexual liberty, which in a way is the global claim of what you lump together as GLTB. If you want as many future citizens as possible, then homosexuality is a “handicap” since infertility itself is an honourable handicap that is taken into consideration by health insurances.

My present stand, which I would be happy to see you respect if we want to advance, is that I cannot as an individual and as a doctor enforce a better integration of gays and gay families into a community that is established on rules that do not accept gay marriages. I can recommend, but I cannot petition these communities by harassing or accusing them, as this would make the rejection worse. Changing social norms is a long and difficult process that can take several generations. The practices of casts, burning of widows, polygamy, genital mutilation, use of opium and alcohol, take generations to change.

I do believe we need more open discussions on this, as our sexual education is established on taboos and any behaviour outside the accepted norm in any society can create havoc. The concept of “disease” and “handicap” are only common ways of saying a behaviour is outside norms, but not punishable.

P wrote: No amount of deaths by youth in the Bahai community, no amount of gays telling their stories, no amount of condemnation the Bahai community is rightfully experiencing online from those gay or straight who have a conscience, will make ANY difference to die-hards like you and Masud.

Farhan: This is your judgment: I have not judged you. I am only saying that I have no magic wand to change society in a twinkling of an eye, nor did Baha’u’llah use one: He provided us with the means for a gradual change.

P: You might envelop your thoughts in sweeter words than Masud, but it is the same stink- IF YOU ARE GAY, YOU HAVE A DISORDER AND THE ONLY COMPETENT PRESCRIPTION IS THAT YOU OVERCOME IT, OTHERWISE YOU DO NOT HAVE EQUAL STATUS IN THE BAHAI COMMUNITY.

Farhan: Very unkind judgment: I am only saying that I have no means of changing community rules, by which I have to abide myself, even if I sent you a prescription. Two Egyptian doctors are in a Saudi prison for 15 years with 1500 leashes for having prescribed morphine to a Saudi woman who happened to become addicted.

It would be like going to China and saying I wanted to defend the silk worms against destruction so that we could have butterflies instead of silk.


P: this is in a nutshell what you have been saying from the very beginning to the end of this thread.

Farhan: So you agree that I have been honest in expressing my opinions. I would again invite you to consider the difference between my duties as an individual and the duties of the institutions in organising the community.

Dear Craig,

So much of what you say rings true to me and yet, I can't seem to completely "let go". You are also right in pointing out that there are many "other" groups out there in the world doing much more for spiritualizing and changing the planet for the better. I've tried to get involved with some of them. I always come back to Baha'u'llah. I guess it's my deep love for Him, my deep conviction that He is the Promised One and my deepest hope that the Faith will some how pull itself out of this weird mindset it seems to have evolved into. Of course I also know that I may be living in, as Siguerny Weaver said in my post about Mary Griffith and her gay dead son, a cartoonish fantasy of what God's purpose is for us.

I watch the nightly news and see the horrors of the Gaza and it really makes me want to believe that, as you say, the Abrahamic religions are insane and have caused thousands of years of pain and suffering. They certainly don't seem to "get it" when it comes to living up to the teachings of their founders.

I like what the "Deists" say on their website. I very much like the Atheists/Humanists take on reality on their web site. Christopher Hitchens makes a lot of sense to me...Still here I am hoping the Baha'i Faith will accept me as I am...So, I don't know the answer of "Why" I keep coming around. Emotional attachment I guess. The many years of love and kindness I've experienced from Baha'is all over the world. The moments of spiritual elation at the Holy Sites...Am I a masochist? Maybe.

In Peace,
Bill

As I read this thread I marvel at the mentality on BOTH sides of the discussion!

I ask all of you this:

(1) Why would anyone on Earth want to join the "Baha'i Community" now when it has nothing whatsoever to do with advanced spirituality, educated and skilled operational competence, or synchronization with the teachings of ANY enlightened soul in the history of the entire human race including those of it's own Founder?

(2) Why would anyone be threatened in any way by the loss of their administrative (voting) rights as punishment and sanction in such an organization? You are only losing your "right" to vote in a completely gamed system for incompetent and morally bankrupt lifetime incumbent sociopaths who have completely run into the ground everything they have ever touched in their entire personal and public lives.

I am completely serious. Someone explain to me why either issue should be of any concern? The Faith is completely dysfunctional. The worldwide electorate and the elected are all completely mentally ill and deranged by a once beautiful but now completely degraded corrupted man made totalitarian groupthink ideology. The brain chemistry is now classic. Top down Chairman Mao little red books all over again. Absolutely nothing new or original. Nothing bottom up liberating or empowering. The same old, same old in human history. With this now assembly line created brain chemistry (patent pending) they are all the victims of impaired groupthink and as such are completely incapable of manifesting the actual Teachings of their Own Founder in any way in the world! Wouldn't it be far better to go to communities of souls who actually ARE manifesting the Teachings in the world who have never heard of Baha'u'llah or any of the "Divine Teachers" of the Abrahamic religions?

The fruit of the Abrahamic religions is manifest for all the world to see in Gaza tonight. So why bother? Why beat a dead horse? Why not move on to something else? Why not let the spiritually dead bury the spiritually dead?

The Tablet of the Holy Mariner foretold this end anyway. So if Baha'u'llah Himself could see it, why not accept it? The Faith is toast. Almighty God has pulled the plug as Baha'u'llah foretold about His own religion. Jesus predicted His religion would go into the hands of spiritually illiterate morons too (ie. "Depart from me, I never knew you.") So why dwell on it any longer? The very basic inner esoteric spiritual Teaching is always about the fate of human spiritual archetypes in the Heart of Man from World Age to World Age anyway. That is the ancient feature film. Baha'u'llah tried. So did Jesus. None of it ever worked out. So why don't all of us just accept it and try to be proactive for spiritual purposes in the world around us where we live?

The Baha'i Faith has failed. It has failed with no class whatsoever. It is totally embarrassing. It is a wonder and a prodigy. But it is not the End of the World by any means. The Divine Cosmic Powers of the World Age will go on. Spiritual liberation has indeed come. The individual empowerment of the human soul in every land to effect spiritual change will go on. There are books to write, computer programs to write for more and better planetary communication and enlightenment, movies to make, television programs to write and produce, and actions to take effecting human hearts and minds completely unencumbered by the neurotic self centered needs of a tiny class of the top down controlling lethal lifetime incumbent leadership in the Baha'i Faith. So why not just move on? Find other people trying to change the world who have real chops and talents in life where you live and unite with them. There are tons of people out there in the big wide REAL world with real God given talent who are completely untainted by the mind bending obsessive-compulsive dysfunctional Stalinist Five year Plans of the Baha'i Faith.

I say this to everyone here and to myself: Get a life. Let the spiritually dead bury their dead. Let them take the Ruhi Full Sequence of Courses over and over as the new substituted Holy Writ in their now completely degraded and abusive religion with the same people over and over and fill in the blanks over and over to their dying day. They can then die and go to the next world and spend Eternity taking the courses over and over and filling in the blanks over and over. Forever. It is a suitable fate for many. So be it. It is just another case of "Arbeit Macht Frei". It is all just another case of "Abandon All Hope All Ye Who Enter Here".

It did not work out and it never will. It was, after all, an Abrahamic religion too in the sorry, sorry history of all of them. It always ends with someone being crucified. The rank and file of the Baha'i Faith got it in the end too. So why not just find something else?

Bill Garbett wrote:

[quote]This type of thinking is what leads many non-Baha’is to view the Faith as very “Cultish” in it’s thinking.[/quote]

You think?

Farhan the only difference that you overlook, is that I have no problem with you or Masud fully being a part of the Bahai community. But in order for me, or Masud's friend, or Bill, or Daniel etc. etc. to be in the Bahai community we have to be meek and silent, be told that we have a disease (yes Farhan you too see it as a disease, you are a doctor and keep telling us that science will help us overcome it some way, or at least deal with it)and be expected to overcome this disease for our spiritual growth. No amount of deaths by youth in the Bahai community, no amount of gays telling their stories, no amount of condemnation the Bahai community is rightfully experiencing online from those gay or straight who have a conscience, will make ANY difference to die-hards like you and Masud. You might envelop your thoughts in sweeter words than Masud, but it is the same stink- IF YOU ARE GAY, YOU HAVE A DISORDER AND THE ONLY COMPETENT PRESCRIPTION IS THAT YOU OVERCOME IT, OTHERWISE YOU DO NOT HAVE EQUAL STATUS IN THE BAHAI COMMUNITY. What in the this statement is not true Farhan? Don't clothe it in sweet talk- this is in a nutshell what you have been saying from the very beginnging to the end of this thread.

P wrote :
Farhan, the Bahai community is a far cry from the one you are trying to paint.

Well, P, first of all I gave my attitude which is not the same for every one, and secondly, I did reply, as a doctor, why I thought equating prescription for a gay marriage and alcohol as medication was not appropriate.

I appreciate how much the love you have for your companion and children can make your integration within the Baha’i community important. You must also accept the fact that the love Masud has for the Faith and its institution makes your criticism painful.

The Baha’i institutions are supposed to take their decisions in a prayerful attitude, not under pressure and petitioning, otherwise they would no longer represent a Divine Intuition. The use of harsh words, which as a doctor I can fully understand, will help Baha’is to overcome their reluctance to accept your condition and choice.

Dear Bill,
Thanks for this moving story. Yes, homophobia does exist within the Baha’i community, and as a doctor, I feel deeply concerned, as I am not quite sure if the kind of discussion I see here can help appease it. To say it is not worse within the Baha’i community than outside is no consolation to me. Unfortunately, I feel that the activism aimed at attaining equality with non-gay family making can be counterproductive and can also contribute towards homophobia.
I now see the interpretation publicised on Internet by pro-gay activists, falsely pretending that homosexuality is considered by Baha’is as a “spiritual disease” taken up by uninformed Baha’is as a fact. Lumping together GL and T and B does not help towards a better understanding. As a doctor i consider that under the word GLTB ia a variety of different conditions that can be scientifically understood and helped in different manner.
I agree that considering gays as “diseased” or “handicapped” was humiliating, but to many of those not having first hand information, it was easier to lovingly accept those “handicapped” rather than those simply misbehaving and defying the laws of the community.
Yes, I do hope that science can in time help towards the prevention and the cure of some forms of homosexuality, if not as an orientation, at least as a way of life, and both science and religion can also help towards a better integration of gays. Only a loving attitude and not a constant accusation can hope to produce that.

So true Bill. But anything we say will makes us look like enemies in their eyes. It's alsmost as if they are looking for people to brandish as enemies to keep themselves united- in a nice tidy little group. Obviously embracing true diversity in the Bahai community and oepning it up would require A LOT of self-reflection and major spiritual rigor. I'm saddened to say that my friend is right when he wrote to me: "I used to try to figure it out…and then one day I realized that they DON’T want us! That is the bottom line…because we confuse the issues and make them have to think and realize the prejudices that live inside the Faith…so, I just stopped."
I'll keep Masud's friend in my prayers. In Masud's eyes his friends seems to be doing fine in the community (a little victory for Masud I guess), but no one really knows what is going on his heart- the sturggles and fears. You and I Bill have a better clue than Masud ever will.

Dear P,

Thank you for the suggestion to read the new book, "Crisis". I will get it today. Years ago when my ex-wife was going through her, "Baha'u'llah condemns homosexuality phase", I told her to read a fantastic book called, "A Place At The Table", by Bruce Bauer. It's one of the best books out there about gay and lesbian equality. She looked at the book and handed it right back to me and said, "Why should I read the words of Man, when I have Baha'u'llah's words, the words of God Himself." Almost the same words used by Masud a few responses ago. This type of thinking is what leads many non-Baha'is to view the Faith as very "Cultish" in it's thinking. Yet, these fundementalist Baha'is seem to forget that the attainment of knowledge is one of the highest goals set for us by Baha'u'llah Himself! Very strange...

In Peace,
Bill

And you gladly ignore Bahaullah because of your cultural prejudice against homosexuality. I would rather discredit some secretary than Bahaullah Himself. From SE himself:
"Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages."
I can't help that YOU have chosen to give these statements as much as authority as to Bahaullah Himself, that is your choice. But I can tell the world that other Bahais think differently from you and would never give so much weight to these letters, especially when the Guardian Himself has said they are less authoratative than anything he were to say directly to the Bahai world. AND especially if such letters are based on pseudo science that endangers the lives of gay youth inside the Bahai community; something that Bill has mentioned he has actually seen in real life (or did you miss that Masud?).
Show a little compassion and love, and maybe I'll show some intellectual rigor as you would like.

P,

There you go again; seeing what you want to see:

"Where is there an exception for homosexuality, except in some secretary writing on behalf Shoghi Effendi?"

So it's wrong because you discredit Shoghi Effendi. Don't you see that you're cherry-picking for expediency? Show a little intellectual rigor.

And a simple philosophy it is Steve. Are we living in the Dark Ages again? Masud says:
"Because the core standard by which to judge should be the Baha’i Faith, not what a doctor says, UNLESS this is indicated in Baha’i Scripture."
Compare this to Bahaullah Himself:
"It is incumbent upon everyone to seek medical treatment and to follow the doctor's instructions, for this is in compliance with the divine ordinance, but, in reality, He Who giveth healing is God."
Where is there an exception for homosexuality, except in some secretary writing on behalf Shoghi Effendi?

[quote comment="60828"]This is totally untrue, Steve:[/quote]

That's strange, because you then make a series of statements that show you agree with me. You then muddy the waters by accusing unnamed people of sophism (name these people and identify their sophism if you have any integrity).

[quote comment="60828"]So I can, and I do as I wish with my gay friends, but I cannot oblige other Baha’is to welcome them, and I can go no further than recommend their enrolment to an LSA. Insisting with a institution such as the UHJ, is implicitly denying that you consider them as endowed with a sacred function, IOW, you are indirectly saying that you do not wish to be considered a Baha’i any more.[/quote]

Straw man. What part of...

"This has not been about what the administration might do. It’s been about how the community and the individual will treat the gay seeker when they join with that community."

...do you not understand, Farhan?

I think you're being dismissive in order to evade the tough issues that your simple philosophy fails to address.

All and especially you Masud, please pick up the book "Crisis" edited by Mitchel Gold. You can order it on amazon Maybe your heart will open some Masud, maybe....

Dear Masud, Farhan, and anyone else reading Baha'i Rant who think that homosexuality can be overcome and cured using the recommendations of the Guardian and the UHJ:

A made for TV movie starring Sigourney Weaver will be airing this coming January 24th 2009 on "Lifetime Television" here in the U.S. For those who don't have cable or who don't live in the U.S. I'm sure it will come out on DVD and then will be available to all. The movie is called, "Prayer for Bobbie". Quoting from a review in the Advocate magazine, "It's based on the true story of Mary Griffith (the part Weaver plays), a homophobic devout Christian who drove her gay son to kill himself at age 20 in 1983. Mary Griffith then renounced homophobia and transformed herself into a renowned pro-gay activist..."

Weaver gladly accepted the role of Mary Griffith because she hoped that "Prayer for Bobbie" would chisel away at bigotry. She said, "I'm horrified by how hard Americans are making it for my gay friends to live. To me, that's un-Christian."

"Mary Griffith believed she was raising a perfect brood of fresh-scrubbed zealots in her San Franscisco area commuter town until Satan inconveniently seduced her second-eldest son. "What got me was her sincerity",Weaver says. "She truly felt she couldn't accept Bobby as gay because that meant he was going to hell." Ignoring Bobby's protests that he hadn't chosen damnation ("Why would I choose to have my whole family hate me?"), Mary taped scraps of Biblical healing scripture to his bathroom mirror, beseeched God to forgive Bobby for standing with one hand perched girlishly on his hip, and piously shred his self-esteem until he was writing in his diary, "I want to take a fuckin' ice pick to my face and stab it 'til there's nothing left..." "I am evil and wicked. I am dirt," "My voice is small and unheard, unnoticed,damned," he wrote, some time before he jumped from a bridge into the path of an 18-wheeler truck.

"As a mother," say Weaver, whose only child, Charlotte, is 18, "I was shocked by Mary's inablility to listen to her son. Her heart wasn't open. She was just convinced that he could stop being a homosexual and be her Bobby again."

To research her role Weaver spent time with Mary Griffith and her family. "We met in the living room, the same house where it all happened," she says. Weaver was taken aback by Mary's ability to take responsibility for Bobby's death without rationalizing her actions. "Her candor shocked me," she says. "Mary's view of religion was a mythical kingdom full of cartoonish extremes. And she's the first to admit that." Now 74 and at peace with her guilt after years struggling to separate spirituality from hate (16 months after Bobby's death she was still writing letters to God hoping that Bobby's soul wasn't damned) Griffith endorses Weaver's perfomance. "She got it exactly right," Griffith says, "how afraid I was, how assured that God was going to heal Bobby as if it were a slam dunk. Bobby tried to make me understand, but you see, if I condoned him, that would be Satan trying to lead him astray and all that bullshit, excuse my French."

This very same scenario happens over and over in the Baha'i community. I personally know of two Baha'i youth who killed themselves because they were gay and were told by "well-meaning" Baha'is that it was "condemned" by Baha'u'llah. As long as the general Baha'i community continues to view the "guidance" of the Guardian concerning homosexuality, then suicide, mental break down, family disunity, and painful bigotry will long continue in the Faith.

In Peace,
Bill

Oh and you did get one thing correct Masud. I DON'T believe in what the secretaries of Shoghi Effendi said writing on his behalf using the pseudo science of his day. Or what the office of the secretariat automatically generates as a response on behalf of the UHJ. WHen the UHJ legislates that openly gay families are not allowed to fully participate in the Bahai community as enrolled Bahais, then get back to me, ok Masud? Cheers!

Arrogance Masud? Only pride would judge someone soul's as being rotted, I guess as in comparison to your unsullied perfect Bahai soul. Since I'm already rotted, I can say the following about you, Masud your sould is already rotted by your cultural upbringing against homosexuality. And your friend is fine huh? Lets see what happens when he finds someone to love, wants to raise children with him and so on. Where will you be then? Will you be a Sonja who will accept and love him and fight for his right to be in the commnity as an enrolled Bahai, or will you stand by the wayside and let him be stripped of his rights?
And I don't spin anything. Your homophobia is clear for the world to see. When I asked you how you would feel if a Bahai (maybe your friend) kills himself because he could never attain the "overcome" status that you counsel. You responded that you would feel sad like you would feel sad if any Bahai killed himself because they couldn't abide by a law. That's it Masud? That's all you would do and then go on living your happy little Bahai life? Yeah, I have nothing to be ashamed about. Look in the mirror Masud.
And to think, I was about to stop writing and let all this go for a while. NO way, not when there are so many homophobes in the community like you. Farhan, the Bahai community is a far cry from the one you are trying to paint.

P,

"Masud I don’t even know why I honor your homophobic remarks with a reply"

Given the content of your replies, they can in no way be construed as reflecting "honor". Au contraire, they reflect pride. The first sentence itself is akin to arrogance.

The fact that I have to explain my analogies is but an indication of how you tend to spin my statements to fit your AO-bashing mindset.

I would have thought that it's quite obvious that I was using hyperbole; my point was that not every disorder can or should be treated by the infringement of a law. (though that does seem rather convenient for your argument)

Why shouldn't it be allowed to permit same-sex relationships if prescribed by a doctor? Because the core standard by which to judge should be the Baha'i Faith, not what a doctor says, UNLESS this is indicated in Baha'i Scripture.

Additionally, homosexuality and disorders are not comparable elements in the context of your statement.

Additionally, and even more importantly, the Guardian has stated that the solution can be attained "{...}through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer{...}" So there's the doctor's prescription for ya.

Oh wait, I forgot, you don't believe in the Guardian's interpretation of Baha'u'llah's Words!!

Once again, how convenient.

Oh and my friend is doing very well thank you. Contrary to the myth you're trying to propagate, gays can be very happy in a Baha'i community. You just don't want that to be true. It would make yours a lost cause.

Take a look around P. Like most people, you see what you want to see.

Masud I don't even know why I honor your homophobic remarks with a reply. God please send more Sonjaa into the Bahai community and less homophobes that "counsel" their friends to overcome their sexuality. Ya Bah'ul'Abha!

Steve wrote :

But the net result is that the individual doesn't make a move until it's okayed by the assembly -- and it means that the individual and the assembly look just the same (undifferentiated) to any observer.

This is totally untrue, Steve: there is a clear limit between the area of competence of an individual and that of an institution. An individual can invite who he wants to his home, his 19 day feasts without the administrative part, devotionals, study circles, and organise any meetings he wants in his home.

BUT an individual cannot call to attention another believer on his or her behaviour, depart from a loving attitude, nor decide who is enrolled and who is not; the individual can suggest and recommend, but not put a name on a voting list;

So I can, and I do as I wish with my gay friends, but I cannot oblige other Baha’is to welcome them, and I can go no further than recommend their enrolment to an LSA. Insisting with a institution such as the UHJ, is implicitly denying that you consider them as endowed with a sacred function, IOW, you are indirectly saying that you do not wish to be considered a Baha’i any more.

But again, as you say, there is a common tendency amongst Baha’is to misunderstand the differentiation, and this is why Shoghi Effendi has repeatedly called this to the attention of the believers.

Steve: I urge you to think very carefully where your simple philosophy is taking you.

I am doing fine, thanks, and I know that the complex sophism of others is just a good excuse for not acting.

P,

You said:

"The hypocrisy of allowing a Bahai to use drugs/alcohol if prescribed by a doctor, but not allowing a same sex realtionship if prescribed by a doctor. If as Bahais we are to accept science and the prescription of competent doctors, and if homosexuality is seen by the House as a disorder, then why reject such a prescription? They don’t even consider it. Why? There is ample proof from Bahaullah’s words Himself that we can not drink alcohol; yet THAT Bahais accept."

So if a doctor prescribed rape or murder as a solution to social problems, you would ask the House to legalize rape and murder? My gosh, how far have all these reactionary rots seeped into your soul??

This is vile and cheap guttersnipe.

[quote comment="60819"]Sonja, I have no answer to give, nor have you or any other Baha'i. We are not institutions.

Institutions, and not individuals like you and I are competent for giving such answers, and individuals can suggest and recommend, and then humbly accept and apply the decision from institutions.[/quote]

Putting my self in the shoes of the gay seeker - which isn't difficult when you have a kaffir wife - I believe your gay seeker would really appreciate seeing you, their Baha'i friend/teacher, going out on a limb to bat for them. Yes, I know, mixing a cricket and a tree-climbing metaphor is tired and inelegant, but it's late in the day.

As P says:

[quote comment="60799"]I guess I just have to wait and see if I run into a community with more Sonjas than your typical Bahais. Then maybe I would have a chance of fully participating in community life.[/quote]

What's Sonja done, apart from being a limb-going bat wielder, and yet she's been an answer to a prayer?

This has not been about what the administration might do. It's been about how the community and the individual will treat the gay seeker when they join with that community.

Again, listen to what P says:

[quote comment="60798"]I may try since you invited me to participate in your community in every way except to be fully enrolled as a Bahai. I should check it out before I judge. But my past experiences in communities similar to yours is that on the outside they are very friendly (tolerant) of you, but their agenda is to make you understand that your family really is not legit in God's eyes. Obviously, that is not a healthy environment for my family.[/quote]

Sorry Farhan, I think you need to keep your agenda under control. It's poking out in an offensive manner. Have you considered an agenda-change or re-assignment?

You finish by saying to Sonja:

[quote comment="60819"]I am surprised that you have not yet acquired this understanding of the functioning of the Baha'i community![/quote]

Have you considered the possibility that it is you who has not yet aquired an understanding of what a truly inclusive Baha'i community might look and be like?

Shoghi Effendi said:

[quote]"The greatest need it seems everywhere inside the Cause is to impress upon the friends the need for love among them. There is a tendency to mix up the functions of the Administration and try to apply it in individual relationships, which is abortive, because the Assembly is a nascent House of Justice and is supposed to administer, according to the Teachings, the affairs of the Community. But individuals towards each other are governed by love, unity, forgiveness and a sin-covering eye. Once the friends grasp this they will get along much better, but they keep playing Spiritual Assembly to each other and expect the Assembly to behave like an individual."
(Shoghi Effendi: Directives of the Guardian, Pages: 41-42)[/quote]

It seems to me that you don't expect the assembly to behave like an individual, and that's good. But you can't or won't differentiate between individuals and assemblies, and I find that odd. OK, you do differentiate, in the sense that the individual is essentially passive and obedient and the assembly is essentially active and directive. But the net result is that the individual doesn't make a move until it's okayed by the assembly -- and it means that the individual and the assembly look just the same (undifferentiated) to any observer.

I'm somewhat reminded of the Borg - a hive-mind juggernaut, forcefully assimilating the biological and technological distinctiveness of others, in pursuit of perfection.

I'm sure your simple philosophy works to a point -- and I'm guessing that many Baha'is share your philosophy -- but I don't think it's up to any kind of a challenge. And I don't see Shoghi Effendi promoting your philosophy in isolation, either.

I urge you to think very carefully where your simple philosophy is taking you.

ka kite
Steve

Sonja wrote:
Farhan, I assure you that you are missing out on some fantastic flowers in the garden of humanity.

Sonja, I assure you that your prejudice is not founded; I have plenty of gay friends and couples around me.

Sonja wrote:
And I guess that means he wouldn't give any gay seeker a very clear answer. A pity. It is important.

Sonja, I have no answer to give, nor have you or any other Baha'i. We are not institutions.

Institutions, and not individuals like you and I are competent for giving such answers, and individuals can suggest and recommend, and then humbly accept and apply the decision from institutions.

I am surprised that you have not yet acquired this understanding of the functioning of the Baha'i community!

[quote comment="60810"]Some inspirational quotes from Counselor Hitler:

And my personal favorite:

"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."
[/quote]

Yep. That one has always been my personal favorite too. I think there is a whole chapter on that side of Counselor Hitler's "I am the instrument of God" mentality in Robert. G.L. Waite's famous book.

That quote kind of goes nicely with the Glenford's Mitchell's "...be quiet and let God do His work" mind set.

Maybe I will start on that film script "Adolf and Glenford". Them meeting up in the next world and getting a thing going. Kind of a "Harold and Maude" motif.

I always did want to meet Leni Riefenstahl though. I found her interesting. "Olympiad" was a work of true genius. Many of the techniques she invented are still used today if you want to get as far as you can with the raw camera before all the technical craft that can be done with modern editing technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQ2hIWQzUE&...

Some inspirational quotes from Counselor Hitler:

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future."

"How fort"unate for governments that the people they administer don't think."

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

"It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge."

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

"The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it."

And my personal favorite:

"I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker."

Ein lied:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXXp5AsUVC4

[quote comment="60808"]
The "Mischling" suddenly had to do some very hard thinking about their identity. Just as Baha'is in Iran are having to do. Just as people who have been removed from membership, and their families, have to do. Just as Baha'is who think Ruhi is crap have to do. Just as gays have been doing for a long time.

ka kite
Steve[/quote]

If anyone in the Baha'i community thinks Ruhi is utter appalling mind control crap and an insult to the human spirit, they will be marked by the ABM thought police if they make ANY open or subtle statement to this effect that is deemed NOT to be as "enthusiastic" as "required" by "the community".

Since you brought up Godwin's Rule, we may as well keep the analogies coming. Just like under the psychological ecology of National Socialism, if you were deemed not to be "enthusiastic" enough about the actions of the Fuhrer in plunging Germany into total war with the entire world, you were watched. And if your personal "Sieg Heils" were not up to the required standard in that society, someone opened a folder on you. It is the exact same mentality of groupthink. Hitler himself said it best: "The Great Apes kill those who live apart." Does anyone here have the original quote in German?

That is indeed our basic base line mindset as human beings especially when we are afraid. Hitler made great strategic and tactical use of this insight in implementing his aims for world domination. But that is exactly why advanced civil societies must always guard against this impulse. Religions are no exception. The Abrahamic religions THEMSELVES have been the very worst example of this obsessive-compulsive "ideological purity" mindset in World History.

I believe Baha'u'llah actually teaches that we must be very wary of groupthink. But what Baha'u'llah actually taught is now total OLD THINK in the Baha'i Faith.

NEW THINK is that we are not only to go by what the UHJ says in their elucidations on everything under the sun as a body on how everyone is to think and live, but also by very subtle and opportunistic psychological manipulation, we are to also live by what EACH of them individually says as their own personal opinions and interpretations. In the NEW THINK they, themselves, are the Nine Manifestations of God on Earth for this World Age beyond all time and space. They are the Voice of God on Earth. They are accountable to no one on Earth. They are the Supreme Body. And even if they all gamed the system to get elected, it does not matter. They got elected "by God" and what they say goes.

Since individual conscience is no longer permitted in the Baha'i Faith per former UHJ member Douglas Martin, if the UHJ sends you an e-mail telling you to kill your family that is what you do. You are to have no will or conscience of your own yourself whatsoever. You are to surrender your will to them. Anyone who has their own will and conscience is the victim of ego. Anyone who has their own will and conscience is the self centered, narcissistic, victim of self and passion corrupted by Western thinking and all the ideas since the Renaissance and will, in the end, "sink in the depths". To have any individual thoughts or individual personal conscience or ant free will if yiou have signed a Declaration Card is completely anathema to the Teachings of God in this Day as personally interpreted by the individual members of the UHJ in this World Age. They are the Supreme Body and what they say goes. There is to be no thought by anyone about anything, anywhere, on Earth. Period.

After all, the Baha'is of Toronto were holding study classes on Peter Khan's speeches a few years ago. What Peter Khan says on anything is Holy Writ and every Baha'i everywhere on Earth had better snap to and get with the program. This is NEW THINK. Baha'u'llah and anything Baha'u'llah said or taught is completely irrelevant in the NEW ORDER under the NEW GROUPTHINK PLAN.

In one of his 1995 speeches which is now a cult classic, every Baha'i must fear every other Baha'i that they may jump out of the bushes at any time and try to corrupt you in your thinking. You must stay vigilant and pure at all times by following what Perter Khan says to do at all times and under all conditions. You must be afraid. You must be very afraid.

And, remember, I will be watching every one of you tonight worldwide and checking your thoughts. So you better be thinking the right things.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvdtp4AqiZg

It all did not turn out well? Does anyone in the Baha'i Faith NEW THINK groupthink know this?

Yep. Peace loving, obedience, sacrifice, our columns, join with them ...

I'm aware of Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies that "as a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

However, I can't help thinking that the position of gay Baha'is, removed-from-membership Baha'is and we-refuse-to-take-part-in-Ruhi Baha'is is increasingly analagous to the position that Germans and Finns with Jewish ancestry faced during the Third Reich:

[quote]Many of those of partial Jewish descent while Jewish by both Jewish law and Nazi racial classification had become so assimilated into the German-Christian society through mixed marriages that they did not consider themselves Jewish. Some were practicing Christians. This was only changed through Hitler's racial classification system and the Nuremberg Laws which officially made the majority of people of full and partial Jewish descent second-class citizens called "Mischling", meaning they came from a mixed marriage and had partial Jewish ancestry. Germans of partial Jewish descent who had practiced Christianity all of their lives, were suddenly classified as a "Mischling," Jews under Hitler's racial classification laws. They were suddenly stripped of most rights under German law.
Nazi Jews: A Historical Paradox[/quote]

The "Mischling" suddenly had to do some very hard thinking about their identity. Just as Baha'is in Iran are having to do. Just as people who have been removed from membership, and their families, have to do. Just as Baha'is who think Ruhi is crap have to do. Just as gays have been doing for a long time.

ka kite
Steve

P, Bahais such as yourself inspire me -make me feel happier about being a Bahai. I am disappointed by Farhan's response because in the end he hasn't given answer. And I guess that means he wouldn't give any gay seeker a very clear answer. A pity. It is important.

And this exercise could have been an opportunity to explore how to deal with such a situation, because sooner or later it will happen. And not all seekers will be as humble as S was. They might be reporters or journalists, so yes, if a Bahai is worried about the public image of the Faith, that could be a motivation for thinking about this more deeply.

The Bahai Faith is there for all, not just for those people who think it is ok to discriminate against gays. It is my religion too. So, S, I will give you a response to your question from my point of view as another member of the same religion as Farhan. Based on the writings as well as on what you are likely to encounter. Based more or less on answers I have given my gay friends.

I think why this might have been hard for Farhan is because he probably doesn't have any gay friends and once you have gay friends, you realise, you can't just refer to gays in some abstract sense. Can't see immorality in a class of people who are as passionate about justice or about the Bahai Faith as you are, and as diverse as your hetero friends are. It is like the racism. White people don't really understand those of other races, until they have friendships and not just one or two acquaintances. And Farhan, it is very likely that someone in your work or social environment is gay, but either hasn't let on (It kinda made me laugh. Once a colleague of mine, said it could not be possible that another colleague, not possible at all, because he was so 'normal'. She wasn't anti-gay either :), or is an acquaintance not a friend, because of your attitudes.

Farhan, I assure you that you are missing out on some fantastic flowers in the garden of humanity. If some one treats me as less than equal (and I can feel it being an oversensitive type) then, sure that person might think I'm a friend, but they will not have a clue what I am really like, nor what I really think. I'm often in lots of diverse social situations, so it is not a big deal, and of course, I'm just one fish in the sea.

A few months ago a Bahai told me that she couldn't understand why a gay was angry with her. So I then explained to her why, insisting that celibacy is not a big deal, is, when it applies to you FOREVER. And having such an attitude towards one group of people and not another, is inequality. We all have our blindspots. I know most Bahais are well meaning and wouldn't want to discriminate. I see this issue as a blindspot for many Bahais and I do think that once it becomes more an issue for discussion, then as a Bahai community we could work towards making Bahai communities not only more welcoming for gays, but also for a greater diversity of all types of people (of capacity).

I'm really busy this week... S, I will try and respond soon.

P,

They don't want you. But you are in good company. I spent 32 years going to meeting after meeting where everyone's IQ went down by the minute breathing each other's breath. It really is some kind of cosmic phenomenon and should be studied by scientists. Brain scans. Autopsies. Everything. It is some kind of bleed in phenomenon from another dimension. That is my theory. At one time the Baha'i Faith actually WAS open minded and spiritual. But the world wide zombification bleed in from Dimension X now appears to be complete. They do not want anyone who can think. If you can think you are a victim of "self and passion" and will eventually "sink in their depths." If you actually read books OUTSIDE of the Ruhi Full Sequence of Authorized and Approved Consciousness In The Universe you are the sworn enemy of God and will definitely be sent to the re-education camps when the Baha'is take over your town. Look at the state of consciousness on this thread. It speaks for itself. Yikes.

For anyone that tries to formally withdraw as a protest: you will probably receive a NSA boilerplate letter asking you to confirm that you are withdrawing due to some spiritual deformity, such as inability to follow bahai laws, etc.

