A few weeks ago, fellow Baha’i blogger J. A. McLean wrote an article titled “Dissidents and the Baha’i Faith”. It attracted a lot of attention, especially from quite of few of those naughty, naughty “dissidents”.
So much so that Jack seems to have changed his mind about the whole thing and decided to call it all off… by erasing his post from his blog.
Before the self-censorship, the blog post was featured on Baha’is Online. And Allison also wrote a commentary on her own blog. As for this humble blogger, for now I’m withholding any comments.
However, the internet and the technologies it contains allows us to punch a few buttons and take a ride in our own time machine (also known as, Google Cache) to retrieve Jack’s original post.
In all its effulgent glory (minus the holy numbered comments), behold:
[START DOCUMENT]
Thursday, August 23, 2007
DISSIDENTS AND THE BAHA’I FAITH
On the Internet today one may find webpages, websites and member lists that contain disgruntled views and/or bitter attacks, usually against the Bahá’í Administrative Order, from a relatively small number of so-called dissident and ex-Bahá’ís. A dissident is not, of course, an ex-Bahá’í, but someone who still claims to be a follower who has serious grievances against the Bahá’í Faith and who continues to militate for their acceptance. A dissident must be distinguished from the individual, who for personal reasons, chooses not to associate with the community, and from the person who, for one reason or another, drifts away from the Faith. Surprisingly, some of these attacks are made even by “Bahá’ís in good standing.”
In the early 1990’s, I gained first-hand experience of this phenomenon when I was a temporary member of the original Talisman list, hosted by ex-Bahá’í, Dr. Juan Ricardo Cole. I subsequently resigned from Talisman I when Dr. Cole, in his grand design to be the “gadfly” reformer of the Bahá’í Faith, made direct, frontal attacks on the Universal House of Justice. What is perhaps not so well-known was that by that time Dr. Cole had been remonstrating with the Universal House of Justice more or less steadily for about 20 years.
It is not the purpose of this message to reanimate the specifics of Cole’s case which are well-known to those who once belonged to Talisman I and who are familiar with his articles that attempted to blacken the reputation of the Bahá’í Administrative Order. He has since found new enemies: his blog is largely devoted to attacking the foreign policy of the United States government. However, I would like to make some general comments about dissidents and ex-Bahá’ís, whether it be Juan Cole, Francesco Ficicchia in German-speaking Europe in the 1980’s and ‘90’s, and/or the like-minded Internet club of present or past hostile critics.
The behaviour of these individuals, if one wants to step back and observe it, reveals a negative dynamic or pattern of behaviour that continues to be dismally instructive. I am submitting the following observations, consequently, not to revive some old grudges, nor to perpetuate present ones, but because I seriously doubt that the Bahá’í community has seen the end of the complaints of the constantly disgruntled, the doctrinally innovative and the permanently embittered. While space is lacking here to set out fully the entire dynamic of this pattern, I would like to comment briefly on the climate of sympathy that seems to be created, at least momentarily, for the grievances of these individuals.
Allow me to preface these observations with this comment: I do not doubt for a moment that these persons have been hurt or that some have been betrayed by a fellow believer or that some decision by an administrative body has not gone their way. Most Bahá’ís, if they live long enough, will experience betrayal, or be subject to an administrative decision that has not been in their favour. The latter phrase applies sometimes to members of these very same institutions. These experiences contribute to our awakening to the stark realities of the human condition.
One of the keys to the sympathetic ear temporarily lent to the disgruntled has to do with the way that organized religion is generally perceived in contemporary society. In modernity, religion and spirituality have gone their separate ways. Individuals may willingly affirm their theism or spirituality but many disavow being official members of an “organized religion.” Of course, the whole notion of being against organized religion per se is a strange one, when one thinks about it. People, generally, do not object to organized government, to an organized judiciary, to organized political parties, to organized education, to organized medicine, clubs, associations and societies. But except for official members, the religious “organization” in a secular age has become definitely suspect.
And for good reason. This climate of suspicion has been created by a long history of the violent repression of doctrinal minorities, and other past or present moral travesties. Uninformed observers, consequently, tend to be predisposed to accept the viewpoint of the dissident without further reflection or investigation. If she has dissented from a religious institution, ergo, the charges must be true and she must be a victim: at least, that is the hasty conclusion. This predisposition was clearly at work for a time in Juan Cole’s case, just as it was for another ex-Bahá’í, Francesco Ficicchia.
What the dissidents fail to realize, and do not accept, is that the Bahá’í Faith, while it allows for a fair and reasonable largesse of individual interpretation, has nonetheless its own doctrinal boundaries and ethical norms. But in the final analysis, these doctrinal boundaries and ethical norms are simply not accepted by these individuals who, driven by frustration at the non-acceptance of the perceived moral rightness of their cause, ego-mania, hyper-individualism and the principles of “liberal democracy,” engage in corrosive attacks which by definition are beyond the ethical norms and the principles of consultation which Bahá’u’lláh has mandated to replace acrimonious and divisive debate.
