Baha’i Faith, homosexuality, and censorship

[Aupmanyav]

They might say that they want to practice spiritual community development with Bahai’s, and they can agree with Bahá’u’lláh calling Himself a “manifestation of God” if they can think of “God” as purely metaphorical.

Atheists (if they are like me) do not even want a metaphorical God. They can do happily without any.

 

[Left Coast]

According to the Universal House of Justice:

Deciding on the qualification for membership in the Baha'i Faith of one who expresses belief in Baha'u'llah is a delicate matter. The principal factors to be taken into consideration in making such a determination have been set out by Shoghi Effendi:

Full recognition of the station of the Bab, the Forerunner; of Baha'u'llah, the Author; and of 'Abdu'l-Baha, the True Exemplar of the Baha'i religion; unreserved acceptance of, and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and steadfast adherence to every clause of 'Abdu'l-Baha's sacred Will; and close association with the spirit as well as the form of Baha'i Administration throughout the world.

So why would an atheist who doesn’t believe in any Prophets want to join a religion that believes in One God and many Prophets? Why would a Baha’i tell you the Baha’i Faith requires nothing of you when in reality the Baha’i writings unequivocally suggest otherwise?

I agree, that's why I found Jim's answer so surprising.

 

[Jim]

Atheists (if they are like me) do not even want a metaphorical God. They can do happily without any.

Atheists like me might be very rare, but I have seen one other one on the Internet.

 

[Jim]

Atheists (if they are like me) do not even want a metaphorical God. They can do happily without any.

Just now I did a Web search and found this:

Christian atheism

 

[Dawnofhope]

I agree, that's why I found Jim's answer so surprising.

You were correct to use the writings of Shoghi Effendi to clarify what the Baha’i writings say about homosexuality. In a similar manner I’ve used a statement by Shoghi Effendi prefaced by a comment by the House of Justice to clarify what it means to be a Baha’i. @firedragon has alluded to an excellent point too. Jim considers himself an atheist and is rightly sympathetic towards those who identify as gay leading on occasion to making incorrect (IMHO) statements that clearly contradict the Baha’i writings. However in practice it is extremely unlikely a Baha’i Assembly would approach him to either question his membership credentials or counsel him to correct his erroneous views that are occasionally expressed on forum such as these.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Are you posting that as a reason for thinking that that it’s always wrong for any Baha’i who disagrees with what the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings to say so in public?

No.

Although I feel your OP would be best in same faith debates it is clear that some of your statements are confusing for those on this forum who are either unfamiliar with the Baha’i Faith or have limited knowledge of it. My comments are to provide clarity and correct and misunderstandings.

 

[Left Coast]

You were correct to use the writings of Shoghi Effendi to clarify what the Baha’i writings say about homosexuality. In a similar manner I’ve used a statement by Shoghi Effendi prefaced by a comment by the House of Justice to clarify what it means to be a Baha’i. @firedragon has alluded to an excellent point too. Jim considers himself an atheist and is rightly sympathetic towards those who identify as gay leading on occasion to making incorrect (IMHO) statements that clearly contradict the Baha’i writings. However in practice it is extremely unlikely a Baha’i Assembly would approach him to either question his membership credentials or counsel him to correct his erroneous views that are occasionally expressed on forum such as these.

As I suspected. It's similar in Christian churches and denominations of any decent size.

 

[Jim]

Although I feel your OP would be best in same faith debates it is clear that some of your statements are confusing for those on this forum who are either unfamiliar with the Baha’i Faith or have limited knowledge of it. My comments are to provide clarity and correct and misunderstandings.

Have you been appointed by a Baha’i spiritual assembly or the Universal House of Justice to provide clarity and correct misunderstandings about the Baha’i Faith in these forums?

 

[Jim]

I want try to clarify my purposes in this thread. I’m trying to counteract what looks to me like misunderstandings and misinformation about the worldwide Baha’i community and the purposes of its prophets, being spread by members of the community. I say “counteract,” not “correct.” I have no authority from any Baha’i institution to do what I’m doing here, and any or all of what I’m saying might be false. I’m not doing this to debate with Baha’is about it. The reason that I asked in OP if any Baha’i here has any authority from any Baha’i institution to say that I’m wrong was not to debate with them about it. It was to make it clear to everyone that no one in these forums has any authority from any Baha’i institution to say what they are saying in these forums.

Again, everything that I’m saying here is strictly my own personal opinion. I have no authority from any Baha’i institution to say anything that I’m saying here. I’m hoping that’s it’s clear to everyone by now that no one here has any authority from any Baha’i institution to say what they are saying here about the Baha’i Faith.

