Disqus - Latest Comments for sonjavank

Re: I asked my 4-year-old son why he hates daycare, his answer was heartbreaking

sonjavank — Fri, 08 Sep 2017 06:25:55 -0000

you've done heaps by sharing your story, but yes, talk to the daycare first and if they don't see how important this is, then you need to change. Even if it means your son loses a chance of being friends with that girl. Talking to the parents would only work after the daycare staff take this on because that little girl got her ideas from somewhere. Not to say that her parents wouldn't do their best to work on this too, but they might be in denial. My son at 4 years of age once said that he didn't like an African boy in his class because he was chocolate all over. As a parent, I could only assume he either heard this somewhere or it was his way of noticing difference. So I used this as an example for my son to see that white is also a colour all over and later, once friends with this boy, my son seemed to have forgotten that he was chocolate. In my case, I didn't approach that boy's parents, instead I invited the boy over in playground to talk to my son and told him that my son came from another country too.

Re: It’s a little known fact. . . [4]

sonjavank — Tue, 08 May 2012 05:14:25 -0000

Kratos you wrote "I don't think Baha'u'llah was very accepting of homosexuality though." deciding to disregard the fact that Baha'u'llah didn't write a word on the topic. I'll post this link for anyone who might be interested what is in Bahai Scripture that touches on this subject. http://justabahai.wordpress...

Kratos from this your other comments, it seems to me tahatht you are not interested an indepth discussion of the Writings as you asked initiality. Mouthing off about Bahais is not fruitful. I am a Bahai, so you are calling me dishonest and living a fake life.

Re: It’s a little known fact. . . [4]

sonjavank — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 12:19:00 -0000

Greetings Kratos, Bahai Scripture which is authorative and unchangeable does not mention homosexuality, however many Bahais say all sorts of evil things about homosexuality and some say that their views are based on the Bahai Writings. My latest blog challenges the idea that homosexuality is an illness >
http://justabahai.wordpress...

Next time a Bahai writes something negative about gays and says it comes from the Bahai Writings and then they say but a Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi counts then ask them how come the Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi stating that birth control is against the spirit of the Bahai Teachings is clearly ignored.
Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are generally treated as advice or guidance, along with the context they were written in, except for anything mentioning homosexuality. Then it is treated as if it is scripture. So it is clearly prejudice against gays. Here's what Shoghi Effendi is likely to have intended:

"The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, … …when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a previous letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free to follow it or not as you please.” (1944)

"Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less…” (1951) http://justabahai.wordpress...

(note, I say "likely" - I am not a mind reader and neither is a secretary however accurately she or he might been in penning these letters - If you want to know what Shoghi Effendi actually thought (and interpreted), read what he wrote himself - You'll find he never mentions homosexuality).

Now not having anything penned in Scripture is not an issue. That means this falls under the legislation of the U.H.J. to rule on. The current policy of the U.H.J. appears (I say 'appears' because all I have as a source are a number of letters and statements - and tomorrow there might be a differing letter or there could be later letters I have not seen) to be that homosexuals must officially live celibate lives but that compassion and tolerance should be exercised. The latest letter of theirs (Oct 2010) that I am aware of which touches on this subject (and on same sex marriage) is quoted here > http://justabahai.wordpress...

Re: Baha’u’llah & “The Subject of Boys”

sonjavank — Fri, 06 May 2011 16:18:56 -0000

I wrote about this on this blog some years ago and this is a direct link to the same post.

Here I show that since the notes section (the quotation you use) is penned by the U.H.J. or the Research department acting on their behalf.

"Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same.
Thus for example, the House of Justice enacteth today a certain law and enforceth it, and a hundred years hence, circumstances having profoundly changed and the conditions having altered, another House of Justice will then have power, according to the exigencies of the time, to alter that law.
This it can do because these laws form no part of the divine explicit Text. The House of Justice is both the initiator and the abrogator of its own laws."
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 20)

I give more background to this here

Baquia has also pointed out the same in earlier comments. That there is no reference to homosexuality by Baha'u'llah or Abdul-Baha. And Shoghi Effendi did not write a word on the topic either. His secretaries did.

Re: Baha’u’llah & “The Subject of Boys”

sonjavank — Fri, 06 May 2011 15:58:58 -0000

you wrote: "Elsewhere in the Bahá'í writings it is made clear that marriage can only be between a man and a woman", where in the Bahai writings? You do not state this and just saying it is, is not proof.

Baquia has indicated that s/he'll discuss this in a future blog, so you might prefer to wait for that context. However, my argument for equality for gays has not to do with sex. It is to do with raising children and being married. So picking on what you see as excesses or lack of control, I feel, avoids this. As if gay marriage could somehow be a cause of a lowering of morals? Are you seriously suggesting this? I may have misinterpreted your intent, so I'll stop.

Re: Baha’u’llah & “The Subject of Boys”

sonjavank — Fri, 06 May 2011 15:41:06 -0000

As far as I know the question of incest, referred as forbidden degrees of marriage, like homosexuality is something the Universal House of Justice will or can legislate on.

See: http://senmcglinn.wordpress...

Desir, the note you refer to is not penned by Shoghi Effendi, but it is a letter written on his behalf. See my blog which discusses the status of these letters.

