Baha’i Rants

…Taliban-esque moderators on Baha’i Journal.

Baquia, that is so insulting! Do you have any idea how hurt the Taliban are going to be, should they ever read your cruel words?

…Taliban-esque moderators on Baha’i Journal.

Baquia, that is so insulting! Do you have any idea how hurt the Taliban are going to be, should they ever read your cruel words?

I’m definitly sure that you’re a Jerk !
High compliment.

I’m definitly sure that you’re a Jerk !
High compliment.

Thanks for your ‘high compliment’ but I’m not sure whether your intention was to award it to Steve or myself. Since I’m so selfish I would like to claim it for myself.

btw definitely is spelled with ‘finite’

Thanks for your ‘high compliment’ but I’m not sure whether your intention was to award it to Steve or myself. Since I’m so selfish I would like to claim it for myself.

btw definitely is spelled with ‘finite’

Good job Baquia. The Baha’i stance on homosexuality has always been a bit troubling to me. The youth’s challenged, to find a saying explicitly aimed at homosexuality, is yet unmet I’m sure. Despite the words of the Guardian, when a Baha’i reviews the authority of the Guardian in relation to the Manifestation, it is actually quite easy to see how much of a non-issue homosexuality should be in the faith. It’s one of the Faith’s “black eyes” I fear. Good entry.

Good job Baquia. The Baha’i stance on homosexuality has always been a bit troubling to me. The youth’s challenged, to find a saying explicitly aimed at homosexuality, is yet unmet I’m sure. Despite the words of the Guardian, when a Baha’i reviews the authority of the Guardian in relation to the Manifestation, it is actually quite easy to see how much of a non-issue homosexuality should be in the faith. It’s one of the Faith’s “black eyes” I fear. Good entry.

We should return to the Greek decadence, and portray the hetrosexuals as bunch of “imbecile”.

As simple as that ” take it or leave it”

Discover you own creed and practice it, Baha’i have send you a “golden invitation”, we beg you wholeheartedly.

“black eyes” booboo

btw thanks for spelling correction.

Love to you too

We should return to the Greek decadence, and portray the hetrosexuals as bunch of “imbecile”.

As simple as that ” take it or leave it”

Discover you own creed and practice it, Baha’i have send you a “golden invitation”, we beg you wholeheartedly.

“black eyes” booboo

btw thanks for spelling correction.

Love to you too

Greek you say?

‘This is madness’

This… is… BAHAI !!

Greek you say?

‘This is madness’

This… is… BAHAI !!

Baquia: it was because of the ‘abomination’ label leveled against Gays by Baha’i's (and for those of you reading this (you know who you are) please don’t even bother to palm off that trite piece of garbage that we ‘love the sinner yet hate the sin’….let me know when you plan on inviting an openly gay Baha’i to your Feast ) that is the second reason I gave up teaching the Faith. How could I and not be a hypocrite?
This was brought home to me two years ago when I marched in a Pride Parade and directly in front of me was a well known Gay Leatherman who had stated publicly on a National TV show he had been a Baha’i in his youth but left when he realized he was gay and that according to the Faith he was an ‘abomination.’ Those were his exact words.
How tragic for him and for us that we lost someone like him.
Baquia: let me know when Chapter and Verse of Baha’u'llah’s writings dealing specifically with this issue shows up somewhere in ‘provisional translations’…thank you.
Waving a rainbow flag: WH

Baquia: it was because of the ‘abomination’ label leveled against Gays by Baha’i's (and for those of you reading this (you know who you are) please don’t even bother to palm off that trite piece of garbage that we ‘love the sinner yet hate the sin’….let me know when you plan on inviting an openly gay Baha’i to your Feast ) that is the second reason I gave up teaching the Faith. How could I and not be a hypocrite?
This was brought home to me two years ago when I marched in a Pride Parade and directly in front of me was a well known Gay Leatherman who had stated publicly on a National TV show he had been a Baha’i in his youth but left when he realized he was gay and that according to the Faith he was an ‘abomination.’ Those were his exact words.
How tragic for him and for us that we lost someone like him.
Baquia: let me know when Chapter and Verse of Baha’u'llah’s writings dealing specifically with this issue shows up somewhere in ‘provisional translations’…thank you.
Waving a rainbow flag: WH

there’s also a facebook group

there’s also a facebook group

I’m generations Bahai, gay and inactive. Conservative Bahais always try to portray their stance on homosexuality as being the only way. At the same time, they try to convince the world that their stance is just. They also try to make it less than it is by saying that Bahais don’t pry into private lives of gays or anyone doing something sexually “immoral” unless it becomes scandalous. If all this is true, then why aren’t there gay couples with their children in Bahai classes? Why don’t people freely bring their partners to firesides, serve on LSA’s etc? If they are not having sex in public or doing something to embarras anyone, then they should be 100% accepted in the community and allowed to fully function. Yet that is not the case, why? Because those like me know fully well what conservatives are like. Walk into a Bahai setting with a pride shirt on, and that will probably be enough to get you sent to your local LSA. Bahai communities are not for open, well-adjusted gays like me. They are, like other fundamentalist communities, for those gays who are closeted, self-hating or those inidividuals who have gotten fed up with the worst of the gay community, so they bought into the Bahai conservative view. It just sickens me how on the one-hand they can be so prejudiced against the LGBT community, but on the other try to show this open loving community were all are accepted. If so, then why do people like me shun it?

I’m generations Bahai, gay and inactive. Conservative Bahais always try to portray their stance on homosexuality as being the only way. At the same time, they try to convince the world that their stance is just. They also try to make it less than it is by saying that Bahais don’t pry into private lives of gays or anyone doing something sexually “immoral” unless it becomes scandalous. If all this is true, then why aren’t there gay couples with their children in Bahai classes? Why don’t people freely bring their partners to firesides, serve on LSA’s etc? If they are not having sex in public or doing something to embarras anyone, then they should be 100% accepted in the community and allowed to fully function. Yet that is not the case, why? Because those like me know fully well what conservatives are like. Walk into a Bahai setting with a pride shirt on, and that will probably be enough to get you sent to your local LSA. Bahai communities are not for open, well-adjusted gays like me. They are, like other fundamentalist communities, for those gays who are closeted, self-hating or those inidividuals who have gotten fed up with the worst of the gay community, so they bought into the Bahai conservative view. It just sickens me how on the one-hand they can be so prejudiced against the LGBT community, but on the other try to show this open loving community were all are accepted. If so, then why do people like me shun it?

I agree and what more, being Gay isn’t a choice it’s genetic.
I believe this; when we are created we are all created female, then if we miss getting the correct combination we become what people call gay.
It’s part of the life forming process, and if that’s true then God had a hand in it.
If God had a hand in it then being gay is normal and part of life.

Then why does the uptight Baha’is, get so uptight, or that’s right they follow the leader and don’t think for themselves anymore.

People are people and God loves us all, but people have a hard time with that, stupid.

I heard that the reason Shoghi Effendi did need to leave a will was because his letters and writings where his will.
That doesn’t work for me.
If Abdul-Baha didn’t leave a will and his writings were his will, his elder brother would have been the head of the faith.

Baha’is, of which I’m one, have stopped finding truth and let others do it for thing, how sad.

So, to my Gay brothers, I salute you.

Fritz Gormann

I agree and what more, being Gay isn’t a choice it’s genetic.
I believe this; when we are created we are all created female, then if we miss getting the correct combination we become what people call gay.
It’s part of the life forming process, and if that’s true then God had a hand in it.
If God had a hand in it then being gay is normal and part of life.

Then why does the uptight Baha’is, get so uptight, or that’s right they follow the leader and don’t think for themselves anymore.

People are people and God loves us all, but people have a hard time with that, stupid.

I heard that the reason Shoghi Effendi did need to leave a will was because his letters and writings where his will.
That doesn’t work for me.
If Abdul-Baha didn’t leave a will and his writings were his will, his elder brother would have been the head of the faith.

Baha’is, of which I’m one, have stopped finding truth and let others do it for thing, how sad.

So, to my Gay brothers, I salute you.

Fritz Gormann

Thank you for those comments. Yeah, I’ve pretty much given up too. I’m looking into the UU’s now as a way to practice my personal belief in Bahaullah. I would like someone though who is active in their Bahai community to propose the following at feast, lsa whatever:
If two men come and want to joing the faith, and bring their children to class, what would we do? Do we pry into their bedroom to see what if they are breaking any laws? Or do we do what we say we do, and not pry, and allow them to join the Faith and be fully a part of the community?
Please get back to me with any answers. But this probably isn’t the best site to find Bahais who are active in their communities. )

Thank you for those comments. Yeah, I’ve pretty much given up too. I’m looking into the UU’s now as a way to practice my personal belief in Bahaullah. I would like someone though who is active in their Bahai community to propose the following at feast, lsa whatever:
If two men come and want to joing the faith, and bring their children to class, what would we do? Do we pry into their bedroom to see what if they are breaking any laws? Or do we do what we say we do, and not pry, and allow them to join the Faith and be fully a part of the community?
Please get back to me with any answers. But this probably isn’t the best site to find Bahais who are active in their communities. )

Peyamb, I’m sorry that I can’t be the one who could do that, I wish I could but when they boxed up the truth and took away the right to question that ended it for me, we have stepped back and worship in our own way now.

Maybe if the UHJ holds a meeting in the stadium at Nurnberg Germany, like the other guys did, then I’ll ask the question.

Being Gay is being Human, being straight is being Human, Being Human is an Act of Creation is not a Baha’i Limiting practice

Fritz

Peyamb, I’m sorry that I can’t be the one who could do that, I wish I could but when they boxed up the truth and took away the right to question that ended it for me, we have stepped back and worship in our own way now.

Maybe if the UHJ holds a meeting in the stadium at Nurnberg Germany, like the other guys did, then I’ll ask the question.

Being Gay is being Human, being straight is being Human, Being Human is an Act of Creation is not a Baha’i Limiting practice

Fritz

[quote comment=""]
If God had a hand in it then being gay is normal and part of life.[/quote]

I’m a university student who’s not presently enrolled as a Bahá’í, but I’ve been actively considering joining the Faith. Vexing but perhaps lucky for me that I encountered websites like this, because I’d have known nothing about the relatively skeptical mainstream Bahá’í attitude to critical thinking. It’s vaguely terrifying to think that authorities would block any non-mainstream view. Seems so radically out of step with the founding principles of the Fatih. Alas.

As for this business about the prohibition of homosexuality– I’m with the gentleman who says it’s utterly out of accord with the ideal of a world free of prejudice. To abolish all bigotries save for this one is not to abolish bigotry at all. And I gather that an unfortunate number of Bahá’ís believe they haven’t got the right to question God’s Law, nevermind the agonies over the translation of the words in the Aqdas that have been rendered as “homosexual relationship”, but which could be read differently. Scary, because I come from a faith environment where the rights of gay folks are fully enshrined and I wouldn’t want to have to fight a losing battle to say That Which Must Not Be Said along with and on behalf of my gay brothers and sisters inside and outside the Faith.

[quote comment=""]
If God had a hand in it then being gay is normal and part of life.[/quote]

I’m a university student who’s not presently enrolled as a Bahá’í, but I’ve been actively considering joining the Faith. Vexing but perhaps lucky for me that I encountered websites like this, because I’d have known nothing about the relatively skeptical mainstream Bahá’í attitude to critical thinking. It’s vaguely terrifying to think that authorities would block any non-mainstream view. Seems so radically out of step with the founding principles of the Fatih. Alas.

As for this business about the prohibition of homosexuality– I’m with the gentleman who says it’s utterly out of accord with the ideal of a world free of prejudice. To abolish all bigotries save for this one is not to abolish bigotry at all. And I gather that an unfortunate number of Bahá’ís believe they haven’t got the right to question God’s Law, nevermind the agonies over the translation of the words in the Aqdas that have been rendered as “homosexual relationship”, but which could be read differently. Scary, because I come from a faith environment where the rights of gay folks are fully enshrined and I wouldn’t want to have to fight a losing battle to say That Which Must Not Be Said along with and on behalf of my gay brothers and sisters inside and outside the Faith.

Hi Bird

[quote comment=""] “I miss knowing and loving God”.[/quote]

I went through this myself once but have come out the other side knowing and loving God again.

I think Baha’is, like Christians and Muslims have been subjected to the false doctrine that ‘God’ is an unknowable essence and is extrinsic from people and the only way they can know God is through Bahá’u’lláh and his good qualities.

Andrew, in quoting Dorothy Soelle, talks about our being in Her (God’s) image.

“For Soelle, God cannot be both loving and almighty in this world. God is like us — we truly are in her image — able to love only through our vulnerability and able thereby to embody a sacred power that is completely countercultural to the dominant social and political forces that rule the world.”

The power that Soelle is talking about is the Love of Self or Her image working through the little self. How often have you experienced Self viewing and listening to your own personality? It happens to me a lot. How often have you thought of shunning someone and then listened to a voice that shows you compassion towards that person. My experience is that the compassionate voice is the Self in Her image.

The other day I read a quote which hit home for me (I forget who wrote it). It simply said:

“We have to learn to LOVE SELF before we can unconditionally love another.”

Of course “Self” in the above quote is God, not the ego self. If God’s Love is pervasive in all things then it follows that we are Love too. It just takes a conscious effort to discern the difference between self and Self.

The conclusion is that to know your Self is to know and love God.

During the century of light some have got caught up in self-centeredness, but all on the path and freedom to discover the Self or God within. It sure breaks with the debilitating false doctrine of separation of humanity and God that has been fostered by religion.

Great topic.

Hi Bird

[quote comment=""] “I miss knowing and loving God”.[/quote]

I went through this myself once but have come out the other side knowing and loving God again.

I think Baha’is, like Christians and Muslims have been subjected to the false doctrine that ‘God’ is an unknowable essence and is extrinsic from people and the only way they can know God is through Bahá’u’lláh and his good qualities.

Andrew, in quoting Dorothy Soelle, talks about our being in Her (God’s) image.

“For Soelle, God cannot be both loving and almighty in this world. God is like us — we truly are in her image — able to love only through our vulnerability and able thereby to embody a sacred power that is completely countercultural to the dominant social and political forces that rule the world.”

The power that Soelle is talking about is the Love of Self or Her image working through the little self. How often have you experienced Self viewing and listening to your own personality? It happens to me a lot. How often have you thought of shunning someone and then listened to a voice that shows you compassion towards that person. My experience is that the compassionate voice is the Self in Her image.

The other day I read a quote which hit home for me (I forget who wrote it). It simply said:

“We have to learn to LOVE SELF before we can unconditionally love another.”

Of course “Self” in the above quote is God, not the ego self. If God’s Love is pervasive in all things then it follows that we are Love too. It just takes a conscious effort to discern the difference between self and Self.

The conclusion is that to know your Self is to know and love God.

During the century of light some have got caught up in self-centeredness, but all on the path and freedom to discover the Self or God within. It sure breaks with the debilitating false doctrine of separation of humanity and God that has been fostered by religion.

Great topic.

Mavaddat has a succinct post about this subject on his blog:

http://mavaddat.livejournal.com/

If you do a YouTube search for MAVADDAT, you’ll get a list of his videos on the Baha’i Faith and homosexuality.

“Scary, because I come from a faith environment where the rights of gay folks are fully enshrined and I wouldn’t want to have to fight a losing battle to say That Which Must Not Be Said along with and on behalf of my gay brothers and sisters inside and outside the Faith.”

That’s exactly what you’ll have to fight: a losing battle.

Unless you’re prepared to accept (publicly if not privately) the official prohibition of the UHJ against same-sex relations, you’ll likely be disenrolled. If you share your divergent opinion on the subject during the application process, it’s unlikely you’ll even receive a membership card. You might prefer to be an “unenrolled” Baha’i.

However, it’s possible to rationalize anything. There once was an individual active on a Baha’i forum who initially held the same views you have expressed above. Once she became a Baha’i, she realized how wrong she had been, and how right the UHJ is about everything. But it seems she wasn’t able to keep herself permanently convinced, because she eventually resigned from the Faith. Good luck to you!

Mavaddat has a succinct post about this subject on his blog:

http://mavaddat.livejournal.com/

If you do a YouTube search for MAVADDAT, you’ll get a list of his videos on the Baha’i Faith and homosexuality.

“Scary, because I come from a faith environment where the rights of gay folks are fully enshrined and I wouldn’t want to have to fight a losing battle to say That Which Must Not Be Said along with and on behalf of my gay brothers and sisters inside and outside the Faith.”

That’s exactly what you’ll have to fight: a losing battle.

Unless you’re prepared to accept (publicly if not privately) the official prohibition of the UHJ against same-sex relations, you’ll likely be disenrolled. If you share your divergent opinion on the subject during the application process, it’s unlikely you’ll even receive a membership card. You might prefer to be an “unenrolled” Baha’i.

However, it’s possible to rationalize anything. There once was an individual active on a Baha’i forum who initially held the same views you have expressed above. Once she became a Baha’i, she realized how wrong she had been, and how right the UHJ is about everything. But it seems she wasn’t able to keep herself permanently convinced, because she eventually resigned from the Faith. Good luck to you!

I believe that my brother, a convert, is actively shunning me for daring to raise this issue. I am very hurt that he and his wife are raising their children to think that their aunties are filthy, animalistic sub-humans.

I also don’t believe that the Baha’i Faith is in favor of true “unity,” which is not won by taking one’s intellectual ball and going home when the game isn’t going one’s way. Until the Baha’i Faith stops promulgating hatred and excusing it with logical fallacies and ideological blinders, it will never achieve its cherished “unity.” The most beautiful chorus requires a multitude of voices, yet this religion wants LGBTQ Baha’is to stand there and move their lips without actually singing.

I hope that, when my nieces and nephews are grown, they will discover the faculties of reason. I also will stand by them should they turn out to be gay or lesbian themselves–and, in a way, I hope they don’t, because they will suffer intolerable emotional conflict if that is the case. The difference is that I will love them always, no matter what their sexual orientation. I’m not sure that their hyperreligious parents will.

I believe that my brother, a convert, is actively shunning me for daring to raise this issue. I am very hurt that he and his wife are raising their children to think that their aunties are filthy, animalistic sub-humans.

I also don’t believe that the Baha’i Faith is in favor of true “unity,” which is not won by taking one’s intellectual ball and going home when the game isn’t going one’s way. Until the Baha’i Faith stops promulgating hatred and excusing it with logical fallacies and ideological blinders, it will never achieve its cherished “unity.” The most beautiful chorus requires a multitude of voices, yet this religion wants LGBTQ Baha’is to stand there and move their lips without actually singing.

I hope that, when my nieces and nephews are grown, they will discover the faculties of reason. I also will stand by them should they turn out to be gay or lesbian themselves–and, in a way, I hope they don’t, because they will suffer intolerable emotional conflict if that is the case. The difference is that I will love them always, no matter what their sexual orientation. I’m not sure that their hyperreligious parents will.

Dear Not Baha’i,

I am so sorry to hear that you are being treated that way for being gay by your Baha’i relatives. It’s disgusting, and it is commonplace for Baha’is to behave this way. Unfortunately, most are not willing to look past the clearly homophobic and hate-filled Baha’i Writings on this subject and engage their own sense of right and wrong. The point you raise about the possibily of your neices and nephews growing up gay but being told they are spiritually handicapped and “problem human beings” by their parents and the Baha’i Writings is a really heartbreaking one. It is abusive for children (or anyone) to be judged that way.

Your neices and nephews are lucky to have you.

Dear Not Baha’i,

I am so sorry to hear that you are being treated that way for being gay by your Baha’i relatives. It’s disgusting, and it is commonplace for Baha’is to behave this way. Unfortunately, most are not willing to look past the clearly homophobic and hate-filled Baha’i Writings on this subject and engage their own sense of right and wrong. The point you raise about the possibily of your neices and nephews growing up gay but being told they are spiritually handicapped and “problem human beings” by their parents and the Baha’i Writings is a really heartbreaking one. It is abusive for children (or anyone) to be judged that way.

Your neices and nephews are lucky to have you.

My Dear Sister Not Bahà’í

Here is some love for your calling heart

I don’t believe that you’re sexuality is a “matter” to discuss or be raised with your brother or any human being, no more then his is with his partner. Love is not defined by sexual orientation no sense in arguing the point.

Bahà’í’s enjoin a concept of compassion for those who are afflicted which you currently seem to feel from his disapproval of your life, which, by the way, how you live it is none of his business that is why it is called “your life” ! He’ll find these concepts as he deepens. Trust me sister, your brother is in for quite a ride giving him some space as he checks out what he signed up for is not a bad thing.

The core of your anguish is in the power he holds over the relationship you have with his children and whom I am sure as you love as much as your own.

I’d say you call for a family meeting or ask him to lunch. Do not discuss your sexual orientation, discuss your love and any willingness he may have for you to continue sharing it. Do your best not to become entangled in the WORDS, but move in the emotion of your love for him, his wife, and their children.

If he is a zealot and an unmovable heart, take your love to the nearest children’s hospital and pour it out. I’ve taken this action myself and ALWAYS walk out feeling better. Many children call me Auntie.

Here is a great song to listen to before you see him again. Some of the greatest music I’ve ever heard was written in the glorious anguish called love.

KD Lang, Crying

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv7S8v3rM-U&feature=related

And even better ones in the empowerment of women – One of my personal all time favorites for a little more uplift – Helen Reddy -1972 I am woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPDcMyPlFvw&feature=related

My Dear Sister Not Bahà’í

Here is some love for your calling heart

I don’t believe that you’re sexuality is a “matter” to discuss or be raised with your brother or any human being, no more then his is with his partner. Love is not defined by sexual orientation no sense in arguing the point.

Bahà’í’s enjoin a concept of compassion for those who are afflicted which you currently seem to feel from his disapproval of your life, which, by the way, how you live it is none of his business that is why it is called “your life” ! He’ll find these concepts as he deepens. Trust me sister, your brother is in for quite a ride giving him some space as he checks out what he signed up for is not a bad thing.

The core of your anguish is in the power he holds over the relationship you have with his children and whom I am sure as you love as much as your own.

I’d say you call for a family meeting or ask him to lunch. Do not discuss your sexual orientation, discuss your love and any willingness he may have for you to continue sharing it. Do your best not to become entangled in the WORDS, but move in the emotion of your love for him, his wife, and their children.

If he is a zealot and an unmovable heart, take your love to the nearest children’s hospital and pour it out. I’ve taken this action myself and ALWAYS walk out feeling better. Many children call me Auntie.

Here is a great song to listen to before you see him again. Some of the greatest music I’ve ever heard was written in the glorious anguish called love.

KD Lang, Crying

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv7S8v3rM-U&feature=related

And even better ones in the empowerment of women – One of my personal all time favorites for a little more uplift – Helen Reddy -1972 I am woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPDcMyPlFvw&feature=related

[quote comment=""]Dear Not Baha’i,

I am so sorry to hear that you are being treated that way for being gay by your Baha’i relatives. It’s disgusting, and it is commonplace for Baha’is to behave this way. Unfortunately, most are not willing to look past the clearly homophobic and hate-filled Baha’i Writings on this subject and engage their own sense of right and wrong. The point you raise about the possibily of your neices and nephews growing up gay but being told they are spiritually handicapped and “problem human beings” by their parents and the Baha’i Writings is a really heartbreaking one. It is abusive for children (or anyone) to be judged that way.

Your neices and nephews are lucky to have you.[/quote]

Indeed. I couldn’t put it any better myself.

It faintly astonishes me to find that, if Baha’u'llah is the Messenger for this Day, that He hasn’t called for the abolishment of prejudice against gay folks. It seems to me that there are few human rights crises more urgent, or more uniquely in need of attention in the present time, than this one.

From what I’ve read, the Universal House of Justice enjoins a sort of soft bigotry, rather than out-and-out cruelty– it’s not gay-friendly, but it doesn’t ask that gay people be treated as ungodly beings apart from all that’s good. So it would seem to me that even though I’m unhappy with the non-acceptance of gays in the Faith, the shunning Not Baha’i has experienced at the hands of her relatives is out of step with what it means to be a Baha’i. And likewise the recent anti-gay demonstration in which the Baha’is of Uganda reportedly participated– that’s just filthy.

I wish good fortune on you, and on your family, too, that they’ll be able to accept you for the person you are. I know homophobia can’t be eliminated overnight, but I hope they come to cherish you regardless of what they make of your sexual identity– surely, nothing else befits a person with a “pure, kindly and radiant heart”.

Amanda– well-spoken. I’ve found myself a new blog to read, methinks.

[quote comment=""]Dear Not Baha’i,

I am so sorry to hear that you are being treated that way for being gay by your Baha’i relatives. It’s disgusting, and it is commonplace for Baha’is to behave this way. Unfortunately, most are not willing to look past the clearly homophobic and hate-filled Baha’i Writings on this subject and engage their own sense of right and wrong. The point you raise about the possibily of your neices and nephews growing up gay but being told they are spiritually handicapped and “problem human beings” by their parents and the Baha’i Writings is a really heartbreaking one. It is abusive for children (or anyone) to be judged that way.

Your neices and nephews are lucky to have you.[/quote]

Indeed. I couldn’t put it any better myself.

It faintly astonishes me to find that, if Baha’u'llah is the Messenger for this Day, that He hasn’t called for the abolishment of prejudice against gay folks. It seems to me that there are few human rights crises more urgent, or more uniquely in need of attention in the present time, than this one.

From what I’ve read, the Universal House of Justice enjoins a sort of soft bigotry, rather than out-and-out cruelty– it’s not gay-friendly, but it doesn’t ask that gay people be treated as ungodly beings apart from all that’s good. So it would seem to me that even though I’m unhappy with the non-acceptance of gays in the Faith, the shunning Not Baha’i has experienced at the hands of her relatives is out of step with what it means to be a Baha’i. And likewise the recent anti-gay demonstration in which the Baha’is of Uganda reportedly participated– that’s just filthy.

I wish good fortune on you, and on your family, too, that they’ll be able to accept you for the person you are. I know homophobia can’t be eliminated overnight, but I hope they come to cherish you regardless of what they make of your sexual identity– surely, nothing else befits a person with a “pure, kindly and radiant heart”.

Amanda– well-spoken. I’ve found myself a new blog to read, methinks.

“So it would seem to me that even though I’m unhappy with the non-acceptance of gays in the Faith, the shunning Not Baha’i has experienced at the hands of her relatives is out of step with what it means to be a Baha’i.”

Are you serious? I’ve met many gay men and lesbians who have been disenrolled and subsequently shunned from the Baha’i Faith: a male couple, a female couple, a couple of Iranian immigrants, a couple of Western converts, all justified by logical fallacies and ideological blinders. This shunning and silencing is the rule, not the exception. And yes, other religions do likewise, or even worse. But they don’t claim to seek the harmonization of religion with science, nor do they attack the science when it doesn’t support the religion, because they don’t make any pretense of looking to science in the first place.

“It faintly astonishes me to find that, if Baha’u’llah is the Messenger for this Day, that He hasn’t called for the abolishment of prejudice against gay folks.”

The Bab wrote the Bayan:

http://bayanic.com/intro/backg12.html

“Capital punishment, corporeal punishment and imprisonment have no place in the Bayan.”

However …

“The law of Baha’u’llah prescribes the death penalty for murder and arson, with the alternative of life imprisonment.” (Shoghi Effendi)

The Bab prohibited capital punishment, but Baha’u'llah restored it. The UHJ (14 February 1993) wrote: “Membership by Baha’is in Amnesty International is not permitted … Amnesty International states that it is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and without reservation, while the law of Baha’u'llah expressed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is that the death penalty is applicable for murder and arson under certain circumstances.”

So your “Messenger for this Day” restores capital punishment as an “option,” and his current representatives in the “infallible institution” of the UHJ tacitly encourage the shunning and silencing of gay and lesbian Baha’is.

So tell me: how is any of this appropriate “for this Day”? How is any of this an improvement? There are even Baha’i writers who call for genetic experimentation on gays and lesbians and compare their “condition” to a disease that will one day be eradicated. This isn’t a religion, it’s a madhouse.

“So it would seem to me that even though I’m unhappy with the non-acceptance of gays in the Faith, the shunning Not Baha’i has experienced at the hands of her relatives is out of step with what it means to be a Baha’i.”

Are you serious? I’ve met many gay men and lesbians who have been disenrolled and subsequently shunned from the Baha’i Faith: a male couple, a female couple, a couple of Iranian immigrants, a couple of Western converts, all justified by logical fallacies and ideological blinders. This shunning and silencing is the rule, not the exception. And yes, other religions do likewise, or even worse. But they don’t claim to seek the harmonization of religion with science, nor do they attack the science when it doesn’t support the religion, because they don’t make any pretense of looking to science in the first place.

“It faintly astonishes me to find that, if Baha’u’llah is the Messenger for this Day, that He hasn’t called for the abolishment of prejudice against gay folks.”

The Bab wrote the Bayan:

http://bayanic.com/intro/backg12.html

“Capital punishment, corporeal punishment and imprisonment have no place in the Bayan.”

However …

“The law of Baha’u’llah prescribes the death penalty for murder and arson, with the alternative of life imprisonment.” (Shoghi Effendi)

The Bab prohibited capital punishment, but Baha’u'llah restored it. The UHJ (14 February 1993) wrote: “Membership by Baha’is in Amnesty International is not permitted … Amnesty International states that it is opposed to the death penalty in all cases and without reservation, while the law of Baha’u'llah expressed in the Kitab-i-Aqdas is that the death penalty is applicable for murder and arson under certain circumstances.”

So your “Messenger for this Day” restores capital punishment as an “option,” and his current representatives in the “infallible institution” of the UHJ tacitly encourage the shunning and silencing of gay and lesbian Baha’is.

So tell me: how is any of this appropriate “for this Day”? How is any of this an improvement? There are even Baha’i writers who call for genetic experimentation on gays and lesbians and compare their “condition” to a disease that will one day be eradicated. This isn’t a religion, it’s a madhouse.

Not Baha’i and Amanda … you might be interested in this:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/25/1692

“An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s ‘Anthropological’ Report on Marriage”

Not Baha’i and Amanda … you might be interested in this:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/03/25/1692

“An Anthropologist Critiques Focus on the Family’s ‘Anthropological’ Report on Marriage”

Not Baha’i,
I’m sorry to hear that your relationship with your brother isn’t as loving as you’d want it to be. I would also be very hurt if my brother stopped talking to me or visiting with me.

[quote comment="46391"]I believe that my brother, a convert, is actively shunning me for daring to raise this issue. I am very hurt that he and his wife are raising their children to think that their aunties are filthy, animalistic sub-humans.[/quote]

While your relationship with your brother is suffering, it is important to remember that if he is acting as you say, it has nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith and is in fact far removed from the standards of conduct that Baha’is are called to uphold.

[quote comment="46391"]I also don’t believe that the Baha’i Faith is in favor of true “unity,” which is not won by taking one’s intellectual ball and going home when the game isn’t going one’s way. Until the Baha’i Faith stops promulgating hatred and excusing it with logical fallacies and ideological blinders, it will never achieve its cherished “unity.” The most beautiful chorus requires a multitude of voices, yet this religion wants LGBTQ Baha’is to stand there and move their lips without actually singing.[/quote]

I agree with you that true unity means unity in diversity, not conformity. Although I, personally, believe that we are all equal in the sight of God, whether old, young, pink, black, gay, straight, man, woman, etc… I can’t see how the Baha’i Faith “promulgates hatred” in this or in any other regard. We, as individuals, are all imperfect beings so it is always possible for someone to warp even the loveliest message but one must remember that a person is not the faith they profess.

[quote comment="46391"]I hope that, when my nieces and nephews are grown, they will discover the faculties of reason. I also will stand by them should they turn out to be gay or lesbian themselves–and, in a way, I hope they don’t, because they will suffer intolerable emotional conflict if that is the case. The difference is that I will love them always, no matter what their sexual orientation. I’m not sure that their hyperreligious parents will.[/quote]

It is my sincere wish that you and your brother can repair your relationship and bring harmony to your extended family. You are blessed to have them and they to have you.

Amanda,
perhaps it has been your experience with Baha’is that has lead you to believe it to be “commonplace” for “most” to behave this way but mine has been very different. Rather than try to pass your personal experience as fact, why not properly label it? Also, the Baha’i writings have zero hate when it comes to homosexuals. In fact, the opposite is true. You may not agree with the current Baha’i stance on this issue but that does not give you carte-blanche to misrepresent them.

[quote comment="46405"]…and it is commonplace for Baha’is to behave this way. Unfortunately, most are not willing to look past the clearly homophobic and hate-filled Baha’i Writings on this subject and engage their own sense of right and wrong. [/quote]

Andrew,
any large enough group will, by the laws of probability, contain batshitinsanecrazy people. I’ve had the unfortunate experience of knowing one or two of them. But thankfully, they are not the Baha’i Faith, nor do they speak for it. Just as no one here is the Faith, nor speaks for it. The best thing for people to do is to go to the source: the Baha’i Writings.

[quote comment=""]There are even Baha’i writers who call for genetic experimentation on gays and lesbians and compare their “condition” to a disease that will one day be eradicated. This isn’t a religion, it’s a madhouse.[/quote]

Not Baha’i,
I’m sorry to hear that your relationship with your brother isn’t as loving as you’d want it to be. I would also be very hurt if my brother stopped talking to me or visiting with me.

[quote comment="46391"]I believe that my brother, a convert, is actively shunning me for daring to raise this issue. I am very hurt that he and his wife are raising their children to think that their aunties are filthy, animalistic sub-humans.[/quote]

While your relationship with your brother is suffering, it is important to remember that if he is acting as you say, it has nothing to do with the Baha’i Faith and is in fact far removed from the standards of conduct that Baha’is are called to uphold.

