Law and Sanctions

[9Harmony]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I remember that thread, and I know you've been here a long time too, brother.

Where is barefootgal? I miss her.

Laurie

Hi Laurie,

I miss her too. I haven't talked with her for several months, but she's doing well. In on the ground floor of a new Baha'i artists magazine, which is occupying all of her time. When i talk with her again, I'll give her your regards.

Have a nice day!

[arthra]

My own view on Baha'i laws is that very few of us today can anticipate future needs and developements of Baha'i societies.

Each case is dealt with on it's own merits by each Assembly.

There are many checks and balances I think in our communities from the local to the Natioanl level and guidance from the House of Justice.

Interpretations and implementations of these laws will developement over time.

And remember these are Baha'i laws for Baha'i communities and for the unique culture that will be developing.

- Art

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Sorry, I'm not getting your point here. Seems you are talking about the relative nature of laws. You believe that Baha'u'llah has given a set of permanent laws that are inflexible for the next 850 plus years. I say that denies the work of the Holy Spirit. Do I think my own personal opinion on matters reflects God's will and the work of the Spirit? No! It comes through loving consultation within a communinty. Sound familiar?
<SNIPPED for focus>

That's not quite the way it works.

Baha`u'llah gives law in the Aqdas and His will and testament. He does not, however, give them in final- statutory form. That is left up to the Universal House of Justice to formulate in the future. That time is not now. Eight-hundred-and-fifty years? At least that long, perhaps longer, and the Baha`i's cycle of Revelation is for five hundred thousand years, during which the influence of Baha`u'llah will remain.

The fact that they were not formulated as statute is what makes them flexible. Flexibility is key. Here in the west many laws that were binding on the Persian and eastern friends were not yet binding on the west. Only recently (1992, the centenary of Baha`u'llah's passing have some of those laws been made binding to the western believers: Huquq'u'llah, for instance and the 95 reptitions of the Greatest name in prayer each day. It was not right away that the restriction on alcohol was made binding on the west. The old story goes that the Temple Unity council was meeting and having cocktails when the telegram from Abdu'l Baha arrived making the injunction against alcohol binding on the western believers. The drinks were poured out and the bar closed immediately.

There are still provisions in the Aqdas that are not binding on anyone. These are reserved for the time when the faith becomes nearly universal.When that time comes THEN will the laws of the Aqdas and the Surhiyyi Haykal be codified into statutes, and those statutes will become malleable to be flexible throughout the time they are in effect.

To some extent one might say that the statutes to be created will do what the Talmud does for the Torah - build a "fence" around the law. But no one has started digging post holes yet.

Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I think it is interesting that Baha'ullah only revealed the Aqdas at the end of His life....

Not quite.

He revealed the Aqdas in the House of Abbud in 1873.

And He lived 19 more years, until 1892, so fully a fourth of His life was still ahead of Him!

(Picky, picky, picky.) :-S

Bruce

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

But is the UHJ infallible? They are just men, just men, and just men, if you get my meanings.

That depends very simply on whether or not you accept what Baha'u'llah said about it. Some of us do. Some of us don't.

Peace,

Bruce

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by 9Harmony

Hi Laurie,

I miss her too. I haven't talked with her for several months, but she's doing well. In on the ground floor of a new Baha'i artists magazine, which is occupying all of her time. When i talk with her again, I'll give her your regards.

Have a nice day!

Hi Amy, Yes, please do give her my regards. I've never met her but we know people in common and she has been very kind and supportive to me.

Hope you are well too.

peace,
Laurie

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by arthra

My own view on Baha'i laws is that very few of us today can anticipate future needs and developements of Baha'i societies.

Each case is dealt with on it's own merits by each Assembly.

There are many checks and balances I think in our communities from the local to the Natioanl level and guidance from the House of Justice.

Interpretations and implementations of these laws will developement over time.

And remember these are Baha'i laws for Baha'i communities and for the unique culture that will be developing.

- Art

from Alsino Marshall

In its submission to the court, the National Spiritual Assembly outlined what it argues is acceptable procedure when disenrolling a member:

9.3 In terms of decision-making required when Baha'i membership is at issue or when infringements of Baha'i law are of concern to the institutions, decisions are made based on Baha'i principles. The Baha'i administration is non-adversarial in nature and works in subtle ways. There can be no comparison with the terminology used in legal proceedings in the community at large. For example, Baha'i institutions do not lay any 'charge' against an individual believer, and there is no necessity for giving 'direct notice' to the individual. Similarly, the concept of a 'case to be heard' is foreign to the Baha'i administration. It is at the discretion of the Baha'i administrative body to act as it sees fit in full accordance with the Baha'i principles. ... 9.4 Attempts by a National Spiritual Assembly to correct misunderstandings about the Faith by individual believers can be achieved in a variety of ways. The NSA does not employ the practice of formally approaching an individual before making a decision in every instance. There are many occasions when the deficiencies in understanding of individuals are addressed in a general, all-embracing way with the whole community (for instance, the presentation of community classes dealing with particular issues) rather than singling out individuals for specific attention.

