This is about Covenant-Breakers so if you are sensitive, please go and look at some bunny pictures or play with a kitten or something. The rest of you can soldier on.
Since most have no clue what this is all about, here are the Cliff Notes:
Way back in 1966, when normal people were busy growing as much body hair as possible and experimenting with a cocktail of mind bending drugs while listening to music that in all honesty sounds like a pack of cats being strangled, the break away Baha’i group under Mason Remey in New Mexico, US was busy with a totally different undertaking.
They decided it would be a good idea to sue the US NSA in a court of law in order to have the US justice system turn over the Wilmette temple and property over to the “NSA Under the Hereditary Guardianship”.
As you can imagine, the US NSA was somewhat miffed at this. They not only defeated the motion but filed a counter claim in which they asserted that the Mason Remey Baha’i organization was guilty of trademark infringement, dilution of the distinctive quality of their rightful trademarks and trade names, and were harming the reputation of the NSA.
Oh you didn’t know that the word “Baha’i” is trademarked?
Seriously. It is.
I wish I was making this up.
It was registered by the US NSA with the US trademark office on March 11, 1952 (Registration #556,004). Look it up if you don’t believe me.
So is the “Greatest Name” symbol (in Arabic calligraphic script). But wait, you ask, shouldn’t Mishkin-Qalam own the trademark to that? or at least his descendents? A spokesperson for the US NSA helpfully replies: Shut up.
No word as of yet if the US NSA has patented the postures within the Baha’i long obligatory prayer. But just to be sure, I would suggest you not bend down to pick up anything off the ground for the foreseeable future as that may constitute a dilution of the NSA’s reputation.
Anyway, getting back to our story, it turns out the judge back then was high on a groovy mixture of pot and LSD so he sided with the US NSA. Well, to be fair, I have no evidence that the judge was tripping on a cloud 8 miles high… other than the roach clip that was later found by the janitor under his chair and the fact that he went along with the trademarking of “Baha’i”.
Think about it.
He gave exclusive legal ownership of the adjective… the very word that describes a religious organization. (Who owns the trademark for “Christian” or “Jew” by the way? Someone look that up between tokes.) I think if that judge was presented with the trademarking of “chair” or “tree” or “hair” he would have gone along as well. When you’re baked… you’re baked.
Which brings us up to the present day. More accurately, November 2006 - when the present US NSA filed a motion to hold the Orthodox Baha’i group in contempt for not abiding by the 1966 judgement.
You see, they were publishing content online which used the trademark and distinctive words, phrases and markings that the 1966 court ruling said they couldn’t be using.
The defense of the Orthodox Baha’i group was that there was no privity (look it up) between them and the Mason Remey organization to which the previous ruling was bound upon. The US NSA argued that they were one and the same organization, just with a different name.
So they went back and forth:
Are not. Are too. Are not. Are too.
Except the lawyers used more complex words to justify their hefty bills at the end.
The result? The judge (from now on called Amy) just like a parent, after patiently listening to the intricately nuanced arguments for more than a year, finally got tired and sent them all to their respective rooms for a time out. No, I’m just kidding.
Amy, being a sensible woman, free of all narcotic and hallucinogenic compounds ruled as follows:
… there was a significant doctrinal rift on a critical tenet of each group’s faith, and that the PNBC’s membership varied materially from that of the NSA-UHG. The record further reflects a demonstrable lack of intent to violate the injunction, and that the PNBC was not created to avoid the effect of the injunction. Simply put, there is no substantial continuity between the NSA-UHG and the PNBC, and, as a result … the PNBC have not violated the injunction.
PNBC stands for Provisional National Baha’i Council - it is one of the many acronym soups that you’ll find within the legal documents of the case.
I am not a legal expert by any means and I hope that some who are will step forward to offer their wisdom… however, it seems to me that the NSA weighed their options and chose to attempt to enforce the 1966 ruling on the Orthodox Baha’is because they estimated that a new legal proceeding would have less chance of winning.
Let’s face it, you simply can’t trademark or copyright the word, “Baha’i” or the nine pointed star any more than you can the word “Christian” or the symbolic representation of the cross. These do not belong to anyone or any one organization. They are in the public domain.
Can you imagine the Catholic church suing the Protestant church for the use of the symbol of the cross? or saying that they infringe on their intellectual property for calling their houses of worship ‘churches’ and for having similar ecclesiastical organizations?
The judge would soak his/her robes laughing before dismissing the case and awarding several millions of exemplary punitive damages for bringing a frivolous law suit to the docket.
That option would have been just plain DUMB. But what the US NSA did, I would argue, is almost as dumb. Here’s why:
Because it meant entering into a no win situation.
If they had won they would have appeared like bullies and would have given the break-away group much more attention than they would normally get. We’re talking about a splinter group of less than 40 people! Forty. Yes, say it again. Forty people.
As well, it would have opened up a hornet’s nest as the Orthodox Baha’is would have gained the sympathies of groups like the EFF. In the end, it would have been nothing more than a hollow legal victory overshadowed by a public relations nightmare. Any positive advantages would have been tiny in comparison to the negative outcome. Also a win would have encouraged the Orthodox Baha’i group to continue to lobby the public’s sympathies by presenting themselves as martyrs, the underdogs, the wronged ones.