The founders of the Bahá’í Faith have repeatedly warned their followers—some individuals even balk at the very notion of a warning–of the grave moral and spiritual consequences that accompany such hostile, confrontational approaches. But these individuals, unless they disaffiliate themselves from the religion to which they belong, and although they have knowingly accepted these doctrinal boundaries and ethical norms, imagine that these standards do not apply to them. They clearly view themselves as belonging to a different category. Dissidents believe somehow that they are fully within their rights to violate these norms with impunity.
Yet, just like the perpetrators who claim to be victims, they act shocked and surprised, and charge betrayal and harassment, when the government of their religion finally asks them to withdraw or takes measures to remove them permanently from the membership list. This removal, I should add, usually takes place after a lengthy and patient hearing and exchange of views, counselling and, final warnings. This careful process, however, has sometimes resulted in charges of fascism and religious fundamentalism being levelled against the institutions of the Bahá’í Faith. Of course, neither Bahá’í doctrine nor covenants gives any one a licence to radically alter Bahá’í belief or ethical practice to the point of making it unrecognizable to the community itself and to the institutions of the Bahá’í Faith. But for these individuals, this seems to be quite beside the point.
As sequitur to this last sentence: the point of this message is not, as might be supposed, simple justification, the basic preoccupation of theology, of administrative sanctions taken against these individuals. Methodologically, the confrontational, heavy-handed approach is also unsound. It is both strange and ironic when this defective, ineffective tool originates with the learned. Phenomenologist of religion, William Brede Kristensen, the Norwegian-Dutch scholar (1867-1953), in his instructive essay “What is Phenomenology?” was perhaps the first to make the point that serious students and scholars of religion must identify with the faith of others to the extent that they “must therefore be able to forget themselves, to be able to surrender themselves to others” (p. 49). The respected comparative religionists, Wilfred Cantwell Smith and Huston Smith have since made the same point both in their writings and in their lives by profound study and congenial practice with followers of faiths outside the Christian tradition.
Kristensen is promoting here, not some objective and detached study of a particular religion—let alone an inflammatory one–but rather a process of initiation into the sympathetic understanding of “the faith of other men,” as the title of Cantwell Smith’s 1962 comparative study of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Chinese philosophy, Christians and Jews put it. Smith’s innovative little book aimed to elucidate, not only the beliefs of these world religions, but also and especially, how these religions formed the personal values of the men and women who practiced them, and how their personal beliefs motivated their lives. In other words, Cantwell Smith recommended that the observer be willing to be taught by the participants of the tradition he or she was investigating, and to assume their point of view, without necessarily adopting their faith. In the academic study of religion, then, the testimony of believers is consequently the starting point and the meeting place of authentic understanding and must necessarily carry great weight.
Some may think that this argument is irrelevant and has no bearing on the present case; these individuals are, after all, already Bahá’ís, and are no longer studying the faith to which they belong. But Kristensen’s views are pertinent to this discussion. The point is that with Cole, Ficicchia, and present-day dissenters, the testimony, sacred writings, history and ethical norms of believers were either ignored or distorted to the extent that members of the Bahá’í Faith were no longer able to recognize their own religion in the distorted or hostile depictions by these critics. So much for the elementary protocol advocated by Brede Kristensen, Cantwell Smith and Huston Smith and other respected scholars of religion.
What one sometimes reads from these poisoned pens is even more surprising since some of them claimed, or still claim, to be Bahá’ís. It is no wonder that the appointed and elected institutions of the Bahá’í Faith ultimately came to the intellectually defensible conclusion that they were not. Neither is it a wonder that the Universal House of Justice has written that character, that is, active spirituality, ethics, values and norms, and methodology cannot, and should not, be separated. In this, as in all things Bahá’í, character and methodology are one.
***
Posted by J.A. McLean at 11:45 AM 9 comments
[END DOCUMENT]
I was unable to retrieve the nine comments, if anyone has them, please forward them for inclusion.
McLean writes: ‘William Brede Kristensen, the Norwegian-Dutch scholar (1867-1953), in his instructive essay “What is Phenomenology?” was perhaps the first to make the point that serious students and scholars of religion must identify with the faith of others to the extent that they “must therefore be able to forget themselves, to be able to surrender themselves to others” (p. 49). McLean further notes: ‘Kristensen is promoting here, not some objective and detached study of a particular religion—let alone an inflammatory one–but rather a process of initiation into the sympathetic understanding of “the faith of other men,” as the title of Cantwell Smith’s 1962 comparative study of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Chinese philosophy, Christians and Jews put it.’
