Disqus - Friends of timwatts

Re: Rainn Wilson’s Soulpancake on Oprah

sonjavank — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:04:58 -0000

So we need to ask ourselves what type of “authority” is meant in these letters. Is it the authority to instruct NSAs, etc, operating in his role as a guardian as head of the Bahai Faith at the time?
Is it “authority” to defne Bahai law?
The guardian didn't have this authority, and so of course, secretaries wouldn't have this either.
Or is it authority as interpretor of the Bahai Writings? That is the guardian in his role as the Guardian. The last question is the tricky one to answer.

We know when he had important things to say, he wrote book such as, “The Dispensation of Baha'ullah” (a book about the essential verities of the Bahai writings). So we need to ask, was it ever his practice to do this, that is to use his position as interpretor, through a secretary?
It seems unlikely because when he defines terms in the Bahai writings, he does this with great care. Just look at his own words and the way he phrases things. The whole approach is very different to any of the many many letters written on his behalf. Sen wrote an article on this issue which is here:
http://bahai-library.com/articles/fazel.interpret...

Amanda wrote “But I don't find any evidence for those opinions in the "authoritative writings," themselves.”

It seems that you are treating the letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as authoritative in the 2 or 3 ways I mention above while I only treat these as authoritative in the first way.

Re: Teaching vs. Proselytizing: UHJ Letter

sonjavank — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:20:46 -0000

I appreciated the reference to “the revolution of names”, Farhan. Nice.
However meanings for words only change when the application changes.
So if by "teaching" Bahais on the whole take the approach of proclaiming the Faith or applying principles of the Faith in social-economic projects without putting pressure on anyone to join, then Farhan, I would agree with you. That Bahai's are using the word "teaching" as a type of proclamation and advertising by example.

My experiences of the Bahai Faith in the 1980s in Aotearoa reflect this attitude. Our community hosted English language classes, sponsored refugees, and a variety of activities from debates to more formal type lectures. The Bahai Centre was also used for a range of activities which included Maori flax weaving and Maori language classes, a weekly pot-luck dinner and sometimes music was played and people danced or performed, and a ballet teacher gave free lessons. Most of those who gave the lessons were not Bahais and no one was under pressure to join. Even decades later, I’ve met people who I don’t know who tell me that they were at one of those events and I’ve had the impression this was their sole experience with something Bahai, so I’ve thought, wow, that teaching approach really worked! For me it worked because they remembered that this was a Bahai activity.
While on the other hand I’ve been in a home and seen a Bahai ad on the television and then asked them what was the ad about and no one knew. So for me ‘working’ means having an affect, having some impact which might lead to change. Surely religion is about making a difference in the world, and not just the name?

However nowadays I could not imagine this being possible in a Bahai centre because of the focus on things such as Anna's Presentation, Ruhi or other forms such the door to door approach. And actually in the late 1980s I withdrew my involvement with the community when it was decided that we could have no more music activities because these would lead to dancing and it was decided that dancing was no longer allowed in the Bahai Centre (long story here, of course), but in short it boiled down to some cultural values dominating others. Unfortunately this was conducted in such a blunt way, I withdraw my involvement and another Bahai left the Faith in response.

However if I heard the word "teaching" in the 1980s in a Bahai context my association would have been, by example and by openness and open discussion or debate because that was how I became a Bahai. Nowadays when I hear Bahais discuss "teaching", the association I have is what I would call "proselytizing".

It is one thing that Bahais might want to "teach" in this pushy manner these days, but what I find a pity is that things such as our 'salon' events are seen by these Bahais as not being even a Bahai activity because they fall outside of this narrow category of 'teaching activities'. Of course I know this is nonsense, but my point is that with the focus on a catechism of what is teaching (Ruhi dictums, etc), the Bahai culture of what is teaching is no longer as rich (and by that I mean the richness of cultural expression embedded in all activities) as it used to be.

I appreciate Rainn Wilson's Soulpancake as a teaching approach b.t.w. It isn't my cup of tea, but it is an example of how a Bahai is using their creativity beyond the restrictions of the "preach at" approach, which when you think about it, as a residual from the colonialist attitude is downright insulting.

And incase anyone thinks I’m exaggerating, Steve’s blog on “When is a home visit not a home visit?” bore the following:
“If a home visit, to take another example, is defined in the courses as an opportunity to enter into a deep conversation on spiritual matters, then it should not be reduced to a mere social call in which the Faith may not even be mentioned.” (Universal House of Justice 18 Aug 2005)
This blog (" target="_blank">http://bahaisonline.net/tcb... also has a link to a page on BIC with pages of instructions and elaborations.