On the other hand, had they lost (which they did) it would have meant that they had wasted both time and money (the Faith’s precious resources) to only receive a setback. A loss would embolden the Orthodox group and encourage them to write further bombastic prose on their websites to garner attention. It would also present the US NSA as weak and unable to protect its trademarks and intellectual property.
Here is a portion of the testimony in the trial:
MR. JEFFERY A. HANDELMAN, Attorney for NSA (Direct Examination):
Dr. Henderson, what caused the NSA to file the current contempt motion that is now pending before the Court?DR. ROBERT HENDERSON: The National Spiritual Assembly became aware, as a result of reports, that there were Web sites that were misrepresenting Baha’i belief and claiming to be official institutions of the Baha’i faith. We hadn’t seen them, but we began to get reports. And upon investigation, we were alarmed to find that there were Web sites claiming to be the official institutions of the Baha’i faith and — and — presenting beliefs which were in direct conflict to Baha’i teachings and Baha’i principles and at broad variance.
We had significant concerns about this. First, we were concerned about Baha’i refugees who were forced to flee their homes and their home countries because of their belief in the Baha’i faith, and who, in some cases, had corresponded with the wrong institutions, thinking that they were corresponding with the international governing body of the Baha’i faith and, in fact, they were sending their correspondence to some other institution.
Secondly, we were concerned about the public because one of our major strategies is to advise the public of the teachings and the fact and general aim of the Baha’i faith through the Internet. In fact, our Web site has won several awards for excellence from the National Religious Communication — Communicators — Council, which is an organization that looks at religious publications and Web sites and videos, and so forth.
And we won the gold medal, in fact, as having the best Web site of the faith communities in the United States.
And, so, this is a primary means by which we communicate Baha’i belief, and who are the Baha’is, and what do we believe, and what do we do, and where can you find Baha’is close to you.
Suddenly, we began to receive some alarming reports from people who were not Baha’is, but who were investigating the Baha’i faith through the Internet, concerned about what they were reading on Web sites claiming to be official Baha’i Web sites. And their concern was stimulated by the fact that the content on these Web sites was in direct conflict with their understanding of Baha’i belief; and, in fact, it was in direct conflict.
And, then, lastly, there were — or penultimately, we were concerned about the Baha’is themselves who might be misled and find themselves involved in discussions — in fact, this did occur; find themselves involved in Internet forums and the like and corresponding — with organizations that were not part of the National Spiritual Assembly.
And last, we were concerned with reputational harm. As I mentioned, we have extensive and longstanding relations with the United Nations, with the White House, with the — with both Houses of Congress, with the human rights community. And these are based on principles of peace and cooperation, of universal fellowship, of race unity, of the equality of women and men, and so forth. All of the Baha’i principles centered around facilitating unity and cooperation and universal well being and social progress.
Alright, here’s the thing. We will always be infected with stupidity. There are, even as you sit there reading this, millions of stupid people endangering our gene pool. Heck, you or I have even on occasion partaken liberally of stupidity. No one is immune. Not completely. It is part and parcel of being human. And although we should be compassionate with each other, we should also help each other out as best we can to rise up from it.
Thankfully, we also have reason and intelligence among us. And more often than not, it wins the race. That’s how we have survived this long on this, the third rock from the sun.
So there will always be people who are dumb enough to mistake the insane, bombastic rhetoric that can be found on the Orthodox Baha’i websites (like the 9/11 towers in flames with horrible predictions of apocalypse or worse). No, I’m not going to link to it. It doesn’t deserve further attention. If you really want to find it, you can.
To show you how “dumb” people can be, BahaisOnline was recently contacted by a Baha’i who inquired how their pilgrimage request was coming along. How can anyone mistake that site which aggregates and disseminates Baha’i related news and content from across the web to the “official” Baha’i pilgrimage website run by the UHJ? They don’t have any similarities!
Are we going to now start attempting to protect people from their own stupidity by suing everyone who has an “unofficial” Baha’i site?
Thankfully, there are also among us many people, both Baha’i and not, that will have no trouble at all differentiating between that Baha’i blog and the pilgrimage site. Nor will they have any trouble telling apart the various websites of the Baha’i Faith (Haifa) and those from splinter groups.
What lessons can we draw from this?
The NSA needs better legal advice. As in none.
Since they would be in better shape had they no legal team, I would suggest they fire their lawyers and hire instead a pack of squirrels. After all, when did squirrels do anyone any harm?
And everyone on the NSA who suggested, recommended and went along with this boondoggle please do the rest of the Baha’i world a favor and “retire” from administrative service. It is all the rage right now. All the “cool” Baha’is are doing it: Herr Grossman and Sgt. Mitchell as we speak.
Am I being too harsh?
Perhaps. But is the irony lost on everyone that here we have an institution which is charged with the duty to establish and encourage unity… and they spend their time and the money donated, to pursue an inane litigatious process against a small group of people who believe something slightly different from them?
