Law and Sanctions

[smkolins]

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

The purpose is not to wear you down. We each have things to say but there is so much to say.... I've very much limited my posts, partly because I can't post every day and it takes a while to catch up.

As for when will the community at large respond - the community at large is very much aware of these issues and I see no measurable discontent. I wont say it isn't something individuals wrestle with but on the whole it's something we process rather than find stuck in our throats.

Meanwhile Baha'is tend to get almost no credit for their achievements in these kinds of issues from the same people most upset. For example in the area of the equality of women and men, I would welcome a comparative review of the national levels of leadership of every conceivable organization (government, private, NGO, religious, whatever) for a breakdown of the sexes involved, and what conditions apply for how positions are filled gender-wise (ie some kind of quota system or not.) I posted some sample data a few pages of posts ago for the Baha'i Faith. I have more.

Some elements of the western culture in which we are a part often, and I mean like all the time, bring up these issues in public discussion areas with Baha'is. Sometimes they reach the point where no other discussion can happen and everyone just avoids it. I hope that doesn't happen here. I would note that other elements of western society have no problem with these issues.

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

How have my posts been hostile today? Is questioning considered hostile? I feel I have been polite, or at least neutral today.

I am not intentionally misrepresenting anything. If you feel I misrepresent things, then this has given you an opportunity to clarify them.

I think part of the issue comes up from declaring a position with stating it. You say something is a position and you say it is not rational. Same goes for "us". We say a position and state it is x, y, and z. But the characterization is viewed by the other side as hostile. You feel outrage and how gay Baha'is are treated and how women are treated by the laws and practices of the Baha'i Faith - and express that outrage by characterizing our laws and practices appropriate to you pov. Of course we do not agree with the characterization and view that as a hostile statement. And everything visa-versa, for example, when we speak of the Baha'i Faith's relationship with other religions when we say such things as "old" "compromised" etc.

Yes?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

First off, thank you for being patient with me in such a controversial topic and please forgive my continued questioning, I'm trying to get a good grasp of this.



So both of these are just tests? I can't imagine that the two things I'm about to say are correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing it another way. So, it is the goal of test of the UHJ/women issue that women and sympathizers learn to accept some degree of inequality? And it is the goal of the homosexual test to suppress sexual urges though others in the community with very similar urges do not also have to suppress them? It seems a bit oppressive and arbitrary to me.

One can say, 'Well, it's God's will, accept it or don't.' But, I would imagine that if I were a homosexual Baha'i, that response would not be good enough for me. I might be very frustrated that I could not both have feelings towards the person I love, feelings equal to those of a heterosexual couple, and be a good Baha'i at the same time. Why is the homosexual not permitted to 'be united both physically and spiritually' with the person of their choice? What am I not seeing?

- Sarah

". In a letter to an individual believer, the Guardian's secretary
wrote on his behalf: "No matter how devoted and fine the
love may be between people of the same sex, to let it find expression
in sexual acts is wrong. Immorality of every sort is
really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships
He looks upon as such, besides being against nature." (p. 47)
(Baha'u'llah, Synopsis and Codification of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 64)

""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.
"God judges each soul on its own merits. The Guardian cannot tell you what the attitude of God would be towards a person who lives a good life in most ways, but not in this way. All he can tell you is that it is forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and that one so afflicted should struggle and struggle again to overcome it. We must be hopeful of God's Mercy but not impose upon it.""
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 365)

I don't mean to keep throwing quotes, but I do think that it is a burden upon the soul of an individual to be "outside" society in anyway. Like the Guardian I do not know what the status of any soul with God might be, its beyond me even to judge my own soul in such regard. In any regard, this must be left up to God.

That the marriage cannot be condoned by the Baha`i administrative order and Baha`i society in general creates another burden for the individual, and it may create burdens upon others who are troubled by that stance. It is not, however, up to the adminstrative order to bring their policy into alignment with the "feelings" of anyone. Is it?

Regards,
Scott

[PrimaVera]

Laurie,

Originally Posted by lunamoth

If I am freely part of a system, and I agree to never voice my objections against the decisions of that system, then I am personally responsible. Even in Nazi Germany, many times people did things but they were not freely choosing to be part of that system, not that I feel it should pardon any atrocities. "I was just following orders" kind of thing.