I’ve seen a rumor in Internet forums that the views of Baha’is are being censored by Baha’i institutions, and that some people have been removed from the membership by the House of Justice because they were promoting views that it is trying to repress. I think that rumor is false, and it grieves me to see members of the Baha’i Faith helping to spread it. Again, everything that I say in these forums is strictly my own personal opinion, and not sponsored or endorsed by any Baha’i institution. I think that applies to everything that anyone says in these forums about the Baha’i Faith, that none of it is sponsored or endorsed by any Baha’i institution.

I agree that the views of Baha’is are being censored, at least in Internet discussions, but I don’t think that they are being censored by the Universal House of Justice. One way that I see them being censored is by being stigmatized by some people setting themselves up as sources of knowledge about the Baha’i Faith, without making it clear that they have no authority from any Baha’i institution.

I agree that some people who have been promoting ideas and interests contrary to those of the House of Justice have been disqualified from membership, but I don’t think that was the reason for them being disqualified. Again, everything that I say in these forums is strictly my own personal opinion, not sponsored or endorsed by any Baha’i institution, and I think that applies to everything that anyone else says in these forums about the Baha’i Faith.

Again, these are strictly my own personal opinions, not sponsored or endorsed by any Baha’i institution. Any or all of what I’m saying could be false.

People can think what they want to about Baha’i institutions having hidden, self-serving motives and intentions. Part of what I want to bring out here is that there has been no message to the Baha’i community from the House of Justice that prohibits them from openly disagreeing with what it says about Baha’i teachings, or saying that some people have been removed from the membership for that reason.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I want try to clarify my purposes in this thread. I’m trying to counteract what looks to me like misunderstandings and misinformation about the worldwide Baha’i community and the purposes of its prophets, being spread by members of the community. I say “counteract,” not “correct.” I have no authority from any Baha’i institution to do what I’m doing here, and any or all of what I’m saying might be false. I’m not doing this to debate with Baha’is about it. The reason that I asked in OP if any Baha’i here has any authority from any Baha’i institution to say that I’m wrong was not to debate with them about it. It was to make it clear to everyone that no one in these forums has any authority from any Baha’i institution to say what they are saying in these forums.

Again, everything that I’m saying here is strictly my own personal opinion. I have no authority from any Baha’i institution to say anything that I’m saying here. I’m hoping that’s it’s clear to everyone by now that no one here has any authority from any Baha’i institution to say what they are saying here about the Baha’i Faith.

I’ve seen a rumor in Internet forums that the views of Baha’is are being censored by Baha’i institutions, and that some people have been removed from the membership by the House of Justice because they were promoting views that it is trying to repress. I think that rumor is false, and it grieves me to see members of the Baha’i Faith helping to spread it. Again, everything that I say in these forums is strictly my own personal opinion, and not sponsored or endorsed by any Baha’i institution. I think that applies to everything that anyone says in these forums about the Baha’i Faith, that none of it is sponsored or endorsed by any Baha’i institution.

I agree that the views of Baha’is are being censored, at least in Internet discussions, but I don’t think that they are being censored by the Universal House of Justice. One way that I see them being censored is by being stigmatized by some people setting themselves up as sources of knowledge about the Baha’i Faith, without making it clear that they have no authority from any Baha’i institution.

I agree that some people who have been promoting ideas and interests contrary to those of the House of Justice have been disqualified from membership, but I don’t that was the reason for them being disqualified. Again, everything that I say in these forums is strictly my own personal opinion, not sponsored or endorsed by any Baha’i institution, and I think that applies to everything that anyone else says in these forums about the Baha’i Faith.

Again, these are strictly my own personal opinions, not sponsored or endorsed by any Baha’i institution. Any or all of what I’m saying could be false.

People can think what they want to about Baha’i institutions having hidden, self-serving motives and intentions. Part of what I want to bring out here is that there has been no message to the Baha’i community from the House of Justice that prohibits them from openly disagreeing with what it says about Baha’i teachings, or saying that some people have been removed from the membership for that reason.

This is an extract from a Message from the Universal House of Justice, the message speaks for itself and to me the answers are clear. To others, maybe not.


THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARIAT

7 April 1999

To all National Spiritual Assemblies

Dear Bahá’í Friends,

Issues Related to the Study of the Bahá’í Faith

In May of 1998, Bahá’í Canada reproduced a collection of letters which the Universal House of Justice had written to various individuals on the subject of the academic study of the Bahá’í Faith. Copies of this compilation were subsequently mailed by the Canadian National Spiritual Assembly to its sister Assemblies. The reprint has now been made generally available in booklet form by the United States Bahá’í Publishing Trust. The House of Justice has asked us to forward you a copy of the latter publication with the following comments.