How about spending more time on the challenges facing the US Baha’i community?
Very entertaining, and BTW quite informative. At least the ABUTTs (American Baha’is Under the Trademark) can take comfort from the evident fact that their Baha’i Fund dollars are hard at work!
Excellent post, Baquia.
“So there will always be people who are dumb enough to mistake the insane, bombastic rhetoric that can be found on the Orthodox Baha’i websites (like the 9/11 towers in flames with horrible predictions of apocalypse or worse).”
Yes, it is insane, bombastic rhetoric, but (perhaps) no more so than some of the apocalyptic utterances that emanated from the estimable pen of Shoghi Effendi.
And to be fair: this particular insane, bombastic rhetoric actually comes not from the Orthodox Baha’i, but from the Baha’is Under the Provisions of the Covenant, the movement founded by Neal Chase, who is its “current disputed leader,” whatever that means. Mr. Chase has posted many marvelous videos available for your perusal on YouTube. It might require a cocktail of mind-bending drugs to thoroughly appreciate them.
“We’re talking about a splinter group of less than 40 people! Forty. Yes, say it again. Forty people.”
Which is sad. Not that there are less than 40 people involved, but that this group seems intent on having less than 40 people involved. They make the “official” (Haifan) Baha’i organization look like a legion of screaming liberals. A fine example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Eventually they will disappear altogether: they too have videos posted on YouTube. Not scary, but sad. The median age of the membership seems to be around 182.
Baquia, I think you’ve missed the mark on this one.
You seem to assume that the actions of the NSA are somehow irrational even within the context of the interests of the Bahá’í Faith, and that they should have seen how irrational it was.
But this is wrong. So woefully wrong.
When you look at the actual Bahá’í writings on Covenant breaking you will find that what appear to be the desperate and self-important actions of the NSA are actually rather mild and constrained in comparison to the (supposed) danger posed by Covenant breakers.
See what the UHJ writes about it:
And that is just one small sample of their delusion about the dangers of this small sect. Shoghi Effendi reminds us that “attitude of a Covenant Breaker is so poisonous that the Master likened it to leprosy, and warned the friends to breathe the same air was dangerous,” and his advice to a Bahá’í whose family member had become a Covenant breaker was to shun her, since, “Your sister should never imagine she, loyal and devoted, has become a ‘carrier’.” So it’s fairly reasonable that anyone who believed these insane, inhumane teachings could very easily come to the conclusion that suing a sect of 40 people for the rights of their trademarked name would make sense. Oh indeed, lots of sense!
More generally, the NSA’s lawsuit is really an integral part of the guarding of that old Bahá’í lie that the perfection of the Bahá’í Faith is somehow demonstrated in the absence of any divisions in the Bahá’í Faith. How could it claim to be unique if it was just as divided as any other religion?! But it is divided. So as always, when their ostensibly perfect dogmas do not match the world, Bahá’ís strive to force the world to match their dogmas. Just as a loving parent would do for their children, the NSA is only trying to protect you from arriving at the unavoidable conclusion that your religion is just like every other religion that came before it: another collection of ill-begotten conclusions and superstitions that depend on our most basic anxieties about death, sex, and need for community for their propagation.
Baquia, your criticism of the NSA’s legal actions is like the criticism one might give of a person who was trying to get others institutionalized because he thought that they were lepers living amongst him. Sure, he looks crazy when you ignore his delusions; but when you take into account what he thinks he’s up against, his irrational behaviour makes perfect sense. Once again, as with all your criticisms of Bahá’ís, the problem is not the NSA, nor is it the Administrative Order — it’s just not. The problem is the Writings themselves.
Well, I’m glad they got this over with both for themselves and everyone else. I do understand where the US NSA was coming from. I understand why they felt they had to try to do this as part of the legacy culture of the unfortunate “corporatist” mindset the Faith took since 1921. It is still all the rage but it is going to start to die everywhere in the world. The real world is much messier than the many fictions of the corporate world. The world must now move on to something more like “Baha’is Under The Provison of Common Sense” (BUTPOCS) where you just live and let live. Let everyone put their web sites and videos up on the Web and let people figure it out. All they ever had to do it put a page on the officiasl US NSA web site explaining the different other Baha’i groups and let people act like adults.
But what this world really needs is “Humans Under The Provision Of Common Sense” (HUTPOCS). That is just what this entire world needs now.
People everywhere need to get their heads out of their asses and start to take personal responsibility for the world and think straight bottom up NOT top down.
Right now things don’t lookno win situation good anywhere, but I think there are people still with common sense somewhere in the world.
Whoever puts a movement together based upon simple common sense, could have a field day on this planet. I still think it is potentially possible.
Everyone have a pleasant evening!
i thought another cause of the Haifan Bahai’s , at times irrational, attitude towards sects was that apparently Abdul-Baha or some other Central Figure had promised that the Bahai faith would be free from the sectarian differences which have plagued other religions. So they find it theologically difficult to admit that Bahai sects even exist.
Baquia
I thought it was a spot on however Mavaddat also made a good point as well. The subject of CB’ers is certainly one to avoid or one will end up like me, disgusted with it all.