So, I am going to answer to God directly for the decisions made by those institutions. If they cause pain, I am part of that pain. I take that responsibility.

I see you feel differently. Fair enough.

Ah, I see, though I think our difference might be a bit more narrow than you'd expect. Not only is it OK for me to make my feelings known to the institutions, I am obligated to make my feelings known. I am, however, equally obligated to make my feelings known to these institutions in a way such that my own behavior does not violate Baha'i law and principles.

A good reason not to be worrying about personal chastity matters that affect no one else to begin with.

Except that, in today's society and as sociology has demonstrated rather clearly, there is no such thing as a personal, chastity matter that doesn't affect anyone else.

[PrimaVera]

Dear Sarah,

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

So both of these are just tests? I can't imagine that the two things I'm about to say are correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing it another way. So, it is the goal of test of the UHJ/women issue that women and sympathizers learn to accept some degree of inequality? And it is the goal of the homosexual test to suppress sexual urges though others in the community with very similar urges do not also have to suppress them? It seems a bit oppressive and arbitrary to me.

Not quite. I've mentioned Bahiyyih Nakhjavani's book Asking Questions before, but her thesis is that the test is a challenge to our understanding of these basic concepts. It's not so much to get us to accept inequality as it is a test that forces us to rethink what equality means.

I'll ask a rhetorical question that's merely food for thought. I don't think there is a definitive answer. Which is more important in terms of the equality between women and men, the membership of the Universal House of Justice or how I treat my wife and daughters?

[lunamoth]

post withdrawn

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

...I can't imagine that the two things I'm about to say are correct, but I'm having a hard time seeing it another way. So, it is the goal of test of the UHJ/women issue that women and sympathizers learn to accept some degree of inequality? And it is the goal of the homosexual test to suppress sexual urges though others in the community with very similar urges do not also have to suppress them? It seems a bit oppressive and arbitrary to me.

...Why is the homosexual not permitted to 'be united both physically and spiritually' with the person of their choice? What am I not seeing?

- Sarah

Well you do assume that the heterosexual couple don't have chastity problems for one. The law of chastity isn't void just because one is married. Issues of regulation and control remain.

Understanding chastity is a prfound subject - for example it turns out to be a key issue in understanding Scripture! "The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit."

As for women on the House of Justice, other arguments and considerations can apply as well. Perhaps we can examin those in a bit.

It is also commented that homosexuality is against nature. Just be dwell on that a second - consider the philosophical issues. The simple existence of sex is for reproduction. It has many other issues and qualities involved but they are, however important, not the essential reason it exists. Now, what are the implications of engaging in something NEVER for the reason for which it most is in existence? It rather transends in substance the issues of using all the fossil fuels up and causing global warming - it's more on a par with genetic engineering run amuck.

Now this line of reason is just that - a line of reason. It is personal though aspects of it can be shared. Baha'u'llah sometimes uses reason to illuminate an issue. But there are other qualities He uses as well - an informed point of view is sometimes noted for example in issues per death and dying and the next world.

[arthra]

This quote also came to mind when I was reading some of the posts:

"But it is clear from the teaching of Baha'u'llah that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled, but is a distortion of his or her nature which should be controlled or overcome. This may require a hard struggle, but so also can be the struggle of a heterosexual person to control his or her desires. The exercise of self-control in this, as in so very many other aspects of life, has a beneficial effect on the progress of the soul."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, January 12, 1973; cited in Messages from the Universal House of Justice, 1968- 1973, pp. 110-111; also cited in LG, #1222, p. 365)

"But it is clear from the teaching of Baha'u'llah that homosexuality is not a condition to which a person should be reconciled..."

That's pretty much where lies in my view...

There's also a compilation on the subject that might have some more ideas at

http://bahai-library.com/unpubl.comp...lity.comp.html

- Art

[smkolins]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

What happened to A Modest Proposal?

Perhaps the same as "Never again", which is to say, compromised by the very authors. Something isn't so just because one calls it "modest".

Originally Posted by lunamoth

It's quite possible that today's Baha'i heretics will be considered the future heros of the Faith.

It is also possible such people will be as famous as Arius, or all of his prominant followers. I doubt anyone I know will reach the position of Origen.