So in the above the U.H.J. is determining what qualifies as a home visit and what is not one and by implication, what counts as part of the Ruhi-rules of teaching and what doesn’t J.
Continuing that line of thinking, I guess some might think that going into a discussion about equality where it is clear that there are Bahais who are expressing these views would not qualify as teaching. Are social issues spiritual? Is making an argumentation for equality or engagement counted as ‘teaching’. Anyway this line of thinking reminds me of the Bahai teaching not to focus on words that only end in words and we come full circle back to Farhan’s reference to new meanings for words. In the end it is about how words are applied, I think. If we claim new meanings we need to see this in action. If there is a new meaning for teaching now in the Bahai community, then it seems that this is what I would have called bordering on "proselytizing" in the 1980s.

Re: Oldest Bible (Codex Sinaiticus) Now Online

sonjavank — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:16:02 -0000

There is quite a lot available online.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/

in Persian, Arabic and English with an excellent search facility.

H-Bahai hosted on the Michican University system was started as an open academic resource for all to use. There are scans of originals of manuscripts. There are provisional translations and there is discussion.

http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/

In response to "intellectuallycurious"'s comments, on the front page of the Baha Reference website is a quotation from Baha'u'llah,

"Knowledge is as wings to man's life, and a ladder for his ascent."
(Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 51)

Surely that means trying to read the source/s of things where possible and not using the excuse of 'miss - interpretation' to put off a diversity of interpretation which surely must happen where there is open discourse. A diversity of interpretation is what makes life worth while I would argue. We should engage for its own sake and not dis-engage because we fear that this would be or could be seen as "disunity", whereever that means :)

Baquia, it would be great if Haifa could one day put up originals of manuscripts so more people could have access but these days this is becoming less of a bottle neck as various initiatives such as h-bahai make material available.
In my view having originals of Shoghi Effendi's typescripts would be important, given that later editions of his books have variations in them and these are in English. Now if someone could put these online ? Currently these are hidden away in Wilmette. This would be, not to criticize as later editions might be closer to the originals, but to see the changes for ourselves and hence gain more knowledge on the context. That's the point of seeing originals, in order to try and gain a better understanding. Afterall any reading by anyone is always just an (mis)interpretation.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:57:30 -0000

Farhan wrote: "Those who are enrolled in the Baha’i administrative order, are allowed to do service in the kitchen, but these have to abide by some community rules that have nothing to do with our spiritual value or how we are accepted in the eyes of God."

Farhan can you supply some Bahai Writings to support this viewpoint of yours please? The quotations in my blog seem to contradict this idea, stating that the principles of the Bahai Faith are for all people. Principes such as justice and equality.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:08:16 -0000

Farhan wrote: "These rules cannot be changed other than by the decision of the UHJ who at the moment does not believe that gay marriages will one day be endorsed in Baha’i administration."

What rules Farhan? The UHJ has not made any on homosexuality but you have assumed that they have? So that's another theme for a topic of discussion. The distinctions between the UHJ as lawgiver and that fact that only Shoghi Effendi's own writing (in his own words) can be considered official interpretation of Bahai Scripture. Baquia if you could make a link here to where this is already discussed on your blog that would be great.

As far as I know many letters from the UHJ infer that gay Bahais must live celibate lives, but it is an inference not a rule. It is an important point because otherwise then our discussion would be about the rule that the UHJ has made concerning gay Bahais. If you claim that they have made a rule, then please share the ruling with us.

That is why I'm focussing on what is in the Bahai Writings, first on the theme of the ability of Bahai Institutions and in relation to that, of Bahai communities to adapt, and to have a flexible relationship with a changing world.

It seems to me that many homophic attitudes stem from Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. Those letters, written by various secretaries in the 1930s till 1957 relate to attitudes of the times. Some of these letters clearly cannot be treated as Scripture because it is clear from the content of some letters that the secretary had some limited knowledge of the Bahai Teachings which Shoghi Effendi would have known about.
But more importantly than my concern with consistency is that Shoghi Effendi himself wrote very clearly that his authority was purely as interpretator of Bahai Scripture and not as law giver. The role of making law is for the UHJ.

What was common in previous decades was for gay Bahais often to live in a position of not telling and not being asked by their NSAs and not being sanctioned either. One example is of Mark Tobey who lived for decades with a male acquaintance and was a personal friend of Shoghi Effendi.
This practice of not saying publically one was gay was also an exigency of time and place, but a number of countries have moved on, have changed not only laws but much more importantly attitudes towards homosexuality. What I find sad is that it seems that now the way homosexuals are being treated by the Bahai administration in some countries is moving further and further from “the exigencies and requirements of time and place”

Times have changed, and while I can understand that the UHJ would be very unlikely to wish to make any ruling, because it could endanger Bahais lives in countries where any statement regarding equal treatment of homosexuals might be used to imprison or kill Bahais, that doesn't mean that by their silence on making a ruling, that the opposite can be assumed as a rule. As Bahais we must obey the rules of the UHJ, but as for interpreting and understanding the Bahai Writings we must use our own reasoning -our own interpretations of the principles of the Bahai Faith.
And so back to the original theme of my blog. First look at the Bahai Writings and see if any principle there would endorse this inequality, and then return to the practices of current Bahai adminstration to see if there's a way to understand the current practice of removing voting rights in some cases and in other cases not doing this.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:54:42 -0000

Various posters have made varying claims about the Bahai Writings from saying that homosexuality is forbidden to that homosexuals cannot have partnerships.