It is the bahai bureaucrat's way of giving anyone that doesn't conform, or dares to protest the dysfunctional aspects of the bahai community, a slap in the face.

[quote comment="60799"]
... I'll leave you with a message that I got from a friend of mine who is gay, generations american Bahai and who finally just pulled himself away from it.
...
------------
"Dear P: I used to try to figure it out...and then one day I realized that they DON'T want us! That is the bottom line...because we confuse the issues and make them have to think and realize the prejudices that live inside the Faith...
"[/quote]

[quote]If a religion asked you to turn away from your family in order to love God more, I would suggest to you be highly suspicious for it sounds a bit cultish.[/quote]

ROTFLOL! :-)

"A bit cultish"? Quoi encore? Just like the Sun is "a bit hot"! Thanks for the morning chuckle, P!

Ok everyone, I think my dialogue with Farhan as a seeker has reached its end point. It was interesting to see how he would teach the Faith to a gay colleague.
And my dialogue on here has kind of reached a point too. Not much else to say really. I guess I just have to wait and see if I run into a community with more Sonjas than your typical Bahais. Then maybe I would have a chance of fully participating in community life. Otherwise, it would be the same old same old. And I think Farhan is being too kind to believe that a gay family would be able to participate in myriad of other ways inside the Bahai community. I'll leave you with a message that I got from a friend of mine who is gay, generations american Bahai and who finally just pulled himself away from it. He's sweet and worries that I spend too much time wasting time with the Bahais. Maybe he's right.
------------
"Dear P: I used to try to figure it out...and then one day I realized that they DON'T want us! That is the bottom line...because we confuse the issues and make them have to think and realize the prejudices that live inside the Faith...so, I just stopped. Why would I be in a community that makes me feel bad about myself...or that rejects me? I'm afraid that you want an answer that will never come...what you want will go against the grain of the Faith...so, start your own thing...inside yourself."

Possibly Farhan. I may try since you invited me to participate in your community in every way except to be fully enrolled as a Bahai. I should check it out before I judge. But my past experiences in communities similar to yours is that on the outside they are very friendly (tolerant) of you, but their agenda is to make you understand that your family really is not legit in God's eyes. Obviously, that is not a healthy environment for my family.
Your mesage above about what it takes to be a "ray" in your religion gave me the same impression.

P wrote:
Thank you Farhan, but I have no intention of detaching myself from my children or husband as a means to draw closer to God.

I strongly agree, P, in fact in my understanding, serving your family is definitely a more important service to God than serving on an LSA or attending a 19 day feasts; especially as you now have all the core activities you can participate in or even organise yourself as a means of serving God and your family at the same time. You and your husband might even discover you have far more exciting opportunities in community life there than labouring on an LSA or in a 19 day feast. At the same time, you will help eliminate traces of prejudice that you complain about that sometimes linger in some communities. Isn't this a wonderful opportunity? Instead of feeling rejected, you will feel useful and appreciated. If you try this experience, please inform us of its outcome.

One of the things we learn in study circles is to abandon dualities: “this” OR “that”… it can be “this” AND “that” if we try to find a middle way out of a paradox.

Thank you Farhan, but I have no intention of detaching myself from my children or husband as a means to draw closer to God. THAT in fact would be the opposite. If a religion asked you to turn away from your family in order to love God more, I would suggest to you be highly suspicious for it sounds a bit cultish. But you have your life to live and I have mine. Thank you again for the exchange. Cheers!

S the seeker wrote:

So you are correct Farhan, this is not the religious community for me and my family.

Dear Seeker, apparently the Baha’i faith does not fit your present needs; nor does it fit the needs of some 5 million souls who on the contrary, struggle to fit in to what they consider as the very high standard of God’s laws. When they approach the fire God has lit in this world, they find their ego burnt away in their love, and willingly, they abandon pleasures, traditions, wealth and leisure in their love for God and His creation.

This is the difference between a flower benefiting from God’s bounties, and a ray of sun detached from his own desires, becoming a vehicle between God and His creation. I hope that one day you will know the joy of being able to meet this higher standard.

Craig wrote:
The catastrophic failure of the Baha'i Faith is truly a wonder and a prodigy to behold. It is astonishing. How could the same totally dysfunctional leadership be so consistently destructive with absolutely mathematical precision decade after decade? yet that is the amazing record. Not even the destruction of the economy of the United States by the Wall Street Elite Gordon Gekko Taliban can compare in sheer mismanagement and ineptitude at this scale of truly Biblical proportions.

Craig, your verb is impressing. Do you really feel all that rancour? Or are you just expressing disappointment because you didn’t get what you sought within the Baha’i Faith? This reminds me of Jean de La Fontaine's fox and the grapes fable :

A fox, from Gascogne or from Normandy,
we don't know,
almost dying with hunger, going around
saw a vine-branch with grapes on
so beautiful and ripe to all appearances,
that he thought of reaching and eating them.
But after uselessly jumping and jumping
As the vine was too high for him to reach
He had a second thought,
“They're sour, I can see it,
These grapes are good just for loirs and squirrels!”
I leave for you what I can't have.
(Jean de La Fontaine)

I hope the New Year will bring you much joy and satisfactions

S the seeker responds:
Thank you Farhan for finally sharing with me some links that explain your religion's stance on homosexuality. Unfortunately, it does look like you have the same "Love the sinner, hate the sin" mentality of my evangelical friends. I wish you had been more upfront about that. I could have handled it. Much of what I read bothered me in that tolerance link- my condition being a distortion of my nature, my need to get therapy to overcome it, and so on. But the following hurt the most: "Baha'i teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society," from the quote I understand that the only permitted marriage as a family structure in the Bahai Faith is between a man and a woman. This is a very prejudiced stand to take against a family like mine. And it saddens me to see that from a religion that claims to be free of prejudice. So you are correct Farhan, this is not the religious community for me and my family. You may treat me nicely as a person and tolerate my family, but the underlying stance towards my family is no different from what I have seen from my evangelical friends. That is unfortunate. But thank you for your time.

S for seeker wrote:
Farhan, I don’t understand why you are being so elusive. It truly seems like you are trying to hide something. Is this how you talk about your beliefs to everyone?

Dear S for Seeker,

You may have noticed that one of the important teachings of the Baha’i faith is the independent investigation of truth. All Baha’is are expected to open up their horizon of understanding by a constant study of not only the Baha’i teachings, but also those of other religions. In addition, there is much insistence on the study of arts and sciences with which our religious beliefs need to be complementary and in harmony. Both science and our understanding of religion advance and in order to maintain unity, our personals understanding is to be canalised through administrative channels before being put into action. Here is how Shoghi effendi words it:

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)

This needs detachment, which is something difficult when we are convinced that our personal view is more valid than that of others. To ensure a healthy community life, in the same way that in the interests of sports we accept the arbitration of the referee, in the Baha’i Faith we have to accept the arbitration of the administrative order even if we are convinced that they are making a mistake.

This is difficult for some people to understand and on internet you will discover the views of those who are unable to make a compromise in order to ensure a loving community life. This is part of the process of maturation. A child will require his demands to be satisfied instantly, whereas a wise adult is able to wait for change to take place. I remember as a child I would plant beans and pull them out several times a day to make sure they were germinating, because I was impatient to see them growing. This is one aspect of faith.

I suggest rather than relying on my memory, you access an read for yourself the Baha’i writings addressing the subject, and essays by individuals. Many of them are written by those personally involved and better documented than anything I could ever provide you with. You should be careful, since some of these papers are written by those who are not entirely objective because they are written by individuals who are suffering or who are misinformed about the teachings of their own Faith or again by those who wish to use the suffering of homosexuals as a means of discrediting the Baha’i faith; you might read for example you will see deformed statements misrepresenting the Baha’i teachings, such as “homosexuality is a spiritual disease”.

As an example, these two sites, amongst many others will provide you with an idea of how homosexuality is considered in the Baha’i faith.

[quote comment="60779"]

Grover wrote:

Happy new year everyone! lololol, this discussion is dreadful! ;P

While I fully believe gays should have the same rights as everyone else, I must say its kind of funny expecting Baha'i communities and administration to cope with gay marriages and gay families when they don't have the ability to cope with anything from domestic disputes, child abuse, rape and fraud and embezzlement. Heck, they can't even cope with dissension or innovative people within communities in a constructive sensible manner. We're expecting them to be even remotely mature about gay families? Not a chance in hell.[/quote]

BINGO.

If the Baha'i Faith was dramatically solving problems everywhere in the world and making a difference anywhere on Earth minute by minute, then this thread would be a discussion worthy of effort and study to follow. But the Baha'i Faith is doing no such thing. In fact, it goes through cycles of one step forward and a thousand steps back decade after decade. It is the Great Amway MLM Religion that never has ANY sales that last beyond the psychological needs of a very, very, very tiny emotionally incestuous life time incumbent professional leadership cadre. This has been the amazingly consistent sorry history. Why? Because it is a system of dysfunctional groupthink that is a zero sum game generation after generation. I had wished it had been otherwise. The world really needs a planetary spiritual movement of rational sanity that can unite everyone to work for a better way in human affairs. I faithfully tried with everything I had for decades in the hope the Baha'i Faith was such a movement. Meeting after meeting. new Plan after New plan. But it is an MLM ordeal that begins in words and ends in words. Nothing can save it as witnessed by the ideological straight jacket mentality brain chemistry displayed on this thread.

It might be genuinely tempting to actually become a Ruhiized zombie automaton out of a George A. Romaro movie or North Korean Communist Party for something that is actually solving problems and making a difference in human affairs. But not for something that is a dysfunctional embarrassment at this level of mind bending ineptitude. If you want to live a spiritually effective path in life you will have to find something other than the Baha'i faith. The catastrophic failure of the Baha'i Faith is truly a wonder and a prodigy to behold. It is astonishing. How could the same totally dysfunctional leadership be so consistently destructive with absolutely mathematical precision decade after decade? yet that is the amazing record. Not even the destruction of the economy of the United States by the Wall Street Elite Gordon Gekko Taliban can compare in sheer mismanagement and ineptitude at this scale of truly Biblical proportions. What is the point of even discussing this? It is hopeless. All genuine open consultation in the Baha'i Faith ITSELF has been completely shut down worldwide anyway.

[quote comment="60784"]So far it looks like the answer Farhan is giving is that we'll accept you as a non-Bahai, but never as a Bahai. I think he'll go so far as to take the pen out of his colleagues hand before he can sign any card. :o)[/quote]

Which, oddly enough, is pretty similar to the advice I would give to a gay colleague if they wanted to become a member of the Baha'i community. Similar, in fact, to the advice I would give to anyone. I recognise that people will want to check out the community for themselves, and that most people will stay comfortably under the radar for a good long time, experiencing mainly postive aspects of community and administrative life. That's how it was for me, anyway. But I also know that eventually most people will hit a glass ceiling.

I applaud Farhan's growing recognition that being a Baha'i and being a member of a Baha'i community are two separate things, that the world doesn't just consist of Baha'is and non-Baha'is, and that individual responses shouldn't be confused with administrative responses. I'm saddened that he appears to evade questions that get too close to the heart of the matter and that he seems to treat the UHJ like an oracle.

If Farhan asks me for advice on how to respond to his gay colleague, I will suggest that he advises his colleague not to invest any time or effort into the Baha'i administration or community, because it will clearly just treat him like a second-class citizen who has something wrong that needs to be fixed. I will suggest that Farhan introduces his colleague to the de facto Baha'i-related community on the Internet, where he will, generally, be accepted for who he is.

ka kite
Steve

Hi Grover. It is kind of amusing, but I think an important exercise nevertheless. This isn't any longer about the AO, but about an individual Bahai and how he will react to a gay colleague wanting to become a Bahai. What will he do? I want Farhan's words to move from philosophical musings online to a possible real life scenario. How do you truly teach the Bahai Faith to a gay person if your view of the Faith is so different from someone like Sonja? So far it looks like the answer Farhan is giving is that we'll accept you as a non-Bahai, but never as a Bahai. I think he'll go so far as to take the pen out of his colleagues hand before he can sign any card. :o)

Grover is awarded 50 points for a very concise summary of the problem at hand. Well played!

Happy new year everyone! lololol, this discussion is dreadful! ;P

While I fully believe gays should have the same rights as everyone else, I must say its kind of funny expecting Baha'i communities and administration to cope with gay marriages and gay families when they don't have the ability to cope with anything from domestic disputes, child abuse, rape and fraud and embezzlement. Heck, they can't even cope with dissension or innovative people within communities in a constructive sensible manner. We're expecting them to be even remotely mature about gay families? Not a chance in hell.

Dear P,
A co-worker very interested in the Faith is asking me for specific quotes on how the Baha’is consider gay marriages. I know you have studied the subject thoroughly and even approached the UHJ; would you care sharing with us some relevant quotes?
----------------------
Sorry Farhan, I don't have the time. Besides, this is your coworker tlaking to you, is that how you teach the Faith, but sending the seeker on a scavenger hunt? I'm sure you are familiar with all the quotes, yet maybe because you are trying to be polite, or maybe you are trying to show the Faith in the best light, you are not willing to share it with this individual.

This having been said, I see no reason why enrolment should be a condition for your taking benefit from what the Baha’i Faith has to offer.
------------------------
Farhan, I don't understand why you are being so elusive. It truly seems like you are trying to hide something. Is this how you talk about your beliefs to everyone? I respect my evangelical counterparts because they clearly point to passages where according to them the Bible teaches homosexuality to be an aberration to God. I'm just asking if your religion thinks the same. If it does, then you are right in what you said, I will not be joining. But if it does not, then maybe it is a welcoming place as you tried to explain to me initially. Anyway, I wish you would give some clear answers instead of referring me to other people. I guess I will have to just go online and do some investigating on my own. I'll get back to you. Thanks!

Sonja,
Your message referring to the areas of decisions left to the discretion of the believers reminded me of this message of the UHJ concerning abortion. My understanding is that the marriage laws are not in an “area of grey” left to the conscience of the believers.

In most areas of human behaviour there are acts which are clearly contrary to the Law of God and others which are clearly approved or permissible; between these there is often a grey area where it is not immediately apparent what
should be done. It has been a human tendency to wish to eliminate these grey areas so that every aspect of life is clearly prescribed. A result of this tendency has been the tremendous accretion of interpretation and subsidiary
legislation which has smothered the spirit of certain of the older religions.
In the Baha'i Faith moderation, which is so strongly upheld by Baha'u'llah,is applied here also. Provision is made for supplementary legislation by the Universal House of Justice -- legislation which it can itself abrogate and
amend as conditions change. There is also a clear pattern already established in the Sacred Scriptures, in the interpretations made by `Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, and in the decisions so far made by the Universal House of
Justice, whereby an area of the application of the laws is intentionally left to the conscience of each individual believer. This is the age in which mankind must attain maturity, and one aspect of this is the assumption by
individuals of the responsibility for deciding, with the assistance of consultation, their own course of action in areas which are left open by the Law of God.
(UHJ, Guidance to Physicians, 14 November 1986 to an individual believer)

Dear P,
A co-worker very interested in the Faith is asking me for specific quotes on how the Baha’is consider gay marriages. I know you have studied the subject thoroughly and even approached the UHJ; would you care sharing with us some relevant quotes?

S the seeker asked: What does the Bahai Faith teach about my committed relationship to my partner specifically? Please respond with specific quotes, not your opinions, so that I can decide wether I want to continue investigating this religious community or not.

Farhan: Dear seeker, this is a complex issue you are bringing up; you remind me of some patient’s families I meet at the exit of the operating theatre at 4 in the morning and say this might be some very rare disease such as … and I find them waiting for me at 7 in the morning with a pile of googled documents saying “you didn’t notice this and that (true story). They know 10 times more than me because they have studied the subject I had read about 20 years earlier all night.

Very frankly, I do not have specific quotes at hand, but I can try to find them for you. You know what, I know P, a wonderful guy on Baha’i Rants who has put the question to the UHJ and he got a reply faster than I ever get one, which proves how seriously they take the question. I will ask him for the quotes; I am sure he has lots of them.

This having been said, I see no reason why enrolment should be a condition for your taking benefit from what the Baha’i Faith has to offer.

sonja wrote:

If I follow your thinking, it seems that you are saying that those who think gay marriage can be considered legal and equal, are going against the guidance of the UHJ. I beg to differ.

Farhan: you are right; my present understanding from the letter of the UHJ to P is that the Baha’I concept of marriage is between a man and a woman and I would be delighted to have references that would prove me wrong.

Sonja: The UHJ gave their own policy to P and their position and presented it as reference not as legistration. We must obey legistrations (laws) of the UHJ but we are free to think, debate, discuss, consult and act (when acting is breaking a Bahai law, or not breaking it in a way to cause danger or to be consistently misleading) as we wish.

Farhan: sorry, I don’t get your point here. My present understanding is that the UHJ is referring us to the laws of Aqdas. We are free to do what we liken, and we are liable to the consequences. No one can judge the spiritual part, and I have no doubt that many gay couples will be more loved in the sight of God than non gay couples, but the laws of the community are designed for social coherence, as for example the need for parental consent for marriage. Community sanctions are intended for the education of individuals and of others in the community, only for the loving interests of the community.

Sonja: I thought the point of consultation was to work towards the best answer for a given situation, hopefully from the insights of various perspectives.

Farhan: Yes, but all this is within the frame-work of the legislation or elucidations of the UHJ; the LSA cannot take a decision that is contrary to the ruling of the NSA and of the UHJ, and on an important subject such as this, as an LSA member I would have the humility to ask for enlightenment.

Sonja: So in short you are saying Bahais can't have a differing interpretation, when Shoghi Effendi wrote that the UHJ is for legistration not interpretation.

Farhan: The UHJ elucidates, which means it decides the best practical line of action given the existing scriptures and interpretations by Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.

Sonja: This is a very important issue,

Farhan: I agree

Sonja: because as I see it, if Bahais think they cannot have their own interpretations for their actions based on the writings, in my view it means there's no point in studying the Bahai writings, rather we should just do as we think the UHJ intends us to do.

Farhan: I disagree: you are reproducing the concept of Pro-choice ethics as opposed to Pro-life ethics. This would lead to chaos if everyone interpreted the writings and acted accordingly as he pleased. But again, you are free to do so as long as you don’t want to identify yourself as a Baha’i and impose your interpretation of the Baha’i way of life to others. If an LSA does take a decision in your vision of a Baha’i marriage, I would be delighted to view the outcome and I would abide by and obey that decision until and unless the NSA or the UHJ revised that decision.


Sonja: So Farhan, we can never get around having a personal perspective.

Farhan: Yes we can, and this valuable personal perspective will go through consultation with other members of an elected institution and be subject to an eventual revision by the NSA and/or the UHJ.

Sonja: As for me, I prefer to go to the source, the Bahai writings as much as I am able to. And I think that the UHJ would want Bahais to do this as well, so if the UHJ's intent is the issue here. I think I am doing this :) I am basing my interpretation of this question by my interpretations of the Bahai writings.

Farhan: I agree with you, but what would you do if the LSA, NSA or the UHJ adopted a different interpretation than yours?

My apologies Farhan, my comment about crazy logic was intended to mean I don't follow the logic you gave, not that I thought you were crazy. I appreciate it that you are willing to engage in this dialogue.

If I follow your thinking, it seems that you are saying that those who think gay marriage can be considered legal and equal, are going against the guidance of the UHJ. I beg to differ. The UHJ gave their own policy to P and their position and presented it as reference not as legistration. We must obey legistrations (laws) of the UHJ but we are free to think, debate, discuss, consult and act (when acting is breaking a Bahai law, or not breaking it in a way to cause danger or to be consistently misleading) as we wish. We can obey and still be free, that is be responsible for our own actions. I am not misinterpretating the Bahai Faith if as an LSA member I recognize a gay marriage as being a valid union according the Bahai principles of monogomy, unity in diversity in the context of the laws and mores of my country and the image of the Bahai Faith in this country. My decision is based on my understandings of the writings, just as I would hope another LSA member's would be, regardless of what their decision would be. I thought the point of consultation was to work towards the best answer for a given situation, hopefully from the insights of various perspectives.

It seems that in arguing for a different viewpoint on this issue Farhan, you are stating that this would be against the guidance of the UHJ (correct me if I am wrong). So in short you are saying Bahais can't have a differing interpretation, when Shoghi Effendi wrote that the UHJ is for legistration not interpretation. This is a very important issue, because as I see it, if Bahais think they cannot have their own interpretations for their actions based on the writings, in my view it means there's no point in studying the Bahai writings, rather we should just do as we think the UHJ intends us to do. Even though there's still an element of interpretation, interpreting what we think the UHJ intends. So Farhan, we can never get around having a personal perspective. As for me, I prefer to go to the source, the Bahai writings as much as I am able to. And I think that the UHJ would want Bahais to do this as well, so if the UHJ's intent is the issue here. I think I am doing this :) I am basing my interpretation of this question by my interpretations of the Bahai writings.

If local conditions were not an issue for Bahai law then it would be the case as you stated that the UHJ decides on all sorts of issues such as the validity of all marriages, but in practice they don't. This is a decision left to NSAs (and in turn an LSA) of the particular country.

Ok Farhan. You are not playing along well. :o) You are confusing me with the individual that was raised Bahai and wrote to the UHJ with the individual who is your co-worker and living in your city and actually interested in learning more about Bahai and maybe joining. Now, are you willing to play along again or not? Let's call this guy S for seeker instead of P, so you don't get confused. Now back to roll playing, "S" has asked you as a seeker who doesn't have time to look up who the UHJ is and write to them and all that, he has asked you: What does the Bahai Faith teach about my committed relationship to my partner specifically? Please respond with specific quotes, not your opinions, so that I can decide wether I want to continue investigating this religious community or not.

P wrote: Farhan, so you have decided that my partner and I are not ready to join your group?

Farhan: I have no right to decide anything, but I am merely giving you my understanding of the complex situation you are describing. I gather that you have already exchanged letters with the UHJ concerning a medical prescription to a gay marriage. Had they accepted your suggestion, as a doctor, I might have then suggested permitting couples who are depressed because they lack the consent of their parents for a marriage. Perhaps you might wish to help us to better understanding of the subject by this further question concerning the difference between married gay couples and non gay couples accepting the Faith after cohabitation or civil marriage. While you are at it, you might even ask about the case of bisexuals that can be compared to polygamist families.

P: But we haven’t even studied it enough or gone to one of your meetings. (snip) What does the Bahai Faith think of my relatinoship with my husband?

F: as I said you are welcome to participate in meetings. As to your civil marriage, the as a Baha’i, I only use the word “marriage” for heterosexual marriages and as doctor, I consider your marriage as a social contract.
Each religious community has the right to decide which rules are to be applied for a spiritual marriage, and from what I understand at the present time, the Baha’i community does not validate gay marriages as a spiritual marriage.

P: But it looks to me that you are lumping my relationship under the umbrella of unchaste

F: I have no right to judge anyone chaste or unchaste, nor would I care getting involved with what is not my business; but at the same time, I abide by the rules of each religious community. For example, I will not give a transfusion to a non consenting Jehovah’s Witness, unless it is a child in danger of death and after permission by a judge.

P: It would be nice if you would clarify this once and for all, so I can decide how much further I want to study this religion.

F: I think the picture can be clarified by addressing the institutions instead of asking the opinion of individuals like me.

Sonja wrote:
Farhan your logic in the above post is crazy. You associate someone wishing to become a Bahai who is gay and married, with the idea that the UHJ needs guidance and then conclude that such an idea of giving guidance to the UHJ is incompatible with being a Bahai.

Sonja, please keep your judgments on my opinions and my logic to yourself; I make no comments on what you express, but I merely give my opinions next to yours. There are two comments in my reply: one to a real person having considered the responses by the UHJ on a subject and participated in the exchanges on this blog, and another to a hypothetical person, a work colleague who has just discovered the Faith.

The general opinion on this list is that the UHJ is not functioning properly and needs guidance. If my colleague read what was being written on this blog, I feel compelled to explain to him why as a Baha'i I disagree with this situation.

You are free to offer your own guidance if you wish to suggest that the UHJ should let the LSAs decide how to deal with gay couples. My understanding is that the UHJ has already elucidated this point, although I do not have the document at hand.

Farhan, so you have decided that my partner and I are not ready to join your group? But we haven't even studied it enough or gone to one of your meetings. I'm just asking you for an ellaboration that you haven't answered. What does the Bahai Faith think of my relatinoship with my husband? I valued your initial post because I agreed with you in regards to chastity. I thought you were speaking about the casual way that people, especially youth today, treat sex. I want a community that gives structure with morals for my children. But it looks to me that you are lumping my relationship under the umbrella of unchaste even though I've explained to you that I've been committed to my partner for years. Is this true? Is this what the Bahai Faith thinks of my relationship? It would be nice if you would clarify this once and for all, so I can decide how much further I want to study this religion. I thought I found someting beautiful, but I don't think I'm being given the whole picture. Thanks!

Farhan your logic in the above post is crazy. You associate someone wishing to become a Bahai who is gay and married, with the idea that the UHJ needs guidance and then conclude that such an idea of giving guidance to the UHJ is incompatible with being a Bahai.


All that person asked was to declare. Nothing else.

I agree with you no person can (nor should try to) impose their views on another. That is also why I try to see what principles an LSA would be looking at rather than responding to a question based merely on my own experiences.

P wrote:
But I am confused as to why my marriage is not valid.

I find your question as how to consider within the Baha’i community a person having contracted a civil gay marriage interesting, but the Baha’is consider the UHJ as the law maker and it is up to the UHJ to decide how to consider your case. I gather that the question has been put from Canada in the 1990s, and I would be happy to read their reply.

An important point here is that a Baha’I believes that the UHJ is divinely guided; we do not believe that the UHJ needs guidance from the believers. A person, who has a doubt about this point, is not, in my opinion, in a position to consider enrolment as a Baha’i. Baha’is value interreligious collaboration and you can no doubt find a religious community closer to your beliefs than the Baha’i community and help advance our common goals.

Sonja wrote:
I would argue that in most western countries, even in France, that an LSA would look at the customs and laws of local society before making a decision that would split up a marriage or deny an individual full membership.

Sonja, I find your vision interesting, but unlikely in view of Baha'i communities I have been in. I am giving the view I would present to my LSA if I were a member, which obviously is not an LSA decision.

The important point here in my view is to refer the subject to the institutions, and then abide by their bidding.

There is a tendency in the West to believe that we can elaborate our own religion, and then impose it on others.

You feel that gay marriages should be accepted and that the Baha'i world should accept them, and the UHJ is making a mistake by taking into consideration what some secretary has written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.

I feel that I don’t know what is best for humanity and I abide with what I consider as God's will for our present day society, as extolled by the UHJ.

These two diverging views are to be respected. You should follow your way, and I should follow mine; in time science will compare the outcomes and tell who was right.

If we impose our views on each other, we will never know objectively.

Craig wrote :
Farhan, show me where the current version of the Baha’i Faith is AT ALL GENUINELY interested in “elaborating” peaceful societies?

Craig, do you notice in what you describe as the rubbish heap of this world one blade of green grass growing? If so, mention it, so that we can build upon that and slowly change the compost heap into a flourishing garden.

Steve wrote:
That's odd, because multiple wives are recognised, in the sense that someone with multiple wives who joins the Baha'i Faith isn't made to give up their existing wives - just prevented from marrying any more until all their present ones run out. What's the diff?

Steve, I cannot reply for the UHJ, but only give my understanding; as you know, polygamy has been largely practiced in history, and even so in Baha'u'llah's time; hence the Aqdas does not forbid it and the enforcement of this law, as in many other laws has to be progressive. Gay marriages and families have not been frequent in history and no provisions have been foreseen for a progressive enforcement of a law which clearly considers a marriage between partners of the opposite sex.

Beautiful video version of the Parable of the Great Reversal:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJL6bTR3Is0

Instructional video version of Baha'i Entry by Troops song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-ReywDBuwg

(Is that a young Pope Benedict ... ?)

Yabbadú-yabbadú Babalú-ayé!

[quote comment=""]As you are gay parents and gay marriages are not recognised in the Baha’i community, there is little hope that the LSA will accept to enrol you as Baha’is with voting rights[/quote]

Farhan, this is clearly only your own interpretation (and I would add prejudice, read below why I say prejudice). There are plenty of reasons why an LSA would act differently.

Steve has mentioned those who declare as Bahais with multiple spouses as not being expected to then divorce. There are many examples of common-law marriage or long term partnerships as in the Netherlands as being accepted as a marriage. People who declare here, have raised children, have lived together for decades, are not then expected to live separately or go through the artifice of a wedding ceremony. This has nothing to do with lowering moral standards, whatsoever but with applying Bahai law with wisdom, so that the law does what it is intended to do, to be flexible and to maintain its value. That's why we have LSAs and NSAs and the UHJ. If Bahai law was not intended to be flexible (relevent and meaningful) then we would just have a set of written rules that would never need to be changed. But we don't. We have the administrative structures to ensure that Bahai commmunity law works + evolves as intended.

The guidelines for an LSA are the laws and customs of the country or culture. Marriage and the Bahai Faith are intended for unity, not for division. So I would argue that an LSA would be tend to treat the nature of the marriage in relation to the society and the individual case. I cannot speak on behalf of any LSA in the Netherlands, but I would argue that it would be a Bahai principle to uphold the laws of the country and accept a gay marriage as equal to a heterosexual marriage. In fact I would state this even more strongly, I cannot imagine any LSA in the Netherlands not doing this because not accepting a legal marriage as a valid marriage would be counter to the laws and customs of this culture.
I would argue that in most western countries, even in France, that an LSA would look at the customs and laws of local society before making a decision that would split up a marriage or deny an individual full membership.

In a country where an openly declared gay marriage might be dangerous, such as in Iran for example, then there would be a wisdom not accepting a gay marriage, but then the LSA would be taking the laws and culture of the country into consideration.

Thank you Farhan. I'm happy that my partner and I would be able to be involved in so many ways- especially with children's classes. And I think we actually live in the same city as you, so I'm guessing we are in the same community. It is so important for people to see that our family is valid and how much we love our children. But I am confused as to why my marriage is not valid. What does the Bahai faith say about the life my partner and I are living? When you spoke of chastity, I assumed you thought I was some single guy living a wild life. I can assure you that my partner and I are very committed to each other- not for any religious reasons, but because we love each other. So I don't unserstand why I'm being kept out of fully participating in community life. Please explain further because I have a hard time understanding how I could participate in so many ways and be accepted, yet not be accepted. I really need to investigate some more. Thanks.

Farhan wrote:

"F: well I suggest you find the children’s classes and junior youth activities in your vicinity and in fact, everyone, those enrolled as Baha’is and others can participate in organising these activities. If you go through book 3, you will have useful hints for organising or helping organise children’s classes, and if you do book 5, this will help you in organising junior youth activities at an age where it is so important to transmit to youth the values that help elaborate peaceful societies."

Farhan, show me where the current version of the Baha'i Faith is AT ALL GENUINELY interested in "elaborating" peaceful societies? By well known statements of it's current leadership, the Baha'is are for endless generations of soldiers being sent to their individual deaths to "do God's work" so that everyone will suffer greatly so they will then join the Baha'i Faith for desperate social salvation, take the Ruhi full sequence of courses from their conversion, go door to door to get everyone else on Earth to take the Ruhi full sequence of courses too, and the world will live happily ever after. Endless war and endless killing by the little people is very important as a key emotional driver of the entire top down narcissistic center-of-the-Universe plan. The endless suffering of others is a very big part of the formula. Of course war and violence is the driver as long as the Baha'is themselves do not have to be personally involved in it because they are special people above all that blood. In fact, the "Divine Plan" is working in Gaza right now as we speak. Are the Dr. Arbab Jugend ready to go in behind the Israeli Army and follow up? I think it is only a three or four hour drive from Haifa to Gaza? Heck, it's all practically in the neighborhood. We had Two World Wars and endless other wars to get the drill down. Shouldn't we be good at this by now? Shouldn't we be good at something, anything, by now?

Why aren't you in Gaza right now getting children's classes going? Why aren't your dedicated wife and daughters there with you on the ground under fire too? Deeds not words right?

[quote comment="60733"]F: The 19 day feast is an important aspect of community life, with a spiritual, an administrative and a social part.[/quote]

I prefer to think of all parts of the feast as "spiritual", and to think of the first part as being "devotional".

[quote comment="60733"]As Baha’is are expected to express themselves freely at this time, only enrolled Baha’is are invited to the administrative part, but others are welcomed to the spiritual and social part.[/quote]

Perhaps in France, but not in NZ, Australia and the US. I've attended upwards of 400 feasts in NZ and I recall only two that had non-Baha'is present. On both occasions the situatiuon was quite awkward and something the Assembly took care not to have repeated.

[quote comment="60733"]As you are gay parents and gay marriages are not recognised in the Baha’i community, there is little hope that the LSA will accept to enrol you as Baha’is with voting rights and the capacity to participate in the administrative activities...[/quote]

That's odd, because multiple wives are recognised, in the sense that someone with multiple wives who joins the Baha'i Faith isn't made to give up their existing wives - just prevented from marrying any more until all their present ones run out. What's the diff?

ka kite
Steve

P wrote:
We want to bring up our adopted kids in a community that will honor us and give our kids good morals.

F: well I suggest you find the children’s classes and junior youth activities in your vicinity and in fact, everyone, those enrolled as Baha’is and others can participate in organising these activities. If you go through book 3, you will have useful hints for organising or helping organise children’s classes, and if you do book 5, this will help you in organising junior youth activities at an age where it is so important to transmit to youth the values that help elaborate peaceful societies.

P: I’m very intrigued and wish to know more. (snip) I read somewhere that it said you all get together every 19 days for a Feast which is the heart of the community life and that you elect your own leaders- no priests.

F: The 19 day feast is an important aspect of community life, with a spiritual, an administrative and a social part. The administrative part is reserved for enrolled Baha’is as it is an important time for making suggestions and airing opinions and proposals to the LSA. As Baha’is are expected to express themselves freely at this time, only enrolled Baha’is are invited to the administrative part, but others are welcomed to the spiritual and social part. As you are gay parents and gay marriages are not recognised in the Baha’i community, there is little hope that the LSA will accept to enrol you as Baha’is with voting rights and the capacity to participate in the administrative activities, but although there is some misunderstanding amongst some Baha’is in regards with homosexuality, I believe that more and more activities will in time be available for you and areas of service other than administrative are open to you.

In the last decade, Baha’is have been developing their talents and are now numerous to organise devotional meetings and commemorative feasts open to all. If they wish, non-enrolled individuals you can also acquire these capacities through the study circles, and organise devotionals and children’s classes, and even go through the whole curriculum so that you can organise your own study circles.

P: I can’t wait to go to our first meeting to learn more about Bahai. When is your next get together?