Mavaddat wrote:
“How could it claim to be unique if it was just as divided as any other religion?! But it is divided.”
As a former Catholic, I was taught that (in the words of Cyprian) “the One Catholic Church cannot be divided.” Sound familiar?
From a website dedicated to Catholic apologetics:
“The unity of the Catholic Church is something which is not matched anywhere else in the world. It is not that the Catholic Church is a little more united than other societies. It is that the Catholic Church is unified in a way which no other society was ever united. The ordinary laws of sociology do not apply here. That is what we mean by a miracle. Such unity cannot be explained on any natural basis.”
Non-Catholic churches are characterized not as real churches per se but “ecclesial communities” that have separated from the organic unity of the Church (”our separated brethren”) but this does not impair the unity of the True (Catholic) Church. Again, does this sound familiar?
Much of Baha’ism seems to be taken from the Catholic playbook. Is the Baha’i faith divided? No, no more so than the Christian religion is divided, because there is only one Christian Church (the one headed by the Pope) that cannot be divided, just as there is only one Baha’i faith (the one headed by the UHJ) that cannot be divided.
Yes, it’s nonsense, but it’s compelling nonsense for those who need to believe in such things, all rational argument to the contrary notwithstanding. It’s not just “spiritual unity” that is referred to, but actual institutional unity:
“… the Church in the West … is seen, rather, as a centrally organized monolith in which the new legal concept of a ‘perfect society’ has superseded the old idea of succession in the community … in her, the will of the absolute sovereign creates a new authority. (This) concept of authority grew steadily more intense and reached its climax in 1870 with the proclamation of the primacy of jurisdiction … the source of law appears to be the will of the sovereign, which creates on its own authority (ex sese) new laws that then have the power to bind … this juridical institution (the papacy) has set itself above the sacramental [spiritual] order.” — “Principles of Catholic Theology” by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
Now, what happened in 1870? Having been dethroned as ruler of the Papal States by the movement for Italian Reunification that finally triumphed in 1870, Pope Pius IX called the First Vatican Council where he was determined to buttress his own spiritual authority. It stated that the Pope “when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians” is “possessed of infallibility” when “he defines … a doctrine concerning faith and morals to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised to him by St. Peter”. Once the Pope has spoken, the First Vatican Council agreed, his definitions “are irreformable of themselves”.
Between 1867 and 1870, Mirza Husayn Ali Nuri (Baha’u'llah) wrote letters to all the kings and rulers of the earth, announcing his mission and putting forward principles for the evolution of peace in the world. He could hardly have been unaware of the brouhaha leading up to the First Vatican Council and the intentions of the Pope to consolidate his authority as Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church. Res ipsa loquitur.
Andrew-
Very intersting, thanks for the comment.
fwiw: long ago, on a internet far far away, Juan Cole or one of the other similar talisman scholars, stated that there was some evidence that Shoghi Effendi had spent significant time in catholic schools in europe (and maybe Lebanon/Syria?) when he was growing up.
Andrew wrote:
…
Much of Baha’ism seems to be taken from the Catholic playbook.
…
Craig and all,
One again, y’all have done an excellent job with this topic.
re: BUTPOC/HUTPOC
LOL! hilarioso.
I like Craig’s idea of common sense, but once one attempts to “unpack” and “deconstruct” it, problems develop, specifically with pluralism, and cultural context. One culture’s “common sense” won’t make as much sense, if any, to other cultures/paradigms.
e.g., Modernist “common sense” is actively opposed by Postmodernists, etc.
I would, again, propose that a “new paradigm” (about paradigms) should go along with “common sense”. The new paradigm is integralism.
Integralism is rooted in scientific/evolutionary/developmental theory, which is why it is a much better idea than “progressive revelation”, which continues the scam of prophetology and religiously inspired schemes for political power/control/empire, which obviously a collective mental health problem (”disease”).
The validity of bottom up thinking is not only self-evident within specific cultures/paradigms, it has been part of “systems theory” for a while. Systems theory states that when left alone in small or medium groups (for instance tribes in Africa - human evolutionary origins), people will almost always find pretty good solutions to their problems. There is a “natural” equilibrium in “non-dysfunctional” groups of people that have an intact incentive/disincentive systems, that allows for unfettered “self-learning” and “self-correction”. (this blog is an excellent example: the validity of the “grass roots” learning process here vastly eclipses the practical knowledge of the vast and ponderous worldwide bahai bureaucracy and its “organs” of “scholarship”. with the possible exception of the MDS “100 SED train the trainers” program, which probably doesn’t even operate anymore.)
There appears to be a “sweet spot” where a culture that is emerging from an agricultural economy (with well defined moral structures), and is adopting an industrial economy, “liberates” the self-learning tendencies of groups of people whio are freed from day-to-day drudgery by industrial, middle class life, who then create tremendous innovations. Unfortuantely what usually follows shortly after that is “paradigm regression” as the society becomes complex/wealthy/decadent and the simple moral structure of the agricultural society breaks down and decays.