[quote comment="46391"]I also don’t believe that the Baha’i Faith is in favor of true “unity,” which is not won by taking one’s intellectual ball and going home when the game isn’t going one’s way. Until the Baha’i Faith stops promulgating hatred and excusing it with logical fallacies and ideological blinders, it will never achieve its cherished “unity.” The most beautiful chorus requires a multitude of voices, yet this religion wants LGBTQ Baha’is to stand there and move their lips without actually singing.[/quote]

I agree with you that true unity means unity in diversity, not conformity. Although I, personally, believe that we are all equal in the sight of God, whether old, young, pink, black, gay, straight, man, woman, etc… I can’t see how the Baha’i Faith “promulgates hatred” in this or in any other regard. We, as individuals, are all imperfect beings so it is always possible for someone to warp even the loveliest message but one must remember that a person is not the faith they profess.

[quote comment="46391"]I hope that, when my nieces and nephews are grown, they will discover the faculties of reason. I also will stand by them should they turn out to be gay or lesbian themselves–and, in a way, I hope they don’t, because they will suffer intolerable emotional conflict if that is the case. The difference is that I will love them always, no matter what their sexual orientation. I’m not sure that their hyperreligious parents will.[/quote]

It is my sincere wish that you and your brother can repair your relationship and bring harmony to your extended family. You are blessed to have them and they to have you.

Amanda,
perhaps it has been your experience with Baha’is that has lead you to believe it to be “commonplace” for “most” to behave this way but mine has been very different. Rather than try to pass your personal experience as fact, why not properly label it? Also, the Baha’i writings have zero hate when it comes to homosexuals. In fact, the opposite is true. You may not agree with the current Baha’i stance on this issue but that does not give you carte-blanche to misrepresent them.

[quote comment="46405"]…and it is commonplace for Baha’is to behave this way. Unfortunately, most are not willing to look past the clearly homophobic and hate-filled Baha’i Writings on this subject and engage their own sense of right and wrong. [/quote]

Andrew,
any large enough group will, by the laws of probability, contain batshitinsanecrazy people. I’ve had the unfortunate experience of knowing one or two of them. But thankfully, they are not the Baha’i Faith, nor do they speak for it. Just as no one here is the Faith, nor speaks for it. The best thing for people to do is to go to the source: the Baha’i Writings.

[quote comment=""]There are even Baha’i writers who call for genetic experimentation on gays and lesbians and compare their “condition” to a disease that will one day be eradicated. This isn’t a religion, it’s a madhouse.[/quote]

Baquia– if you would be so gracious– could I trouble you to share some anecdotes as to what has been your experience of treatment of gays in the Faith? I fear on a personal level that I will be encouraged not to seek the fellowship of gay people, and castigated when I suggest a tolerant stance. As to the actual experiences of gay Baha’is– all I can afford to do is wish them well as they struggle, and hope they find happiness and peace. I’m sorry the Faith hasn’t been a happy home for most of them.

Amanda– I think it’s inaccurate to call the Scriptures’ attitude to gay folks hateful. The official stance isn’t as welcoming as I’d like, but there’s no vilification of gays in the Baha’i texts. There’s nothing in the Writings that prohibits warm and compassionate treatment of gay people. And there’s a translation issue with regard to the word “sodomy” in the Writings, which some interpret to refer only to anal sex. Something I’d like to see is that the Writings be interpreted to allow for gay relationships by translating the word that way. Would the door be open to such a thing? Or would it fall under the “mutilation” category, as it were, and be prohibited? I don’t know.

Baquia– if you would be so gracious– could I trouble you to share some anecdotes as to what has been your experience of treatment of gays in the Faith? I fear on a personal level that I will be encouraged not to seek the fellowship of gay people, and castigated when I suggest a tolerant stance. As to the actual experiences of gay Baha’is– all I can afford to do is wish them well as they struggle, and hope they find happiness and peace. I’m sorry the Faith hasn’t been a happy home for most of them.

Amanda– I think it’s inaccurate to call the Scriptures’ attitude to gay folks hateful. The official stance isn’t as welcoming as I’d like, but there’s no vilification of gays in the Baha’i texts. There’s nothing in the Writings that prohibits warm and compassionate treatment of gay people. And there’s a translation issue with regard to the word “sodomy” in the Writings, which some interpret to refer only to anal sex. Something I’d like to see is that the Writings be interpreted to allow for gay relationships by translating the word that way. Would the door be open to such a thing? Or would it fall under the “mutilation” category, as it were, and be prohibited? I don’t know.

Noah,
my personal opinion is that a Baha’i (or any other person’s) opinion regarding the treatment of homosexuals will be based on their maturity and spiritual growth. I’ve had the pleasure of knowning many Baha’is who not only do not share the opinion of “Not Baha’i”‘s relative, they have many gay, bi, etc. friends. I would encourage you to not only speak out but to be an example of a true Baha’i. Our gay Baha’i friends need all the support and love they can get. It is our duty, to speak out on their behalf and defend them if anyone should misrepresent the Baha’i Faith’s stance or introduce their own prejudice as a substitute for the Faith’s policy.

Noah,
my personal opinion is that a Baha’i (or any other person’s) opinion regarding the treatment of homosexuals will be based on their maturity and spiritual growth. I’ve had the pleasure of knowning many Baha’is who not only do not share the opinion of “Not Baha’i”‘s relative, they have many gay, bi, etc. friends. I would encourage you to not only speak out but to be an example of a true Baha’i. Our gay Baha’i friends need all the support and love they can get. It is our duty, to speak out on their behalf and defend them if anyone should misrepresent the Baha’i Faith’s stance or introduce their own prejudice as a substitute for the Faith’s policy.

Baquia,

Yes, I do speak from the authority of my personal experiences. I’d like to point out that so do you. Why are your personal experiences closer to “fact” than mine? Should I preface each opinion I express with “I don’t know, this may or may not be true, this is really just my perception of something…” No, I shouldn’t. I have never seen you preface any of your opinions with a disclaimer. Why would you expect me to? I expect an answer to this question, Baquia. And then an apology.

My sister is gay. I have read the Baha’i Writings that call her “a problem human being,” that tell her she has a “spiritual handicap,” that describe her creation as a “shameful sexual aberration,” that labels her feelings of LOVE as “immoral.” When a religion offers to “try and help the soul to overcome” its own nature,
and calls her love, even if committed and marital “wrong,” and her innate sexual identity “against nature,” and an “affliction,” and a “great burden” I can’t see anything but hate. Replace the word “homosexuality” with any other biological descriptor, like SKIN COLOR and try justifying those Writings as ANYTHING but hateful. What if brown skin was called, an “abnormality,” or “a great problem for the individual so afflicted, and that he or she should strive to overcome it.” What if brown skin was “spiritually condemned” and people of African descent were told that their biological diversity was “a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá’í” and that “Any individual so afflicted must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.” What if brown skin was called “an aberration subject to treatment?” And that Bahá’í who “suffer” from “such a disability” should be sanctioned and have their voting rights removed? What if an African American was given the option to stay enfranchised in the community only so long as they were willing to “pass” for white? But that if they were “flagrantly” black they would be “disgracing the Cause?”

The “future” envisaged in the Baha’i Writings where the “clear principles of prevention and treatment” of homosexuality” will be in effect is one of EUGENICS. Call a spade a spade, brother. It’s EUGENICS.

Hate is hate, Baquia. Just because you condone it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

What if YOUR human nature was described as “a distortion of human nature?” What if the Baha’i Writings called YOUR wife “some object” you should not be attracted to?

I am familiar with the Baha’i Writings, Baquia. Please see my YouTube videos with citations to them at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdG6NaVmyz8 if you have any further questions about them.

I have NOT misrepresented the Writings. I have quoted them. They, unfortunately speak for themselves.

Baquia,

Yes, I do speak from the authority of my personal experiences. I’d like to point out that so do you. Why are your personal experiences closer to “fact” than mine? Should I preface each opinion I express with “I don’t know, this may or may not be true, this is really just my perception of something…” No, I shouldn’t. I have never seen you preface any of your opinions with a disclaimer. Why would you expect me to? I expect an answer to this question, Baquia. And then an apology.

My sister is gay. I have read the Baha’i Writings that call her “a problem human being,” that tell her she has a “spiritual handicap,” that describe her creation as a “shameful sexual aberration,” that labels her feelings of LOVE as “immoral.” When a religion offers to “try and help the soul to overcome” its own nature,
and calls her love, even if committed and marital “wrong,” and her innate sexual identity “against nature,” and an “affliction,” and a “great burden” I can’t see anything but hate. Replace the word “homosexuality” with any other biological descriptor, like SKIN COLOR and try justifying those Writings as ANYTHING but hateful. What if brown skin was called, an “abnormality,” or “a great problem for the individual so afflicted, and that he or she should strive to overcome it.” What if brown skin was “spiritually condemned” and people of African descent were told that their biological diversity was “a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá’í” and that “Any individual so afflicted must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.” What if brown skin was called “an aberration subject to treatment?” And that Bahá’í who “suffer” from “such a disability” should be sanctioned and have their voting rights removed? What if an African American was given the option to stay enfranchised in the community only so long as they were willing to “pass” for white? But that if they were “flagrantly” black they would be “disgracing the Cause?”

The “future” envisaged in the Baha’i Writings where the “clear principles of prevention and treatment” of homosexuality” will be in effect is one of EUGENICS. Call a spade a spade, brother. It’s EUGENICS.

Hate is hate, Baquia. Just because you condone it doesn’t mean it’s not there.

What if YOUR human nature was described as “a distortion of human nature?” What if the Baha’i Writings called YOUR wife “some object” you should not be attracted to?

I am familiar with the Baha’i Writings, Baquia. Please see my YouTube videos with citations to them at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdG6NaVmyz8 if you have any further questions about them.

I have NOT misrepresented the Writings. I have quoted them. They, unfortunately speak for themselves.

Andrew,

Thanks for the link to the BoxTurtle review. I had actually read it, and it’s good work. Any time someone makes an anthropological claim based on agreement with “Classic” anthropology, anyone in the anthropology community is immediately tipped off to likely gendered ethnocentrism in the work.

Thanks again for posting the critique.

Andrew,

Thanks for the link to the BoxTurtle review. I had actually read it, and it’s good work. Any time someone makes an anthropological claim based on agreement with “Classic” anthropology, anyone in the anthropology community is immediately tipped off to likely gendered ethnocentrism in the work.

Thanks again for posting the critique.

Noah Latif Goodbaum wrote,
[quote post="250"]And there’s a translation issue with regard to the word “sodomy” in the Writings, which some interpret to refer only to anal sex. Something I’d like to see is that the Writings be interpreted to allow for gay relationships by translating the word that way. Would the door be open to such a thing? Or would it fall under the “mutilation” category, as it were, and be prohibited? I don’t know.[/quote]
Noah, are you familiar with the role of “The Guardian” in the Baha’i Faith? He was appointed by ‘Abdu’l-Baha (the son of Baha’u'llah) with absolute authority to interpret the writings of Baha’u'llah. His name was Shoghi Effendi.

Shoghi Effendi chose to interpret Baha’u'llah’s words about “boys” as condemning homosexuality. Thus, it is utterly irrelevant whether there is a “translation issue” with respect to the meaning of Baha’u'llah. As far as the international Baha’i community is concerned, therefore, the issue is resolved and crystal clear: Baha’u'llah meant to condemn homosexuality by the infallible authority bestowed on the Guardian by the infallible authority bestowed on ‘Abdu’l-Baha by Baha’u'llah. Thus, if you accept the authority of Baha’u'llah, you must (ex hypothesi) accept the authority of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and then the authority of the Guardian. In other words, there is no “translation issue” as far as Baha’is are concerned.

The Universal House of Justice (which derives their infallible authority directly from Baha’u'llah) has also said that this law of marriage excluding gay people is eternal:

Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not. In addition, it is interesting to note that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says in a Tablet:

Know thou that the command of marriage is eternal. It will never be changed nor altered. This is divine creation and there is not the slightest possibility that change or alteration affect this divine creation (marriage).

The Universal House of Justice, 05 Jun 1993
Therefore, it seems pretty clear to me: If you support gay rights, you absolutely cannot be a Baha’i. From what the infallible authorities of the Baha’i community have written, there simply is no room for any other option. Unfortunately, to face this fact straight on and not mince words takes a degree of bravery, however, that is not often found amongst humanity. The easiest route (and the route that most people prefer) is to stay in a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance and pretend that there is room for gay rights in the Baha’i Faith. There simply is not.

See my site for more: http://mavaddat.livejournal.com/21160.html

Noah Latif Goodbaum wrote,
[quote post="250"]And there’s a translation issue with regard to the word “sodomy” in the Writings, which some interpret to refer only to anal sex. Something I’d like to see is that the Writings be interpreted to allow for gay relationships by translating the word that way. Would the door be open to such a thing? Or would it fall under the “mutilation” category, as it were, and be prohibited? I don’t know.[/quote]
Noah, are you familiar with the role of “The Guardian” in the Baha’i Faith? He was appointed by ‘Abdu’l-Baha (the son of Baha’u'llah) with absolute authority to interpret the writings of Baha’u'llah. His name was Shoghi Effendi.

Shoghi Effendi chose to interpret Baha’u'llah’s words about “boys” as condemning homosexuality. Thus, it is utterly irrelevant whether there is a “translation issue” with respect to the meaning of Baha’u'llah. As far as the international Baha’i community is concerned, therefore, the issue is resolved and crystal clear: Baha’u'llah meant to condemn homosexuality by the infallible authority bestowed on the Guardian by the infallible authority bestowed on ‘Abdu’l-Baha by Baha’u'llah. Thus, if you accept the authority of Baha’u'llah, you must (ex hypothesi) accept the authority of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, and then the authority of the Guardian. In other words, there is no “translation issue” as far as Baha’is are concerned.

The Universal House of Justice (which derives their infallible authority directly from Baha’u'llah) has also said that this law of marriage excluding gay people is eternal:

Regarding the question of whether or not same-sex marriages would ever be permitted by the Universal House of Justice, the enclosed extracts indicate clearly that it would not. In addition, it is interesting to note that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá says in a Tablet:

Know thou that the command of marriage is eternal. It will never be changed nor altered. This is divine creation and there is not the slightest possibility that change or alteration affect this divine creation (marriage).

The Universal House of Justice, 05 Jun 1993

Therefore, it seems pretty clear to me: If you support gay rights, you absolutely cannot be a Baha’i. From what the infallible authorities of the Baha’i community have written, there simply is no room for any other option. Unfortunately, to face this fact straight on and not mince words takes a degree of bravery, however, that is not often found amongst humanity. The easiest route (and the route that most people prefer) is to stay in a state of perpetual cognitive dissonance and pretend that there is room for gay rights in the Baha’i Faith. There simply is not.

See my site for more: http://mavaddat.livejournal.com/21160.html

Baquia says…[quote comment=""]I think it’s inaccurate to call the Scriptures’ attitude to gay folks hateful. The official stance isn’t as welcoming as I’d like, but there’s no vilification of gays in the Baha’i texts. There’s nothing in the Writings that prohibits warm and compassionate treatment of gay people.[/quote]
and…[quote comment=""]my personal opinion is that a Baha’i (or any other person’s) opinion regarding the treatment of homosexuals will be based on their maturity and spiritual growth. I’ve had the pleasure of knowning many Baha’is who not only do not share the opinion of “Not Baha’i”’s relative, they have many gay, bi, etc. friends.[/quote]

Hello Baquia, I’m Amanda’s gay sister, Beth. I have also known some baha’is who do not share Notbaha’is relatives opinion, but in may experience, which I think should count for some thing having grown up in the Baha’i community, the tolerant accepting baha’i's are not in the majority. in my conversations with them, they have shared being confused and frustrated with the official Baha’i stance on homosexuality. the people who feel completely at home with the writings about Homosexuality are decidedly less tolerant, and when it comes down to it, frequently not nice about it all. that says a lot to me.

as for whether or not the writings themselves are hateful, there are a couple of quotes that make me cringe that i will post a little later b/c i don’t have the actual texts anymore. i used to keep more baha’i books for reference sake, but i get nauseas looking at them now and don’t want them in my house. but i’ll post the quotes when i find them.

to sum up – i think the tolerant baha’is are so b/c they use their own conscience to guide their attitudes about gays, not the Baha’i writings. or they haven’t read enough.

Baquia says…[quote comment=""]I think it’s inaccurate to call the Scriptures’ attitude to gay folks hateful. The official stance isn’t as welcoming as I’d like, but there’s no vilification of gays in the Baha’i texts. There’s nothing in the Writings that prohibits warm and compassionate treatment of gay people.[/quote]
and…[quote comment=""]my personal opinion is that a Baha’i (or any other person’s) opinion regarding the treatment of homosexuals will be based on their maturity and spiritual growth. I’ve had the pleasure of knowning many Baha’is who not only do not share the opinion of “Not Baha’i”’s relative, they have many gay, bi, etc. friends.[/quote]

Hello Baquia, I’m Amanda’s gay sister, Beth. I have also known some baha’is who do not share Notbaha’is relatives opinion, but in may experience, which I think should count for some thing having grown up in the Baha’i community, the tolerant accepting baha’i's are not in the majority. in my conversations with them, they have shared being confused and frustrated with the official Baha’i stance on homosexuality. the people who feel completely at home with the writings about Homosexuality are decidedly less tolerant, and when it comes down to it, frequently not nice about it all. that says a lot to me.

as for whether or not the writings themselves are hateful, there are a couple of quotes that make me cringe that i will post a little later b/c i don’t have the actual texts anymore. i used to keep more baha’i books for reference sake, but i get nauseas looking at them now and don’t want them in my house. but i’ll post the quotes when i find them.

to sum up – i think the tolerant baha’is are so b/c they use their own conscience to guide their attitudes about gays, not the Baha’i writings. or they haven’t read enough.

Baquia -

Despite disagreeing with you sometimes, I do want to say thank-you for having this forum for people to discuss these and other topics.

from the bottom of my heart.

Baquia -

Despite disagreeing with you sometimes, I do want to say thank-you for having this forum for people to discuss these and other topics.

from the bottom of my heart.

Amanda, you were stating an opinion, not fact. The Baha’i Writings contain no condemnation of gay people. Had someone unfamiliar with the truth read your words, they would have an incorrect impression. Also you are conflating the person and their actions. A common mistake and no big deal. I make it all the time myself.

Mavaddat,
Each subsequent UHJ is free to make/abrogate laws made by previous ones. This freedom (from error) is at the heart of the word: “infallible” or ‘`ismat’ which trips up almost everyone, whether Baha’i or not.

Beth, you’re very welcome. If you want to know why I have this blog:

Verily I say, whatsoever leadeth to the decline of ignorance and the increase of knowledge hath been, and will ever remain, approved in the sight of the Lord of creation.
Baha’u'llah
Tablet to Mánikchí Sáhib

Amanda, you were stating an opinion, not fact. The Baha’i Writings contain no condemnation of gay people. Had someone unfamiliar with the truth read your words, they would have an incorrect impression. Also you are conflating the person and their actions. A common mistake and no big deal. I make it all the time myself.

Mavaddat,
Each subsequent UHJ is free to make/abrogate laws made by previous ones. This freedom (from error) is at the heart of the word: “infallible” or ‘`ismat’ which trips up almost everyone, whether Baha’i or not.

Beth, you’re very welcome. If you want to know why I have this blog:

Verily I say, whatsoever leadeth to the decline of ignorance and the increase of knowledge hath been, and will ever remain, approved in the sight of the Lord of creation.
Baha’u'llah
Tablet to Mánikchí Sáhib

[quote post="250"]Amanda, you were stating an opinion, not fact. The Baha’i Writings contain no condemnation of gay people. Had someone unfamiliar with the truth read your words, they would have an incorrect impression. Also you are conflating the person and their actions. A common mistake and no big deal. I make it all the time myself.[/quote]
From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a meaningless distinction. Imagine if I said, “Oh, the state doesn’t condemn murderers. No no… it condemns murder.” What practical difference could that make? If the murderers are still pronounced guilty, sentenced to prison or capital punishment, and/or treated as criminals by society, what does it matter to say that the person is not condemned but his actions? Clearly it makes no difference whatsoever. To try to avoid this conflation by specifying that the urge to murder is not condemned but only the action of murdering is also no help, since one only knows of the person’s urge through its manifestation in action (or through its expression in words). If the urge is expressed in action, then it is condemned (ex hypothesi). If it is expressed merely words, then also it is condemned for fear of its manifestation in action! So either way, it is condemned. Thus, the distinction is literally meaningless. That it, it lacks any sense at all. It is obscure enough, however, to provide the illusion of meaning and thereby provides Baha’is (and those who wish to condemn homosexuals while appearing liberal-minded) some feeling of consolation.

In general, this idea can be summarized by the following maxim: A person is the sum of his actions, plus the animating motive for those actions. Thus, to condemn some of his actions is to condemn some of his person.

[quote post="250"]Amanda, you were stating an opinion, not fact. The Baha’i Writings contain no condemnation of gay people. Had someone unfamiliar with the truth read your words, they would have an incorrect impression. Also you are conflating the person and their actions. A common mistake and no big deal. I make it all the time myself.[/quote]
From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a meaningless distinction. Imagine if I said, “Oh, the state doesn’t condemn murderers. No no… it condemns murder.” What practical difference could that make? If the murderers are still pronounced guilty, sentenced to prison or capital punishment, and/or treated as criminals by society, what does it matter to say that the person is not condemned but his actions? Clearly it makes no difference whatsoever. To try to avoid this conflation by specifying that the urge to murder is not condemned but only the action of murdering is also no help, since one only knows of the person’s urge through its manifestation in action (or through its expression in words). If the urge is expressed in action, then it is condemned (ex hypothesi). If it is expressed merely words, then also it is condemned for fear of its manifestation in action! So either way, it is condemned. Thus, the distinction is literally meaningless. That it, it lacks any sense at all. It is obscure enough, however, to provide the illusion of meaning and thereby provides Baha’is (and those who wish to condemn homosexuals while appearing liberal-minded) some feeling of consolation.

In general, this idea can be summarized by the following maxim: A person is the sum of his actions, plus the animating motive for those actions. Thus, to condemn some of his actions is to condemn some of his person.

Baquia wrote:[quote post="250"]Mavaddat,
Each subsequent UHJ is free to make/abrogate laws made by previous ones.[/quote]
But what law of the Universal House of Justice would they abrogate, Baquia? The UHJ is not the author of this law. According the Shoghi Effendi, Baha’u'llah himself is its author. The UHJ is merely echoing him. They have no authority to abrogate the interpretations of Shoghi Effendi. They must only submit to his interpretations, mindlessly, or at best, trying to retrospectively justify them as a religious fundamentalist does with any inherited dogma.
[quote]This freedom (from error) is at the heart of the word: “infallible” or ‘`ismat’ which trips up almost everyone, whether Baha’i or not.[/quote]
How does this clarification help? I too was understanding “infallibility” as “freedom from error”. Or did you see that I was understanding it differently?

Baquia wrote:[quote post="250"]Mavaddat,
Each subsequent UHJ is free to make/abrogate laws made by previous ones.[/quote]
But what law of the Universal House of Justice would they abrogate, Baquia? The UHJ is not the author of this law. According the Shoghi Effendi, Baha’u'llah himself is its author. The UHJ is merely echoing him. They have no authority to abrogate the interpretations of Shoghi Effendi. They must only submit to his interpretations, mindlessly, or at best, trying to retrospectively justify them as a religious fundamentalist does with any inherited dogma.
[quote]This freedom (from error) is at the heart of the word: “infallible” or ‘`ismat’ which trips up almost everyone, whether Baha’i or not.[/quote]
How does this clarification help? I too was understanding “infallibility” as “freedom from error”. Or did you see that I was understanding it differently?

[quote comment=""]Amanda, you were stating an opinion, not fact. The Baha’i Writings contain no condemnation of gay people. Had someone unfamiliar with the truth read your words, they would have an incorrect impression.[/quote]

Excuse me, Baquia, but being called a “problem person” is definitely a condemnation. there are other worse ones, but I haven’t found a synopsis and codification yet. still working on that.

[quote comment=""]Each subsequent UHJ is free to make/abrogate laws made by previous ones.[/quote]

But the UHJ didn’t translate the section of the Aqdas supposedly dealing with gays, Shoghi Effendi did. The UHJ cannot make/abrogate laws that they did not originate. Get your facts straight.

From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a meaningless distinction. Imagine if I said, “Oh, the state doesn’t condemn murderers. No no… it condemns murder.” What practical difference could that make? If the murderers are still pronounced guilty, sentenced to prison or capital punishment, and/or treated as criminals by society, what does it matter to say that the person is not condemned but his actions? Clearly it makes no difference whatsoever. To try to avoid this conflation by specifying that the urge to murder is not condemned but only the action of murdering is also no help, since one only knows of the person’s urge through its manifestation in action (or through its expression in words). If the urge is expressed in action, then it is condemned (ex hypothesi). If it is expressed merely words, then also it is condemned for fear of its manifestation in action! So either way, it is condemned. Thus, the distinction is literally meaningless. That it, it lacks any sense at all. It is obscure enough, however, to provide the illusion of meaning and thereby provides Baha’is (and those who wish to condemn homosexuals while appearing liberal-minded) some feeling of consolation.

In general, this idea can be summarized by the following maxim: A person is the sum of his actions, plus the animating motive for those actions. Thus, to condemn some of his actions is to condemn some of his person.[/quote]

[quote comment=""]Amanda, you were stating an opinion, not fact. The Baha’i Writings contain no condemnation of gay people. Had someone unfamiliar with the truth read your words, they would have an incorrect impression.[/quote]

Excuse me, Baquia, but being called a “problem person” is definitely a condemnation. there are other worse ones, but I haven’t found a synopsis and codification yet. still working on that.

[quote comment=""]Each subsequent UHJ is free to make/abrogate laws made by previous ones.[/quote]

But the UHJ didn’t translate the section of the Aqdas supposedly dealing with gays, Shoghi Effendi did. The UHJ cannot make/abrogate laws that they did not originate. Get your facts straight.

From a pragmatic standpoint, this is a meaningless distinction. Imagine if I said, “Oh, the state doesn’t condemn murderers. No no… it condemns murder.” What practical difference could that make? If the murderers are still pronounced guilty, sentenced to prison or capital punishment, and/or treated as criminals by society, what does it matter to say that the person is not condemned but his actions? Clearly it makes no difference whatsoever. To try to avoid this conflation by specifying that the urge to murder is not condemned but only the action of murdering is also no help, since one only knows of the person’s urge through its manifestation in action (or through its expression in words). If the urge is expressed in action, then it is condemned (ex hypothesi). If it is expressed merely words, then also it is condemned for fear of its manifestation in action! So either way, it is condemned. Thus, the distinction is literally meaningless. That it, it lacks any sense at all. It is obscure enough, however, to provide the illusion of meaning and thereby provides Baha’is (and those who wish to condemn homosexuals while appearing liberal-minded) some feeling of consolation.

In general, this idea can be summarized by the following maxim: A person is the sum of his actions, plus the animating motive for those actions. Thus, to condemn some of his actions is to condemn some of his person.[/quote]

Amanda wrote,
[quote post="250"]The “future” envisaged in the Baha’i Writings where the “clear principles of prevention and treatment” of homosexuality” will be in effect is one of EUGENICS. Call a spade a spade, brother. It’s EUGENICS.[/quote]
In all sincerity, this is actually a very piercing insight (that the Bahá’í future demands eugenics). I think it takes more than just honesty to recognize it. It takes historical understanding.

Eugenics was almost universally accepted when the Bahá’í Faith was “growing up”. Eugenics was not a bad word. It was, actually, seen as the compassionate alternative to social Darwinism, which was the idea that the weak of society should be left to their own defences. To the liberal minded, this was rightly viewed as a cruel and pitiless philosophy. By contrast, eugenics advocated the “correct” breeding of the species for the strengthening of future generations. In many circles, it also advocated the sterilization of “feeble minded” individuals, for their own good really, and for the good of future generations. These two strains of the eugenics movement were called “positive” and “negative” eugenics.

Now, when one with such a knowledge peruses the Bahá’í writings, it is obvious that everything in the Faith regarding marriage and the rearing of children reflects the eugenicist’s mindset. The Bahá’í Faith is not just concerned about humanity’s spiritual future. It is equally emphatic about it’s future physical well-being and purity. This, in a nut shell, is eugenics — like it or not. This kind of thinking (enforcing genetic restrictions on people) is rightly sickening to us now, but it was seen as compassionate not long ago.

Amanda wrote,
[quote post="250"]The “future” envisaged in the Baha’i Writings where the “clear principles of prevention and treatment” of homosexuality” will be in effect is one of EUGENICS. Call a spade a spade, brother. It’s EUGENICS.[/quote]
In all sincerity, this is actually a very piercing insight (that the Bahá’í future demands eugenics). I think it takes more than just honesty to recognize it. It takes historical understanding.

Eugenics was almost universally accepted when the Bahá’í Faith was “growing up”. Eugenics was not a bad word. It was, actually, seen as the compassionate alternative to social Darwinism, which was the idea that the weak of society should be left to their own defences. To the liberal minded, this was rightly viewed as a cruel and pitiless philosophy. By contrast, eugenics advocated the “correct” breeding of the species for the strengthening of future generations. In many circles, it also advocated the sterilization of “feeble minded” individuals, for their own good really, and for the good of future generations. These two strains of the eugenics movement were called “positive” and “negative” eugenics.

Now, when one with such a knowledge peruses the Bahá’í writings, it is obvious that everything in the Faith regarding marriage and the rearing of children reflects the eugenicist’s mindset. The Bahá’í Faith is not just concerned about humanity’s spiritual future. It is equally emphatic about it’s future physical well-being and purity. This, in a nut shell, is eugenics — like it or not. This kind of thinking (enforcing genetic restrictions on people) is rightly sickening to us now, but it was seen as compassionate not long ago.

Hi Amanda,

Where do the Baha’i writings use the phrase “a problem human being” to refer to a homosexual?

[quote comment=""]Amanda wrote,
[quote post="250"]The “future” envisaged in the Baha’i Writings where the “clear principles of prevention and treatment” of homosexuality” will be in effect is one of EUGENICS.[/quote]

Eugenics is the science dealing with factors that influence the hereditary qualities of a race and with ways of improving these qualities, esp. by modifying the fertility of different categories of people. (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

Twin studies indicate that homosexuality may be partly hereditary, so let’s suppose that there are attempts within the Baha’i Faith to influence the hereditary qualities of the Baha’i, uh, human race. The main efforts in this direction seem to be to get homosexuals into heterosexual marriages. The only eugenic effect of which, presumably, is to produce greater numbers of genetically predisposed homosexuals.

Of course, folks who promote gay marriage and civil unions are, equally, practicing eugenics. It’s just that the net result of their efforts is, arguably, fewer genetically presdiposed homosexuals.

Call a spade a spade, sister. It’s EUGENICS.

ka kite
Steve

Hi Amanda,

Where do the Baha’i writings use the phrase “a problem human being” to refer to a homosexual?

[quote comment=""]Amanda wrote,
[quote post="250"]The “future” envisaged in the Baha’i Writings where the “clear principles of prevention and treatment” of homosexuality” will be in effect is one of EUGENICS.[/quote]

Eugenics is the science dealing with factors that influence the hereditary qualities of a race and with ways of improving these qualities, esp. by modifying the fertility of different categories of people. (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

Twin studies indicate that homosexuality may be partly hereditary, so let’s suppose that there are attempts within the Baha’i Faith to influence the hereditary qualities of the Baha’i, uh, human race. The main efforts in this direction seem to be to get homosexuals into heterosexual marriages. The only eugenic effect of which, presumably, is to produce greater numbers of genetically predisposed homosexuals.

Of course, folks who promote gay marriage and civil unions are, equally, practicing eugenics. It’s just that the net result of their efforts is, arguably, fewer genetically presdiposed homosexuals.

Call a spade a spade, sister. It’s EUGENICS.

ka kite
Steve

Great discussion

All I know is in all the words and labels love gets lost. Baquia, I see you are now moderating my post, I did get pretty moxie under a different topic and I generally have more self constraint, please allow me the opportunity to view the discussion. I’ll mind my P’s and Q’s. btw- my tech guy says you know who I am an can pretty much google earth to my from door w/ my IP address. I hope it will let you view my beautiful rose garden.

I have some really great friends who are of the same gender very much in love. They are some of the most realist people I know. Frankly they have a great attitude that their love is their business. They don’t see me as hetro and I don’t see them as homo, we each see each other as humans. I loved our last visit where we had the most ironic laugh about America’s step to have the government establish what a marriage is.

My young son’s have met them and it was a great experience for them to meet mom’s friends, who were very loving and well dressed . Privately my middle asked what it meant to be “gay” and I told him it meant happy and he said, “You know what I mean mom, those are guys that love each other, is that right? Not sure my 8 year old really understood but I think he is trying when I told him no one may control love, it controls you and they love each other and I love them. There is no right or worng because it is real love.

I was not being light about my post going to the hospitals to pour our my love that is sometime unwanted or my deep gratitude for the bounties in my life today.

Love is genderless and so is passion. In the real spirit of the Bahà’í Revelation, and as it reaches more maturity and makes enough mistakes, it might lighten up and catch up with the times.

Secretly, I have not completely disregarded the actual possibility a message from G-d with a instructions for this day came with the advent of Baha’u’llah. I just think as in any “start -up” it is seeing what works and what does not and what it learns will determine it’s success. It would certainly be a forward measure to define marriage as deep profound committing love between two people. I would vote for such a motion if anyone would calls for it. (I am, I have discovered, considered a “leave taker” and still on the community listings)

I do hope you can pick through the mysteries and countless oxymoron’s an see what good there is in the simplest form of the BR and know that there are other hetro G-d loving people teaching our children that any form of discrimination or segregation is just plain wrong.

Great discussion

All I know is in all the words and labels love gets lost. Baquia, I see you are now moderating my post, I did get pretty moxie under a different topic and I generally have more self constraint, please allow me the opportunity to view the discussion. I’ll mind my P’s and Q’s. btw- my tech guy says you know who I am an can pretty much google earth to my from door w/ my IP address. I hope it will let you view my beautiful rose garden.