F: I suggest you contact your nearest LSA and explain your situation. They can refer to the NSA and the UHJ for advise, but I am sure they will be moved by your eagerness to serve humanity through the Baha’i teachings, and grateful to you for bringing up this challenge that can help better discover the gems hidden in God's revelation.

http://hadleyives.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-doe...

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=459354808...

Thank you, Andrew, for posting these two links. Excellent pieces.

Sonja wrote : My personal grip with the ruhi system is that it seems to have taken away individual interpretations for why we believe in things (or how we understand them) and replaced them with rote-memorization: making a mockery of the principle of independent investigation.

Sonja, I understand your point, but again and again, the UHJ and its members remind us that the present “priority” given to the institute process is by no means an “exclusivity” or a change in what we had before. It is an urgent, additional activity in order to form human resources swiftly. We need large numbers of persons capable of giving a clear gist of the essential aspects of the Faith to large numbers of seekers without mingling them with their own personal understanding. Once this initiation has taken place, summer schools, deepening, fires sides etc can develop this elementary foundation.

Having been a pioneer in French Polynesia, I am aware that if we want to send a local believer to teach in a remote island, we need to give him sound but simple concepts to convey, instead of their own, sometimes faulty understanding, before these people can cope with more complicated concepts; I would encourage you to do the study circles in order to become a tutor, that can then tutor other tutor training tutors, and not to teach you in simple words what you already know in complex concepts that you and I could not transmit to new comers.

It appears that the title of Hadley-Ives' essay was well chosen: "Religious Law and Literalist Legalism."

The above responses to Sonja and P. inspire me to post a link:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=459354808...

"Let all who have ears hear."

In the land of the deaf, the one-eared literalist is king indeed.

Thank you for that thorough explanation Farhan. I didn't know you knew I was gay. You said that in Bahai "Marriage is encouraged and the upbringing of future citizens is extolled." I'm so happy to see that your religion respects marriage and that sex should be within those bounds. My partner is Dutch and we got married in the NL years ago for that very reason. Our parents were all there for the joyous occassion. We felt that we should honor our relationship by making the greatest commitment that a couple can make to one another- and that is marriage. We want to bring up our adopted kids in a community that will honor us and give our kids good morals. I'm very intrigued and wish to know more. I did read a little bit about it. I read somewhere that it said you all get together every 19 days for a Feast which is the heart of the community life and that you elect your own leaders- no priests. My partner will love this. He completely believes that there should be no paid positions in a church, but rather all volunteer work from its members. He has great organizational skills and if he were to also join, he could help so much in a leadership role. I can't wait to go to our first meeting to learn more about Bahai. When is your next get together?

Sonja wrote: where in the writings can one find justification for sexuality (not immorality) as being considered harmful for the development of the soul.

Farhan: There is a quote from Shoghi Effendi saying that adultery impairs the progress of the soul, but the same can be said for lying, back biting, not praying, etc

Sonja: it be a great spiritual harm for those instances where a couple have married but not had a Bahai marriage ceremony?

Farhan: I believe that the problem is a community making issue: “collective morality”, beyond the personal spiritual impairment, and the lack of respect for community laws, being a source of disunity, that would cause the personal spiritual impairment. A behaviour detrimental to society is not spiritually good for the individual.

Sonja: I realize Bahais should have a Bahai ceremony but I can imagine that there could be circumstances where this was not possible and I wouldn't imagine Baha'u'llah would have intended that those individuals to be forever banned from being full members of the Bahai community.

Farhan: Those having married or lived martially before becoming Baha’is are not required to perform a Baha’I marriage.

Sonja: Of course a work-around would be for Bahais to resign, marry and then re-declare, but surely something is going wrong if members of any religion have to take this route?

Farhan: sounds like some patients pretending to swallow their medication and then spitting it out; or students cheating at exams. We have some Baha’i youth not wanting to declare before they have settled their family lives. But who are we fooling? Ourselves? God? The community? For a true believer, this would be forfeiting the “choicest wine”, for the apparent believer, this would be a way of maintaining his position within the community. We have to question our true intent: do I want to be a talented singer, or do I want to do a karaoke play-back on the scene to get applause? Both are honourable, but the positions cannot be equal, otherwise it would be unjust.

Sonja: …a question, if you were on an LSA and a gay who was already married wished to join the community, would you, as an LSA member (not as the caring individual you are) see it as just to give that new member less than equal rights?

Farhan: From the present stand of the UHJ, I would say that a Baha’i marriage is between a man and a woman. If the person was in a gay marriage (I presume from your question) before becoming a Baha’i, I would not suggest that he should abandon his homosexual family but I would say that he could remain in the “community of interest” and participate in all those numerous activities, but not granted full voting rights unless he managed to comply by the community rules. I believe that this case has been put to the UHJ from Canada in the 1990’s but I am not sure of the reply.

Sonja: If you refer to the UHJ's most recent letter to P, posted here, then explain to me how they have said LSAs must do this. As I read it they haven't, but they do imply this.

Farhan: I see no implication on the role of the LSA in this reply, although I do believe that it is up to the LSA to wipe out all traces of alienation within the community, but within the limits set by the UHJ and the NSA. BTW, P’s question to the UHJ was an interesting one, since the UHJ had already given it’s approval for transsexual treatment prescribed by doctors.

Sonja: I'd think as Bahais we should also have our own understandings for why we would follow the principle of equality.

Farhan: Our understanding is for our personal spiritual life. Community making needs further rules. I don’t adhere to the idea of unconditional equality. To a great extent, our level of accomplishment is the result of the efforts we make. We are not quibbling to obtain more social benefits and rights, but striving during our short transient life to attain heights of servitude to humanity. I had years of troubled waters trying to live through celibacy in a society that did not share my values; this has been a great source of thought and research for me; The level of effort and sacrifice for a gay forfeiting his sexual orientation in order to attain the rank of servitude to the Faith is obviously much higher than mine, and hence more rewarding for himself, because it has been easier for me to comply than for gays to do so. I have no doubt that an attitude of humility and submission to God’s commands has untold benefits for a society where we are judged much more by what we consume, than by the service we render.

P wrote : Let's do a scenario Farhan. Humour one last time if you don't mind.

Farhan : I don’t mind at all ; good idea !

P : I have a more universal view of God and religion. I believe that God sent different messages to humanity according to the needs of those cultures at that time. They just don't appreciate my views. I wish I could find a community where I could worship with like minded people, so I'm searching right now. What church do you belong to Farhan?"

Farhan replies: I strongly adhere to your idea of the universality of God’s message, and as a Baha’i, I believe that God’s religion is adapted to the needs of each day and age. I also find it important not to allow your religious views become an obstacle between yourself and your family. In a close and loving association with them, you can help them share your understanding. We believe that religion should be a source of love and unity, and if it becomes a source of controversy and alienation, it would be preferable to abandon it. The essential spiritual part of religion is universal, but the practical aspects, fostered by social laws are adapted to the needs of each day and age. These laws are necessary for making communities and in order to consolidate community life, we are expected to accept them and openly express our allegiance to them, and make efforts in exemplifying them in our lives.

The Baha’i teachings go further than those in previous revelations: not only are we to develop our own spiritual lives and virtues, but we are also expected to apply spiritual laws to our social, economical and political lives. Moral laws are not only required for our “personal salvation”, but are to be applied at a universal level.

From what I gather, you are a homosexual and one of the important aspects of Baha’i life is a family life. Marriage is encouraged and the upbringing of future citizens is extolled. To further consolidate the community, sexuality is to be restricted to within the marriage and parents are to give their consent for the marriage. In the Baha’i writings you will find an ocean of gems for your spiritual life. These teachings belong to all and Baha’is organise core activities where every one, Baha’is or not, can take part in learning theses teachings, but also acquiring talents for organising themselves study circles, children’s classes, devotionals and so on. If you wish to qualify for the privilege of concerted action within the community you can enrol as a Baha’i and take part in the administrative activities within the community. In this case, you will be required to comply with some rules, amongst which that of chastity outside marriage. We have no priests, but the function of serving the community is one that each and every Baha’i is expected to endorse.

I know that this aspect of community life might be a burden for you. The Baha’is are strongly advised against homophobic attitudes, but, unfortunately, some of them, lacking proper understanding of their teachings, do not stand up to that standard. No one is allowed to spy on another, but if you openly live a sexual life outside marriage, and if this behaviour becomes a cause of disruption within the community, the institutions might be led to depriving you of some aspects of community life in order to protect the community.

Obviously, if anyone openly express disagreement with the teachings and enters into contestation with the institutions they are supposed to serve on, they can no longer be considered as active members of the community. We believe that our institutions are divinely guided, and that we need them to guide us. We do not believe that as in political circles, our institutions are to be guided and petitioned by the electors. They are to follow their consciences and refer to the laws of God, and not to concede to pressure from the believers.

I suggest that you participate in the activities and see if you wish to enrol as a Baha’i or merely benefit from the teachings and the community by remaining in what we call “the community of interest.”

[quote comment=""][...] another Bahai told me it was because there are degrees of laws. Some affect the soul more than others-[...][/quote]

I suspect this rationale is made up, understandably, since the person was trying to rationalize why in the Bahai community there is such intolerance towards homosexuality. But it is an interesting question, where in the writings can one find justification for sexuality (not immorality) as being considered harmful for the development of the soul. There's a tablet about celibacy not necessarily being a good thing, but it isn't expressed as harmful.

Related to this, would it be a great spiritual harm for those instances where a couple have married but not had a Bahai marriage ceremony?
I realize Bahais should have a Bahai ceremony but I can imagine that there could be circumstances where this was not possible and I wouldn't imagine Baha'u'llah would have intended that those individuals to be forever banned from being full members of the Bahai community.

Of course a work-around would be for Bahais to resign, marry and then re-declare, but surely something is going wrong if members of any religion have to take this route?

As I see it for homosexual couples at the moment this seems to be the only option, because I wouldn't imagine that any LSA would be willing to officiate a gay marriage. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely.
So then Farhan, a question, if you were on an LSA and a gay who was already married wished to join the community, would you, as an LSA member (not as the caring individual you are) see it as just to give that new member less than equal rights? If yes, based on what? Please use the authenticated Bahai writings if you refer to the writings. If you refer to the UHJ's most recent letter to P, posted here, then explain to me how they have said LSAs must do this. As I read it they haven't, but they do imply this. There is a difference, which as I read it, gives an LSA member some lee-way to go to the Writings for themselves, should they wish to and to make their own interpretation based on this.

So as I see it Farhan, your response to my question would be based on your own interpretation and not on something embedded in the Bahai teachings such as equality, although, personally I'd think as Bahais we should also have our own understandings for why we would follow the principle of equality. My personal grip with the ruhi system is that it seems to have taken away individual interpretations for why we believe in things (or how we understand them) and replaced them with rote-memorization: making a mockery of the principle of independent investigation.

Great article Andrew. Thanks for posting. It always does amaze at how certain laws are enforced more strictly than others- homosexuality being one of them. When I brought this up on another forum, that I thought it was for cultural reasons, another Bahai told me it was because there are degrees of laws. Some affect the soul more than others- so its for the protection of the individual. So plunging your hands in a food bowl at Feast or a man growing his hair too long are minor laws that can be pardoned I guess. But two men living together and raising a child, it is automatically assumed to be spiritual harmful to all and must be sanctioned and never permitted in the community.

Please see:

http://hadleyives.blogspot.com/2009/01/what-doe...

The most intelligent and insightful commentary I've read so far from a Baha'i point of view.

From Father Geoff Farrow's blog (he is the Priest who lost his job for supporting Gay Marriage):

http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2008/12/l...

here it is:

San Francisco panel discussion.
Last Friday, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the San Francisco Bar Association. The following were some of the points raised in our discussion and some of the thoughts on how to move forward from this point. In brief, the November 4th Election has paradoxically helped to reignite passion within the LGBT community, not only in California but, in the nation.

The Intersection: Race, Religion, The Law & Same Sex Marriage

December 12, 2008


Roundtable Discussion Outcome & Action Items –

The final 30 minutes of the roundtable discussion were spent brainstorming solutions on how we as community leaders can assist the community with moving forward on the issues of race, religion, civil rights and same-sex marriage.

Below is the list of action items recommended by the panelists:

* Going forward, the LGBT Community should create one voice to speak out on this issue
* Develop a common “theme” to use when speaking out on this message (example from the audience: “LGBT need to be empowered to come out, be visible and encourage straight people to tell their story”)
* Develop and publish opinion editorial (op-ed) pieces that speak about these issues.
* Approach mainstream media (CNN, C-Span, etc.) to talk about these issues, just as the religious right advocates are doing. Be sure to highlight the positives that can come from these discussions and present the topics in a non-threatening manner. Start now.
* LGBT community needs to become present in other communities. Go to association meetings, church, etc., in other minority communities.
* Identify ways for LGBT community and straight communities to educate others on the fact that sexual orientation is “not” a choice
* BASF should reach out to other bar organizations to encourage them to put on programs/hold discussion forums similar to this one.
* Create ad hoc religious coalitions as it appears that people may be interested in collaborating with other religions on certain issues.
* The legal community needs to community clearly that same sex marriage is not a zero-sum game, that is, help people to understand that if gays gain the right to marry, that does not mean another group will lose a right that they have – specifically that religious institutions will not lose any rights with respect to what marriages they will perform.
* Coalition building between organizations that might have opposing positions (between boards, etc.) to find a middle ground and/or educate each group.
* Engage ICONS, public figures who are opinion makers and who are in a role to affect policy.
* Be sure to address these issues from a grass roots perspective, while at the same time utilizing the media.
* BASF should consider additional forums like this one, but next time in front of the public or media.


yeah, and again, no- Baha'is were participating...

Let's do a scenario Farhan. Humour one last time if you don't mind. Let's say I'm a co-worker and you ask me how I spent my holiday. I reply "It was a bit stressfull. I love my family but they just don't understand me. They are evangelical Christian and I have a more universal view of God and religion. I believe that God sent different messages to humanity according to the needs of those cultures at that time. They just don't appreciate my views. I wish I could find a community where I could worship with like minded people, so I'm searching right now. What church do you belong to Farhan?"

You don't have to go to bars Farhan. Gay people also exist in your neighborhood, at your job, everywhere- some don't even go to bars. And don't worry, none of us can offer "better than thou" help since none of us are better than each other. BUT, you can create a community that treats all as equals, that doesn't make an issue of homsexuality in the community and opens the Faith to all- as Sonja is trying to do. You keep speaking beautiful words of understanding and compromise, yet I just don't see it. Because in the end, your inability to decipher justice leads you to believe that you are not treating us as second class citizens when you really are. Yes Farhan, you really are.

P wrote: You will stand by and let someone point to a reference from a secretary of Shoghi Effendi saying that they have a spiritual disorder and are living a life that is an aberration to God.
P, I have never read the words “spiritual disorder” or an “aberration to God” in writings from a secretary of Shoghi Effendi, and I have no doubt that He would fully control whatever was written on His behalf. There are conditions attached to any function, and those of participation in administrative functions in the Baha’i Faith are clear, there is no superiority involved, but just qualifications for a specific function that is neither superior nor more meritorious than other fields of service.

P wrote: Farhan, go and get involved in the gay community. Teach them the Faith and bring them into your community as equals. Then I might have some respect for all your poetic words.

I am trying to reply to your queries, and I have no ambition to obtain respect for my ideas, nor interested in bring in people, unless they are themselves attracted seekers. I have plenty of other jobs on my plate and don’t need to stick around bars or offer any “better than thou” help to those who do not require it.

woops... here's the source if you all care to partake of the food fight there

Very beautiful and poetic words Farhan. But what makes you think that two men who have adopted a child in love and are creating a family that worships, what makes you think that these two men are NOT worthy of being rays in and of themselves? All your poetic words mean nothing if these two men when they enter your community you will stand by and allow them to be stripped of their rights. You will stand by and let someone point to a reference from a secretary of Shoghi Effendi saying that they have a spiritual disorder and are living a life that is an aberration to God. Farhan, go and get involved in the gay community. Teach them the Faith and bring them into your community as equals. Then I might have some respect for all your poetic words.

[quote comment="60705"]P, I would like to withdraw the word “secular” by which I meant non-invested with a mission. There is a quote from Abdu’l-Baha I do not have available where He says we have two kinds of Baha’is: some are flowers of a garden, and others rays of the sun. Referring to this, we realise some are requiring water and sunshine, others are acting as a vehicle between the sun and the flowers. There is noting wrong or second class with the first ones, but the second ones are nearer to the high rank God has destined for us in this world: becoming a source of progress in the world.

I might play tennis, the violin or chess, but there is a professional level for those who accept to sacrifice their lives for a passion. The fire of God’s love is raging, some like Shoghi Effendi approach it and see their desires consumed, whereas others are kept back by their desires and ambitions. This is justice: each one of us chooses his own calling. It would be unjust if some acquired musical proficiency without any sacrifice. I regret but accept my calling as a consumer but not producer of good music. I am not a "second class" music lover. If we want to become a “ray of light” Baha’i, there is a recipe and we have to forfeit some of our other activities.[/quote]

Happy New Year!

Farhan,

Why can't you understand that there are both individuals and vast spiritual communities on this Earth that are advancing the work of the Spirit of the World Age (symbolized by the "Maid of Heaven") far better than any Baha'i anywhere including the individual lifetime incumbent members of the Universal House of Justice? I'll name just one I know: my oldest sister who got basic medical help at the village level to nine million Afghans most of which were women and children in great human need. I also know a woman who has personally raised and shipped three plane loads of clothing to Afghanistan. This is just two people I know. Where are the Baha'is?

It has been 165 years now. I served it with total dedication for 32 of the 38 years I have been on the roles. My conclusion after all this effort is that the Baha'i Faith is a Theocracy of Dunces that is going nowhere. The people just do not have the chops. They just don't. No God anywhere in the Universe hears their prayers. Deeds not words. The Baha'is of the world could not consult their way out of a paper bag. The record is so appalling that it boggles the mind. Every undertaking is a zero sum game. I would much better support people who can actually get something done on Earth. People who can actually GET THINGS DONE in the world to actually help people are the Baha'is whether they think of themselves as atheists or not. Again, deeds not words. Knocking on doors to try to find desperate people to convert to your religion is a zero sum game. It will achieve absolutely nothing. The whole sorry tale of the hapless and incredibly dysfunctional "Administrative Order" is a 88 year skype hunt since 1921 amid some of the worst suffering in the history of mankind. At some point in serving in the Faith you begin to realize the lifetime incumbent summer camp counselors are just pulling your leg when they send you out to find an invisible skype at 2AM in the dead of night. You come back and you find they have short sheeted your bed and laughing. The Faith has been led by the same people everywhere in the world for decades. These people do not have the chops and never have. No one is ever held accountable for anything so it just goes on year after year in free fall. The belief is the "next plan" will be the breakthrough. there will be no breakthrough. Ever. Meanwhile, the Faith is their own private club. It is their own private endless summer camp unto personal death. It is meaningless.

My observation is that there ARE Baha'is on Earth but they are NOT in the formal organized Baha'i Faith endless dysfunctional summer camp. Tell me, Farhan, why do you think the Baha'i Faith is comprised of people who are Baha'is? Explain to me your logic as to why you think this? Why does a card in a person's wallet make them a Baha'i if they have no fruit from it in life? There are no Baha'is in the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'is are the people on Earth who follow the Spirit of the World Age. Not people who turn their minds over to a horrible organization of mind bending failure decade after decade.

Ep wrote :
you should know by now that the House has pulled "bait-and-switch" stuff with prominent gay bahais No?

Ep, I am not quite aware of this expression; would you mind explaining ?

Ep wrote :
creating a class of "secular" bahais that are allowed more non-conformity than the "deacon" class isn't going to solve the basic problem (inequality)

I am not suggesting creating groups, but I was merely pointing out that the personal investment of people in the Faith can vary, just as that of Christians, some of which become monks, and others go to Church only on Sundays or merely call themselves Christians. For each level of commitment, we have specific conditions, and for being fully active in the community, we need a chaste and holy life. There is no reason to consider any one as “second class”, such judgmental attitudes towards fellow Baha’is being an obvious violation of the teachings.

P wrote: (snip) and treat you like a second class secular Bahai. (snip) first go try to change your own sexuality before you brainwash some pooor gay youth in the community to try to change his.

P, I would like to withdraw the word “secular” by which I meant non-invested with a mission. There is a quote from Abdu’l-Baha I do not have available where He says we have two kinds of Baha’is: some are flowers of a garden, and others rays of the sun. Referring to this, we realise some are requiring water and sunshine, others are acting as a vehicle between the sun and the flowers. There is noting wrong or second class with the first ones, but the second ones are nearer to the high rank God has destined for us in this world: becoming a source of progress in the world.

I might play tennis, the violin or chess, but there is a professional level for those who accept to sacrifice their lives for a passion. The fire of God’s love is raging, some like Shoghi Effendi approach it and see their desires consumed, whereas others are kept back by their desires and ambitions. This is justice: each one of us chooses his own calling. It would be unjust if some acquired musical proficiency without any sacrifice. I regret but accept my calling as a consumer but not producer of good music. I am not a "second class" music lover. If we want to become a “ray of light” Baha’i, there is a recipe and we have to forfeit some of our other activities.

However, there is something wrong with wanting to change others; there is also something wrong when we try to comply with what others expect from us instead of trying to comply with what God has destined for us.

I thought this might be of interest to folks here. And this, as well as this.

Bill wrote: Like so many other well meaning Baha'is, I think that you may feel that homosexuality can be overcome with the right amount of focus, prayer, dedication, and reliance on Baha'u'llah. I don't know about other gay Baha'is for all our stories are unique, (snip) Genetic? ...I hope this will humanize this situation a little more for you.

Dear Bill,
It is a long while I have ceased to consider a change in sexual orientation something simple and homosexuality has been fully humanised for me.

Thanks for sharing your story. In some ways you describe my own experience with sexuality through my years of celibacy as a foreign student in a remote country, and you can understand that during these years I had no urge to change orientation, and at the same time unhappy with the burden of my needs; the difference with your experience is that I could be happy with the hope that I could eventually meet the right person, something that has been denied to you.

As a Baha’i I believe that the purpose of our short span of lives in this world is our spiritual growth, and I also know that suffering, only when endured in the path of service and love, is the vehicle of our spiritual growth. I am warranted to accept sacrifice and pain for myself, but not for others.

As a doctor, my first mission is to alleviate physical and mental suffering and to unload the burden of others, and by no means could I contribute to increase frustration and pain, for God only knows our true worth and the efforts endured for the love of his Beauty.

Thanks for sharing with us your experience

Warmest

Farhan

Hi Sonja. Here is the link:http://www.stfrancisraleigh.org/gay_lesbian_ministries

The site also shows that it is a traditional Catholic church that just happens to make room for ALL people. So EP you can look trough the links and decide for yourself if this holds true. Or if it is some ultra liberal leftist group that pushes out anyone that doesn't think like them. But the beauty of the catholic chruch is if there is an ultra consevative person who can't stand the thought of a LGBT support group within their church, well he can find another Catholic church that is not as welcoming to gay people.
My hope is that Bahai Faith will never have to be like this. I want it to remain ONE umbrealla for ALL. Otherwise, what does the Faith really have to offer in terms of unity?

I am sure that approaching the Supreme Body with love and consideration, would help much more towards a better integration of various sexual orientations within the community, than demanding an improbable change in family structures.
-------------
Farhan, I already did. You can read their response way above in this thread. When I emailed them, I never even mentioned the word marriage. Personally, I could careless about that word. What I offered to them is a way to allow gays to openly live in the community, especially those with a partner and child, by accepting science and the prescription of a sound doctor. They rejected this and threw in the word "marriage" in their response to me. They rejected as you keep rejecting it. I think the only opportunity you give LGBT people (and we lump them together because we have to) is that they can enter the fold if A)They admit they need help and like cancer/diabetes they try to cure themseleves or B)We sanction (punish) you and treat you like a second class secular Bahai. I say no thanks to both of your suggestions. Again, first go try to change your own sexuality before you brainwash some pooor gay youth in the community to try to change his.

[quote comment=""][...]a website that he had created for an LGBT support group WITHIN his parish. It has the full support of the local bishop.[...][/quote]
P: would you mind posting the link or if you prefer send it to me via Baquia who has my email address.
It is also an aim of mine for there to be Bahai communities where GLBT are openly welcome as equals. If our home counts as a Bahai community, then there is at least one :)

Bill wrote: OK, great, but where are the 6 million? What this says to me is that the Ruhi Process may not be as attractive to the main community as we are lead to believe.

Bill, from the onset, and repeatedly, the UHJ has required a "significant" but not a universal participation in the institute process, just as the Faith has needed a significant number of pioneers. There is no obligation, and, from the extracts posted on this blog, we clearly understand that the other previous activities should go on unabated.

We have had zealots who are now calming down who imagined that by finishing book 7 they had finished the 7 valleys and considered those not participating as "veterans" or even unfaithful to the covenant, but these misunderstandings are now disappearing, although I do believe that the world at this time urgently needs the spiritualization offered by these courses.

Bill wrote: … the most advanced science today is discovering that many of our behaviors are not "Nurture" but "Nature" and that sexuality is proving to be "inborn" at the DNA level. (snip) Sounds genetic to me my friend.

Bill, I would be happy to have the references to this study.

This is all about inborn vs acquired characteristics, and true for all kinds of conditions, behaviours, diseases, etc.

We might be genetically predestined or “wired” for diabetes, schizophrenia, mathematics, poetry, arts, breast cancer or aggressive behaviour, but manage to miss those predisposition through a diet or an appropriate or inappropriate experiences or education.

As to homosexuality, perhaps 1/3 would be genetic, 2/3 due to the environment, including hormonal conditions during foetal development, hormones in the environment (persistent oestrogen in environment) and psychological experiences.

Bill wrote:
I would first like to say thank-you for trying to understand what we gay and lesbian Baha'is go through. I don't agree with many of your thoughts, but I defend your right to have them.

Farhan: Thanks for understanding; I have lived only a small part of my childhood in Iran, so I am less influenced by my Persian origins than by mo cross-cultural education.

Bill: That's why Farhan, the GLBT community around the world is coming out at an almost supersonic rate.

Farhan: I am sure that the “coming out” will help towards a better understanding, but at the same time, I have a feeling that we would gain in understanding by differentiating G-L and T and B and I am not sure that it is a good idea to lump them together other than for activisme.

Farhan, you should know by now that the House has pulled "bait-and-switch" stuff with prominent gay bahais No? well, that is what happened back in the 90s around the time that most of the "major" letters from the House on the issue were written. Liberalization was hinted at through back chanels, then abruptly curtailed. no "real" explanation was given for the change as far as I know.

In any case, creating a class of "secular" bahais that are allowed more non-conformity than the "deacon" class isn't going to solve the basic problem (inequality). Say you had a gay bahai child, would you really expect them to be happy about only being allowed into the "secular" bahai part of the community?

I think the sad reality is that the ruling bahai elites are worried that even if they wanted to further liberalize, that doing so would further inflame the mullahs and traditionalists in Iran into attacking bahais there?

P -

Thanks for the feedback, I really appreciate you indulging me in my inquiries.

You said that the priest told the traditionalist that "the church isn't for them", which sounds to me like "get lost - we are right, and better than you", an attitude that seems to be typical of the "pc/left" meme in the gay movement. I would just hope that more effort could be put into avoiding polarization and alienation of all. At a minimum, was the traditionalist even asked to engage in some kind of dialogue, given an opportunity to express concerns without being subject to an inquisition? Or was the person just written off as some kind of unworthy, unenlightened sub-human not deserving of any respect? Doesn't that just create more bitterness and worse "enemies"?

It may not be possible to convince the really determined traditionalists to support LGBT, but by having a "civilized" discussion, you facilitate moderates to move toward your side. That assumes you want moderate support. Since you frame the issue in black/white terms, I'm guessing that you may not care about moderates?

| The only way to accomodate such an individual is to end the
| support group and have all the gays go back in the closet or leave
| the church and form a purely gay catholic congregation.

Why is it (apparently) assumed that the traditionalist is so purely evil that some other options couldn't at least be explored, or considered? Or that doing so could be of benefit to others struggling with the issue?

Please keep in mind that I know very little about catholic culture, so please help me understand, if possible. I know both conservative and liberal catholics (not LGBT), and they are all very defensive, and uncomfortable about homosexuality and the need for legal rights. I try not to piss them off by mentioning it, but I always end up wondering why they stay in a religion/denomination that has historically been against democracy and science. I guess it is because of culture/family???

Daniel wrote:
I appreciate your willingness to work this through here with us... if we are harsh, it is because we have been hurt, lied to, and made to feel inferior, we are tough on you, because we love you, and we love Baha'u'llah.

Thanks Daniel, for this very moving message.

I am sure that approaching the Supreme Body with love and consideration, would help much more towards a better integration of various sexual orientations within the community, than demanding an improbable change in family structures.

My present understanding would be that enrolled Baha'is could be considered as some kind of "deacons" serving the Faith, and the unenrolled "community of interest" as the secular Baha'is.

Much love

Farhan

P wrote: My only problem Farhan is religious based discrimination which also exists in the Bahai community (snip) the Bahai community is far from being a all-encompassing welcoming fold

Farhan: Yes, the Baha’i community is struggling to rise to the very high standard set by Baha’u’llah; it will take many generations to merely approach that standard, and we can all strive in that direction.

P wrote: try to brainwash its gay youth into believing that they can change their sexuality- draining them of their spiritual vigor to follow a false promise of change.

Farhan: I can imagine that science will one day contribute significantly, but for the moment, we need more love and compassion towards all, including those who have delusions.

P: Happy New Year to you too (gay clubs tend to be a lot fun at New Years Farhan, if you still want to educate yourself about how to change sexuality). :o)

Happy New Year to you, and no, many thanks, I have no intention of putting a change my sexuality on my agenda of priorities, but thanks for the warm exchange all the same.

EP it's not excluding to tell someone that there is room for EVERYONE in the church. The traditions continue. There are no gay couples receiving catholic marriage at the altar, etc etc. So YES, the traditionalists are already being accomodated to a great extent. So yes I see a great problem accomodating someone that can't even stand having a gay/lesbian support group within the congregation. You see it as tellign such a person to get lost. I see it as telling him to open his mind. The only way to accomodate such an individual is to end the support group and have all the gays go back in the closet or leave the church and form a purely gay catholic congregation. Is that progress in your view?

BG,

Thanks for the feedback on your Ruhi experiences. What it seems to lack is an honest process for evaluating the structural problems in the community. "Fake" problems/solutions are presumably inserted to keep people from asking difficult questions about the failures of the mainstream mentality?

As I've said many times, bahai culture exploits people that form a bond with the community because of their need for "belonging" and/or need for "spiritual practice". Such a psychosocial dynamic is incredibly dysfunctional and destructive of the humanity and decency of the people involved. Of course gays and other nonconformists, or dissidents/critics, take the worst of the brunt. Very sad. some of the very people that are in the best position to improve things are thrown out, made unwelcome, and attacked if they persist in asking for some basic decency (that isn't superficial/meaningless).

What would happen if some marginalized bahais/ex-bahais organized an "independent" conference on community building, structural problems, mysticism, and other hot topics of interest?

P,

Thanks for the very interesting catholic church anecdote.

I understand that you see this as progress (which it is in a limited way), but it is actually kinda depressing from my perspective:

The pro-gay priest is EXCLUDING "concerned" traditional people from the church in order to create a "inclusive" atmosphere.

Is there more to the story? Was any attempt made to do anything more than "feel good" inclusive stuff (that excluded traditionalists)? Did the priest do anything to address the concerns of traditionalists other than telling them to "get lost"? If not, so you see any problem with excluding people that do not agree with a form of "inclusion" that excludes "certain people"?

TIA!

Today I had a wonderful conversation with a catholic friend of mine. He shared with me a website that he had created for an LGBT support group WITHIN his parish. It has the full support of the local bishop. I asked him how that is possible when the Vatican is so anti-gay. He said because we are all Catholics, but we don't have to agree 100%. He actually told me that a one member of the church complained to the priest that such a group existed in their church, the priest told the individual that their church welcomes all, and if he had a problem then maybe this was not the church for him. Wow! And do I need to mention again that this is a normal Catholic congregation? I would be happy with that. Let the UHJ continue whatever stance they have against homosexuality, but just to know that there is a Bahai community that would allow ALL people to participate- gay or straight, liberal or conservative, Ruhi lovers or not. A safe place with no pressures where everyone feels at home. Hmmm, one day....

[quote comment="60646"]I look at the stats regarding the 41 conferences called by the UHJ that are now happening around the world.[/quote]

The 41 conferences seem to be a cross between a WOMAD festival
Video sample of the 41 conferences

...and a free-weekend-holiday time-share promotion.

In other words, relentlessly up-beat, with lots of world music and "inspiring" talk about victories won. ...And then pressure at the end to make pledges in support the Five Year Plan.

Dear ep,

You have asked about my experience with the whole Ruhi Process. In brief, first let me say that I just jumped into the Core Activities because I was so happy to be back in the community I would have done anything that was required. I found the sequence of Ruhi books to be tedious and many times boring. I felt that the believers, especially the seasoned ones were going through the motions because participating in the Ruhi program was mandated by the UHJ. I found that each session was WAY TOO LONG, too many hours and that the Baha'is would waste so much time "pontificating" their own interpretations of what we as a group had just read. I also felt that the whole process had the strange feel of a cult-like quality. Many times I felt as though I was at a Kingdom Hall and was studying the "Watch Tower" with a group of Jehovah's Witnesses. I could go on, but you get the picture. Now, that being said, I feel that the idea isn't a bad one. Also, it seems to have reactivated the world wide Baha'i community. The whole process needs some serious revision. I think the toughest thing about the process is the huge amount of time that is expected from the believers to not only go through the whole sequence, but then all the follow-up in the non-Baha'i communities. It puts a huge burden of guilt on many believers. They have to work their everyday jobs, raise their families, serve on LSA's, various committees, and attend hours and hours of Ruhi classes, go out into the community knocking on doors, inviting people to embrace the Faith, start up children and youth classes in their local neighborhoods for the non-Baha'i children living there, on and on. I fell that at first most of the Baha'is are excited about all this and then they just simply get burnt out. Then, as what always seems to happen, the bulk of the work lands on the shoulders of a few, leading to bitterness and frustration. This comes I believe from the continual concept of trying to run a world-wide movement with all volunteers. Somewhere along the line this will have to change.

I look at the stats regarding the 41 conferences called by the UHJ that are now happening around the world. I think it's great that so many Baha'is are getting a chance to meet with other believers. I love Baha'i conferences, just for the mere fact that you get to see so many Baha'is in one room. But, the numbers showing up at the conferences aren't impressive to me. There are supposedly some 6 million Baha'is across the globe. So far about 40,000 have showed up around the world. I think the largest so far was in Los Angeles with some 5700 Baha'is in attendance. In most locations around the world where the conferences are being held the average attendence is 1500 to 2500. OK, great, but where are the 6 million? What this says to me is that the Ruhi Process may not be as attractive to the main community as we are lead to believe.