Over the centuries, various top-down systems have developed that attempt to replace the “natural” group logic of human beings with larger scale systems (usually with new religions, new technologies, new political organizations and cultural complexity). The “better” top-down systems tend to operate in such a manner as to minimize the damage to lower-level group logic, while getting people to buy into the benefits of a larger, more complex top-down system. The great “universal” religions, and the societies that developed with them, in their original forms, are examples.
However, the industrial age presents a new set of problems in human consciousness. A by-product of the paradigm of Modernism is a hierarchy of “professional” experts that solve problems that used to be taken care of at a “vernacular” level in the family, neighborhood, village, community, church/temple. Liberalism tends to make the mistake of promoting such hierarchy, specifically, centralized, bureaucratic hierachies of “experts” that preside over the great social machine of modern society, and attempt to tweak and tune society to eliminate the “snake pits” of human nature, such as inequality and injustice (see Ivan Illich “Vernacular Values”).
Early on, the Baha’i faith in the “west” absorbed the ever increasingly popular idea of “rule by bureaucratic experts” like a dry sponge in the spiritual desert of western culture. All of the “progressive” social principles in the bahai writings were also sucked up by the same sponge and used to justify “rule by bureaucracy”. It was thought to be the perfect marriage: rule be modernist experts, progressive social principles, along with the “feel good” aspects of a warm-fuzzy spirituality and sufi metaphysics and archetypes needed to form the basis for “community”.
(there were a number of strong working-class bahai communities in the early period in the usa that were marginalized and disappeared. I helped a bahai scholar do some research for a Kalimat book on that topic years ago. the most egregious example of course is how the working-class Chicago temple organization was hijacked by upper class socialite feminists, who managed to move the temple site itself completely out of the industrial areas of Chicago to the upper class suburbs, sealnig the doom by forever locking bahai administration into an elitist mode.)
The problem of course is that the cultural “gravity well” of shiism worked against very the (supposedly “evil” and “materialistic”) dynamics in “western” culture that promote self-learning and self-correction, such as scientific objectivity, and free elections.
Integralism attempts to reconcile spirituality and transcendence with science (rationalism). The big difference is that it does not atetmpt to force science into a religious framework in order to keep the scam of religious hierarchy/power going, which is the fatal flaw of the bahai approach.
If one reads Shighi Effendi’s political theory carefully, he clearly wanted to create not a “new world order” per se, but a “reformulated world order” that was a weird blend of Islamic civilization and Christian empire. (search on topics related to “national liberation” movements, which Shoghi was very clearly opposed to.)
Craig Parke wrote:
re: Integralism attempts to reconcile spirituality and transcendence with science (rationalism). The big difference is that it does not atetmpt to force science into a religious framework in order to keep the scam of religious hierarchy/power going, which is the fatal flaw of the bahai approach.
Here is the holistic enchilada:
http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/index.cfm/
excerpt:
…
Integral Post-Metaphysics–and its corollary, integral methodological pluralism–is important, I believe, for many reasons. First and foremost, no system (spiritual or otherwise) that does not come to terms with modern Kantian and postmodern Heideggerian thought can hope to survive with any intellectual respectability (agree with them or disagree with them, they have to be addressed)–and that means all spirituality must be post-metaphysical in some sense. Second, as Einsteinian physics applied to objects moving slower than the speed of light collapses back into Newtonian physics, so an Integral Post-Metaphysics can generate all the essentials of premodern spiritual and metaphysical systems but without their now-discredited ontological baggage. This, to my mind, is the central contribution of an Integral Post-Metaphysics–it does not itself contain metaphysics, but it can generate metaphysics as one possible AQAL matrix configuration under the limit conditions of premodern cultures. That is, the AQAL matrix, when run using premodern parameters, collapses into the old metaphysics (as Einsteinian collapses into Newtonian, even though it itself is non-Newtonian). On the other hand, alter the holonic conditions of the matrix by adjusting it to the parameters of the postmodern world, and the metaphysics drops out entirely, even though there still remains an entire spectrum of consciousness, waves of development, evolution and involution, and a rainbow of awareness that runs unbroken from dust to Deity–but without relying on any pregiven, archetypal, or independently existing ontological structures, levels, planes, etc. In fact, the entire “great chain of being” disappears entirely from reality, but its essential features can be generated by the matrix if certain mythic-era assumptions are plugged into its parameters.
Of course, some sort of “great chain of being” has been central to spiritual traditions from time immemorial, whether it appears in the general shamanic form as the existence of higher and lower worlds, the Neoplatonic version of levels of reality (e.g., the amazing Plotinus), the Taoist version of realms of being (e.g., Lieh Tzu), the Buddhist version of a spectrum of consciousness (e.g., the 8 vijnanas), or the Kabbalah sefirot–and down to today’s newer wisdom traditions, from Aurobindo to Adi Da to Hameed Almaas. All of them, without exception, postulate the existence of levels or dimensions of reality or consciousness, including higher or wider or deeper dimensions of being and knowing–some sort of rainbow of existence, whose waves, levels, or bands possess an independent reality that can be accessed by sufficiently evolved or developed souls. In other words, they all postulate the existence of metaphysical realities–which is exactly what is challenged (and thoroughly rejected) by modern and postmodern currents.