So what is really in the Bahai Writings? And if not, where do these homophobic ideas come from? And is it possible for the Bahai community to ever treat individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, with equality?

So to the Bahai Writings as much as I know relying on English translations only here.
I'm focussing on the Bahai writings because to start with this is what the Bahai Faith is based on and secondly these writings are not subject to change. So anything authentic (meaning tablets or writings with a signature or seal on the original or written by a known copyist of Baha'u'llah or 'Abdul-Baha. And this is a complicated issue because in some cases there are several copies of some tablets that are considered authentic Bahai scripture.

And then add to this that what we have in English are translations and translations can never be exact for all cases of writing.

Bahais accept the Bahai Writings as being only that authored by The Bab, Baha'u'llah and 'Adbul-Baha. And Shoghi Effendi's own writing only defines the Bahai teachings where it interpretes the Bahai Scriptures. Shoghi Effendi had excellent English so we can look at his own texts ourselves.

So let's start with the Kitab-i-Aqdas as we have it in English because it is the only place in a text of Bahai Scripture where there is something concerning homosexuality mentioned.

In the preface to this book it is written by the Universal House of Justice or the Research department (no author is given in the 1992 edition for the preface) that:

In 1953 Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, included as one of the goals of his Ten Year Plan the preparation of a Synopsis and Codification of the Laws and Ordinances of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas as an essential prelude to its translation. He himself worked on the codification, but had not finished it when he died in 1957. The task was continued on the basis of his work, and the resulting volume was released in 1973. That publication included, in addition to the Synopsis and Codification itself and explanatory notes, a compilation of the passages from the Kitáb-i-Aqdas which had already been translated by Shoghi Effendi and published in various books.

The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. vii

Nothing indicates which parts where penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Baha'u'llah's Writings and what was not written by him, so we have to take all text apart from what is in the Aqdas as either something the UHJ is interpreting, which we know they cannot do or as commentary open for debate, even should the UHJ then decide that some point in the commentary is now to be law they have legistrated on.

I make this point, because even should the UHJ make a law to legistrate that, for example, same sex marriage is forbidden by Bahais, we as Bahais would still be free to discuss and debate this. The laws that the UHJ makes one year, it can also change next year. Obedience to laws doesn't mean silence. And of course, if Bahais may not discuss or debate laws the UHJ have made, well, that leaves very little wriggle room for the Bahai principle of independent investigation, let alone the possibility for Bahai communities to address or relate or to understand these laws.

So now to the text of the Aqdas as it is in the 1992 edition in English:

We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys.

Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 58

And now to what is now in the notes to the Aqdas.
The Research department or the UHJ have written in the notes section:

134. the subject of boys # 107

The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.
The Bahá'í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá'í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.
In a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi it is stated:
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. To say that it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden by Bahá'u'lláh, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, besides being against nature. 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.
Bahá'u'lláh makes provision for the Universal House of Justice to determine, according to the degree of the offence, penalties for adultery and sodomy (Q and A 49).

ibid, p. 223

So let's assume this is the voice of the UHJ of the early 1990s because this publication is considered an official document by the Bahai Administration. That the UHJ state "Shoghi Effendi has interpreted" and then refer a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, indicates that they are treating letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if Shoghi Effendi himself wrote them. The letter they quote above does not have a reference to anything in Bahai Scripture and the letter does not state that it is an interpretation. This is very important if we are serious about what really is part of unchangeable Bahai Scripture and what isn't.

Unfortunately Shoghi Effendi never penned anything himself in regards to the status of these letters written on his behalf, except I assume, when he must have been annoyed enough to ask a secretary to write the following:

I wish to call your attention to certain things in "Principles of Bahá'í Administration" which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá'u'lláh's Words, but misleading. 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, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá'u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.

Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 260

What this doesn't tell us, is whether the 'authority' of the letters by secretaries is an extension of the Guardian's executive authority as head of the Faith -- meaning, "it must be obeyed by the addresse" or of the Guardian's authority as authorised interpreter of the writings, meaning "they become part of the sacred text." What we can say is there is nothing explicit to indicate that a letter by a secretary can share in the Guardian's unique role as authorised interpreter.
There is also nothing explicit to say that the Guardian's secretaries do **not** share the authority of interpretation. However the phrase "their authority less" seems to suggest this, because an exective authority can be greater or less, direct or indirect, can apply to a local or individual situation or to all Bahai communities, but when the Guardian interprets scripture that interpretation becomes part of the scripture concerned.

Sen has an essay on this on his blog. Scroll down the list to "COMMENTARY on Seena Fazel and Khazeh Fananapazir´s "Some interpretive principles in the Bahá´í Writings."