Re: Baha’u’llah & “The Subject of Boys”

sonjavank — Fri, 06 May 2011 15:27:14 -0000

Baquia, I second Eric's views. I've only now had time to read through the article and the links. It is brilliant!

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Fri, 06 May 2011 07:28:33 -0000

@Barbruthw , Sorry that it took a while to respond to your comment about "the word "necessarily," which you ignore in your analysis, leaves the door open for possible opposition to it."

My response is here:
http://justabahai.wordpress...

Let me know if you still think I'm ignoring "necessarily" - I agree the phrase is open to interpretation, but I think there is nothing wrong with the U.H.J. writing in such an open way, so Bahais need to think about how they respond. It seems a wise approach. Bahais should think for themselves.

The area of marriage is a topic I am working on but it will take me more time to find material.

re: your question about open gays serving on Bahai institutions is something that seems to be changing. There is the sad story of a member of the NSA of the USA who was openly gay and as far as I know was not discriminated against, in the 1980s or so, and then the U.H.J. had him removed from his service on the N.S.A. and his voting rights removed, and later he left the Faith.

However at the recent elections two openly gay Bahai acquaintances of mine were elected to their L.S.A.s! Given the new letter from the U.H.J. my hope is that these individuals will now not be removed by the U.H.J. :)

Re: Baha’u’llah & “The Subject of Boys”

sonjavank — Tue, 03 May 2011 06:03:16 -0000

Stvnclmn wrote: What do you think of:
"Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history, is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, is spiritually condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe that it is a permissible way of life; which, alas, is all too often the accepted attitude nowadays."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, May 21, 1954)

Some Bahais might think to use birth control is against the teachings of the Bahai Faith because a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi states it "as constituting a real danger to the very foundations of our social life.” (A link to the letter is here - scroll to the comments below for the full letter)

So Stynclmn if you choose to treat everything penned by a secretary writing Letters on Shoghi Effendi's behalf, as if this is scripture to be followed to the letter, I can only assume that you might have problems with Bahais who practice some form of birth control or anything else penned in these letters. As an individual there is nothing to stop you from following the advice in these letters, unless, and this is just my own opinion, your actions contradict any Bahai Teaching.

Some Bahais interprete anything penned by a secretary as if this has the same status as Bahai Scripture so here is a link to some statements about the status of these letters.

These letters have status, but not the same as anything penned by Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha, or Shoghi Effendi and here is a link to some of these letters which either contradict Bahai Scripture or have inaccuracies.

As Bahais we need to learn to see these distinctions if we want our Bahai community (here Shoghi Effendi is referring specifically to our administration) to: "be conceived as an instrument and not a substitute for the Faith of Baha'u'llah, that it should be regarded as a channel through which His promised blessings may flow, that it should guard against such rigidity as would clog and fetter the liberating forces released by His Revelation."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 9)

So in short Shoghi Effendi seems to be saying, let the priniciples of the Bahai Teachings guide us in our actions.

Now to the Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which you posted: I googled the phrase: "Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, is spiritually condemned." and found it is sourced all over the place, including wikipedia, bahaikipedia and so on. However nowhere have I found anything in the Baha'u'llah's Writings to back this up. Of course I realise many of His tablets are not yet translated but my argument here is, if there is a tablet somewhere that states clearly that homosexuality is spiritually condemned, it would be sourced or a priority would have been given, so such statements in Letters Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi would have some scriptural basis. We cannot assume that those secretaries had the power of divination to 'know' what was in a tablet without having read this themselves. It is not a Bahai Teaching to believe that Bahais such as those who served as secretaries had super-human powers.

But I can understand that anyone using the internet would think, well it must be somewhere in the Bahai Writings, otherwise why would this quotation often be the first thing quoted in places such as wikipedia. I would agree, I find this odd. Why does it seem to be that Bahais are so keen to damn homosexuality? Why do not more Bahais question this? Are Bahais more likely to damn homosexuality than any other individual? If you think so, then I'd say, do something about this.
Asking questions (to others or oneself) and investigating the truth are Bahai Teachings. We as individuals make what the Bahai community is in society - no people, no community. We need to do the investigating ourselves. It is our own responsibility.

Why does a religion that celebrates diversity and has equality as a teaching, have homosexuality as an exception? Where does the idea that homosexuality is bad come from? That's my question. If it comes from those letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, and other issues mentioned in these letters are treated as advice for the particular individual/s it was addressed to, or not given a focus, then why are those mentioning homosexuality treated differently?

We cannot blame those letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi either, because it us, the Bahais, who are who treating the status of these letters differently to how other letters are being treated. Sen has written a blog which goes into some detail about the Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.

Re: Baha’u’llah & “The Subject of Boys”

sonjavank — Sun, 01 May 2011 20:15:53 -0000

Desir, I don't understand why you refer to the Bible. Another Bahai did this in attempt to argue that homosexuality was a bad thing and here is a link to my response where I show why I do not think it is a Bahai teaching to accept previous religious laws as being applicable for Bahais.

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 13:51:43 -0000

Please see which is also a response to this question made in August 2009 and buried in the comments underneath this blog

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 05:48:39 -0000

Yes I know that membership is not always automatic and it has been declined to people (usually without any explanation given).