I have some really great friends who are of the same gender very much in love. They are some of the most realist people I know. Frankly they have a great attitude that their love is their business. They don’t see me as hetro and I don’t see them as homo, we each see each other as humans. I loved our last visit where we had the most ironic laugh about America’s step to have the government establish what a marriage is.

My young son’s have met them and it was a great experience for them to meet mom’s friends, who were very loving and well dressed . Privately my middle asked what it meant to be “gay” and I told him it meant happy and he said, “You know what I mean mom, those are guys that love each other, is that right? Not sure my 8 year old really understood but I think he is trying when I told him no one may control love, it controls you and they love each other and I love them. There is no right or worng because it is real love.

I was not being light about my post going to the hospitals to pour our my love that is sometime unwanted or my deep gratitude for the bounties in my life today.

Love is genderless and so is passion. In the real spirit of the Bahà’í Revelation, and as it reaches more maturity and makes enough mistakes, it might lighten up and catch up with the times.

Secretly, I have not completely disregarded the actual possibility a message from G-d with a instructions for this day came with the advent of Baha’u’llah. I just think as in any “start -up” it is seeing what works and what does not and what it learns will determine it’s success. It would certainly be a forward measure to define marriage as deep profound committing love between two people. I would vote for such a motion if anyone would calls for it. (I am, I have discovered, considered a “leave taker” and still on the community listings)

I do hope you can pick through the mysteries and countless oxymoron’s an see what good there is in the simplest form of the BR and know that there are other hetro G-d loving people teaching our children that any form of discrimination or segregation is just plain wrong.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]Twin studies indicate that homosexuality may be partly hereditary, so let’s suppose that there are attempts within the Baha’i Faith to influence the hereditary qualities of the Baha’i, uh, human race. The main efforts in this direction seem to be to get homosexuals into heterosexual marriages. The only eugenic effect of which, presumably, is to produce greater numbers of genetically predisposed homosexuals.[/quote]
This is silly. Your argument is that the Bahá’í Faith can’t be for eugenics while holding that being gay is undesirable, since it is actually holding a position that would propagate (rather than weed out) “gay genes.”

But the Bahá’í Faith never acknowledges that being gay is genetic. On the contrary, everything in the writings of Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice operates under the assumption that being gay is something you can “remedy”. It is absurd, therefore, to argue that the Bahá’í Faith is not for eugenics simply because it unwittingly contradicts itself.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]Of course, folks who promote gay marriage and civil unions are, equally, practicing eugenics. It’s just that the net result of their efforts is, arguably, fewer genetically presdiposed homosexuals.

Call a spade a spade, sister. It’s EUGENICS. [/quote]
Steve, the sense in which you are using the word “eugenics” implies that anyone who advocates anything that can affect a genetic consequence is thereby advocating eugenics. This is nonsense.

Eugenics is the explicit intention to affect a stronger race of humans for the future. Those who support gay rights aren’t interested in whether the future “race” of humans is genetically “stronger” or “weaker”. That is completely irrelevant. The point is that justice be served, irrespective of its genetic consequences. “Good genes” be damned, gay people deserve the same rights that straight people do.

The Bahá’í Faith is explicitly concerned with the “purpose” of nature and the survival fitness of future humans. The language that it employs to argue against homosexuality (e.g., “against nature,” “the purpose of sex,” etc.) is decidedly eugenicist.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]Twin studies indicate that homosexuality may be partly hereditary, so let’s suppose that there are attempts within the Baha’i Faith to influence the hereditary qualities of the Baha’i, uh, human race. The main efforts in this direction seem to be to get homosexuals into heterosexual marriages. The only eugenic effect of which, presumably, is to produce greater numbers of genetically predisposed homosexuals.[/quote]
This is silly. Your argument is that the Bahá’í Faith can’t be for eugenics while holding that being gay is undesirable, since it is actually holding a position that would propagate (rather than weed out) “gay genes.”

But the Bahá’í Faith never acknowledges that being gay is genetic. On the contrary, everything in the writings of Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice operates under the assumption that being gay is something you can “remedy”. It is absurd, therefore, to argue that the Bahá’í Faith is not for eugenics simply because it unwittingly contradicts itself.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]Of course, folks who promote gay marriage and civil unions are, equally, practicing eugenics. It’s just that the net result of their efforts is, arguably, fewer genetically presdiposed homosexuals.

Call a spade a spade, sister. It’s EUGENICS. [/quote]
Steve, the sense in which you are using the word “eugenics” implies that anyone who advocates anything that can affect a genetic consequence is thereby advocating eugenics. This is nonsense.

Eugenics is the explicit intention to affect a stronger race of humans for the future. Those who support gay rights aren’t interested in whether the future “race” of humans is genetically “stronger” or “weaker”. That is completely irrelevant. The point is that justice be served, irrespective of its genetic consequences. “Good genes” be damned, gay people deserve the same rights that straight people do.

The Bahá’í Faith is explicitly concerned with the “purpose” of nature and the survival fitness of future humans. The language that it employs to argue against homosexuality (e.g., “against nature,” “the purpose of sex,” etc.) is decidedly eugenicist.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]Hi Amanda,

Where do the Baha’i writings use the phrase “a problem human being” to refer to a homosexual?[/quote]
Here you go, Steve:

…the Faith does not recognize homosexuality as a “natural” or permanent phenomenon. Rather, it sees this as an aberration subject to treatment, however intractable exclusive homosexuality may now seem to be. To the question of alteration of homosexual bents, much study must be given, and doubtless in the future clear principles of prevention and treatment will emerge. As for those now afflicted, a homosexual does not decide to be a problem human, but he does, as you rightly state, have decision in choosing his way of life, i.e. abstaining from homosexual acts.The Universal House of Justice, 22 March 1987

As disgusting as that is, I personally don’t think it even comes close to as abhorrent as the following from the same august institution, in which they claim that being gay is a species of the general mental disorder of being sexually attracted to random “objects”:

The condition of being sexually attracted to some object other than a mature member of the opposite sex, a condition of which homosexuality is but one manifestation, is regarded by the Faith as a distortion of true human nature, as a problem to be overcome, no matter what specific physical or psychological condition may be the immediate cause. Any Bahá’í who suffers from such a disability [as homosexuality] should be treated with understanding, and should be helped to control and overcome it. (Emphasis mine.)The Universal House of Justice, 11 Sept 1995

I honestly don’t understand how anyone could call himself or herself a Bahá’í when such an appellation would necessarily mean his respect — much less his adulation — of the institution who uttered those words. Disgusting.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]Hi Amanda,

Where do the Baha’i writings use the phrase “a problem human being” to refer to a homosexual?[/quote]
Here you go, Steve:

…the Faith does not recognize homosexuality as a “natural” or permanent phenomenon. Rather, it sees this as an aberration subject to treatment, however intractable exclusive homosexuality may now seem to be. To the question of alteration of homosexual bents, much study must be given, and doubtless in the future clear principles of prevention and treatment will emerge. As for those now afflicted, a homosexual does not decide to be a problem human, but he does, as you rightly state, have decision in choosing his way of life, i.e. abstaining from homosexual acts.The Universal House of Justice, 22 March 1987

As disgusting as that is, I personally don’t think it even comes close to as abhorrent as the following from the same august institution, in which they claim that being gay is a species of the general mental disorder of being sexually attracted to random “objects”:

The condition of being sexually attracted to some object other than a mature member of the opposite sex, a condition of which homosexuality is but one manifestation, is regarded by the Faith as a distortion of true human nature, as a problem to be overcome, no matter what specific physical or psychological condition may be the immediate cause. Any Bahá’í who suffers from such a disability [as homosexuality] should be treated with understanding, and should be helped to control and overcome it. (Emphasis mine.)The Universal House of Justice, 11 Sept 1995

I honestly don’t understand how anyone could call himself or herself a Bahá’í when such an appellation would necessarily mean his respect — much less his adulation — of the institution who uttered those words. Disgusting.

Correction:

I do hope you can pick through the mysteries and countless oxymoron’s an see what good there is in the simplest form of the BR and know that there are other (remove lable) G-d loving people teaching our children that any form of discrimination or segregation is just plain wrong.

Correction:

I do hope you can pick through the mysteries and countless oxymoron’s an see what good there is in the simplest form of the BR and know that there are other (remove lable) G-d loving people teaching our children that any form of discrimination or segregation is just plain wrong.

Baquia,

Although I’m disagreeing with you right now, I also want to thank you for your very thoughtful (and thought provoking) thread.

I just noticed your editing on my post and I found it to be of a first-rate intelligence. This may sound silly, since all you did was delete the repeated part of my post, but: It implies that you read through what I wrote and understood what I meant, and erased the superfluous part.

I’m also grateful for your open-minded approach and critical self-examination of everything you write. Your approach and faith in Bahá’u'lláh’s principle is inspirational.[quote]Verily I say, whatsoever leadeth to the decline of ignorance and the increase of knowledge hath been, and will ever remain, approved in the sight of the Lord of creation.[/quote]I too adhere strictly to this method (although I derive no additional comfort from God’s sanctioning me to do so). I do find it astonishing how few Bahá’ís really do believe these words.

BTW, you are something like a hero to me for facing down the moderators of LJBahai and surviving. Few of us are able to achieve such a feat… And I certainly was not one of them.

Baquia,

Although I’m disagreeing with you right now, I also want to thank you for your very thoughtful (and thought provoking) thread.

I just noticed your editing on my post and I found it to be of a first-rate intelligence. This may sound silly, since all you did was delete the repeated part of my post, but: It implies that you read through what I wrote and understood what I meant, and erased the superfluous part.

I’m also grateful for your open-minded approach and critical self-examination of everything you write. Your approach and faith in Bahá’u'lláh’s principle is inspirational.[quote]Verily I say, whatsoever leadeth to the decline of ignorance and the increase of knowledge hath been, and will ever remain, approved in the sight of the Lord of creation.[/quote]I too adhere strictly to this method (although I derive no additional comfort from God’s sanctioning me to do so). I do find it astonishing how few Bahá’ís really do believe these words.

BTW, you are something like a hero to me for facing down the moderators of LJBahai and surviving. Few of us are able to achieve such a feat… And I certainly was not one of them.

Hi Mavaddat,

Thanks for providing a source for the phrase “a problem human being”. What threw me is that I don’t consider anything written by the Universal house of Justice to be “Baha’i writings”. And I certainly don’t consider a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual to have any authority at all.

Yes, the House and the secretariat do write lots of opinionated drivel. Shoghi Effendi used to say his advice to an individual was just for that individual — and even then, that individual was free to take or leave the advice. I work on the assumption that the same holds true today. I realise that advice from the House is very normative in Baha’i circles, and therefore something of a problem. But let’s not dignify letter like these by calling them “Baha’i writings”, OK?

You characterise my argument as being that “the Bahá’í Faith can’t be for eugenics while holding that being gay is undesirable, since it is actually holding a position that would propagate (rather than weed out) ‘gay genes’.”

I certainly didn’t intend to give that impression at all. I was merely following the “Baha’is are into eugenics” argument to one of its many absurd conclusions. I’m glad you found some new absurdities in the argument.

How do I call myself a Baha’i without being a House-adulator? Do you know, this is the first time I’ve even considered the question. I guess having my wife removed from membership without warning on the orders of the House, then having lies spread about her in NZ by a visiting House member and representative pretty much kicked the arse out of any residual tendencies I had towards adulation. That was eight years ago, so I’d forgotten about the hypocritical servility that normally gets directed at the House. Thanks for the reminder.

I’m sorry you find me, or my actions (but what’s the difference, right?), disgusting. I would made a comment about people becoming what they rail against, but I note that “disgusting” is not yet a word the House and secretariat have used in relation to homosexuality.

This is a hot-button issue and I probably shouldn’t have taken the piss out of the eugenics argument. But I truly don’t think the argument, as expressed, stacks up. But let’s see what other people think.

cheers
Steve

[quote post="250"]Thanks for providing a source for the phrase “a problem human being”. What threw me is that I don’t consider anything written by the Universal house of Justice to be “Baha’i writings”. And I certainly don’t consider a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual to have any authority at all.[/quote]
Then I think it’s fair to infer that you are not a Bahá’í (or at least, not a member of the Bahá’í community), since Bahá’ís are required to take as authoritative everything the Universal House of Justice expresses. I’m sure you realize that all the members of the House approve the messages that get sent out on their behalf (even as Shoghi Effendi did) to make sure that the message being sent agrees with their infallible insight. So why would you even make that distinction between letters written “on their behalf” and those written by them? It seems to me that this is an intellectually dishonest position take up for no other reason that to justify chipping away at the bits of the religion with which you are personally uncomfortable. Don’t get me wrong — you are a better person than most for your being uncomfortable. However, nothing in the actual Bahá’í writings anywhere says that letters written on behalf of the UHJ or Shoghi Effendi carry any less weight, authority, or general applicability.

I only ask this: If you’re going to pick-and-choose what parts of your religion you follow, don’t pretend that the religion is in any sense infallible. If the truth of your religion is moulded by your mind, then it is really just a recapitulation of your thoughts… not “God’s” thoughts.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]Yes, the House and the secretariat do write lots of opinionated drivel. Shoghi Effendi used to say his advice to an individual was just for that individual — and even then, that individual was free to take or leave the advice.[/quote]
What? “Free” you say? What a strange usage you have adopted, Steve. In what sense is a Bahá’í “free” to abandon the guidance that they are supposed to take as infallible? Surely they are only free in the sense that a person is “free” to shoot himself in the head.

I really loved the part about “Shoghi Effendi used to say…”, though. How in the world are you going to argue against the authority of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi (and the UHJ) based on “Shoghi Effendi used to say”?! Are you really saying that we shouldn’t take as authoritative what was written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi because of some hearsay that alleges that “Shoghi Effendi used to say” that he prefer that we not? Is that your argument? Really?

And again, if you think the opinion expressed by the secretariat is drivel, then you think the UHJ’s opinion is drivel (in which case I say, Good on you!). For the UHJ approves every piece of drivel that leaves their Lair of Perpetual Drivel.

Steve writes,[quote]I certainly didn’t intend to give that impression at all. I was merely following the “Baha’is are into eugenics” argument to one of its many absurd conclusions. I’m glad you found some new absurdities in the argument.[/quote]But the problem is that your absurd conclusion doesn’t follow at all from the argument that “Baha’is are into eugenics”. That’s what I was trying to point out. The Bahá’í writings work under the assumption that homosexuality is something you can “choose” away. Thus, they wouldn’t acknowledge that the children of previously homosexual people and their newly adopted heterosexual partner in anyway “carry on” the potential for homosexuality. As far as the writings are concerned, the potential is squashed with the (ostensibly ex-)gay person’s choice to stop being gay. Your attempted reductio ad absurdum against the accusation of eugenics is, therefore, stopped before it even begins. That accusation loses no piss, as far as I can see. At least, not from that critique…

Steve writes,[quote]I’m sorry you find me, or my actions (but what’s the difference, right?), disgusting. I would made a comment about people becoming what they rail against, but I note that “disgusting” is not yet a word the House and secretariat have used in relation to homosexuality.[/quote]Steve I don’t find you or your actions disgusting (and in a word — no, there’s no difference). You clearly have no sense of servility to the UHJ. But I must admit, I’m not sure I really understand your position. I appreciate this, though, because it breaks my preconceived categories and demands my imagination. In what sense are you a Bahá’í if you don’t admit the infallible authority of the UHJ? Do you not acknowledge that they are a legitimate reflection of the UHJ Bahá’u'lláh had in mind in the Kitty Aqdas*? If not, then do you think the religion has been irreparably crippled? After all, it has neither a Guardian nor a House, if that approach is correct. In other words… What do you really believe, Steve?

*Kudos to Andrew for unknowingly letting me steal this phrase.

[quote post="250"]Thanks for providing a source for the phrase “a problem human being”. What threw me is that I don’t consider anything written by the Universal house of Justice to be “Baha’i writings”. And I certainly don’t consider a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual to have any authority at all.[/quote]
Then I think it’s fair to infer that you are not a Bahá’í (or at least, not a member of the Bahá’í community), since Bahá’ís are required to take as authoritative everything the Universal House of Justice expresses. I’m sure you realize that all the members of the House approve the messages that get sent out on their behalf (even as Shoghi Effendi did) to make sure that the message being sent agrees with their infallible insight. So why would you even make that distinction between letters written “on their behalf” and those written by them? It seems to me that this is an intellectually dishonest position take up for no other reason that to justify chipping away at the bits of the religion with which you are personally uncomfortable. Don’t get me wrong — you are a better person than most for your being uncomfortable. However, nothing in the actual Bahá’í writings anywhere says that letters written on behalf of the UHJ or Shoghi Effendi carry any less weight, authority, or general applicability.

I only ask this: If you’re going to pick-and-choose what parts of your religion you follow, don’t pretend that the religion is in any sense infallible. If the truth of your religion is moulded by your mind, then it is really just a recapitulation of your thoughts… not “God’s” thoughts.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]Yes, the House and the secretariat do write lots of opinionated drivel. Shoghi Effendi used to say his advice to an individual was just for that individual — and even then, that individual was free to take or leave the advice.[/quote]
What? “Free” you say? What a strange usage you have adopted, Steve. In what sense is a Bahá’í “free” to abandon the guidance that they are supposed to take as infallible? Surely they are only free in the sense that a person is “free” to shoot himself in the head.

I really loved the part about “Shoghi Effendi used to say…”, though. How in the world are you going to argue against the authority of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi (and the UHJ) based on “Shoghi Effendi used to say”?! Are you really saying that we shouldn’t take as authoritative what was written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi because of some hearsay that alleges that “Shoghi Effendi used to say” that he prefer that we not? Is that your argument? Really?

And again, if you think the opinion expressed by the secretariat is drivel, then you think the UHJ’s opinion is drivel (in which case I say, Good on you!). For the UHJ approves every piece of drivel that leaves their Lair of Perpetual Drivel.

Steve writes,[quote]I certainly didn’t intend to give that impression at all. I was merely following the “Baha’is are into eugenics” argument to one of its many absurd conclusions. I’m glad you found some new absurdities in the argument.[/quote]But the problem is that your absurd conclusion doesn’t follow at all from the argument that “Baha’is are into eugenics”. That’s what I was trying to point out. The Bahá’í writings work under the assumption that homosexuality is something you can “choose” away. Thus, they wouldn’t acknowledge that the children of previously homosexual people and their newly adopted heterosexual partner in anyway “carry on” the potential for homosexuality. As far as the writings are concerned, the potential is squashed with the (ostensibly ex-)gay person’s choice to stop being gay. Your attempted reductio ad absurdum against the accusation of eugenics is, therefore, stopped before it even begins. That accusation loses no piss, as far as I can see. At least, not from that critique…

Steve writes,[quote]I’m sorry you find me, or my actions (but what’s the difference, right?), disgusting. I would made a comment about people becoming what they rail against, but I note that “disgusting” is not yet a word the House and secretariat have used in relation to homosexuality.[/quote]Steve I don’t find you or your actions disgusting (and in a word — no, there’s no difference). You clearly have no sense of servility to the UHJ. But I must admit, I’m not sure I really understand your position. I appreciate this, though, because it breaks my preconceived categories and demands my imagination. In what sense are you a Bahá’í if you don’t admit the infallible authority of the UHJ? Do you not acknowledge that they are a legitimate reflection of the UHJ Bahá’u'lláh had in mind in the Kitty Aqdas*? If not, then do you think the religion has been irreparably crippled? After all, it has neither a Guardian nor a House, if that approach is correct. In other words… What do you really believe, Steve?

*Kudos to Andrew for unknowingly letting me steal this phrase.

One last thought: Steve, you apparently wanted to say that my calling those “disgusting” who believe that being gay is a kind of “sexual attraction to objects” puts me on par with those whom I criticize, but you were frustrated in your attempt to make this argument because the language of my scorn did not match the language of those I am criticizing.

So let me help you out.

I think it is an abomination to think that homosexuality is a kind of sexual attraction to random objects.

No, wait… Wrong book. Let me try again.

I think it is a shameful intellectual aberration to think that.

How’s that?

You see, I have no problem with the terminology, per se. What I have a problem with is the target of that condemnation. By all means, let us scorn heinous criminals for their heinous crimes. Call them shameful. Condemn them and their actions. By all means!

What I do disapprove of, however, is the unfair condemnation of a people who do absolutely nothing wrong in their being of (or acting on) the opposite sexual preference. It is indeed perverse and disgusting to condemn what is manifestly beautiful and unifying. The love between consenting adults is the pinnacle of the most beautiful things I can imagine; and to condemn it in any of its manifestations is a violation of my deepest sensibilities and my most fundamentally human aesthetic.

To condemn what is manifestly beautiful is perverse. To condemn what is perverse is praiseworthy. The fallacy of the Bahá’í Faith is not in its condemnation; but rather, in its misidentification of what is beautiful for what is perverse.

One last thought: Steve, you apparently wanted to say that my calling those “disgusting” who believe that being gay is a kind of “sexual attraction to objects” puts me on par with those whom I criticize, but you were frustrated in your attempt to make this argument because the language of my scorn did not match the language of those I am criticizing.

So let me help you out.

I think it is an abomination to think that homosexuality is a kind of sexual attraction to random objects.

No, wait… Wrong book. Let me try again.

I think it is a shameful intellectual aberration to think that.

How’s that?

You see, I have no problem with the terminology, per se. What I have a problem with is the target of that condemnation. By all means, let us scorn heinous criminals for their heinous crimes. Call them shameful. Condemn them and their actions. By all means!

What I do disapprove of, however, is the unfair condemnation of a people who do absolutely nothing wrong in their being of (or acting on) the opposite sexual preference. It is indeed perverse and disgusting to condemn what is manifestly beautiful and unifying. The love between consenting adults is the pinnacle of the most beautiful things I can imagine; and to condemn it in any of its manifestations is a violation of my deepest sensibilities and my most fundamentally human aesthetic.

To condemn what is manifestly beautiful is perverse. To condemn what is perverse is praiseworthy. The fallacy of the Bahá’í Faith is not in its condemnation; but rather, in its misidentification of what is beautiful for what is perverse.

[quote]…I think it’s fair to infer that you are not a Bahá’í (or at least, not a member of the Bahá’í community), since Bahá’ís are required to take as authoritative everything the Universal House of Justice expresses.[/quote]

Feel free to believe that, but it puts you in the company of Baha’i zealots and fundamentalists.

[quote]I’m sure you realize that all the members of the House approve the messages that get sent out on their behalf (even as Shoghi Effendi did) to make sure that the message being sent agrees with their infallible insight.[/quote]

Feel free to believe that, too, but don’t assume that I do.

So why would you even make that distinction between letters written “on their behalf” and those written by them? It seems to me that this is an intellectually dishonest position take up for no other reason that to justify chipping away at the bits of the religion with which you are personally uncomfortable.

As far as I’m concerned, the whole infallibility-means-propositionally-inerrant story-line is a gross misunderstanding perpetuated by the ignorant. You seem you think it’s a mainstram Baha’i belief. I could accuse you of being intellectually dishonest and thinking that, for no other reason than to justify chipping away at the bits of the religion with which you are personally comfortable.

But speculative ad hominems like that get us nowhere.

[quote]Don’t get me wrong — you are a better person than most for your being uncomfortable.[/quote]

Dont get me wrong. I’m not uncomfortable.

[quote]However, nothing in the actual Bahá’í writings anywhere says that letters written on behalf of the UHJ or Shoghi Effendi carry any less weight, authority, or general applicability.[/quote]

“The exact status which Shoghi Effendi has intended the friends to give to those communications he sends to individual believers is explained in the following statement written through his secretary to the National Spiritual Assembly on November 16, 1932: “As regards Shoghi Effendi’s letters to the individual Baha’is, he is always very careful not to contradict himself. He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the Baha’i News. Only letters with special significance should be published there.”
Baha’i News, February 1933 (No. 71, pp. 1-2)

[quote]I only ask this: If you’re going to pick-and-choose what parts of your religion you follow, don’t pretend that the religion is in any sense infallible. If the truth of your religion is moulded by your mind, then it is really just a recapitulation of your thoughts… not “God’s” thoughts.[/quote]

We all pick and choose, and not only because we’re each unique and a sign of God. As to whether any thoughts are mine or Gods – I don’t know and I don’t particularly care.

But don’t presume to tell me whether I can consider my religion to be in any sense infallible. That’s my business. Frankly, you’re stating to sound very narrow-minded and hypocritical again.

What? “Free” you say? What a strange usage you have adopted, Steve. In what sense is a Bahá’í “free” to abandon the guidance that they are supposed to take as infallible? Surely they are only free in the sense that a person is “free” to shoot himself in the head.

Again, feel free to believe this, but watch the company you keep in doing so.

I really loved the part about “Shoghi Effendi used to say…”, though. How in the world are you going to argue against the authority of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi (and the UHJ) based on “Shoghi Effendi used to say”?! Are you really saying that we shouldn’t take as authoritative what was written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi because of some hearsay that alleges that “Shoghi Effendi used to say” that he prefer that we not? Is that your argument? Really?

No, I simply wasn’t able to locate the quote I was thinking of. I’m sorry about that. I’ll post it if it turns up.

[quote]And again, if you think the opinion expressed by the secretariat is drivel, then you think the UHJ’s opinion is drivel (in which case I say, Good on you!). For the UHJ approves every piece of drivel that leaves their Lair of Perpetual Drivel.[/quote]

Yes, you’ve already said this.

[quote]But the problem is that your absurd conclusion doesn’t follow at all from the argument that “Baha’is are into eugenics”. That’s what I was trying to point out. The Bahá’í writings work under the assumption that homosexuality is something you can “choose” away. Thus, they wouldn’t acknowledge that the children of previously homosexual people and their newly adopted heterosexual partner in anyway “carry on” the potential for homosexuality.[/quote]

The argument that “Baha’is are into eugenics” comes from you, not the Baha’i Faith. I applied your argument that this is so, then realised that pro-gay marriage and civil union folks, of which I’m one, are essentially doing the same thing. If the Baha’is are into eugenics, then lots of others meet the same criteria. Simple as that.

You make the point that the Baha’i administration seems to act as though homosexuality is “curable” and therefore seems to deny a hereditary component. That’s true enough, but the House doesn’t completely reject the possibility of a genetic component:

“On the question of whether or not there is a biological predisposition to homosexuality, the letter indicates that the question is still open to dispute. In this regard, it may be important to note that while science may find that a predisposition to homosexuality is caused by genetic aberration, and in that sense may be considered “natural”, it does not follow that it is “natural” for some people to be homosexual.”
The Universal House of Justice, May 3, 1994, Advice on Homosexuality

But let’s suppose you’re right, and the House doesn’t believe there’s a genetic component to homosexuality. Let’s also suppose that the Bahá’í writings rally do work work under the assumption that homosexuality is something you can “choose” away. Under those assumptions, the possibility that the Baha’is are consciously carrying out any form of eugenics drops to nil. Remember the definition:
“Eugenics is the science dealing with factors that influence the hereditary qualities of a race and with ways of improving these qualities, esp. by modifying the fertility of different categories of people.” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary)

No genetic component = no eugenics.

[quote]Steve I don’t find you or your actions disgusting (and in a word — no, there’s no difference). You clearly have no sense of servility to the UHJ.[/quote]

But if I did worship the House, you would find me disgusting, right? Why is it OK to find House worshippers disgusting, but it’s not OK to find homosexuals disgusting?
I smell a double standard.

[quote]But I must admit, I’m not sure I really understand your position. I appreciate this, though, because it breaks my preconceived categories and demands my imagination. In what sense are you a Bahá’í if you don’t admit the infallible authority of the UHJ? Do you not acknowledge that they are a legitimate reflection of the UHJ Bahá’u'lláh had in mind in the Kitty Aqdas*? If not, then do you think the religion has been irreparably crippled? After all, it has neither a Guardian nor a House, if that approach is correct. In other words… What do you really believe, Steve?[/quote]

There are plenty of people who are very capable of articulating the beliefs of those who have uncoupled their Faith from unquestioning belief in the Baha’i administration. Sen McGlinn, Juan Cole, Terry Culhane, Alison Marshall, John and Linda Walbridge, Karen Bacquet and Priscilla Gilman to name a few.

I treat the Baha’i administration like I treat my government. I accept its authority but I reserve the right to have opinions about its actions and policies. As for ismat (“infallibility”) I think folks like Sen show more of that than the House at present. All we’re talking about is conferred infallibility. No individual or organisation has a right to that. It’s a quality of God, and it can touch anyone. The idea that “the nine” are guaranteed it every time they consult on something is idolatrous claptrap and has no foundation in the Baha’i writings.

cheers
Steve

Wow. I wasn’t at the computer for awhile and looky-loo.

Mavaddat-
Thanks for providing citations and answering a few points that were directed at me before I could get back to the discussion. Some really nice points, sir. Looking forward to more.

Beth-
Hello!

Steve-
Your views about the House lead me to clarify my argument: I am critiquing the Haifan Baha’i Tradition, meaning “Baha’u'llah + ‘Abdu’l-Baha + Shoghi Effendi as Guardian + UHJ.” There are certainly many groups of Baha’is who gather under different auspices, and individuals who have their own take on it. But what I am critiquing is the (Haifan) Baha’i Faith. The religion. Not the countless individuals within it or the other groups. The position you are advocating here that the writings of the UHJ or Shoghi Effendi are somehow not the “Baha’i Writings” is not consistent with the Haifan Baha’i tradition, (and kudos to you for being willing to make your own decisions about such things.) But I am not here to critique Steve Marshalls Baha’i Faith, I am critiquing the teachings, practices, culture, and rules of “The Baha’i Faith ©.” You of all people should know how it feels to be arbitrarily “removed” or sanctioned for no good reason whatsoever, which is exactly what happens to out gay Baha’is as a matter of course. I wonder at your balking at my previous depiction? Please explain. A gay Baha’i being removed or sanctioned JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY ARE is NO different than what happened to your wife.

And as to the eugenics argument, you didn’t seem to follow it. What I am saying, is that to “prevent” the appearance of a non-pathological expression of human variety, like skin color, sexual orientation, etc, is to act on the principles, motives, and practices of the worst part of the eugenics movement. The part where an empowered group decides that their genetic features are the ideal, and then manipulates “science” to help weed out traits that are not made in their image. The trademarked Baha’i Faith advocates psychological treatments to “cure” homosexuality that have been condemned by the field, criminalizes the expression of sexuality, and looks for ways for science to further prevent it’s appearance. Eugenics, sir.

Baquia-
You write, “you were stating an opinion, not fact. The Baha’i Writings contain no condemnation of gay people.”

Baquia, please read the following:

“Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u'lláh, is spiritually condemned.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual, 21 May 1954; Lights of Guidance, p. 365, #1221)

“Homosexuality is highly condemned and often a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá’í. Any individual so afflicted must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 6 October 1956)

Highly condemned? Spiritually condemned? YOUR statement is an “opinion,” those writings are “facts.” They exist. Unfortunately. Homosexuality is an innate quality of human existance, just the same as heterosexuality is. It is the homosexuality that is CONDEMNED in these writings, not some choice-mediated moral act. (Although the writings condemn acts too) Do the writings also say be nice to gay people? Yes. How very girl-scoutesque of them. But Baha’is are supposed to be “nice” to everybody, including murderers. Being nice doesn’t erase the condemnation. The condemnation stands. It is disengenuous for Baha’is to argue that it is the act itself that it condemned, and not the homosexuality itself. Read your writings. Homosexuality is condemned. I am not “conflating the person and their actions.” The writings condemn HOMOSEXUALITY, which is a quality of a persons being-ness.

I appreciate your creating this forum, too, Baquia. It is a real service. And I appreciate your motivations. But my question as to why your opinion is “truth” and mine is just a “personal opinion” someone could confuse with “truth” and that it needs to come with a warning label disclaimer stands. My argument is based on THE WRITINGS which I have cited. Why the distinction?

Oh, I have made one factual error: the Baha’is are supposed to be nice to everyone but “Covenant Breakers.” My mistake.

The last thing I want to say is that it is disturbing that the PERSONAL EXPERIENCES of the two gay people who have commented here have been dismissed entirely, and the focus has stayed on the writings. I know people objected to my use of the word “hateful,” but let’s look at what hateful actually means. You don’t have to wear a clansmans hood to hate someone or something. Hate is “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.” To argue that these writings don’t express intense hostility and aversion is nonsense. Homosexuality is seen as so harmful it has to be quarentined and controlled. Hate is also defined as “extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing.” Read the writings. The language they use to discuss homosexuality reeks of this.

Wow. I wasn’t at the computer for awhile and looky-loo.

Mavaddat-
Thanks for providing citations and answering a few points that were directed at me before I could get back to the discussion. Some really nice points, sir. Looking forward to more.

Beth-
Hello!

Steve-
Your views about the House lead me to clarify my argument: I am critiquing the Haifan Baha’i Tradition, meaning “Baha’u'llah + ‘Abdu’l-Baha + Shoghi Effendi as Guardian + UHJ.” There are certainly many groups of Baha’is who gather under different auspices, and individuals who have their own take on it. But what I am critiquing is the (Haifan) Baha’i Faith. The religion. Not the countless individuals within it or the other groups. The position you are advocating here that the writings of the UHJ or Shoghi Effendi are somehow not the “Baha’i Writings” is not consistent with the Haifan Baha’i tradition, (and kudos to you for being willing to make your own decisions about such things.) But I am not here to critique Steve Marshalls Baha’i Faith, I am critiquing the teachings, practices, culture, and rules of “The Baha’i Faith ©.” You of all people should know how it feels to be arbitrarily “removed” or sanctioned for no good reason whatsoever, which is exactly what happens to out gay Baha’is as a matter of course. I wonder at your balking at my previous depiction? Please explain. A gay Baha’i being removed or sanctioned JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY ARE is NO different than what happened to your wife.