If something is considered part of the Bahai Writings, it cannot be changed. That is, sex with children can never be OK in Bahai law, because this is part of what Baha'u'llah's text in the Aqdas. All the texts in the notes have been penned by others and unless the texts in the notes refer to quotations from the Bahai Scripture themselves, they are all open to change by the UHJ.
I would also imagine that if the UHJ were to make a law, that it would clearly state that it was making a law. So in my view, it is unclear to me what the actual status is of the texts in the notes section. I make this point because in 1992 when the Aqdas was first printed in English a list of corrections was distributed about 6 months later. In regards to the Aqdas, the corrections were minor things like typos, but in the notes, sometimes a whole paragraph was deleted, such as in note 108. I can only assume that this paragraph no longer reflects the position or thinking of the UHJ whereas at an earlier time it did.

The UHJ is free to change the texts of the notes as it wishes. Perhaps this could be seen as them making laws? I don't know.
Rather than debating whether or not the UHJ make law when they make statements in official Bahai documents, I prefer to focus on the principle of Bahai Law as I understand it, in general behind this. That is, anything UHJ decides or states is subject to change by a later UHJ.

If any statement on the wrongs of homosexuality is by UHJ, then it is subject to change.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 13:10:08 -0000

thanks for your post M:

You wrote: "You apologize with your comparison of Bahá'í law to Dutch law"

No, I didn't mean to imply that Dutch law is less than Bahai law, but i'll elaborate on this below. I made that comment because when I write here, I see myself as writing to a Bahai audience and wanted to be sure no one would think I was disregarding the relevance of Bahai law.

As Bahais we must obey the laws of the country. Or put more strictly, Bahai Law states this, so actually it is Bahai Law which places more importance to a law of the country.

None must contend with those who wield authority over the people; leave unto them that which is theirs, and direct your attention to men's hearts.

Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 54

God hath committed into your hands the reins of the government of the people, that ye may rule with justice over them, safeguard the rights of the downtrodden, and punish the wrongdoers.

Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188

So I agree, of course, Dutch law dominates over Bahai law. Baha'u'llah has stated this himself.

As to your reasoning for Dutch law being superior Baha'u'llah makes a similiar argument in his tablet to Queen Victoria:

We have also heard that thou hast entrusted the reins of counsel into the hands of the representatives of the people. Thou, indeed, hast done well, for thereby the foundations of the edifice of thine affairs will be strengthened, and the hearts of all that are beneath thy shadow, whether high or low, will be tranquillized. It behoveth them, however, to be trustworthy among His servants, and to regard themselves as the representatives of all that dwell on earth.

Baha'u'llah, The Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 33

And I agree with you, a law is much better if as you wrote: "is a collection of principles derived by groups of people working together from secular reasoning, anticipating the future by observing historical lessons, and building on that solid foundation by a system of common law that allows for new and dynamic interpretations of these aforementioned principles."

This is the way social laws work best but I wouldn't too happy if a group people used those same procedures for how we should say prayers. Symbollic values and questions of truth are not decided by majority vote. Culture is an influence and civil law can certainly affect culture. Such as here in the Netherlands where in general there is tolerance towards a diversity of sexual identity. But the political processes has its limits.

So if a law of a country is to dominate what is religious law for?

You wrote that Bahai law: "is a collection of random articles of faith, general principles abstracted from then-current wisdom, and specific behavioral prohibitions and prescriptions that were important from the perspective of one Iranian nobleman a few hundred years ago. They are, in other words, utterly irrelevant by any objective standard of ethical reasoning or any important measure of normative evaluation."

We have Bahai principles such as equality, independent investigation of truth, the balance of religion and science and so on and then we have the text of the Kitab-i-Adqas which seems to come out of a medival age.

Bahai Law has two components: The text of the Aqdas and the "Questions and Answers" and similiar tablets by Baha'u'llah, and then what the UHJ legistrates and the NSAs + LSAs apply and refine, etc.

In the form and content the Aqdas imitates Islamic law. Because it imitates Islamic law, it can supercede Islamic law in a society. Islamism (the idea that Islamic law is also state law) is a twentieth century innovation. In Baha'u'llah's time religious laws were mainly in the private sphere and state administered (the state had control). So one way to view this aspect of Bahai law, is as a response to Islamic law. For example, in Islamic law a woman had to have permission from her father to marry. Baha'u'llah changed this so that men had to ask as well, and to have their mother's permission. Instead of abolishing something with deep cultural roots he has used the principle of equality to modify it.

I think it is likely that Baha'u'llah intended his laws to be used as principles which individuals and institutions could work with.

Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power

Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 21

Baha'u'llah states that he doesn't give just us a code of laws. I would argue that the code of laws he established is the UHJ as legistrator of laws. A UHJ which is flexible and free to change its own laws in a changing world.