Therefore, what is required is a way to generate that essential rainbow of existence but without any metaphysical or ontological postulates. In other words, IF we can generate the essentials of a spiritual worldview without the metaphysical baggage, then we can generate a spiritual worldview that will survive in a modern and postmodern world. That, in any event, is one of the central aims of Integral Post-Metaphysics (and its practical application, called “integral methodological pluralism”), both of which will be outlined in these excerpts. If we can succeed in this endeavor, then all of those spiritual worldviews (from shamanism to Plotinus to Padmasambhava to Aurobindo) can be reanimated and utilized within a broader, non-metaphysical AQAL matrix, which can generate the same rainbow of existence but without the discredited metaphysical accoutrements, and thus one can still utilize their profound wisdom without succumbing to the devastating attacks of modern and postmodern currents.
…
ep,
Thank you for these recent posts. It is all very, very useful stuff. I apologize for any conflicts between us in the past. I understand your passion much better now. You are (still) actually quite concerned that the world work all this out somehow. You are actually soldiering on in the best way you can. I truly respect you for this. Your posts have been a very useful contribution here. I guess for all of us here, that is why we all joined the Baha’i Faith originally in the first place: based upon our life experiences we all became concerned that the world work all this out somehow. To see the Baha’i Faith go to such common place ruin is a very real anguish and takes many different forms in on-line discussions.
I think you are right in that the insights of Integralism seem to be
the best thought system yet in trying to understand how the world can move forward. (And, as you stated once, it was some Baha’is who introduced you to this body of thought!) That was the Baha’i Faith I once really loved. A free form community of independent investigation in all the issues facing the human race. Those days, as we all sadly know, are over in the new ruthless top down, group think, totalitarian Faith. The final gamed fait accompli of the ITC Faith becoming the Baha’i Faith is now sealed. The tightly controlled group think demise will be ever and ever faster. Any free thinkers are all Emmanuel Goldstein in George Orwell’s “1984″ now. Enemies of the Party. The same old, same old toxic brain chemistry in human organizations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Kznmrc3o4
“We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our
individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha’i belief. In the end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent to ‘taking partners with God’ which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the Faith.”
- Douglas Martin
Former Member of the Universal House of Justice
Baha’i Faith
After what the human race went through in the ideological hell of the 20th Century in ten thousand instances of many personal Auschwitz-Birkenaus, this meme (to borrow a wonderful Integralist term) is just not going to fly among thinking people anywhere on Earth. I just don’t see where turning your private eternal soul over to an organization to do your moral reasoning and thinking for you
will ever become fashionable again. Maybe I am wrong, but I just don’t see it ever happening again. I believe the demise of the baha’i Faith will be very very rapid now as people discovery this mentality in it via the Internet.
In fact, as you have brought to our attention in these very interesting and thought provoking Integralist quotes, the rise of technologies empowering various social classes is one of the core mechanisms of society. When the new big system of thought connects with the bottom up problem solving systems of society there is an advance.
The true big system of spiritual thought now is that the human race IS going planetary in thinking. The BAO has now quite unfortunately ruthlessly killed all innate bottom up problem solving skills in every society on Earth that has come into their “new professional theorist class” devised system. It is astonishing how harebrained this was, but it is the reality.
But, as you have stated through these Integralist concepts, the new paradigm will move forward and form.
To my mind, the mechanism is now clearly the technology of the intimate planetary communication of the Internet. The current version of the Baha’i Faith was completely unprepared for this. With the Dialog Magazine fiasco of 1988 it had no further development of a culture of completely free and open public discussion on the issues facing both the Baha’i community and the human race. The consequences now will be completely fatal. It is too late now to develop that culture. The rise of the Internet with it’s planetary vitality in the exchange of thought, ideas, and real human concerns has completely by-passed the completely straight jacketed organization of the Baha’i Faith.
The Internet itself is now the religion of the newly forming planetary paradigm. It is the organizing principle behind what is to come. All bets are off.
Thank you for your recent very useful posts.
I am going to go for a nice walk now along the river here.
Everyone keep posting!
Best regards to all!
Craig
As addenda to US NSA’s failure to prevail:
On August 7, 1928, then Secretary of NSA, Horace Holley, acting as agent for NSA, a common law corporation and proprietor NSA, trademarked the word “Baha’i” with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office.
In 1941, in a case brought challenging this trademark, the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled that the trademark was invalid. The Court’s rationale…..”Had not the unethical act of concealing from the Commissioner of the US Patent Office the fact that the word Baha’i derives from the name, Baha’u'llah, a person, and more importantly, the founder of a religion, the trademark would have been denied. There is no monopoly on the word Baha’i.”
This current lawsuit ostensibly flowed from NSA’s original suit (date of filing December 7, 2006, same USDC) which attempted to enjoin others from the use of the word “Baha’i, and in which they failed to prevail, underscores NSA’s unutterably absurd preoccupation with non-mainstream Baha’is in general and with Covenant Breakers in particular.