As a number of the friends are aware, a campaign of internal opposition to the Teachings is currently being carried on through the use of the Internet, a communications system that now reaches virtually every part of the world. Differing from attacks familiar in the past, it seeks to recast the entire Faith into a sociopolitical ideology alien to Bahá’u’lláh’s intent. In the place of the institutional authority established by His Covenant, it promotes a kind of interpretive authority which those behind it attribute to the views of persons technically trained in Middle East studies.

Early in 1996, the deliberate nature of the plan was revealed in an accidental posting to an Internet list which Bahá’í subscribers had believed was dedicated to scholarly exploration of the Cause. Some of the people responsible resigned from the Faith when Counselors pointed out to them the direction their activities were taking. A small number of others continue to promote the campaign within the Bahá’í community.

In the past, in situations of a somewhat similar nature, the patience and compassion shown by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Guardian helped various believers who had been misled by ill-intentioned persons to eventually free themselves from such entanglements. In this same spirit of forbearance the Universal House of Justice has intervened in the current situation only to the extent that has been unavoidable, trusting to the good sense and the goodwill of the believers involved to awaken to the spiritual dangers to which they are exposing themselves. Nevertheless, certain Counselors and National Spiritual Assemblies are monitoring the problem closely, and the friends can be confident that whatever further steps are needed to protect the integrity of the Cause will be taken.

As passages in the enclosed reprint make clear, this campaign of internal opposition—while purporting to accept the legitimacy of the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice as twin successors of Bahá’u’lláh and the Center of His Covenant—attempts to cast doubt on the nature and scope of the authority conferred on them in the Writings. When other Bahá’ís have pointed out that such arguments contradict explicit statements of the Master, persons behind the scheme have responded by calling into question the soundness of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s own judgment and perspective. Gradually, these arguments have exposed the view of those involved that Bahá’u’lláh Himself was not the voice of God to our age but merely a particularly enlightened moral philosopher, one whose primary concern was to reform existing society.

By itself, such opposition would likely stand little chance of influencing reasonably informed Bahá’ís. As one of the letters in the enclosed reprint (20 July 1997) points out, the scheme relies for effect, therefore, on exploiting the confusion created in modern thought by the reigning doctrines of materialism. Although the reality of God’s continuous relationship with His creation and His intervention in human life and history are the very essence of the teachings of the Founders of the revealed religions, dogmatic materialism today insists that even the nature of religion itself can be adequately understood only through the use of an academic methodology designed to ignore the truths that make religion what it is.

In general, the strategy being pursued has been to avoid direct attacks on the Faith’s Central Figures. The effort, rather, has been to sow the seeds of doubt among believers about the Faith’s teachings and institutions by appealing to unexamined prejudices that Bahá’ís may have unconsciously absorbed from non-Bahá’í society. In defiance of the clear interpretation of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and the Guardian, for example, Bahá’u’lláh’s limiting of membership on the Universal House of Justice to men is misrepresented as merely a “temporary measure” subject to eventual revision if sufficient pressure is brought to bear. Similarly, Shoghi Effendi’s explanation of Bahá’u’lláh’s vision of the future Bahá’í World Commonwealth that will unite spiritual and civil authority is dismissed in favor of the assertion that the modern political concept of “separation of church and state” is somehow one that Bahá’u’lláh intended as a basic principle of the World Order He has founded. Particularly subtle is an attempt to suggest that the Mashriqu’l-Adhkár should evolve into a seat of quasi-doctrinal authority, parallel to and essentially independent of the Local House of Justice, which would permit various interests to insinuate themselves into the direction of the life processes of the Cause.

Typically, when misrepresentations of the kind described are challenged, the reaction of those behind the campaign has been to claim that their civil rights are being threatened, an assertion that is of course meaningless in the light of the purely voluntary nature of Bahá’í membership. Much emphasis is placed by them also on academic freedom, their view of which proves, on examination, to be merely freedom on their part to pervert scholarly discourse to the promotion of their own ideological agenda, while seeking to exclude from discussion features of the Bahá’í Faith that are central to the Writings of its Founders.

The effect of continued exposure to such insincerity about matters vital to humanity’s well-being is spiritually corrosive. When we encounter minds that are closed and hearts that are darkened by evident malice, Bahá’u’lláh urges that we leave such persons to God and turn our attention to the opportunities which multiply daily for the promotion of the truths which He teaches. In words written at the direction of the Guardian, regarding a situation similar to, though much less serious than, the present one, “. . . the friends should be advised to just leave these people alone, for their influence can be nothing but negative and destructive.…”

A bit more here:
7 April 1999 – To all National Spiritual Assemblies | Bahá’í Reference Library

Regards Tony

 

[Jim]

I want to review what I’m trying to say in this thread. I’m disagreeing with the rumor that some views are being repressed in the Baha’i community by the House of Justice, and that some people have been removed from the membership for that reason. I agree that some views are being repressed, at least in Internet discussions, but I don’t think that it’s the House of Justice that is trying to repress them. I think that it’s a few members of the community acting on their own initiative, without any authority from Baha’i institutions. I agree that some people who were promoting ideas and interests contrary to those of the House of Justice were removed from the membership, but I don’t think that was the reason for their removal.