In Peace,
Bill

Sincere question: how is this possible? bahai culture is "adminocentric" and disincentivizes innovation, there is a strong persian homophobic/authoritarian/fundie influence, the organizational culture is highly dysfunctional and resistant to self-improvement, the "supreme institution" is frozen in time on most controversial issues. in such conditions, rampant nepotism, vaforitism and corruption isn't unusual.

In my experience, any "real" community building process that does not "serve" the existing adminocentric/fundie paradigm will be undermined, if not attacked, and be seen as a threat to the status quo. Anyone that persists in attempts at alternatives/reforms will be targeted as "CB-lite".

A letter writer for the UHJ told bahai scholars years ago to work on "integrative paradigms" instead of fighting about "liberal vs conservative" stuff. but, little or nothing has moved forward.

Is posting to blogs and social iNetworking the leading edge of bahai protest/dissent/reform? if so, what are the implications for real change within bahai culture?

D. Orey said:
"... get the Baha'i community (and its institutions) to be non-judgmental, inclusive, to actually reach out and minster to those who really need this message in a truly loving way that doesn't treat ANY seeker or member of the Faith in a second-class or condescending manner."

That is correct, but is demonizing conservatives an excuse for progressives to fail to engage in self-examination and self-correction?

[quote comment="60608"]Lumbuagh/fox/repubs and their cristinaista minions are carrying their own fair share of the gridlock burden...[/quote]

Bill G: "...I came back into 'activity', jumping in with both feet. Getting heavily involved with the Ruhi Process and the Core activities."

Bill, thanks for the interesting observations. I'm curious - how could you tolerate 3 years of Ruhi stuff? could you speak to the good and bad aspects of it, based on your experience?

TIA!

Steve,

Thanks for the excellent reference.

One of the things I learned from non-bahai Iranians I know over the last 10 years is that Iranians are big drunks. Apparently subversion of strict muslim "morality" isn't unusual in Iran.

[quote comment="60629"]Hi Bill,

"Cohen's day job is at the State Department, working with Condoleezza Rice on issues in the Middle East. Before landing at the State Department, the Oxford Rhodes Scholar decided to write a book, Children of Jihad, about Muslim youth in the Middle East. He found they weren't so different from American youth. In a world where Internet cafes are like daytime discos—and underground party scenes thrive—Cohen explores the various ways these "children of jihad" manage to subvert the often strict rules of their various cultures. Recently, Cohen sat down with Radar to discuss America's pop culture influences on the Middle East, the ins and outs of creating nightlife in teetotaling regimes, and the role of technology in shaping the social lives of young Muslims."

Arabian Nights - Jared Cohen, author of Children of Jihad, on Muslim youth culture. By Susan Campos.[/quote]

Dear Bill and P: Thank you both so very much for your heartfelt shares here. Bill, I am amazed that our stories are so similar -- except for working in Iran. And you answered for me the question of what might happen if I plunged back into the local community, even without my administrative rights? It is clear from how they responded to you, it would probably be no different in the Chicago Baha'i Community. I don't need to contemplate that anymore. Thank everyone here on this site for helping the light of truth to shine more clearly. Blessings and happiness in 2009!
Hugs,
Dan

Dear P,

Thank you for your imput. I agree that there is hope that the Faith will change with the times and with the advancements and break throughs that science is now making and will continue to make in the near future. Like I said earlier, I can't for the life of me believe that Shoghi Effendi would want the Faith to be "stuck" for the next thousand years with a few "letters by a secretary" regarding homosexuality. Yes, the present UHJ feels that it cannot revise anything the Guardian said or supposedly said, but I think that with time comes "distance" and the further away history pulls from the "person" of the Guardian, the clearer the perspective that the future members of the UHJ will have.

In Peace,
Bill Garbett

Wow great story Bill. How many times did I fall down with tears in my eyes begging Bahaullah to change me- even on pilgrimage in the Shrine of the Bab where I truly felt the spirit of God. But guess what? God didn't change me on that day. He didn't change me went I went pioneering. Nothing changed me. All I remember as a gay youth in the Bahai community was the self-loating, the daily crying myself to sleep, praying that either I wake up without these feelings that were an aberration to God, or not wake up at all. I got to the brink of actually just giving up on God all together. THAT was the day I realized how messed up the Bahai Faith had made me. I wasn't willing to give up on God, not for any religion. So for years I just focused my anger on the Bahai Faith. I really hated everything about it, until I started digging deeper and I realized it wasn't Bahaullah at all. I thought for the longest time it was Shoghi Effendi, but thanks to people like Sonja, I'm now realizing it wasn't even him. It is a bunch of letters written by secretaries to individuals that for whatever reason those 9 elected men believe is the Word of God and can not be changed. I now have faith that the future will change. I may see it or I may not. But it doesn't matter. I won't give up speaking my mind. Because I don't want any more Bahai youth to go through the hell that I went through. And it's just not me. I'll leave you with something that a friend of mine (a beautiful lesbian girl whose service the Bahai community has lost because of its stance) said:
"I don't want young Baha'is who are questioning their sexuality to repress themselves in the name of maintaining their religious identity. This is harmful to the soul. It hurt me, and I want it to stop hurting others."
In a nutshell, THAT says it all. Allah'u'abha!

Dear Farhan,

I thought I would share with you something that might give you more food for thought. Like so many other well meaning Baha'is, I think that you may feel that homosexuality can be overcome with the right amount of focus, prayer, dedication, and reliance on Baha'u'llah. I don't know about other gay Baha'is for all our stories are unique, but here is the short version of my journey to full self-acceptance, pride, and happiness about my being gay.

I have been gay all my life. I would honestly have to say I knew since I was about 5 or 6 years old. My whole life, growing up in the 1950's and 1960's was one of hiding my true identity. You see in those days there was no such thing as Gay Pride Events all over the world being shown via CNN to every television on the planet. Today, the young gay and lesbian folk have a much easier time, though their problems are far from over. Once I got into college I met my first gay friends, started becoming involved with the small gay group, went to my first gay bars, etc. I was so happy. Then one day one of my professors invited me to a Baha'i Fireside, this was in 1971. I immediately fell in love with Baha'u'llah and the Faith. I joined 3 months later. Well, I was happily going along being active in the faith and also being an active homosexual. Then I came across in the writings what the official stand regarding homosexuality is in the Faith. Oh, No...Talk about being tramatized. Well, if the Faith said I should get married to a woman and learn to get over being gay, that's what I would do. I married a wonderful Baha'i girl and we set off to start our life together. I eventually told her I was gay and she felt that with enough love and reliance on Baha'u'llah we would get through it. Several years past and 2 beautiful children came along, but I was still stuggling to "get over" being gay. Before the children were born, my wife and I went and worked in Iran. While there I had the amazing bounty of visiting the House of the Bab 2 times. What an experience! The first visit we spent about 2 hours in the House. My wife and I then had the unexpected bounty of being invited the next day to spend as long as we liked, by ourselves, no other pilgrims around. I spent many hours prostrate on the floor of the "upper Chamber" in that blessed room where it all began. I prayed and cried and begged that the Bab would remove this burden of homosexuality from me. In Teheran, in the very room that Baha'u'llah was born, I prayed and cried, and begged that He remove this burden of homosexuality from me...No change.

My wife and I went on Pilgrimage to the Holy Land a few years later. In the Shrine of the Bab I beseeched the same request from Him...In the Shrine of Abdu'l-Baha I did the same...In the Most Holy Tomb I spent many hours with pilgrims and then when I was all alone in the tomb begging Baha'u'llah to help me...No change. I threw myself into the teaching work, committee work, LSA work and anything else I could do so that this "defect" could be held at bay.

Finally, after 16 years of struggle, my wife and I divorced. The pain that this caused both of us is beyond words. Anyway, I finally accepted my true self, learned by reading many books and attending many seminars, that homosexuality isn't a defect in any way and that homosexuality is a part of Nature and the world we live in. That homosexuality isn't a deviation, but simply a variation of human life. I've been with my partner/husband for the past 16 years. We have a very happy, loving home. My children, now adults, love him and accept him unconditionally as my partner and their "other" Dad. My son is 30 years old and is also Gay. He "came out" when he was 17 years old. Genetic? So, there you have it...I hope this will humanize this situation a little more for you.

In Peace,
Bill Garbett

Dear Steve,

Thank you for the kind "Hello". I see your responses on this and other sites and always love what you have to say. I was on Talisman with you and the rest of the gang. I enjoyed it but then couldn't take the sometimes heavy attacking of each other that goes on. I don't know if you remember, but I said on Talisman that I was going back to the Baha'i community. I had written to the NSA and asked to be reinstated. (I had "sent in my Baha'i card" years before in protest regarding the Faith's stand on homosexuality.) The NSA was very kind and lovingly reinstated me into the community with full administrative rights, though I had never had my voting rights removed as was wrongly assumed by many of the Baha'is in the community. It was assumed of course because of the amazing amount of "backbitting" that goes on among Baha'is. Anyway, I came back into "activity", jumping in with both feet. Getting heavily involved with the Ruhi Process and the Core activities. I thought at the time that I would "rise above" the small mindedness of the community and keep focused on Baha'u'llah. Unfortunately, after about 3 years and the constant coldness from the Baha'is, especially the Persian men, I realized that no matter how much I love the Faith and Baha'u'llah, it just isn't a loving, healing, safe place for me to be. So, I became completely inactive again.

I find it interesting that here I am and here you are still on some level keeping the Faith in our lives. With what you have gone through, what GLBT Baha'is go through, and what so many others have been put through, simply because we want the Faith to be progressive and truly live up to it's foundation of unity and oneness and freedom from prejudice and harmony of science and religion, you'd think we would just walk away once and for all and be done with it. I've tried, believe me I have, but my heart always longs for some warmth and light from the Blessed Beauty...

In Peace,
Bill Garbett

Hi Bill,

Lovely to hear from you again.

[quote comment="60627"]When I was in Iran I met some gay Iranian men in Teheran who told me about a vast "gay underground" in the city. ... Now this of course was a few years before the revolution so I don't know what's happening there now.[/quote]

It sounds like a vast underground exists, across the Theocratic Muslim Middle East for gays, straights and anyone who can't stand the system:

"Cohen's day job is at the State Department, working with Condoleezza Rice on issues in the Middle East. Before landing at the State Department, the Oxford Rhodes Scholar decided to write a book, Children of Jihad, about Muslim youth in the Middle East. He found they weren't so different from American youth. In a world where Internet cafes are like daytime discos—and underground party scenes thrive—Cohen explores the various ways these "children of jihad" manage to subvert the often strict rules of their various cultures. Recently, Cohen sat down with Radar to discuss America's pop culture influences on the Middle East, the ins and outs of creating nightlife in teetotaling regimes, and the role of technology in shaping the social lives of young Muslims."

Arabian Nights - Jared Cohen, author of Children of Jihad, on Muslim youth culture. By Susan Campos.

Dear P,

You are so right. I didn't mean to generalize "ALL" Persian men, I should have said, most of the straight Persian men I know. Thank God for Persian men like you!

When I was in Iran I met some gay Iranian men in Teheran who told me about a vast "gay underground" in the city. Unfortunately, I was leaving the very next week after being in Iran for a year, so I didn't have the opportunity of finding out more. The reason I say "vast" is because the few gay men I met and talked to told me that the underground gay community in Iran was huge. Now this of course was a few years before the revolution so I don't know what's happening there now.

In Peace,
Bill

Dear Farhan,

I forgot to add something to my last post. I watched a facinating documentary last week on the Discovery station about "Identical Twins". The hour long program showed that science has now developed to the point where it can go into the womb and watch the development of the fetus from the moment of conception to delivery. What this program said was that the most advanced science today is discovering that many of our behaviors are not "Nurture" but "Nature" and that sexuality is proving to be "inborn" at the DNA level. The program showed that with fraternal twins, if one grew up gay than 25% of the time the other twin was gay. In identical twins if one was gay than 60% of the time the other one was gay! Now, here's the really amazing part. They studied many identical twins who were seperated at birth, raised by completely different families, and had NO contact with each other until they were adults. What they found was that although the identical twins had lived apart through the whole developmental years of their lives,they had the same likes in music, art, sports, clothing, fell in love with the same types of women, and if one was gay most of the time the other one was too. Sounds genetic to me my friend.

In Peace,
Bill Garbett

but all Persian men ....., find that when a man is happy, proud,out, and living with a male lover, it’s something they just can’t wrap their minds around
----------------
Well not all Bill. Some of us embrace it wholeheartedly, defend it and hope one day to live it! :o)

Dear Farhan,

I would first like to say thank-you for trying to understand what we gay and lesbian Baha'is go through. I don't agree with many of your thoughts, but I defend your right to have them. I just feel that you are coming from a mindset that is typical heterosexual/Persian/Male thinking and I truly understand. I've been around the Persian/Baha'i community both here and in Iran for over 30 years. Once I came out to my hometown Baha'i community, the Persian men who I had very close Baha'i relationships with for years virtually turned their backs on me. When I would show up at Feast they would treat me like a freak. Again, I understand their confusion,fear, and shock. Homosexuality is very common place in Islamic cultures,though very secret. When I was in Iran in the mid-1970's I found the very atmosphere to be intensly homoerotic. As you know in most Islamic countries the men are very affectionate toward each other, to the point of acting like "lovers", although most are not. When walking down the streets of Teheran, Persian men would walk arm and arm holding hands and greeting each other by kissing. This I know is not viewed by the Islamic society as in anyway suggestive of homosexuality. As a gay man from the West though, for me you can bet it had a strong homoerotic feel. I also know by talking with many Iranian men that when they are growing up and developing their sexual desires, they many times have lovers who are male. They later marry women and raise families as is expected from their society, but many times they never forget their "first lovers" and some even keep a relationship with their male lovers for life. Now, that being said, even for those Persian men who maintain a secret gay lifestyle throughout their lives the idea of publically coming out to their society is unacceptable to them. They view their gay life as something that must always be hidden away. I'm not saying that any of the Persian Baha'i men that turned away from me once they knew I was gay were of the "hidden" gay types, but all Persian men and I think most straight men in any culture, find that when a man is happy, proud,out, and living with a male lover, it's something they just can't wrap their minds around and because they don't know how to respond they close off to that person. Again, the fact that you are here and continue to have this dialogue is to me very promising. Education is the key, as Baha'u'llah has said. That's why Farhan, the GLBT community around the world is coming out at an almost supersonic rate. By doing this is forces a discussion and educates the general society about a subject that has been hidden for thousands of years

In Peace,
Bill

You can relax Dear Farhan.

I am happy being gay, with having a good supportive husband and son and work environment. I am grateful for the test life has given me.

There is nothing to solve... well, other than most of our dear Baha'i colleagues are homophobic and somewhat behind the times...

Its truly amazing that the treatment that I and others receive / have received by the Baha'i "community" is flagrantly illegal if it were to occur in my work environment. If some of things that Baha'is (both individuals and administrative) have done to me/us had occurred at work, I'd be a very rich man... but alas, such is my karma.

So, if there is something you want to help us with, it is that... do your best to get the Baha'i community (and its institutions) to be non-judgmental, inclusive, to actually reach out and minster to those who really need this message in a truly loving way that doesn't treat ANY seeker or member of the Faith in a second-class or condescending manner.

I appreciate your willingness to work this through here with us... if we are harsh, it is because we have been hurt, lied to, and made to feel inferior, we are tough on you, because we love you, and we love Baha'u'llah.

All my very best.

Well what's good for the goose is...
My only problem Farhan is religious based discrimination which also exists in the Bahai community. Letting the world know about it through forums like these helps me get the word out. That the Bahai community is far from being a all-encompassing welcoming fold. That is does try to brainwash its gay youth into believing that they can change their sexuality- draining them of their spiritual vigor to follow a false promise of change. That's why I"m here Farhan. Happy New Year to you too (gay clubs tend to be a lot fun at New Years Farhan, if you still want to educate yourself about how to change sexuality). :o)

P wrote:
Yeah Farhan. I would suggest that you go hang out at some gay bars and maybe kiss some men. NOthing too major so you don't get your voting rights removed. I'd just like you to report back and tell me if the environment helped you overcome your heterosexuality. Great idea Steve!

P, you are suggesting that I should scratch myself where you have an itch.

You might be surprise to hear that unlike some others, I am not participating in this exchange to solve my own problems, but to understand how I could help others solve their problems.

I see that there is a great deal of suffering involved in living in present day societies with a minority group sexual life, and this gives rise to rancour and agressivity, and I am trying to see how this can be helped.

I wish you all a Happy New Year

Lumbuagh/fox/repubs and their cristinaista minions are carrying their own fair share of the gridlock burden...

Daniel,

actually most of the article, and many of the comments (by pro-gay campaign volunteers) state that conformism to a top-down hierarchy, which was premised on keeping "secrets", and other dysfunctional organizational problems, was a big problem.

in other words, this is one small guy, who after-the-fact, is saying that something was wrong with the leadership of the pro-gay movement, as it organized itself to fight Prop8.

the article provides no evidence of widespread soul-searching, on the contrary.

the author refuses to participate in another pro-gay campaign if it is run the same way that the last two were run. his refusal is a protest against the progressive establishment, which apparently is resistant to "grass roots" criticism. sound familiar?

you may take some comfort in that the author does say that old/failed progressive/left tactics, as bad as they are, will eventually work - not because they are good, but simply because the demogrpahic shift towards "pro-gay" cultural values makes "winning" inevitable. he estimates 20 years maximum - worst case scenario.

while I don't personally mind gay marriage, and would be more than happy to support full legal rights for gay relationships if doing so wasn't "designed" to offend religious traditionalists, I find one tangential aspects of this worrisome - the result will be that dysfunctional leadership vibes ("the winners write history") will remain inside the increasingly dominant progressive political culture of the state for a long time.

(which means more political gridlock and polarization, less "real world" solutions.)

adios muchacho

Thanks Ep, but I still don't see much of an alternative... at least the left is willing to critique itself openly...

fwiw ~ analysis of why the (pro-gay-marriage) NoOnProp8 campaign failed:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/12/28/122245/48

| Proposition 8 postmortem - from a senior volunteer
| by hahne
| Sun Dec 28, 2008 at 09:22:45 AM PST
| A Postmortem Analysis of the California No-on-8 Campaign
| With suggestions for better campaigns in the future


The predictable conclusion: liberal/leftist/progressive ineptitude played a significant role in the failure of the pro-gay-marriage campaign.

One anti-dote: read George Lakoff carefully. (on cognitive framing)

Additional background:

http://bendingleft.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-rig...


Comment: this all confirms the dysfuctional tendencies commonly found on the pc/left I've been observing for decades. they simply do not have the capabilities, skills, vision or drive to beat conservatives.

And then they wonder why people don't like them, don't want to support their losing strategies, etc.

(If you look at the comments, you will see the predictable Obama-bashing.)

Steve wrote:
Does that mean you’re going to undertake therapy to change your sexual orientation — proving to us that it can be done, and done successfully? If not, what do you mean?

No, it means that we reap what we sow and the fruit of our lives is the result of our efforts, and of our own volition and free choice.

Farhan clarifies:

[quote comment=""]I am referring to homosexual acts that can take place in situations of isolation[/quote]

Oh, of course! I'm glad you cleared that up. I would definitely expect to engage in homosexual activity if imprisoned. I doubt that I would do it voluntarily and I doubt that I would find it enjoyable, but absolutely! I would expect to experience it.

I doubt that there is any shortage of homosexuals, bisexuals, and plain old perverts, sadists, and rapists in prison. Plenty of opportunities for experience there. (no offense intended to the GLBTs here or elsewhere; just speaking plainly)

Steve wrote:
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I personally would not expect to grow physically attracted to men if I were locked up with them.

I am referring to homosexual acts that can take place in situations of isolation, but of course you are referring to your own experience and not to that reported in medical books.

Steve wrote: [quote comment=""]Does that mean you’re going to undertake therapy to change your sexual orientation — proving to us that it can be done, and done successfully? If not, what do you mean?[/quote]

Steve, I think we often judge these issues based upon our own personal inclinations. Farhan appears to consider it likely that a heterosexual man would be changed into a bisexual if locked up with other men. I've lived with men and been alone with men out in the middle of nowhere (not sheep tho). Perhaps I am mistaken, but I personally would not expect to grow physically attracted to men if I were locked up with them. Perhaps Farhan feels differently. I imagine confined quarters may have a way of bringing some folks out of the proverbial closet.

Yeah Farhan. I would suggest that you go hang out at some gay bars and maybe kiss some men. NOthing too major so you don't get your voting rights removed. I'd just like you to report back and tell me if the environment helped you overcome your heterosexuality. Great idea Steve!

[quote comment="60574"]Steve, [the Baha'is in Iran] are doing whatever their conscious is prompting them to do, they are standing up to their ideas just as people here are doing, I am discussing with GLTB, without persecuting them, which is very different from what Baha'is in Iran are undergoing.[/quote]

This isn't about what you are doing, just as it isn't about what ordinary Iranians are doing to the Baha'is there. After all, many ordinary Iranians oppose their theocratic government's discriminatory policies.

Were talking about what the Baha'i administration does. Please don't muddy the waters.

[quote comment="60574"]The proof of the pudding is in the eating; each of us cooks his own.[/quote]

Does that mean you're going to undertake therapy to change your sexual orientation -- proving to us that it can be done, and done successfully? If not, what do you mean?

ka kite
Steve

P wrote:
Do you really believe Farhan that the community would be open to someone like Dan and his partner to come back and participate every other way in the community?

The situation of Baha'is deprived of their voting rights is clearly explained in Baha'i administration, but I agree that some Baha'is might not fully understand them. I feel that it would be up to the NSA to assure that the way is open for all activities open to Dan and his companion.

Also I agree that a sanction is a kind of punishment, although we believe that God's tests are for our progress. I am not trying to minimise the trails but pointing out that if the bottle is half empty, it is also half full.

Dan writes:
So Farhan, you would “scientifically” encourage Baha’is to experiment with different community structures?

Farhan: No, I would encourage Baha’is to experiment activities that interest them, which are not necessarily mine.
Dan: Bisexuality only demonstrates that some people are not born with an exclusive sexual orientation.

Farhan: thanks for sharing your opinion; I would rather believe that most people given the opportunity (imprisonment, submarine, isolation…), can become bisexual and that education is an important part of sexual orientation, although genetic and biological factors also play.

I also believe that a bisexual is not compelled to diversify experiences, any more than a heterosexual would yield to his or her urge to change partners.

Sorry Farhan, I won't agree to disagree with you. Why? Because the Bahais in Iran are not asking to be part of the Shiite fold. What they are asking for is to be granted equality as Iranian citizens. That is the society I"m speaking about- Iran. I'm comparing that with the other society the Bahai community. In both socieities, a minority is being asked to give up their way of life and be fully accepted. If they don't, both societies punish their minorities. Where do you get the idea that taking voting rights is NOT punishment? The House says "If the individual fails to rectify his conduct in spite of repeated warnings, sanctions should be imposed".. A sanction is a penalty imposed for breaking a law. Also in the Aqdas Bahaullah leaves the "punishment" for sodomy up to the House. So don't play with words. Removing votings rights is a punishment that is imposed by the Bahai authorities and the Iranian authorities on their minority members. The only choice is to leave the society or conform to what the society asks. No difference except for the harshness meeted out. And in that, of course the Iranian gov. is 1,000 worse than what any LSA can do. I already stated that. But the injustice is exactly the same.
And again, I just can't see how a gay couple would be treated with full equality in all aspects exccept voting rights being removed. Let's say that voting rights is no big deal. Do you really believe Farhan that the community would be open to someone like Dan and his partner to come back and participate every other way in the community? I don't. If a community is willing to strip someone of their voting rights, then they will most likely treat that couple as second class citizens. Only when we have more Bahais like Sonja will we have communities that embrace gay families and let us live in peace. Otherwise it's the same old same old.

Farhan writes: [quote comment=""]scientifically speaking, I wish people would experiment different community structures so that we can then compare.[/quote]

So Farhan, you would "scientifically" encourage Baha'is to experiment with different community structures?

[quote comment=""]Bisexuality is one case in GLTB that defeats the idea that sexual orientation, like skin colour, is not a choice.[/quote]

Bisexuality only demonstrates that some people are not born with an exclusive sexual orientation. It says nothing about those who are not bisexual. As a heterosexual, I am quite sure that bisexuality does not establish that I can choose my orientation.

Dan wrote:
Perhaps the problem is not the mutual vows--or affections--of these two women, but rather the fact that there's not a penis between them?

No, Dan it is got nothing to do with a phalus; A vow is a vow, but a Baha'i marriage vow is a Baha'i marriage vow. A car is a car, a Jeep, a Lexus or a Chevrolet is a Jeep, a Lexus or a Chevrolet. You cannot say you are having a Baha'i marriage and living in conformity with Baha'i laws, if you are having another type of marriage and living with other community laws.

Spiritually speaking i wish people would adopt Baha'i laws, but scientifically speaking, I wish people would experiment different community structures so that we can then compare.

I have a great admiration for Quaker and Amish communities, but I would not wish to join them because I could not live like them, nor do I feel superior, inferior or rejected by them.

P wrote:
Environment doesn't change anything. If environment changed anything the majority of gay men would become straight.

P, my point was not this but that we cannot say that a bisexual who changes from a male to female partner as the environment provides, is lacking choice, but I consider this person as having more choice than another.

This person chooses to change partners at wish, but is not obliged through an inborn and insurmountable urge to do so.

Bisexuality is one case in GLTB that defeats the idea that sexual orientation, like skin colour, is not a choice.

Also, bestiality seems much more common than thought. Kinsley estimated that some 40 to 60% of youth in rural areas practiced it. It is not legally condemned in many countries, as there is no proof that it is a form of abuse or cruelty to animals, although I would imagine it to be condemned on spiritual basis.

Steve wrote:
Again, how would you feel if we said the same about the Bahais in Iran. All they need to do is stop (or say they are no longer) being Bahais and the government will leave them alone.

Steve and P, I have no authority to give a Baha'i view on this subject, but only my present understanding.

As you say, Baha'is ask to be left alone and not singled out and harrassed, granted the same civil rights (life, marriage, work, food, property, education,...) as other citizens, right? They are not saying they disagree with Shiite laws and principles that they reject as outdated, conservative, fundamentalist, contrary to science, and at the same time wish to be granted a function within the Shiite fold that they say they will reform from the inside.

You are asking that gays who are not being harassed or persecuted by Baha'is (except by some very faulty ones who need their ears pulled), should be granted a position within the community, and that this community should change it's policy to suit them, irrespective whether the majority of the members of the Baha'i community are ready to accept a total change in the family structure of their community, something that few religious communities have done so far.

If this reply does not suit you, we can cordially agree to disagree on this point.

Also I agree with you, I did overlook the fact that a non gay (I dislike the word "straight" that implies that gays are crooked) can get married and recover voting rights, something that is difficult for a gay to do.

Dan wrote:
You are merely advocating attempts to reprogram GLBT Baha'i youth whose only offense is to be raised in a religious community that regards their natural sexual orientation as a spiritual disease.

I have seen nothing in the Baha'i writings saying that GLTB is a spiritual disease.

Farhan Wrote: I am not considering the fact that someone does not meet the required standard of participation in part of Baha’i activities as a punishment, but as the inability to take part in some of the activities.

Dan W: Take it from one who knows . . . I have been punished.

What I meant to say above is that teh straisght couple after some time, can have their voting rights replaced as long as they are married. They also have the option of marrying someone else. Gays have NO options except being alone. Which somehow is equated with spiritual growth. How, I'll never understand.

Farhan: It is the exactly the same situation for a practicing couple marrying without the consent of parents and raising beautiful children, and this case is far more frequent for removal of voting rights than for a homosexuals way of life.
-------------------------
Well with one exception that you sidestep- the straight couple has an option to live together in marriage with full rights. No such option exists for gays. And even though you try to paint a rosy picture of discrimination, it is still discrimination. I seriously doubt a happy gay couple with children could function in the Bahai community in ANY way as you keep offering. How Farhan could they function if they are being told that their lives are wrong, that children should be raised by a mom and dad and that if they tried hard enough they could change? The discrimination against gays in the Bahai community goes beyond merely the sanction of voting rights- that's just the most blatant. It's the pyschological damage (and yes spiritual damage) done on gay Bahais especially youth. You don't seem to address that in your rosy picture of the Bahai community. Sure the Bahais aren't giong after gays in their community with sticks and stones, but telling a scared 14 year old that he has a spiritual disorder that needs treatment is incredibly abusive. Yet you seem to think that is not such a big deal. Did you even read Daniel's posting of that article regarding gay youth and suicide?

Farhan writes: [quote comment=""]I am discussing with GLTB, without persecuting them[/quote]

Admitted. You are merely advocating attempts to reprogram GLBT Baha'i youth whose only offense is to be raised in a religious community that regards their natural sexual orientation as a spiritual disease.

Farhan writes: [quote comment=""]We know of some genetic predispositions to crime; or predispositions to diabetes, and breast cancer. What is rejected is not the predisposition, but when this latent predisposition becomes patent in actual reality.[/quote]

I see. We are not deferring to nature to establish the moral primacy of heterosexuality; we are deferring to scripture. Rules is rules.

So ... it would be immoral ("rejected") for a woman to lovingly dedicate her life to another woman, and say, adopt an orphan or two, if such was her genetic predisposition?

Perhaps the problem is not the mutual vows--or affections--of these two women, but rather the fact that there's not a penis between them?

Steve wrote:
Again, how would you feel if we said the same about the Bahais in Iran. All they need to do is stop (or say they are no longer) being Bahais and the government will leave them alone. Understand?

Steve, they are doing whatever their conscious is prompting them to do, they are standing up to their ideas just as people here are doing, I am discussing with GLTB, without persecuting them, which is very different from what Baha'is in Iran are undergoing.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating; each of us cooks his own.

P wrote:
Nice way of sidestepping the issue.

Farhan: I am not side-stepping, I am just pointing out that being unable to meet the required the conditions of service, which is the mere outer physical part of worship, is not comparable to what the Baha’is in Iran are suffering and comparing the two is being cynical.

P: You are looking at the degree of punishment and NOT wether or not the punishment is deserved and if it is justice.

I am not considering the fact that someone does not meet the required standard of participation in part of Baha’i activities as a punishment, but as the inability to take part in some of the activities. It does not or at least should not impair activities within the sphere of the “community of interest” of the community, as opposed to the enrolled workers who in fact have a function that was historically given to priests:

We have no priests, therefore the service once rendered by priests to their religions is the service every single Baha'i is expected to render individually to his religion. He must be the one who enlightens new souls, confirms them, heals the wounded and the weary upon the road of life, and gives them to quaff from the chalice of everlasting life - the knowledge of the Manifestation of God in His Day.
(From a letter dated 5 July 1957 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the
Bahá'ís of the Benelux countries)

P : Now, the Bahai community feels that a "practicing" homosexual (which means more than just what goes on in our underpants, but also means raising a beautiful family) warrants removal of voting rights and inability to serve the community.

Farhan: It is the exactly the same situation for a practicing couple marrying without the consent of parents and raising beautiful children, and this case is far more frequent for removal of voting rights than for a homosexuals way of life.

P: I also feel a lot of disgust when you keep mentioning the hunger, poverty, etc etc in the world to make the plight of the LGBT community seem unimportant.

Farhan: Sorry for your disgust, but I am not saying that the conditions of the gLBT community is unimportant, but that that the plight of the GLBT community is not as severe as that of those experiencing hunger, poverty, etc, etc.

P: Again, how would you feel if we said the same about the Bahais in Iran.

Farhan: Sorry, P, I have to be sincere, even though I might be mistaken, I can’t compare the plight of Baha’is in Iran with that of GLTB in the US or Europe just because they are deprived of some aspects of service, although I am deeply appreciative of your eagerness at serving the Faith within the Baha’i administration, which some people on this blog do not share with us.

Much love

Farhan

Farhan writes:

[quote comment=""]Those who disagree with these rules can either adapt their behaviour or find a society in which they are more at ease.[/quote]

Why don't you tell that to the Baha'is in Iran, Farhan?

I wish I had a reply to my question as to whether people become bisexuals by lack of choice at birth, or by an excess of choice in their social environment.

---------------------
Here is your answer Farhan. For a very small percentage of people it is genetic- they are wired to like both, as I am wired to like men. Those who choose to experiment due to their environment allowing them to do so, are not truly bisexual. I go back to my Danish friend who was taught in her society that it was ok to experiment to find out what it is they wanted. She did, and now she is 100% straight. I don't remember her ever mentioning any girlfriends. Environment doesn't change anything. If environment changed anything the majority of gay men would become straight. God knows religion/society have tried to gear me to be straight since childhood.
So have I answered your question Farhan? Will you be so kind to answer mine? Thanks!

[quote comment="60569"]Again, how would you feel if we said the same about the Bahais in Iran. All they need to do is stop (or say they are no longer) being Bahais and the government will leave them alone. Understand?[/quote]

Yes Farhan, this is the issue that you keep failing to address. Please respond to it.

ka kite
Steve

Farhan: I feel that it is totally inappropriate and cynical to compare the lives....
--------------------
Of course you would Farhan. Nice way of sidestepping the issue. You are looking at the degree of punishment and NOT wether or not the punishment is deserved and if it is justice. Again, the Iranian government feels that being a 'practicising' Bahai which is a choice, a belief that you put into practice warrants removal of at least two rigths- voting and serving in goverment. Are you with me Farhan? I'm not talking about all the other crap they do, so you can cool it with your indignation. Now, the Bahai community feels that a "practicing" homosexual (which means more than just what goes on in our underpants, but also means raising a beautiful family) warrants removal of voting rights and inability to serve the community. WHAT is the difference Farhan? I'll tell you, in these two aspects NOTHING. THe difference is absolutely nothing Farhan. Maybe your sense of justice will one day see that, maybe not.
I also feel a lot of disgust when you keep mentioning the hunger, poverty, etc etc in the world to make the plight of the LGBT community seem unimportant. It's a terrible tactic that won't work. What you think we live in a vaccuum where all we talk about is this topic? Again, how would you feel if we said the same about the Bahais in Iran. All they need to do is stop (or say they are no longer) being Bahais and the government will leave them alone. Understand?

Sonja wrote :

how about trying this with the European commission for example?

Farhan: how about trying the celibacy of priests with the EU? And homosexual priests losing their jobs?? And women not being allowed to say mass?? And Carmelite nuns not being allowed to speak?? And unbaptised kids not allowed marrying in church or having a Christian funeral??