Where, precisely, are those checks and balances?

Laurie

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

That's not quite the way it works.

Baha`u'llah gives law in the Aqdas and His will and testament. He does not, however, give them in final- statutory form. That is left up to the Universal House of Justice to formulate in the future. That time is not now. Eight-hundred-and-fifty years? At least that long, perhaps longer, and the Baha`i's cycle of Revelation is for five hundred thousand years, during which the influence of Baha`u'llah will remain.

The fact that they were not formulated as statute is what makes them flexible. Flexibility is key. Here in the west many laws that were binding on the Persian and eastern friends were not yet binding on the west. Only recently (1992, the centenary of Baha`u'llah's passing have some of those laws been made binding to the western believers: Huquq'u'llah, for instance and the 95 reptitions of the Greatest name in prayer each day. It was not right away that the restriction on alcohol was made binding on the west. The old story goes that the Temple Unity council was meeting and having cocktails when the telegram from Abdu'l Baha arrived making the injunction against alcohol binding on the western believers. The drinks were poured out and the bar closed immediately.

There are still provisions in the Aqdas that are not binding on anyone. These are reserved for the time when the faith becomes nearly universal.When that time comes THEN will the laws of the Aqdas and the Surhiyyi Haykal be codified into statutes, and those statutes will become malleable to be flexible throughout the time they are in effect.

To some extent one might say that the statutes to be created will do what the Talmud does for the Torah - build a "fence" around the law. But no one has started digging post holes yet.

Regards,
Scott

So, in other words, more laws in the future, not less.

Will the Baha'i community ever raise its voice together to ask whether the sanctions against gay Baha'is is really just? Will they ever together consult about the paradox of Abdu'l Baha'i saying that the full equality of women is not just helpful, but imperative for peace vs. the male-only UHJ?

You're all wearing me down here.

peace,
lunamoth

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

Dear Laurie,
Quick answers are, no, I don't agree and no. No institution answers to me. They answer to God.

I'm not asking if they answer to you--do they answer for you, or do you abdicate responsibility for their decisions?

Do you think it's not compassionate, because you think being gay is not a choice?

I've said this already. I think it is similar to the condition of obesity and bottom line in some cases, no, there is no choice. Some have the fortitude to remain celibate, some obese people have the willpower or medical intervention to help them lose weight, but for some the best option is to accept that part of themself and love themself the way they are.

I'm not talking about sex--I'm talking about intimacy and a shared life experience that heterosexual couples take for granted.

And, I might be wrong that it is disorder. It might very well be exactly like skin color or gender. How would you feel about it if to the best determination of science this were proven the case? There was lots of Biblical justification for keeping slavery and women as property.

I think we're already discussing this in the other thread in this discussion, no?

I can only do one thread at a time. You started this second thread so I came over here.

This gets dicey. The specific issues you mention stem from a particular theory of justice that's ensconsed in some western democracies. I emphasize the word "some," because some of these concepts don't exist in all of them.

The lack of transparency in proceedings is a two-edged sword. There's a reason that juvenile proceedings are closed-door proceedings even in the United States.

I don't think the Baha'i Administrative Order lacks accountability or checks and balances. The accountability and checks and balances differ from what we see in the United States, but I think the Baha'i system operates under a different theory of justice--one primary difference being the process by which facts are ascertained. You can take a look at Germany's legal system for an alternative to our adversarial system.

When we start getting down to particulars, justice is a very complex issue, and, when an issue is as complex as this one is, I tend to not reach any hard and fast conclusions. "I don't know," is a phrase I'm often led to utter.

All that is fine, but I'm judging by what I can see now. Perhaps if things were not kept so secret I'd be able to come to better conclusions about what is going on.

And as for justice being complex, I agree. That is why I think it is better to err on the side of forgiveness at the end of the day.

I mentioned early on in this thread that I think we're really talking about the fundamental religious problem: how do we know what God's will is? Not an easy question to answer.

Not easy at all. You think you know it. I don't. I'm just doing the best I can with what I've been given.

peace,
Laurie



Apology accepted, and, yes, you did mention the stress. I believe I've already said that you're on my prayer list.[/quote]

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

So, in other words, more laws in the future, not less.

Will the Baha'i community ever raise its voice together to ask whether the sanctions against gay Baha'is is really just? Will they ever together consult about the paradox of Abdu'l Baha'i saying that the full equality of women is not just helpful, but imperative for peace vs. the male-only UHJ?

You're all wearing me down here.

peace,
lunamoth

In a legal sense there is no laaw at all right now. Why? Because no social laws from the Baha`i Faith are socially binding anywhere.

