Michael, one of the bright and courages youth behind Year of Faith blog, posted his ‘debriefing’ on Baha’i Journal. He especially had a ‘burning question’… oh boy… here it comes:
What is your stance on homosexuality? I am aware of what the Baha’i position is, but I am curious if you agree or disagree. Why or why not?
I myself am unable to reconcile the Baha’i prohibition against homosexual behavior with the stance of the oneness of humanity. It seems contradictory to put so much emphasis on tolerance, mutual understanding, and equality, and yet maintain such a conservative view on sexuality and marriage. I also have trouble seeing how the Baha’i community could augment this, or any one of it’s ideas, without a new Prophet to set us straight on God’s Will.
As you can imagine that lead to a very interesting discussion. I followed along from a distance since I’ve long given up trying to actually get anything past the Taliban-esque moderators on Baha’i Journal. I was intrigued to find, among the Baha’i youth in that discussion forum, one or two that actually, Gasp! had an open mind.
In any case, take a look and see their discussion. If I could have contributed, I would have said one simple thing:
I challenge anyone, Baha’i or not, to find one sentence revealed by Baha’u'llah explicitly devoted to the subject of homosexuality.
And if you would like to peek into places where gay Baha’is and their friends gather and talk online, here are two forums:
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.
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.
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 !!
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
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
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. :o)
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
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
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!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Noah Latif Goodbaum wrote,
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:
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…
and…
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.
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:
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:
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.
How does this clarification help? I too was understanding “infallibility” as “freedom from error”. Or did you see that I was understanding it differently?
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.
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.
Amanda wrote,
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?