It is fantastic that you end your posting on the question of the nature of marriage because this is going to the topic of my next blog. I'm busy these days, but hope it will be there in a month or so.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 17:56:12 -0000

Mavaddat:
So much of what you state in your post as Bahai this or that had me in fits of laughter.

Incase you are serious, I'll respond to one of your points.

"You may protest that Bahá'u'lláh did not actually speak about homosexuality as such, but that is completely irrelevant."

Well, well, sorry to contradict you, but it is very relevent at least to Bahais!

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:39:56 -0000

My apologizes Mavaddat, I really thought you were joking.

In my posting you were responding to, I thought I clearly showed (that's why I used so many quotations - i want get past what people say they think the Bahai Writings are about, to what the Bahai Writings actually say) that Shoghi Effendi never penned anything on the subject of homosexuality either. And the point of my post was that it boiled down to the policies of the UHJ.
Your response ignored all of that to state that "the Universal House of Justice and Shoghi Effendi both agree the law of homophobia cannot be repealed"

I don't even know where to start in way of response to this statement as I've already clearly shown that this is not the case. So I assumed you were joking. I was not laughing at you.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:39:09 -0000

Farhan,

I am guessing that you bring up lefthandedness because I've done this in the past. Your suggestion that the oppression and suffering I had as a child who was forced to write with her right-hand is somehow 'justified' is as offensive to me as are the comparisions you have made of homosexuality with illness.

Obviously you do not have a clue. Yes, I am furious! How dare you assume that it is OK to beat a 5 year old because she is born left-handed. Shame on you. And if you didn't realise that kids were beaten for writing with their left-hand, now you know. Even as an adult I still have visions of the strap or the ruler that used to come slamming down onto my left-hand. That as a 5 year old, I had to pretend I was using my right-hand while it covered over my left hand doing the writing, when the teacher was on the other side of the room.

Just think, a 5 year old learning to write has to watch out for the punishment - either of using her lefthand or because she couldn't make her right hand co-ordinate like the other kids in the room. - imagine it. A kid having to learn to be subversive - while other kids could just learn to write.

That I was the only kid in the class at 8 years of age who couldn't write, when the nuns decided that it was better to have a kid who wrote with her left-hand after all than one who couldn't write at all. Funnily enough they let me draw with my left-hand and perhaps that's why I draw much better than I write :)

The idea that an adult uses their other hand for a while is quite a different issue. The disorders come from oppression, supression, the belief that you are wrong (as a young child or as an adult) and the treatment of others (being beaten up by the other kids because of my oddness is no joke).

-If- you are suggesting in your comparision with lefthandedness and homosexuality that there's no reason in the world why people born with diversity should be discriminated against, ok, yes. Please stop making comparisions of homosexuality with illness in that case. Think about it, being lefthanded is not an illness anymore than homosexuality is. It is not any more 'deviant' than racial diversity.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:29:34 -0000

Farhan,
You wrote: "I would be very surprised if the UHJ or any other Baha'i institution approbated the idea of a child being thrown out of home for homosexuality"

Daniel's voting rights were removed because he was married and the reason given by the NSA which I quoted in the blog above was because of 'same sex marriage' and his “support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for Baha’is”.

Luckily Daniel's son is no longer a child, but surely if I follow your argumentation (which I agree with personally) that Bahais should try and use the Bahai principles to guide their actions. Then removing a Bahai from the membershi rolls because they married is going against the rules and prescriptions of supporting family life. While other Bahais have same sex partners in the same country and do not marry and are not punished. And worse, their children grow up understanding that in the eyes of the Bahai community their parents are not treated with the respect other couples are.

You state that losing one's voting rights is not a big deal, but it is the intent. The removal and the reason for removal that is extremely important.
One of the reasons, that obviously, something seems terribly wrong with removing Daniel's voting rights, is because the NSA's letter give his marriage as a reason. A NSA is punishing someone for making the life-long commitment of marriage!

Change is happening and actually change in attitudes towards Bahai communities accepting all people as equal members with equal responsibilities + rights will come. I do believe this and I do see change happening, but many Bahais then ignore the Bahai Writings or do as Farhan, make argumentation for rules in differing categories, etc. If you follow this argumentation, then the implication is that for gays it would be better not to declare themselves to join the Bahai community. The Bahai Teachings, surely, should be there for all. I do not think Baha'ullah would have intended that the rules for membership would mean, only some types of people.

What my goal is with this blog is to look and see if there is anything in the Bahai Writings that contradicts an equal acceptance of diverse sexual identities, because, surely, the Bahai Faith shouldn't require Bahais to live with double standards. One for their gay friends and one for their straight friends. It seems to me that Farhan is trying to do this (admirable, b.t.w.) because he sees that - I assume - the homophobic attitudes in the letters written by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as part of the unchangeable Bahai Scripture. I don't, so I don't think there is a need for Bahais to create "if" and "but" clauses for the Bahai teachings in order to accept our LGBT brothers and sisters on equal terms.