Sonja: The U.H.J. has not ruled on anything b.t.w., what they do is refer to letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as their evidence for saying this a teaching of the Bahai Writings.

Farhan : Sonja, IMO, the UHJ rules by referring to writings : they elucidate but do not interpret, they provide the practical application, and as you know, even decide which laws in Aqdas are applicable at a given time.

Sonja : the U.H.J. which is the legistrator, has not legistrated (made a rule) on the issue of homosexuality.

Farhan : They have ruled that sexuality is to be practiced within a marriage and that a marriage is between a man and a woman. What goes on in people’s private life is a spiritual matter between them and God ;

Sonja : But the bigger issue is how homosexuals are treated by their local Bahai communities,

Farhan : there is definitely room for much more love and compassion towards all fellow believers, but I gather that things are stiffer in the US than in Europe.

Farhan responded to: [quote comment=""][...] "The Baha’is treat their homosexuals more humanely. The Baha’is treat their homosexuals as humanely, in fact, as the Iranians treat their Baha’is."[...][/quote]

with:
[quote comment=""][...]...this is a very unfair statement.
Perhaps you would want to take this to the human rights courts? It is about time the world discovered the reality of all this[...][/quote]

Farhan, how about trying this with the European commission for example? I think you'll be shocked to find that "equal" treatment means that, not just for some types of people. And one day it may happen, so that's why it is good to have these discussions now, so hopefully Bahais and Bahai communities can start thinking about these things before it becomes a newspaper headline in a country where GLBT individuals are not discriminated against.

That's the whole point of the comparision with Iran, to shock one into seeing the parallel. We don't live in Iran, but we can do something about reducing discrimination in our own communities.

The U.H.J. has not ruled on anything b.t.w., what they do is refer to letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as their evidence for saying this a teaching of the Bahai Writings. As long as it is not ruling from the UHJ themselves then Bahai communities are free to interprete for themselves. Of course Farhan, I realise you and other Bahais might think I'm suggesting disobedience to the U.H.J., let me state clearly before you start on this, I am not. I am saying look at the Bahai writings for yourselves, and decide how important the principle of equality is and then read on what "legistration" means and then you will see that the U.H.J. which is the legistrator, has not legistrated (made a rule) on the issue of homosexuality.

But the bigger issue is how homosexuals are treated by their local Bahai communities, that's where the Bahai Faith meets society, where it affects individual lives. Attitudes here are, I'd argue are where the spirit of the Faith really lives.

Dan wrote:
...pardon me if I have bigger fish to fry.

Dan, as my Iranien friends say with their sweet accent:
de bate is for catching de fish ;-)

Dan wrote :

But Farhan, Homosexuals are certainly not the only ones guilty of this heinous crime of disobedience.

Farhan: Dan, disobedience is not criminal nor heinous; this is an outdated vision of morality. Laws are for our own spiritual and material benefit and that of the society from which we draw sustenance. Each social group is entitled to drawing up its rules. Those who disagree with these rules can either adapt their behaviour or find a society in which they are more at ease. I have been adapting myself to different societies, cultures and languages all my life. I can also promulgate and teach my opinions, but at one point, if I insist on having others adopt my views, there can be a clash.

Dan wrote : Baha'is of all sexual orientations disobey the "rules" of their leaders on a daily basis, and yes, straight Baha'is even speak out in opposition to some such "rules", such as the backwardness being discussed, as well as the exclusion of women from the UHJ.

Sure, Dan, this is the independent search for truth. Some go in for politics, others marry without consent of their parents or reject the authority of the elected institutions; at one point they have to decide whether they wish to continue calling themselves Baha’is or not, whatever their skin colour, gender or sexual orientation.

Dan wrote: Don't try to pull a Prop 8.

Farhan: no idea what that is.

Dan wrote: Their sexual orientation itself is “spiritually condemned”

Farhan: To me this means condemned on a spiritual basis and not on a legal basis, just as neglecting prayer, lying, not fasting can be condemnable only spiritually.

Dan: This is the "spiritual condemnation" of a natural characteristic of human biology.

We know of some genetic predispositions to crime; or predispositions to diabetes, and breast cancer. What is rejected is not the predisposition, but when this latent predisposition becomes patent in actual reality.

I have a good colleague who argues that it is his genetic configuration as a male and hence his physiological “need” as a man to regularly change female partners as he became bored with them, other wise he feels depressed and unhappy; he does not believe that beyond the joy of sexuality, there is a responsibility of social contribution and would never want to be bothered with children; should he be left to his natural state, or should he be encouraged to change his ways?

I wish I had a reply to my question as to whether people become bisexuals by lack of choice at birth, or by an excess of choice in their social environment.

[quote comment=""]Perhaps you would want to take this to the human rights courts? It is about time the world discovered the reality of all this[/quote]

In a world where people are continually slaughtered, where women are generally treated as property, where children starve without any tears shed for them, as civilization proudly marches on toward its environmental demise, you want me to cry out to the world about the civil rights of Iranian Baha'is to an education, etc.? Well I have spoken out on their behalf, but pardon me if I have bigger fish to fry.

Farhan replies: [quote comment=""]

Dan wrote :
I can’t think of one “behavior” that is exclusive to homosexuals.

I can, Dan, the one that the UHJ considers as incompatible with being an active Baha’i within the community is openly defying and campaigning against the rule that considers marriage as a vow between a man and a woman, with consent of parents.
[/quote]

But Farhan, Homosexuals are certainly not the only ones guilty of this heinous crime of disobedience. Baha'is of all sexual orientations disobey the "rules" of their leaders on a daily basis, and yes, straight Baha'is even speak out in opposition to some such "rules", such as the backwardness being discussed, as well as the exclusion of women from the UHJ.

But you and I know there's more to this than definitions of marriage. Don't try to pull a Prop 8. We know what Shoghi Effendi's infallible secretary says about those homosexuals, don't we? They're sick and depraved, Farhan. Their sexual orientation itself is “spiritually condemned” and a “shameful aberration.” We also know that the UHJ has bought into this outmoded prejudice. This goes beyond definitions of marriage. This is the "spiritual condemnation" of a natural characteristic of human biology. It's not just "what they are", Farhan: it's who we are as humans. We too are "spiritually condemned" for our physical biology.

Dan wrote :
I can't think of one "behavior" that is exclusive to homosexuals.

I can, Dan, the one that the UHJ considers as incompatible with being an active Baha'i within the community is openly defying and campaigning against the rule that considers marriage as a vow between a man and a woman, with consent of parents.

Dan wrote:
The Baha'is treat their homosexuals more humanely. The Baha'is treat their homosexuals as humanely, in fact, as the Iranians treat their Baha'is.

Dan, this is a very unfair statement.
Perhaps you would want to take this to the human rights courts? It is about time the world discovered the reality of all this

P wrote :
No Farhan, you don't get off that easily. You are trying to tell the world that treatment of gays in the Bahai community is just because the House has said so.

Farhan: P, to begin with, I would like to thank those who are contributing to this exchange in a warm constructive manner; I have no intention of wasting our time in quibbling on who said what inappropriately: in Baquia’s garden I want to concentrate my time on the flowers and not on the manure.

I am trying to tell the world that to my understanding, any society needs some degree of conventions and rules. Any agme needs arbitration, a referee or an umpire. To me, the UHJ determines and arbitrates those of the Baha’i community. The rules at the moment are as you see them. I would bet that if the Baha’i world polled on those rules at this time, we would end up with what the UHJ has decided. We will let future generations cope with their specific problem at their times. As the Lords said (in French) “a chaque jour suffit sa peine”.

P wrote: Ok then, explain to me exactly how it is any different from Iranian law that excludes Bahais from serving or voting.

Farhan: I feel that it is totally inappropriate and cynical to compare the lives of Baha’is in Iran: getting a job, getting a marriage, holding their properties, educating children, burying the dead, not being tortured in prison or executed for their belief, with the lives of gays who not for belief, but for behavior and openly proclaiming that they do not adhere to some of the rules of this community, partly lose their rights to some religious activities in some countries.

If you go on to a football field holding a tennis racket and insisting that the rules of the game should be changed to suit your tastes, you will be politely invited to go play elsewhere on a tennis court. If some players are impolite to violent to you, they will need sanctions.

P wrote: You seem to believe that sexuality is a choice.

Farhan: To a certain extent, yes, sexuality is a choice, albeit an unconscious one. To what extent, I wish I knew.

P wrote: and if we make the wrong choice in the Bahai community (living with a partner and raising children), it warrants removing voting rights and being able to serve in an LSA.

Farhan: I do not consider administrative decisions as sanctions but as a measure of care for the community. Of course, all Baha’i administrators are not perfect, and umpires can make mistakes, but those are the rules of the game.

P: The Iranian government thinks being a Bahai is immoral and breaks the law, stop being Bahai (a choice) and you can vote and serve your country. What is the difference Farhan?

Farhan: The Iranian gvt punishes Baha’is for their beliefs, not for their behavior. The Baha’i administration invites those who disagree with the rules of the community and campaign against them not to participate in some of the activities.

Farhan says: [quote comment=""]Furthermore, there is no specific behaviour linked to skin colour.[/quote]

I can't think of one "behavior" that is exclusive to homosexuals. As far as I know, heterosexuals commonly participate in a variety of "behaviors". I guess we're just lucky we straights don't have you peering through our bedroom windows.

Dan. Actually there is not much difference between the Iranian government's policy towards gays and that of the Bahai community. Recently Ahmadinejad was interviews on Larry King. He said that the Iranian gov. has laws to enforce, but it does not go peeping into the private lives of people. So in your bedroom, you can do what you want. But if it becomes public scandal, then the law is enforced. Now the enforcement of the law, yes the Iranian gov. is much more hideous than anything the Bahais do. But that is the only difference. Both end up punishing gays in their society.
My point in all this is to make people think about what is justice and equality. You can't point a finger at the Iranian gov. for denying Bahais the right to vote and live freely, if you do the same to gays inside the Bahai community.

Farhan says: [quote comment=""]P, I would rather compare the lives of gays living in a Baha’i community, with that of gays living in an Iranian community.[/quote]

Indeed, what an appropriate comparison it is, for it is born of the same blind ignorance and prejudice. But you're right, Farhan. The Baha'is treat their homosexuals more humanely. The Baha'is treat their homosexuals as humanely, in fact, as the Iranians treat their Baha'is.

P, I would rather compare the lives of gays living in a Baha’i community, with that of gays living in an Iranian community.
--------------------
No Farhan, you don't get off that easily. You are trying to tell the world that treatment of gays in the Bahai community is just because the House has said so. Ok then, explain to me exactly how it is any different from Iranian law that excludes Bahais from serving or voting. You seem to believe that sexuality is a choice, and if we make the wrong choice in the Bahai community (living with a partner and raising children), it warrants removing voting rights and being able to serve in an LSA. The Iranian government thinks being a Bahai is immoral and breaks the law, stop being Bahai (a choice) and you can vote and serve your country. What is the difference Farhan?

Folsk the following appeared in the Sacramento Bee via AP:

Study: Family behavior key to health of gay youth

"http://www.sacbee.com/832/story/1503387.html?mi_rss=Wire%20Health%20&%20Science"

Bill wrote:
Farhan is I'm sure a very sincere, dedicated Baha'i, but he just can't see how wrong it is to offer the GLBT community "separate but equal" status in what GLBT Baha'is can and cannot participate in. For him to offer all the "non-administrative functions" to us is a complete insult. Like telling Blacks that they can ride on the same bus as whites but have to sit in the back.

I agree Bill, that to my present understanding, not all GLBT behaviours are innate or genetic, and bisexuality is an obvious case. Hence, GLTB cannot be compared to skin colour. Furthermore, there is no specific behaviour linked to skin colour. From the scientific data available at this time, I would rather link most GLTB behaviours with cultural behaviours, but I would be happy to learn more.

P wrote:
wonder Farhan, how do you feel about Bahais living in Iran and not having the right to vote or serve their country in public posts? Why protest on their behalf? (snip) What is the difference?

P, I would rather compare the lives of gays living in a Baha'i community, with that of gays living in an Iranian community.

Sonja wrote:
It does seem to me, Farhan, that your view here is, the UHJ has made a statement and so Bahais can no longer debate this. If Bahais do not debate things, how will the Bahai Faith ever progress, ever change.

Sonja, as the needs of humanity change, the rulings of the UHJ can vary from age to age :

"And inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same. Thus for example, the House of Justice enacteth today a certain law and enforceth it, and a hundred years hence, circumstances having profoundly changed and the conditions having altered, another House of Justice will then have power, according to the exigencies of the time, to alter that law. This it can do because that law formeth no part of the divine explicit text. The House of Justice is both the initiator and the abrogator of its own laws." 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. (Shoghi Effendi, World Order Baha'u'llah (12:1, page: [23])

Grover wrote:
heteros, bi and gay, don't have any choice in the matter, it is the way we are made)

Grover, would you be kind enough to explain how in your opinion, a bisexual has no choice? I would have imagined that a bisexual has absolute choice and no restriction. Is there a difference between taking a same-sex extra marital partner or one of a different sex? Also, although many people have no choice in orientation, there is ample indication that homosexuality can be mentored, as amongst Spartans or induced by hormone changes.

Sorry P: what I meant to say in my post was the opposite: that is the greatest harm I see is to children of Bahais who find they are gay and my hope that if they are in a society where homosexuality is not seen as something bad, that it would be easier for them to cope with the attitudes of their local Bahai community or of the current attitude towards homosexuality, that's all. In the Netherlands, in any country, I think it would be extremely difficult for a youth born into a Bahai family. I hope our discussions here might help, that's all.

Mother of a Gay Young Man,

I just want to applaud you on standing with your son on the side of justice and love. Support from family is SO important. Are you familiar with the organization PFLAG?

My love for Bahá'u'lláh will never diminish, but my allegiance to the Faith has. I had been Bahá'í 21 years when my young son revealed to me he is gay. The Bahá'í view on homosexuality has troubled me for decades but it did not touch me personally, thus I permitted myself to accept it. Now, I cannot simply accept.

Hi Sonja. Unfortunately things are so pretty in the good ol US; unlike the Netherlands. Here gay teens are 4 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual teens. Things are changing, but not fast enough. If you get a chance, read the book "Crisis" edited by Mitchel Gold. Some of the stories are heartbreaking.
It is naive to think that Bahai teens haven't attempted suicide because of their inability to "overcome" as the House and the Bahai community expects of them. A couple of years ago in a nearby community I heard of one teenage girl who took her life. For the family's privacy, everybody was asked to keep quite and not speculate. But I can't help and think, why? Why would a sweet, active, smart Bahai teeanger from a good family take her own life? Why? The pressures to perform, to be perfect in a Bahai family (especially an active Bahai family) is very strong. For a gay youth to live this life is sometimes next to impossible. I know firsthand.

Bill thanks for your candor. For me it is either a case of giving up on the Faith, because there really isn't equality, or keep at it as I try to because I believe without taking Baha'u'llah's principle of equality seriously, the Bahai Faith is being sold out.

I keep thinking about Bahais in the Netherlands where I live and think, most likely given the imbalance in attitudes between how GLBT are treated, no one is likely to be interested in the Bahai Faith, but what about the children of Bahai's who are gay. This is really important. Perhaps Bahais might be moved, if reasoning or the principle of equality doesn't work, if they were aware of the suffering to the youth. It is possible that here in the Netherlands, because society in general accepts gays -Many of my friends are out, and my colleagues in particular are private types of people to start with. So a Bahai youth, I guess, would be more likely to walk away from a Bahai community if harrassed or admonished than do some harm to themselves.

Anyway I just couldn't be a Bahai if I believed that I had remain silent about such an important issue. I'd feel like a hypocrit and I'm sure Baha'u'llah never intended for Bahais to make moral comporomises about a teaching as basic as equality.

Many read bahairants and I'm sure our discussions here are fruitful for others. I appreciate Farhan's postings, although I do not agree with his views, it gives me opportunity to explain my viewpoint because, as others have said, his viewpoint is a viewpoint of many Bahais.

[quote comment=""]Hi Steve, did they say what they wanted to meet with you for?[/quote]

It was to discuss my problems, which, it transpired, were actually its problems. That's my take. Here's some extracts from the correspondence.

NSA:
"The purpose of that meeting will be to discuss issues or concerns that you might wish to raise with this institution. For example, the National Spiritual Assembly is aware that you have certain concerns with the functioning of Baha'i institutions."

Steve:
"I don't have any concerns that I wish to discuss with NSA representatives, but thanks for the offer. If the NSA has any concerns it wishes to raise with me, please let me know."

NSA:
"It is somewhat disappointing that you do not wish to take up the offer of sharing your concerns with the National Assembly's representatives, because we are aware, through..."

Steve:
"Thanks for your message. I still don't have any concerns that I wish to discuss with NSA representatives, but I remain open to any concerns of the NSA that it wishes to raise with me."

NSA:
"The National Spiritual Assembly believes it would be highly advantageous for a meeting to go ahead between its two representatives and yourself.
To this end, Xxxxx Xxxxxx will telephone you to make a suitable time."

NSA:
The National Spiritual Assembly was disappointed that there was not an opportunity during Alan Wilcox's visit to Dunedin last week, for our representatives to meet with you. You have asked if the National Assembly has concerns that it wishes to share with you. As you know, the role of the National Assembly is to maintain unity and guide the friends, so in that capacity, we feel it is important that our representatives have a meeting with you to
1. Share the National Assembly's concerns.
2. Clear up any misunderstandings.
3. Discuss basic Baha'i beliefs.

ka kite
Steve

I know Bill. It's tough. You have to get a thick skin. I always just try to go back to the days when I was in denial and had the same fundamentalist mindset, so I can understnad these people. But my heart really goes out to the young Bahais in the community, those from generations Bahai who are at the age of 14- young scared and confused- are being told by these idiots that they haver a disorder to overcome. THEY are the reason I spend time refuting the fundamentalists in the Faith. THEY are the reason I write without fear to the World Center. As I told my friend Amanda, for years I felt the burden of the Bahai view on me until I finally realized this is has nothing to do with God. Now I've placed the burden on them. The AO will be responsible before God for gay teenagers in the community who hurt themselves because they couldn't "overcome" and they will be responsible before God for allowing thousands of good Bahais to leave the Faith in frustration because of their fundamentalist stance on this issue.

Dear Friends,

As much as I've enjoyed this discussion over the past several weeks and I've tried to remain open and not take things personally, it's now opened up all the old wounds and made me realize that no matter what GLBT Baha'is say, no matter what science they can produce to prove their case, no matter what many organizations, including the United Nations do to educate the world about GLBT equality, the conservative/fundamentalist Baha'is will NEVER change their view. Unfortunately, it's the conservative/fundamentalist Baha'is from the UHJ down to the LSA's that not only control the Faith, but set the standard/mindset of how the Baha'i community should respond to the GLBT community. Farhan is I'm sure a very sincere, dedicated Baha'i, but he just can't see how wrong it is to offer the GLBT community "separate but equal" status in what GLBT Baha'is can and cannot participate in. For him to offer all the "non-administrative functions" to us is a complete insult. Like telling Blacks that they can ride on the same bus as whites but have to sit in the back. The whites back then who believed blacks should sit in the back, didn't think that there was anything wrong with that situation because they weren't black. Straight people are always saying to the gay folk, "Why don't you just stop being gay and live a straight life?" They say this with all sincerity because they will never understand what it's like being gay any more than those folks in the time of Rosa Parks, could fully understand what it was like to live everyday as a black person.

I just got off another Baha'i site all about direct teaching. The question came up as to, "When should the Baha'i teacher tell the GLBT seeker what the stand on homosexuality is in the Faith?" I answered that they should be told right away so that later down the road the GLBT person can't accuse the Baha'i teacher of holding back very important information in order to "convert" them. I was bombarded with responses from many well-seasoned Baha'is saying, "Gays have to realize that Baha'u'llah has come to cure them..." or "Homosexuality is the same as alcoholism and can be cured and overcome with enough effort", or "as the Baha'i Faith gradually changes the society around us homosexuality will greatly decrease and those who are gay will willingly want to change to heterosexuality because of their love for Baha'u'llah and most importantly, because of their obedience to the Covenant". Here's my most favorite response, "All Baha'is out direct teaching should know that homosexuality can be cured and that they should become aquainted with the website, "www.narth.com" which is the official website for "The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality." A group, according to the fundamentalist Baha'is, that scientifically supports the official Baha'i stand regarding homosexuality. In reality, this is a very frightening, bigoted, fundamentalist organization.

So friends, with this type of thinking so rampant in the Baha'i community, what's the point of even trying to have any type of logical discussion with these people. At this point in time the Baha'i Faith is no different than the Mormon's, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics,Fundamentalist Protestants, and Muslims in it's views of homosexuality and how it treats homosexuals within it's own community.

In Peace,
Bill Garbett

[quote post="193"]My NSA wanted its reps to meet with me. I set some conditions, such as requiring it to present and follow a strict agenda so there were no surprises; having the meeting recorded so there was no confusion over what was said; and allowing me to have a support person there so I wasn’t railroaded. I was told there could be no conditions set for the meeting — which is code for “we will set all the conditions”.[/quote]

Hi Steve, did they say what they wanted to meet with you for? I would have thought your conditions were fair and reasonable. Its standard practice particularly if the meeting is likely to be controversial or emotive, it ensures that both parties behave themselves.

Regarding coersion, there are lots of ways the Baha'i administration uses coersion. Eg. Feast speeches and newsletter articles that "indirectly" target wayward individuals. Even though no one mentions any names, everyone knows who they're talking about. Cluster meetings and goal setting to force people to do the 5 year plan activities. Committee member selection. Fund reports where individuals know exactly how much they gave compared to other Baha'is. "Friendly" visits by the ABM and LSA members. Sitting Baha'is in front of nine LSA members for a please explain. The Baha'i community has gotten very good at making people who have gotten off-side feel even more off-side to the point where there is outright antagonism or the person goes inactive, leaves the community or resigns. Then they quote Peter Khan and say that person doesn't have a deepened spiritual consciousness.

Good points, P and Steve. I think that there is certainly psychological/spiritual coercion at work currently in the community. And the future community the Haifan bunch is aiming for (theocracy a la however the Aqdas is being interpreted)is certainly materially coercive, as well.

Right Steve. But I'm looking at just two things, taking away the ability of the individual to vote in a society and to serve in a position (Iran or the Bahai community). Both societies will remove those rights from an individual. In the case of Iran, it is because of breaking the law of being a practicing Bahai. In the case of the Bahai community for openly being a gay person living with a partner. Both feel justified. Both tell these individuals if they change their ways (no longer be a practicing Bahai; no longer be living with your partner) then they are fully accepted in their socieities.
And as far as coersion goes, definitely what the Bahai AO does is NOTHING compared to the gruesome tactics of the Iranian government. But the Bahais also have no earthly power. But one day who knows. IF the House continues to believe the way they do regarding homosexuality, they could enact much sterner punishment. That option is available to them if we are to believe that Bahaullah's quote in the Aqdas regarding future punishment of sodomy applies to ALL homosexuals. Who knows?

[quote comment="60446"]I wonder Farhan, how do you feel about Bahais living in Iran and not having the right to vote or serve their country in public posts? Why protest on their behalf? They have chosen to live in a country that teats them like second class citizens, so the real option is to just leave, right? Or just choose another country or religion? (per your suggestion to gays in the Bahai community). What is the difference?[/quote]

The only difference I can see is that the Baha'i administration lacks the coercive power of the state and is prevented from using force on non-conforming members. It already abuses due process, just like the Iraninan government.

My NSA wanted its reps to meet with me. I set some conditions, such as requiring it to present and follow a strict agenda so there were no surprises; having the meeting recorded so there was no confusion over what was said; and allowing me to have a support person there so I wasn't railroaded. I was told there could be no conditions set for the meeting -- which is code for "we will set all the conditions".

ka kite
Steve

I am also inactive, haven't attended a function in years... but I have found that fasting, funding, praying and trying to live the life as best I can doesn't require a community. Other than a few internet communities like this... I remain under my rock.

I have found I am happier this way.

That's true Grover. Sorry I misunderstood. I guess you could form a Bahai study group within like a Unitarian church and hold your 19 day deepenings and such. Of course first you would need a huge Bahai community where there are enough disgruntled Bahais. Right now, most Bahai communities hardly have enough people to host their own stuff. HEY, maybe that's the solution! Let the Bahai community become so small that you couldn't elect an assembly even if you wanted to. Then having voting rights taken away wouldn't mean anything anyway. :)

[quote post="193"]That gays/lesbians like Grover suggested go out and create a covenant breaking group in which to be Bahais? NO THANKS![/quote]

Well P, I must say you're made of sterner stuff than me ;P. I got tired of trying to work in the Baha'i community and haven't been attending anything for several years now. I personally wouldn't consider forming another faith community covenant breaking, unless you call it something like "The alternative Baha'i Faith", and its out to directly challenge the current administration. This website and other blog sites are examples of virtual faith communities.

You can't say much Daniel. Because if you do, you are seen as Bahai bashing. It is SO sad. I see it everywhere on the all the boards and websites where the issue of gay discrimination is discussed in the Bahai community. Traditionalists (like Farhan and the AO) are living in their own bubble where discriminatin doesn't occur, where everyone is equal, everyone is welcome and to note otherwise is pure Bahai bashing.
I wonder Farhan, how do you feel about Bahais living in Iran and not having the right to vote or serve their country in public posts? Why protest on their behalf? They have chosen to live in a country that teats them like second class citizens, so the real ooption is to just leave, right? Or just choose another country or religion? (per your suggestion to gays in the Bahai community). What is the difference?

P & F " I wondre how I would be welcomed in the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Catholic congregations if I openly defied and challenged their teachings."

My husband and I were first married a bout 9 years ago by 90 Methodist ministers who placed their hands on each couple to bless them/us... a local Catholic Church (St Francis) is very open and welcoming and has HUGE gay following, the Episcopal Church here is historically welcoming, a number of my friends converted from Catholicism when the Pope went homophobic, the Reformed Jewish community is historically welcoming to gays and lesbians, of course the Unitarians are groovy... the Congregationalists and Lutherans place adds in both gay papers here inviting folks to join them.

It has been a constant, and embarrassing point of shame that the Bahá’ís are known for being homophobic amongst the progressive community here in Sacramento. I was at a gathering for something a few months ago, and folks were sharing their religious affiliation. I told them that I was Bahá’í, and the woman sitting next to me was so concerned for me being gay and Bahá’ís because as she said, “they really hate their gay members”.

What concerns me most about the homophobia in the Faith is the reputation is giving the progressive community for being un-progressive and exclusionary.

What could I say?

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." --Arthur Schopenhauer

I think that our struggle for equality has reached the second stage in society at large. I fear we are still in the first stage with regard to the Baha'i Community. As my mom used to always say: TRUTH WILL OUT! She might not have intended it this way, but I'm OUT and living in my truth.

The truth about Dan is so evident. Even when I was working at the Baha'i National Center and living a hetero lifestyle with wife and children, the truth about Dan was evident. I thought I was hiding something. When the divorce happened and I got the courage to tell my closest Baha'i friends that I was gay, they all said: "Oh, Dan . . . we knew that about you already!" Even my 7 year old son said those words when I came out to him. They could all accept the truth as self evident, even when I was running as hard as I could away from the truth.

What I am is a "normal," fully-functioning human being with a lot to contribute, and every right to be embraced by my religion without being relegated to an inferior (deprived of administrative rights) status. I believe in my religion's teachings about unity and the elimination of prejudice of all kinds. Eventually, the Baha'i Community will get to stage three, but we have a long way to go!

Thinking about P's thoughts on why he is a Bahai, and on Daniels' 10 reasons... even though I lead a hetereo lifestyle, these are questions for all of us.

Then today I read an email sent to me by a Spanish Bahai, a singer/musician: listen to his song "My Beloved", that's why I'm a Bahai and his music made my day today!

http://www.reverbnation.com/mcequal

Farhan wrote: [quote comment=""][...] we cannot at the same time say we believe that the UHJ is divinely guided, and say they are mistaken in their stand on homosexual marriages.[...][/quote]

'Abdul-Baha obviously differs from you on this point, because otherwise he would not have written:

"Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are
not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same."
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 20)

Now here the case is where the UHJ is stating that something is in the Bahai Writings, but a later UHJ might see that as not being the case and could make a differing ruling.
How could they possibly make a differing ruling?
Because Bahais discuss these issues from various viewpoints, and keep in touch with society around them is one way of maintaining a connection with the peoples and changing views of the world.

It does seem to me, Farhan, that your view here is, the UHJ has made a statement and so Bahais can no longer debate this. If Bahais do not debate things, how will the Bahai Faith ever progress, ever change. Here's that quotation again...

"[…]The morals of humanity must undergo change. New remedy and solution for human problems must be adopted. Human intellects themselves must change and be subject to the universal reformation. Just as the thoughts and hypotheses of past ages are fruitless today, likewise dogmas and codes of human invention are obsolete and barren of product in religion.[…] "

(Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith - Abdu’l-Baha Section, p. 228)

For me this quotation is as much about today as yesterday or the future. I see it as an attitude to take towards the world. Change is a Law of Nature!

P, I wondre how I would be welcomed in the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Catholic congregations if I openly defied and challenged their teachings.
----------------
If you were in a conservative/traditionalist branch of those religions you would be kicked out. But there would always be a more liberal group of those religions with which to worship and keep your Faith. Is THAT what you are recommending Farhan? That gays/lesbians like Grover suggested go out and create a covenant breaking group in which to be Bahais? NO THANKS! You see Bahai bashing, I see fighting for equality and justice. The real bashing happens inside the Bahahi community where gays get so fed up they just end up leaving and pouring their frustrations on the internet. Meanwhile Bahais like you just act all innoent and confused "oh why, oh why are we poor Bahahis being bashed". Please farhan. As long as you see my fighting for "what goes on in my underpants" as you put it in an earlier post, you just won't understand. But thanks for inviting me into your home even thought you'd exclude me from fully participating in Bahai community life as an equal. Cheers!

Hi Farhan,

[quote comment="60430"]I have no complaint, nor problem, otherwise I would not be here.[/quote]

The following statement of yours sure quacks like a complaint or problem:

[quote comment="60383"]I do feel the way those I sincerely love who are selflessly serving on the BWC have been regularly insulted on this blog and elsewhere on the internet is intolerant. This has been very painful to me.[/quote]

You may not have a problem, but I still do. My problem remains that I have no idea what you’re talking about if you don’t have the courtesy to identify the posts and the specific “name-calling” you have a non-problem with.

[quote comment="60430"]I am pointing out that there is far more pro-gays bashing Baha'is for their views than Baha'is bashing pro-gays on internet,...[/quote]

Then point it out with specifics. Also, for someone who has "no complaint, nor problem", you sure make it sound like lots of bad things are going on!

[quote comment="60430"]...and I am not willing to provide statistics to back up my view here.[/quote]

Not statistics, Farhan. Specifics. And I'm not asking you to back up your view. I'm asking you to define it.

cheers
Steve

P wrote:
Sorry Farhan- you haven't convinced me that I am welcome as an equal in the Bahai community.

P, I wondre how I would be welcomed in the Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim or Catholic congregations if I openly defied and challenged their teachings.

Steve wrote:
The problem remains that we have no idea what you're talking about if you don't have the courtesy to identify the posts and the specific "name-calling" you have a problem with.

I have no complaint, nor problem, otherwise I would not be here.

I am pointing out that there is far more pro-gays bashing Baha'is for their views than Baha'is bashing pro-gays on internet, and I am not willing to provide statistics to back up my view here.

Oh and Farhan- YOU can be elected to be on the LSA. I can't. Well, I can if I pretended to be straight or said I was gay and struggling to overcome, or maybe just got married and kept myself in the closet...yeah in those situations the Bahai community is very welcoming to gays and lesbians. But if I'm out with a partner and my children, then I'm a second class citizen. Something that you keep trying to minimize as not signficant. Again to perpetuate the facade of a welcoming community.

P, I am not an LSA member and I would quietly take leave if a meeting were scheduled, and without being superior to each other, there are places where you would not invite me, and I would not invite you.
----------
But Farhan, we are not talking about a Country Club are we? I'm not talking about coming over and sipping tea in your house. Thank you, you are very generous to not care if I'm gay or not. But THAT is not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being treated as an equal in the Bahai community. Having my relationship deemed worthy of producing an ever advancing civilization. Being a haven for people like me. Right now it is not and you wish to keep it that way per whatever the House says. My guess is to perpetuate the facade that the Bahai community is a welcoming place for all of humanity while still denying gays and lesbians equal status to other Bahais. How can you speak of welcoming all if you will turn around and strip someone of their voting rights, tell their children that their mommies are living a sin against Bahaullah's law and tell Bahai youth that they must overcome if they wish to be following God's path? Deosn't sound too welcoming to me. It's as welcoming as a southern baptist congregation. Sorry Farhan- you haven't convinced me that I am welcome as an equal in the Bahai community.

[quote comment="60409"]I have no intention of going back and sifting those angry posts,...[/quote]

The problem remains that we have no idea what you're talking about if you don't have the courtesy to identify the posts and the specific "name-calling" you have a problem with.

[quote comment="60409"]...although I fully understand and overlook the pain and anger involved when people suffer.[/quote]

But you don't overlook it. You dredge it up with what sounds to me like a holier-than-thou attitude ("I fully understand and overlook...") and you fail to give us the information we need to address your complaints.

cheers
Steve

P wrote:
Seperate but equal? Where have I heard that before? Farhan you still don't get it, but I'm sure you pobably think the same of me.

P, I am not an LSA member and I would quietly take leave if a meeting were scheduled, and without being superior to each other, there are places where you would not invite me, and I would not invite you.

Yes, there is undoubtedly a difference between an enrolled and an unenrolled Baha'i, and the choice can be very difficult one, when a Baha'i is invited for a political position, or is unable to have the permission from his beloved's parents for marriage. Abdu'l-Baha said that His knees trembled when He thought of God's tests, and believe you me, I often wonder if I might not slip, facing a difficult choice, and I am often ashamed when I remember some of my misgivings, so I will never judge another for what I might one day do myself.

Steve wrote:
So that we know what you're talking about, please supply examples of "the way those [you] sincerely love who are selflessly serving on the BWC have been regularly insulted on this blog". All occasions over the last month will do.

Steve what I call "insult" you might call "name-calling" or being judgmental. I dont remember any dirty words, and to tell you the truth, I often skip long expressions of anger or hatred and I have no intention of going back and sifting those angry posts, although I fully understand and overlook the pain and anger involved when people suffer.

There is a difference between expressing disagreement and calling names. You might feel insulted by being called names, but there is no reason you should feel offended if I express a view different from yours.