This, however, is not a universally shared view. In the first place, Cantwell Smith insisted that the term ‘religion’ is a misnomer and should be abandoned. In his view, there are only religious persons, not religions. Smith claimed: ‘The locus of faith is persons.’ Faith is something shared by religious persons; it may, or it may not, serve as a basis for common understanding. Beliefs, however, are specific to each religion; they may help to distinguish, and eventually divide, religious persons.
In the second place, Brede Kristensen has been criticized for simply ‘rubber stamping’ the viewpoint of believers as ‘true and complete.’ His principal error was in conflating empathy with understanding. In other words, relying on what ‘true believers’ say about themselves and their religion may not be enough; they may need supplemental information in order to enlarge their understanding, to make things clearer than they were before, or to correct erroneous information. Kristensen placed unnecessary obstacles in the way of an academic study of religion; he became a caretaker of religion rather than a challenger of and an inquirer into it.
Sartre stated: ‘We only become what we are by the radical and deep-seated refusal of that which others have made of us.’ Whether it is in discussions about the legitimacy of homosexual relations, the suppression of reasoned criticism and principled dissidence, or the oblique and unacknowledged imposition and enforcement of religious orthodoxy at the expense of inclusion, diversity and integrity; Baha’i apologists (and the Baha’i in general) have singularly failed to grasp the arrogant presumption at the heart of their discourse: that what they make of others may not be correct.
Baha’i apologists often appear smug and attitudinally deficient. I for one do not view the official Baha’i faith as it is currently constructed as an authentic world religion, but rather as a religious surrogate or substitute metaphor for a splinter faction of Shi’a Islam; a family business, so to speak. It might have emerged as the meta-religion of the new millenium; it has instead become an obscure and isolated sect that places the idiosyncratic interpretations of Shoghi Effendi
above the inclusive, culminatory revelation of Baha’u'llah. Such a shame, such a loss, such a pity.
Its seems to me that the root of all dissent, contention, conflict, is some sense of self importance, some sense of pride or personal entitlement beyond what others might posess. This I observe is the place where most of those who take offense or hold umbrage reside in consciousness, attached to these personal hurts and unable to forgive and move pass them, trying somehow to conform the world to themselves.
Abdul Bahas example and aspiration was evanescence (the fading away to nothingness). This is where these souls will find their peace, not in concession that the Bahai institutions or community might convey to them.
“Just as in the world of politics there is need for free thought, likewise in the world of religion there should be the right of unrestricted individual belief. Consider what a vast difference exists between modern democracy and the old forms of despotism. Under an autocratic government the opinions of men are not free, and development is stifled, whereas in a democracy, because thought and speech are not restricted, the greatest progress is witnessed. It is likewise true in the world of religion. When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail–that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs–development and growth are inevitable.” –Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, 197.
A calculated attempt to dismiss dissent, to insinuate that those who dissent do so from a sense of self-importance or personal entitlement, is the symptom of a weak and effete religion, unsure of itself and thus defensive.
At the root of dissent is the endorsement of change. Emerson wrote: “Change is the law of life and we consequently obey the law if we choose to live a life of change…. Only conformists try to be fixed, and that in a democratic society, where change is allowed as a matter of principle, only conformists crave fixity.”
Religious sects that reject modernity and intellectual tolerance, that regard criticism as tantamount to blasphemy, and that anathematize the results of research in the social sciences as biased and materialist, will inevitably become completely obscure and isolated, cut off from the mainstream of modern society, inhabiting a self-referential, hermetically-sealed, apocalyptic universe of their own. The adherents of such closed systems have no recourse but to take a kind of perverse pride in their ignorance and intransigence and reject all counsel to the contrary. An insult to humanity, a sin against God, and a betrayal of Abdu’l-Baha.
Sincere Friend,
I don’t want any concessions, unless letting me be a Baha’i is a concession. I don’t want any changes, unless letting me worship at the 19 day feast is a change. Is my ego a problem? I suppose that would be between myself and God. But I don’t think that we can make that the criterion of Baha’i membership.
Brendan
Andrew,
You use the word “dissent” as if it was a positive. If we look at the Writings we find that “dissent” and “dissension” are always cast in a negative light, as elements contributing to discord and disunity.
The individual investigation of truth will often produce many different aspects of any particular truth; for truth is often a multi-faceted jewel. Expression of any individual’s perception of truth to the larger community is not only permitted, it is encouraged. However, when the individual clings to “his” or “her” perception of truth as the only one, e.g., women on the Universal House of Justice, then the positive offering of their insight becomes an opposition to others. Note that the root of the word “dissent” comes from “feeling”, not thought. Dissenters are those who have gone beyond the mere expression of a different opinion and now “feel against” the prevailing opinion.
We can grow and move forward in unity only if we allow free expression of thoughts. However, once that thought is offered to the body of believers, as we learn in the writings on consultation, it belongs to the whole and requires no further defense (unless solicited) from the initiator. What a delight! How liberating!