WSe are dealing with "law" without defining same. There is bound to be confusion. So:
Main Entry: 1law
Pronunciation: 'lo
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at LIE
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : COMMON LAW b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : LITIGATION (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : CONTROL, AUTHORITY
2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : PENTATEUCH, TORAH -- see BIBLE table
3 : a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>
4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : JURISPRUDENCE c : legal knowledge
6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
- at law : under or within the provisions of the law <enforceable at law>
synonyms LAW, RULE, REGULATION, PRECEPT, STATUTE, ORDINANCE, CANON mean a principle governing action or procedure. LAW implies imposition by a sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all subject to that authority <obey the law>. RULE applies to more restricted or specific situations <the rules of the game>. REGULATION implies prescription by authority in order to control an organization or system <regulations affecting nuclear power plants>. PRECEPT commonly suggests something advisory and not obligatory communicated typically through teaching <the precepts of effective writing>. STATUTE implies a law enacted by a legislative body <a statute requiring the use of seat belts>. ORDINANCE applies to an order governing some detail of procedure or conduct enforced by a limited authority such as a municipality <a city ordinance>. CANON suggests in nonreligious use a principle or rule of behavior or procedure commonly accepted as a valid guide <the canons of good taste>. synonym see in addition HYPOTHESIS
-------------------

The "Law of the Aqdas" exists only as definition #2 above. Dewfinitions 1,3, 4, 5. and 6 have no relevance whatsoever.
The law of Moses (10 commandments) have no existence whatsoever in "common law, or jurisprudence, other than in the ways they have been presumed by and written into common law. As to the "sum of the law" expressed by Jesus (Thous shalt love God, thy God with all your heart. And love thy neighbor as thyself.)" exists in no common law whatsoever. Law tells us we must respect the rights of others, and cause no harm, but it cannot regulate that we love anyone.

THe "Law of Chastity" as expressed by Baha`u'llah, and interpreted by Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi, has no existence as jurisprudence anywhere in the world. It is one of those things that defines a believer within the faith, but not within society as a whole. MAYBE in the future it will not be formulated under statute. Until then it isn't relevant.

Public lewdity, adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality are all largely illegal under common law today, but that common law is under revision over the last few decades. I would submit that such Bahai common law when it comes to pass will needfully be under revision as well. Time will tell. But at this time we largely do not know what it will be or what the society in question will be. Arguing it NOW only tries to carve in stone what is written in ink, and its not really worth the effort.
"Thus have We unfolded to thee things hidden beyond the veil, inscrutable to all save God, the Almighty, the All-Praised. In the fullness of time, the Lord shall, by the power of truth, exalt it in the eyes of all men. He shall cause it to become the Standard of His Kingdom, the Shrine round which will circle the concourse of the faithful. Thus hath spoken the Lord, thy God, ere the day of lamentation arriveth. This revelation have We given thee in Our holy Tablet, lest thou sorrow for what hath befallen Our House through the assaults of the enemy. All praise be to God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 115)
"In this regard, Shoghi Effendi affirms that the Administrative Order "will, as its component parts, its organic institutions, begin to function
with efficiency and vigour, assert its claim and demonstrate its capacity to be regarded not only as the nucleus but the very pattern of the New World Order destined to embrace in the fullness of time the whole of mankind""
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, notes. p. 248)


Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Hello.

[quote=lunamoth]Where, precisely, are those checks and balances?/QUOTE]

From the quote that you yourself posted:

There can be no comparison with the terminology used in legal proceedings in the community at large.

Q. E. D.

Peace,

Bruce

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

from Alsino Marshall



Where, precisely, are those checks and balances?

Laurie

In what particular regard?
Are we still discussing administrative sanctions?
If so it goes like this:
1) A local assembly is made aware of a problem.
First check= Assembly does some fact finding to determine what the problem is and is it possibly founded.
second check = Assembly communicates with involved individuals, determines if the problem is substantive, if so it goes to step two
2) Communication with the individual to determine what knowledge the individual has as to whether the matter is intentional or inadvertent. Inform the individual of the problem and offer means to rectify it.
First check=Determine whether the individual is willing to rectify or not.

3( Step three IS a check and balance, because the local assembly must communicate with the National Assembly, summarize the facts determined, explain the process of counseling and guidance and make a recommendation.
4)(This is also a check and a balance National writes back, usually to determine what the methods of the local assembly have been like so far, and to determine if a change has ocurred.
Next check, the local reports their actions, and the status of the individual towards ammending the situation.
5) If National agrees that the situation has been handled properly to this point, the National asks the Local Assembly for its recommendations. National may or may not contact the individual in question.
6) As it sees fit, the National accepts or rejects the local recommendation.
That recommendation may have been for more counseling with the individual (if they will accept such) or it may suggest that administrative rights be revoked. This is a temporary sanction, pending the actions of the individual to acceptably rectify the situation.