And as to the eugenics argument, you didn’t seem to follow it. What I am saying, is that to “prevent” the appearance of a non-pathological expression of human variety, like skin color, sexual orientation, etc, is to act on the principles, motives, and practices of the worst part of the eugenics movement. The part where an empowered group decides that their genetic features are the ideal, and then manipulates “science” to help weed out traits that are not made in their image. The trademarked Baha’i Faith advocates psychological treatments to “cure” homosexuality that have been condemned by the field, criminalizes the expression of sexuality, and looks for ways for science to further prevent it’s appearance. Eugenics, sir.

Baquia-
You write, “you were stating an opinion, not fact. The Baha’i Writings contain no condemnation of gay people.”

Baquia, please read the following:

“Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u'lláh, is spiritually condemned.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual, 21 May 1954; Lights of Guidance, p. 365, #1221)

“Homosexuality is highly condemned and often a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá’í. Any individual so afflicted must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 6 October 1956)

Highly condemned? Spiritually condemned? YOUR statement is an “opinion,” those writings are “facts.” They exist. Unfortunately. Homosexuality is an innate quality of human existance, just the same as heterosexuality is. It is the homosexuality that is CONDEMNED in these writings, not some choice-mediated moral act. (Although the writings condemn acts too) Do the writings also say be nice to gay people? Yes. How very girl-scoutesque of them. But Baha’is are supposed to be “nice” to everybody, including murderers. Being nice doesn’t erase the condemnation. The condemnation stands. It is disengenuous for Baha’is to argue that it is the act itself that it condemned, and not the homosexuality itself. Read your writings. Homosexuality is condemned. I am not “conflating the person and their actions.” The writings condemn HOMOSEXUALITY, which is a quality of a persons being-ness.

I appreciate your creating this forum, too, Baquia. It is a real service. And I appreciate your motivations. But my question as to why your opinion is “truth” and mine is just a “personal opinion” someone could confuse with “truth” and that it needs to come with a warning label disclaimer stands. My argument is based on THE WRITINGS which I have cited. Why the distinction?

Oh, I have made one factual error: the Baha’is are supposed to be nice to everyone but “Covenant Breakers.” My mistake.

The last thing I want to say is that it is disturbing that the PERSONAL EXPERIENCES of the two gay people who have commented here have been dismissed entirely, and the focus has stayed on the writings. I know people objected to my use of the word “hateful,” but let’s look at what hateful actually means. You don’t have to wear a clansmans hood to hate someone or something. Hate is “intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury.” To argue that these writings don’t express intense hostility and aversion is nonsense. Homosexuality is seen as so harmful it has to be quarentined and controlled. Hate is also defined as “extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing.” Read the writings. The language they use to discuss homosexuality reeks of this.

[quote]Steve-
The position you are advocating here that the writings of the UHJ or Shoghi Effendi are somehow not the “Baha’i Writings” is not consistent with the Haifan Baha’i tradition…[/quote]

I think you’ll find that “Baha’i Writings” is an imprecise term. I did an Internet search and found instances where it referred just to the writings of Baha’u'llah and ‘Abdu’l-baha. Sometimes the Bab and Shoghi Effendi got a look in, and on one occasion the House was included (Mark Towfiq’s True Seeker, surprisingly enough).

[quote]I wonder at your balking at my previous depiction? Please explain. A gay Baha’i being removed or sanctioned JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY ARE is NO different than what happened to your wife.[/quote]

I agree. I simply don’t agree with your use of the word “eugenics”.

[quote]…Eugenics, sir.

No, madam. the phrases and passages you quote show that the Baha’i Faith engages in behaviour that is arguably unscientific, discriminatory and offensive. But I don’t believe you have demonstrated that it engages in eugenics.

cheers
Steve

[quote]Steve-
The position you are advocating here that the writings of the UHJ or Shoghi Effendi are somehow not the “Baha’i Writings” is not consistent with the Haifan Baha’i tradition…[/quote]

I think you’ll find that “Baha’i Writings” is an imprecise term. I did an Internet search and found instances where it referred just to the writings of Baha’u'llah and ‘Abdu’l-baha. Sometimes the Bab and Shoghi Effendi got a look in, and on one occasion the House was included (Mark Towfiq’s True Seeker, surprisingly enough).

[quote]I wonder at your balking at my previous depiction? Please explain. A gay Baha’i being removed or sanctioned JUST FOR BEING WHO THEY ARE is NO different than what happened to your wife.[/quote]

I agree. I simply don’t agree with your use of the word “eugenics”.

[quote]…Eugenics, sir.

No, madam. the phrases and passages you quote show that the Baha’i Faith engages in behaviour that is arguably unscientific, discriminatory and offensive. But I don’t believe you have demonstrated that it engages in eugenics.

cheers
Steve

[quote comment="46521"]One last thought: Steve, you apparently wanted to say that my calling those “disgusting” who believe that being gay is a kind of “sexual attraction to objects” puts me on par with those whom I criticize…[/quote]

But you weren’t doing that. Here’s what you actually said:

“I honestly don’t understand how anyone could call himself or herself a Bahá’í when such an appellation would necessarily mean his respect — much less his adulation — of the institution who uttered those words. Disgusting.”

You are disgusted by people who respect the House.

[quote]…but you were frustrated in your attempt to make this argument because the language of my scorn did not match the language of those I am criticizing.[/quote]

You think it’s OK to be disgusted by people who respect the House, but it’s not OK to be disgusted by homosexuality.

You can handle sexual freedom but you can’t handle religious freedom. I think you’re being “house”ophobic.

[quote comment="46521"]One last thought: Steve, you apparently wanted to say that my calling those “disgusting” who believe that being gay is a kind of “sexual attraction to objects” puts me on par with those whom I criticize…[/quote]

But you weren’t doing that. Here’s what you actually said:

“I honestly don’t understand how anyone could call himself or herself a Bahá’í when such an appellation would necessarily mean his respect — much less his adulation — of the institution who uttered those words. Disgusting.”

You are disgusted by people who respect the House.

[quote]…but you were frustrated in your attempt to make this argument because the language of my scorn did not match the language of those I am criticizing.[/quote]

You think it’s OK to be disgusted by people who respect the House, but it’s not OK to be disgusted by homosexuality.

You can handle sexual freedom but you can’t handle religious freedom. I think you’re being “house”ophobic.

Thanks for your reply, Steve.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. What I stated in my post that sparked the eugenics talk was this:

“The “future” envisaged in the Baha’i Writings where the “clear principles of prevention and treatment” of homosexuality” will be in effect is one of EUGENICS. Call a spade a spade, brother. It’s EUGENICS.”

I was referring to this passage from the “Haifan-sanctioned Baha’i writings ©”

“To the question of alteration of homosexual bents, much study must be given, and doubtless in the future clear principles of prevention and treatment will emerge. As for those now afflicted, a homosexual does not decide to be a problem human, but he does, as you rightly state, have decision in choosing his way of life, i.e. abstaining from homosexual acts.”
The Universal House of Justice, 22 March 1987

Eugenics can refer to the general scientific attention to human “breeding” in such a way as to better promote health, etc. Prenatal genetic testing, amniocentesis, and genetic counselling are all aimed at preventing genetic diseases from entering the genetic market, so to speak. This is a huge area of controversy in medical ethics, and I can see instances where ethical decisions can happen both “for” and “against.” Mavaddat has argued the ways the “Baha’i Faith’s ©” marital/physical teachings generally fall in line with a eugenics paradigm, and I agree. What I am arguing is that the specific “Baha’i” approach to encouraging a “scientific” study and development of clinical “prevention and treatment” techniques to remove homosexuality as a human “problem” corresponds to a particular historical eugenics. In the American South and in Nazi Germany, the pseudo-science of eugenics was used to prop up irrational beliefs that particular expressions of human variety were faulty. It is common in public opinion to imagine the Nazi holocaust as simply being about anti-semitism as religious prejudice, but the philosophical underpinnings and medico-legal bent of the holocaust went beyond the extermination of the Jewish people on the basis of belief to the eradication af any human variation that conlicted with the Nazi “ideal.” The disabled, Romani, and homosexuals were also targeted. The obsession was with a very frightening, and a very faulty quest for “racial purity.” We know that there is no such thing as a “race,” scientifically. Human variation is greater “within” any given “race” than between “races.” “Race” is a social construct with no taxonomic meaning. HOWEVER, the quest for an idealized “race” or human gene pool expressed what a certain empowered group defined as “good” and “natural.” In their quest, many quite “natural” human attributes were defined as faulty and pathological. This is the shadow side (and actually from a historical standpoint the dominant side)of eugenics. This philosophy espoused near verbatim rationale for “scientifically” handling the “problem” of homosexuality to the “Baha’i writings.” Do you follow me? The Nazis began a “scientific”/medico-legal assault on homosexuality in July of 1933 with the Law for Prevention of Hereditary Diseases and again with the November 1933 Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Sexual Offenders. (Check out Giles, G. 1992. “The Most Unkindest Cut of All: Castration, Homosexuality and Nazi Justice” Journal of Contemporary History. vol. 27 no. 1. pp. 41-56 and Micheler, S. 2002. “Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex Desiring Men Under National Socialism” Journal of the History of Sexuality. vol. 11 no. ½. pp. 95-130.)

The problem of labeling the biology, physiology or expression of human variation in a particular group as a pathology when it is not carries over in many other forms of “scientific” and “medical” racism, sexism, and homophobia. Oddly enough, this has been an area where “science” and religion have often held hands. During the Inquisition and witch-hunts, the presence of a clitoris upon a physical examination of a defendant was deemed scientific “proof” of her allegiance with the devil. It was labeled a “devil’s teat” and a pathology. Disturbingly, Francis Bacon was attorney general under King James during a period of obscene persecution/prosecution of “witches” on the basis of their clits. So much for impiricism. But the modern HISTORY of eugenics clearly demonstrates the intersection of human prejudice with the justification of “science” and religion. To seek a “medical” or “scientific” solution to homosexuality casts homosexulaity as a medical or scientific “problem,” which it is not. The Baha’i writings could not be clearer in their advocacy of the adoption of this type of pseudo-science and philosophy that makes up the darkest history of eugenics. Any thoughtful person can identify the goal of iradication of human diversity as clearly prejudiced and sinister, unless that person is a Baha’i defending the Baha’i condemnation of homosexuality. It is especially sad to see Baha’is do this, because the Faith makes some beautiful stands about eliminating prejudice. But it is reminiscent of the hobbled inconsistent morality of the founding fathers of the United States who managed to simultaneously write into the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and to simultaneously enshrine slavery in the law. It is cognitive dissonance. It is moral inconsistency. It is what Baha’is are doing. It is only possible to hold such disparate views of human equality and rights when you tell yourself that only “these people” count. When you find ways to use apologetics to trick yourself into justifying mistreatment. Every paternalistic argument ever used to justify why women shouldn’t vote or African Americans shouldn’t vote or any group should be denied their basic human rights because it is somehow “better” for them or “immoral” for them to have those rights is cognitive dissonance and nothing more. Institutionalized dissonance is discrimination and it is hateful.

Thanks.

Thanks for your reply, Steve.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. What I stated in my post that sparked the eugenics talk was this:

“The “future” envisaged in the Baha’i Writings where the “clear principles of prevention and treatment” of homosexuality” will be in effect is one of EUGENICS. Call a spade a spade, brother. It’s EUGENICS.”

I was referring to this passage from the “Haifan-sanctioned Baha’i writings ©”

“To the question of alteration of homosexual bents, much study must be given, and doubtless in the future clear principles of prevention and treatment will emerge. As for those now afflicted, a homosexual does not decide to be a problem human, but he does, as you rightly state, have decision in choosing his way of life, i.e. abstaining from homosexual acts.”
The Universal House of Justice, 22 March 1987

Eugenics can refer to the general scientific attention to human “breeding” in such a way as to better promote health, etc. Prenatal genetic testing, amniocentesis, and genetic counselling are all aimed at preventing genetic diseases from entering the genetic market, so to speak. This is a huge area of controversy in medical ethics, and I can see instances where ethical decisions can happen both “for” and “against.” Mavaddat has argued the ways the “Baha’i Faith’s ©” marital/physical teachings generally fall in line with a eugenics paradigm, and I agree. What I am arguing is that the specific “Baha’i” approach to encouraging a “scientific” study and development of clinical “prevention and treatment” techniques to remove homosexuality as a human “problem” corresponds to a particular historical eugenics. In the American South and in Nazi Germany, the pseudo-science of eugenics was used to prop up irrational beliefs that particular expressions of human variety were faulty. It is common in public opinion to imagine the Nazi holocaust as simply being about anti-semitism as religious prejudice, but the philosophical underpinnings and medico-legal bent of the holocaust went beyond the extermination of the Jewish people on the basis of belief to the eradication af any human variation that conlicted with the Nazi “ideal.” The disabled, Romani, and homosexuals were also targeted. The obsession was with a very frightening, and a very faulty quest for “racial purity.” We know that there is no such thing as a “race,” scientifically. Human variation is greater “within” any given “race” than between “races.” “Race” is a social construct with no taxonomic meaning. HOWEVER, the quest for an idealized “race” or human gene pool expressed what a certain empowered group defined as “good” and “natural.” In their quest, many quite “natural” human attributes were defined as faulty and pathological. This is the shadow side (and actually from a historical standpoint the dominant side)of eugenics. This philosophy espoused near verbatim rationale for “scientifically” handling the “problem” of homosexuality to the “Baha’i writings.” Do you follow me? The Nazis began a “scientific”/medico-legal assault on homosexuality in July of 1933 with the Law for Prevention of Hereditary Diseases and again with the November 1933 Law Against Dangerous Habitual Criminals and Sexual Offenders. (Check out Giles, G. 1992. “The Most Unkindest Cut of All: Castration, Homosexuality and Nazi Justice” Journal of Contemporary History. vol. 27 no. 1. pp. 41-56 and Micheler, S. 2002. “Homophobic Propaganda and the Denunciation of Same-Sex Desiring Men Under National Socialism” Journal of the History of Sexuality. vol. 11 no. ½. pp. 95-130.)

The problem of labeling the biology, physiology or expression of human variation in a particular group as a pathology when it is not carries over in many other forms of “scientific” and “medical” racism, sexism, and homophobia. Oddly enough, this has been an area where “science” and religion have often held hands. During the Inquisition and witch-hunts, the presence of a clitoris upon a physical examination of a defendant was deemed scientific “proof” of her allegiance with the devil. It was labeled a “devil’s teat” and a pathology. Disturbingly, Francis Bacon was attorney general under King James during a period of obscene persecution/prosecution of “witches” on the basis of their clits. So much for impiricism. But the modern HISTORY of eugenics clearly demonstrates the intersection of human prejudice with the justification of “science” and religion. To seek a “medical” or “scientific” solution to homosexuality casts homosexulaity as a medical or scientific “problem,” which it is not. The Baha’i writings could not be clearer in their advocacy of the adoption of this type of pseudo-science and philosophy that makes up the darkest history of eugenics. Any thoughtful person can identify the goal of iradication of human diversity as clearly prejudiced and sinister, unless that person is a Baha’i defending the Baha’i condemnation of homosexuality. It is especially sad to see Baha’is do this, because the Faith makes some beautiful stands about eliminating prejudice. But it is reminiscent of the hobbled inconsistent morality of the founding fathers of the United States who managed to simultaneously write into the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and to simultaneously enshrine slavery in the law. It is cognitive dissonance. It is moral inconsistency. It is what Baha’is are doing. It is only possible to hold such disparate views of human equality and rights when you tell yourself that only “these people” count. When you find ways to use apologetics to trick yourself into justifying mistreatment. Every paternalistic argument ever used to justify why women shouldn’t vote or African Americans shouldn’t vote or any group should be denied their basic human rights because it is somehow “better” for them or “immoral” for them to have those rights is cognitive dissonance and nothing more. Institutionalized dissonance is discrimination and it is hateful.

Thanks.

I am going to go run away and hide among the followers of Hazrat Inayat Khan. That is what I am going to do.

I am going to go run away and hide among the followers of Hazrat Inayat Khan. That is what I am going to do.

Given the current topic, I’d like to invite anyone interested to sign a petition I just created speaking out against discrimination against homosexuals.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-bahai-anti-gay-discrimination

Anyone id welcome to sign it, Baha’i, not Baha’i, ex-Baha’i, what have you.

Thanks.

Given the current topic, I’d like to invite anyone interested to sign a petition I just created speaking out against discrimination against homosexuals.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/stop-bahai-anti-gay-discrimination

Anyone id welcome to sign it, Baha’i, not Baha’i, ex-Baha’i, what have you.

Thanks.

Steve,

You asked me for the reference to where the “problem human being” passage came from, and while I was asleep and blissfully unaware of the exciting debate unfolding here Mavaddat answered with the source of that quotaion, and then he wrote,

“As disgusting as that is, I personally don’t think it even comes close to as abhorrent as the following from the same august institution, in which they claim that being gay is a species of the general mental disorder of being sexually attracted to random “objects”…”

So his introduction of the term disgusting seems to have been an evaluation of the disgusting content of those quotations, and then an evaluation of respect and adulation for their author as disgusting.

You then wrote,
“You are disgusted by people who respect the House…
You think it’s OK to be disgusted by people who respect the House, but it’s not OK to be disgusted by homosexuality…You can handle sexual freedom but you can’t handle religious freedom. I think you’re being “house”ophobic.”

This is so far-fetched. In addition to his already arguing that his disagreement is not with disgust or condemnation themselves, but with the basis of that disgust and condemnation, your acusation here is groundless. Entirely groundless. He expressed disgust at the content of those passages and at the respect and adultion offered to their author. How in the world does that lead you to an assumption of disagreement with religious freedom? There is no logical connection there. Your “house-phobic” remark, in addition to being completely groundless is hyperbole.

Steve,

You asked me for the reference to where the “problem human being” passage came from, and while I was asleep and blissfully unaware of the exciting debate unfolding here Mavaddat answered with the source of that quotaion, and then he wrote,

“As disgusting as that is, I personally don’t think it even comes close to as abhorrent as the following from the same august institution, in which they claim that being gay is a species of the general mental disorder of being sexually attracted to random “objects”…”

So his introduction of the term disgusting seems to have been an evaluation of the disgusting content of those quotations, and then an evaluation of respect and adulation for their author as disgusting.

You then wrote,
“You are disgusted by people who respect the House…
You think it’s OK to be disgusted by people who respect the House, but it’s not OK to be disgusted by homosexuality…You can handle sexual freedom but you can’t handle religious freedom. I think you’re being “house”ophobic.”

This is so far-fetched. In addition to his already arguing that his disagreement is not with disgust or condemnation themselves, but with the basis of that disgust and condemnation, your acusation here is groundless. Entirely groundless. He expressed disgust at the content of those passages and at the respect and adultion offered to their author. How in the world does that lead you to an assumption of disagreement with religious freedom? There is no logical connection there. Your “house-phobic” remark, in addition to being completely groundless is hyperbole.

Mavvadat,

you have made an outstanding study of the Baha’i writings on homosexuality, and I am grateful to you for this work.

I see some participants here, including Amanda on her petition, accuse the Baha’i writings of refering to homosexuality as a “spiritual disease” or as a “spiritual handicap”; I have never seen such a passage; could you please confirm?

You also quote the UHJ :
“The condition of being sexually attracted to some object other than a mature member of the opposite sex, a condition of which homosexuality is but one manifestation, is regarded by the Faith as a distortion of true human nature…”

This quote refers the object of attraction, the “goal” of a desire; the UHJ obviously does not refer to a homosexual person as being an “object”. The desire to various sexual stimulii includes zoophilia, necrophilia, paedophilia, fetichisme, incest, etc.

You believe that homosexuality should be dissociated from these other sexual behaviours; this opinion is increasingly shared by many citizens, physicians and psychologists but is far from being universal.

We should also realise that in many cases scientific knowledge can only confirm social rules adopted by the majority. Science does not always guide society, but can be used as an instrument by society. In teh 1930′s, science had “proved” the inferiority of couloured people. In some cultures zoophilia is acceptable with an animal of the opposite sex, but condemned with a same sex animal. There is no scientific grounds for condemning sad-masochist relations. The law in many societies condemns torturing a person, even with his consent on moral basis.

We know that Baha’is are expected to obey the civil laws of the state in which they reside. I cannot imagine what would happen if the UHJ legalised same-sex marriages as you suggest.

In conclusion, I see no scientific grounds for choosing which sexual behaviour is “normal” or “abnormal”. It is a society established on moral laws that decides lawfull sexual acts between ” consenting adults of the opposite sex” should be regarded as acceptable. These moral rules define certain behaviours as beneficial and acceptable, and others as undesireable. The removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders has been decided on social grounds. Some societies are claiming scientific proof for not allowing traditionnal incest anymore.

Also, you often refer to homosexuality as being an inherent or inborn attribute that prevents feeling attraction accomplishing a sexual act with someone of the opposite sex.

We also know that some homosexual tendencies can be predisposed genetically or induced by hormones, but we also know that some homosexual behaviours are acquired late in life after a fulfilling heterosexual family life. Spartian homosexuality was socially mentored. Bisexuality is an example of a homosexuality which is a choice of life, which could be spiritually overcome.

Mavvadat,

you have made an outstanding study of the Baha’i writings on homosexuality, and I am grateful to you for this work.

I see some participants here, including Amanda on her petition, accuse the Baha’i writings of refering to homosexuality as a “spiritual disease” or as a “spiritual handicap”; I have never seen such a passage; could you please confirm?

You also quote the UHJ :
“The condition of being sexually attracted to some object other than a mature member of the opposite sex, a condition of which homosexuality is but one manifestation, is regarded by the Faith as a distortion of true human nature…”

This quote refers the object of attraction, the “goal” of a desire; the UHJ obviously does not refer to a homosexual person as being an “object”. The desire to various sexual stimulii includes zoophilia, necrophilia, paedophilia, fetichisme, incest, etc.

You believe that homosexuality should be dissociated from these other sexual behaviours; this opinion is increasingly shared by many citizens, physicians and psychologists but is far from being universal.

We should also realise that in many cases scientific knowledge can only confirm social rules adopted by the majority. Science does not always guide society, but can be used as an instrument by society. In teh 1930′s, science had “proved” the inferiority of couloured people. In some cultures zoophilia is acceptable with an animal of the opposite sex, but condemned with a same sex animal. There is no scientific grounds for condemning sad-masochist relations. The law in many societies condemns torturing a person, even with his consent on moral basis.

We know that Baha’is are expected to obey the civil laws of the state in which they reside. I cannot imagine what would happen if the UHJ legalised same-sex marriages as you suggest.

In conclusion, I see no scientific grounds for choosing which sexual behaviour is “normal” or “abnormal”. It is a society established on moral laws that decides lawfull sexual acts between ” consenting adults of the opposite sex” should be regarded as acceptable. These moral rules define certain behaviours as beneficial and acceptable, and others as undesireable. The removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders has been decided on social grounds. Some societies are claiming scientific proof for not allowing traditionnal incest anymore.

Also, you often refer to homosexuality as being an inherent or inborn attribute that prevents feeling attraction accomplishing a sexual act with someone of the opposite sex.

We also know that some homosexual tendencies can be predisposed genetically or induced by hormones, but we also know that some homosexual behaviours are acquired late in life after a fulfilling heterosexual family life. Spartian homosexuality was socially mentored. Bisexuality is an example of a homosexuality which is a choice of life, which could be spiritually overcome.

Amanda,

on your petition you quote the Baha’i writings refering to homosexuality as a “spiritual handicap”

Could you please provide me with that source?

Thanks

Amanda,

on your petition you quote the Baha’i writings refering to homosexuality as a “spiritual handicap”

Could you please provide me with that source?

Thanks

Baquia,

To your quote on the quest for knowledge you can add this one:

“To strive to obtain a more adequate understanding of the significance of Baha’u'llah’s stupendous Revelation must … remain the first obligation and the object of the constant endeavour of each one of its loyal adherents.”
Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha’u'llah, p 100

Baquia,

To your quote on the quest for knowledge you can add this one:

“To strive to obtain a more adequate understanding of the significance of Baha’u'llah’s stupendous Revelation must … remain the first obligation and the object of the constant endeavour of each one of its loyal adherents.”
Shoghi Effendi: World Order of Baha’u'llah, p 100

Steve, I must admit I’m disappointed in your lack of interest in engaging in a discussion with me. [quote]Feel free to believe that, but it puts you in the company of Baha’i zealots and fundamentalists.[/quote]This kind of response is a classic example of the bandwagon fallacy. My argument was that to reject the authority of the UHJ is to reject the authority of Bahá’u'lláh (who, by his authority, confers upon them their infallibility). Instead of actually addressing my point, you chose instead to casually dismiss my point. You invoked “we-don’t-think like-that-’round-these-parts” language to stand in place of an actual argument. But by doing this, your response blatantly begs the question of whether the so-called “Bahá’í zealots and fundamentalists” actually have it right. In fact, I think that they do. That’s why I left the religion. I find that they are far more honest to the scripture than those who filter out the bits they don’t like.[quote]As far as I’m concerned, the whole infallibility-means-propositionally-inerrant story-line is a gross misunderstanding perpetuated by the ignorant. You seem you think it’s a mainstram Baha’i belief.[/quote]Steve, can you actually justify your understanding of infallibility as something other than propositional inerrancy? I’ve never actually had anyone who disagrees with this understanding of infallibility actually do that for me. They all merely assert, in so many words, that that isn’t what it means.

More generously, I think that these people ignore the extent to which the underlying Bahá’í philosophy adopts a eudaimonistic conception of the Good that takes it for granted that knowledge is necessary and sufficient to be good. Being free from sin, under this conception, means being free from factual error (and vice versa). The two are interchangeable for the eadaimonist.[quote]The argument that “Baha’is are into eugenics” comes from you, not the Baha’i Faith. I applied your argument that this is so, then realised that pro-gay marriage and civil union folks, of which I’m one, are essentially doing the same thing. If the Baha’is are into eugenics, then lots of others meet the same criteria. Simple as that. [/quote]
Sigh. I give up. Your argument was a complete non-sequitur. I attempted to show this twice. And you skipped over it both times. Instead, you chose to merely assert without the least additional argument that the charge of eugenics leads to absurd other conclusions. It doesn’t. (What is asserted without argument may equally be denied without argument.)
[quote]But let’s suppose you’re right, and the House doesn’t believe there’s a genetic component to homosexuality. Let’s also suppose that the Bahá’í writings rally do work work under the assumption that homosexuality is something you can “choose” away. Under those assumptions, the possibility that the Baha’is are consciously carrying out any form of eugenics drops to nil. Remember the definition:[/quote]Good! An actual argument!

I was anticipating this. I think it’s fair to say (in agreement with you) that the fear of the Bahá’í authorities in their condemnation of homosexuality is not that homosexuality will be passed on to future generations by some genetic component. What I think you are igonring is the fear that homosexuality will get in the way of good breeding habits. This is expressed in passages like the following:[quote]The Bahá’í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá’ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control. (Shoghi Effendi)[/quote][quote]“As to the problem of birth control. Neither Bahá’u'lláh nor ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has revealed anything direct or explicit regarding this question. But the Bahá’í Teachings, when carefully studied imply that such current conceptions like birth control, if not necessarily wrong and immoral in principle, have nevertheless to be discarded as constituting a real danger to the very foundation of our social life. For Bahá’u'lláh explicitly reveals in His Book of Laws that the very purpose of marriage is the procreation of children who, when grown up, will be able to know God and to recognize and observe His Commandments and Laws as revealed through His Messengers. Marriage is thus, according to the Bahá’í Teachings, primarily a social and moral act. It has purpose which transcends the immediate personal needs and interests of the parties… (Shoghi Effendi)[/quote][quote]Birth control, however, when exercised in order to deliberately prevent the procreation of any children is against the Spirit of the Law of Bahá’u'lláh, which defines the primary purpose of marriage to be the rearing of children and their spiritual training in the Cause. The Universal House of Justice will have to consider this issue and give its verdict upon it.(Shoghi Effendi)[/quote]And so on… Combine that with the following kind of language:[quote]It is important to hold regular Bahá’í children’s classes to give the children a thorough grounding in knowledge of the teachings and history of the Faith, to imbue them with its spirit, to establish loving ties between them and to provide them with that firm foundation in the Faith which will enable them to grow up as staunch and enlightened servants of Bahá’u'lláh. (Universal House of Justice)[/quote][quote]Enter into wedlock,
O people, that ye may bring forth one who will make
mention of Me amid My servants. This is My bidding
unto you; hold fast to it as an assistance to yourselves. (Bahá’u'lláh)[/quote]And one gets an idea of where this argument is going: The fear isn’t that homosexuality might be passed on genetically; but rather, that it blocks the reproduction of little future Bahá’ís! There is an explicit and curious obsession in the Bahá’í Faith with genetic purity. For example:[quote]…there is nothing in our teachings about this, therefore there is no objection to having a baby by means of artificial insemination as long as your husband is the father of it. (Shoghi Effendi)[/quote]And:[quote]While artificial insemination is a very different process from in-vitro fertilization, the principle enunciated by the Guardian is the same, namely, that to be acceptable to Bahá’ís the egg cell of the wife should be fertilized by the sperm of the husband in the procedure. (The Universal House of Justice)[/quote]Why this restriction on where the sperm can come from? Why demand that the children of Bahá’ís share the genes of their parents? What is so special about the genes of Bahá’ís that they should need to avoid all these alternatives?

Steve, I must admit I’m disappointed in your lack of interest in engaging in a discussion with me. [quote]Feel free to believe that, but it puts you in the company of Baha’i zealots and fundamentalists.[/quote]This kind of response is a classic example of the bandwagon fallacy. My argument was that to reject the authority of the UHJ is to reject the authority of Bahá’u'lláh (who, by his authority, confers upon them their infallibility). Instead of actually addressing my point, you chose instead to casually dismiss my point. You invoked “we-don’t-think like-that-’round-these-parts” language to stand in place of an actual argument. But by doing this, your response blatantly begs the question of whether the so-called “Bahá’í zealots and fundamentalists” actually have it right. In fact, I think that they do. That’s why I left the religion. I find that they are far more honest to the scripture than those who filter out the bits they don’t like.[quote]As far as I’m concerned, the whole infallibility-means-propositionally-inerrant story-line is a gross misunderstanding perpetuated by the ignorant. You seem you think it’s a mainstram Baha’i belief.[/quote]Steve, can you actually justify your understanding of infallibility as something other than propositional inerrancy? I’ve never actually had anyone who disagrees with this understanding of infallibility actually do that for me. They all merely assert, in so many words, that that isn’t what it means.

More generously, I think that these people ignore the extent to which the underlying Bahá’í philosophy adopts a eudaimonistic conception of the Good that takes it for granted that knowledge is necessary and sufficient to be good. Being free from sin, under this conception, means being free from factual error (and vice versa). The two are interchangeable for the eadaimonist.[quote]The argument that “Baha’is are into eugenics” comes from you, not the Baha’i Faith. I applied your argument that this is so, then realised that pro-gay marriage and civil union folks, of which I’m one, are essentially doing the same thing. If the Baha’is are into eugenics, then lots of others meet the same criteria. Simple as that. [/quote]
Sigh. I give up. Your argument was a complete non-sequitur. I attempted to show this twice. And you skipped over it both times. Instead, you chose to merely assert without the least additional argument that the charge of eugenics leads to absurd other conclusions. It doesn’t. (What is asserted without argument may equally be denied without argument.)
[quote]But let’s suppose you’re right, and the House doesn’t believe there’s a genetic component to homosexuality. Let’s also suppose that the Bahá’í writings rally do work work under the assumption that homosexuality is something you can “choose” away. Under those assumptions, the possibility that the Baha’is are consciously carrying out any form of eugenics drops to nil. Remember the definition:[/quote]Good! An actual argument!

I was anticipating this. I think it’s fair to say (in agreement with you) that the fear of the Bahá’í authorities in their condemnation of homosexuality is not that homosexuality will be passed on to future generations by some genetic component. What I think you are igonring is the fear that homosexuality will get in the way of good breeding habits. This is expressed in passages like the following:[quote]The Bahá’í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá’ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control. (Shoghi Effendi)[/quote][quote]“As to the problem of birth control. Neither Bahá’u'lláh nor ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has revealed anything direct or explicit regarding this question. But the Bahá’í Teachings, when carefully studied imply that such current conceptions like birth control, if not necessarily wrong and immoral in principle, have nevertheless to be discarded as constituting a real danger to the very foundation of our social life. For Bahá’u'lláh explicitly reveals in His Book of Laws that the very purpose of marriage is the procreation of children who, when grown up, will be able to know God and to recognize and observe His Commandments and Laws as revealed through His Messengers. Marriage is thus, according to the Bahá’í Teachings, primarily a social and moral act. It has purpose which transcends the immediate personal needs and interests of the parties… (Shoghi Effendi)[/quote][quote]Birth control, however, when exercised in order to deliberately prevent the procreation of any children is against the Spirit of the Law of Bahá’u'lláh, which defines the primary purpose of marriage to be the rearing of children and their spiritual training in the Cause. The Universal House of Justice will have to consider this issue and give its verdict upon it.(Shoghi Effendi)[/quote]And so on… Combine that with the following kind of language:[quote]It is important to hold regular Bahá’í children’s classes to give the children a thorough grounding in knowledge of the teachings and history of the Faith, to imbue them with its spirit, to establish loving ties between them and to provide them with that firm foundation in the Faith which will enable them to grow up as staunch and enlightened servants of Bahá’u'lláh. (Universal House of Justice)[/quote][quote]Enter into wedlock,
O people, that ye may bring forth one who will make
mention of Me amid My servants. This is My bidding
unto you; hold fast to it as an assistance to yourselves. (Bahá’u'lláh)[/quote]And one gets an idea of where this argument is going: The fear isn’t that homosexuality might be passed on genetically; but rather, that it blocks the reproduction of little future Bahá’ís! There is an explicit and curious obsession in the Bahá’í Faith with genetic purity. For example:[quote]…there is nothing in our teachings about this, therefore there is no objection to having a baby by means of artificial insemination as long as your husband is the father of it. (Shoghi Effendi)[/quote]And:[quote]While artificial insemination is a very different process from in-vitro fertilization, the principle enunciated by the Guardian is the same, namely, that to be acceptable to Bahá’ís the egg cell of the wife should be fertilized by the sperm of the husband in the procedure. (The Universal House of Justice)[/quote]Why this restriction on where the sperm can come from? Why demand that the children of Bahá’ís share the genes of their parents? What is so special about the genes of Bahá’ís that they should need to avoid all these alternatives?