It is unfortunate that you appear to characterize dissent as an oppositional trait. Attempting to dismiss dissent as a psychological disorder is however hardly new; even the Pentagon does this.
In the context of unassailable power, dissent is a positive response. Inevitably, powerful institutions begin to oppress those who have less power. The Christian theologian Richard McCormick wrote that dissent is perceived as oppositional only or especially by those who claim to have captured—really imprisoned—God and God’s purposes in their own conceptual fortress. Dissent is not a threat but an invigorating contribution to continued life and growth.
There is at least an ethical core to the idea of dissent; dissent is necessary because of the institutional instinct to move toward a totalitarian position—that authority, whatever its source, always attempts to marginalize people and movements considered to be deviant.
One is often informed that Baha’is are enjoined to consult with those of other religions, with those of other nationalities, and with one another, in order to arrive at consensus; and that it is consultation and not individualism that are stressed. However, consultation necessarily involves collaborative individualism: a world view held by a growing number of people in Western society. It stresses the need for individuals to work together toward a common vision and mission; but it also stresses their emancipation, their freedom from the repressive authority of groups, organizations and social institutions. It also asks the question: who is being consulted on what? Does one consult only with those who are likely to agree with the position one wishes to promote? Consultation must be genuine, rather than token. Otherwise, authentic consultation has not taken place.
In the coercive construction of assent, the absence of dissent is taken to indicate the approval of the silent majority; it suggests intangible yet highly effective restraints that create a false “feeling” of “togetherness.” However, the presence of dissent is the essence of democracy; the absence of dissent is the essence of totalitarianism. Your suggestion that, for Baha’u'llah, principled dissent and dissension constitute an equivalency to unprincipled discord and disunity simply proves the point.
Andrew,
You said “In the context of unassailable power, dissent is a positive response.” If the power is unassailable, that is, “not liable to doubt, attack, or question” (Merriam-Webster Online), then dissent is merely noise with no positive result. If the purpose of dissent is only to create an atmosphere of discord, then I suppose such a dissent might be considered positive. To look at a dictionary once again, “dissension” is “DISAGREEMENT; especially : partisan and contentious quarreling
synonym see DISCORD” (Merriam-Webster Online)
It is the partisan nature of dissent, the seeming need for the dissenter to attract others to his/her “cause”, that is one of the proofs of the negative, soul-blighting essence of dissent. Dissent goes beyond free expression of opinion and becomes ego-centric and corrosive. Instead of saying “I offer for your consideration…” it says “You MUST believe…”. Dissent is inherently Fundamentalist in that it proposes that only one possible view may be true. It is the five blind men examining the elephant. Were the one holding the trunk to say, “This appears like a snake, some aspect of an elephant is snakelike.” he would be expressing opinion; when he says “An elephant MUST be a snake, do not be fooled by others. Listen only to me, not the zoologists.” he is expressing dissent… and is wrong.
You said “Consultation…also stresses their emancipation, their freedom from the repressive authority of groups, organizations and social institutions.” How so? The very essence of groups is some form of “social contract”, some personal right that is offered to the group in exchange for some personal good. As Baha’is we learn from the Writings what surrender is expected of us from God… and some of that surrender is to the Administrative Order. Just as you might surrender your “right” to drive drunk, in order that the forces of society will protect you from drunk drivers; so you relinquish certain rights, including the right of dissent, as part of your Baha’i “social contract” (which is actually with Baha’u'llah). This does not mean you cannot freely express your insights, ideas, or opinions (as noted in my previous post), just that such expression is done in the manner prescribed in the Writings — to uplift all, without dissent or discord.
You said “Your suggestion that, for Baha’u’llah, principled dissent and dissension constitute an equivalency to unprincipled discord and disunity simply proves the point.” I “suggested” nothing of the kind I hope, I meant to make that a clear declaration. I will not pummel you with the Writings, chapter and verse, but were you to search (on Ocean perhaps) the Writings for the word “Dissension” or “Dissent”, I’m confident you would agree with me.
It would seem that the purpose of a truly spiritual Bahai consultation is to exhaust the expression of every possible point of view and permit all different points of view to be seen in the light of all of the other points of view. So in a sense rather than seeing all the facets of the argument the entire group goes beyond a segmented vision or almagamation of variing points of view to a transcendental position of seeing all facets illumined from within the gem stone, as it were, even to the point of becoming one with the light that illumines the gem stone, this of course being an spiritual state of consciousness and not something that can be attained solely by intellectual discourse.
Dear Reed,
Thank you for your post.