Such as in Brendan Cook’s case in 2006: he was brought up a Baha'i in a Baha'i family and was a part of a Baha'i community all his life, in a smaller community where they did not have a system of youth signing cards when they declared. Then when he began to express his views on a Bahai-only forum, this was objected to by the administrator, Susan Maneck, with the reason that he wasn't officially a Baha'i. At the same time he was told by Bahais in the Toronto community that he now needed a card in order to continue to be able to attend Bahai feasts. Then he met with representatives of the LSA in Toronto to officially enroll. They refused to accept him and the reason for this decision was informatively "On the basis of your own statements, expressed in various ways, we have reached the conclusion that you do not meet the criteria for Bahá’í membership and your enrolment application cannot be accepted."

Brendan has as much of a clue as to whatever this criteria must be as anyone reading this here because I always thought the criteria was as is stated on the US Bahai website:
“A person becomes a Bahá’í by recognizing Bahá’u’lláh as the Messenger of God for this age, committing to abide by His laws and guidance, and informing the Bahá’í community of this commitment.” In New Zealand where I joined the card signed stated also that you believed in 'Abdu-Baha, Shoghi Effendi as Guardian and would obey the Bahai Laws. Brendan is a writer of satire and some Bahais were objecting to this, but surely Bahais may engage in satire? I disagree with what some Bahais write but that shouldn't be a reason to then say, that this person can't be a Bahai.

So yes, I realise that suggesting to gays that they resign so they can legally marry and then re-join without breaking any current Bahai law, might not go smoothly.

And in fact I am not even sure if a gay couple would break a Bahai law if they did marry. It would depend on their L.S.A., because I know of a case where a gay was to marry following all the requirements, but then in the end one of the parents refused to give permission. This was to legalize a union where they had raised a son together who was now grown.

In light of this January 3rd 2011 letter by the U.H.J. an L.S.A. now might not be so rigid about requiring parental permission.

“The National Spiritual Assembly is pleased to share with you guidance that it has received from the Universal House of Justice concerning Bahai marriage law and the requirement of parental consent.
…

Finally, the right of the parent to consent can be forfeited if he or she seeks to use the requirement for consent in a manner which subverts the spirit and intent of the law or obstructs an individual's right as a believer in Baha'u'llah to marry in accordance with the provisions of Bahai law. For example, 'Abdu'l-Baha states, "As for the question regarding marriage under the Law of God: first thou must choose one who is pleasing to thee, and then the matter is subject to the consent of father and mother. Yet, in some instances, a parent has refused consent in order to deprive the child of the right to choose and to force the child to marry someone of the parent's choosing. In other instances, a parent has denied consent in order to try to prevent the child from marrying anyone."

In the case of the gay couple I mention above, the main reason was the parents’ objection to their son being a Bahai. They did not want to support a Bahai ceremony. Of course an L.S.A. might not consider the above softening of the need for parental permission, in some cases, as applying to a situation where a parent objects because of religion.

I also have some questions about the current policy of the rules for a Bahai marriage. Recently an acquaintance pointed out to me that she married an atheist, and because he felt it was immoral to state “we will all verily abide by the will of God” when he didn’t believe in God, she couldn’t have a Bahai marriage. If an L.S.A. was being rigid, she would have lost her voting rights because of this. This didn’t happen, however Bahais around her gave her a very difficult time, implying she was doing something wrong, telling her that she was breaking Bahai law (because she was marrying someone she loved). In the end, although she loved the teachings, she resigned and removed herself from the community.

I am certain that Baha’u’llah would never had intended the rules for a Bahai marriage to be so rigid. Bahais are free to marry whomsoever they wish. Anyway the point of this aside here is to show that perhaps a gay Bahai need not resign to marry, and might even be able to have a Bahai wedding ceremony, if the L.S.A. or N.S.A. did not object.

Ideally an L.S.A. should treat them like any heterosexual couple and make an exception, if the L.S.A. sees a gay marriage as an exception, for the good of the Bahai community. I know of one happily married open gay Bahai who is welcomed in his local community with his voting rights intact, however when I suggested that gays should resign before marrying I was thinking of Daniel Orey's case, where he legalized his marriage according to Californian law when it was possible and then had his voting rights removed about a year later by the U.S.A. N.S.A. in 2009. They gave the reason as being for having a “same-sex marriage”. In his case, a Bahai in his community helped him to plan his wedding as Bahai as possible and she served as a witness. It couldn’t be declared as a Bahai wedding because his parents refused to give permission. And I am not sure what might have happened if the L.S.A. had accepted his wedding. Would the N.S.A. have annulled this? I don’t know.

Anyway if Daniel had unenrolled, then the N.S.A. could not have used the reason for removing his voting rights as being because he had a marriage ceremony that was not a Bahai one. That was my thinking here.

So yes, I agree with you, I must warn any gay that it would depend on their Bahai community as to whether they would be allowed to rejoin, and as to whether they should do this. Sometimes gay couples are welcome in their communities, sometimes, as in Daniel’s case, suddenly out of the blue, they might get a letter stating that their voting rights are removed, so I don’t have an answer here. Clearly something is amiss if the laws of a country are more egalitarian than the Bahai practice.