Amanda, you quote:

“Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, is spiritually condemned.”

This means that homosexuality in the same way as extramarital heterosexuality or back-biting and slander, not praying, etc have spiritual implications. Shoghi Effendi informs us that adultry impairs the progress of our souls. Beyond these spiritual implications, these behaviours might also have legal and social implications and be socially and penally condemned.

You affirm:
“Homosexuality is an innate quality of human existance, just the same as heterosexuality is.”

You compare our sexual orientation to skin colour…

Look up any publication on the origins of homosexuality; no author would advance the idea that _all_ homosexual behaviours are innate. They can be genetical, hormonal, educational, as mentored by the Spartiates, and even arise temporarily in circumstances of isolation.

As for your “disgust” for people like myself who love and respect the UHJ, an institution that you compare to the Nazis… all I can say is that I am surrounded by people whom I love and who love the pope;

I would never ever hold feelings of “disgust” for humans who love another person or for an institution on the grounds that the said institution holds an opinion different to mine.

Amanda, you quote:

“Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, is spiritually condemned.”

This means that homosexuality in the same way as extramarital heterosexuality or back-biting and slander, not praying, etc have spiritual implications. Shoghi Effendi informs us that adultry impairs the progress of our souls. Beyond these spiritual implications, these behaviours might also have legal and social implications and be socially and penally condemned.

You affirm:
“Homosexuality is an innate quality of human existance, just the same as heterosexuality is.”

You compare our sexual orientation to skin colour…

Look up any publication on the origins of homosexuality; no author would advance the idea that _all_ homosexual behaviours are innate. They can be genetical, hormonal, educational, as mentored by the Spartiates, and even arise temporarily in circumstances of isolation.

As for your “disgust” for people like myself who love and respect the UHJ, an institution that you compare to the Nazis… all I can say is that I am surrounded by people whom I love and who love the pope;

I would never ever hold feelings of “disgust” for humans who love another person or for an institution on the grounds that the said institution holds an opinion different to mine.

Farrhawn,

You can find many references to homosexuality by the Bahá’í writings here: http://mavaddat.livejournal.com/21160.html

In summary fashion, they various Bahá’í authorities call homosexuality a “shameful sexual aberration”, “immoral”, “against nature”, an “affliction”, “a great burden”, a “handicap”, a “sexual abnormality”, “spiritually condemned”, “highly condemned”, “a great trial and cause of suffering”, “an aberration subject to treatment”, “a distortion of true human nature”, “a problem to be overcome”, and yes, “a disability”.

Therefore, to say that the Bahá’í writings call homosexuality a “spiritual disease” or a “spiritual handicap”, although not verbatim, would be more than fair in capturing their meaning and word usage in other places.

Farrhawn,

You can find many references to homosexuality by the Bahá’í writings here: http://mavaddat.livejournal.com/21160.html

In summary fashion, they various Bahá’í authorities call homosexuality a “shameful sexual aberration”, “immoral”, “against nature”, an “affliction”, “a great burden”, a “handicap”, a “sexual abnormality”, “spiritually condemned”, “highly condemned”, “a great trial and cause of suffering”, “an aberration subject to treatment”, “a distortion of true human nature”, “a problem to be overcome”, and yes, “a disability”.

Therefore, to say that the Bahá’í writings call homosexuality a “spiritual disease” or a “spiritual handicap”, although not verbatim, would be more than fair in capturing their meaning and word usage in other places.

Farrhawn,

In response to the rest of your post, I would ask the following questions:

What is your point?

So what?

And who cares?

Lastly, you write,[quote]I would never ever hold feelings of “disgust” for humans who love another person or for an institution on the grounds that the said institution holds an opinion different to mine.[/quote]To which I respond, Do you see me wearing a “What Would Farrhawn Do?” bracelet?

Farrhawn,

In response to the rest of your post, I would ask the following questions:

What is your point?

So what?

And who cares?

Lastly, you write,[quote]I would never ever hold feelings of “disgust” for humans who love another person or for an institution on the grounds that the said institution holds an opinion different to mine.[/quote]To which I respond, Do you see me wearing a “What Would Farrhawn Do?” bracelet?

[quote comment="46540"]I am going to go run away and hide among the followers of Hazrat Inayat Khan. That is what I am going to do.[/quote]

Excellent choice. They are fine people.

From their site:

“The Sufi Order International is not a ‘guru-centered’ school; no one is considered infallible.”

They have many gay and lesbian members.

Amanda: thanks for the petition. The phrase “a snowball’s chance in hell” comes to mind, but what do I know?

Mavaddat: as you know, many people prefer intellectual dissonance when presented with verifiable evidence, evidence that afflicts the comfortable, though they never acknowledge it. Gilding the lily and parsing the imparsible become exercises in cognitive restructuring. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

F. Yazdani wrote: “In conclusion, I see no scientific grounds for choosing which sexual behaviour is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’.”

That’s because you don’t want to see them, even though I (and others on this and other forums) have repeatedly pointed them out to you. Stable, consensual adult same-sex relationships based on mutuality, reciprocity, and respect are a threat to religious hegemony over patriarchal society because they challenge the social constructions assigned to the definitions “male” and “female.” Homophobia, as a reaction to the violation of gender norms, attempts to ensure that people do not violate the gender roles central to the male power embodied in patriarchal religious institutions. It is an attempt to prevent lesbians and gays from making public what others find so politically and socially subversive. Many religious communities are homophobic, but the Baha’i Faith is especially so because it invokes pseudo-science while maintaining a pretense of tolerance. At least communities like the Southern Baptists are honestly homophobic rather than duplicitously so.

“The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don’t hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others’ intolerance – especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide – then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated.” – Bren Carlill

[quote comment="46540"]I am going to go run away and hide among the followers of Hazrat Inayat Khan. That is what I am going to do.[/quote]

Excellent choice. They are fine people.

From their site:

“The Sufi Order International is not a ‘guru-centered’ school; no one is considered infallible.”

They have many gay and lesbian members.

Amanda: thanks for the petition. The phrase “a snowball’s chance in hell” comes to mind, but what do I know?

Mavaddat: as you know, many people prefer intellectual dissonance when presented with verifiable evidence, evidence that afflicts the comfortable, though they never acknowledge it. Gilding the lily and parsing the imparsible become exercises in cognitive restructuring. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

F. Yazdani wrote: “In conclusion, I see no scientific grounds for choosing which sexual behaviour is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’.”

That’s because you don’t want to see them, even though I (and others on this and other forums) have repeatedly pointed them out to you. Stable, consensual adult same-sex relationships based on mutuality, reciprocity, and respect are a threat to religious hegemony over patriarchal society because they challenge the social constructions assigned to the definitions “male” and “female.” Homophobia, as a reaction to the violation of gender norms, attempts to ensure that people do not violate the gender roles central to the male power embodied in patriarchal religious institutions. It is an attempt to prevent lesbians and gays from making public what others find so politically and socially subversive. Many religious communities are homophobic, but the Baha’i Faith is especially so because it invokes pseudo-science while maintaining a pretense of tolerance. At least communities like the Southern Baptists are honestly homophobic rather than duplicitously so.

“The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don’t hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others’ intolerance – especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide – then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated.” – Bren Carlill

[quote comment=""][quote comment="46540"]I am going to go run away and hide among the followers of Hazrat Inayat Khan. That is what I am going to do.[/quote]

I was partly being facetious. But Inayat Khan’s Universal Sufism is of interest to me because its prophetic-universalism isn’t paired to dogma, although I’m not sure it could be called a replacement-faith because it identifies itself less as a faith-community and more as a philosophical approach. In any case, part of my soul dearly, dearly longs to commit to the Baha’i Faith, damn the consequences. But I have too acute a fear of the cognitive dissonance associated with practicing a religion so firmly out of step with my conviction on this and several other points. Even though the Faith matches my worldview almost exactly, in this and a few small other respects the difference is too great to ignore, and methinks said conflicts would outweigh the nagging feeling of longing (“Damn, I wish I had that declaration card! I wish I were one of these people!”) that will pop up every time I attend a Baha’i function or whenever Naw-Ruz rolls around, to which it appears I am now inevitably consigned.

As to the roiling debate presently taking place– I find it rather too overwhelming to participate, being uncertain that I’ve anything to add which would make a positive difference to the proceedings. The long and the short of it is that I believe the Baha’i prohibition on homosexuality to be fundamentally in conflict not merely with its stated devotion to recognizing scientific truth, but with its emphasis on universal human dignity; and that I would classify the Baha’i vision for the future condition of gays as having at least some elements of eugenicist thinking. As to the rest– I am far too tired to proffer arguments in favour of some commenters’ stances and against others, nor have I the stamina at present to express them with any more eloquence or insight than has already been displayed.

Oh, and Steve– I’m a reader of your wife’s site. I found it before this one. I’ve read of her case extensively, and her maltreatment by the Administration was a leading factor in my decision to explore further before committing to the Faith.

[quote comment=""][quote comment="46540"]I am going to go run away and hide among the followers of Hazrat Inayat Khan. That is what I am going to do.[/quote]

I was partly being facetious. But Inayat Khan’s Universal Sufism is of interest to me because its prophetic-universalism isn’t paired to dogma, although I’m not sure it could be called a replacement-faith because it identifies itself less as a faith-community and more as a philosophical approach. In any case, part of my soul dearly, dearly longs to commit to the Baha’i Faith, damn the consequences. But I have too acute a fear of the cognitive dissonance associated with practicing a religion so firmly out of step with my conviction on this and several other points. Even though the Faith matches my worldview almost exactly, in this and a few small other respects the difference is too great to ignore, and methinks said conflicts would outweigh the nagging feeling of longing (“Damn, I wish I had that declaration card! I wish I were one of these people!”) that will pop up every time I attend a Baha’i function or whenever Naw-Ruz rolls around, to which it appears I am now inevitably consigned.

As to the roiling debate presently taking place– I find it rather too overwhelming to participate, being uncertain that I’ve anything to add which would make a positive difference to the proceedings. The long and the short of it is that I believe the Baha’i prohibition on homosexuality to be fundamentally in conflict not merely with its stated devotion to recognizing scientific truth, but with its emphasis on universal human dignity; and that I would classify the Baha’i vision for the future condition of gays as having at least some elements of eugenicist thinking. As to the rest– I am far too tired to proffer arguments in favour of some commenters’ stances and against others, nor have I the stamina at present to express them with any more eloquence or insight than has already been displayed.

Oh, and Steve– I’m a reader of your wife’s site. I found it before this one. I’ve read of her case extensively, and her maltreatment by the Administration was a leading factor in my decision to explore further before committing to the Faith.

Mavaddat,

you write:
Therefore, to say that the Bahá’í writings call homosexuality a “spiritual disease” or a “spiritual handicap”, although not verbatim, would be more than fair in capturing their meaning and word usage in other places.

There is a difference to me: the Baha’i teachings clearly refer to disease not as an impairment of the soul itself, but as an obstacle hindering these manifestation of the soul. You are obviously deforming Baha’i teachings to suit your theories.

Mavaddat,

you write:
Therefore, to say that the Bahá’í writings call homosexuality a “spiritual disease” or a “spiritual handicap”, although not verbatim, would be more than fair in capturing their meaning and word usage in other places.

There is a difference to me: the Baha’i teachings clearly refer to disease not as an impairment of the soul itself, but as an obstacle hindering these manifestation of the soul. You are obviously deforming Baha’i teachings to suit your theories.

Andrew,

you write:
“F. Yazdani wrote: “In conclusion, I see no scientific grounds for choosing which sexual behaviour is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’.That’s because you don’t want to see them, even though I (and others on this and other forums) have repeatedly pointed them out to you.”

Andrew, you point out to sociological standards. Science accepts these standards provides statistical data, but cannot decide what is in the interest of that society. If you want to grow mulberries, silk worms are a “disease”. If you want to make silk, the mulberry tree becomes fodder. Science is an instrument that serves a social ideal.

Andrew,

you write:
“F. Yazdani wrote: “In conclusion, I see no scientific grounds for choosing which sexual behaviour is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’.That’s because you don’t want to see them, even though I (and others on this and other forums) have repeatedly pointed them out to you.”

Andrew, you point out to sociological standards. Science accepts these standards provides statistical data, but cannot decide what is in the interest of that society. If you want to grow mulberries, silk worms are a “disease”. If you want to make silk, the mulberry tree becomes fodder. Science is an instrument that serves a social ideal.

Anewlifestirring, I mean, Farhan,

Here are a couple of places the authoritative Baha’i writings call homosexuality a “handicap:”

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)

“Homosexuality is highly condemned and often a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá’í. Any individual so afflicted must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 6 October 1956)

These quotations may look familiar to you as “Anewlifestirring” has asked me for them before repeatedly and I have cited them before (repeatedly) on YouTube for him. You may recall my posting the full quotations (with citations) next to the first of 2 videos I made in response to Anewlifestirring’s questions. But perhaps you are unfamiliar with his work. I hope you find the citations helpful.

You wrote:
“As to your “Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, is spiritually condemned.”

That was me quoting the writings. Word for word. That wasn’t “mine.”

You go on:
“This means that homosexuality in the same way as extramarital heterosexuality or back-biting and slander, not praying, etc have spiritual implications.”

On what grounds do you make this interpretation? The only time in Baha’i history anyone has had the authority to state what a word “means” regarding homosexuality was when the guardian said that “peaderasty” meant “homosexuality.” Do you have a similar privilege? Because without such an authoritative privilege we are left with the simple meaning of the words. The passage does not say “EXTRAMARITAL homosexuality is condemned,” so it is NOT like the condemnation of “extramarital HETEROSEXUALITY.” The condemnation is of homosexuality- hook, line and sinker. Even if it wasn’t, even if it was a condemnation of certain sex acts only, it would still be an unjust and immoral condemnation. It has no basis in justice, you see. It is arbitrary. Andrew’s description of why it is threatening to patriarchy is why it is condemned in the Baha’i writings. Not because it is actually immoral. If it is actually immoral, then, please, Farhan, tell me WHY IT IS IMMORAL? What about it specifically makes it IMMORAL? And what makes heterosexuality MORAL?

I agree with you that homosexuality has an element of being socially constructed as well as biologically determined. It is BOTH. Just like heterosexuality. The point is, it’s not immoral.

You also bizarrely write,
“As for your “disgust” for people like myself who love and respect the UHJ, an institution that you compare to the Nazis… all I can say is that I am surrounded by people whom I love and who love the pope;”

Farhan…once again you have failed to understand the meaning of my words in a VERY big way. I haven’t said ANYTHING about having disgust for anyone or anything. You are pulling that out of thin air. I replied to Steve about his mischaracterization of Mavaddat’s disgust. Mavaddat’s disgust seemed to me to be with the content of certain passages and disgust with the practice of blindly respecting and offering adulation to the author of those passages without any regard for the MERIT of those passages. Do you follow? That means 1) I never said I am disgusted by anything, or any people, or by people who adulate the UHJ 2) uh…Mavaddat never said he is disgusted by any people, only at the words of the UHJ in this instance and at the practice he described (although maybe he is disgusted by certain people. He’d have the right. You’d have to ask him.) 3) You are making that up. Maybe you are just confusing me with Mavaddat, which I will take as a compliment. But he didn’t say that either.

And again, I didn’t compare the UHJ to the Nazis, although on the point of whether or not they advocate an approach to homosexuality similar in philosophy to the Nazis I certainly could. That philosophy being eugenic. I said the Baha’i approach on this issue WAS “eugenic,” just as the Nazis approach was. It’s shocking, isn’t it? Unfortunately it’s true.

And before you respond, which no doubt you will, please keep in mine my previously stated conversation boundaries with you. I am not going to answer any comments from you that are obviously just pointless repetition or underhanded. If you muster a fresh or sincere reply, I will reply in kind.

Thank you.

Anewlifestirring, I mean, Farhan,

Here are a couple of places the authoritative Baha’i writings call homosexuality a “handicap:”

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious soul. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)

“Homosexuality is highly condemned and often a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá’í. Any individual so afflicted must, through prayer, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 6 October 1956)

These quotations may look familiar to you as “Anewlifestirring” has asked me for them before repeatedly and I have cited them before (repeatedly) on YouTube for him. You may recall my posting the full quotations (with citations) next to the first of 2 videos I made in response to Anewlifestirring’s questions. But perhaps you are unfamiliar with his work. I hope you find the citations helpful.

You wrote:
“As to your “Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, is spiritually condemned.”

That was me quoting the writings. Word for word. That wasn’t “mine.”

You go on:
“This means that homosexuality in the same way as extramarital heterosexuality or back-biting and slander, not praying, etc have spiritual implications.”

On what grounds do you make this interpretation? The only time in Baha’i history anyone has had the authority to state what a word “means” regarding homosexuality was when the guardian said that “peaderasty” meant “homosexuality.” Do you have a similar privilege? Because without such an authoritative privilege we are left with the simple meaning of the words. The passage does not say “EXTRAMARITAL homosexuality is condemned,” so it is NOT like the condemnation of “extramarital HETEROSEXUALITY.” The condemnation is of homosexuality- hook, line and sinker. Even if it wasn’t, even if it was a condemnation of certain sex acts only, it would still be an unjust and immoral condemnation. It has no basis in justice, you see. It is arbitrary. Andrew’s description of why it is threatening to patriarchy is why it is condemned in the Baha’i writings. Not because it is actually immoral. If it is actually immoral, then, please, Farhan, tell me WHY IT IS IMMORAL? What about it specifically makes it IMMORAL? And what makes heterosexuality MORAL?

I agree with you that homosexuality has an element of being socially constructed as well as biologically determined. It is BOTH. Just like heterosexuality. The point is, it’s not immoral.

You also bizarrely write,
“As for your “disgust” for people like myself who love and respect the UHJ, an institution that you compare to the Nazis… all I can say is that I am surrounded by people whom I love and who love the pope;”

Farhan…once again you have failed to understand the meaning of my words in a VERY big way. I haven’t said ANYTHING about having disgust for anyone or anything. You are pulling that out of thin air. I replied to Steve about his mischaracterization of Mavaddat’s disgust. Mavaddat’s disgust seemed to me to be with the content of certain passages and disgust with the practice of blindly respecting and offering adulation to the author of those passages without any regard for the MERIT of those passages. Do you follow? That means 1) I never said I am disgusted by anything, or any people, or by people who adulate the UHJ 2) uh…Mavaddat never said he is disgusted by any people, only at the words of the UHJ in this instance and at the practice he described (although maybe he is disgusted by certain people. He’d have the right. You’d have to ask him.) 3) You are making that up. Maybe you are just confusing me with Mavaddat, which I will take as a compliment. But he didn’t say that either.

And again, I didn’t compare the UHJ to the Nazis, although on the point of whether or not they advocate an approach to homosexuality similar in philosophy to the Nazis I certainly could. That philosophy being eugenic. I said the Baha’i approach on this issue WAS “eugenic,” just as the Nazis approach was. It’s shocking, isn’t it? Unfortunately it’s true.

And before you respond, which no doubt you will, please keep in mine my previously stated conversation boundaries with you. I am not going to answer any comments from you that are obviously just pointless repetition or underhanded. If you muster a fresh or sincere reply, I will reply in kind.

Thank you.

Mavaddat,

I visited your blog. You invite Baha’is to discussion;
apparently when the discussion turns contrary to your opinions you become irrelevant…

If the moderator feels that my comments here are unwanted, I will stop posting them. Meanwhile the exchanges here are posted for all to see.

Mavaddat,

I visited your blog. You invite Baha’is to discussion;
apparently when the discussion turns contrary to your opinions you become irrelevant…

If the moderator feels that my comments here are unwanted, I will stop posting them. Meanwhile the exchanges here are posted for all to see.

Farhan…

you wrote
“Mavaddat,

you write:
Therefore, to say that the Bahá’í writings call homosexuality a “spiritual disease” or a “spiritual handicap”, although not verbatim, would be more than fair in capturing their meaning and word usage in other places.

There is a difference to me: the Baha’i teachings clearly refer to disease not as an impairment of the soul itself, but as an obstacle hindering these manifestation of the soul. You are obviously deforming Baha’i teachings to suit your theories.”

IT IS AN ACTUAL QUOTATION. Please see the citations I have given you repeatedly.

Farhan…

you wrote
“Mavaddat,

you write:
Therefore, to say that the Bahá’í writings call homosexuality a “spiritual disease” or a “spiritual handicap”, although not verbatim, would be more than fair in capturing their meaning and word usage in other places.

There is a difference to me: the Baha’i teachings clearly refer to disease not as an impairment of the soul itself, but as an obstacle hindering these manifestation of the soul. You are obviously deforming Baha’i teachings to suit your theories.”

IT IS AN ACTUAL QUOTATION. Please see the citations I have given you repeatedly.

Amanda,

You quote writings saying that homosexuality is a handicap, but on your petition you claim that the writings refer to it as a “spiritual handicap”. This is pure invention.

Contrary to your beliefs, the word “handicap” refers more often to an OUTER obstacle than to an inner disability; according to the M-W:

1. Sports & Games
a. A race or contest in which advantages or compensations are given different contestants to equalize the chances of winning.
• a circumstance that makes progress or success difficult
b. Such an advantage or penalty.
2. A physical or mental disability
3. A hindrance.
tr.v. hand·i·capped, hand·i·cap·ping, hand·i·caps
1. Sports & Games To assign handicaps or a handicap to (a contestant).
2. To cause to be at a disadvantage; impede.
act as an impediment to : lack of funding has handicapped the development of research.
place (someone) at a disadvantage : without a good set of notes you will handicap yourself when it comes to exams.
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from the phrase hand in cap; originally a pastime in which one person claimed an article belonging to another and offered something in exchange…

Amanda,

You quote writings saying that homosexuality is a handicap, but on your petition you claim that the writings refer to it as a “spiritual handicap”. This is pure invention.

Contrary to your beliefs, the word “handicap” refers more often to an OUTER obstacle than to an inner disability; according to the M-W:

1. Sports & Games
a. A race or contest in which advantages or compensations are given different contestants to equalize the chances of winning.
• a circumstance that makes progress or success difficult
b. Such an advantage or penalty.
2. A physical or mental disability
3. A hindrance.
tr.v. hand·i·capped, hand·i·cap·ping, hand·i·caps
1. Sports & Games To assign handicaps or a handicap to (a contestant).
2. To cause to be at a disadvantage; impede.
act as an impediment to : lack of funding has handicapped the development of research.
place (someone) at a disadvantage : without a good set of notes you will handicap yourself when it comes to exams.
ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from the phrase hand in cap; originally a pastime in which one person claimed an article belonging to another and offered something in exchange…

Fearhawn wrote,
[quote]There is a difference to me: the Baha’i teachings clearly refer to disease not as an impairment of the soul itself, but as an obstacle hindering these manifestation of the soul.[/quote]
I have no problem with this interpretation of “disease”. It is as reprehensible to me as any other. Homosexuality is not a “disease” in any sense of the word. On the other hand, trying to reason with Fowrhein may induce madness.[quote]You are obviously deforming Baha’i teachings to suit your theories.[/quote]Yes! Obviously.

Fearhawn wrote,
[quote]There is a difference to me: the Baha’i teachings clearly refer to disease not as an impairment of the soul itself, but as an obstacle hindering these manifestation of the soul.[/quote]
I have no problem with this interpretation of “disease”. It is as reprehensible to me as any other. Homosexuality is not a “disease” in any sense of the word. On the other hand, trying to reason with Fowrhein may induce madness.[quote]You are obviously deforming Baha’i teachings to suit your theories.[/quote]Yes! Obviously.

Hi Amanda,

Thanks for explaining why you think the Baha’i marital/physical teachings generally fall in line with a eugenics paradigm. At that level I can certainly accept what you are saying. I think it just required some explanation.

I stand by what I said about Mavaddat’s use of the word “disgusting”. I merely pointing out to him that he originally used it in a way that told me he is disgusted by people who respect the House. Here it is again:

“I honestly don’t understand how anyone could call himself or herself a Bahá’í when such an appellation would necessarily mean his respect — much less his adulation — of the institution who uttered those words. Disgusting.”

Mavaddat can tell us whether he stands by the original statement or the later one. The two statements appear to me to be saying different things.

Hi Mavaddat,

I understand your argument — I’ve heard it from dozens of zealots over many years. You’re correct. I don’t want to engage in a discussion with you over that argument. It’s because I don’t accept the premises of your argument.

I don’t think that I am begging the question. Perhaps the link will help explain why.

[quote]Steve, can you actually justify your understanding of infallibility as something other than propositional inerrancy?[/squote]

Sure. Alison’s infallibility series.

Why do you call Farhan “Farrhawn”? I don’t get it.

ka kite
Steve

Hi Amanda,

Thanks for explaining why you think the Baha’i marital/physical teachings generally fall in line with a eugenics paradigm. At that level I can certainly accept what you are saying. I think it just required some explanation.

I stand by what I said about Mavaddat’s use of the word “disgusting”. I merely pointing out to him that he originally used it in a way that told me he is disgusted by people who respect the House. Here it is again:

“I honestly don’t understand how anyone could call himself or herself a Bahá’í when such an appellation would necessarily mean his respect — much less his adulation — of the institution who uttered those words. Disgusting.”

Mavaddat can tell us whether he stands by the original statement or the later one. The two statements appear to me to be saying different things.

Hi Mavaddat,

I understand your argument — I’ve heard it from dozens of zealots over many years. You’re correct. I don’t want to engage in a discussion with you over that argument. It’s because I don’t accept the premises of your argument.

I don’t think that I am begging the question. Perhaps the link will help explain why.

[quote]Steve, can you actually justify your understanding of infallibility as something other than propositional inerrancy?[/squote]

Sure. Alison’s infallibility series.

Why do you call Farhan “Farrhawn”? I don’t get it.

ka kite
Steve

Hello, Andrew.

You are right, of course, about the “snowballs chance in hell” of the petition actually being effective in “bringing about” the UHJ changing their tune about this.

BUT, I decided to do it anyway for a few reasons. One, I never have. Two, it seemed neighborly. Three, as I am not a Baha’i, I do not have administrative rights that the UHJ could remove for publicly challenging it on this point. I am in a position to offer this service to Baha’is. It has been my experience that MANY good-hearted Baha’is disagree with the UHJs stance on homosexuality and even Shoghi Efendi’s interpretation of the Aqdas. Very few of these Baha’is have written to the UHJ about it. The majority SAY that “one” should write to the UHJ if “one” has a problem with it. So, I have written on their behalf and created a very easy way for them to communicate their feelings to the UHJ. Baha’is in “good standing” who sign it are in a very strong moral position to take a stand, whether it is successful or not. This position comes from the fact that they can say, “No. Not in my name. This is wrong.” And more so, that they are willing to risk THEIR OWN administrative rights in solidarity with their gay Baha’i brothers and sisters who are deprived of administrative rights. The impact of the civil rights movement in the Southern US was largely because people became willing to challenge unjust laws by peacefully, non-violently violating them- and then PUBLICLY suffering the consequences. If any Baha’is are disenrolled or lose their rights for speaking up, then in the public eye the Baha’i institutional view of homosexuality is exposed or what it is. Unjust.

The other reason I’m doing it, to be perfectly honest, is in the hope that “non-Baha’is” will read it and become informed. As the rest of the world becomes less homophobic, and adheres to certain standards of human rights, they will view and judge the Baha’i Faith accordingly. The PR for the Faith works hard to hide this issue from the public, and that is disengenuous. These particular discriminatory writings and policies should be public knowledge.

Hello, Andrew.

You are right, of course, about the “snowballs chance in hell” of the petition actually being effective in “bringing about” the UHJ changing their tune about this.

BUT, I decided to do it anyway for a few reasons. One, I never have. Two, it seemed neighborly. Three, as I am not a Baha’i, I do not have administrative rights that the UHJ could remove for publicly challenging it on this point. I am in a position to offer this service to Baha’is. It has been my experience that MANY good-hearted Baha’is disagree with the UHJs stance on homosexuality and even Shoghi Efendi’s interpretation of the Aqdas. Very few of these Baha’is have written to the UHJ about it. The majority SAY that “one” should write to the UHJ if “one” has a problem with it. So, I have written on their behalf and created a very easy way for them to communicate their feelings to the UHJ. Baha’is in “good standing” who sign it are in a very strong moral position to take a stand, whether it is successful or not. This position comes from the fact that they can say, “No. Not in my name. This is wrong.” And more so, that they are willing to risk THEIR OWN administrative rights in solidarity with their gay Baha’i brothers and sisters who are deprived of administrative rights. The impact of the civil rights movement in the Southern US was largely because people became willing to challenge unjust laws by peacefully, non-violently violating them- and then PUBLICLY suffering the consequences. If any Baha’is are disenrolled or lose their rights for speaking up, then in the public eye the Baha’i institutional view of homosexuality is exposed or what it is. Unjust.

The other reason I’m doing it, to be perfectly honest, is in the hope that “non-Baha’is” will read it and become informed. As the rest of the world becomes less homophobic, and adheres to certain standards of human rights, they will view and judge the Baha’i Faith accordingly. The PR for the Faith works hard to hide this issue from the public, and that is disengenuous. These particular discriminatory writings and policies should be public knowledge.

Steve wrote,[quote]Mavaddat can tell us whether he stands by the original statement or the later one. The two statements appear to me to be saying different things.[/quote]I’m not sure what you mean by the “later one”, but I’ll gladly clarify. I find disgusting the suggestion of the UHJ (as I understand it) that homosexuality is a species of sexual attraction to random objects. The UHJ is clearly suggesting that homosexuality is morally equivalent to any other kind of sexual attraction (other than attraction to a member of the opposite sex). They want us to believe that homosexuality is morally on par with incest, necrophilia, zoophilia, and so on. Consider the tight fit of my understanding with Farhan’s own interpretation of the same quotation:[quote]This quote refers the object of attraction, the “goal” of a desire; the UHJ obviously does not refer to a homosexual person as being an “object”. The desire to various sexual stimulii includes zoophilia, necrophilia, paedophilia, fetichisme, incest, etc.[/quote]He wrongly thought my objection to the quotation was that the gay person was being referred to as an object, and then proceeded to confirm the very interpretation that I found disgusting in the first place. In other words, he unwittingly supports my interpretation while thinking he is disagreeing with me. This kind of thinking is disgusting to me.

That is what I meant. I hope I have clarified my position, but I would be happy to provide any further clarification if you so desire it.

Steve wrote,[quote]I understand your argument — I’ve heard it from dozens of zealots over many years. You’re correct. I don’t want to engage in a discussion with you over that argument. It’s because I don’t accept the premises of your argument.[/quote]I don’t get this, Steve. You don’t accept what premises? That Baha’u'llah conferred infallible authority (to administrate) on the UHJ? That he conferred a different infallible authority (to interpret) on ‘Abdu’l-Baha, who then conferred that authority on Shoghi Effendi? What is disagreeable in these premises? I really don’t get how you can be so easily dismissive. It would really be helpful to me if you could explain this to me. Seriously. I actually do want to understand.

Steve wrote,[quote post="250"]I don’t think that I am begging the question. Perhaps the link will help explain why.[/quote]
You were begging the question, and you continue to do so. To provide no reasons for your position but continue to assert its correctness is the essence of begging the question. If you look at “variations” under the link you provided me, you will see what I mean.

Steve asks,[quote]Why do you call Farhan “Farrhawn”? I don’t get it.[/quote]Oh, this is a little game we play. He calls me “Mavvadat” I call him “Farrhawn”.

Steve wrote,[quote]Mavaddat can tell us whether he stands by the original statement or the later one. The two statements appear to me to be saying different things.[/quote]I’m not sure what you mean by the “later one”, but I’ll gladly clarify. I find disgusting the suggestion of the UHJ (as I understand it) that homosexuality is a species of sexual attraction to random objects. The UHJ is clearly suggesting that homosexuality is morally equivalent to any other kind of sexual attraction (other than attraction to a member of the opposite sex). They want us to believe that homosexuality is morally on par with incest, necrophilia, zoophilia, and so on. Consider the tight fit of my understanding with Farhan’s own interpretation of the same quotation:[quote]This quote refers the object of attraction, the “goal” of a desire; the UHJ obviously does not refer to a homosexual person as being an “object”. The desire to various sexual stimulii includes zoophilia, necrophilia, paedophilia, fetichisme, incest, etc.[/quote]He wrongly thought my objection to the quotation was that the gay person was being referred to as an object, and then proceeded to confirm the very interpretation that I found disgusting in the first place. In other words, he unwittingly supports my interpretation while thinking he is disagreeing with me. This kind of thinking is disgusting to me.

That is what I meant. I hope I have clarified my position, but I would be happy to provide any further clarification if you so desire it.

Steve wrote,[quote]I understand your argument — I’ve heard it from dozens of zealots over many years. You’re correct. I don’t want to engage in a discussion with you over that argument. It’s because I don’t accept the premises of your argument.[/quote]I don’t get this, Steve. You don’t accept what premises? That Baha’u'llah conferred infallible authority (to administrate) on the UHJ? That he conferred a different infallible authority (to interpret) on ‘Abdu’l-Baha, who then conferred that authority on Shoghi Effendi? What is disagreeable in these premises? I really don’t get how you can be so easily dismissive. It would really be helpful to me if you could explain this to me. Seriously. I actually do want to understand.