Are you familiar with the famous story of Sophie Scholl and the White Rose Society in 1943? If your aren’t, I suggest you at least rent the DVD of the recent very fine German film:
http://www.sophieschollmovie.com/
Sophie Scholl: Wikipedia
Sophie Scholl: Wikipedia 2
Sophie Scholl article
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERschollS.htm
Christianity Today article
Let’s then have an essay from you on Sophie Scholl and her actions in the historical record and your safe, “Middle Class Baha’i”, deodorized, completely un-tested, and pleasant sanitized concept of “dissent”.
I have been a Baha’i for 36 years and I will match my dedicated and selfless service with any Baha’i in the ranks anywhere in the world. And I fully believe the current version of the Baha’i Faith right now is a religion of disgraceful sheep completely unworthy of the name of Baha’u'llah. “Unity” now is just another name for boot licking cowardice by a planetary cult of shameful passive-aggressive yellow bellied neurotics afraid to speak-up and speak-out. This present Baha’i Era is a sorry disgrace.
The US NSA wrote a concise, thoughtful, and succinct analysis of the current situation based upon their experience in it’s Ridvan 2007 Convention Report of the current failure of the straight-jacketed, top down, incredibly autocratic policies and practices of the current “Five Year Plan” only to have their analysis and suggestions for correction and improvement completely dismissed OUT OF HAND by the current UHJ and it’s gamed elections idolatrous ITC Faith Apparatus WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS without ANY further permitted discussion among the rank and file. The report has now been suppressed from ALL community discussion and taken from cyberspace worldwide except for the copy you can find from the link created here and then placed in the Google archives. The harsh and quite unnecessary action of the current UHJ reacting to the report issued by the diligent US NSA trying to engage on these current matters was something right out of George Orwell’s “1984″. The report was just “disappeared” from the “Administrative order.”
I will not passively accept this kind of conduct and I will stand up to it. I will work tirelessly for the current members of the UHJ to be removed from office in the next election cycle. These are harebrained psychological cultists who are systematically destroying the Baha’i Faith lock, stock, and barrel.
The deep psychological issues involved in this kind of high-handed defensive conduct must be discussed by the rank and file everywhere on Earth. And eventually they will be at some point over the next 100 years. And the key issue involved IS the incredible failure of the Baha’i electoral process worldwide to put mentally balanced people into high positions in the Faith with clearly established term limits either by direct legislation or slowly evolving cultural rules. This planetary discussion is just beginning and it will go on possibly for centuries aided in it’s development by the Internet. A new body politic will eventually arise based upon real competence and a solid spiritual understanding not only of the Writings…but of the real processes of life by people who are awake and taking notes daily.
This current sorry version of the Baha’i Faith is now completely cut off from the workings of the Holy Spirit on Earth among all Mankind. A child can see this. We are now an incredibly materialistic, even Godless, apparatchik cult of incredibly dumbed down people whose IQ and courage in life is dropping more and more with every passing year.
Read the Tablet of the Holy Mariner. This was all prophesied by Baha’u'llah. Divine Judgment, therefore, will eventually come to purge the Faith of these lifetime incumbent Chief Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees Cosmic Archetypes and liberate the Faith to it’s free proper recipients: ALL the peoples of the World. That fine day of purification will come.
In the meantime I suggest you study the life of Sophie Scholl as an example of how a human being should live their life who she now sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty and whose soul of light will live on in the annals of human history.
While the people currently leading the Baha’i Faith into utter oblivion are going to have to be buried in unmarked graves because they will be so hated and despised by the peoples of the future on this planet who will understand the magnitude of their crimes, their astonishing spiritual illiteracy, and their grasping psychological neediness to commit usurpation of an authority they don’t have in the Writings to create a mind bending cult of abject heart-breaking failure destroying the hopes and prayers of tens of thousands of people some who know about the Faith now and many more who will yet learn of it in the future.
Structures that appear unassailable in one context are not always impervious in another. An appeal to one purely formal definition of dissent provided by a particular dictionary in support of a preconceived idea is inadequate, because formal definitions often lack comprehensibility; such distinctions would generally be regarded as pedantic.
The “proof” you offer that dissent is negative is predicated upon your assertion that dissent is intrinsically partisan; but to assert is not to prove, far less is it to persuade. As Anne Hathaway aptly noted, “The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.”
For the same reason, your caricature of dissent constitutes a false tautology. To assert that principled dissent is inherently fundamentalist is disingenuous at best and simply churlish at worst.
You conflate rights with privileges; rights are not dependent upon the fulfillment of obligations in order to acquire some personal good, still less are they contingent upon the largesse of administrative organizations. The arguments you offer have applicability only within the restricted domains of religious belief and practice; they are self-referential and self-contained. We live in a world where the kind of arguments you make work only in religion, where they can’t be criticized; in other words, they only work when those who make them are in no danger of having to realize them in practice, beyond the very narrow boundaries of religious and cultural enclaves.