That the UHJ seems to treat the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, also doesn't mean that the UHJ is forever locked into the unchangeable. The UHJ is free to be flexible. Free to make law. Free to change its policies.
However, naturally, it will only make a policy or change one if it sees a need.
The practice of how our LGBT Bahais are treated by the Bahai administration is diverse. This is not in itself terrible if Bahais see this as something in transition. So, in some countries openly accepting gay marriage for example might endanger other Bahais or Bahais in other countries, but, to actively remove Bahais from the rolls because they marry is quite another matter.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 18:23:41 -0000

Yes hetero's should give their kids to gays to bring up. i've got two sons on offer :) Actually they are too useful so I'd prefer to keep them around.

Barb, I like your idea and I would suggest you try get some stories and write them down. I've some of Bahais who know are dead - and am not sure open I can be about them. But just think about collecting the stories first and worry about how you publish them later. You need the stories first and as you work on this, it'll become clearer. You probably need to garantee anonymity.

I can't help much because I have jobs and kids + half finished projects (including a book). I focus where I can on blogging.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:35:14 -0000

Barb: I lke "The Lesbian | Gay Baha'i Story Project" as a title
and suggest that you make it as a blog.
I can help with the practicalities of this if you need it. Certainly with design (one of my jobs).

I'd suggest you make it a blog with comments turns off, so it functions like a website, but one you can keep adding new stores to - and can keep refining it. I suggest you turn comments off, so that the focus remains on the stories and keep the whole atmosphere as one of celebration (outing). By celebration, I don't mean that sad stories are ignored, of course not, but I what I suggest is that it is a place for gay presence in the Bahai community (and that's a celebration :))

Perhaps refer people to on Bahairants to a blog made at the time of the first story, that announces and relates specifically to this topic. I'm happy to write such a blog if B doesn't beat me to it. That way the discussion can still go on, and you don't get flooded in comments which might be hard to keep up with - when it is finding and presenting the stories that is important. I can suggest some individuals with stories. You need to give me your email address (mine is on my design page).

It depends on your resourses and goals as to whether you would make it a website, and / or if you use something like wordpress or blogspot.
Personally I use a website on my own space for anything I consider important because I have full control over this, however using something like wordpress is much cheaper and most likely easier when it comes to management of the location. You can also have full control such as B would have, where s/he uses a wordpress template but hosts it on her/his own space.

lovely initiative, go for it!

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:41:19 -0000

Hi Grover,

re: "So what happens when a person is not logical or doesn't possess our kind of logic?"

I don't see this in such black and white terms.
For example, I brought up the issue of the status of the Letters of Shoghi Effendi as being an aspect of what is changeable because these are not part of Bahai Scripture, but in response to me various posters continued to quote these letters as if they were scripture. For me, this seemed illogical. Obviously to those posters, they either didn't see my point or ignored it or for them my idea that they are not part of scripture is illogical.

That's part of the reason I've been silent (I'm also extremely busy). I didn't know where to start because it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change.

So, Grover, my point here. If you want to communicate with Farhan in a different manner, take another approach or try to find some common ground and work from that. Farhan, I don't agree with most of what you have written but I thank you for continuing with your comments because some other Bahais might share your views and more importantly, in airing our diverse views and discussing these we can all learn how to express ourselves better and I've found that I've been able to develop a lot of my ideas from those I've disagreed with.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:43:41 -0000

NO! I did not and have never written that the writings of Shoghi Effendi have less validity than 'Adbu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah.

Please read my post again: I said that
"it seemed logical to me that Bahai Scripture were the writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdul-Bahai, and the official interpretations of Shoghi Effendi and that all other texts, while not necessarily less important, have the potential for change because they are not in the former category which is not subject to change."

The 1000s of letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, not Shoghi Effendi's own writing are what I'd put in the category that is not Bahai Scripture.

In my post of 2 weeks ago on this same thread I quoted one of the Letters of Shoghi Effendi which spoke of the status of these letters:

"I wish to call your attention to certain things in "Principles of Bahá'í Administration" which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá'u'lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá'u'lláh's Words, but misleading. 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, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá'u'lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries. "

Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha'i Community, p. 260"

Shoghi Effendi never considered his own station nor writings to be the same as that of Baha'u'llah or 'Abdu'l-Baha:

"Though the Guardian of the Faith has been made the permanent head of so august a body he can never, even temporarily, assume the right of exclusive legislation. ...

Exalted as is the position and vital as is the function of the
institution of the Guardianship in the Administrative Order of
Bahá´u´lláh, ... its importance must, whatever be the language of the Will, be in no wise over-emphasized. The Guardian of the Faith must not under any circumstances, and whatever his merits or his achievements, be exalted to the rank that will make him a co-sharer with `Abdu´l-Bahá in the unique position which the Center of the Covenant occupies-much less to the station exclusively ordained for the Manifestation of God. So grave a departure from the established tenets of our Faith is nothing short of open blasphemy."