You would be welcome to my home and to all activities outside 19 day feasts and LSA meetings
-----------
Seperate but equal? Where have I heard that before? Farhan you still don't get it, but I'm sure you pobably think the same of me.
And Daniel, what are the top 10 reasons for LGBT people to join the Faith you ask? The same 10 reasons anyone else would join. We don't join because the Bahais are such nice folks (there are Faith communities who are nicer and more welcoming), we don't join because of the elimination of prejudice (obviously when it comes to LGBT there is no true equality among Bahais, but there is with other Faith communities), so then why join? Because you believe Bahaullah to be promised one of all ages and that his Message is what will unite humanity in one great functioning community- LGBT people and straight, liberal and conservative, fundamentalist and open-minded- one umbrella for ALL. Otherwise, there is no reason to waste time with the Bahais when there are a number of other Faith communities that offer so much more to LGBT people.

[quote comment="60383"]I do feel the way those I sincerely love who are selflessly serving on the BWC have been regularly insulted on this blog and elsewhere on the internet is intolerant. This has been very painful to me.[/quote]

Hi Farhan,

So that we know what you're talking about, please supply examples of "the way those [you] sincerely love who are selflessly serving on the BWC have been regularly insulted on this blog". All occasions over the last month will do. Or are these regular insults less frequent than weekly/monthly?

Until then, I'm going to assume that what you call insults ere relly just criticism. What you seem to be asking for is for your religion's workers and leaders to be above criticism. Yet you don't seem worried when Muslim religious workers and leaders in Iran are criticised.

I was once a mainstream-liberal Baha'i, and criticisms upset me a bit, too. What was mainly upsetting was how accurate the criticisms seemed to be. Your mileage may vary.

cheers
Steve

This is so interesting as always.

I appreciate Sonja’s quote’s… they are spot on as far as I am concerned, and the reason I had initially enrolled way back in 1976. It is these thoughts, quotes, and efforts that gave me so much and that attracted me. SO I got to thinking on my morning walk that I would like to propose a thought experiment:

What are 10 reasons a GLBT would want to enroll in the Bahá’í Faith?

The caveat is that there are dozens of inclusive communities that are reaching out to GLBT folk at the present. What would make a GLBT want to make a drastic cultural change?

I am just curious… and interested in your ideas… think positive reasons… not the rules…

Off to a nice inclusive dinner with straight, gay; Jews, Christian and this renegade Bahá’í.

Blessings.

Sonja wrote:
Farhan, the UHJ is not asking individual Bahais to treat our gay Bahais differently, so I am not going against any wishes of the UHJ to aim for equality and to voice my views and argumentation.


Sorry, Sonja, I dont understandyour point: I never implied that any difference was required in our attitudes to people.

P wrote:
What would you do Farhan when Dan, Daniel or me where to just show up in your community? Will you submit to the House and close the door on us? Or would you be !

P, no one has ever asked anyone to "close doors". You would be welcome to my home and to all activities outside 19 day feasts and LSA meetings. A whole branch of Baha'i activities are open to what is called "the community of interest" which includes non-Baha'is and non enrolled Baha'is. Votings rights, as the name indicates, are necessary for those who wish to take part in administrative activities which are by no means the only part of Baha’i activities, most of which (all core activities) are open at this time to all, whatever their status.

I do agree that some Baha’is have not fully understood this attitude and homophobia does occur within the Baha’i community as it does outside.

As a doctor I would say that celibacy for priests is unhealthy, but I would not require the church to change it’s laws for priests, laws that are only applicable to tose who wish to accept them. I would encourage my patents who could not cope with celibacy to avoid priesthood.

I would encourage my patients unable to cope with avoiding blatant relations outside wedlock and continual revolt against Baha’i laws on chastity to avoid enrolling as Baha’is or forfeiting their voting rights.

Very obviously, as the UHJ points out, we cannot at the same time say we believe that the UHJ is divinely guided, and say they are mistaken in their stand on homosexual marriages. Our sexual lives are a spiritual or a personal issue with God, until they disrupt the community, and make the spiritual matter a community issue and rarely a penal issue.

Thank you Sonja. And I would sya that the LGBT people need the Bahai Faith- or at least some faith community to give structure and support. Unfortunately, many gay people throw the baby out with the bath water when they run away from their religions. Then they live their lives on an "anything goes" attitude which can be just as destructive. But can you blame them? When you have religions that tell me whether you are sleeping around, using drugs, having sex with animals or kids or living your life with one partner and your adopted child- it really makes no difference to us because you are all equally breaking our law and not fully welcome.
The sad part is that as the years go by, most former Bahais just turn their back on the Bahai chapter of their lives and move on. This will eventually happy to me, I'm sure. And THAT is the real loss to the Faith. Because while I make a fight and express my opinions- Farhan should be happy. It shows I care. When we stop writing is when the Bahai community has lost out.

G wrote: [quote comment=""][...]Accommodation, compromise, compassion and empathy build communities, not unbending insistence in following the letter of Baha’i law.[...][/quote]

'Abdul-Baha I would argue made an even stronger claim, that change is a law of nature (a title I used for a performance work on values

[quote comment=""][...]The morals of humanity must undergo change. New remedy and solution for human problems must be adopted. Human intellects themselves must change and be subject to the universal reformation. Just as the thoughts and hypotheses of past ages are fruitless today, likewise dogmas and codes of human invention are obsolete and barren of product in religion.[...][/quote]

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 228)

Of course one could interpret the above in various ways. My take here is it is about adapting to the times of our age. Such as another poster here who brought up the subject of using current medical advice as a work around for those who think that the Bahai Teachings cannot allow equal rights for gays.

P: I loved your post! and if I too fight for equality because I believe in the justice of Baha'u'llah's message. If I thought otherwise, I'd walk away too. Bahai communities are missing out on a lot of the good stuff gays can bring into our communities. We are lop-sided without them. I mean gay identity, not Bahai gay community involvement on a 'don't ask, don't tell' basis.
We need minority cultures for balance and development.

Farhan, the UHJ is not asking individual Bahais to treat our gay Bahais differently, so I am not going against any wishes of the UHJ to aim for equality and to voice my views and argumentation.

It might not be your intention here, but bringing this as an argument could be away of implying that 'good' Bahais wouldn't discuss this in order to be obedient. Just assure me that this was not your intention. I am not afraid for myself, jsut that it is not a very healthy approach. We Bahais do not need to use such tactics when consulting with each other. Bahais should not feel that they need to closet stuff (pun intended). Self-censorship is the worst type of silencing.

I'll take that as a NO Farhan. Thanks. I'll remember that whenever you continue with your quotes on an ever advancing civilization. I'll remember that your civilization won't include loving gay families raising children. Gay people today are looking more than ever for structure in their lives- a place where their families will be honored and given a chance to show what great fruits result. Unfortunately, the Bahai Faith will not be such a place for them any time soon if we have submissive individuals such as yourself that accept the status quo. And I am offended Farhan, because your 'innocent' views are keeping the Faith stagnant, oppressing young gay Bahais who end up leaving the community with a horrible experience (if they haven't attempted to hurt themselves first) and keeping discrimination alive in the community. What would you do Farhan when Dan, Daniel or me where to just show up in your community? Will you submit to the House and close the door on us? Or would you be brave to stand up for Justice- the best beloved thing in God's eyes?

P wrote:
Change can come about, but it starts with YOU. Are you willing to help bring change to the community? Or will you stand in the way of good couples raising wonderful kids entering the Bahai fold?

P, I believe this is a critical point in the way I understand my life in this world: tolive in a society, weneed a consensus on some elementary rules: how we define weighs and measures, how we define social norms, etc. I have an area of obedience, one of free will, and an area of "grey" wherei reflect, consult and take my decisions.

The area of family life is to me one of social necessity and submission, not one where I can throw in my weight and change social norms, but where I can sometimes choose the society I want to live in.

My attitude to the UHJ is one of loving submission and respect, as the representants of God in this world. I fully understand and respect those who do not wish to submit to these rules, but I also wish to be respected in my choice. The UHJ will change me long before I would dream of changing their views, although I would not hesitate in putting questions to them whenever I do not understand what they prescribe for me.

If I ever imagined that they were wrong and I had a better view than them, I would have ceased then to call myself a Baha'i.

Please do not be offended by my views; I am not in any way judging those who do not share my views, I am just explaining to you my views in life.

warmest

Farhan

Farhan, please prove how allowing gay families raising wonderufl kids will destroy the Bahai community. Please. You and the UHJ obviously can't prove that it is against Bahai law. If you could you would convince people like me and Sonja and others. Then I would just walk away and stop "attempting to manipulate the Baha’i community to suit themselves" as you put it. But you see, I believe in something greater than you or the House, I actually believe in JUSTICE, what Bahaullah said was the greates thing in God's eyes. I don't recall Bahaullah saying that excluding gay families from participating fully in Bahai community life was the greates thing in God's eyes.
You keep talking about an ever advancing civilization, but I just don't see how your vision which exludes part of humanity will ever advance civilization. For this reason I fight on. I have no desire to create another group to break off. I have no desire of calling the real Bahai Faith a "Haifan" sect. WE ARE real Bahais who believe, but unfortunately who are constantly being disenfranchised by the majority and its leadership. So we wait patiently on the outside, but making sure the world knows how we are being treated.
Change can come about, but it starts with YOU. Are you willing to help bring change to the community? Or will you stand in the way of good couples raising wonderful kids entering the Bahai fold?

Grover wrote:
Accommodation, compromise, compassion and empathy build communities, not unbending insistence in following the letter of Baha'i law.

Grover, cant we also agree that it is useful to have not only different individuals in each community, but also covenant making individuals in a diversity of communities, working in collaboration and cooperation, so that one day we might scientifically compare the outcomes of these communities? Why try forcibly bringing ALL communities to the sef-same covenant? Why slander communities who have different rules?

I disagree with polygamy (including bisexuality) priesthood, the celibacy of priests, vows of isolation and silence, the twirling prayer mills, believing in karma, etc, etc, but I would never dream of insulting or slandering religious communities for such beliefs and practices as long as they do not harass or aggress those who disagreed with them.

I do feel the way those I sincerely love who are selflessly serving on the BWC have been regularly insulted on this blog and elsewhere on the internet is intolerant. This has been very painful to me.

Merry Xmas, folks, at least to those celebrating this ancient Mazdean feast.

Not really Farhan, its about removing discrimination due to sexual orientation (God's gift one might argue because most of us, heteros, bi and gay, don't have any choice in the matter, it is the way we are made) and the stigma associated with it.

Interestingly, I see parallels between gay and indigenous communities. The indigenous people of my country embraced the faith in large numbers and all they wanted was some recognition of their sovereign rights to the country as indigenous people. They had their land bought, taken, and stolen from them by the colonists and then were shoved to one side. The europeans, asians and persians just didn't understand what these people wanted having come from cultures and countries that had not been overrun and control and the right to govern for themselves taken away from them. The indigenous people thought joining the faith would give them some control back. We didn't understand because isn't the Faith supposed to bring everyone together and everyone give up their control under a big banner of unity and peace? So the indigenous people packed their bags and moved on. It was tragic loss because the indigenous people added a lot to the community vitality, and they could sing like no one else.

The gay community are fighting for rights automatically granted to heterosexual people, freedom of sexual expression, freedom to marry, freedom to have kids, freedom to co-exist without persecution. We don't understand because we've always had that freedom as heterosexuals so we're safe from the churches, and the red necks, and even though we may not be allowed to have sex before marriage, we can always get it once married. Gays if they remain strictly faithful to the Faith will never ever be able to know the joy of being with a partner and so on and so on. We just say they should change their orientation and everything will be fine. We will never understand unless we look at it from their perspective. Like the indigenous people, they're going to pack their bags and look for something else. For a faith that is supposed to value diversity, isn't that a terrible shame? Homosexuals have some of the most creative and caring people.

Accommodation, compromise, compassion and empathy build communities, not unbending insistence in following the letter of Baha'i law.

Sonja wrote:

the issue is not Shoghi Effendi but rather the U.H.J. and the Bahai communities today

I agree, Sonja: Verbum sap sat (a word to the wise is enough).

And I might add that the issue in what I read here is to see how the Baha'i community might be adapted to suit some individuals who, unable to find elsewhere a community that suits them and where they are happy, attempt to manipulate the Baha'i community to suit themselves.

Hi EP,

I have no idea why I want to give the following Christmas gift to you - Fred Figgelhorn's website videos. However, I'm sure you'll understand my motives much better than me. Thanks in advance for helping me to figure it out.

Here, EP, is your Christmas gift from me: a link to a Tibetan Buddhist teaching video that features Guru Ozay Rinpoche in the kitchen of Guru AhiRANTa.

May you be happy. May all beings be happy. May all beings be free from suffering. This is the practice of this Paramita:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE-XpSDv0Ns

Are you temporarily sane when you post a response to my creepy drivel, or does your own deranged drivel represent your last best hope for lucidity? ;-)

[quote]Daniel has stated that he might become my boss, and accuses me in advance of planting viruses on his computer[/quote]

Are you drunk when you post this creepy drivel?

[quote comment="60338"]An extract from the libretto of the Baha'i opera "Hujabat-i Afkiya" (written by Joyce Conner):

Mr. Bumble:

[quote]I know that even if we disagree, he would never ever backstab me.[/quote]

Mr. Bee:

[quote]Mr. Bumble now accuses me in advance, of trying to disembowel him with a double-pronged lance.

Here's the rest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IkYrIlP0kw

Ah, the sweet consolations of insanity. Happy Holidays![/quote]

People see what they want to see. I stated clearly that I did not support either side, and would not vote either way in protest of dysfunctional politics, extremism/radicalism, political correctness, groupthink. I've been saying exactly the same thing since 1996 about the pc/left and hard right. Predictably, the polarization has worsened, political opportunists on both sides are engaged in risky, dangerous brinksmanship over gay politics.

Again, this whole conversation is a perfect example of what I've said over and over, that some people can't understand, or don't want to understand:

Just because I do not want to go along with the pc/left elements of gay culture/politics does not mean that I want to have all the evils of the "straight world" projected onto me.

I do not want to be called a "conservative", "bigot", "neocon", etc. for expressing an alternative perspective.

The world is not divided into two camps, and to the extent that it is, I have no interest in being in either camp, or buying into the intellectual dishonesty or hate rhetoric involved.

Most of what is going on is a rerun of previous versions of pc/left "identity politics" where there are internal factions, radicals vs. extremists. People can learn from history, or not.

Black politics is just starting to recover from radicalism - as are feminism , multiculturalism , environmentalism, its all the same story.

Intolerance in the name of tolerance.

Thought policing in the name of free speech.

Fascism in the name of compassion and altruism.

"Mean Green Meme"

Again, what I still think makes sense (given the overall atmosphere of senselessness), and I would like to discuss with anyone that agrees or disagrees, is some "third way" that provides very robust legal protections for gays while at the same time avoiding, to the extent possible, alienating religious people and traditionalists.

The "gay marriage" issue is at an evolutionary dead end, it will be interpreted by traditional religious people as an attack by the left, and there is plenty of evidence to support that viewpoint. The left has instrumentalized gay rights.

What is needed is to transcend the existing fracas and come up with new approaches that moderates can support. Extremists will never like such compromises, but will probably be better off anyway.

The Baha'i context that this issue exists in is, in my opinion, much simpler and different from the context of california politics.

So far, based on what I've seen, I've completely supported gay protests within the bahai community because the record of the bahai community and administration on gay rights is so hideous and appalling, and so obviously based in the kinds of fundamentalism that I loath. Gay bahais are almost invariably in a position of powerlessness within the community, and worse, within their bahai families (if any). I am not aware of any situation where gay bahais had any power except two conferences in the 90s after which it turned out that bahai administrators that initially supported gays proved to be dupes or liars. Many straight bahais were looking for hanky-panky, which seemed very strange to me. I saw little or no evidence that people advocating for gay rights in the bahai community were significantly part of a larger, dysfunctional political/left scheme. Gay bahais, as far as I can tell, were and are trying hard to be "responsible", or as your say "good boys and girls". And in return, they were abandoned by the bahai community in a disgusting, heartless, cold manner.

So, all that responsibility was a horrible waste of good faith and effort, bahai administration is profoundly corrupt and inept, and places little or no value on anyone's humanity.

I have still never seen a coherent statement by either gay or conservative (or any other) bahais of what "spiritually healthy sexuality" consists of. I simply do not think that it is something that bahai theology provides insight into. Which is sad, and means that the issue, like so many other issues that concern people, can't be resolved satisfactorily within the bahai community. it is a religion that increasingly is frozen in time.

Politics outside the bahai community is a whole 'nother story.

I have been more than happy to blather on at length about exactly what I think about all this stuff.


[quote comment="60345"]Daniel to EP... that's great then! thanks!

Our last 1:1 email before the election gave me the impression you were voting yes on 8.[/quote]

The idea that the Guardian was a homosexual and impotent is a Kitab-i-hersay that's been around for years. There is of course no way to prove it. Unfortunately, it's used today mainly by various Covenant Breaker individuals and groups as one of several reasons that more Guardians have exsisted and continue to exsist because the "first" Guardian died with no heir, and according to them there must always be a "living Guardian"...Oh well. I agree with Sonja that what the Guardian said or didn't say is today irrelevant because it's now up to the UHJ to update it's own interpretations of the Paederasty view of the Aqdas quote of Baha'u'llah's regarding "the Subject of Boys".
In Peace,
Bill

[quote comment=""][...] “interpretation” that Baha’u'llah’s mention of Paederasty was a prohibition of ALL homosexual relationships.[...][/quote]

Go read the notes in the Aqdas, it is not Shoghi Effendi who made that association.
The stories of impotency and consumation are rumours and gossip as far as I know. Shoghi Effendi was close friends with at least one gay Bahai, and wrote nothing against gays, but that doesn't make him gay.
I hope other Bahai couples who have not had children are not subjected to such stories.

For me this issue is about making our Bahai communities welcoming and respectful for all. There are enough GLBT Bahais around so we don't need to fantisize about whether Shoghi Effendi was gay or not. In fact I find it rather silly because the issue is not Shoghi Effendi but rather the U.H.J. and the Bahai communities today.
It might be an issue if Shoghi Effendi penned something himself on this topic, but he didn't, so that's why I am suggesting that this is not relevent.

Daniel to EP... that's great then! thanks!

Our last 1:1 email before the election gave me the impression you were voting yes on 8.

" your vote to support the removal of my marriage"

To clarify: I made no such vote.

Grover, take you own pills. and read between the lines.

To simplify, here is my basic point: people go off into their polarized corners, an echo chamber developes, they can't understand what other people are saying (or don't want to). This leads to further polarization, which then makes pragmatic compromises difficult. Then cynicism sets in, no hope in building bridges. The echo chamber deepens. People realize that it is pointless to become a punching bag by saying any thing that those in the echo chamber aren't used to hearing. It was my mistake to say anything in the first place given the creepy tone that has developed.

This response is also a stupid mistake, the predictable gang mentality has set in.


[quote comment="60329"]Merry Christmas everyone!

Hey EP, you need to take some chill pills, relax and read what people have written. eg Daniel Orey wrote:

[quote post="193"]Folks need to know that ol’EP and I are great friends, and if I get my new job on campus, he might even be my IT guy. I know that even if we disagree, he’d never ever put a worm or virus in my new computer, right? But I digress…[/quote]

But you thought he wrote:

[quote post="193"]Daniel has stated that he might become my boss, and accuses me in advance of planting viruses on his computer[/quote][/quote]

Finally, possums, the Pope's Christmas message

An extract from the libretto of the Baha'i opera "Hujabat-i Afkiya" (written by Joyce Conner):

Mr. Bumble:

[quote]I know that even if we disagree, he would never ever backstab me.[/quote]

Mr. Bee:

[quote]Mr. Bumble now accuses me in advance, of trying to disembowel him with a double-pronged lance.

Here's the rest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IkYrIlP0kw

Ah, the sweet consolations of insanity. Happy Holidays!

Ouch, double whammy for Persian pride! Someone else had mentioned that as well, but that's the first I had heard that Shoghi Effendi was impotent. It would explain a lot! Isn't there something about marriages needing to be consumated within 24 hours otherwise the marriage is void? Or is that another religion?

A close friend of the late Ruhiyyih Khanum told me that the first Guardian and his wife NEVER consummated their marriage because Shoghi Effendi was both homosexual AND impotent.
That would explain a lot: his aptitude at gardening and interior decoration, as well as the self-loathing that led to his "interpretation" that Baha'u'llah's mention of Paederasty was a prohibition of ALL homosexual relationships.

Thank you Grover.

I am deeply hurt, and again, my apologies to EP if I made him afraid for his job. I feel very bad if that was what he heard… Having stepped in it myself a few times with the PCers on our campus, I understand his nervousness. There is a great deal of disingenuousness, slickness and nastiness where we work. Even tho we both agree our place of employment is less than healthy, I would never ever do anything to affect your job. THAT IS NOT MY STYLE. I am an idiot, but not a back stabber. I don't have nor want that kind of power... and besides, tho it’s apparent that you want my marriage dissolved, I still call you a friend. Again, I don't work that way. I was taken aback by, deeply hurt, by some of your comments and questions to me before the election... but I attributed that to your conservative NBG (not being gay) status... and let it go.

Out of self preservation, I give my trust to others with caution. Your anger towards the GLBT community before the elections scared me. Because suddenly you made me feel that I was a them. NBG folks (the republican party, my family, wingnut colleagues, the H8er media) make it seem like being gay is a hobby, or something I should just fix somehow if…

When it comes to gays vs straights, my rabbi colleague told me after Prop 8 passed the following. “it’s the same, when times get tough, gays and Jews are always sold down the river first, we just have to get used to it.”

I have. It still hurts. I get angry.

In my experience, and that of most of my GLBT friends, we have to be careful with many NBGs. They interpret our reticence as dishonesty, but it is self preservation. I am tired of being hurt – people support you (you think) then they don’t (for weird reasons), over and over. Many religious PC or non-PC folks seem supportive, but when it comes down to it, vote for their own.

This vote wasn't just a exercise on marriage. What is happening is that it is was another step towards taking GLBT rights away… now they want to annul my marriage, next they will go our domestic partnerships (as in Florida), next is adoption rights, then they will try to get rid of teachers again, next… ?

EP – be not afraid, that is my job.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Hey EP, you need to take some chill pills, relax and read what people have written. eg Daniel Orey wrote:

[quote post="193"]Folks need to know that ol’EP and I are great friends, and if I get my new job on campus, he might even be my IT guy. I know that even if we disagree, he’d never ever put a worm or virus in my new computer, right? But I digress…[/quote]

But you thought he wrote:

[quote post="193"]Daniel has stated that he might become my boss, and accuses me in advance of planting viruses on his computer[/quote]

EP misunderstood my feeble attempt at humor when he said:

"Daniel has stated that he might become my boss, and accuses me in advance of planting viruses on his computer (for which I could potentially get fired, then lose my house, career, retirement, family, mental and physical health). "

again, even tho I am profoundly hurt by your vote to support the removal of my marriage for reason s that I see as weird and petty, I was attempting to hand you, an olive branch, dude.

Como dizemos no Brasil... "tristeza"

So to answer my question EP, you are not involved in the pro-gay movement and really don't know what you are talking about. Ok thanks, I'll stop "bullying" you now.

Aiyo.

P asked

Q: "And how involved are you in the pro-gray movement EP to come to this conclusion? " ... "(I'm sure you know what that is, since you are such an expert of the pro-gay movement)"

P, These are logical fallacies, distortions. You are hyperventilating. People do not want to talk to those that blather such junk.

This is a typical bullying tactic: anyone that dares to not conform to radical/extremist pro-gay rhetorical posturing has all of the moral failings of the non-gay world projected onto them. this kind of thing is understood by anyone that has encountered the blatant polemic conformism and political correctness common in gay culture.

When I previously stated that I was not voting on Prop 8 to show disgust of the extremism of the people on both "sides", I was called a "bigot". I had previously voted for "gay rights", but was insulted by the usual types when expressing questions about the extent to which pc/left pathology in the gay movement caused the defeat of that vote.

Sorry if that was confusing. Let me start over and try again: california has had two votes "for traditional marriage" (against gay marriage), one this past election (2008) and another one several years ago. Both times, a majority went for "traditional marriage" (against gay rights). Both votes were overturned by the courts. which pissed off a lot of people (consistent with the california courts overturning a number of controversial votes by the majority of voters against extreme ultra-liberal/pc/left and/or "anti-conservative" political initiatives for a number of years).

http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/p...

| BACKGROUND
|
| In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify
| in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is
| valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California
| Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22
| and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between
| a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the
| California Constitution.

At a minimum, this is a very volatile, problematic and complex issue - popular democracy vs. legal elites - something that would presumably give people enough pause to discontinue the usual hyperventilated polemics long enough to at least try to look at the issue from another perspective than they hear in the echo chambers they hang out in.

What I saw when Proposition 22 was overturned by the courts was a worsening of political conditions, and further movement toward extremism and polarization. Apparently this is accepted as the price to be paid by the gay movement, and anyone that speaks against extremism and polarization - which is happening on both sides - will be vilified as an "opponent". So, I am simply saddened by the further decline. And worried that people that claim to be for "rights" are unwilling to see the problem with the erosion of values, ethics and morals that underly any system of rights.

Amanda - the traps you lay are in your own mind, you continue the distortions, and accuse me of "ad hominems" while making them yourself.

Daniel has stated that he might become my boss, and accuses me in advance of planting viruses on his computer (for which I could potentially get fired, then lose my house, career, retirement, family, mental and physical health).

Is anyone "getting it" now? No?

"It's going to happen, whether you like it or not."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/deta...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto

So, gays are being exploited, and worked into a frenzy of attacking anyone that disagrees with instrumentalized pc/left rhetoric, by someone that is apparently becoming the liberal equivalent of "dumbed down" politician George Bush.

I vote "no" on emotionally inflamed politics on either side. I vote "no" on distortions, and threats. I vote "no" on extremists and radicals of any kind further polluting the political culture with toxic, dysfunctional rhetoric.

have a nice day.

[quote post="193"]Shoghi Effendi’s brother Ruhi was one [a secretary] for a time[/quote]

Yes, and he became a convenant breaker. Kind of ironic that the current pestilence ravaging the Baha'i community is named after him.

Regarding Shoghi Effendi's secretaries, if someone has a list and the approximate time they were working for SE, you should be able to find out who wrote that awful quote about homosexuality

[quote post="193"]… However, it would be a profound contradiction for someone to profess the intention to be a Bahá’í, yet consciously reject, disregard or contend with aspects of belief or practice ordained by Bahá’u’lláh.[/quote]

All Baha'u'llah was worried about was dirty old men getting their jollies with little kids. If homosexuality was a big deal, surely he would have found some time to wax lyrical about it? But as Baquia often points out, there is nothing.

Pro-gay hate group? Sounds like a group of people that hate gay supporters ;P

[quote]We are to assure you that to regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of the Teachings ... However, it would be a profound contradiction for someone to profess the intention to be a Bahá’í, yet consciously reject, disregard or contend with aspects of belief or practice ordained by Bahá’u’lláh.[/quote]

(Department of the Secretariat)

[quote]Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.[/quote]

(Blaise Pascal)

[quote]Merry Christmas everyone.[/quote]

Ave Sol Invictus.

pc/left pathology and inflamation clearly exists in the pro-gay movement. people are being forced to accept pc/left ideology as wrapped in a pro-gay banner. such is detrimental to the goals of the movement in that it polarizes things and excludes possibilites not at the extremes.
--------------------------
And how involved are you in the pro-gray movement EP to come to this conclusion? I give a lot of time and money to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) which in the US is a pro-gay movement. My time is not spent "outing" anyone. In fact, I've never heard HRC out anybody. We have more important things to worry about like legislating congress to remove "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", passing an inclusive ENDA (I'm sure you know what that is, since you are such an expert of the pro-gay movement) and yes working towards marriage equality or at the very least civil unions nation-wide. So is HRC (the leading LGBT lobbying group) one of your terrorist groups?
I hope that your are not refering to some gay gossip columnist that makes his $$ by outing celebreties. I hope that's not your litmus test for hate in the pro-gay movement!

EP,

Again, I have not distorted anything you've said, and if you feel I have misrepresented it I sincerely ask you to correct me. Really. Really, Really. You say that I have, but then refuse to tell me how or where or what. What am I supposed to make of that? What is anyone else supposed to make of it? This would be a great opportunity to start doling out the facts and evidence to back up your claims. But instead you just move up the ladder of logical fallacies, and go straight for the ad hominem by saying:

"I’m assuming that you are using distortion because you have nothing of substance to counter my observations, and are upset that te usual bullying isn’t working."

Nice one. 2 points for an attempt at changing the subject to my (undocumented) lack of substance and what my emotional motivations might be. Perhaps next you might try calling me shrill? That's always a crowd pleaser.

What I would like is to have the OPPORTUNITY to DEMONSTRATE through EVIDENCE whether or not I have anything of substance to say to your observations. Sadly, until you actually get your observations on solid ground by telling us specifically what they are, I am left to swat at ephemera in the air. Defining your terms and showing a little evidence (what or where is this extremism? What and where are these distortions? Where lies the bullying, etc)this can't be anything but a ping pong match of "uh uh, yuh huh!"

So, throw me a thesis statement with a fact or two attached instead of calling people names and let's see if this goes someplace. Because, so far, you stated that there is the "pro-gay hate" equivalent of a forest fire sweeping California, and to prove it you cite the existence of a box of matches in somebody's pocket. Show me the flames, Eric, that's what I'm saying. Where are the flames? Where there ISN'T SMOKE, there usually ISN'T FIRE, is all I'm saying.

I did google "pro gay hate" as you suggested, and found alot of sites about people who are pro- passing hate crimes legislation to protect gay people who are suffering from well documented violence. I DIDN'T see anything about our nations hospitals filling up with battered right-wingers. There was also a story about two 7 year olds fighting over seating in their school cafeteria, and one of the fathers attributing it to "a well-planned and coordinated assault"by the kid with gay parents because it was the "anniversary of the legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts." (http://gay_blog.blogspot.com/2006/06/first-grad...) There was also a story about an older woman who walked into a No on 8 rally with a giant cross and a beligerent man yanked the cross out of her hands and stomped on it. You are quite right that, whatever the 7 year olds reasons, it's not ok to hit and he deserves a timeout, and that guy shouldn't have stomped on the homophobic lady's cross. He should get charged with assault. There are people whose immaturity and issues prevent them from being constructive. But, conflating their actions with those of people who are just talking to you is absurd. So far, I am not seeing any existance of "groups" whose are organized around "pro-gate hate." Prove me wrong if they exist.

You state that I denied the existance of radicals in the movement. Not true. I'm asking you to DEFINE radicalism. I'm a radical, and I exist. But I (and every self-respecting radical I know) mean by that that we reject the structural disparities that hurt and disempower people. We want something radically different. We do NOT want violence and disempowerment to visit those who are currently empowered, nor do we tolerate any violence, period. I'm asking you to be thoughtful with your terminology, because on this very blog you have called nonviolence activists TERRORISTS. THAT is inflammatory and dangerous language. And it is profoundly incorrect.

You also wrote: "“Outing” never happened? Bizarro." I never even mentioned outing, EP. Oh, it's happened. It ain't cool. But it isn't a part of the strategy or agenda of No on 8 groups, as far as I'm aware.

You also said, "At least andrew tries to make excuses for the extremism, presumably because he is too smart to deny that it exists." Thanks for that, EP. I have to say it's hard to deny something exists if you won't define what it is we're even talking about. I must also be so unsmart that I need you to pin down your lingo, because when you use the words "violence," "extremism," "radicalism," "terrorism," and "outing" interchangably....I begin to have no idea what you mean.

This discussion is enjoyable (he says while sipping tea at our very civilized Hina’s on K street in Sacramento).

Folks need to know that ol’EP and I are great friends, and if I get my new job on campus, he might even be my IT guy. I know that even if we disagree, he’d never ever put a worm or virus in my new computer, right? But I digress...

The readership needs to know as well, that despite my disagreeing with him on what ever he means by "pro-gay haters" or a number of other things we talk about over coffee. That withstanding, the USAan right-wingnut media that likes to inflame the homophobia, and ignore the anti-gay violence, name calling and disagreeableness from republicans that I deal with on a constant and daily basis. I am deeply appreciative of him and his efforts, he went to bat for me when I came out to the LSA here. He is one guy, with cajones that I respect, even tho I disagree with him, frequently.

Now, if you want to know what gets this GBLM (gay Bahá’í lefty mathematician) all riled up (mind you not enough to spray paint a cathedral, or scare the bejezus out of Mormons on bikes… tempting to honk, though… but naw) but enough to join my friends at the capitol and PEACEFULLY protest is this. I will ask Father Joe when I see him... "what the hell was that about anyway?"

In his latest and most bizarre anti-gay missive, Pope Benedict says it's just as important to protect humanity from dirty homosexuals as it is to protect the rainforest:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idU...

Sigh… this is supposed to help the situation, how?

Blessings all!

Eric states:

[quote comment=""]Let's be clear: are you saying that there has never been radicalism or extremism in the pro-gay movement?[/quote]

Never. Never-ever-ever. It's all been 100% peace, love, and understanding, Eric.

Of course if a gay activist ever had a single hateful thought, that would destroy the credibility of the "pro-gay movement".

ep: this has me smiling. If I've understood you correctly you are associating "Outing" with pro-gay extremism. Now, that is hilarous. So you are being ironic and funny, and we shouldn't take your claims seriously.

Ok, there's room for fun here too.
Merry Christmas everyone.

"I have not distorted anything you have said- if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, please correct me."

Yes, you distorted what I wrote (as have several others in this thread). I already stated this. There was no misunderstanding, just distortion. I'm assuming that you are using distortion because you have nothing of substance to counter my observations, and are upset that te usual bullying isn't working.

Let's be clear: are you saying that there has never been radicalism or extremism in the pro-gay movement? "Outing" never happened? Bizarro. At least andrew tries to make excuses for the extremism, presumably because he is too smart to deny that it exists.

Google "pro gay hate".

EP.

I have not distorted anything you have said- if I have misunderstood what you are trying to say, please correct me.

What I have done is asked you to be specific. Asking for clarification, definition, examples, or EVIDENCE is far from bullying. What it is asking you to do is to participate in this discussion in an adult way that is reasonable and fair. All adults have the right to any opinion and to state that opinion, but we also have the responsibility to back up our assertions with facts. That is where your method is breaking down.

It is fine to speak in grand, broad strokes, about how people are. To be an impressionist painter with your words. However, you have made truth claims here about what you claim to be facts. If I am understanding you, you have claimed that 1) "Pro-gay hate groups" exist 2) These groups are organized, violent, and use extremism to further their goals 3) That "disrespect of social traditions" is hate and that 4) Some posters here, including myself, are bullies.

Have I missed anything?