I do not know how Baha’i dissidents would respond to your assertion of “a clear declaration” based upon the Writings of Baha’u'llah: I am not a Baha’i. As I have stated elsewhere, Christians have interpreted the laws of the Hebrew Bible (and the teachings of Jesus) for over two thousand years as they used pre-modern, modern and post-modern critical methods of study and interpretation. The Manifestations of God are limited by their humanity like any other human; Baha’u'llah is no longer here in human form, still less is he confined within the rigid institutional structures of Baha’i religion, any more than the words of Christ are confined within the structures of the conciliar church of the first seven centuries.
I have no interest in engaging with apologists who merely reiterate the same heuristic arguments and dialectics; sad tactics that demonstrate nothing other than their own beliefs in the arguments they offer on behalf of the religious institutions to which they belong. Such arguments convince only the already convinced, and are thus ineffectual foundations for rational discourse. Perhaps the officially sanctioned dissidents of the Baha’i religion might wish to take these matters up with you. I wish them the very best of luck.
Hi Sincere Friend,
Good to hear from you! This is an excellent point you have made here. This is how I have always viewed the spiritual process of consultation from my own experience in both the Faith and in other work situations and other organizations where I have consulted with various differing views (many strongly held by folks) to try and get at the reality and truth of a sitiuation to take an action. It has often worked wonders from my Baha’i discipline in action.
So I ask you this, why didn’t the UHJ allow the delegates to the 2007 National Convention to openly consult on the US NSA report as the Writings say to do with free and open expression on these vitally important issues to the National Baha’i Community.
Why didn’t they allow any discussion whatsoever of the report that took considerable time and expense to write with the hard earned financial contributions of the rank and file Baha’is?
Is that fair?
Why are they afraid to allow anyone to speak about these issues?
For a rather apt illustration of intellectual myopia within the rank and file of today’s Bahai community, a recent post on this subject and the predictable responses to it are on Bahai live journal right now.
CoL, are you referring to this message specifically?
Yes Baquia, and the subsequent comments, several of which were screened and deleted by the forum’s moderators.
Thank you for the link to the very informative discussion on Baha’i live journal.
It seems like an experience of cognitive dissonance: one of the posters might protest that he or she does not appreciate subtle jabs or veiled insults but then musters up the energy to spew some sarcasm of his or her own. Do as I say, not as I do, or multiple guidelines may be violated!
Is it really just a matter of intellectual myopia, or is it something a bit deeper than that? Ralph Wood, in his book on Flannery O’Connor, writes:
” … fudging of dramatic and religious truth makes for the sentimentality that O’Connor so starchily scorned, especially when it was prompted by allegedly Christian concerns. She likened such saccharine religion to pornographic literature: the achieving of cheap and easy ends at the expense of valuable and difficult means.”
Or, as M. N. Roy writes in his essay on democracy and nationalism in Asia: “The teleological view of life, the most outstanding feature of the medieval religious culture, creates an authoritarian mentality — the psychological predisposition to cultivate submission as a virtue and to accept authority as providentially ordained. With the ignorant multitude, this cultural tradition takes the form of fatalism; it makes the politically-minded minority regard dictatorship or paternalism as more desirable than democracy.”
I also note that the comments made in response to this thread …
http://community.livejournal.com/ljbahai/442916.html
… have been removed or replaced. Ah, religion. For a good chuckle, see:
http://www.ca.bahai.org/main.cfm?sid=17
In the words of one opponent to the kind of fundamentalism that Reed represents for us in his latest post:
“The division in (the world today) is between those who embrace the Age of Enlightenment, modernity, and true democracy and those who reject those notions. It is between those who believe in the separation between church and state and those who do not. It is between those who believe in true liberty and tolerance and those who would deny civil rights to anyone they don’t like or hate. It is between the well read, informed, tolerant, and educated against those living in a fantasyland of religious literalism, quasi-literate indifference, close-minded intolerance, and utter stupidity … Those who don’t defend democracy don’t deserve to live in one.”
“We are all prone to imagine ourselves right and everybody else wrong. This illustrates what I was striving to say in one of my above posts - dissent, which seeks others to agree with the dissenter in a partisan manner, not to seek truth independently, but to listen to their version of truth, is inherently fundamentalist and flawed.”
Reed,
This isn’t what dissent means. ‘Dissent’ means to feel differently or even, this goes back to the Latin, to entertain different convictions. A dissenter — and you can see the validity of this usage in English history — is someone fighting for the right to think differently, to feel differently from the majority. Striving to make others agree is a striving after *assent*, not *dissent*, And the best example of this is in the kind of language Bill Davis uses in the post above. Davis is telling us we have no choice but to see things the way the House sees them. When I dissent I’m resisting this, I’m fighting for my right to see with my own eyes and know of my own knowledge. Dissent is the struggle for justice.