Baquia wrote "Appealing to the NSA/UHJ rarely if ever results in the original decision being turned (with the exception of an sympathetic case involving egregious and clear breaches of Baha'i law). I've certainly never seen an appeal bring about the desired result."

I agree, the common lore is that a Bahai can appeal and can expect to hear a reason or have their case looked at with justice, but in practice I agree with you, when voting rights are removed or enrollment is refused and the reason is not clear, no reason is ever given. Still I hope that this situation will change as more Bahais become aware of this and the Bahai administration develops so that it is more transparent. I know of one case where a removal of voting rights happened without any explanation and because there was no explanation, rumours and backbiting by Bahais about the (imagined) 'awful things' this Bahai must have done were so abundant that I heard of them when I passed through this community. Thankfully I knew the person and knew that these rumours were untrue. Then after 10 years, as if by magic, this Bahai had his voting rights returned with no apology and no explanation.

If there was a mistake made, a simple apology, would do wonders in gaining the respect of Bahais such as myself. No system is perfect but a just administration should be transparent as much as is possible, so that it can be informed by the community it serves.

“the Universal House of Justice is not omniscient; like the Guardian, it wants to be provided with facts when called upon to render a decision, and like him it may well change its decision when new facts emerge...”
(The Universal House of Justice, 1977 Aug 22, Clarification on Infallibility)

The Bahai adiministration should be there to serve the Teachings of Baha’u’llah and not be treated as if the administration itself was revelation.

“The duties of those whom the friends have freely and conscientiously elected as their representatives are … Their function is not to dictate, but to consult, and consult not only among themselves, but as much as possible with the friends whom they represent. They must regard themselves in no other light but that of chosen instruments for a more efficient and dignified presentation of the Cause of God. They should never be led to suppose that they are the central ornaments of the body of the Cause, intrinsically superior to others in capacity or merit, and sole promoters of its teachings and principles. ”
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 65)

And of course I have my own story with my husband Sen McGlinn where there are all sorts of colourful reasons given for his removal as a member of the Bahai community. I understand Bahais believe that the Bahai administration must be just, and so they will assume that Sen must have done something wrong and believe that Sen is hiding something and do not believe when we say we do not know what this reason is. However this is nothing compared to my gay brothers and sisters who are not treated with equality, who are told they are spiritually diseased, or told that if they want to raise a family that this is against the Bahai Teachings.

I hope that the letter of the U.H.J. urging Bahais not to discriminate means that Bahai communities will endeavour to treat all their community members with equality.

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:26:11 -0000

Barb wrote: "while the opportunity for civil marriage should never be promoted or supported by Baha'is, it might in some instances be necessary or permissible to oppose it publicly."

Barb why do you write this? I agree Bahais do make public statements against homosexuality such as the April statement by the Malaysian Bahai representative but I do not think that the October 2010 letter by the U.H.J. supports this. In fact I would think that the purpose of the letter is to encourage Bahais not to publically side for or against civil unions:

"In working for social justice, Bahá’ís must inevitably distinguish between those dimensions of public issues that are in keeping with the Bahá’í Teachings, which they can actively support, and those that are not, which they would neither promote nor necessarily oppose. In connection with issues of concern to homosexuals, the former would be freedom from discrimination and the latter the opportunity for civil marriage."

[link to the whole letter]

How I read this is that Bahai communities must work against discrimination against homosexuals.
And on the issue of civil unions Bahai communities should not be seen as for neither for nor against, so if Bahais make any statements on this topic they can only do this speaking as an individual expressing their personal opinions and not as a representative of any particular aspect of the Bahai community.

If Bahais continue to do this, and I agree with you, it seems to be the case, it could be that these representatives are unaware of this letter.
I am hopeful, I think this is a huge step. Bahai communities are instructed not discriminate against homosexuals and in fact are encouraged "to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated." (UHJ, 27 Oct, 2010)

Baquia asked:
"...something else which just flashed into my mind is that the distinction the letter makes is a false one.
That is to say, restricting homosexuals from entering civil union or marriage is itself, most emphatically, a form of discrimination.
How can it not be? "

Well I think many Bahais assume that homosexual Bahais are restricted from a civil union, but it isn't that black and white. And in my view the letter doesn't imply this.

The same letter from the UHJ states:
"The Baha’i Writings state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are restricted to a couple who are married to each other. Other passages from the Writings state that the practice of homosexuality is not permitted."

However there are two things here: civil unions are not the same as a marriage. Does this mean that a civil union can be seen as one of the allowed forbidden degrees of marriage (I'm still researching on this so sorry folks no more details yet) as expressed by the Bab or is marriage a social law as Abdul-Baha expressed in His will and testament?
Does this mean that civil unions are to be accepted as the same as a marriage and in that sense an expansion of what marriage is, meaning a possibility for same sex marriage?

The above questions cannot be answered at the moment - more research needs to be done and I think most likely this will be a policy the UHJ or perhaps various NSAs will need to legistrate on.