So, because you are stating the above assertions as facts, I am simply asking you to provide evidence that any of them are true. If you find being held to the common standard that one should be able to back up one's assertions with evidence to be "bullying," rather than simply the rules of engagement in a public discussion, then I encourage you to just clarify for all of us that you do not wish to be held to those rules of engagement or any standard of evidence. I, and I am guessing anyone else here, would be more than happy to respect your boundary that you NOT be expected to back up any of your claims with facts- if you would simply let us know that's what you're asking.

Because that's what you're asking.

For example, if you were to state that "The universe is purple," and I knew that you didn't mean it literally or factually, I would simply take it as a statement of how you FEEL about the universe and I would light up the incense and crank up the Jimmi Hendrix right along with you. However, if you mean your assertions FACTUALLY, then I am going to continue to ask you to provide evidence.

So, not to harsh your mellow, but please demonstrate that there is any truth to your above summarized claims.

Thank you,
Amanda

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-etheridge...

gotta go have cooffe in midtown with my fellow pro-gay haters... laters!

some of the people on this blog.

some of the people posting on this thread.

please stop distorting what I said, it is a bullying tactic.


[quote comment="60274"]EP,

Would you kindly name a "pro-gay hate group?"

Would you kindly provide a quotation/citation for any of these groups "spew(ing of) hate?"

Would you kindly explain the logic of how you equate "hate" to "disrespect of social traditions?"

Thank you,
Amanda[/quote]

What is a pro-gay hate group?

Is pro-gay like a professional gay, one who is paid to be both gay and hate... ? Hmmmm let me work this out...

I absolutely hate lima beans and I am gay, however, I am to a professional gay in that I have no degree from a university, nor am I hired to be gay, I do have a certificate from the state saying I am married.. .but it doesn't mention gay there either... so I guess I am a semi-pro hater...

EP,

Would you kindly name a "pro-gay hate group?"

Would you kindly provide a quotation/citation for any of these groups "spew(ing of) hate?"

Would you kindly explain the logic of how you equate "hate" to "disrespect of social traditions?"

Thank you,
Amanda

anyone who has seen how far-left or far-right political groups actually operate in the "real world" will of course know that once inflamed, dysfunctional attack dog tactics become "normal", they are used against anyone that does not conform to wishes of the group using them - not just the "perpetrators of injustice".

the fact is that totalitarianism is being argued for, and old story, and sad.


[quote comment="60160"]To quote Karl Popper:

[quote]The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them . . . We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.[/quote][/quote]

"anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants "

what happens when the above is applied to pro-gay hate groups?

the only thing keeping such pro-gay hate groups from increasing is the same thing as anti-gay hate groups:

honesty and self-examination.

what this blog thread demonstrates is that anyone asking why the breakdown of such self-examination exists will be demonized.

the classic statement is "patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels".

an update version would be "compassion is the last refuge of scoundrels".

pc/left pathology and inflamation clearly exists in the pro-gay movement. people are being forced to accept pc/left ideology as wrapped in a pro-gay banner. such is detrimental to the goals of the movement in that it polarizes things and excludes possibilites not at the extremes.

the classic example is how a radical/extremist statement by the mayor of SF was used by the Yes on Prop 8 people.

as long as the pro-gay movement is part of the pc/left movement, it will have significant problems trying to get support from moderates.

as long as the pro-gay movement continues to insist that it is ok to spew hate (and disrespect of social traditions) in the name of "tolerance" and "rights", it will have significant problems trying to get support from moderates.

if the people asking for tolerance and rights can't recognise such basic political reality, then "that says it all".

[quote comment="60199"]... I wonder what would happen if all the LGBT Baha'is, like myself, who have been sanctioned, started showing up at public Baha'i events and speaking our truth in a loving and gentle way?
... Part of me wants to do it, but another part of me just doesn't have the heart for the depression and renewed sense of alienation that would inevitably result.[/quote]

Same as any other differing opinion about anything not in the current conformist-groupthink mindset. As you say, alienation is the inevitable result.

Experiment shows that conformance to authortarians is the default reaction:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

| I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much
| pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply
| because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark
| authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants']
| strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the
| subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the
| victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme
| willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command
| of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the
| fact most urgently demanding explanation.


The same is true of pc/left/liberal groupthink authoritarians.

That's a good question Andrew. Actually I would like to see more single straight Bahais prosecuted. If the administration is going to assume that two openly gay men living together are breaking laws and need to have voting rights removed, then we should assume the same of single Bahais in the community. In fact, single parents should be strongly discouraged and Bahai administration should always encourage the single parent to give up the child to his/her ex if the ex has re-married. Because the way God intended for a child to be raised is by a mother and a father, not by a single person. It's absurd to even consider what I'm proposing, but when it comes to gays/lesbians it somehow makes sense to the Bahai administration. Total hypocrisy!

What might it look like if someone wanted to treat straight Baha'is the way straight Baha'is treat gay Baha'is?

I love you guys so much, and can't tell you how much solace and joy it brings me to read all these posts. Jonathan and I will be driving from Chicago to Louisville tomorrow, through snow and sleet. I'll be standing by my my partner as we love and ease the journey of his dying father. I am so blessed that I have a family, his family, who loves me equally and treats me as a spouse even though I don't have that recognition in my religion or society. I'll keep watching this site for more inspiration and strength!

Sonja wrote: [quote comment=""]Why is it assumed that the secretaries were women :)[/quote]

Just wishful thinking. How else are we going to get a female Guardian?

Why is it assumed that the secretaries were women :) Shoghi Effendi's brother Ruhi was one for a time. A guess would be that there would have been 20 or so secretaries who wrote letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. One of the problems is that we have no access to finding out who wrote what when, because this information is not made public. But again, these are not scripture.

Bill wrote "it seems futile to try and “reason” with the Baha’i Institutions and/or individual Baha’is who will not, under any circumstances, have a thoughtful and meaningful discussion about how and where gay and lesbian people can be out and proud and “fit” into the Baha’i community."

This is where people like me can do something and should, I think.
We need to wake up the consciences of our fellow Bahais and show by reasoning that denying gays full equal rights and responsibilities is nothing short of prejudice. It is not up to gays to do this. It is too painful and besides it is more effective for a straight to engage in this way. Likewise when it comes to getting sexists to consider that women could be more than just secretaries. Men would listen more openly to other men, etc.
I see a point in aiming for a community where gays have a place. In my home and at any event I organize gays have a place and I'm as Bahai as the next person, so we start with ourselves and proceed. And we don't buckle. So hopefully more and more gays will find that there are communities where they can be who they are without prejudice. So straights can do two things: talk to other Bahais about this injustice and work on them. I use simple slogans like isn't the garden for all the flowers, etc and hammer that. With people who really don't see the inequality I don't bother with the Shoghi Effendi letters. They need first to see that it is unjust to expect that a gay or lesbian to be sexless as a lifestyle. But this isn't really the issue, the issue is having a different set of rules which goes against any principle of equality.

I find the UHJ's responses so far on this topic saddening, but on the other hand, if you see the UHJ not as the vanguard but as the most conservative element in the Bahai community then I find this helps. Perhaps this is their role, after all, a head of state is usually the most conservative element of a given society. It certainly gives a sense of stability. It could be that we need to rethink the role of the UHJ in this light.

Baquia explained:

[quote comment=""]Dan, someone once said it would be badaa’ to mention her name.[/quote]

Look, Baquia, don't get hung up on too literal a definition of 'year'. Remember, a year is like a day to God. That would make "1000 years" sometime in 1895. If that's not good enough for you, you don't have to say a word. Just write her name down here--backwards if you like. I promise not to say it aloud.

-Dan

Steve Marshall's find:

“In creation there .... blameworthy.”
(`Abdu’l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Page: 215)

Daniel (with tongue in cheek) says that this is proof that the Master never taught mathematics in an inner city gang infested high school in California...

Dan, someone once said it would be badaa' to mention her name.

Grover wrote:

[quote comment=""]Its from some nasty secretary writing on behalf of Shoghi Effendi (I think)[/quote]

:-D Grover, who *was* this secretary that hijacked the future of the Baha'i Faith? Does she have a name? A face? It seems like every time I come around a corner, she's standing there with a can of spraypaint vandalizing the Word of God!

Hi Dan J,

[quote post="193"]Homosexuality is “spiritually condemned” and a “shameful aberration.”[/quote]

I was conveniently ignoring that ;P. Its from some nasty secretary writing on behalf of Shoghi Effendi (I think). It sidelines homosexuals as evil and naughty when they are just as spiritual and good as anyone else.

"In creation there is no evil; all is good. Certain qualities and natures innate in some men and apparently blameworthy are not so in reality. For example, from the beginning of his life you can see in a nursing child the signs of greed, of anger and of temper. Then, it may be said, good and evil are innate in the reality of man, and this is contrary to the pure goodness of nature and creation. The answer to this is that greed, which is to ask for something more, is a praiseworthy quality provided that it is used suitably. So if a man is greedy to acquire science and knowledge, or to become compassionate, generous and just, it is most praiseworthy. If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy; but if he does not use these qualities in a right way, they are blameworthy."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Page: 215)

Andrew and Dan, I really appreciate your comments about honoring righteous anger and the importance of speaking the truth.

Andrew says, with regard to righteous anger:

[quote comment=""]Do not waste it: honor it.[/quote]

I agree, but I would also add that to speak the truth, whether or not one is angry, is a noble goal. Those who silence the truth for the sake of unity "shall have neither."

Grover's syllogism:

[quote comment=""]
1 No sex before marriage (no kissing, no masturbation, no nothing)
2 Marriage between man and woman only (procreation etc etc etc)
3 Therefore no gay marriage and no gay sex
[/quote]

That's clean logic, Grover, but for the sake of fair representation of the Baha'i writings, I think there's a premise that your syllogism doesn't cover: Homosexuality is "spiritually condemned" and a "shameful aberration." The UHJ won't forget these words, so it might be worthwhile to keep them in mind.

I was asked to post something here by my friend Daniel. After reading the above posts, especially the response from the UHJ regarding gay couples, it seems futile to try and "reason" with the Baha'i Institutions and/or individual Baha'is who will not, under any circumstances, have a thoughtful and meaningful discussion about how and where gay and lesbian people can be out and proud and "fit" into the Baha'i community. Until the institutions of the Faith are ready to move on and reevaluate what the Guardian said so many years ago regarding homosexuality, nothing and I mean nothing will move them to change their stand. It's like the Christian bumper sticker I see sometimes, "God Said It, I Believe It, that Settles It". It's heart breaking because I believe that as long as the Faith stays locked into a 1950's mind set it will long continue to be viewed as a small fringe religion with no chance of capturing the hearts of the masses. Shoghi Effendi said that the Baha'i Faith should always be in the "forefront" of all progressive movements. Well, what happened? I also believe that if the Guardian knew that after his death there would be no more future Guardians and that the UHJ would refuse to update any of his writings/interpretations as the times would require, he would have given the future UHJ the power to do "what so ever they willest". I don't believe he would have agreed to "freeze" the ability of UHJ to legislate and possibly modernize his interpretations until the appearance of the next manifestation in a thousand or thousands of years! The Guardian had one of the most brilliant and logical minds of the 20th Century. He just asumed, as all Baha'is at the time did because of the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha, that future Guardians would keep the Faith in the forefront of a progessive civilization, they having the power to alter and change what past Guardians said. I guess as someone here said, it will take maybe another 100 years for the Faith to change regarding gays and lesbians. It will take that period of time for the "emotional" attachment to the person of Shoghi Effendi to fade away enough for the institutions to see the "era" in which they are functioning. To me, no matter what any Baha'is say, the Universal House of Justice has the power to do what ever needs to be done to perserve the very life of the Faith. They just haven't been around long enough.
In Peace,
Bill Garbett

Yes, P . . . starting a splinter group is not an option. I also believe that "the umbrella of unity will include LGBT people one day." It is the only possible outcome if our religion is to remain in consonance with science. I wonder what would happen if all the LGBT Baha'is, like myself, who have been sanctioned, started showing up at public Baha'i events and speaking our truth in a loving and gentle way? What if we jumped in and started teaching the Faith and attending Ruhi study groups, pointing out the glaring oxymoron enshrined in "elimination of prejudice of all forms" when gay people are not allowed to be themselves? So many of us are getting active in the quest for equality on a civic level -- why not in our local Baha'i communities? Part of me wants to do it, but another part of me just doesn't have the heart for the depression and renewed sense of alienation that would inevitably result.

Thanks Grover, but to start another Bahai group is NOT an option for me. What I love about the Bahai Faith is the idea of unity. I would rather be alone (or maybe worship with Unitarians and just call myself an inactive Bahai) than to be part of a splinter group. But I do believe that umbrella of unity will include LGBT people one day. It probably will start at the grassroots with liberal societies just allowing gay couples to serve openly at the local level without anyone at the top knowing (sort of like what is happening with many liberal Catholic congregations) and then maybe at some point the UHJ will come to terms with it. Who knows? It's easy to be doubtful, but then again I also never thought I'd see the day when a black man would be president of the United States. So anything is possible. :o)

Hi P,

I suspect that your letter never even got read by any UHJ member. That looks like a stock standard reply from some annoying secretary. They probably have some automated response generator. You can understand their logic though:

1 No sex before marriage (no kissing, no masturbation, no nothing)
2 Marriage between man and woman only (procreation etc etc etc)
3 Therefore no gay marriage and no gay sex

I wouldn't expect any other response from the UHJ, and I don't think you'll ever get them revisiting past decisions. Don't expect there to be changes anytime soon, the UHJ members come from conservative backgrounds, either multiple generation Baha'i from muslim countries or conservative christian backgrounds. No amount of scientific evidence etc would ever override their own personal biases supported by what they perceive the Baha'i writings to be.

The only way you would ever be able to force a change is to form your own faith community that embraces homosexuality as normal and get those who are closeted, inactive, or resigned and those who are supportive of homosexuals to join. You'll be branded as a covenant breaker, but then what revolutionary has not been disowned by the mainstream community?

And I guess I should have posted this first. Here is my initial email to the Secretariat office back in October:

Dear Sirs,
I would like a clear and final decision on how openly gay couples and individuals would be treated in the Bahai community. Would we have our voting rights removed for openly stating that we are gay and living with a partner? Or would we be fully accepted with voting rights and all?

I understand the difficult decision that you must face. On the one hand you feel that you must follow the admonitions written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, on the other there is tremendous damage being done to gays inside the Bahai community. I am just one of those individuals who suffered as a gay youth in the Bahai community.

I have a solution that may be worth investigating. Baha'u'llah extols his followers to seek professional medical help when they have an illness. For this reason, no Bahai would ever lose his voting rights for drinking a medicine with alcohol that is prescribed by a doctor, correct? Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi also state that homosexuality is a disorder- one that may need the help of competent physicians. Then in the exact same way, if a homosexual has consulted a competent physician (all of whom do NOT recommend that a homosexual try to overcome his sexuality) and is now living a happy spiritual life- he should be FULLY accepted by the Bahai community. To remove this individual's voting rights or make him hide his sexuality in order to function in the community would be an incredible injustice and the height of hypocrisy.

I hope to hear an unambigious reply from your office. For now, I have decided to remain inactive, but with the hopes that your leadership will bring the Bahai community to not only greater acceptance of gay families, but encourage the Bahahi community to evolve into a haven for such families and individuals. I will leave you with an incredible link to a book that I hope you will read. I just pray that the religion of my forefathers will act differently from those in this book: www.crisisbook.org

Hi Sonja. No I emailed them back with what you read. I see two things in their response:
1) The hypocrisy of allowing a Bahai to use drugs/alcohol if prescribed by a doctor, but not allowing a same sex realtionship if prescribed by a doctor. If as Bahais we are to accept science and the prescription of competent doctors, and if homosexuality is seen by the House as a disorder, then why reject such a prescription? They don't even consider it. Why? There is ample proof from Bahaullah's words Himself that we can not drink alcohol; yet THAT Bahais accept.
2) The other thing is how quickly they equate a gay family with breaking Bahai law. I think the law (if there is such a thing and must be applied) should only be applied when it is blatant. So if two people are exhibiting their exploits on the internet for the world to see. Or lets say a closeted gay man cheats on his wife with another male who happens to be a LSA member- then that is a scandal where maybe you remove voting rights. But to automatically deny two good people full acceptance in the community with all rights is a complete injustice. Yet they continue to believe there is no prejudice in their decision.
I'm really fed up. I used to be scared to death of letting anyone find out. Now I'm just angry at the injustice of it all. Daniel's post above just confirmed for me how out of touch some religions are. I used to think those 9 men were something special and greater in their position than any Pope. Now I really see no difference.

P, did you send this letter or is this your response just posted here? I'm just asking out of interest, and supporting you here. I admire your courage in writing the UHJ, because I wouldn't, but I think it is important that Bahais do this. Others have suggested that I do, but I think I'm more useful trying to get fellow Bahais to see that it is nothing less than prejudice to expect gays to live differently to straights. I think real change happens at the grass roots and we need real change on this in our Bahai communities. After all if married gay couples were accepted in local communities without prejudice, then evidently the U.H.J. would see that there's no immorality to fear, etc. Unfortunately, it seems from their letter above, as if this is going to take a long time, and as each decade passes and the world becomes more enlightened about identity and sexuality, harder to bear. When I read a letter like the above I despair, for how can we as Bahais preach the words "justice" or "equality" and have a different set of rules for gay Bahais.

The only issue in the letter is the following:

[quote comment=""][...] the Bahá’í writings unambiguously affirm that marriage is a union between a man and a woman[...][/quote]

As far as I know it is not unambiguously only a union between a man and a woman in the Aqdas, given the principle of mutandis mutatis explained in the beginning, but give me a few days. I'll look some stuff up and see what I find or someone else might beat me to it.

If there's nothing in the writings of Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi (Shoghi Effendi's own authorative interpretations) and I suspect there isn't or we would have heard about this by now, then as you wrote, it boils down to a decision by the U.H.J., on whether gay Bahais are expected to be treated with equality or not.

And here is my response:

"First thank you for your response. But I have to say I'm dissapointed in your response, yet it is what I expected. You will allow people to consume alcohol if prescribed by a doctor (something specifically forbidden by Bahaullah). But, you disregard a prescription by a doctor to allow a homosexual to find stability and peace in a healthy/intimate relationship. You condemn gay families (not Bahaullah; I've yet to see a specific quote from Him in regards to adult consenting gay relationships) but you still believe that this is not prejudice. What then is prejudice? You have pre-judged the relationship of two same sex adults and their children as not worthy of fully participating in Bahai community life.
I am still a Bahai (albeit not active) and I always will be. I believe that justice is the most important thing before God's eyes, not blind adherence to what was written by the secretaries of Shoghi Effendi to individual believers years ago.
I pray for the Bahai youth being brought up, like I was, to regard their sexuality as a disorder to overcome. You say that the Faith stands against any type of prejudice against homosexuals, yet the Bahai community by insisting that gay couples are not fully welcome in the community, you are discriminating. Your views only feed Bahais in other countries to continue discrimination not only inside the Bahai community, but outside as well. Did you know for instance in 2003, the Guyana NSA wrote to the government against a proposed non-discrimination law that would protect gays/lesbians as well as others in society. And of course the recent protests in Uganda againsts gays where the Bahais were involved. Such actions by local Bahais, the trauma felt by Bahai youth (some whom I'm sure have committed suicide since they couldn't "overcome") and the loss of activity of thousands of good Bahais fall squarely on your shoulders because of the rigidness of your views. Good day."

Thank you Daniel for your moving post. I sometimes think that most straight people just don't get it and they never will. Speaking of most straight people...
I finally received a response from the World Center regarding my proposal to allow gays to openly live in the Bahahi community without sanctions if that is the prescription that a competent doctor prescribes (since homosexuality is seen as a disorder in the Bahai community). What follows is their letter. Then I will post my response to their letter. Thanks!
-------------------------------------
Dear Bahá’í Friend,

The Universal House of Justice has received your email letter of 15 October 2008, and
we have been asked to convey to you the following.

Your comments about your experience in the Bahá’í community have been noted. We are
to assure you that to regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against
the spirit of the Teachings.

With regard to your suggestion that Bahá’ís be allowed to live with a partner in a
homosexual lifestyle without losing their voting rights if a physician were to recommend this
course of action, the Bahá’í writings unambiguously affirm that marriage is a union between a
man and a woman, and sexual relations are only permissible between a couple who are married
to each other. These teachings are set forth in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh and in the authoritative
statements of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi and are not susceptible to change by the House
of Justice. Therefore, it cannot adopt your suggestion.

The doors are open for all of humanity to enter the Bahá’í community, irrespective of their
present circumstances. Associated with this invitation is the expectation that all those who
accept Bahá’u’lláh as a Manifestation of God will make a sincere and persistent effort to modify
those aspects of their conduct which are not in conformity with His Law. For some, this may
involve a prolonged personal struggle. However, it would be a profound contradiction for
someone to profess the intention to be a Bahá’í, yet consciously reject, disregard or contend with
aspects of belief or practice ordained by Bahá’u’lláh.

With loving Bahá’í greetings,

Department of the Secretariat

To quote Karl Popper:

[quote]The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato. Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them . . . We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.[/quote]

[quote]But do not waste one ounce of energy in a negative attachment to anger with the Church.[/quote]

Do not waste it: honor it.

http://www.crosscurrents.org/blumenthalsummer20...

[quote]Anger and rage are inseparably a part of us. One who has experienced no anger, no rage, is not human. Such a person has no deep investment in life, no love to protect, no vulnerability. Anger and rage are integral to human being . . . Covenant implies loyalty on both sides. Covenant means justice for both parties . . . Righteous anger defends covenant. The sound and thorough defeat of the enemy are part of covenantal relatedness -- precisely because it is not pornographic violence that is the goal but action that seeks justice for both parties to the covenant.[/quote]

O ye that dwell on earth (ay ahl-i 'alam)! The religion of God is for love and unity (muhabbat va ittihad); make it not the cause of enmity or dissension . . . We fain would hope that the people of Baha may be guided by the blessed words: "Say: All things are of God." This exalted utterance (kalima-yi 'ulya) is like unto water for quenching the fire of hate and enmity (nar-i zaghina va baghza) which smouldereth within the hearts and breasts of men. By this single utterance contending peoples and kindreds will attain the light of true unity (nur-i ittihad-i haqiqi).

FOCUS | Jerry Brown: Gay-Marriage Ban Should Be Invalidated

http://www.truthout.org/122008Y

Jessica Garrison, The Los Angeles Times: "In a surprise move, state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown asked the California Supreme Court on Friday to invalidate Proposition 8. He said the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage 'deprives people of the right to marry, an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.'"

P. 168 of McNeil:

We must fight to free ourselves from any attachment to the institutional church, whether that be to have their approval or the equally destructive attachment that comes from the anger at the Church’s injustice. We should see ourselves as equals and siblings to Church authorities and pray for them as they try to discern the Spirit of God in their lives. Leave the Hierarchical Church in God’s hands. Be grateful to them for the gifts they helped bring to us like the scriptures and sacraments. But do not waste one ounce of energy in a negative attachment to anger with the Church. Commit every ounce of our energy to the positive ministry of love to which God has called us.

This is from a man who was removed from the Jesuits by the Pope, and yet continues to love his church, and continues his ministry none the less… amazing.

Farhan asks:

“Daniel, does he make a difference between bisexuality and homosexuality? And if so, does he differentiate between multiple heterosexual partners and bisexuality?”

Daniel answers

No, tho the focus is primarily on Gay/lesbian imagery in the bible

And Daniel says to Dan W “Good luck Dan… we await your story”

Daniel wrote:
He is a former Jesuit priest, who ministers to the GLBT community.

Daniel, does he make a difference between bisexuality and homosexuality? And if so, does he differentiate between multiple heterosexual partners and bisexuality?

Thanks

Dan wrote:
Does anybody know if there is a way to retreive what I wrote. I poured my heart and soul into it (plus about an hour of my life)!

An African proverb says that an error does not make the effort accomplished void... I do the same as Sonja: I write and register the message in Word before posting... this also allows to spell check too.

Response to Dan: next time hit the back arrow key, often I've retrieved stuff that way. Wait a bit and do it again. Sometimes it takes time. Another suggestion is to write your stuff in a text document or to select + copy it all just before you hit submit so you can then paste it in again. That's what I do.

Oh, never mind . . . it showed up! Thank God!

I just typed a long submission to this thread, and because my computer did not provide the "gotcha" image after I pressed "Submit" the entire message was lost. Does anybody know if there is a way to retreive what I wrote. I poured my heart and soul into it (plus about an hour of my life)!

Friends, I am delighted to see such a lively discussion of a topic that was so hush-hush when I became a Baha'i in 1970. How we have grown!

I long ago had my administrative rights removed for my homosexuality, and it has been decades since I was active in the Baha'i community, but I still Fast and say my prayers every day. I am a believer. No one can take that away from me.

I own a gay travel business, and when I am asked about my Baha'i beliefs by my clients, I teach the Faith passionately and with unhesitating conviction. How can I do this when, in a sense, I am an outcast? There is a very good reason . . . I see the logic of Progressive Revelation, and I see the Baha'i Faith as the logical expression of that progression in this age. I see the principles of Unity espoused by Baha'u'llah as the only hope for this world. And, I have rested my forehead on the Holy Threshold and been touched at a core level that cannot be altered by the changes and chances of this world.

I love the prayers of the Bab, and say several of them daily. He cuts to the quick of the matter with few words. "No one can withstand Thy Will, or thwart Thy Purpose." " . . . and cause me to be satisfied with whatsoever Thou hast ordained for me. Thine is the absolute authority to command." "All are His servants, and all abide by His bidding."

A Divine Plan is unfolding, and I am so thrilled to be living through some of the most exciting parts. Unity, justice, equality, universal dignity and respect for diversity in all its glorious manifestations -- I believe from my understanding of the Writings that these are among the hallmarks of the Divine Purpose that no one can thwart. Not fundamentalists of any stripe or persuasion.

I know that the truth about homosexuality is grounded in science. When that science has been further mined and its truth undeniably established, the fundamental Baha'i belief in the absolute harmony of science and religion will trump all interpretations of Baha'u'llah's teachings that have come before. That is a promise I can live with.

In the meantime, my life-partner and I attend rallies and march through the streets and chant "What do we want? EQUAL RIGHTS! When do we want them? NOW!" We march on City Hall in Chicago, and make the attempt to obtain a marriage license. See: http://www.outworld.tv/media/115/Day_Without_A_...

I know that change is coming. I don't get distraught about a temporary setback, like Prop 8, in the progression towards full equal rights for gay people. Look at the firmly-entrenched laws regarding slavery and segregation and interracial marriage. "No one can withstand Thy Will, or thwart Thy Purpose."

The Kingdom of God on Earth is all-inclusive. All expressions of the Divine in human form are revered, and none are told they are sick and need curing, or relegated to an inferior status. It will come to pass. "No one can withstand Thy Will, or thwart Thy Purpose."

I wish I had the talent and eloquence that the posters here have demonstrated in this dialogue.

I want to extend my thanks to all of you here, especially Sonja and Dan Jensen, who to my mind, make this dialogue smart, interesting and informative… and so I shall rant.

Over and over, I have had people tell me to my face things that if you change the word gay for black or Jew for instance we would all be shocked. Yet for some reason, we are able to tell gay folks that we are wrong, sick, dirty, or at very least worthy of tolerance and second class citizenship.

It grew to a crescendo the week before the election. I am gay, so I can be told, to my face, things like, “I give you two permission to live together, but marriage, no” as neighbor told me before the election. This was done with out me doing any more than “how do you do”. WTF?

So yes, EP, I am uppity, angry… or if you so choose extreme. Though I don’t own or plan to buy any spray paint. I will no longer be tolerated. EP, I can say that if the cards were different, that after years, and years of this bigoted homophobic crap, you too would be in the streets as I am now. If you cannot understand this frustration… you have lost any sense of compassion.

My answer after the months building up to the election here in California was slow, smoldering boil; I am in a just a few words, fed up.

I am fed up with people banging bibles and agdas’… and forgetting about love.

I am fed up with being tolerated.

I am fed up with being told that my family is not right.

I am fed up with having to hide my non-Bahá’í life to Bahá’ís, when I do not have to do this with anyone else, including the Presbyterian and Catholic sides of my family, including the priest who blessed our marriage.

I am fed up with bigots of all kinds (stupid gay racists included) and politicians who legislate against gay people, while having sex in bathrooms.

I am fed up with cristinistas thinking that I am an extremist when the night before the election a synagogue here was spray painted with yes on 8 graffiti, and the week before a straight woman simply holding a sign against prop 8 was beaten up by two god fearing Christian women while their children watched. Yet it seems I am supposed to sit by and accept this like a good gay man.

I am fed up with people telling others how gay folks should live their lives. Yet expecting us to pay our share of taxes, though were second class citizens.

I am fed up with being afraid, that some nut case will come and kill me in my home, or beat me up while I spend time with friends in a park as happened here a few years back.

I am fed up with my orientation being used as a slur as in “that’s so gay”.

I am tired of kids killing themselves because homophobic parents and religious communities seem to think they are sick (this has occurred in the Bahá’í community as well, campers).

I am fed up with USAan elections that use gay folks to smokescreen what is really ailing the country.

I am fed up seeing my GLBT friends being accepted by their progressive churches and seeing this religion (that I love so very much, that I am unable to leave it) so backwards and out of touch with issues related to sexuality that it is an embarrassment.

I am fed up with people who hide behind rules, dogma, and science, and forget about compassion and love.

Friends, I suggest that you get and read John McNeil’s latest book: Sex as God Intended. He is a former Jesuit priest, who ministers to the GLBT community. Not to change us, but to love us. McNeil rails against the homophobic teachings and beliefs of his church in a way that astonishes.

When this religion can mature to the point that it will teach all people because it loves them unconditionally… things will be different indeed.

EP-

Again, you have avoided defining extremism and are just accusing everyone who disagrees with you of it. What is it?

You have actually now accused posters here of "posting positions in support of terrorism." That just hasn't happened, EP, and no matter how many times you say it has, it hasn't. NO ONE here has posted anything in support of violence. We have been posting AGAINST violence. No one here supports violence towards anyone. You are making that up.

Also, you keep talking about some violent pro-gay wave sweeping California, and you are still not providing any evidence that that is occuring. (And we all agree that if it was occuring it would be wrong.) You are not the only person reporting on their life from California, and the only sources saying these things seem to be making it up for Right wing and apologetics purposes. If I am simply missing news reports, please inform me of specifics.

I have Mormon family members who I love and would frankly jump in front of a bullet for in order to protect their safety. So this effects me personally. But I also have a gay sister I DO jump in front of alot of hate coming her way, and let me tell you- being in the line of fire makes it very clear who's doing the actual shooting.

Debate and dialogue with people who hold differing opinions is vital to a free society and to the pursuit of truth. It does not equal terrorism.

Just because you are terrified of something (gay marriage hiding under the bed) does not make the people who aren't terrorists.

EP writes:

[quote comment=""]ironically, pc/left extremism strengthens the ultraconservative movement.

But you already knew that, right? Of course you did.[/quote]

You're getting ahead of yourself: you're still stuck with a false premise. You have propped up your dazzling truism without establishing a foundation, or pertinence, for that matter. Your definition of "extremism" appears to be rather, well, extreme.

And by the way, you might have things turned around. I was activated against prop 8 by the "ultraconservatives". I fought against Prop 8 for the sake of republican government. Who did I anger with my "extremism"? The cross-toting mob who got me off my ass to begin with?

Farhan said: [quote comment=""]I have further proof on what I already knew.[/quote]

Isn't it wonderful how "faith" works?
Always reinforcing itself.
Not about God necessarily; just whatever it "already knew".

P - I find somewhat surprising that someone such as yourself, that has presumably had to personally experience the effects of intolerance is supporting intolerance, lies, distortions and radical extremism, and people posting positions in support of terrorism.

==============
And EP, I find it amusing that with all the ranting I've heard from you against the Bahai Faith, YOU don't actually see yourself as a bully. Kind of funny.
Again, if there have been instances of violence by gays against anyone who supported Prop 8, then YES I am against that. You are right, that is extremism and I don't agree with it. HOWEVER, you made a blanket statement against those of us who strongly fought against Prop 8. You make it sound like the only solution is to be in the middle, as if there really isn't a right and wrong in all this. EP there IS a right and wrong. And it has nothing to do with fighting for the rights "of what goes on in my underpants" as one conservative Bahai here would like you to believe. It's about justice, the most beloved thing in God's eyes (anybody remember that little quote from Bahaullah?). That's all I have to say.

http://ubnotorious.blogspot.com/2008/12/courtsy...

[quote]"Several signatories to the ad are generals in the culture wars," said Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Church (Epsicopal), Pasadena, Calif. "They lied about gay people in the campaign, and now they are lying again when they say we are in favor of mob intimidation and violence. I personally talked legitimately angry demonstrators in California out of such action and every credible LGBT organization called for peaceful resistance to the Prop 8 travesty. Many of the leaders cited in this ad preach hate against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, then look the other way when LGBT people are the victims of hate crimes. This ad is an act of individual and corporate hypocrisy."[/quote]

Ah, hypocrisy. Well, if the jackboot fits, wear it with pride.

Proposition 8 was a vote against "gay radicalism" which is really all about "whatever takes place in people's underpants." Pathetic. Truly, utterly pathetic. As I wrote, generations from now, these positions will be evaluated for what they are, and it's sad to see the extent to which individuals and institutions will go to excuse the inexcusable in an attempt to preserve a particular prejudice, a prejudice which will one day be recognized as every bit as insidious as racism or sexism. But the die seems to have been cast, irrevocably so (or so it appears), and these prejudices (and those who hold them) will be judged by those who follow us as unnecessary, hurtful and unbelievably archaic. I very much doubt that even the Administrative Order in Haifa will be able to spin its way past this one; but then again, by that time, it might be well beyond the point when most people would care.

Steve wrote:
[quote comment="60060"]Does anyone feel that they have learned anything from the exchange? And if so, what?[/quote]

Steve, I have further proof on what I already knew: there is a huge amount of pain, passion and concern when it comes to whatever takes place in people's underpants, and less concern about what goes on in hearts and minds, at a time when the world going to pieces.

sonja,

with all due respect, american political culture is not exactly like the prevalent "social-democrat" political cluture in europe, or NZ (or Canada).

e.g., liberal-moderate Obama moves to moderate-conservative on a number of issues, including foreign policy (Pakistan), shortly after the election.

as I've stated in another post, the issue in california is keeping people on the far left and far right from engaging in destructive politics against each other that harm innocent bystanders, neutrals, or moderates.

Are you actually in favor of hate rhetoric, extremism, bullying, and thought policing, as long as it comes from the left?

after all the protests over censorship and suppression of free expression by bahai administration? if so, I'm amazed.