World Order of Baha'u'llah page 150-151
written by Shoghi Effendi
http://reference.bahai.org/...

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 18:09:29 -0000

And what about the straight Bahais who want our gay Bahai input into making our communities more colourful?

I don't think Baha'u'llah was referring to only some types of flowers or to just the straight leaves on the tree of humanity.

In fact, I'd argue that any Bahai who thinks that gays need to 'leave' are going against Baha'u'llah's teachings of equality and diversity. The unity is already there as we come from the same tree, right?

Re: Towards a New Economic System

sonjavank — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 05:52:07 -0000

thanks B, inspiring stuff!

It reminds of something I was involved in in the 80's in New Zealand.
A number of individuals started the "Coorperative Enterprises Loans Trust", C.E.L.T., a people's bank where we gave advice and help in setting up co-operative ventures, as well as being a bank. First I was just one of many who used this as my bank for my spare cash and later I was a boardmember. We had boardmembers throughout the country and we met every few months. In those days, I met such amazing people, all wanting to do something to change the captilist trend of things. In those days I never met another Bahai involved in this, which was odd, given that so many aspects of this were so Bahai-like.
I tried googling this and found nothing, so it probably no longer exists, but I still remember the smiling faces of those starting up their 2 or 3 person cooperative businesses and I assume that many of those are still in operation.
It was quite a learning experience for me to be involved in such a venture where we helped so many people start out in a small business.

Michael Moore is one of my favourite filmmakers, not for his aesthetics nor his brashness, but because he is a whistle-blower with wit and for his "we are the people" approach.
Actually here's quite a bit of parody in his gung-ho approach. But most importantly, his whole approach is to give the viewer the idea, that they too, can go and ask, can go ask for transparency, can ask for accountability.
That's what his movies are really about and they do it so well, with a humour that is impowering. I'm looking forward to this new film.

Re: Towards a New Economic System

sonjavank — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:29:13 -0000

wouldn't it be amazing if 20% of a Bahai community fund went towards development as these people do? Towards the life and future of a community?

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:51:43 -0000

Someone sent me this link:
http://letters-of-the-livin...

which is your blog A and I love the sharp "let deeds not words be your adorning" reference for Bahais :)

and now I realise you made this film which I"d seen somewhere else (sorry don't remember the context now):
http://www.youtube.com/watc...

It is beautifully made ...
but
you mis-attribute quotations.
Shoghi Effendi never wrote any of those things.

I realise many Bahais do like-wise but I prefer to stick what is actually in the Bahai Writings. I kinda wish you'd remake the movie with these things corrected because the point is fantastic. Making poeple aware and trying to get Bahais to stand up for equality and human rights.

This blog blew me away:
http://www.moralcourage.com...

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:45:53 -0000

Yes friends and family need to stop treating their gay members as anything less than equal. P, in response to your previous comments, you and any other gay are more than just 'friends' - you are part of my community of spirit.

More Bahais need to be out about treating gays as equals!
This man in the youtube film is wonderful. Dare I say it, so Abdul-Baha like.

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:45:21 -0000

some beautiful stories of marriage here:

http://www.whiteknot.org/st...

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:36:34 -0000

There's a wonderful interview here Ellen Degeneres on ‘Oprah’ - fantastic
http://networkedblogs.com/p...

in particular Ellen discusses her coming out, her ideas on the purpose of life and her marriage.

Ellen continued with, “Anybody who’s married knows there is a difference. It feels like you’re home. There’s an anchor, there’s a safety. I’m going to be with her until the day I die and I know that.”

Re: Mona’s Dream

sonjavank — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:48:02 -0000

Kia ora Anna,

See my cv page for where I studied, etc
http:www.sonjavank.com/cv.htm

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 09:07:06 -0000

Hi Barb,

5 months ago I wrote a long post dealing with what is in the The Kitab-i-Aqdas in regards to homosexuality here with various references to quotations etc:

In summary the only parts of the 1992 English edition of The Kitab-i-Aqdas that are clearly authored by Baha'u'llah, and hence not open to change is the text of the Kitab-i-Aqdas + the Questions and Answers.
The notes, which is where homosexuality is mentioned could have been authored by the UHJ or by Shoghi Effendi who started work on the notes before he died. However to quote from my post:

It is unclear to me what the actual status is of the texts in the notes section. I make this point because in 1992 when the + the Questions and Answers was first printed in English a list of corrections was distributed about 6 months later. In regards to the Aqdas, the corrections were minor things like typos, but in the notes, sometimes a whole paragraph was deleted, such as in note 108. I can only assume that this paragraph no longer reflects the position or thinking of the UHJ whereas at an earlier time it did.