Brendan
Ah yes! I quote:
The division in (the world today)…is between the well read, informed, tolerant, and educated against those living in a fantasyland of religious literalism, quasi-literate indifference, close-minded intolerance, and utter stupidity. Unquote.
It seems to me that this could be better stated as:
The division in (the world today)…is between the well read, informed, tolerant, and educated …living in a fantasyland of religious literalism, quasi-literate indifference, close-minded intolerance, and utter stupidity — and those well read, informed, tolerant, and educated living in a fantasyland of religious literalism, quasi-literate indifference, close-minded intolerance, and utter stupidity.
Or even more succinctly the division in the world today is between those who believe like me and those who do not believe like me.
Again it may just be my untutored mind but I thought consultation was supposed to bring us together in some form or other.
Again, it may be just your untutored mind.
Will consultation bring you together with “Covenant-breakers” in some form or other?
Tutoring must include some element of which I am not aware.
I have read “all the comments” suggested, which to me would constitute being well tutored on the content of this thread.
Consultation will, does, and indeed has brought me together with “covenant-breakers”, as well as Christians for and against Baha’u'llah, members of the Tarbiyat, Orthodox, Jacques group, Monatana group, but alas not the Reform nor the UHJ group.
Of course I am talking about consultation, not debate, not argument, not ‘open and free” discussion.
At this moment consultation is progressing between me and a Baptist, me and an African Methodist, two hands of the cause in the Orthodox, one from Heart of the Faith group, one from the Tarbiyat, one from the “disaffected”, and just before I entered here I recieved an email from a Salvation Army person with comments on unity.
Being well tutored in the world of existence is considerably less affective than being well immersed in the writings. Any one wanting to consult with me is welcome to do so via personal email and not through a blog. Unfortunately blogs lend to rancor.
Thanks for your comments.
Robert
Robert:
You initially wrote:
“Or even more succinctly the division in the world today is between those who believe like me and those who do not believe like me.”
But that is not even remotely representative of what the author of the comments to which you refer intended to convey. Yet you write: “Blogs lead to rancor.” Where is the rancor? I would submit that the rancor lies in your portrayal of the words whose intent you caricature. Own it!
Truth refuses to split the difference with falsehood. There are limits to consultation. I’m not interested in “consulting” with ignorant, prejudiced bigots — bigots who have every opportunity in the world to educate and inform themselves but resolutely refuse to do so — under the pretext of promoting “unity.” I’d rather contribute my time and resources to those who are engaged in the creation of “enlightened society,” one in which the voices of intolerance, obscurantism and sectarianism will be even further diminished, as they should be.
Thank you for your response:
I read your point of view.
I offered my point of view.
We have shown by example that contentious rancorus debate divides.
Would you care to try consultation? You and I can achieve a unity of some form or other.
Robert Clifton
To quote Martin Brecht: clear positions are better than a false unity.
Any ideas of separation or division within the whole are purely arbitrary. All divisions are relative, unity remains.
I anathematize neither difference nor disagreement. Contention can be a viable strategy for challenging authoritarian regimes.
To quote Pema Chedron: “There’s nothing wrong with negativity. Anger without the fixation is none other than mirrorlike wisdom.”
Peace!
The essence of our Faith is Unity. Consultation is the process whereby unity is achieved. Argument, debate, contention, all seek to defeat, divide and conquer. That is not the way of unity, nor of consultation.
Sincere Friend writes:
“The essence of our Faith is Unity. Consultation is the process whereby unity is achieved. Argument, debate, contention, all seek to defeat, divide and conquer. That is not the way of unity, nor of consultation.”
Uniformity of organization under the banner of visible unity is merely a façade of unity. It is a uniformity of automatons.
The belief that argument, debate, and contention all seek to divide and conquer is convenient to those who have found it to be convenient. That does not, however, make it true. Far from it.
`Abdu’l-Bahá writes:
“The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing opinions.”
I’m certain Sincere Friend will find a way to explain away the words of `Abdu’l-Bahá. Nothing I haven’t read before, of course.
Dear Friend Andrew,
It has been my experience that consultation, when undertaken in a spirit of loving kindness, truth seeking and service does produce true unity.
For consultation to be successful this spirit must first be present, and that is why prayer is such an important part of the consultative process.
When differences of opinion that are divisive arise then they must be resolved in this same spirit or by further discussion to remove misunderstandings.
It is my observation that argument, debate, and contention come from traditions, systems, or cultures where the intended result is that there is a clear winner or loser and therefore a division of the community in which the argument, debate or contention occurred. This produces the unsavory effect of simmering resentments and undercurrents of hatred for particular personalities or entities as a result of the pain of defeat suffered by the particular egos who lost the argument, debate, or contention.
It is true, as you so rightly quote Abdul Baha as saying “The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing opinions.”,
but then what? How is unity then achieved?