Steve wrote,[quote post="250"]I don’t think that I am begging the question. Perhaps the link will help explain why.[/quote]
You were begging the question, and you continue to do so. To provide no reasons for your position but continue to assert its correctness is the essence of begging the question. If you look at “variations” under the link you provided me, you will see what I mean.

Steve asks,[quote]Why do you call Farhan “Farrhawn”? I don’t get it.[/quote]Oh, this is a little game we play. He calls me “Mavvadat” I call him “Farrhawn”.

Andrew,

A small illustration my point: “..I see no scientific grounds for choosing which sexual behaviour is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’.”

For the last 25 years I have been opposing ritual circumcisions when they have no medical purpose. Statistics have shown that there is more morbidity than benefits from this operation except in some 5% of medically justified cases.

We now have some statistical evidence (a Swedish study on clients of prostitutes in Kenya) that suggests that circumsised males are less liable to contract AIDS than uncircumcised males. The media now announce that “it is proven” that cirumcision prevents AIDS this “scientific” evidence make condoms less fashionable, which is obviously untrue. 25 years ago science was quoted saying circumcision was harmful; it is now quoted as saying it is beneficial.

Hence both science and moral standards evolve in their views.

Andrew,

A small illustration my point: “..I see no scientific grounds for choosing which sexual behaviour is ‘normal’ or ‘abnormal’.”

For the last 25 years I have been opposing ritual circumcisions when they have no medical purpose. Statistics have shown that there is more morbidity than benefits from this operation except in some 5% of medically justified cases.

We now have some statistical evidence (a Swedish study on clients of prostitutes in Kenya) that suggests that circumsised males are less liable to contract AIDS than uncircumcised males. The media now announce that “it is proven” that cirumcision prevents AIDS this “scientific” evidence make condoms less fashionable, which is obviously untrue. 25 years ago science was quoted saying circumcision was harmful; it is now quoted as saying it is beneficial.

Hence both science and moral standards evolve in their views.

[quote][quote]Steve, can you actually justify your understanding of infallibility as something other than propositional inerrancy?[/quote]Sure. Alison’s infallibility series.[/quote]Thank you, Steve.

[quote][quote]Steve, can you actually justify your understanding of infallibility as something other than propositional inerrancy?[/quote]Sure. Alison’s infallibility series.[/quote]Thank you, Steve.

Farhan Yazdani,

I will re-quote the writings, but this time with capitalization of the word, “soul,” okay? Let’s see if it works…

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious SOUL. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through PRAYER, a SOUL can overcome this handicap.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)

“Homosexuality is highly condemned and often a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá’í. Any individual so afflicted must, through PRAYER, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 6 October 1956)

In regards to these 2 passages, I ask you this: If a SOUL has a HANDICAP which it can overcome through PRAYER (WOW! Suddenly I feel like a Ruhi tutor!!!!!!!!!!!!) would that not make the HANDICAP one of the SOUL? I’ll re-phrase:
“A ____ can overcome this ________”
or even better: “through ______ a _____ can overcome this ________.”

It is “spiritually condemned” and a “handicap” of the soul. Are we in agreement that that is what the writings say?

Farhan Yazdani,

I will re-quote the writings, but this time with capitalization of the word, “soul,” okay? Let’s see if it works…

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious SOUL. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through PRAYER, a SOUL can overcome this handicap.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)

“Homosexuality is highly condemned and often a great trial and cause of suffering to a person, as a Bahá’í. Any individual so afflicted must, through PRAYER, and any other means, seek to overcome this handicap.”
(On behalf of Shoghi Effendi to a National Spiritual Assembly, 6 October 1956)

In regards to these 2 passages, I ask you this: If a SOUL has a HANDICAP which it can overcome through PRAYER (WOW! Suddenly I feel like a Ruhi tutor!!!!!!!!!!!!) would that not make the HANDICAP one of the SOUL? I’ll re-phrase:
“A ____ can overcome this ________”
or even better: “through ______ a _____ can overcome this ________.”

It is “spiritually condemned” and a “handicap” of the soul. Are we in agreement that that is what the writings say?

Amanda, thank you for providing an explanation. I can see your logic but I do not share it. First, you are reeeaaaally stretching things. You’re taking what is said in one letter, stitching it to another and then presenting it as if it were originally whole. Second, as others have pointed out, the text you are quoting are not “Baha’i Writings”. Again, I do understand how you can assume that classifying a letter from Shoghi Effendi as such would make sense.

It is truly tragic that we do not (and can not) have a “Guardian” to turn to for such answers. I can empathize with those who grasp at what we do have of the writings of Shoghi Effendi, who was the first and last in this role. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll repeat that it is wise to go to the source: Baha’u'llah. For this and other issues.

After all, I don’t know anyone who is a Effend’i or a UHJ’i.

Amanda, thank you for providing an explanation. I can see your logic but I do not share it. First, you are reeeaaaally stretching things. You’re taking what is said in one letter, stitching it to another and then presenting it as if it were originally whole. Second, as others have pointed out, the text you are quoting are not “Baha’i Writings”. Again, I do understand how you can assume that classifying a letter from Shoghi Effendi as such would make sense.

It is truly tragic that we do not (and can not) have a “Guardian” to turn to for such answers. I can empathize with those who grasp at what we do have of the writings of Shoghi Effendi, who was the first and last in this role. But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll repeat that it is wise to go to the source: Baha’u'llah. For this and other issues.

After all, I don’t know anyone who is a Effend’i or a UHJ’i.

Baquia,

Thanks for your reply. I respect your decision to consider only Baha’u'llahs writings (and ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s maybe? Where do you weigh in on that?)as “the Baha’i Writings,” and can see it as being similar to those who are concerned with the difference between the actual words of Jesus and the teachings of Christianity. But my critique is not of Baha’u'llah. It is of the authoritative scripture and administrative policy of the Baha’i Faith (the Haifan trademarked one.) The administrative bodies of that religion DO use the writings of Shoghi Effendi as authoritative, despite the lovely letter stating that things of “importance” are always communicated directly by the Guardian to Assemblies, not on his behalf and not to individuals. (That letter was ironically to an individual believer written on behalf of the guardian. Did anyone else catch that?) Assemblies AND the UHJ routinely use those letters for guidance and procedural direction, and also enforce them on believers. When I worked at National, my Office certainly did.

I respect your Baha’i beliefs on what is authoritative being different than the average bear. I think that’s wise. But it’s not consistent with the Baha’i Faith that is institutionalized through the administrative order. As a Baha’i, I think it is only logical to go to Baha’u'llah as the “source.” Unfortunately, that is not currently what the administrative order of your religion expects or accepts. If we went to what Baha’u'llah said about sexuality, homosexuality wouldn’t be banned at all. He never prohibited it. He prohibited paederasty.

I really am not “stretching” what the sanctioned-authoritative-writings say about homosexuality at all. I think Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ paint an extremely consistent picture of homosexuality. Would you mind explaining where you think I’m stretching it?

Thanks, Baquia.

Baquia,

Thanks for your reply. I respect your decision to consider only Baha’u'llahs writings (and ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s maybe? Where do you weigh in on that?)as “the Baha’i Writings,” and can see it as being similar to those who are concerned with the difference between the actual words of Jesus and the teachings of Christianity. But my critique is not of Baha’u'llah. It is of the authoritative scripture and administrative policy of the Baha’i Faith (the Haifan trademarked one.) The administrative bodies of that religion DO use the writings of Shoghi Effendi as authoritative, despite the lovely letter stating that things of “importance” are always communicated directly by the Guardian to Assemblies, not on his behalf and not to individuals. (That letter was ironically to an individual believer written on behalf of the guardian. Did anyone else catch that?) Assemblies AND the UHJ routinely use those letters for guidance and procedural direction, and also enforce them on believers. When I worked at National, my Office certainly did.

I respect your Baha’i beliefs on what is authoritative being different than the average bear. I think that’s wise. But it’s not consistent with the Baha’i Faith that is institutionalized through the administrative order. As a Baha’i, I think it is only logical to go to Baha’u'llah as the “source.” Unfortunately, that is not currently what the administrative order of your religion expects or accepts. If we went to what Baha’u'llah said about sexuality, homosexuality wouldn’t be banned at all. He never prohibited it. He prohibited paederasty.

I really am not “stretching” what the sanctioned-authoritative-writings say about homosexuality at all. I think Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ paint an extremely consistent picture of homosexuality. Would you mind explaining where you think I’m stretching it?

Thanks, Baquia.

Baquia wrote,[quote]Amanda, thank you for providing an explanation. I can see your logic but I do not share it. First, you are reeeaaaally stretching things. You’re taking what is said in one letter, stitching it to another and then presenting it as if it were originally whole.[/quote]Why is this called “reeeaaaally stretching things” when someone presents a view that makes you uncomfortable, but you get to call it “taking things in context” when it’s a view that you want to defend? This is blatantly special pleading, Baquia, and it’s unfair. Do you honestly not see what you’re doing? Will you persist in ignoring my demands for resolving this cognitive dissonance?

Honestly, I feel like there’s always some excuse presented by Baha’is to prevent them from having to face conclusions that they don’t like. It’s so frustrating. You’re obviously a bright, freethinking individual. Why do you find it necessary to do the mental gymnastics and semantic acrobatics required to have the Faith agree with you? The validity of your thoughts stand or fall on their own. Why do you need God to sanction them?

Consider these words from Noah:[quote]In any case, part of my soul dearly, dearly longs to commit to the Baha’i Faith, damn the consequences. But I have too acute a fear of the cognitive dissonance associated with practicing a religion so firmly out of step with my conviction on this and several other points. Even though the Faith matches my worldview almost exactly, in this and a few small other respects the difference is too great to ignore, and methinks said conflicts would outweigh the nagging feeling of longing…[/quote]Why do you need to find a religion that agrees with you??? This makes no sense at all. Why not just hold your beliefs on their own merit? Is that really so scary? To be held accountable for your beliefs? To not be able to cop the excuse, “Well, I believe that because that’s just what my religion teaches me”? Honestly. What benefits do you derive from seating your own beliefs at the right hand of God? They are, after all, your beliefs. How does it help to find a religion that merely echoes your own beliefs back at you? A dead canyon can provide you the same consolation.

Back to the matter at hand: If the statements of the authorities of this religion are supposed to express God’s will for humanity, and God’s will is singular, then these writings should form one coherent whole. Therefore, it is not “stretching it” at all to unite various writings of Shoghi Effendi (or those written on his behalf) into one message. No stretching involved. Such an accusation presupposes that Shoghi Effendi didn’t mean what he said (or what was said on his behalf) merely because he didn’t repeat it in every single letter he wrote (or was written on his behalf) on the subject.

You wrote,[quote]Second, as others have pointed out, the text you are quoting are not “Baha’i Writings”.[/quote]And why does this matter? What practical difference does it make to exclude these passages from the classification of “Baha’i Writings” if they still carry the same authority?

Baquia, can you please respond to these questions?

Baquia wrote,[quote]Amanda, thank you for providing an explanation. I can see your logic but I do not share it. First, you are reeeaaaally stretching things. You’re taking what is said in one letter, stitching it to another and then presenting it as if it were originally whole.[/quote]Why is this called “reeeaaaally stretching things” when someone presents a view that makes you uncomfortable, but you get to call it “taking things in context” when it’s a view that you want to defend? This is blatantly special pleading, Baquia, and it’s unfair. Do you honestly not see what you’re doing? Will you persist in ignoring my demands for resolving this cognitive dissonance?

Honestly, I feel like there’s always some excuse presented by Baha’is to prevent them from having to face conclusions that they don’t like. It’s so frustrating. You’re obviously a bright, freethinking individual. Why do you find it necessary to do the mental gymnastics and semantic acrobatics required to have the Faith agree with you? The validity of your thoughts stand or fall on their own. Why do you need God to sanction them?

Consider these words from Noah:[quote]In any case, part of my soul dearly, dearly longs to commit to the Baha’i Faith, damn the consequences. But I have too acute a fear of the cognitive dissonance associated with practicing a religion so firmly out of step with my conviction on this and several other points. Even though the Faith matches my worldview almost exactly, in this and a few small other respects the difference is too great to ignore, and methinks said conflicts would outweigh the nagging feeling of longing…[/quote]Why do you need to find a religion that agrees with you??? This makes no sense at all. Why not just hold your beliefs on their own merit? Is that really so scary? To be held accountable for your beliefs? To not be able to cop the excuse, “Well, I believe that because that’s just what my religion teaches me”? Honestly. What benefits do you derive from seating your own beliefs at the right hand of God? They are, after all, your beliefs. How does it help to find a religion that merely echoes your own beliefs back at you? A dead canyon can provide you the same consolation.

Back to the matter at hand: If the statements of the authorities of this religion are supposed to express God’s will for humanity, and God’s will is singular, then these writings should form one coherent whole. Therefore, it is not “stretching it” at all to unite various writings of Shoghi Effendi (or those written on his behalf) into one message. No stretching involved. Such an accusation presupposes that Shoghi Effendi didn’t mean what he said (or what was said on his behalf) merely because he didn’t repeat it in every single letter he wrote (or was written on his behalf) on the subject.

You wrote,[quote]Second, as others have pointed out, the text you are quoting are not “Baha’i Writings”.[/quote]And why does this matter? What practical difference does it make to exclude these passages from the classification of “Baha’i Writings” if they still carry the same authority?

Baquia, can you please respond to these questions?

[quote]I don’t get this, Steve. You don’t accept what premises? That Baha’u’llah conferred infallible authority (to administrate) on the UHJ?[/quote]

Baha’u'llah said very little about the Universal House of Justice. There’s a pretty good summary on Wiki. Here it is:

“In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Bahá’u'lláh ordains the institution of the House of Justice and defines its functions. Its responsibilities are also referred to in several other Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh.”

There’s no point in me asserting that Baha’u’llah never actually conferred infallible authority (to administrate) on the UHJ. I can’t prove the non-existence of such a statement. But I can ask you to show where Baha’u'llah does say that.

[quote]That he conferred a different infallible authority (to interpret) on ‘Abdu’l-Baha…[/quote]

In the Kitab-i-Ahd, where I’d expect to see the details of the succession, Baha’u'llah simply indicates that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is the new head of the faith.

“Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: ‘When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root’. The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch [`Abdu'l-Bahá].”
The Book of the Covenant

About the only place Baha’u'llah gets into the subject of infallibility is in Ishraqat where he talks about the “Most Great Infallibility” being confined to the Manifestation. The notion that anyone other than the Manifestation is “infallibly infallible” is, to put it bluntly, idolatry.

[quote]…who then conferred that authority on Shoghi Effendi? What is disagreeable in these premises?[/quote]

If you’ve been following the links, you may already have realised that authority is conferred. However, “conferred infallibility” (I prefer the term “aquired infallibility” to avoid confusion) isn’t actually conferred by anyone. It’s a quality, like honesty or faithfulness. And it doesn’t have much to do with propositional inerrancy, either.

The thing that is disagreeable about these premises is that they are not backed up by any scripture. Call me picky, but I have a problem with that.

In the Iqan, Baha’u'llah complains that Muslims follow hadith and ignore the Qur’an. Same thing.

ka kite
Steve

[quote]I don’t get this, Steve. You don’t accept what premises? That Baha’u’llah conferred infallible authority (to administrate) on the UHJ?[/quote]

Baha’u'llah said very little about the Universal House of Justice. There’s a pretty good summary on Wiki. Here it is:

“In the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Bahá’u'lláh ordains the institution of the House of Justice and defines its functions. Its responsibilities are also referred to in several other Tablets of Bahá’u'lláh.”

There’s no point in me asserting that Baha’u’llah never actually conferred infallible authority (to administrate) on the UHJ. I can’t prove the non-existence of such a statement. But I can ask you to show where Baha’u'llah does say that.

[quote]That he conferred a different infallible authority (to interpret) on ‘Abdu’l-Baha…[/quote]

In the Kitab-i-Ahd, where I’d expect to see the details of the succession, Baha’u'llah simply indicates that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is the new head of the faith.

“Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: ‘When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root’. The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch [`Abdu'l-Bahá].”
The Book of the Covenant

About the only place Baha’u'llah gets into the subject of infallibility is in Ishraqat where he talks about the “Most Great Infallibility” being confined to the Manifestation. The notion that anyone other than the Manifestation is “infallibly infallible” is, to put it bluntly, idolatry.

[quote]…who then conferred that authority on Shoghi Effendi? What is disagreeable in these premises?[/quote]

If you’ve been following the links, you may already have realised that authority is conferred. However, “conferred infallibility” (I prefer the term “aquired infallibility” to avoid confusion) isn’t actually conferred by anyone. It’s a quality, like honesty or faithfulness. And it doesn’t have much to do with propositional inerrancy, either.

The thing that is disagreeable about these premises is that they are not backed up by any scripture. Call me picky, but I have a problem with that.

In the Iqan, Baha’u'llah complains that Muslims follow hadith and ignore the Qur’an. Same thing.

ka kite
Steve

Well, it gets more complicated. If this all turns out in July what does the UHJ say to the local LSA when they write for “guidance” if these two people ever declare?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/26/pregnant-man-fin_n_93488.html

Hummm. As a BIGS could these two in their “hetero” relationship with “full administrative rights” vote for me to be a member of the UHJ? I certainly could use the votes if it comes down to the wire anytime soon!

This is really getting complicated and my head is starting to hurt.

Well, it gets more complicated. If this all turns out in July what does the UHJ say to the local LSA when they write for “guidance” if these two people ever declare?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/26/pregnant-man-fin_n_93488.html

Hummm. As a BIGS could these two in their “hetero” relationship with “full administrative rights” vote for me to be a member of the UHJ? I certainly could use the votes if it comes down to the wire anytime soon!

This is really getting complicated and my head is starting to hurt.

Just wanted to correct a factual error on my part. The extract from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi by his secretary that Steve quoted from U.S. Baha’i News Vol 71, Feb 1933 yes, was written by his secretary, as I said, but I actually don’t KNOW if it was to an individual believer or an Assembly. I assumed it was to an individual believer, because the letter quoted a different letter to the NSA of the US, and it seemed to not be speaking again to that body. USBN was kind of a potpourri quotations directed to an American readership, but the original sources were both individual and institutional correspondence. Just want to be accurate.

What I didn’t notice with my first read, however is that this letter specifies that his “personal” letters are meant for the benefit of the individual. I didn’t catch that before. A “personal” letter would not be about the official business of the Baha’i Faith, now would it? It might read something like this,
“Dear George,
I miss you terribly. Ru has gone to the market to buy a new veil. She is still carrying that damned baby ocelot in her purse. I pray for you at the Holy Shrines daily. Please give my regards to Chuck and Larry. Warm Baha’i (But off-the-clock) Greetings, Shoghi”

Just imagine what we could do with THOSE letters, though. We would stay up nights asking ourselves, “Did the Guardian condemn ALL baby ocelots, or just the one in Amatu’l-Baha’s purse? What about the baby ocelot was damned? Was it it’s action of being hidden in her purse, or was it it’s innate suchness as an ocelot? Was it damned by it’s immaturity as a “baby” ocelot? Was it a statement of damnation of ALL wild cats, or just spotted ones? What about spotted DOMESTICATED cats, did the Guardian ever comment on those? Can I carry my pet cat in my purse, or should I write to the House of Justice? Is it a matter left to the individual believer? What about the ASPCA, since the Baha’i Faith is CLEARLY against containing wildlife in small places, should I volunteer for them, or would that be too partisan? Or, maybe we are against cats entirely and I should avoid ALL animal shelters and disapprove of the people who work there…”

The possibilities are endless.

Just wanted to correct a factual error on my part. The extract from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi by his secretary that Steve quoted from U.S. Baha’i News Vol 71, Feb 1933 yes, was written by his secretary, as I said, but I actually don’t KNOW if it was to an individual believer or an Assembly. I assumed it was to an individual believer, because the letter quoted a different letter to the NSA of the US, and it seemed to not be speaking again to that body. USBN was kind of a potpourri quotations directed to an American readership, but the original sources were both individual and institutional correspondence. Just want to be accurate.

What I didn’t notice with my first read, however is that this letter specifies that his “personal” letters are meant for the benefit of the individual. I didn’t catch that before. A “personal” letter would not be about the official business of the Baha’i Faith, now would it? It might read something like this,
“Dear George,
I miss you terribly. Ru has gone to the market to buy a new veil. She is still carrying that damned baby ocelot in her purse. I pray for you at the Holy Shrines daily. Please give my regards to Chuck and Larry. Warm Baha’i (But off-the-clock) Greetings, Shoghi”

Just imagine what we could do with THOSE letters, though. We would stay up nights asking ourselves, “Did the Guardian condemn ALL baby ocelots, or just the one in Amatu’l-Baha’s purse? What about the baby ocelot was damned? Was it it’s action of being hidden in her purse, or was it it’s innate suchness as an ocelot? Was it damned by it’s immaturity as a “baby” ocelot? Was it a statement of damnation of ALL wild cats, or just spotted ones? What about spotted DOMESTICATED cats, did the Guardian ever comment on those? Can I carry my pet cat in my purse, or should I write to the House of Justice? Is it a matter left to the individual believer? What about the ASPCA, since the Baha’i Faith is CLEARLY against containing wildlife in small places, should I volunteer for them, or would that be too partisan? Or, maybe we are against cats entirely and I should avoid ALL animal shelters and disapprove of the people who work there…”

The possibilities are endless.

Hi Amanda,

I loved your made-up ocelot example. your eanalysis of the made up passage is exactly what run-of-the-mill Baha’is do in their shared-ignorance discussions. I was a meeting in Dunedin in 2000 and a letter from the House was being discussed. I knew a lot of background to the House’s letter. For example, I knew the person who had written the enquiry that had prompted that particular letter. The other participants clearly knew nothing about the back-story, but were perfectly willing to read between the lines and make up patently inaccurate stories about what the House really meant.

you wrote:
[quote]A “personal” letter would not be about the official business of the Baha’i Faith, now would it?[/quote]

I think Shoghi Effendi’s letters were probably on a continuum – with the World Order letters at one end and your ocelot example at the other.

Bear in mind, also, that in much of the Baha’i writings, the text swiftly goes from abstruse to conversational. Check out Baha’u'llah’s detailed criticism of Ḥájí Mírzá Karím Khán smack in the middle of a deep discussion in the Iqan. It’s so out of place I’m wondering whether it’s a literary device or just one of those wacky I-can-do-anything-I’m-a-Manifestation behaviours we sometimes see from Baha’u'llah.

Similarly, but not quite as wackily, in a lot of Shoghi Effendi’s correspondence, the strategic and the operational is jumbled up together. I kind of like that. He’s talking to real people with real, multi-faceted lives.

Short answer. I think it’s hard to draw the line between Shoghi Effendi’s personal letters and his “Guardian” letters. I’d say most of his letters to individuals are personal ones.

Hi Amanda,

I loved your made-up ocelot example. your eanalysis of the made up passage is exactly what run-of-the-mill Baha’is do in their shared-ignorance discussions. I was a meeting in Dunedin in 2000 and a letter from the House was being discussed. I knew a lot of background to the House’s letter. For example, I knew the person who had written the enquiry that had prompted that particular letter. The other participants clearly knew nothing about the back-story, but were perfectly willing to read between the lines and make up patently inaccurate stories about what the House really meant.

you wrote:
[quote]A “personal” letter would not be about the official business of the Baha’i Faith, now would it?[/quote]

I think Shoghi Effendi’s letters were probably on a continuum – with the World Order letters at one end and your ocelot example at the other.

Bear in mind, also, that in much of the Baha’i writings, the text swiftly goes from abstruse to conversational. Check out Baha’u'llah’s detailed criticism of Ḥájí Mírzá Karím Khán smack in the middle of a deep discussion in the Iqan. It’s so out of place I’m wondering whether it’s a literary device or just one of those wacky I-can-do-anything-I’m-a-Manifestation behaviours we sometimes see from Baha’u'llah.

Similarly, but not quite as wackily, in a lot of Shoghi Effendi’s correspondence, the strategic and the operational is jumbled up together. I kind of like that. He’s talking to real people with real, multi-faceted lives.

Short answer. I think it’s hard to draw the line between Shoghi Effendi’s personal letters and his “Guardian” letters. I’d say most of his letters to individuals are personal ones.

The BEST part about my made-up ocelot letter is that it’s true. And the best part of that best part is there is absolutely no way I could prove it, so we have to ask ourselves if it matters based on the criteria we already have inside us.

It’s true though. Baby ocelot spotted in purse. She carried it on an airplane to Trinidad in the late 60′s/early 70′s. She fed raw meat to it. Can you IMAGINE being at the airport in Trinidad and seeing some white lady in a veil putting raw meat into her purse? Can you IMAGINE being a stewardess on her flight?

But please don’t believe me about this. It would be far-fetched.

The BEST part about my made-up ocelot letter is that it’s true. And the best part of that best part is there is absolutely no way I could prove it, so we have to ask ourselves if it matters based on the criteria we already have inside us.

It’s true though. Baby ocelot spotted in purse. She carried it on an airplane to Trinidad in the late 60′s/early 70′s. She fed raw meat to it. Can you IMAGINE being at the airport in Trinidad and seeing some white lady in a veil putting raw meat into her purse? Can you IMAGINE being a stewardess on her flight?

But please don’t believe me about this. It would be far-fetched.

Steve, thanks for your response. You very clearly presented your reasons for rejecting the infallibility of the UHJ and Shohgi Effendi (and you even threw in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá for bonus). It was exactly what I was looking for. The burden now falls on me to show (with textual evidence) why I think that those individuals and institutions really did have conferred infallibility (that really was conferred, not merely incidental). This will come soon…

Amanda writes,[quote]But please don’t believe me about this. It would be far-fetched.[/quote]And don’t forget patently inaccurate!

Steve, thanks for your response. You very clearly presented your reasons for rejecting the infallibility of the UHJ and Shohgi Effendi (and you even threw in ‘Abdu’l-Bahá for bonus). It was exactly what I was looking for. The burden now falls on me to show (with textual evidence) why I think that those individuals and institutions really did have conferred infallibility (that really was conferred, not merely incidental). This will come soon…

Amanda writes,[quote]But please don’t believe me about this. It would be far-fetched.[/quote]And don’t forget patently inaccurate!

[quote comment=""]Amanda writes,[quote]But please don’t believe me about this. It would be far-fetched.[/quote]And don’t forget patently inaccurate![/quote]

It is a dark day for truthiness when letting the cat out of the bag of knowledge can provoke a maelstrom of wikiality.

[quote comment=""]Amanda writes,[quote]But please don’t believe me about this. It would be far-fetched.[/quote]And don’t forget patently inaccurate![/quote]

It is a dark day for truthiness when letting the cat out of the bag of knowledge can provoke a maelstrom of wikiality.

Hi Amanda,

It would only be far-fetched if you claimed that Ruhiyyih Khanum picked up the baby ocelot while travel-teaching in the Amazon!

ka kite
Steve

Hi Amanda,

It would only be far-fetched if you claimed that Ruhiyyih Khanum picked up the baby ocelot while travel-teaching in the Amazon!

ka kite
Steve

still working on the citation for baha’u'llah’s other mentions of homosexuality – i haven’t forgotten…

until then a couple of questions… steve – you mentioned that the idea of acquired infallibility is frequently believed by haifan baha’is. since i was raised as one (and resigned years ago) i never thought much about the other options. for myself, i decided that although most of the time Baha’u'llah seemed to be a righteous guy, he sure didn’t seem infallible to me. after lots of thought, i decided that didn’t bother me – there are lots of people i respect and study (MLK jr, bell hooks, Thich Nhat Hanh) who aren’t infallible since they are just folks.i DID know this made me not a haifan baha’i. so,steve,do you think baha’u'llah was a cool guy to study but not infallible, or do you think he was himself infallible as a manifestion of god, but the acquired infallibility is bogus? just curious. also are there any stats on numbers of people who follow Baha’u'llah outside of the haifan tradition?

still working on the citation for baha’u'llah’s other mentions of homosexuality – i haven’t forgotten…

until then a couple of questions… steve – you mentioned that the idea of acquired infallibility is frequently believed by haifan baha’is. since i was raised as one (and resigned years ago) i never thought much about the other options. for myself, i decided that although most of the time Baha’u'llah seemed to be a righteous guy, he sure didn’t seem infallible to me. after lots of thought, i decided that didn’t bother me – there are lots of people i respect and study (MLK jr, bell hooks, Thich Nhat Hanh) who aren’t infallible since they are just folks.i DID know this made me not a haifan baha’i. so,steve,do you think baha’u'llah was a cool guy to study but not infallible, or do you think he was himself infallible as a manifestion of god, but the acquired infallibility is bogus? just curious. also are there any stats on numbers of people who follow Baha’u'llah outside of the haifan tradition?

Amanda,

you quote:

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious SOUL. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through PRAYER, a SOUL can overcome this handicap.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)

Amanda,
Saying that a soul can overcome a physical, mental or social handicap or saying that a soul is itself handicapped might mean the same to you, but I assure you that a close study of the writings show that the soul is above the impairments of the body and the mind. Hence a soul hindered in its expressions by physical or mental impairment can overcome these obstacles and manifest itself in other ways.

I do agree with all the quotes Mavaddat has provided, but to me saying someone “is afflicted by a spiritual disease” or is “spiritually handicapped” is not a correct interpretation of the witings I have seen up to now.

By interpreting the writings in this way you are adding distress to homosexuals.

Amanda,

you quote:

“To be afflicted this way is a great burden to a conscientious SOUL. But through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined effort, and through PRAYER, a SOUL can overcome this handicap.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, 1950)

Amanda,
Saying that a soul can overcome a physical, mental or social handicap or saying that a soul is itself handicapped might mean the same to you, but I assure you that a close study of the writings show that the soul is above the impairments of the body and the mind. Hence a soul hindered in its expressions by physical or mental impairment can overcome these obstacles and manifest itself in other ways.

I do agree with all the quotes Mavaddat has provided, but to me saying someone “is afflicted by a spiritual disease” or is “spiritually handicapped” is not a correct interpretation of the witings I have seen up to now.

By interpreting the writings in this way you are adding distress to homosexuals.

[quote comment=""]By interpreting the writings in this way you are adding distress to homosexuals.[/quote]

Farhan – Did you really just tell Amanda that her opinion is not the correct interpretation? I’m sorry but I was not aware that you had been conferred the power of interpretation. does the UHJ know that? I’m sure it would be very helpful in their work…

As far as who is adding distress to whom – as a gay person, I can promise you that Amanda’s understanding of the Baha’i writings on homosexuality does not distress me in the least. Yours, however, has made me cry on several occasions. how about lets ask other gay people how they feel instead of putting words in their mouths, shall we?.

[quote comment=""]By interpreting the writings in this way you are adding distress to homosexuals.[/quote]

Farhan – Did you really just tell Amanda that her opinion is not the correct interpretation? I’m sorry but I was not aware that you had been conferred the power of interpretation. does the UHJ know that? I’m sure it would be very helpful in their work…

As far as who is adding distress to whom – as a gay person, I can promise you that Amanda’s understanding of the Baha’i writings on homosexuality does not distress me in the least. Yours, however, has made me cry on several occasions. how about lets ask other gay people how they feel instead of putting words in their mouths, shall we?.

Hi Steve,

As promised, here is the textual evidence I was duty-bound to provide. First you will find the claim to be proved and then the textual evidence for that claim. I’ve separated my presentation of this evidence into several posts for the sake of readability.

First claim: Bahá’u'lláh conferred on ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the authority to infallibly interpret his (Bahá’u'lláh’s) words.

Evidence: In the Suriy-i-Ghusn (Tablet of the Branch), Bahá’u’lláh refers to the station of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as such:[quote]There hath branched from the Sadratu’l-Muntaha* this sacred and glorious Being, this Branch of Holiness; well is it with him that hath sought His shelter and abideth beneath His shadow. Verily the Limb of the Law of God hath sprung forth from this Root which God had firmly implanted in the Ground of His Will, and Whose Branch hath been so uplifted so as to encompass the whole of creation. Magnified be He, therefore, for this sublime, this blessed, this mighty, this exalted Handiwork!…Render thanks unto God, O people, for His appearance; for verily He is the most great Favour unto you, the most perfect bounty upon you; and through Him every mouldering bone is quickened. Whoso turneth towards Him hath turned towards God, and whoso turneth away from Him hath turned away from My Beauty, hath repudiated My Proof, and trangressed against Me. He is the Trust of God amongst you, His charge within you, His manifestation unto you and His appearance among His favoured servants…We have sent Him down in the form of a human temple. Blest and sanctified by God who created whatsoever He willeth through His inviolable, His infallible degree. They who deprive themselves of the shadow of the Branch, are lost in the wilderness of error, are consumed by the heat of world desires, and are of those who will assuredly perish.

(Baha’u'llah, cited in “World Order of Baha’u'llah”, p.135)

* “‘The Lote-Tree beyond which there is no passing.’ It is the symbol of the Manifestation of God, to which no one has access.” (Adib Taherzadeh, “The Revelation of Bahá’u'lláh”, vol.4, p.436)
[/quote]
Bahá’u’lláh refers to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as His Successor in the Kitab-i-Aqdas:[quote]When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces towards Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root…When the Mystic Dove will have winged its flight from its Sanctuary of Praise and sought its far-off goal, its hidden habitation, refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched from this mighty Stock.

(Bahá’u’lláh, cited in “World Order of Bahá’u’lláh”, p.134)
[/quote]
In the Kitab-i-’Ahd, Bahá’u’lláh reaffirms the station of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (this is the single quotation you provided):[quote]It is incumbent upon the Aghsan, the Afnan, and My kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: ‘When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.’ The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch (‘Abdu’l-Bahá). Thus have we graciously revealed unto you our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful.