However at the moment so many Bahais still believe that homosexuality itself is wrong and we only need to search on the words "Bahai" and "homosexuality" to find many examples of this discrimination, so in general, Bahai communities are not welcoming places for out-of-closet healthy well adjusted gays, and so understandably the topic of any expansion on the meaning of what 'marriage' can include is most likely not a topic likely to part of any legistration in my lifetime.
However as Bahais we can certainly discuss this and the potentials or possibilities because this is the way we can develop our understandings of how the Bahai community can adapt, progress and remain relevant for a changing society - even if such discussions end up showing that such a potential is not possible.
So back to the letter and the current situation for gay Bahais.

The letter states that on the question of civil union, Bahais (and here I read this as Bahai communities because of course individual Bahais should be free to form their own opinions) are not to be fore nor against, so it would mean that any said Bahai community should welcome any individual who is legally in a union, in the same spirit that Bahai communities welcome and accept heterosexuals who also have had civil unions or polygamous marriages before they join the Bahai Faith.

I know this doesn't help single gay Bahais but my advice here would be, that they follow Bahai law exactly as any heterosexual would need to and expect the same treatment and then when they are ready to marry that they resign, marry and then rejoin. Bahais must not discriminate, so they should not be rejected. If they are, they can appeal to the NSA and to the UHJ.
Now you might be thinking but this is a work-around. Yes it is. However this work-around concerns a cultural custom - a social law. Marriage and acceptance, and not essential Bahai teachings such as Justice, Equality, Progressive Revelation and so on, and more importantly it does not contradict anything penned by Baha'u'llah, Abdul-Baha or Shoghi Effendi.

And in societies where gays cannot legally marry my advice would be to show mercy, tolerance, and be welcoming as often Bahais are, so that Bahai law is not just " a mere code of laws" used to hit the opressed over the head with but rather used with wisdom and power for the good of all. I still hope that NSAs will no longer remove voting rights from gays because some Bahai is making a fuss about them being gay, while a heterosexual in exactly the same situation is shown mercy and tolerance and is allowed to participate with local Bahai community activities.

Bahais need to see their religion as a living breathing entity and if some Bahai communities welcome their gay couples into their communities with open arms I think that is much healthier for all Bahais than to have an atmosphere of hypocritical 'don't ask and don't tell', or worse, the idea that is ok for a Bahai to think that a gay Bahai is not equally welcome. If that gay Bahai re-joined the community now openly married and accepted with no back-biting nor threat that sooner or later an NSA might remove their voting rights, then an atmosphere of equality for all flowers of the garden is possible.
I realise a lot of the fear that Bahais have towards gay couples and families is because it is a new idea and that the idea that our faith is flexible and can adapt is most likely the real reason there is so much resistance to the idea that Bahai communities can be societies where gays are treated with equal rights and responsibilities.

Shoghi Effendi wrote: "I need not dwell upon what I have already reiterated and emphasized that the administration of the Cause is to be conceived as an instrument and not a substitute for the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh, that it should be regarded as a channel through which His promised blessings may flow, that it should guard against such rigidity as would clog and fetter the liberating forces released by His Revelation." (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 9)

Let Bahai communities be channels for the Bahai principles of equality, justice, and unity in diversity.

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 08:11:45 -0000

Sarmad, would you consider the removal of voting rights from a legally married couple as an individual's foolish mistake? This is happening to many (but not all) married gay Bahais.

I wouldn't call this a "foolish mistake" but rather a situation where the Bahai administration is breaking the rules of the country. I realise that in countries such as in the U.S., same-sex marriage has been associated with party politics and I see the wisdom in the letter by the U.H.J. in asking Bahai communities to stay out of the debate, however this is a different situation to then removing voting rights from those who marry or are married. That is gay Bahais, who are legally married according to the laws of their country or state (sometimes these are called civil unions, but the law is a legally recognized union) then lose their voting rights.
The worst thing about this whole scenario, in my view is the constant fear gay Bahais live with knowing that tomorrow they might have their voting rights removed. And for Bahais such as myself, knowing of so many stories where the administration appears to do this after an individual Bahai makes an issue of this.
Meaning that the administration seems to leave gay couples be, if no individual Bahai makes a fuss about this but then they act when some individual does. I can understand that an LSA might find it difficult to proceed and accept a gay union as having the same rights and responsibilities as is accepted by the law of the state or country, if then Bahais complain that homosexuality is forbidden, but I think in light of this latest letter by the U.H.J., L.S.A.s should be able to take a position of not discriminating against those who are married.
I know this is not the same as promoting equality for gays but it is at least not a practice of discrimination.

If administrative decisions are not the essence of a community what are they then? I agree they need not be the essence of a religion, although one would hope that there would be a close connection.

Just calling these "foolish mistakes" misses the point. The point that our Bahai communities have two standards. One lot of values and standards for heterosexual couples and families and another set of values and standards for gay couples and families.

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 07:23:19 -0000

Greetings,
I don't understand what you are referring to by "stop taking the behaviour of individual Baha'is and using this as a means for making deductions about the Faith."? If you are referring to anything I've written please quote that so I can respond to your comment.

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:02:08 -0000

Please light a candle for David Kato

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:15:25 -0000

thanks for your comments.
You refer to Uganda but actually my blog is more about how in the U.S. Bahais are mentioned as members and supporters in the NARTH statement page. Of course individual Bahais are free to join NARTH but my point here is, that as I interprete the recent letter from the U.H.J., just as Bahais may not be named as being supporters for any political party, Bahais should also not be named as being supporters for or against homosexuals. NARTH clearly exists with the mission of advocating discrimination against homosexuals.