It’s ironic how the Faith proclaims loudly “Independent investigation of truth!” which implies the individual conscience is supreme, and yet we have Douglas Martin here saying that it is not a Baha’i belief! What he is really saying is “We don’t want you to think for yourselves because it is inconvenient to us”, hence we have Ruhi, the most wonderful method for turning peoples brains into vegetables.
Grover wrote:
“It’s ironic how the Faith proclaims loudly “Independent investigation of truth!” which implies the individual conscience is supreme, and yet we have Douglas Martin here saying that it is not a Baha’i belief!”
Grover, I think that this apparent paradox can be solved by differenciating between _individual_ conscience and action _collective_ conscience and collective action.
We are all encouraged to seek truth for ourselves and to act accordingly, but when it comes to collective action we are obliged to harmonise our views and actions wityh that of others. If we all choose to act only according to our personnal conscience and interpretations, no collective enterprise such as world peace would be at all possible.
Speaking very generally, French Cartesian thought and action is more individualistic and more analytic, encouraging he individual to seek a response within himself, whereas Anglo-Saxon thought is more synthetic and holistic with a vision of collective responsabilities.
Joel de ROSNAY developped this comparison in his “Macroscope” (which is translated into English and which I recommend) after his studies in the US MIT.
As an example, French deontological code places the physician in a position of respnsability towards the individual and then of public health, whereas the US medical council code places the physician in a situation of responsability first towards public health. The importance of medical confidentiality is such that a physician cannot report a person with AIDS hiding his disease from his partner.
These two axis are to me also found in the ethical discussions between “pro life” and “pro-choice”
We need an equilibrium between these two levels: individual liberties and collective responsabilities.
Christianity brought the basis of individual virtues and the Baha’i Faith carries this same concept to the level of collective virtues.
It looks like I didn’t quite use the the “quote comment” feature here correctly, so here’s another attempt.
Mr. Yazdani writes:
“if we all choose to act only according to our personnal conscience and interpretations, no collective enterprise such as world peace would be at all possible.”
This is characteristic of the way many Baha’is see the world. For them, “faith” is chiefly an expression of despair, that is, of their loss of faith in humanity.
Mr. Yazdani makes a mistake here when he fails to distinguish collective thinking from collective obedience. The former is an organic, social phenomena–neither intrinsically good nor bad, whereas the latter is an all-to-familiar, destructive pattern in human behavior that many Baha’is seem to believe is unique to their religion.
Grover wrote:
“It’s ironic how the Faith proclaims loudly “Independent investigation of truth!” which implies the individual conscience is supreme, and yet we have Douglas Martin here saying that it is not a Baha’i belief! What he is really saying is “We don’t want you to think for yourselves because it is inconvenient to us”, hence we have Ruhi, the most wonderful method for turning peoples brains into vegetables.”
Does the independent investigation of truth really imply that individual conscience is supreme? Here are two dictionary definitions of conscience: “1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.”
If individual conscience is supreme it means that someone’s independent investigation of truth could lead them to believe in a ‘truth’ and act in a manner, according to the dictates of their conscience, which is harmful to others. For example, the ethical standards which govern the conscience of individuals who believe (after investigating the truth as they understand it) that there is nothing wrong with the use of illicit drugs, may lead them to use or become dealers of these drugs. This does not mean that their behaviour is either correct or justified based on the supremacy of their conscience. The Polygamists who have recently been in the news in the US certainly believed that there was nothing wrong with their behavior. The independent investigation of truth does not imply that the supremacy of one’s conscience will always result in correct behavior and beliefs.
You might find the following comment useful:
“A Bahá’í recognizes that one aspect of his spiritual and intellectual growth is to foster the development of his conscience in the light of divine Revelation — a Revelation which, in addition to providing a wealth of spiritual and ethical principles, exhorts man “to free himself from idle fancy and imitation, discern with the eye of oneness His glorious handiwork, and look into all things with a searching eye”. This process of development, therefore, involves a clear-sighted examination of the conditions of the world with both heart and mind. A Bahá’í will understand that an upright life is based upon observance of certain principles which stem from Divine Revelation and which he recognizes as essential for the well-being of both the individual and society. In order to uphold such principles, he knows that, in certain cases, the voluntary submission of the promptings of his own personal conscience to the decision of the majority is a conscientious requirement, as in wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an Assembly at the outcome of consultation.”
UHJ “Issues Related to the Study of the Bahá’í Faith”
Carmen
Carmen, this does appear to indicate that civil disobedience is considered immoral in the Baha’i Faith. The Baha’i writings do seem quite consistent in urging Baha’is to avoid any confrontation of authority whatsoever. The principles of avoidance of political activity and thorough obedience to the prevailing government make this pretty clear. This tends to make one say, “ok, so I can investigate freely, but is it moral for me to act upon what I discover?” I think the take-home message is that one can think and investigate freely, but one’s words and actions must remain thoroughly obedient to all authorities.