During this whole time the individual is free to appeal decisions to another local assembly, to the National Assembly, or even to the House of Justice. These appeals are another check and balance.

During this whole time any member of the assembly who is dissatisfied with the process is free to take it to an Auxiliary Board Member (an appointed consultative individual), or the national assembly or to the House of Justice. This is another series of checks and balances.

Of course, none of this is jurisprudence. It is neither civil nor criminal law.

During the process the individuals have the same right of confidentiality of communications that are legally binding under law concerning the confessional and consultation with a lawyer or doctor - it is privileged communicatgion and this is the only part of the whole thing which comes under "common law".

As to disclosure? All administrative bodies in the faith are required to make their decisions public within the faith. Their consultations however, are not part of the record, as all consultation and fact finding in any matter are privileged communications under common law and Baha`i Law.

What constitutes, "Due Process" under Baha`i Law and under civil law sometimes contiguous and sometimes not. Baha`i law is not part of jurisprudence within the social order, however.

On the two or three occasions where the Baha`i Administrative order has been taken to civil court it has universally been found to be within its rights
to hold confidential the consultation whereby it reached a decision as privileged communication.

Regards,
Scott

[BruceDLimber]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Will the Baha'i community ever raise its voice together to ask whether the sanctions against gay Baha'is is really just?

Probably if and when a future Messenger ever revokes the law of chastity.

And in the meantime, there are no Baha'i "sanctions" against anyone--gay or not!--who obeys Divine Law. So perhaps not making up spurious accusations is in order.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Will they ever together consult about the paradox of Abdu'l Baha'i saying that the full equality of women is not just helpful, but imperative for peace vs. the male-only UHJ?

Please note that 'Abdu'l-Baha never said (or even implied) "versus" in the sense you have presented it. Perhaps it's only paradox to the extent that one sees only part of the picture.... I'm afraid your wording "poisons the well" (yet another form of logical fallacy, along with "begging the question" in the sense that your question implies that the answer has already been given and is what you say it is <that a paradox exists>).

Originally Posted by lunamoth

There was lots of Biblical justification for keeping slavery and women as property.

Then why is it you're apparently so eager to throw Bible passages at us? Having your cake and eating it too? Galatians comes immediately to mind.

Originally Posted by lunamoth

You're all wearing me down here.

Pots and kettles again? You think there's nothing we'd rather be doing than refute all this carping?!

YOU are the one who keeps insisting on posting attacks based on misinformation, so who's wearing down whom?

And all this after I thought we'd already agreed yesterday to knock off the hostilities?

To misquote Douglas Adams, "Oh, I see. This is some new definition of 'knocking off hostilities' with which I was previously unfamiliar."

I put it to you that we still await the renewal of cordial dialogue instead of Yet More Acrimony. God willing, the wait won't be still more prolonged!

Peace, <=== how about for BOTH of us?!

Bruce

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by BruceDLimber

Probably if and when a future Messenger ever revokes the law of chastity.

And in the meantime, there are no Baha'i "sanctions" against anyone--gay or not!--who obeys Divine Law. So perhaps not making up spurious accusations is in order.



Please note that 'Abdu'l-Baha never said (or even implied) "versus" in the sense you have presented it. Perhaps it's only paradox to the extent that one sees only part of the picture.... I'm afraid your wording "poisons the well" (yet another form of logical fallacy, along with "begging the question" in the sense that your question implies that the answer has already been given and is what you say it is <that a paradox exists>).



Then why is it you're apparently so eager to throw Bible passages at us? Having your cake and eating it too? Galatians comes immediately to mind.



Pots and kettles again? You think there's nothing we'd rather be doing than refute all this carping?!

YOU are the one who keeps insisting on posting attacks based on misinformation, so who's wearing down whom?

And all this after I thought we'd already agreed yesterday to knock off the hostilities?

To misquote Douglas Adams, "Oh, I see. This is some new definition of 'knocking off hostilities' with which I was previously unfamiliar."

I put it to you that we still await the renewal of cordial dialogue instead of Yet More Acrimony. God willing, the wait won't be still more prolonged!

Peace, <=== how about for BOTH of us?!

Bruce

In this instance I do not think peace can be imposed. It can only be adopted by resolutely giving up one's own hostile reactions, for gentler reason.

Regards,
Scott

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by PrimaVera

Is there not some point where we have to say that God understands the balance between justice and compassion better than we do?

I think this is a core issue with many faiths - not least of the Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law, which seems to be a key focus of this thread.

Ultimately, where it is for men to rule on the what God wants, there will be others to call on the fallibility of such men to make such judgements. It remains a matter of faith as to which is sided with.

There have been some very interesting points of faith raised in this dicussion so far - I sincerely hope to see it continue, but perhaps with a little tempering of certain passions.