So far from judging Bahais in Uganda, I'm saying, look at the U.S. Bahai community and from that any Bahai community anywhere where Bahais are publically supporting anti-gay organizations.

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Sun, 16 Jan 2011 19:42:12 -0000

L wrote: "I was never sanctioned in any way at a BNASAA conference for saying I was fine as a Baha'i who was gay. There was surprize mixed with relief that someone present was okay with his being gay, felt a good connection to God, couldn't understand why Shoghi Effendi wrote what he did as he felt it did not make sense, and had no interest in changing. BNASAA doesn't associate homosexuality with illness but allows someone with that view to speak about it only as it pertains to the individual speaking. No one speaks for another or discloses another's story. You may not be aware of this if you have not been to one of their conferences. If you saw something of that nature on their website you may have mistakenly felt that this was the only view of BNASAA. Not being a big fan of computers myself I feel the personal approach is best when exploring the facts about something. You may wish to attend a conference for a more balanced viewpoint where you will hear the truths of all who attend instead of reading an article by someone who feels their intellectual prowess is more enlightening than a person's spoken truth. If you have been to a conference I don't understand how you could come away from it with the misunderstanding."

Thanks for sharing your experiences of BNASAA conferences but the fact that the title of this organization throws sexuality in with addictions seems a very strong indication that BNASAA sees homosexuality as some form of illness. If not, then why not change the title, change the association with illness? It seems incongruous to pretend this is about illness if the conferences are then about treating homosexuality as a part of the diversity of humankind.
My question then is what types of talks were given? Were these talks, as it seems from the website, talks on overcoming homosexuality or on suppressing this?

The BNASAA website (further on the same page ) has a section titled:

Considerations for Assemblies, Dealing with Same-Sex Issues

4. The Assembly should strive to maintain the dignity if the individual. Many women and men struggling with same-sex issues have low self-esteem and are in desperate need of love and acceptance. Confidentiality needs to be maintained and inadvertent exposure carefully avoided.
5. Discuss with the individual the relevant Bahá’í laws and teachings on chastity, marriage, and same-sex issues. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, the individual being counseled may be extremely sensitive, and individuals counseling them may want to take care to ensure that their assistance is received in a spirit of sharing and support.
6. It is impossible to consult on situations without some basic knowledge of the subject itself. The Assembly should recognize that there is no known cure for homosexuality. Comparing same-sex issues to alcoholism is a very helpful method of avoiding the naiveté of suggesting that Bahá’ís struggling with same-sex issues should simply pray, read the Writings and teach the Faith. It is very important to understand that the struggle with same-sex issues may be a lifelong ordeal. Even so, it is fundamentally important for the Assembly to encourage the individual to pray fervently, to continue or begin to deepen, to involve him or herself in the activities of the community – especially in teaching activities - and to develop supportive spiritual friendships within the community.
7. The Assembly is not a "mental health center," and should not assume responsibilities for functions that it is not competent to carry out. Tactful referral of homosexuals - as in the case of any other person with special needs for skilled professional assistance – should be made to appropriate outside resources. It should be noted that several attempts may be necessary before finding the appropriate therapist. In addition to encouraging the individual to seek therapeutic help, the Bahá'í Network on AIDS, Sexuality, Addictions and Abuse (BNASAA) can provide Bahá’í support and assistance.

I am not suggesting that the atmosphere of any BNASAA conference would be hostile. Not at all, and you can see above, the tone is very gentle.
However the goal, the view or focus compares homosexuality to illness. In this case to alcoholism! There's a long history of members of majority groups judging minorities as lesser, as having low esteem for example, because they don't operate in ways that are familiar or are not visible to the majority. And I've been told so many many times by well-meaning Bahai's, "ah but so and so isn't really gay or they would be more clear about being gay" and so on.
It is easy to give the stamp of low self-esteem when the other person is silent or does not come back with a similiar mode of expression, when in fact they are hurt and insulted. When operating in a second language here in the Netherlands, I've been told that I have low self-esteem, by well-meaning individuals who do not have a clue what my life really is like! They make their judgements on what they see, and so given that the Bahai community in general treats homosexuality as something wrong, it is no wonder that gays who are Bahai's, have to tread on thin ice when with other Bahais. The Bahai community is not gay friendly. This needs to change.
As a woman I'd feel insulted if the only committee currently allowed to exist in the Bahai community, that dealt in some way with being female, was also a committee on alcoholism, and then here all sorts of talks about how wonderful women are, how women need to be tolerated, given compassion for the affliction of being female, were all made in the spirit of trying to help us because basically there's something wrong with being a woman to start with. I hope you can see how such an attitude is insulting however lovingly the expressions of tolerance are. It isn't enough to tolerant, Bahais need to accept gays as equals - as individuals with perspectives and values.