(Bahá’u’lláh, cited in “World Order of Bahá’u’lláh”, p.134)
[/quote]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá reaffirms his authority as the Centre of the Covenant in various Tablets and exhorts the believers to be obedient to the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh:[quote]Verily, I have appointed One Who is the Centre of My Covenant. All must obey Him; all must turn to Him; He is the Expounder of My Book, and He is informed of My purpose. All must turn to Him. Whatsoever He says is correct, for, verily, He knoweth the texts of My Book. Other than He, no one doth know My Book.’ The purpose of this statement is that there should never be discord and divergence among the Baha’is but they should always be unified and agreed… Therefore, whosoever obeys the Centre of the Covenant appointed by Bahá’u’lláh has obeyed Bahá’u’lláh, and whosoever disobeys Him has disobeyed Bahá’u’lláh.

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Promulgation of Universal Peace”, p.323)
[/quote]
Again ‘Abdu’l-Bahá confirms his role and authority:[quote]…In accordance with the explicit text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas Bahá’u’lláh hath made the Centre of the Covenant the Interpreter of his Word – a Covenant so firm and mighty that from the beginning of time until the present day no religious Dispensation hath produced its like.

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, cited in “World Order of Bahá’u’lláh”, p.136)
[/quote]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá demands that no one offer interpretations besides his:[quote]Beware! Beware! lest anyone should speak from the authority of his own thoughts or create a new thing out of himself. Beware! Beware! According to the explicit Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh you should care nothing at all for such a person. Bahá’u’lláh shuns such souls. I have expounded these things for you, for the conservation and protection of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, in order that you may be informed, lest any souls deceive you and lest any souls shall cause suspicion among you. You must love all people, and yet if any souls put you in doubt, you must know Bahá’u’lláh is severed from them.

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Promulgation of Universal Peace”, pp.323-24)
[/quote]
And he also demands that no one challenge his authority (but he is not bound by any human oversight):[quote]O Thou who posed a test for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá! Is it seemly for a man like thee to test a servant submissive and lowly before God? Nay by God, it is given to the Centre of the Covenant to test the peoples of the world.

(‘Abdu’l Baha, cited in “’Abdu’l Baha”, p.51)
[/quote]
Parse all the above with your response to my original claim:[quote]

That he conferred a different infallible authority (to interpret) on ‘Abdu’l-Baha…

In the Kitab-i-Ahd, where I’d expect to see the details of the succession, Baha’u’llah simply indicates that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is the new head of the faith.[/quote]I think it’s pretty clear from this presentation that you were unaware of the evidence I have provided above. There is no crime in this, of course, but the duty now falls on you to reconsider your position in light of this new evidence. After all, except for the one quotations, this should all be genuinely new evidence to you, considering your original post did not anticipate the various other texts that lend support to my claim (that Bahá’u'lláh conferred on ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the authority to infallibly interpret his words). So I look forward to hearing how you might change your position (if at all).

I will provide the other claims and evidences tomorrow.

Hi Noah,

Thanks for the note about Alison being an influence on your decision about taking up membership in the Baha’i community.

Hi Beth,

[quote]so,steve,do you think baha’u’llah was a cool guy to study but not infallible, or do you think he was himself infallible as a manifestion of god, but the acquired infallibility is bogus?[/quote]

I really should have put at least a bit of effort into explaining the difference between essential infallibility and acquired infallibility. I don’t think you could do better than to check out what Alison has to say about that, in the section called The attribute of infallibility, in her Commentary on the divine unity.

The short answer to your question is that I do think Baha’u'llah had the quality of being “guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like”, (the quality known, in translation, as “infallibility) and he had it in full measure. In other words, essential infallibility.

Everyone else can potentially reflect that quality – in other words, they can demonstrate some level of acquired infallibility.

So, no, I don’t think the acquired infallibility is bogus, but nor do I think that the House is absolutely guaranteed to be propositionally inerrant, or even absolutely guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like. The House hasn’t had infallibility conferred on it by anyone, although there have been some assurances, or perhaps expressed hopes, that it won’t go bad.

[quote]…are there any stats on numbers of people who follow Baha’u’llah outside of the haifan tradition?

It depends what you mean by “outside the Haifan tradition”. If you count unenrolled and unaffiliated Baha’is — people who consider themselves to be Baha’is but are not affiliated with any Baha’i organisation, Haifan or otherwise, then there may be thousands. But because they’re unaffiliated there probably won’t be any stats. If you count only the members of non-Haifan Baha’i organisations, then you’re probably looking at a few hundred. Again, stats are going to be hard to find for groups this small. Even mainstream Baha’is disappear up their margin of error in most surveys of religious affiliataion. You could try adherents.com.

The oft-quoted “6 million Bahais globally” is bogus, by the way. Again, it depends what you count, but I’d put the numbers globally around a million.

Hi Steve,

As promised, here is the textual evidence I was duty-bound to provide. First you will find the claim to be proved and then the textual evidence for that claim. I’ve separated my presentation of this evidence into several posts for the sake of readability.

First claim: Bahá’u'lláh conferred on ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the authority to infallibly interpret his (Bahá’u'lláh’s) words.

Evidence: In the Suriy-i-Ghusn (Tablet of the Branch), Bahá’u’lláh refers to the station of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as such:[quote]There hath branched from the Sadratu’l-Muntaha* this sacred and glorious Being, this Branch of Holiness; well is it with him that hath sought His shelter and abideth beneath His shadow. Verily the Limb of the Law of God hath sprung forth from this Root which God had firmly implanted in the Ground of His Will, and Whose Branch hath been so uplifted so as to encompass the whole of creation. Magnified be He, therefore, for this sublime, this blessed, this mighty, this exalted Handiwork!…Render thanks unto God, O people, for His appearance; for verily He is the most great Favour unto you, the most perfect bounty upon you; and through Him every mouldering bone is quickened. Whoso turneth towards Him hath turned towards God, and whoso turneth away from Him hath turned away from My Beauty, hath repudiated My Proof, and trangressed against Me. He is the Trust of God amongst you, His charge within you, His manifestation unto you and His appearance among His favoured servants…We have sent Him down in the form of a human temple. Blest and sanctified by God who created whatsoever He willeth through His inviolable, His infallible degree. They who deprive themselves of the shadow of the Branch, are lost in the wilderness of error, are consumed by the heat of world desires, and are of those who will assuredly perish.

(Baha’u'llah, cited in “World Order of Baha’u'llah”, p.135)

* “‘The Lote-Tree beyond which there is no passing.’ It is the symbol of the Manifestation of God, to which no one has access.” (Adib Taherzadeh, “The Revelation of Bahá’u'lláh”, vol.4, p.436)
[/quote]
Bahá’u’lláh refers to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as His Successor in the Kitab-i-Aqdas:[quote]When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces towards Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root…When the Mystic Dove will have winged its flight from its Sanctuary of Praise and sought its far-off goal, its hidden habitation, refer ye whatsoever ye understand not in the Book to Him Who hath branched from this mighty Stock.

(Bahá’u’lláh, cited in “World Order of Bahá’u’lláh”, p.134)
[/quote]
In the Kitab-i-’Ahd, Bahá’u’lláh reaffirms the station of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (this is the single quotation you provided):[quote]It is incumbent upon the Aghsan, the Afnan, and My kindred to turn, one and all, their faces towards the Most Mighty Branch. Consider that which We have revealed in Our Most Holy Book: ‘When the ocean of My presence hath ebbed and the Book of My Revelation is ended, turn your faces toward Him Whom God hath purposed, Who hath branched from this Ancient Root.’ The object of this sacred verse is none other except the Most Mighty Branch (‘Abdu’l-Bahá). Thus have we graciously revealed unto you our potent Will, and I am verily the Gracious, the All-Powerful.

(Bahá’u’lláh, cited in “World Order of Bahá’u’lláh”, p.134)
[/quote]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá reaffirms his authority as the Centre of the Covenant in various Tablets and exhorts the believers to be obedient to the Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh:[quote]Verily, I have appointed One Who is the Centre of My Covenant. All must obey Him; all must turn to Him; He is the Expounder of My Book, and He is informed of My purpose. All must turn to Him. Whatsoever He says is correct, for, verily, He knoweth the texts of My Book. Other than He, no one doth know My Book.’ The purpose of this statement is that there should never be discord and divergence among the Baha’is but they should always be unified and agreed… Therefore, whosoever obeys the Centre of the Covenant appointed by Bahá’u’lláh has obeyed Bahá’u’lláh, and whosoever disobeys Him has disobeyed Bahá’u’lláh.

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Promulgation of Universal Peace”, p.323)
[/quote]
Again ‘Abdu’l-Bahá confirms his role and authority:[quote]…In accordance with the explicit text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas Bahá’u’lláh hath made the Centre of the Covenant the Interpreter of his Word – a Covenant so firm and mighty that from the beginning of time until the present day no religious Dispensation hath produced its like.

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, cited in “World Order of Bahá’u’lláh”, p.136)
[/quote]
‘Abdu’l-Bahá demands that no one offer interpretations besides his:[quote]Beware! Beware! lest anyone should speak from the authority of his own thoughts or create a new thing out of himself. Beware! Beware! According to the explicit Covenant of Bahá’u’lláh you should care nothing at all for such a person. Bahá’u’lláh shuns such souls. I have expounded these things for you, for the conservation and protection of the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh, in order that you may be informed, lest any souls deceive you and lest any souls shall cause suspicion among you. You must love all people, and yet if any souls put you in doubt, you must know Bahá’u’lláh is severed from them.

(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Promulgation of Universal Peace”, pp.323-24)
[/quote]
And he also demands that no one challenge his authority (but he is not bound by any human oversight):[quote]O Thou who posed a test for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá! Is it seemly for a man like thee to test a servant submissive and lowly before God? Nay by God, it is given to the Centre of the Covenant to test the peoples of the world.

(‘Abdu’l Baha, cited in “’Abdu’l Baha”, p.51)
[/quote]
Parse all the above with your response to my original claim:[quote]

That he conferred a different infallible authority (to interpret) on ‘Abdu’l-Baha…

In the Kitab-i-Ahd, where I’d expect to see the details of the succession, Baha’u’llah simply indicates that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is the new head of the faith.[/quote]I think it’s pretty clear from this presentation that you were unaware of the evidence I have provided above. There is no crime in this, of course, but the duty now falls on you to reconsider your position in light of this new evidence. After all, except for the one quotations, this should all be genuinely new evidence to you, considering your original post did not anticipate the various other texts that lend support to my claim (that Bahá’u'lláh conferred on ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the authority to infallibly interpret his words). So I look forward to hearing how you might change your position (if at all).

I will provide the other claims and evidences tomorrow.

Hi Noah,

Thanks for the note about Alison being an influence on your decision about taking up membership in the Baha’i community.

Hi Beth,

[quote]so,steve,do you think baha’u’llah was a cool guy to study but not infallible, or do you think he was himself infallible as a manifestion of god, but the acquired infallibility is bogus?[/quote]

I really should have put at least a bit of effort into explaining the difference between essential infallibility and acquired infallibility. I don’t think you could do better than to check out what Alison has to say about that, in the section called The attribute of infallibility, in her Commentary on the divine unity.

The short answer to your question is that I do think Baha’u'llah had the quality of being “guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like”, (the quality known, in translation, as “infallibility) and he had it in full measure. In other words, essential infallibility.

Everyone else can potentially reflect that quality – in other words, they can demonstrate some level of acquired infallibility.

So, no, I don’t think the acquired infallibility is bogus, but nor do I think that the House is absolutely guaranteed to be propositionally inerrant, or even absolutely guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like. The House hasn’t had infallibility conferred on it by anyone, although there have been some assurances, or perhaps expressed hopes, that it won’t go bad.

[quote]…are there any stats on numbers of people who follow Baha’u’llah outside of the haifan tradition?

It depends what you mean by “outside the Haifan tradition”. If you count unenrolled and unaffiliated Baha’is — people who consider themselves to be Baha’is but are not affiliated with any Baha’i organisation, Haifan or otherwise, then there may be thousands. But because they’re unaffiliated there probably won’t be any stats. If you count only the members of non-Haifan Baha’i organisations, then you’re probably looking at a few hundred. Again, stats are going to be hard to find for groups this small. Even mainstream Baha’is disappear up their margin of error in most surveys of religious affiliataion. You could try adherents.com.

The oft-quoted “6 million Bahais globally” is bogus, by the way. Again, it depends what you count, but I’d put the numbers globally around a million.

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]The short answer to your question is that I do think Baha’u’llah had the quality of being “guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like”, … and he had it in full measure.[/quote]
“Guarded” by whom, Steve? God? If so, then do you believe that God is infallible in the same sense that Bahá’u'lláh was infallible? If so, then would you kindly explain for us who guards God from sin, transgression, etc.? This would be very helpful for our understanding of what you mean by “infallible”.

Also, does this mean that you don’t think Bahá’u'lláh was all-knowing? Or that he didn’t have access to all knowledge? If not, then do you reject the notion that Bahá’u'lláh always knew what he was talking about? How do you reconcile such a position with Bahá’u'lláh’s repeated claim to be all-knowing? Or to have accesses to all knowledge?

This is a very important question, as I’m sure you realize, Steve. If Bahá’u'lláh was all-knowing (or at least he knew with certainty the truth of what he spoke) and yet he still spoke an untruth, this would mean that Bahá’u'lláh was deceitful and a liar (insofar as he said anything wrong). This is because he would have been knowingly telling an untruth. Do you side with Farhan in his description of lies and deceit (in a word, duplicity) as a necessary medicine for humanity? If so, then the question arises, is a sin for a person to lie? If so, then in what sense was Bahá’u'lláh sinless, and thus, infallible if he ever said anything wrong?

Do you see where I am going with this?

Steve writes,[quote post="250"]The short answer to your question is that I do think Baha’u’llah had the quality of being “guarded against sin, transgression, rebellion, impiety, disbelief and the like”, … and he had it in full measure.[/quote]
“Guarded” by whom, Steve? God? If so, then do you believe that God is infallible in the same sense that Bahá’u'lláh was infallible? If so, then would you kindly explain for us who guards God from sin, transgression, etc.? This would be very helpful for our understanding of what you mean by “infallible”.

Also, does this mean that you don’t think Bahá’u'lláh was all-knowing? Or that he didn’t have access to all knowledge? If not, then do you reject the notion that Bahá’u'lláh always knew what he was talking about? How do you reconcile such a position with Bahá’u'lláh’s repeated claim to be all-knowing? Or to have accesses to all knowledge?

This is a very important question, as I’m sure you realize, Steve. If Bahá’u'lláh was all-knowing (or at least he knew with certainty the truth of what he spoke) and yet he still spoke an untruth, this would mean that Bahá’u'lláh was deceitful and a liar (insofar as he said anything wrong). This is because he would have been knowingly telling an untruth. Do you side with Farhan in his description of lies and deceit (in a word, duplicity) as a necessary medicine for humanity? If so, then the question arises, is a sin for a person to lie? If so, then in what sense was Bahá’u'lláh sinless, and thus, infallible if he ever said anything wrong?

Do you see where I am going with this?

[quote post="250"]I do agree with all the quotes Mavaddat has provided, but to me saying someone “is afflicted by a spiritual disease” or is “spiritually handicapped” is not a correct interpretation of the witings I have seen up to now.

By interpreting the writings in this way you are adding distress to homosexuals.[/quote]
This reminds me of a story related by Wafa Sultan in which she was debating the Pakistani minister of France. In response to the charge that Muhammad married his third wife (Aisha) when she was only six years old, the Pakistani minister apparently responded incredulously, “It’s a big lie! She was nine, not six.”

Farhan, your reinterpretation is as reprehensible and revolting, nauseating and repulsive as the one you are “correcting” in Amanda. I don’t expect you to see this, of course, because your responses are automatic as if by rote without the least empathy for those you are ostensibly discussing. You add nothing to this conversation, but only drag it down with your triune dubious methods of obfuscation, obstination, and obviation. Please. Just stop.

[quote post="250"]I do agree with all the quotes Mavaddat has provided, but to me saying someone “is afflicted by a spiritual disease” or is “spiritually handicapped” is not a correct interpretation of the witings I have seen up to now.

By interpreting the writings in this way you are adding distress to homosexuals.[/quote]
This reminds me of a story related by Wafa Sultan in which she was debating the Pakistani minister of France. In response to the charge that Muhammad married his third wife (Aisha) when she was only six years old, the Pakistani minister apparently responded incredulously, “It’s a big lie! She was nine, not six.”

Farhan, your reinterpretation is as reprehensible and revolting, nauseating and repulsive as the one you are “correcting” in Amanda. I don’t expect you to see this, of course, because your responses are automatic as if by rote without the least empathy for those you are ostensibly discussing. You add nothing to this conversation, but only drag it down with your triune dubious methods of obfuscation, obstination, and obviation. Please. Just stop.

Hi Mavaddat,

No, I’m not picking up any explicit conferring of authority to infallibly interpret from the passages you quote. And, no, they’re not all that new to me. These passages say to me that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is head of the faith and pretty darn special. They don’t seem to say that the ability to infallibly interpret has been conferred on him.

I think what’s happened is that someone, somewhere, has seen the phrase “conferred infallibility” and has assumed that it’s something that’s conferred down the line. It isn’t. But no-one has bothered to check.

[quote]“Guarded” by whom, Steve? God? If so, then do you believe that God is infallible in the same sense that Bahá’u’lláh was infallible? If so, then would you kindly explain for us who guards God from sin, transgression, etc.? This would be very helpful for our understanding of what you mean by “infallible”.[/quote]

Baha’u'llah is the manifestation. He’s the measure. He’s how I know God. In all other respects, God is unknowable. Is God infallible in the same sense that Bahá’u’lláh was infallible? I have no idea. He’s unknowable.

As for your other questions about all-knowingness, I have no idea where you’re going with it. But here are a couple of concepts I don’t fully understand — so please bear in mind that I’m being a bit speculative.

Baha’u'llah is the measure. He defines qualities like being all-knowing. That makes it kind of difficult for him to be wrong, whatever he does. Now that’s a cool super-power to have, isn’t it?

Also, in the kingdom of names (the material world) weird shit happens. There are contradictions, inconsistencies, and stuff doesn’t make sense unless you manage to transcend the material world.

So I’m curious about where you’re going with this. But when you start asking whether I side with Farhan and his pro-duplicity argument, then I just get the feeling you’re caught up in the kingdom of names – argument, logic, being right and winning. And at that point I feel like siding with Farhan because he seem a nicer guy, even if his arguments aren’t as razor-sharp.

You seem a bit angry is what I’m saying. It’s no biggie, I’ve spent a good amount of time being angry, but I probably wan’t nice to hang out with, I was a bit blinkered, and I probably wasn’t a good advertisment for what I believed in.

cheers
Steve

Hi Mavaddat,

No, I’m not picking up any explicit conferring of authority to infallibly interpret from the passages you quote. And, no, they’re not all that new to me. These passages say to me that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is head of the faith and pretty darn special. They don’t seem to say that the ability to infallibly interpret has been conferred on him.

I think what’s happened is that someone, somewhere, has seen the phrase “conferred infallibility” and has assumed that it’s something that’s conferred down the line. It isn’t. But no-one has bothered to check.

[quote]“Guarded” by whom, Steve? God? If so, then do you believe that God is infallible in the same sense that Bahá’u’lláh was infallible? If so, then would you kindly explain for us who guards God from sin, transgression, etc.? This would be very helpful for our understanding of what you mean by “infallible”.[/quote]

Baha’u'llah is the manifestation. He’s the measure. He’s how I know God. In all other respects, God is unknowable. Is God infallible in the same sense that Bahá’u’lláh was infallible? I have no idea. He’s unknowable.

As for your other questions about all-knowingness, I have no idea where you’re going with it. But here are a couple of concepts I don’t fully understand — so please bear in mind that I’m being a bit speculative.

Baha’u'llah is the measure. He defines qualities like being all-knowing. That makes it kind of difficult for him to be wrong, whatever he does. Now that’s a cool super-power to have, isn’t it?

Also, in the kingdom of names (the material world) weird shit happens. There are contradictions, inconsistencies, and stuff doesn’t make sense unless you manage to transcend the material world.

So I’m curious about where you’re going with this. But when you start asking whether I side with Farhan and his pro-duplicity argument, then I just get the feeling you’re caught up in the kingdom of names – argument, logic, being right and winning. And at that point I feel like siding with Farhan because he seem a nicer guy, even if his arguments aren’t as razor-sharp.

You seem a bit angry is what I’m saying. It’s no biggie, I’ve spent a good amount of time being angry, but I probably wan’t nice to hang out with, I was a bit blinkered, and I probably wasn’t a good advertisment for what I believed in.

cheers
Steve

Hi Steve, thanks for your reply. I’d like to address what you wrote in reverse, if I could.

Two points of irony appear to me in your conclusion.

You wrote:[quote]You seem a bit angry is what I’m saying. It’s no biggie, I’ve spent a good amount of time being angry, but I probably wan’t nice to hang out with, I was a bit blinkered, and I probably wasn’t a good advertisment for what I believed in.[/quote]Despite appearances, I’m actually not trying to advertise my beliefs (what beliefs would those be?). Anyway, my beliefs don’t depend on advertising: they demand criticism and good reason. Currently I’m just trying to critically examine and understand your beliefs (with the secret intention of potentially adopting them as my own!). So I cannot imagine why you would make this rather condescending accusation.

I must admit though, the accusation itself is ironic. To me, you seem to be the one irritated (“angry” doesn’t quite fit). This is because your responses to me have been curt, assertive, and less than generous. You also seem to take some satisfaction in reversing my accusations (see “tu quoque”) against me rather than actually grappling with my ideas.

This is normally a clever way of deconstructing arguments (to show that the author of an argument is guilty of the same problem against which he is arguing); however, when you make these accusations with no actual reasoning, but just assert them superficially, they come across as something like a debater’s trick… Which brings us to the next point of irony.

You wrote:[quote]I just get the feeling you’re caught up in the kingdom of names – argument, logic, being right and winning. And at that point I feel like siding with Farhan because he seem a nicer guy, even if his arguments aren’t as razor-sharp.[/quote]That’s unfair, Steve. Why not just assume that we are both here to learn from one another? After all, we have something to learn from each other, even if we don’t agree. (For example, I’m learning from you about alternative ways of looking at “infallibility”.) Why all these condescending accusations? Does it console you in an important way to look down on me as someone so consumed by his ego that he just has to win the argument? Why do you feel the need to judge my motives and dismiss me? Why can’t we just converse?

And since when did “who is nicer” have any bearing on “who is telling the truth”? Would you really choose what you believe to be true based on who is the “nicer guy”? If so, do you not find this rather telling?

I sincerely hope you will leave this bickering and join me in the topic at hand, as I will now do too.

You wrote:[quote]Also, in the kingdom of names (the material world) weird shit happens. There are contradictions, inconsistencies, and stuff doesn’t make sense unless you manage to transcend the material world.[/quote]I’m not sure I understand this. Can you help me out? What does it mean to say that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the material world? I mean, in what sense can contradiction actually exist independent of human thought? It seems that what you want to say is that human thinking, in going about reasoning in a sloppy manner, arrives at contradictions and inconsistencies. After all, aren’t the inconsistencies merely in our heads and not actually “in nature”, so to speak? But this would seem to suggest that the contradictions aren’t in the material world at all; but rather, that they arrive in our transcending the material world — the exact opposite of the conclusion you were driving for! What has happened here, Steve? Could you please clarify what you meant?

Alright, this is where things get really interesting:

Steve wrote,[quote]Baha’u’llah is the measure. He defines qualities like being all-knowing. That makes it kind of difficult for him to be wrong, whatever he does. Now that’s a cool super-power to have, isn’t it? [/quote]Well, he doesn’t really “have” that power in any meaningful sense, does he? You are more giving it to him than him having it. After all, you are the one who is choosing to define qualities like “all-knowing” in terms of what the self-proclaimed Manifestation of God does, right? Surely you don’t think that Bahá’u'lláh defines all-knowing in any objectively true sense, do you Steve?

For if you believed that, then that would require you to provide us with some independent standard against which we might test Bahá’u'lláh’s claim to being all-knowing in order to determine whether he warrants the appellation (or predication, if you like). But if then persist in claiming that Bahá’u'lláh is himself that objective standard of “all-knowing” (or whatever other attribute), then you will have really gotten yourself in a bind, won’t you? Because in that case, you would be judging Bahá’u'lláh by himself as the standard of “all-knowing”! And that would be the very epitome of begging the question (our good friend). It would also be circular reasoning. Sure signs of muddled thinking.

Consider this: Imagine if I said that Martin Luther King Jr. was the objective standard of justice (or whatever). This would be fine… until we asked the question of whether MLK himself was just. For how are we supposed to determine whether he is just when we have chosen him as our standard of justice? Any attempt to argue that MLK was unjust in his (alleged) extramarital affairs would be summarily dismissed, since we would have to take it that cheating on one’s spouse was part of the definition of justice (assuming it is true that MLK had extramarital affairs) since we earlier defined MLK as the embodiment of justice.

Sound far-fetched?

Here’s another example that perhaps strikes closer to home: Imagine that in some future time it was discovered that in his an as-of-yet untranslated epistle, Bahá’u'lláh declared that Africans are not fully human, but something between human and ape. (Don’t let the unlikelihood of this scenario trip you up: I’m specifically trying to make the scenario something other than reality to examine what follows if the scenario were true; not whether the scenario would ever be true.) Now I will take it for granted that this is an assertion that would have immediately put his credibility into doubt had you learned about it before declaring your faith; but since you have defined Bahá’u'lláh as all-knowing, you will instead have faith that there is some greater wisdom here and that God knows best. So as a Bahá’í, you are supposed to assume that God knows best even when your internal sense of right or wrong would have repelled you from such an assertion if you had discovered it prior to committing yourself to Bahá’u'lláh’s will.

Remember that this whole method is in close keeping with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s prescription:[quote]If some people do not understand the hidden secret of one of His commands and actions, they ought not to oppose it, for the supreme Manifestation does what He wishes. How often it has occurred, when an act has been performed by a wise, perfect, intelligent man, that others incapable of comprehending its wisdom have objected to it and been amazed that this wise man could say or do such a thing. This opposition comes from their ignorance, and the wisdom of the sage is pure and exempt from error. In the same way, the skilled doctor in treating the patient does what he wishes, and the patient has no right to object; whatever the doctor says and does is right; all ought to consider him the manifestation of these words, “He doeth whatsoever He willeth, and commandeth whatever He desireth.” It is certain that the doctor will use some medicine contrary to the ideas of other people; now opposition is not permitted to those who have not the advantage of science and the medical art. No, in the name of God! on the contrary, all ought to be submissive and to perform whatever the skilled doctor says. Therefore, the skilled doctor does what he wishes, and the patients have no share in this right. The skill of the doctor must be first ascertained; but when the skill of the doctor is once established, he does what he wishes. (Some Answered Questions, p. 173)[/quote]I think, however, that these two hypothetical examples clearly demonstrate that the act of seminal importance lies in this: Specifically, the moment where you take Bahá’u'lláh as the definition (or standard) of “all-knowing” (or whatever else). The question we must all ask is this: What justifies this first step?

As soon as you try to answer that question, you step out of the vicious circle you have gotten yourself caught in and you have to start using the secular language to provide some objective justification. It is by only losing sight of this first step (for which you are responsible) that one can justify his faith in Bahá’u'lláh’s wisdom and knowledge in spite of all signs to the contrary.

So when you write:[quote]Baha’u’llah is the manifestation. He’s the measure. He’s how I know God. In all other respects, God is unknowable. Is God infallible in the same sense that Bahá’u’lláh was infallible? I have no idea. He’s unknowable.[/quote]It is clear that you are begging the question. Why did you choose that Bahá’u'lláh to represent “God”? Why not Elvis or Ghandi? Why not anyone else?

Again, as soon as you try to answer this question, you have to step outside the vicious circle in which you are currently trapped and give some objective justification. Otherwise, your faith in Bahá’u'lláh’s representation of God is completely arbitrary. It could have just as easily been in the crazy guy on the back of the bus, if only you had been faced with his claim to be representing God first!

(I hope you see that the absurdity of these examples is meant to demonstrate the absurdity of the premises which lead to them. Many people get tripped up at absurd examples and quit the conversation early simply because they find it incredible to imagine that their espoused beliefs could equally lead to faith in the crazy guy on the back of the bus, for example, as they lead to faith in Bahá’u'lláh. If you will examine the reasoning I use to draw this conclusion from its premises, as opposed to getting turned off by the absurdity of the conclusion I am drawing, I think you will find my point more palatable.)

Lastly, you wrote:[quote]No, I’m not picking up any explicit conferring of authority to infallibly interpret from the passages you quote. And, no, they’re not all that new to me. These passages say to me that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is head of the faith and pretty darn special. They don’t seem to say that the ability to infallibly interpret has been conferred on him.[/quote]How could they not be new to you, Steve? You wrote in your previous post that:[quote post="250"]In the Kitab-i-Ahd, where I’d expect to see the details of the succession, Baha’u’llah simply indicates that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is the new head of the faith.[/quote]If you were familiar with these quotations, then why didn’t you expect to see details of Bahá’u'lláh’s succession in his “Tablet of the Branch”?

Well, never mind. Let’s deal with your assertion that the quotations don’t lend support to the conclusion that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá should be taken as an infallible interpreter of Bahá’u'lláh. If you are right, then how are we to understand these quotations (taken from above)?[quote]Render thanks unto God, O people, for [the Branch of Holiness]; for verily He is the most great Favour unto you, the most perfect bounty upon you; and through Him every mouldering bone is quickened. Whoso turneth towards Him hath turned towards God, and whoso turneth away from Him hath turned away from My Beauty, hath repudiated My Proof, and trangressed against Me. He is the Trust of God amongst you, His charge within you, His manifestation unto you and His appearance among His favoured servants…We have sent Him down in the form of a human temple. Blest and sanctified by God who created whatsoever He willeth through His inviolable, His infallible degree. They who deprive themselves of the shadow of the Branch, are lost in the wilderness of error, are consumed by the heat of world desires, and are of those who will assuredly perish.[/quote]How are we to understand Bahá’u'lláh’s predication of infallibility to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá here? Do you not agree that he is talking about ‘Abdu’l-Bahá? If not, who do you think he means to refer to by the phrase “the Branch of Holiness” that “hath branched from the Sadratu’l-Muntaha”? Could you please explain this to us, Steve?

And also, how are we to understand ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s own description of his station? He writes,[quote]…whosoever obeys the Centre of the Covenant appointed by Bahá’u’lláh has obeyed Bahá’u’lláh, and whosoever disobeys Him has disobeyed Bahá’u’lláh.[/quote]Do you think ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was just wrong here? Was he confused? Is there a translation problem? How are we to understand this? Do you not agree that it seems, prima facie, that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá means that disregarding his interpretation of Bahá’u'lláh is equivalent to disregarding Bahá’u'lláh? Is that a completely unreasonable way to understand this text? Please help us out, Steve.

I truly hope you leave behind all nasty accusations of insincerity and judgements of my motives and really engage in this discussion with me. Let’s leave those tactics to the Haifan Bahá’ís and their ilk. The fact is that I want to understand where you’re coming from, and I want to put my own understanding to the test. I do sincerly hope you will help me do that.

Hi Steve, thanks for your reply. I’d like to address what you wrote in reverse, if I could.

Two points of irony appear to me in your conclusion.

You wrote:[quote]You seem a bit angry is what I’m saying. It’s no biggie, I’ve spent a good amount of time being angry, but I probably wan’t nice to hang out with, I was a bit blinkered, and I probably wasn’t a good advertisment for what I believed in.[/quote]Despite appearances, I’m actually not trying to advertise my beliefs (what beliefs would those be?). Anyway, my beliefs don’t depend on advertising: they demand criticism and good reason. Currently I’m just trying to critically examine and understand your beliefs (with the secret intention of potentially adopting them as my own!). So I cannot imagine why you would make this rather condescending accusation.

I must admit though, the accusation itself is ironic. To me, you seem to be the one irritated (“angry” doesn’t quite fit). This is because your responses to me have been curt, assertive, and less than generous. You also seem to take some satisfaction in reversing my accusations (see “tu quoque”) against me rather than actually grappling with my ideas.

This is normally a clever way of deconstructing arguments (to show that the author of an argument is guilty of the same problem against which he is arguing); however, when you make these accusations with no actual reasoning, but just assert them superficially, they come across as something like a debater’s trick… Which brings us to the next point of irony.

You wrote:[quote]I just get the feeling you’re caught up in the kingdom of names – argument, logic, being right and winning. And at that point I feel like siding with Farhan because he seem a nicer guy, even if his arguments aren’t as razor-sharp.[/quote]That’s unfair, Steve. Why not just assume that we are both here to learn from one another? After all, we have something to learn from each other, even if we don’t agree. (For example, I’m learning from you about alternative ways of looking at “infallibility”.) Why all these condescending accusations? Does it console you in an important way to look down on me as someone so consumed by his ego that he just has to win the argument? Why do you feel the need to judge my motives and dismiss me? Why can’t we just converse?

And since when did “who is nicer” have any bearing on “who is telling the truth”? Would you really choose what you believe to be true based on who is the “nicer guy”? If so, do you not find this rather telling?

I sincerely hope you will leave this bickering and join me in the topic at hand, as I will now do too.

You wrote:[quote]Also, in the kingdom of names (the material world) weird shit happens. There are contradictions, inconsistencies, and stuff doesn’t make sense unless you manage to transcend the material world.[/quote]I’m not sure I understand this. Can you help me out? What does it mean to say that there are contradictions and inconsistencies in the material world? I mean, in what sense can contradiction actually exist independent of human thought? It seems that what you want to say is that human thinking, in going about reasoning in a sloppy manner, arrives at contradictions and inconsistencies. After all, aren’t the inconsistencies merely in our heads and not actually “in nature”, so to speak? But this would seem to suggest that the contradictions aren’t in the material world at all; but rather, that they arrive in our transcending the material world — the exact opposite of the conclusion you were driving for! What has happened here, Steve? Could you please clarify what you meant?