The UHJ is free to change the texts of the notes as it wishes. Perhaps this could be seen as them making law? I don't know.
Rather than debating whether or not the UHJ make law when they make statements in official Bahai documents, I prefer to focus on the principle of Bahai Law as I understand it, in general behind this. That is, anything UHJ decides or states is subject to change by a later UHJ.

If any statement on the wrongs of homosexuality is made by a UHJ, then it is subject to change.

Bahai Law has two components: The text of the Aqdas and the "Questions and Answers"
(Not the preface and editorial notes. The letters penned by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi mentioning homosexuality are in the notes.)
and similiar tablets by Baha'u'llah, and then what the UHJ legistrates and the NSAs + LSAs apply and refine, etc.

In the Questions and Answers, #49, is the text: "Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof"
Baha'u'llah's answer: "The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice." (The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 121, 1992 edition)

The question asks about:
zinaa' (= adultery, fornication) and
liwaat (= sodomy, paederasty) and
sariqa (= theft)

Liwaat is the word used meaning both sodomy and paederasty in Arabic and Persian so it will be up to the UHJ to determine whether this includes homosexuality or not.
In the notes (note 134, page 223) the UHJ at the time of the publication wrote that "the subject of boys had the implication of paederasty." and state that Shoghi Effendi interpreted this as a prohibition on all homosexuals but further down the only source they give is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. As I read this there is no source penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Bahai Writings.
However, unless (or until) a future UHJ makes a differing statement this connection made with homosexuality as a prohibition should be seen as their policy (at least that is the case 18 years ago), but this is not the same as a prohibition on homosexuality being penned by Baha'u'llah which is not subject to change.

Another thought on Question #49: In those times the punishment for those crimes was stipulated in Islamic law and not left up to the judge or ruler. So it seems that in Baha'u'llah's answer he making the punishment for these things at the discretion of the UHJ.

I think it is likely that Baha'u'llah intended his laws to be used as principles which individuals and institutions could work with.

"Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power"
Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 21

And on that note while travelling homeward through the U.K. a few days ago was this headline in the papers:
"Anger at Pope's attack on British equality laws".

The Pope's argument being that it was against natural law. Interestingly one commentor wrote: "How can the sexual nature of 6-10% of humans be unnatural? How can something which occurs across the world in practically every culture and has been recorded since history itself began to be recorded be unnatural?
It would make more sense to suggest that mountains are unnatural, as they occur far less commonly than gay people.

It is not homosexuality which is unnatural, but the irrational hatred of it..."

Re: Change is a Law of Nature

sonjavank — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:23:31 -0000

The article by Jackson Armstrong-Ingram,
"The Provisions for Sexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the Context of Late Nineteenth Century Eastern and Western Sexual Ideologies" is here: bahai-library.org/conferences/sex.aqdas.html

In the Questions + Answers section of the Aqdas, liwaat is translated as sodomy. In the Aqdas the section referring to 'boys' is translated as pedaesty which correlates with Jackson's argument that "Both zina and liwat are sexual relations that take place outside of a context in which the long term rights of both participants are regarded. Unlawful sex is literally unprotected sex -- it takes place in relationships that are not associated with social supports and long-term obligations. Lawful sex, as defined in the Aqdas, takes place in marriages, which are relationships embedded in a network of familial support and providing for the mutual development of the partners."

In all my searching around the only texts I have found that refer to homosexuality have been penned by secretaries writing Letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.

When Shoghi Effendi was writing in his role as official interpreter of the Bahai
Writings he cites the scripture he is interpreting. Sen's essay "More interpretive principles" bahai-library.org/articles/interpretive.principles.html gives some examples of this.

In the Aqdas there is no source given in the section of the Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, so I can only assume that it is not the case that the secretary who wrote that letter actually could read Baha'u'llah's mind, rather the writer wrote this assuming, based on his or her own's knowledge of the Bahai Faith, that this was a Bahai Teaching.

"A clear distinction is made in our Faith between authoritative interpretation and the interpretation or understanding that each individual arrives at for himself from his study of its teachings.
While the former is confined to the Guardian, the latter, according to the guidance given to us by the Guardian himself, should by no means be suppressed. In fact such individual interpretation is considered the fruit of man's rational power and conducive to a better understanding of the teachings, provided that no disputes or arguments arise among the friends and the individual himself understands and makes it clear that his views are merely his own. Individual interpretations continually change as one grows in
comprehension of the teachings..."

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual
believer, May 27, 1966) (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 311-312)

That leaves us with the question then, when is something penned by Shoghi Effendi to be considered interpretation, hence unchangeable, and how can we treat the status of the ten of thousands of Letters Written on his behalf.

Sen has written a few posts on these topics. One is here:
"anything Shoghi Effendi said is Baha´i doctrine"

The world has changed a lot since the times of Shoghi Effendi but even in his own time this Letter was written on his behalf.

"He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for
their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid
their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the
Bahá'í News. Only letters with special significance should be
published there."

(Letter Written on Behalf of Shoghi Effendi 1932.)