Prop 8 was the second vote in california against gay radicalism. the first "anti-gay" win was overturned by liberal courts, one of many examples where the judiciary overturned the people of the state's vote for ideological reasons. after gays threw the court ruling in everyone else's faces and generally made spectacles of themselves, the Mormons and Catholics saw an opening, and moved quickly.

If you don't know, california politics have been highly polarized, and highly dysfunctional, and high corrupted by special interests on "both sides", for at least 25 years.

it is extremely disgusting.

There is little or no expectation that extremists on either "side" will do the right thing for the common good.



[quote comment="60033"]The one thing i miss in all the discussion of above is: so what about kids of homosexual couples? All 5 I know of personally are straight, being wired that way I guess. And they seem to be so together, so mature.
It is of interest that the discussion moved from EP calling his decision not to vote for equality as
[quote comment=""][...] the only possible compromise that is “fair to everyone”[...][/quote] (even children would see the bad logic here :) to a discussion of morality as if gays can't marry (and be merry!)

A compromise is to let people choose - to allow all people to choose to be able to marry. Pro8 was against this compromise.

[quote comment="60058"]EP states: [quote comment=""]Again, I rest my case.[/quote]

Your case is in a rather animated state of rest, Sir.
[/quote]

LOL! You obviously haven't seen my long posts.

Did you see what the Speaker of the California Assembly said:

http://www.racewire.org/archives/2008/11/assemb...

"Assembly Speaker Bass addresses attacks on Blacks after Prop. 8 vote"

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/stor...

How's every one feeling? This has been a very animated discussion, and one I haven't felt like taking part in. But I am curious about one thing. Does anyone feel that they have learned anything from the exchange? And if so, what?

ka kite
Steve

EP states: [quote comment=""]Again, I rest my case.[/quote]

Your case is in a rather animated state of rest, Sir.

Dan J.,

you said:
| It may be true that the no-on-8 campaign made political
| miscalculations. It is certainly true that pro-8 activists and
| voters have been called bigots. I have called many of them bigots.
| I have done worse: I have called them Mormons.

Again, I rest my case. Can you imagine the mullas in Iran seeing this (on this blog), and getting a big laugh about Baha'is protesting human rights violations and intolerance?

Appalling.

I really think that all voter ballots should have "none of the above" on each choice. Most people in california do not want to support either dysfunctional side in this kind of stuff, and do not like the lies, distortions or hate rhetoric.

As far as Mormons and Catholics from out-of-state funding Prop 8 goes - I found that distrubing and disgusting, but no more so than the many liberal partisan groups from out of state doing the same types of things.

(And frankly, the pro-gay/anti-prop8 groups probably got out of state support.)

However, I'm sure there are no shortage of "personal" stories circulating in Mormon and Catholic circles about people in those communities being confronted by pro-gay hate during and after the election. I've heard of several so far. And of course I've been called a "bigot" by every bahai gay for not conforming to their ideas. I do not talk to non-bahai gays for obvious reasons. they are even more scary and creepy. they "target" people that do not agree with them. there is a similarity starting to develop with abortion clinic bombers (or ecoterrorists) that people on the left ought to think hard about.

I personally had not thought of a possible "compromise" structural solution until I was sitting around talking to a bunch of moderate-liberal middle aged, middle-class people who were lamenting the Prop8 win (they all voted against Prop8), and resulting violence and hate coming from gay radical/extremists. someone said that they heard of the compromise as a way to stop the violence and hate from both sides. the compromise is designed to keep radical extremists on both sides from each other's throats. it will make no one invested in polarized "culture wars" rhetoric happy. both the ultra-right and ultra-left want to fight to the bitter end, and do not care about the rest of society. so, they will resist a structural solution. many of the extremists on the left and right of course profit from conflict, or find a way to "belong" to something larger than their usual mundane lives by buying into conflict.

ironically, pc/left extremism strengthens the ultraconservative movement.

But you already knew that, right? Of course you did.

Gover,

As I said before, I rest my case. You see the froth and spittle, the groupthink, the hate rhetoric, people living in echo chambers, etc., on the pc/left. Boomeritis. There is a long list of actual and rhetorical terrorism associated with racicalism on the left throughout its history. Much of "activist" gay culture is apparently infected with the usual pc/left pathologies.

Amanda, there have been widespread reports of pro-gay hostility, bullying, attacks, defacing churches, etc., in california. Of course most of the information about local incidents only surfaces in the marginalized "conservative" media, with a few exceptions.

e.g., the speaker of the california legislative assembly, a black liberal democrat, had to make a public statement protesting gay hostility towards blacks after the election. Reason? blacks largely voted anti-gay. So now we have racist gays. sad.

I will ignore your insults and distortions, they only prove my point.

Adrew is obviously a smart guy, but has apparently become inflamed with power, like many gays I've met, that comes from PC bullying. Such bullying is really deeply ingrained in gay culture, has specific psychological characteristics, and seems to be getting more creepy. Again, sad.

Since he has said he's from Canada, goddess bless him, he presumably has not actually been in california to witness what is going on.

As I said on talisman and other places many times, the first sign that groupthink and corruption are setting in is when people refuse to engage in deep self-examaination, and instead, demonize others. It was the case when reactionary conservatives where in power, and it is the case now that reactionary "liberals" (radical pc/left) are moving into power.

Paolo Friere made the original, well known reference to revolutionaries taking on the characteristics of the oppressors way back in the 60s, perhaps earlier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_Freire
|... In fact, in many ways his Pedagogy of the Oppressed may be best
| read as an extension of, or reply to, Frantz Fanon's The Wretched
| of the Earth, which emphasized the need to provide native
| populations with an education which was simultaneously new and
| modern (rather than traditional) and anti-colonial (not simply an
| extension of the culture of the colonizer).


In, Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities" - the classic treatment of victimst politics, political correctness and corporate greed run amok, in the courtroom scene when the self-serving "activist" tries to derail justice by inciting a riot, the judge says "have you people no decency?".

I certainly hope that the gay community can come to its senses and work with moderates on a compromise. To do so, they will have to unload a lot of nasty baggage. The situation in california is not hopeful in that regard.

P - I find somewhat surprising that someone such as yourself, that has presumably had to personally experience the effects of intolerance is supporting intolerance, lies, distortions and radical extremism, and people posting positions in support of terrorism.

Finally, Baquia:

I am actually very sorry that I ever posted any personal information on this blog, this is not a safe place, or a safe time. If you can remove it, I would greatly appreciate it. Please let me know if I can provide you with compensation for your time and effort.

regards,
ep

I post an excerpt (without any comment) from a blog that is critical of Baha'i homophobia and EP (for no apparent reason) states that it sounds shrill and extremist; he conflates the practice of political correctness with the promotion of far-left ideology and compares it to an inquisition; he insinuates that opponents of Proposition 8 who participate in public demonstrations against it are merely leftist extremists; he indulges in the generalization that there exists a widespread impression of instability imputed by the public toward these activists (even to the point where they are alleged to threaten the rights of others); he presumes to speak on behalf of all the so-called middle-of-the-road people who are supposedly inclined to conclude that the activists are just a crazy group of unstoppable leftists; he implies that the state recognition of same-sex marriage involves coercive intrusion into the thoughts of others; he asserts that the struggle for equal marriage consists of an unresolved internalized parental conflict, etc., etc., etc. How he knows all these things, he cannot say, because, in truth, he doesn't. He simply reacts to what he clearly perceives as a threat to the status quo in the time-honored tradition of all social conservatives everywhere: an argument from ignorance, relying on both his audience's ignorance and their gullibility. Why, if I didn't know any better (and I don't, do I?) I'd hazard a guess that he's probably a deeply closeted homosexual himself.

Baha'i the way, the notion that liberals really ought to be tolerant of intolerance seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon. I, to the contrary, was raised and educated to believe that the very essence of social progressivism is intolerance of intolerance. Most societies are not apt to progress very far at all if they continually indulge the prejudices of others in the name of tolerating their intolerance.

Also, I live in Canada. My partner and I have been legally married for almost six years now; I understand that Massachusetts as well as Connecticut also recognize same-sex marriage. The first religious (but federally unrecognized) same-sex marriage in Canada took place almost forty years ago; the adoption of children by same-sex parents has been legal in most provinces of Canada for over twenty years. I live in a city which has almost 15,000 legally married same-sex couples, many of them married in liberal Protestant or Jewish houses of worship. The notion that this is an issue that threatens anything other than the purely conceptual models of marriage advocated by socially/morally conservative religions is absurd to the point of surreal hilarity. But it seems that many people prefer to clutter their brainpans with simplistic and outmoded conceptual constructs than actually live the life they were given to live, and allow others to do likewise.

Conservative social and religious institutions are, quite simply, on the wrong side of human history, but they seem to lack the capacity for self-reflection (and self-correction) which would enable them to do anything other than what they are presently doing. Eventually, the state of California will have same-sex marriage, as will many other states in the Americas, and generations from now, the positions of these conservative religious groups and institutions will be seen (and evaluated) for what they are: hopelessly misguided, heedlessly prejudiced, irredeemably ignorant. Even in Canada, polls have shown that over three-quarters of the population which identifies as religiously conservative accepts the reality of same-sex marriage, even if they may not completely approve of it (fortunately, Canada is an extremely secular nation). One of my friends -- a devout Iranian Shi'i -- has witnessed three same-sex weddings in the past year. And the children of immigrants almost invariably embrace the more liberal cultural values that their parents initially reject.

And Ken Wilbur? In my opinion, just another New Age narcissist who believes his own advertising. Despite the many mischievously provocative rants I've written on this blog (where else to shoot scattershot?), to compare Wilber with Baha'u'llah would be like trying to compare an anthill to Mount Everest. Really. Seriously.

But WHO are we talking about? If a gay person goes and beats up a Prop 8 supporter, torches that person's house, etc. etc. etc. then yeah, I'm with EP on that for sure. But if Andrew is proving EP's point, then hell EVERYONE who is ever written on this board is a bully. Including EP!

Hey guys, maybe we should examine a little deeper where EP is coming from. Maybe he has some horrible experience with an overzealous activist that has coloured his perception of all activist activities.

An activist can be very forthright and assertive and sometimes very confrontational, no matter the issue, e.g. Greenpeace vs Japanese whalers. I've had close encounters with activists against animal testing and I'm just a science teacher. While its inconvenient for those on the recieving end, often the activists need to be agressive because no one is going to listen otherwise.

[quote]people that put forward the radical/extremist (pc/left) version “pro-gay” politics are usually bullies, and are more than ready to violate the very rights that they claim to be advocating.[/quote]

To borrow a phrase from Juan Cole: Once a glaze-eyed Baha'i, always a glaze-eyed Baha'i. Same crap, different pee-eww.

EP,

Thanks for not answering any of my questions and just repeating the word "bully" alot. Again, what is bullying to you, and how is it ANY different than someone vocalizing an opinion different than yours? Is it the content of the opinion or the way the opinion is expressed that makes it bullying? Do tell. How would you contrast your arguing of your assertions here as compared to the folks you're calling bullies on the bully-o-meter? Hmm?

P,
Yeah, MLK had Mommy/Daddy issues I guess. And Coretta Scott King ("people that put forward the radical/extremist (pc/left) version "pro-gay" politics are usually bullies") too- AND they and their nonviolent cronies must be laying in wait, "ready to violate the very rights that they claim to be advocating."

Apparently, it is opposite day.

Notice how EP had not a single example to back up his claims.

I love it when the people who are being victimized get called the oppressors. That's such a neat trick. I think pulling rabbits out of hats will be next.

Amanda, I guess MLK must have had "mommy-daddy" issues too. What you don't understand EP is that the "pro-gay" movement as you put it covers a broad sepctrum of people. From conservative Republican homosexuals, libertarians and yep even flaming liberals that you dislike- all of us. Why? Because we are fighting for human rights- nothing less. So brand us all crazy violent extremists; although you can't point to a single instance of such violence. Andrew proved your point? Seriously?

andrew,

you just proved my point - unfortunately. I should have known that trying to present a perspective that differs from that used by pc/left hate mongers and bullies is a mistake.

people that put forward the radical/extremist (pc/left) version "pro-gay" politics are usually bullies, and are more than ready to violate the very rights that they claim to be advocating.

as I said, this is because of unresolved "mommy/daddy" issues. they lack a mature model of personality, are not "good listeners", and so forth.

people involved in bahai dissent really really really need to pay careful attention, linking their attempts at bahai reform to radical pc/left ("mean green meme") politics is a dead end (this is one of the main reasons that "talisman" went down in flames).

this is of course very ironic considering that one of the main points of this blog is to complain about people (including gays) being forced to conform to dysfunctional ideas in the bahai community.

the stink is coming from radicals and extremists, and that is why they are fuming, their old tactics of bullying (such as "outing" people) have backfired.

have you ever thought about the bizarre level of dissonance between advocating for rights on one hand, and engaging in bullying on the other?

can you see how if many people do what you are doing over decades and decades, it will become known to the people, and they will be unwilling to support pro-gay politics because they don't want to se seen as supporting such bullying, radicalism, extremism?

the problem with Ken Wilber and "neoconservatism" is that he has criticized the crazies on the left. the "mean green meme" thing. thus, the crazies on the left attack him. this is an old, tedious, dysfunctional story. an anti-pattern.

Integralism is larger than Wilber. Anyone that wants can read free excerpts from "Boomeritis" on the web and they will quickly see that Wilber's main point about leftism/liberalism/progressivism is.

Wilber grew up in a military family, and studied hard sciences. he was already a "suspect" of those on the far left before he even got in the game.


[quote comment="59995"]Nice try, ep!

I especially like your use of the word "shrill." How touching. How tactical. How predictable.

But I'm afraid I can't seriously entertain the prospect of adequately responding to someone who believes that the integral "philosophy" of Ken Wilber represents a valid "alternate approach to the exploration of truth and meaning."

"And thus the West produced an extraordinary number of subtle-level (or sambhogakaya) mystics, who only claimed that the soul and God can share a union; but very few causal (dharmakaya) and very few nondual (svabhavikakaya) mystics, who went further and claimed not just a union but a supreme identity of soul and God in pure Godhead."

Complete and utter nonsense. Wilber conflates a natural theology of monism with metaphysics, then colors his interpretations of reality with this idealist monist premise. He mixes apples with oranges and calls them potatoes. Ooooh, that's soooo awesome, dooood.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Cult_of_Ken...

"Wilberism is a particular world perspective grown out of the humanistic and transpersonal psychology movements, which was an important moment of intellectual and human history, but it is time to move on."

Indeed. Well past time.

Compared to "Culty Ken," Baha'u'llah is a screaming liberal. Now does that seem too shrill and strident?

http://wilberwatch.blogspot.com/2006/12/integra...

"I am convinced Wilber is just a neo-con conservative."

I am convinced Wilber is just a giant bag of hot gas, stink and all.

Hi Farhan, let me make it very easy for you to understand since you are so grapling with this moral dilemma, since you are so open-minded and hardly conservative in your views, ok?
Scenario 1) closeted gay man forced to marry a woman because of Bahai pressure that this is the only way to ever advance civilization. Gay man marries woman and both live in misery because they lack complete physical intimacy. Woman is confused, wondering if it is something she did, is he interested in other women?, etc. The fortress of well-being falls apart. The few children they mustered to bring into this world are now from a broken home.
Scenario 2) Same gay man comes out of the closet. He seeks another person with whom he can share a life with. Society/government acccept and support his decision. Gay man and partner adopt a child with HIV that no one wants. They live happily ever after.

Seems like an easy decision to pick which creates the ever-advancing civilization, don't you? Of course if you are being prejudiced by the secretaries of Shoghi Effendi that wrote on his behalf, then 1,000 of Scenario #2's will never sway your opinion Farhan. Because any example, any research, anything will never trump the religious purist that their view is the only view from God.

Farhan says: [quote comment=""][...] Societies who have no common values and aims disintegrate [...][/quote]

Now all the Baha'is need to do is find a society without common values. I'm thinking ... Any suggestions?

The one thing i miss in all the discussion of above is: so what about kids of homosexual couples? All 5 I know of personally are straight, being wired that way I guess. And they seem to be so together, so mature.
It is of interest that the discussion moved from EP calling his decision not to vote for equality as
[quote comment=""][...] the only possible compromise that is “fair to everyone”[...][/quote] (even children would see the bad logic here :) to a discussion of morality as if gays can't marry (and be merry!)

A compromise is to let people choose - to allow all people to choose to be able to marry. Pro8 was against this compromise.

[quote]This type of knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality says a lot about social conservatives and the repression they harbor within themselves.[/quote]

Yes, it does say a lot. It says they're whack. :-)

Dan wrote:

What does one mean when one suggests that individuals are to be educated to be “useful to society”?

Dan, human societies are all based on a minimum of social consensus made of language, behaviour, social regulations, etc. These societies also have a common aim if the individuals are to become integrated. Most societies have some common aim and a sense of purpose in the lives of individuals. Baha’is believe that humans live a short span of life in this world and that the aim of this life is to serve an ever advancing civilisation.

Societies who have no common values and aims disintegrate. When we educate kids and when a religion educates humans, they convey a sense of common purpose that allows for a coherent society to build up. Those who have values that are too rigid stifle their members. Educational systems try to reconcile both.

Perhaps the concept of liberty promoted by Alexander Sutherland Neill in his book, “Summerhill School: A New View of Childhood” Albert Lamb (Editor) might be interesting in this exchange. He was popular in France in the 1960s (Libres enfants de Summerhill) and from what I know, he was opposed to sexual repression, but he differentiated between liberty and licentiousness.

P wrote:
You know, I'm so glad Farhan made the comment that he made. Because it clearly demonstrates the tactic of social/religious conservatives.

P, I am glad that my comment has made you happy, but I am not sure that I can be classified as "conservative", nor have I any agenda or "tactic" other than trying to understand a complex issue where a lot of gruge and violence flies around, to a point where often prefer to listen and let others put the questions and get the insults.

Two questions I have not replied to yet include the part that is innate and the part that is acquired in homosexuality, and the question as to why education should direct and orient natural tendencies instead of only encouraging and complying by them. We have replies to these points in Baha'i writings, but I am looking for social and scientific arguments for or against.

Thanks to Dan and Grover for their replies.

warmest

Farhan

Farhan says:

[quote comment=""][...] The one I adhere to says that education should orient future citizens into ways that make their lives the most useful to society. [...][/quote]

I'd like to respond to this remark on its own, because it deserves our attention.

What does one mean when one suggests that individuals are to be educated to be "useful to society"? This has long struck me as a rather Orwellian world view. Individuals are not moral agents so much as components of society that must be 'educated' to be made 'useful'.

This really does fit into Baha'u'llah's vision of men as sheep that must never be left shepherdless, who cannot so much as comprehend the meaning of their own scriptures without an Interpreter or Supreme Authority.

In this sense, Farhan's view is a legitimate Baha'i view. Homosexuals are less 'useful', let us say, because they are less 'productive'. We should recondition them to be heterosexual, so that they may become 'productive'.

-Dan (Zoroastrian of sorts)

You know, I'm so glad Farhan made the comment that he made. Because it clearly demonstrates the tactic of social/religious conservatives. You can't argue against the older lesbian couple that have been together for 55 years and want equal treatment before the law. No Farhan, how can you look straight in that couples' eyes and tell them you don't support what they fight for. You have no moral ground.
So what to do? Oh, let's instead bring up kids being taught to experiment sexually by those gays with their 'agenda'. That's really all it is to you people- SEX. Nothing more. This type of knee-jerk reaction to homosexuality says a lot about social conservatives and the repression they harbor within themselves.

My boss is Danish. She told me that back when she was taught sex ed in Denmark in the 70's, they were taught that there was nothing wrong to experiment. That it would be best that they figured out what it is they wanted before they committed to someone. She did and now she is 100% heterosexual. Oh wait, she's ALWAYS been 100% heter. It made no difference, because that is how she is wired. Just as I am wired for physical intimacy with men. Denmark is the happiest country on earth, and last I checked it doesn't seem to have a higher percentage of gays than any other country. So what gives Farhan?
Wouldn't this Danish way save a few people entering Bahai marriages that are doomed to failure? But you don't care about that, now do you? As long as Bahai couples do what they want secretly/behind closed doors, then the facade remains. That's all religious conservatives want from gays- lived our facade and we'll leave you alone. AND what REALLY irks me is that conservatives have no problem telling a young gay person that they should try heterosexual sexs in order to convert. It's ok to make gay kids experiment with straight acts in order to convert them, but God forbid anyone ever just tells a straight teen that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality!

Today In History: APA Removes Homosexuality from List of Mental Disorders

[quote]Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, famously wrote to one American mother in 1935, “Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness.”[/quote]

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/15/7128

[quote comment=""][...] The one you seem to be promoting says kids are to be allowed to discover their choices by themselves, and once they have made a vow, they have to stick to it. [...][/quote]

The one I am promoting is to allow kids to be who they are.

If we should imagine a hypothetical person who 'chooses' some sexual orientation, and commits to it with a vow of matrimony along the lines of that orientation, yes, I would say he must remain steadfast to that vow. If he breaks the vow, he's done a great disservice to his partner. That's between them.

If, however, we discuss the general case wherein a person is simply who they are, I don't think they would mind my insisting that they commit to their partner per their vows.

[quote comment=""][...] That would seem to be a sudden loss of liberty to me. [...][/quote]

Nope. They're free to be as irresponsible and immoral as they like. Morality without liberty is a sham.

Farhan asked

[quote post="193"]would such a world mean to you that kids would be encouraged to make diverse experiences before becoming settled in their favourite type of sexuality?[/quote]

I was referring to people in general. Kids are a thorny issue. Most kids are sexually active or sexually aware by the time they are 8 years old or younger. They don't understand it and being in a conservative family or environment forces them to hide it and/or conform for fear of being shamed. I wouldn't advocate that they should be sexually active, but it is something that somehow has to be managed. Kids are going to be kids no matter what you do sometimes.

My ideal world would be where there is sufficient trust between the child/teenager and parents to be able to openly discuss such things without fear of being embarrassed, rejected or punished.

My ideal world would be where kids have an environment where they can safely explore their sexuality as they wish without having to do so in the back seats of cars, alley ways, or at home when the parents, siblings or friends aren't around because they're scared of their friends, relatives, or parents might say or do.

My ideal world would be where they can be whatever sexuality they want or happen to be without fear of reprisal.

[quote post="193"]And how about changes in orientation coming about during a life-time? Should couples be allowed to follow these attractions? Would that mean divorce or multiple partners?[/quote]

I know of several married men with children that have "changed" from being hetero to gay and have consequently got a divorce. Is it ideal? No, not for the kids and certainly not for the wives. In fact it was pretty traumatic for everyone concerned. But I would say these men were a victim of the environment forcing them to be "straight" when in reality they were gay. Are these people better off rather than living a lie? I would say yes.

Should they be allowed to have multiple partners? Dan says a vow is a vow, but how often do we make vows and have to retract them because we made the vows on insufficient information, social pressure, or just to be nice? If it has the consent of all involved and helps keep the family together rather than going through the trauma of a divorce then sure, why not? After all (cheeky grin), doesn't the Kitab-Aqdas say regarding multiple wives and the law applying mutatis mutandis and Baha'u'llah only being concerned about pedophilic activities....(Waiting for the moral outrage and lectures about the Covenant and Shoghi Effendi to occur ;P) Many would probably prefer to have a divorce.

Dan wrote:
So openmindedness is tantamount to promiscuity? How perverse! This is the kind of nihilism that results when people are told by their scripture that they cannot be left alone to use their own judgment.

Thanks for this clear reply, Dan. We have two different options in education here:

The one I adhere to says that education should orient future citizens into ways that make their lives the most useful to society.

The one you seem to be promoting says kids are to be allowed to discover their choices by themselves, and once they have made a vow, they have to stick to it.

That would seem to be a sudden loss of liberty to me.

Maybe we can one day compare the outcomes of these two different attitudes in education.

[quote comment=""][...]A world where it doesn’t matter if people explore gay, bi or hetero relationships, whether by choice or by nature?[...][/quote]

Absolutely, Farhan. Given the state of the science, I don't think we're in a position to start accusing particular individuals of being gay by choice. Are you suggesting a litmus test? Hah! But let's be real! Shoghists don't take scientific inquiry seriously when it contradicts Shoghism. You've already made up your mind.

[quote comment=""]would such a world mean to you that kids would be encouraged to make diverse experiences before becoming settled in their favourite type of sexuality?[/quote]

So openmindedness is tantamount to promiscuity? How perverse! This is the kind of nihilism that results when people are told by their scripture that they cannot be left alone to use their own judgment.

[quote comment=""]And how about changes in orientation coming about during a life-time? Should couples be allowed to follow these attractions? Would that mean divorce or multiple partners?[/quote]

A vow is a vow. It's that simple. Think about it.

Grover wrote:
A world where it doesn't matter if people explore gay, bi or hetero relationships, whether by choice or by nature?

Grover,
would such a world mean to you that kids would be encouraged to make diverse experiences before becoming settled in their favourite type of sexuality?

And how about changes in orientation coming about during a life-time? Should couples be allowed to follow these attractions? Would that mean divorce or multiple partners?

I agree, Grover, and that's a really good point, but I think we will also look back (I hope, anyway)on the current status of women's rights in 100 years and be appalled at where we are today. Where we are today with women's rights is where we were with lynchings in the South during Reconstruction up to the first half of the last century- only the lynchings take place within intimate relationships. A woman is raped in the US every 2 minutes, usually by someone she knows and loves. One third of ALL American women will experience battering by a male partner at some point in their lives, and again in the US, violence against women is the second leading cause of death among 20-24 year olds, and the 3rd among 15-19 year olds. Luckily, for my age group it drops to the 5th leading cause of death. If I make it to 35 it drops to 9th.

You wrote:
"I would like to point out that women's rights activists back in the early 1900s went through similar difficulties as the gay community is currently going through. How many husbands and males wanted to remain neutral or got sick of the campaigning?"

Women's rights activists actually STILL go through similar difficulties to what the gay community is currently facing. When push comes to shove, a shocking number of husbands and males STILL want to remain "neutral" or get sick of the campaigning.

But you can't be neutral on a moving train.

Just as an aside, did you know getting heterosexually married lands women with SEVEN more hours of housework a week and SAVES men an hour? SEVEN hours. SEVEN. SEVEN UNPAID hours. I think we have another word for unpaid labor, but it escapes me...

www.rainn.org
http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml
www.cdc.gov/Women/lcod/04all.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_Un...
http://www.livescience.com/health/080404-husban...

I would like to point out that women's rights activists back in the early 1900s went through similar difficulties as the gay community is currently going through. How many husbands and males wanted to remain neutral or got sick of the campaigning?

Women having the vote? Having jobs? Taking positions of leadership? Getting equal pay? Not being stuck in the kitchen? The horror!

Now because of the efforts of those activists we (at least in the Western nations) pretty much take women's rights for granted (Granted that there are various flat earth backward groups that haven't woken up to this).

Gay marriage? Gay families with healthy well adjusted kids? No more closet homosexuals? Gay people happily living out their lives without fear of persecution? A world where it doesn't matter if people explore gay, bi or hetero relationships, whether by choice or by nature? The horror!

I bet in 50-100 years time the gay community will have the same rights as everyone else, and it will be thanks to the past, current and future gay-rights activists. There is and will be the usual kicking and screaming from the traditional conservative groups reluctant to change but eventually we'll get there.

Nice try, ep!

I especially like your use of the word "shrill." How touching. How tactical. How predictable.

But I'm afraid I can't seriously entertain the prospect of adequately responding to someone who believes that the integral "philosophy" of Ken Wilber represents a valid "alternate approach to the exploration of truth and meaning."

"And thus the West produced an extraordinary number of subtle-level (or sambhogakaya) mystics, who only claimed that the soul and God can share a union; but very few causal (dharmakaya) and very few nondual (svabhavikakaya) mystics, who went further and claimed not just a union but a supreme identity of soul and God in pure Godhead."

Complete and utter nonsense. Wilber conflates a natural theology of monism with metaphysics, then colors his interpretations of reality with this idealist monist premise. He mixes apples with oranges and calls them potatoes. Ooooh, that's soooo awesome, dooood.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Cult_of_Ken...

"Wilberism is a particular world perspective grown out of the humanistic and transpersonal psychology movements, which was an important moment of intellectual and human history, but it is time to move on."

Indeed. Well past time.

Compared to "Culty Ken," Baha'u'llah is a screaming liberal. Now does that seem too shrill and strident?

http://wilberwatch.blogspot.com/2006/12/integra...

"I am convinced Wilber is just a neo-con conservative."

I am convinced Wilber is just a giant bag of hot gas, stink and all.

And also, "shrill?" So not okay.

Dear Eric P.,

First, you say:
"To be 100% clear: I have no interest in being bullied by either pro-gay or anti-gay extremists.

(Both “sides” have a known history of extremism.")

Just to be 100% clear myself, is someone disagreeing with you aloud "bullying?" Will anyone who responds to your last post be a "bully?" What are you after here?

How in the WORLD are you defining "extremism" if you find yourself able to accuse gay rights activists of it? "Activism" is not the same thing as "extremism." Please inform us of this history of gay extremism you report.

And, I'm sorry- did you actually say you "dare to be neutral" on gay rights? How remarkably NOT daring of you. Seriously, DARE? It must be pretty brutal to wake up every morning neutral (or apathetic) to the suffering of people in your own state. I don't know how you do it. You know what IS daring? Waking up GAY in your state and having the courage to go to school every day and risk getting beaten up, or in the case of 15 year old Lawrence King, shot and killed. Or fighting for 55 years to marry the person you've been in love with, partnered with in California, finally MARRYING them when you are 87 years old,and then having the law changed. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/27/lesbian.activi...) Daring to HOPE and to ACT for 55 years is worthy of mention. Not doing anything to stop Prop 8 is Not.

Congratulations on your dare to be neutral.

You also wrote: "People are being attacked by pro-gay radical/extremists for supporting Prop 8."

Attacked? Attacked how? Do you just mean argued with? What are you talking about? Debate does NOT equal attack. Particularly if it is on a PUBLIC issue.

You also say you have been called a bigot for not voting against Prop 8. Voting FOR bigoted legislation IS an act of bigotry. If you commit a bigoted act, you are a bigot. That isn't an attack, it is calling a spade a spade.

If you just didn't vote on it at all, shame on you.

"You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist...But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love...was not Amos an extremist for justice...And John Bunyun: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln:"This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." So the question is not whether we be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?...

I had hoped that the white moderate would see this need. Perhaps I was too optimistic; perhaps I expected too much. I suppose I should have realized that few members of the oppressor race can understand the deep groans and passionate yearnings of the oppressed race, and still fewer have the vision to see that injustice must be rooted out by strong, persistent and determined action."
-Martin Luther King, Jr, from "Letter from a Birmingham Jail"

MLK goes on AT LENGTH in that letter about the heartbreak, bitter disappointment and "shattered dreams" he felt in his heart at the neutrality- the inaction- of moderates in the South. I think, maybe, that if there is anyone whose dreams about the United States should be taken seriously, it is him.

Can you seriously name ONE instance of gay rights activists "threatening to violate other people's rights to get their own?" That is an absurb claim. People do NOT have the RIGHT to a privileged legal position. Nor do they have a RIGHT to not be called on their bigotry.

If the issue for you is actually that the state should have no role in marriages of ANY kind, I assume you have a history of activism on that issue that predates the Prop 8 controversy?

It may be true that the no-on-8 campaign made political miscalculations. It is certainly true that pro-8 activists and voters have been called bigots. I have called many of them bigots. I have done worse: I have called them Mormons. I have thus "attacked" them and been an "extremist", though I admit I never got off my straight ass for the gays before. I am an extremist for my state's constitution, and yes, as far as bigots go, I have no problem with calling a spade a spade.

How many people, pray tell, have been lynched or bombed by gay activists? Look at the world, and tell me that murderous gay henchmen are what's wrong with it.

Uh, excuse me? Extremism? What is extreme about wanting to be guaranteed the exact same rights/benefits automatically given to heterosexual taxpayers? Maybe I'm missing why you didn't make a difference and vote against Prop 8. The Proposition wouldn't do anything to hurt society, it wouldn't cost tax payers any more money (in fact, you all lost out big time on the tourism dollars California could have gained). So why the fence sitting on this issue? It was a very clear choice and unfortunately the decision was left to the organized rigth wing churches/religions that fought it. Unfortunately, we are a minority and need our straight allies to help us- or else these right wing nutcases will take away any rights we already enjoy. Please go see the movie Milk if you haven't. Histroy seems to keep repeating itself.

To be 100% clear: I have no interest in being bullied by either pro-gay or anti-gay extremists.

(Both "sides" have a known history of extremism.)

Regards,
Eric P.
ex-bahai

Andrew,

This is starting to sound extremist, shrill. etc.

I have no problem with bahais that complain about the problems gays have in the bahai community (which are significant from what I've seen for 20 years), but what is becoming apparent is that the pro-gay political agenda is increasingly difficult to differentiate from a far-left/pc inquisition of anyone that even dares to be "neutral" on the subject, much less "conservative" or "traditional".

Being a california voter, I was told I'm a "bigot" for not voting "No" on Prop 8. This was after I told gay bahais/supporters that I don't like either "side", and didn't intend to vote for either side.

People are being attacked by pro-gay radical/extremists for supporting Prop 8.

Looks like another exmaple of extremists on the left shooting themselves in the foot. They are creating the impression amongst the public that they are unstable and are theateneing to violate other people's rights to get their own. What middle-of-the-road people are liable to conclude is that once a crazy group gets one thing "where will they stop?".

I think the only possible compromise that is "fair to everyone" (or perhaps "equally unfair") is to remove all government/legal preferences to marriage of any kind. However, this will force people to first get "civil unions" (at the court house), then go to church/temple/mosque for a separate "unoffical" religious cermony.

The whole point of having a separation of church/state is to prevent agents of state power from coercing people's thought, beliefs and actions.

I think the pro-gay political agenda has really started to go wrong, they want to put their internal "mommy/daddy" conflicts and similar issues into the public sphere, which always gets ugly.

Regards,
Eric P.
ex-bahai

http://playingagirl.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/th...

[quote]This religion sounds like a liberal’s dream come true - at first.

Baha’u'llah centers his prophecy on all the right stuff - We are one, just as God is one - thus we must eliminate poverty, inequality and oppression of all kind, in order to reflect the truth of God’s Unity.

One thing they forgot to eliminate is homophobia. “Bahá’í law limits permissible sexual relations to those between a man and a woman in marriage” This is an answer to a question inquiring about the Baha’i perspective on homosexuality (http://www.bahai.org/faq/practices/sexuality).

Thus, it seams that the prophet was just as revolutionary as the best progressive thinking of his time. A visionary can only see so far - this after all is at the heart of the faith that forgets to apply the same principle to itself.[/quote]