Alright, this is where things get really interesting:

Steve wrote,[quote]Baha’u’llah is the measure. He defines qualities like being all-knowing. That makes it kind of difficult for him to be wrong, whatever he does. Now that’s a cool super-power to have, isn’t it? [/quote]Well, he doesn’t really “have” that power in any meaningful sense, does he? You are more giving it to him than him having it. After all, you are the one who is choosing to define qualities like “all-knowing” in terms of what the self-proclaimed Manifestation of God does, right? Surely you don’t think that Bahá’u'lláh defines all-knowing in any objectively true sense, do you Steve?

For if you believed that, then that would require you to provide us with some independent standard against which we might test Bahá’u'lláh’s claim to being all-knowing in order to determine whether he warrants the appellation (or predication, if you like). But if then persist in claiming that Bahá’u'lláh is himself that objective standard of “all-knowing” (or whatever other attribute), then you will have really gotten yourself in a bind, won’t you? Because in that case, you would be judging Bahá’u'lláh by himself as the standard of “all-knowing”! And that would be the very epitome of begging the question (our good friend). It would also be circular reasoning. Sure signs of muddled thinking.

Consider this: Imagine if I said that Martin Luther King Jr. was the objective standard of justice (or whatever). This would be fine… until we asked the question of whether MLK himself was just. For how are we supposed to determine whether he is just when we have chosen him as our standard of justice? Any attempt to argue that MLK was unjust in his (alleged) extramarital affairs would be summarily dismissed, since we would have to take it that cheating on one’s spouse was part of the definition of justice (assuming it is true that MLK had extramarital affairs) since we earlier defined MLK as the embodiment of justice.

Sound far-fetched?

Here’s another example that perhaps strikes closer to home: Imagine that in some future time it was discovered that in his an as-of-yet untranslated epistle, Bahá’u'lláh declared that Africans are not fully human, but something between human and ape. (Don’t let the unlikelihood of this scenario trip you up: I’m specifically trying to make the scenario something other than reality to examine what follows if the scenario were true; not whether the scenario would ever be true.) Now I will take it for granted that this is an assertion that would have immediately put his credibility into doubt had you learned about it before declaring your faith; but since you have defined Bahá’u'lláh as all-knowing, you will instead have faith that there is some greater wisdom here and that God knows best. So as a Bahá’í, you are supposed to assume that God knows best even when your internal sense of right or wrong would have repelled you from such an assertion if you had discovered it prior to committing yourself to Bahá’u'lláh’s will.

Remember that this whole method is in close keeping with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s prescription:[quote]If some people do not understand the hidden secret of one of His commands and actions, they ought not to oppose it, for the supreme Manifestation does what He wishes. How often it has occurred, when an act has been performed by a wise, perfect, intelligent man, that others incapable of comprehending its wisdom have objected to it and been amazed that this wise man could say or do such a thing. This opposition comes from their ignorance, and the wisdom of the sage is pure and exempt from error. In the same way, the skilled doctor in treating the patient does what he wishes, and the patient has no right to object; whatever the doctor says and does is right; all ought to consider him the manifestation of these words, “He doeth whatsoever He willeth, and commandeth whatever He desireth.” It is certain that the doctor will use some medicine contrary to the ideas of other people; now opposition is not permitted to those who have not the advantage of science and the medical art. No, in the name of God! on the contrary, all ought to be submissive and to perform whatever the skilled doctor says. Therefore, the skilled doctor does what he wishes, and the patients have no share in this right. The skill of the doctor must be first ascertained; but when the skill of the doctor is once established, he does what he wishes. (Some Answered Questions, p. 173)[/quote]I think, however, that these two hypothetical examples clearly demonstrate that the act of seminal importance lies in this: Specifically, the moment where you take Bahá’u'lláh as the definition (or standard) of “all-knowing” (or whatever else). The question we must all ask is this: What justifies this first step?

As soon as you try to answer that question, you step out of the vicious circle you have gotten yourself caught in and you have to start using the secular language to provide some objective justification. It is by only losing sight of this first step (for which you are responsible) that one can justify his faith in Bahá’u'lláh’s wisdom and knowledge in spite of all signs to the contrary.

So when you write:[quote]Baha’u’llah is the manifestation. He’s the measure. He’s how I know God. In all other respects, God is unknowable. Is God infallible in the same sense that Bahá’u’lláh was infallible? I have no idea. He’s unknowable.[/quote]It is clear that you are begging the question. Why did you choose that Bahá’u'lláh to represent “God”? Why not Elvis or Ghandi? Why not anyone else?

Again, as soon as you try to answer this question, you have to step outside the vicious circle in which you are currently trapped and give some objective justification. Otherwise, your faith in Bahá’u'lláh’s representation of God is completely arbitrary. It could have just as easily been in the crazy guy on the back of the bus, if only you had been faced with his claim to be representing God first!

(I hope you see that the absurdity of these examples is meant to demonstrate the absurdity of the premises which lead to them. Many people get tripped up at absurd examples and quit the conversation early simply because they find it incredible to imagine that their espoused beliefs could equally lead to faith in the crazy guy on the back of the bus, for example, as they lead to faith in Bahá’u'lláh. If you will examine the reasoning I use to draw this conclusion from its premises, as opposed to getting turned off by the absurdity of the conclusion I am drawing, I think you will find my point more palatable.)

Lastly, you wrote:[quote]No, I’m not picking up any explicit conferring of authority to infallibly interpret from the passages you quote. And, no, they’re not all that new to me. These passages say to me that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is head of the faith and pretty darn special. They don’t seem to say that the ability to infallibly interpret has been conferred on him.[/quote]How could they not be new to you, Steve? You wrote in your previous post that:[quote post="250"]In the Kitab-i-Ahd, where I’d expect to see the details of the succession, Baha’u’llah simply indicates that ‘Abdu’l-Baha is the new head of the faith.[/quote]If you were familiar with these quotations, then why didn’t you expect to see details of Bahá’u'lláh’s succession in his “Tablet of the Branch”?

Well, never mind. Let’s deal with your assertion that the quotations don’t lend support to the conclusion that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá should be taken as an infallible interpreter of Bahá’u'lláh. If you are right, then how are we to understand these quotations (taken from above)?[quote]Render thanks unto God, O people, for [the Branch of Holiness]; for verily He is the most great Favour unto you, the most perfect bounty upon you; and through Him every mouldering bone is quickened. Whoso turneth towards Him hath turned towards God, and whoso turneth away from Him hath turned away from My Beauty, hath repudiated My Proof, and trangressed against Me. He is the Trust of God amongst you, His charge within you, His manifestation unto you and His appearance among His favoured servants…We have sent Him down in the form of a human temple. Blest and sanctified by God who created whatsoever He willeth through His inviolable, His infallible degree. They who deprive themselves of the shadow of the Branch, are lost in the wilderness of error, are consumed by the heat of world desires, and are of those who will assuredly perish.[/quote]How are we to understand Bahá’u'lláh’s predication of infallibility to ‘Abdu’l-Bahá here? Do you not agree that he is talking about ‘Abdu’l-Bahá? If not, who do you think he means to refer to by the phrase “the Branch of Holiness” that “hath branched from the Sadratu’l-Muntaha”? Could you please explain this to us, Steve?

And also, how are we to understand ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s own description of his station? He writes,[quote]…whosoever obeys the Centre of the Covenant appointed by Bahá’u’lláh has obeyed Bahá’u’lláh, and whosoever disobeys Him has disobeyed Bahá’u’lláh.[/quote]Do you think ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was just wrong here? Was he confused? Is there a translation problem? How are we to understand this? Do you not agree that it seems, prima facie, that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá means that disregarding his interpretation of Bahá’u'lláh is equivalent to disregarding Bahá’u'lláh? Is that a completely unreasonable way to understand this text? Please help us out, Steve.

I truly hope you leave behind all nasty accusations of insincerity and judgements of my motives and really engage in this discussion with me. Let’s leave those tactics to the Haifan Bahá’ís and their ilk. The fact is that I want to understand where you’re coming from, and I want to put my own understanding to the test. I do sincerly hope you will help me do that.

Steve,

My point is that spiritual matters have an immediate practical incidence in our material lives. We are not to use spiritual subjects “to dispute idly” or to seek to “advance ourselves over our brothers”. This is a natural tendency that has to be contained. Without entering theological considerations, the practical outcome of whatever we might interpret as “infaillibility” is that in order to _saveguard unity_, we need a referee, an arbitration body. This body has to be obeyed unquestionnably, just like a referee in a football game has to be instantly obeyed.

The referee might not be a perfect person, but in his function he has the last word. These three quotes on Abdu’l-Baha help my understanding:

“ Many a time He would say, “I don’t claim sinlessness. I am the first of sinners (God forbid!) but the Ancient Beauty has bestowed upon me a station, and therefore whatever I say is what will be.” (Afroukhteh, memoires of 9 years, p 394)

“For instance, the Universal House of justice, if it be established under the necessary conditions-with members elected from all the people -that House of justice will be under the protection and the unerring guidance of God. If that House of justice shall decide unanimously, or by a majority, upon any question not mentioned in the Book, that decision and command will be guarded from mistake. Now the members of the House of justice have not, individually, essential infallibility; but the body of the House of justice is under the protection and unerring guidance of God: this is called conferred infallibility.” (‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Some Answered Questions, ch. 45)

The night of Monday, the 16th day of Jamadi’u'llah, A. H. 1319 [31 August 1903] we were in the presence of ‘Abdu’l-Baha He made certain remarks regarding the Universal House of justice, which in accordance with His instructions are recorded as follows: He stated: “Nothing causes me more unhappiness than disunity, and this can only be remedied by obedience to the command of the Universal House of justice. Even before the establishment of the House of Justice, the friends must be obedient to the existing Spiritual Assemblies even if they know of a certainty that their judgement is flawed. If this were not complied with, the mighty citadel of the Faith of God would not be safeguarded. All must obey the Universal House of justice. Obedience to it is obedience to the Cause. Opposition to it is opposition to the Blessed Beauty. Denial of it is denial of God, the True One. Renouncing any word of the House of Justice is like unto the renunciation of a word from the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Observe, how important this matter is! The Blessed Beauty has ordained the House of justice as the law-maker. If the votes of the members are not unanimous and there are differences of views, then the vote of the majority is the vote of the Blessed Beauty.”

He then added: “Take this very moment. Should the Universal House of justice be operating, by the one True God, beside Whom there is no God, I would have been the first to obey its decree, even if it should be against me. It is true that that Body does not possess inherent infallibility, but it is under the shadow of the protection and shelter of the Blessed Beauty. Its command is the Blessed Command. Discuss this matter amongst yourselves, so that it may not be forgotten. Speak of it to one another; even, make a written note of it.”

(…)
It was clear from the words of ‘Abdu’l-Baha that hidden in Mirza Badi’u'llah’s testimonial were many devilish designs. All the friends understood the situation, but yet in accordance with the verse of the Kitab-i-’Ahd which states: “It is incumbent upon everyone to show courtesy to, and have regard for the Aghsan, that thereby the Cause of God may be glorified, they adopted a respectful attitude towards Mirza Badi’u'llah, who had now returned to the fold.

But he was not content with mere respect; he expected to receive reverence and prostration. He even entertained the thought that the friends should kiss his hands and even his feet, and this expectation disgusted the friends. In those days, the Master used to emphasize, “The friends who come to me should not bow before me; the use of the greeting ‘Allah’u'Abha’ will suffice. This will bring me happiness.”

‘Abdu’l-Baha used to talk mostly (in those days) about the importance of the House of justice. One night, when He spoke on this subject again He said, “If the House of justice had been operating in this day and pronounced my death sentence, all would have to obey.” (Afroukhteh, memoires of 9 years, p 171-2)

Steve,

My point is that spiritual matters have an immediate practical incidence in our material lives. We are not to use spiritual subjects “to dispute idly” or to seek to “advance ourselves over our brothers”. This is a natural tendency that has to be contained. Without entering theological considerations, the practical outcome of whatever we might interpret as “infaillibility” is that in order to _saveguard unity_, we need a referee, an arbitration body. This body has to be obeyed unquestionnably, just like a referee in a football game has to be instantly obeyed.

The referee might not be a perfect person, but in his function he has the last word. These three quotes on Abdu’l-Baha help my understanding:

“ Many a time He would say, “I don’t claim sinlessness. I am the first of sinners (God forbid!) but the Ancient Beauty has bestowed upon me a station, and therefore whatever I say is what will be.” (Afroukhteh, memoires of 9 years, p 394)

“For instance, the Universal House of justice, if it be established under the necessary conditions-with members elected from all the people -that House of justice will be under the protection and the unerring guidance of God. If that House of justice shall decide unanimously, or by a majority, upon any question not mentioned in the Book, that decision and command will be guarded from mistake. Now the members of the House of justice have not, individually, essential infallibility; but the body of the House of justice is under the protection and unerring guidance of God: this is called conferred infallibility.” (‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Some Answered Questions, ch. 45)

The night of Monday, the 16th day of Jamadi’u'llah, A. H. 1319 [31 August 1903] we were in the presence of ‘Abdu’l-Baha He made certain remarks regarding the Universal House of justice, which in accordance with His instructions are recorded as follows: He stated: “Nothing causes me more unhappiness than disunity, and this can only be remedied by obedience to the command of the Universal House of justice. Even before the establishment of the House of Justice, the friends must be obedient to the existing Spiritual Assemblies even if they know of a certainty that their judgement is flawed. If this were not complied with, the mighty citadel of the Faith of God would not be safeguarded. All must obey the Universal House of justice. Obedience to it is obedience to the Cause. Opposition to it is opposition to the Blessed Beauty. Denial of it is denial of God, the True One. Renouncing any word of the House of Justice is like unto the renunciation of a word from the Kitab-i-Aqdas. Observe, how important this matter is! The Blessed Beauty has ordained the House of justice as the law-maker. If the votes of the members are not unanimous and there are differences of views, then the vote of the majority is the vote of the Blessed Beauty.”

He then added: “Take this very moment. Should the Universal House of justice be operating, by the one True God, beside Whom there is no God, I would have been the first to obey its decree, even if it should be against me. It is true that that Body does not possess inherent infallibility, but it is under the shadow of the protection and shelter of the Blessed Beauty. Its command is the Blessed Command. Discuss this matter amongst yourselves, so that it may not be forgotten. Speak of it to one another; even, make a written note of it.”

(…)
It was clear from the words of ‘Abdu’l-Baha that hidden in Mirza Badi’u'llah’s testimonial were many devilish designs. All the friends understood the situation, but yet in accordance with the verse of the Kitab-i-’Ahd which states: “It is incumbent upon everyone to show courtesy to, and have regard for the Aghsan, that thereby the Cause of God may be glorified, they adopted a respectful attitude towards Mirza Badi’u'llah, who had now returned to the fold.

But he was not content with mere respect; he expected to receive reverence and prostration. He even entertained the thought that the friends should kiss his hands and even his feet, and this expectation disgusted the friends. In those days, the Master used to emphasize, “The friends who come to me should not bow before me; the use of the greeting ‘Allah’u'Abha’ will suffice. This will bring me happiness.”

‘Abdu’l-Baha used to talk mostly (in those days) about the importance of the House of justice. One night, when He spoke on this subject again He said, “If the House of justice had been operating in this day and pronounced my death sentence, all would have to obey.” (Afroukhteh, memoires of 9 years, p 171-2)

Amanda wrote:

“As the rest of the world becomes less homophobic, and adheres to certain standards of human rights, they will view and judge the Baha’i Faith accordingly. The PR for the Faith works hard to hide this issue from the public, and that is disingenuous. These particular discriminatory writings and policies should be public knowledge.”

I fully concur with these sentiments — particularly your observation on the disingenuous attempt to conceal (and to cleverly spin) the manifest discrimination embodied in the Baha’i writings and policies.

F. Yazdani wrote:

“Hence both science and moral standards evolve in their views.”

You are truly the author of inappropriate analogy in the service of spin. You cite “some statistical evidence” related to circumcision, you universalize a so-called announcement from “the media,” and use these as an excuse to assert that “both science and moral standards evolve in their views,” when [1] this hardly constitutes evidence of an evolving view of anything and [2] this bears absolutely no comparison whatsoever to the results of over forty years of social science research, let alone the consensus view of medical and behavioral scientists as well as the organizations that represent them (the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American College of Pediatricians, the National Association of Social Workers, and many other professional bodies too numerous to mention). You state the same thing over and over again, as if writing such words often enough will make them more believable. However, anyone who is truly interested in this topic is probably much more well-informed on it than you are liable to give them credit for, and can see your attempt to divert attention away from the legitimate contentions of others for exactly what it is: an exercise in obfuscation, a word game dishonestly employed in the service of religious dogma.

“By interpreting the writings in this way you are adding distress to homosexuals.”

Mr. Yazdani, how would you know whether or not Amanda is “adding distress to homosexuals”? You wouldn’t. That is your interpretation of Amanda’s words. Speak for yourself: you have no right to speak on behalf of homosexuals, whom you (typically, patronizingly) presume to be “distressed.” You repeatedly issue these pronouncements as if you have a right to tell others what they are thinking. You clearly have an acquired inclination toward authoritarian thought. Might this have a religious basis?

Mavaddat wrote:

“Honestly, I feel like there’s always some excuse presented by Baha’is to prevent them from having to face conclusions that they don’t like.”

You think?

“So I cannot imagine why you would make this rather condescending accusation.”

This reminds me of the tussle I had in another forum with a woman who objected to my statement (quoting Pema Chodron) that “there’s nothing wrong with negativity.” She was very angry about this. She went on to cite several examples from the writings of Baha’u'llah on how harmful anger is, how it prevents the soul from reaching the full blah-blah of its blah-blah soul nature, and how, since becoming a Baha’i, she was no longer angry (even though she clearly was), and has since felt the need to single me out for a few more choice comments. Are such Baha’is (some of them self-described “mystics”) really so lacking in self-reflection that they cannot contemplate the implications of their own reflexive attitudes?

It rather reminds me of the Baha’i preoccupation with “the World Order of Baha’u'llah,” a concept I find absolutely chilling. If I’m buying a homeless person a meal, I’m not furthering the World Order of Baha’u'llah, I’m feeding someone who is hungry and affirming the humanity of the other. No need to idealize it, which itself is the problem. I think the world needs fewer fairy tales and more rational solutions. We don’t need models of divine Manifestations that are theological constructs of God in human flesh. As Bishop Spong has stated: “There’s something powerful about the life of this Jesus, but his power is not in being a divine figure masquerading as a human being and walking on this earth. His power is that his humanity is so full and complete that God can live in him and through him.” However we define “God,” Spong is pointing toward individuals who are fully human, fully engaged with their own humanity.

“For if every man were to regard the persons of others as his own person, who would inflict pain and injury on others? If they regarded the homes of others as their own homes, would would rob the homes of others? Thus in that case there would be no brigands and robbers. If the princes regarded other countries as their own, who would wage war on other countries? This in that case there would be no more war.”

– Hillel, first century A.D. rabbi

Amanda wrote:

“As the rest of the world becomes less homophobic, and adheres to certain standards of human rights, they will view and judge the Baha’i Faith accordingly. The PR for the Faith works hard to hide this issue from the public, and that is disingenuous. These particular discriminatory writings and policies should be public knowledge.”

I fully concur with these sentiments — particularly your observation on the disingenuous attempt to conceal (and to cleverly spin) the manifest discrimination embodied in the Baha’i writings and policies.

F. Yazdani wrote:

“Hence both science and moral standards evolve in their views.”

You are truly the author of inappropriate analogy in the service of spin. You cite “some statistical evidence” related to circumcision, you universalize a so-called announcement from “the media,” and use these as an excuse to assert that “both science and moral standards evolve in their views,” when [1] this hardly constitutes evidence of an evolving view of anything and [2] this bears absolutely no comparison whatsoever to the results of over forty years of social science research, let alone the consensus view of medical and behavioral scientists as well as the organizations that represent them (the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American College of Pediatricians, the National Association of Social Workers, and many other professional bodies too numerous to mention). You state the same thing over and over again, as if writing such words often enough will make them more believable. However, anyone who is truly interested in this topic is probably much more well-informed on it than you are liable to give them credit for, and can see your attempt to divert attention away from the legitimate contentions of others for exactly what it is: an exercise in obfuscation, a word game dishonestly employed in the service of religious dogma.

“By interpreting the writings in this way you are adding distress to homosexuals.”

Mr. Yazdani, how would you know whether or not Amanda is “adding distress to homosexuals”? You wouldn’t. That is your interpretation of Amanda’s words. Speak for yourself: you have no right to speak on behalf of homosexuals, whom you (typically, patronizingly) presume to be “distressed.” You repeatedly issue these pronouncements as if you have a right to tell others what they are thinking. You clearly have an acquired inclination toward authoritarian thought. Might this have a religious basis?

Mavaddat wrote:

“Honestly, I feel like there’s always some excuse presented by Baha’is to prevent them from having to face conclusions that they don’t like.”

You think?

“So I cannot imagine why you would make this rather condescending accusation.”

This reminds me of the tussle I had in another forum with a woman who objected to my statement (quoting Pema Chodron) that “there’s nothing wrong with negativity.” She was very angry about this. She went on to cite several examples from the writings of Baha’u'llah on how harmful anger is, how it prevents the soul from reaching the full blah-blah of its blah-blah soul nature, and how, since becoming a Baha’i, she was no longer angry (even though she clearly was), and has since felt the need to single me out for a few more choice comments. Are such Baha’is (some of them self-described “mystics”) really so lacking in self-reflection that they cannot contemplate the implications of their own reflexive attitudes?

It rather reminds me of the Baha’i preoccupation with “the World Order of Baha’u'llah,” a concept I find absolutely chilling. If I’m buying a homeless person a meal, I’m not furthering the World Order of Baha’u'llah, I’m feeding someone who is hungry and affirming the humanity of the other. No need to idealize it, which itself is the problem. I think the world needs fewer fairy tales and more rational solutions. We don’t need models of divine Manifestations that are theological constructs of God in human flesh. As Bishop Spong has stated: “There’s something powerful about the life of this Jesus, but his power is not in being a divine figure masquerading as a human being and walking on this earth. His power is that his humanity is so full and complete that God can live in him and through him.” However we define “God,” Spong is pointing toward individuals who are fully human, fully engaged with their own humanity.

“For if every man were to regard the persons of others as his own person, who would inflict pain and injury on others? If they regarded the homes of others as their own homes, would would rob the homes of others? Thus in that case there would be no brigands and robbers. If the princes regarded other countries as their own, who would wage war on other countries? This in that case there would be no more war.”

– Hillel, first century A.D. rabbi

Beth writes :
« lets ask other gay people how they feel instead of putting words in their mouths, shall we? ».

Beth,

Yes, by all means Beth, do share your views on this. I apologize if my interpretations hurt your feelings ; it certainly was not my purpose. All Baha’is are entitled to personnal interpretations of the writings as long as they share them without insisting that their understanding is the only correct one. The UHJ is the only arbitrating body and they dont need my help.

Since by trying to put myself in your place, I was unsuccessful and hurt your feelings, perhaps you might wish to help me by pointing out which interpretations on my part were offensive to you. I would be grateful if you expressed your feelings.

As far as I am concerned (or my homosexual friends are concerned), being told that I have a « spiritual disease », or that my soul is « handicapped » or that I am spiritually « condemned » would be more much more offensive to me than being told that my soul is a noble creation that is obstructed in its expression in my mind and body, or that my behaviour impairs my spiritual growth.

But again, unless you express your feelings as you generously suggest, I would not know how you feel about this.

Beth writes :
« lets ask other gay people how they feel instead of putting words in their mouths, shall we? ».

Beth,

Yes, by all means Beth, do share your views on this. I apologize if my interpretations hurt your feelings ; it certainly was not my purpose. All Baha’is are entitled to personnal interpretations of the writings as long as they share them without insisting that their understanding is the only correct one. The UHJ is the only arbitrating body and they dont need my help.

Since by trying to put myself in your place, I was unsuccessful and hurt your feelings, perhaps you might wish to help me by pointing out which interpretations on my part were offensive to you. I would be grateful if you expressed your feelings.

As far as I am concerned (or my homosexual friends are concerned), being told that I have a « spiritual disease », or that my soul is « handicapped » or that I am spiritually « condemned » would be more much more offensive to me than being told that my soul is a noble creation that is obstructed in its expression in my mind and body, or that my behaviour impairs my spiritual growth.

But again, unless you express your feelings as you generously suggest, I would not know how you feel about this.

I just want to remind us all (including myself) what is at stake here.

That is, I’d like to review why this seemingly unrelated tangent (about the infallibility of the Bahá’í institutions) really does belong here (in a thread about gay Bahá’ís).

I think we all share a degree of discomfort with the Bahá’í writings on homosexuality. Even Farhan the Faithful, I think, belies his comfort with the straightforward interpretation of the scripture by his repeatedly asking Amanda for references to scripture that he has been provided dozens of times (I am also referring now to conversations we’ve had with him on YouTube).

So the question we are all asking, in our own ways, is about what room there is for change.

I think that people like Beth, Andrew, Amanda, and I share a common perspective that what Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ say about homosexuality really do reflect the teachings of the Bahá’í Faith itself and are not a one-off aberration that can be ignored. More importantly, we see that these writings are taken (or are supposed to be taken) as authoritative by Bahá’ís. Recognizing our innate sense of good and realizing that we don’t need religion to distinguish right from wrong, we have thrown off the shackles of dogmatism and rejected the authority of the Bahá’í Faith entirely.

If I understand them, Steve and Baquia agree that Bahá’ís don’t really need to take those passages too seriously, since the UHJ and the Guardian aren’t infallible in the sense that everything they say has to be obeyed. Baquia seems to believe that the passages have some relevance and importance but that one of a future Universal House of Justice will be able to overturn this law of the Bahá’í Faith and they will overturn this ugly chapter in the history of the religion. However, it seems that Steve thinks that it is irrelevant what the House and the Guardian say about homosexuality. We can choose to ignore those parts as mistaken (perhaps, as faulty statements of a biological nature, which they aren’t supposed to be infallible about anyway). In my mind, Steve’s approach is active, whereas Baquia’s is passive (or patient, if you like).

I am skeptical of both the approaches, because I don’t see this as a law enacted by the UHJ (and thus, it is not subject to revision by a later UHJ) and I think that simply ignoring the passages is not being honest with what is demanded of Bahá’ís in the scripture of the religion. In this sense, I actually agree with Farhan the Faithful that the scriptures demand unquestioning obedience.

Moreover, the way of thinking proposed by Baquia (and Farhan in other places) distresses me, because it demands that we wait for justice. It presupposes that God will work things out on his own terms, and that humanity must be “patient”. However, to this way of thinking, someone else has prepared a response more eloquent than I could muster. He urges against patience and argues that the patience of good people is more readily capitalized by evil people than by the resolving power of waiting:

Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers [...], and without this ‘hard work’, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

So again, I think that what is at stake here is how change is going to happen. We all have our different opinions and the most honest and consistent way, in essence, is what I think we are trying to work out in this discussion.

I just want to remind us all (including myself) what is at stake here.

That is, I’d like to review why this seemingly unrelated tangent (about the infallibility of the Bahá’í institutions) really does belong here (in a thread about gay Bahá’ís).

I think we all share a degree of discomfort with the Bahá’í writings on homosexuality. Even Farhan the Faithful, I think, belies his comfort with the straightforward interpretation of the scripture by his repeatedly asking Amanda for references to scripture that he has been provided dozens of times (I am also referring now to conversations we’ve had with him on YouTube).

So the question we are all asking, in our own ways, is about what room there is for change.

I think that people like Beth, Andrew, Amanda, and I share a common perspective that what Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ say about homosexuality really do reflect the teachings of the Bahá’í Faith itself and are not a one-off aberration that can be ignored. More importantly, we see that these writings are taken (or are supposed to be taken) as authoritative by Bahá’ís. Recognizing our innate sense of good and realizing that we don’t need religion to distinguish right from wrong, we have thrown off the shackles of dogmatism and rejected the authority of the Bahá’í Faith entirely.

If I understand them, Steve and Baquia agree that Bahá’ís don’t really need to take those passages too seriously, since the UHJ and the Guardian aren’t infallible in the sense that everything they say has to be obeyed. Baquia seems to believe that the passages have some relevance and importance but that one of a future Universal House of Justice will be able to overturn this law of the Bahá’í Faith and they will overturn this ugly chapter in the history of the religion. However, it seems that Steve thinks that it is irrelevant what the House and the Guardian say about homosexuality. We can choose to ignore those parts as mistaken (perhaps, as faulty statements of a biological nature, which they aren’t supposed to be infallible about anyway). In my mind, Steve’s approach is active, whereas Baquia’s is passive (or patient, if you like).

I am skeptical of both the approaches, because I don’t see this as a law enacted by the UHJ (and thus, it is not subject to revision by a later UHJ) and I think that simply ignoring the passages is not being honest with what is demanded of Bahá’ís in the scripture of the religion. In this sense, I actually agree with Farhan the Faithful that the scriptures demand unquestioning obedience.

Moreover, the way of thinking proposed by Baquia (and Farhan in other places) distresses me, because it demands that we wait for justice. It presupposes that God will work things out on his own terms, and that humanity must be “patient”. However, to this way of thinking, someone else has prepared a response more eloquent than I could muster. He urges against patience and argues that the patience of good people is more readily capitalized by evil people than by the resolving power of waiting:

Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively. More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers [...], and without this ‘hard work’, time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.

So again, I think that what is at stake here is how change is going to happen. We all have our different opinions and the most honest and consistent way, in essence, is what I think we are trying to work out in this discussion.

Andrew wrote:
“Mr. Yazdani, how would you know whether or not Amanda is “adding distress to homosexuals”? You wouldn’t. That is your interpretation of Amanda’s words. Speak for yourself: you have no right to speak on behalf of homosexuals, whom you (typically, patronizingly) presume to be “distressed.””

Thank you for pointing this out, Andrew; “do to others as you would have them do to you” means listening to the complaints of others and trying to “put yourself in their place”.

Since none of my homosexual friends consider Baha’i views as discriminating against them but rather more tolerant than rules in other religious communities, and since many posts here are by non homosexuals contesting Baha’i laws on behalf of homosexuals, I would be grateful to have first-hand views.

Andrew wrote:
“Mr. Yazdani, how would you know whether or not Amanda is “adding distress to homosexuals”? You wouldn’t. That is your interpretation of Amanda’s words. Speak for yourself: you have no right to speak on behalf of homosexuals, whom you (typically, patronizingly) presume to be “distressed.””

Thank you for pointing this out, Andrew; “do to others as you would have them do to you” means listening to the complaints of others and trying to “put yourself in their place”.

Since none of my homosexual friends consider Baha’i views as discriminating against them but rather more tolerant than rules in other religious communities, and since many posts here are by non homosexuals contesting Baha’i laws on behalf of homosexuals, I would be grateful to have first-hand views.

Andrew wrote:
“If I’m buying a homeless person a meal, I’m not furthering the World Order of Baha’u’llah, I’m feeding someone who is hungry and affirming the humanity of the other.”

Andrew,
in the time of Jesus or of Abdu’l-Baha, only personnal means of charity were available. Today humanity is very rich, more than it has ever been. All this wealth is used up in conflict. If we could solve the problem of conflicts, the poor would not need our patronising charity. They would have full right to wealth.

We need a charitable global governance based on unity. Individual charity is still valued, but will not solve the global problem facing humanity.

Andrew wrote:
“If I’m buying a homeless person a meal, I’m not furthering the World Order of Baha’u’llah, I’m feeding someone who is hungry and affirming the humanity of the other.”

Andrew,
in the time of Jesus or of Abdu’l-Baha, only personnal means of charity were available. Today humanity is very rich, more than it has ever been. All this wealth is used up in conflict. If we could solve the problem of conflicts, the poor would not need our patronising charity. They would have full right to wealth.

We need a charitable global governance based on unity. Individual charity is still valued, but will not solve the global problem facing humanity.

F. Yazdani wrote:

“Since none of my homosexual friends consider Baha’i views as discriminating against them but rather more tolerant than rules in other religious communities, and since many posts here are by non homosexuals contesting Baha’i laws on behalf of homosexuals, I would be grateful to have first-hand views.”

You’ve had numerous “first-hand views” both here and on YouTube, as well as on Mavaddat’s blog. None of your “homosexual friends” might consider Baha’i views as discriminating against them, and many Black slaves in the American South as well as women prior to the feminist movement never considered racist or sexist views as discriminating against them either. When one’s consciousness is raised around the issues of heterosexism and homophobia, one’s awareness grows as does one’s commitment to take action against all forms of discrimination.

“In the time of Jesus or of Abdu’l-Baha, only personal means of charity were available.”

This is simply not true. It is ahistorical in the extreme. Study the historical antecedents of state sponsorship in Byzantine (Imperial) Christianity or the role of public services under the various Islamic Caliphates. There is simply no historical warrant for your assertion that “only personal means of charity were available” in the time of Jesus or Abdu’l-Baha.

F. Yazdani wrote:

“Since none of my homosexual friends consider Baha’i views as discriminating against them but rather more tolerant than rules in other religious communities, and since many posts here are by non homosexuals contesting Baha’i laws on behalf of homosexuals, I would be grateful to have first-hand views.”

You’ve had numerous “first-hand views” both here and on YouTube, as well as on Mavaddat’s blog. None of your “homosexual friends” might consider Baha’i views as discriminating against them, and many Black slaves in the American South as well as women prior to the feminist movement never considered racist or sexist views as discriminating against them either. When one’s consciousness is raised around the issues of heterosexism and homophobia, one’s awareness grows as does one’s commitment to take action against all forms of discrimination.

“In the time of Jesus or of Abdu’l-Baha, only personal means of charity were available.”

This is simply not true. It is ahistorical in the extreme. Study the historical antecedents of state sponsorship in Byzantine (Imperial) Christianity or the role of public services under the various Islamic Caliphates. There is simply no historical warrant for your assertion that “only personal means