You suggest that what I wrote on my blog above in reference to the BNASAA has little relevence as the website doesn't reflect the experiences of the conferences, so I asked a friend to share some experiences:

"Yes I don't think anyone is outright sanctioned. As in names aren't written down and then the NSA goes ok, and removes his voting rights. HOWEVER, from the very beginning of the meeting it was made absolutely clear that BNASAA was NOT the place to challenge the official view that homosexuality is supposed to be corrected and that it is a wrong lifestyle. I absolutely did not feel like it was a affirming place for someone who is gay, Bahai, and wants to be in an open relationship. The meeting I went to was in Northern California back in 2002. So things may have changed since then, I don't know. Pose this question to the reader: "Would BNASAA now invite a person like Daniel to come and tell his story about having his voting rights removed for getting married?" I doubt it.
What I got out of BNASAA at my one meeting was that it was a great place for people with some serious issues (sex addiction, incest, rape, drugs, etc.) to find solace and talk openly with others. There really weren't classes per se, mostly just sharing of stories and prayer circles, which were beautiful and all. But I felt completely out of place. In a weird way, I felt bad for being there because, well... there was nothing wrong with me. It's wrong of them to lump my sexuality with all these serious issues that people are battling with. My two cents worth. :) So no, from my experience it is absolutely NOT an affirming place for gay and lesbians who are happy with themselves."

Daniel formalized his Brazilian marriage when it became legal to marry in California. In response the NSA of the USA removed his voting rights citing his same-sex marriage as the reason (I wrote a blog in response to this here) in 2009. Now with this new policy of the UHJ, if the NSA of the USA were to reinstate his voting rights, they would no longer be discriminating against an existing same-sex marriage.

And finally a question out of curiosity, did you experience any talks or workshops given at a BNASAA conference, where the homosexuality was presented as part of the diversity of humankind, or as not needing to be cured or changed? I am aware that Bahais do have these views but until now I'm only aware that presentations from these perspectives within a Bahai context are not allowed or their papers have been rejected.

You wrote that they "allows someone with that view to speak about it only as it pertains to the individual speaking.", does this mean that current scientific research on this topic would be disallowed.

Re: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality: It’s Getting Better

sonjavank — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 09:17:27 -0000

Thanks for this information about "Uganda's antigay protests".
What I note in my blog is that this was not just any interfaith coalition but one with the title: "Interfaith Rainbow Coalition Against Homosexuality", so it would be hard for the Bahai/s or Bahai representative who joined to be unaware of the goals of this group. And the misfortunate in having the locals news and then the international news pick up on the Bahai involvement could have been avoided if the local Bahais had taken acton as soon as they knew that a Bahai had joined such a group.
I am aware that Bahais had taken action as soon as this was in the news, but the point of my blog and the point, as I see it, is a Bahai shouldn't have joined such a discriminatory group to start with.
The culture of the Bahai community needs to change so that Bahais don't think it is OK to join such groups. That Bahais don't think it is perfectly within the principles of the Bahai Faith to join any group or association which treats or views homosexuality with prejudice. And the references to the NARTH connections illustrate that this is the case and that the BNASAA shares the views that homosexuality is problematic, to put it lightly. Considering homosexuality as problematic is discrimination and the UHJ's letter stating that homosexuals are not to be discriminated against, is in my view, a start on a change for the better. This is an opportunity for LSAs to start working at showing the community that the Bahai principle of equality applies also to homosexuals.

The reference to the Guyanan news items is different in that it is possible that Bahais were not actively involved in the protests, but yes, perhaps Bahais have to remove themselves from interfaith groups such as this. I agree it would be a wonderful teaching opportunity if they were to state publically why they are removing themselves.

Perhaps, as the Guyanan news item shows, Bahais are going to have to take some steps to show the world that the Bahai Faith is not anti-gay to counter the impression that it is. I see the 3rd January letter as a start in this direction. Another start would be for the BNASSA to stop associating homosexuality with illness.
It is no longer reasonable for Bahais to look the other way when another Bahai expresses their discrimination towards gays. The letter states Bahais must act to combate discrimination.
And if more Bahais publically showed support of gays then the impression would be that not all Bahais discriminate - that the Bahai community is diverse.
We need acts of positive discrimination bring in a change for more diversity. Your example of your involvement in a gay parade is one example. Now Bahais could do a lot of good by being present as a community in these. Bahais could even work as bridges here in fact. Having some presence at a gay pride parade where they promote unity in diversity, society for all, etc.

Re: Hossain Danesh Heavily Promoted By NSA

sonjavank — Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:47:30 -0000

In addition to Baquia's response, I'd like to add that another reason this "issue" is an a current concern for the Bahai community, in my view, is because of the announcement of this workshop:
"Shaping Our Destiny: An Open Forum for Youth and Young Adults
with Dr. H.B. Danesh, Date:Monday, 22 November 2010"

and similar workshops and presentations being promoted in the Canadian Bahai community. It is because he is promoted in the field he was disbarred from- in areas of sexuality and family relationships. If he was speaking in another field or was not put in a position of 'trust' in this manner, then his history of sexual impropriety would not be relevant.