Carmen quotes the UHJ:
“A Bahá’í will understand that an upright life is based upon observance of certain principles which stem from Divine Revelation and which he recognizes as essential for the well-being of both the individual and society. In order to uphold such principles, he knows that, in certain cases, the voluntary submission of the promptings of his own personal conscience to the decision of the majority is a conscientious requirement, as in wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an Assembly at the outcome of consultation.”
Carmen quotes the UHJ:
“A Bahá’í will understand that an upright life is based upon observance of certain principles which stem from Divine Revelation and which he recognizes as essential for the well-being of both the individual and society. In order to uphold such principles, he knows that, in certain cases, the voluntary submission of the promptings of his own personal conscience to the decision of the majority is a conscientious requirement, as in wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an Assembly at the outcome of consultation.”
What if the new top down hijacked ITC Faith incestuous clique, oops, I mean “Universal House of Justice of the Baha’i Faith”, says to every Baha’i on Earth in a Ridvan Message some time in the Glorious Future of the Faith that you, to maintain your membership as a “Baha’i In Good Standing”, are to murder anyone in your family that does not successfully complete the Ruhi Full Sequence of Courses in a fast enough period of time to the satisfaction of the local AABM who must make the ruling of whether they completed the full sequence in time and to his/her exact satisfaction?
What if the majority of the UHJ has voted that I must do this?
What if the majority of the Local Spiritual Assembly has also voted that I must do this and anyone who doesn’t themselves will be shot?
I was raised a Christian. I believe in human conscience as based upon the Ten Commandments, the beatitudes of Jesus Christ, and the teachings of the Avatars and Sages I have read and studied including Baha’u'llah.
What if I just don’t accept the moral rulings of not too bright high school teachers who have gamed the electoral processes of the Baha’i Faith to get themselves lifetime incumbent positions as the “Voice of God” on Earth?
I tell you right now I am NOT murdering ANYONE in my family because they did not complete the Ruhi Full Sequence of Courses in a fast enough period of time because my personal moral conscience will NOT allow it.
I tell everyone here in front of the whole world that I just am NOT going against my own personal conscience in my conduct.
If I am suddenly transported back in time to the village of My Lai in Vietnam on the morning of March 16th, 1968 and I land with my good friend the late CWO Hugh Thompson in his helicopter that day and Lieutenant Calley orders me to shoot CWO Hugh Thompson in accordance with Baha’i “Obediance to Governement” I tell everyone here before the whole world and the high school teachers who have gamed lifetime incumbency on the UHJ of the Baha’i Faith as the “Voice of God” on Earth that I am just NOT going to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Thompson,_Jr.
I am NOT going to shoot CWO Hugh Thompson just because Lieutenant Calley tells me he is going to have me auto disenrolled by First Class Postage Mail like others have out of the Baha’i Faith by the UHJ if I don’t kill CWO Hugh Thompson in “Obediance to Government”.
Furthermore, based upon Lieutanant Calleys’s personal actions killing Vietnamese in cold blood that day I most probably will shoot Lieutenant Calley based upon the dictates of my conscience even though “conscience is a dangerous delusion inherited from Christianity” and Douglas Martin can go to hell.
Furthermore, when I get back from my time travel trip I just might look up Douglas Martin for his making himself partners with God by opening his big fat mouth and giving his personal opinions about anything on Earth as a UHJ member and shoot him too.
Remember, I am a trained military veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States and was once a Commissioned Officer authorized to lead up to 200 troops in battle as common currency, so I think a good lawyer can get me off in blowing Douglas Martin away. Maybe I can say I had a “flash back” of some sort and “God told me to do it.”
I honestly think “God” is going to start telling alot of people to do it if these pompous theorist class asses for human beings keep talking about “inheriting dangerous delusions from Christainaity”. This man can STFU.
There was a failed painter in the last century who got control of an entire brainwashed nation of sheep. His name was Adolph Hitler. He said “Conscience is a Jewish invention.” He did away with it in an entire nation. The rest is history. I’m not dropping Zyklon B down a pipe on other human beings either. And any “group think” bunch of effete theorist class punks and idiots that try to tell me to do that can go to hell too.
The history of persecution of people in the name of a monolithic religious or political belief system is the VERY FIBER OF HUMAN HISTORY over the last 2000 years, why do you apparatchik knee jerk true believer sheep here think the UHJ of the Baha’i Faith could NOT become just as deranged and corrupt if the rank and file people have their consciences taken away in the “new ideology” and won’t stand up to them?
How can you assure us all here that they they could never become “NINE HITLERS” if people are NOT alowed or permitted themselves to “have personal consciences” in the Baha’i Faith as the “new teachings” of the hijacked ITC Faith?
I have been a dedicated and steadfast Baha’i for 36 years who performed many years of service for the Institutions of the Faith in my area and my country and I say these people have now completely overstepped their bounds worldwide and the Tablet of the Holy Mariner with it’s “burning meteor” is coming for them to “cast them out” because THEY are the ones who have broken the Everlasting Covenant of Almighty God.
Not the rank and file who have been pure and faithful to the original Teachings of the Prophets and Holy Manifestations.
They can take their Ruhi books of the hijacked ITC Faith and jam them up their effete school teacher asses.