What I also observe is that often when persons engage in a discussion and do not find immediate agreement that there is a tendency to begin a process of assumption about the other person, accusation, and dismissal, that can eventually lead to provocation, insult, and violence (whether verbal or physical). This obviously is not the way of unity.
I think the comment you make about the facade of unity and the conformity of automatons is a perception that implies dissatisfaction with what seems to be the current state of the Bahai community. I perceive this current state, which I concede may be accurate in some jurisdictions, as a stage of adjustment between cultures of conflict and the emergence of a culture of true unity where the ideals of adversarial systems which seek to use conflict to bring about truth and the ideals of the Bahai Faith for unity can both be realized.
I really do think that we as a world community are really still learning how to achieve true unity, and that when we do, under the guidance of Baha u llahs teachings and His Covenant and whatever relevant science can be applied, that it will fulfill both the desire of those like you who seek for individuality and explicit truth such as the better parts of the traditional adversarial cultures have provided, and those who are seeking to achieve the practical institutional goals of true unity in diversity.
In the spirit of loving kindness,
Sincerely
Sometimes it is difficult to reconcile apparently conflicting statements in the writings.
“The shining spark of truth comes forth only from the clash of differing opinions.”
“Nothing whatsoever can, in this Day, inflict a greater harm upon this Cause than dissension and strife, contention, estrangement and apathy, among the loved ones of God.”
Gauged by standards current amongst us these are contradictory statements. However reading further we find:
“With the utmost friendliness and in a spirit of perfect fellowship take ye counsel together,”
“consultation is the lamp of guidance”
Entering consultation in a spirit of cooperation to find that shining spark of truth will produce results while entering discussion or debate to prove a point is doomed to produce division.
Sincere Friend and I are definately not in the same Bahai cult but we just as assuredly agree that consultation will bring about peace and unity.
Robert Clifton
Well said dear Friend Robert.
I am not sure what you mean by “Sincere Friend and I are definately not in the same Bahai cult” but the Spirit of Bah ullah is greater than any difference that may exist and when we keep that foremost in mind we will undoubtedly all attain to the city of Unity.
“It has been my experience that consultation, when undertaken in a spirit of loving kindness, truth seeking and service does produce true unity.”
And who, pray tell, defines what constitutes “truth seeking”? Those who accuse dissidents of suffering from “ressentiment”? When the well has already been poisoned by years of adversarial propaganda (much of it inflammatory and grossly inaccurate) by those who claim sole ownership of its contents, it takes more than good intentions left over from paving the road to Hell.
“It is my observation that argument, debate, and contention come from traditions, systems, or cultures where the intended result is that there is a clear winner or loser and therefore a division of the community in which the argument, debate or contention occurred.”
I think your observation is biased in favor of a religious culture of control and intimidation in which public dissidence is strongly disapproved of, not to mention caricatured, derided, and ridiculed.
“What I also observe is that often when persons engage in a discussion and do not find immediate agreement that there is a tendency to begin a process of assumption about the other person, accusation, and dismissal, that can eventually lead to provocation, insult, and violence (whether verbal or physical).”
Indeed: witness the the latest article to come out in “Religion,” writren by Moojan Momen, called “Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha’i Community.” I can’t think of a better example than this of assumption, accusation, and dismissal.
“I perceive this current state, which I concede may be accurate in some jurisdictions, as a stage of adjustment between cultures of conflict and the emergence of a culture of true unity where the ideals of adversarial systems which seek to use conflict to bring about truth and the ideals of the Bahai Faith for unity can both be realized.”
I don’t think this will fly. The Baha’i Faith has been in existence for almost 150 years. Unlike Christianity or Islam, it developed in the industrial age and has matured (as much as it ever will, I suspect) in the information age. When Baha’i dissidents present knowledge and insights in support of their positions, they’re simply dismissed as malcontents who suffer from “ressentiment.” This is like trying to lock the barn door after the horse has bolted.
“I really do think that we as a world community are really still learning how to achieve true unity.”
I would like to believe this is true. I really would. But it seems to me that when presented with every opportunity to acquire new insights and alter their perceptions, the upholders of Baha’i orthodoxy consistently express a shared intransigence and distrust of dissidence and modernity. This does not bode well for the development of a mature religious faith, and virtually ensures that the Baha’i religion will remain a marginal phenomenon, limited to a relatively small cadre of devout adherents who are unable to accept the evolving social environment or culture. In other words: at best, a sect; at worst, a cult.
PLEASE search your own conscience and support this anti-war
measure even though such a stance is completely against the
current Teachings of the Baha’i Faith.
“You’ll recall that the U.S. was ‘dragged’ into WWII with the attack on Pearl Harbor. Our boys were sleeping off Saturday night while the enemy schemed — but America soon woke up. So when you see the U.S. in Cambodia or in Vietnam — or when you see America’s young me