No one on this blog is suggesting any form of ostracisation, the objections are to the promotion as a person of 'trust' in a field he was disbarred from. Would you suggest that your teenage children receive instruction from a person who was a history of sexual impropriety? Do you think it is OK for a NSA to promote such a person in this field?
It would be different if he was promoted to speak on another topic or if he had demonstrated some level of remorse, and was only speaking in ways where he could not be interpreted as being a person of 'trust'.
Perhaps that he agreed to pay the victims some money could be interpreted as a sign of remorse, but from the context of the newspaper article, it seems that he agreed to this so that the case would not proceed through the court.
That he is continuing today as if nothing happened and that the NSA of Canada appears to be promoting him as if nothing has happened strikes me as going against the Bahai principle of justice. That is why events that happened 16 years ago are being discussed on this blog.

Re: Hossain Danesh Heavily Promoted By NSA

sonjavank — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 19:24:10 -0000

Thanks for the correction and the information.
I posted a link on my facebook wall and now there's been a quite a debate. The biggest issue being that I'm told I'm resorting to tabloid tactics or I'm told I'm backbiting.
It's got me to thinking about why Bahais are so afraid of free speech. Of course, I know the Bahai ideal, as I understood it, was you bring any issue to an LSA and then it goes up to the NSA and so on, and justice or the right thing happens.

However I was thinking that perhaps this idea of mine could never work anyway - because there's no transparency and no accountability, so an individual would never know if their letter or issue was even considered or not. And the process could be halted along the way for all sorts of reasons.

I do see a real value in having an open judicial system and perhaps secrecy and lack of transparency, was never part of Baha'u'llah's plan to start with.

Aside from this, what I see is are knee jerk like responses by Bahais, whereas if the situation had involved Catholics and priests, I'm sure Bahais would be all for making the issue known and would be all for justice. So I thought, it seems, a bigger problem is airing dissent.

Bahais should be able to do this. Any society, Bahai included, should be able to allow disagreement, in other words, freedom of speech.

Re: Can a Woah-man! Serve on the UHJ?

sonjavank — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:21:05 -0000

thanks B,
I agree, I found Stephen's essay on their website easier to read.

I assume he wrote it, although the website gives the impression that this essay is some sort of offical document.
Perhaps is it for this group calling themselves the "offical U.H.J.", and because of this indirectness or lack of clarity, it has made me suspicious.

Many of the arguments about 'rigal' and the service of women are stated in this 1988 paper,
http://www.h-net.org/~bahai...
which sticks to reliable sources (some of Stephen's references are not, of course I'm not suggesting that makes the argument wrong, just that I would like it if I was directed to a paper that did stick to only using sources that were certainly what Baha'u'llah or 'Abdul-Baha expressed).

However the essay is also filled with the author's interpretations about Shoghi Effendi's motives and then 3/4 of the way through this essay is a reference to a true or appointed U.J.H. made in 1991 and then I realised that the point of the essay was not to discuss the issue of the membership of women on the U.H.J., but is promotion for a splinter group which have their own committee calling themselves the 'official U.H.J.'.
Now I thought, why write such a very long essay, full of various arguments, some good, some I would research before I would dismiss, except as an exercise in deception.

Not a very good way to promote the idea of equality in my view.

Re: Hossain Danesh Heavily Promoted By NSA

sonjavank — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 07:43:50 -0000

This blog of yours reminds me of just how important first, freedom of speech is (your reporting here is probably news to many Bahais) and from that comes civil discourse and the ability for the Bahai community to be in touch with society at large - in touch with issues such as justice and transparency.

I am utterly shocked that someone who was convicted of sexual abuse in a professional court (someone correct me of the facts if I've remembered the conviction incorrectly) and then avoided a public court by making a settlement with the victims, is, as you demonstrate here, promoted by the Canadian N.S.A.

For the victims, this would be a reminder that the crimes committed didn't matter because for the Bahai community he is important. Here the Bahai community (here it is not just a few individuals but the N.S.A., that's a sizable Bahai community) promotes individuals at public events on topics related to the crimes he committed - on family life - on sexuality.

It doesn't matter to me how 'harmless' or "good" his talks might be, because what this means is that the N.S.A. of Canada doesn't care about the victims of his crimes.
It makes a farce of the Bahai principle of justice and it seems to me very unwise.

Re: Meet the New Universal House of Justice

sonjavank — Sat, 13 Nov 2010 05:47:20 -0000

You might find this article, The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha'i Faith, written in 1988 of interest

http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol3/wmnuhj.htm

Re: Declining Internet Interest for “Baha’i”

sonjavank — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 15:44:19 -0000

I agree these two issues are difficult ones but not all Bahais think that gays can't be at home in a Bahai community. My hope is that one day it will be easier as more Bahais work towards equality for gays. My blog is an attempt: justabahai.wordpress.com in the sense that it discusses ways gays need not be discriminated against, and attempts to show a distinction between what is in the writings and what is just plain prejudice. Barb's website is a forum and place where gays can have some sense of home. gaybahai.net

I realise that some Bahai communities might be very homophobic. My hope is that Bahais will speak up so that their communities are more welcoming of diversity.

It is not hypocritic to state Bahais believe in gender equality bar one, large anomaly, the absence of female membership on the House of Justice. I don't try to explain this anomaly, but that doesn't mean that the Bahai teachings of equality are invalid.

In the end what matters is are the fruits of a religion. If you see a religious community doing work towards equality, towards diversity, that's what counts.