For more than 15 years I have been promoting views in Internet discussions that some Baha’is think are contrary to Baha’i teachings and what the House of Justice has said about them. I have even openly disagreed with a statement in one of its messages, about homosexuality. I have informed the House of Justice and some other leaders of the Bahai Faith of what I’ve been doing, and asked them to tell me if I’m doing anything wrong or if there’s anything I need to know. My faithfulness and qualification for membership have never been questioned.

 

[Jim]

I see things being posted in this thread that might divert attention from what I’m trying to say and create confusion about it. I’m disagreeing with a rumor being circulated in Internet discussions that Baha’is who openly disagree with what the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings are breaking some kind of rule of the community, and that some people have been removed from the membership for that reason. I’m disagreeing with that rumor, and presenting my experience as a counter-example. For more than 15 years I’ve been flagrantly breaking that rule that some people think we have. I’ve informed the House of Justice and some other leaders of the community about what I’ve been doing, and invited them to tell me if I’m doing anything wrong or if there’s anything that I need to know. None of them have told me that I’m breaking any rule. None of them have ever questioned my faithfulness or my qualification for membership.

 

[Jim]

... it is extremely unlikely a Baha’i Assembly would approach him to either question his membership credentials or counsel him to correct his erroneous views that are occasionally expressed on forum such as these.

My comments are to provide clarity and correct and misunderstandings.

Have you been authorized by a Baha’i institution to say that my views are erroneous? Have you been authorized by a Baha’i institution to provide clarity and to correct misunderstandings about the Baha’i Faith in these forums?

My purpose in this thread is to counteract the rumor that the House of Justice is trying to censor and repress some views in the Baha’i community, and that it has removed some people from the membership for that purpose. Are you saying that the rumor is true?

 

[Jim]

My purpose in this thread is to try to counteract a rumor that I see being spread by members of the Baha’i Faith, that the House if Justice has been trying to censor and repress some views of the Baha’i Faith and its teachings, and that it has removed some people from the membership for that purpose. I’m using my views about homosexuality only as an example of the views that are being censored and repressed. I agree that some views are being censored and repressed, but I don’t think that’s coming from the House of Justice. What’s been happening in this thread might help some people see more clearly where that censorship and repression are coming from: from a few individual members and others who are insisting on their own interpretations as the true teachings of the Baha’i Faith, and stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with them as poorly informed, unfaithful or unqualified for membership.

For information, when I say that I don’t see any prohibition against all homosexual relationships, or against a relationship between two women or two men being called a “marriage” or being legalized as one, apart from possibly one statement in one message of the House of Justice, I personally don’t think that I’m contradicting anything in Baha’i scriptures or in any messages from the House of Justice.

 

[Jim]

I’m saying that there’s no rule in the Baha’i Faith against openly disagreeing with what the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings, but I’m not saying that there are no rules at all about what Baha’is can say or do. There are. For example, Baha’is can think and say whatever they want to about homosexuality and gay marriage, or about the eligibility of women for election to the House of Justice, but there’s a limit to how far they can go in feuding about it before the House of Justice takes some action to stop the feuding. Also, a marriage between two women or two men can’t be certified as a Baha’i marriage. I don’t think that will ever happen. Also, I think that there is a prohibition against some kind of sexual practice between two men, regardless of their orientation. If the House of Justice ever spells out what precisely is prohibited, anyone who does that will be breaking a rule regardless of what they think about their sexuality. I don’t think that there is or ever will be any such thing as gender identity in Baha’i law. Also, as long as the House of Justice says that women are not eligible for election to the House of Justice, they will not be eligible for election to the House of Justice, and I don’t think that any amount of shaming and blaming from members or the society around us will ever change that.

Those are just a few examples. I’m not saying that there are no rules at all. There are lots of rules, including some that are very unpopular in today’s world. Depending on the circumstances, a person who breaks a rule can lose their voting rights or their membership, or even in some cases be shunned. I’m only saying that there’s no rule against openly disagreeing with what the House of Justice says about Baha’i teachings.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This is an excerpt from the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha, Eldest Son of Baha’u’llah and what He says must be the attitude of Baha’is towards Shoghi Effendi’s and the Universal House of Justice.


The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God. May the wrath, the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest upon him!

According to this clear text one cannot dispute or contend with whatever Shoghi Effendi and the House of Justice states.

To call oneself a Baha’i and then publicly make statements opposite to what our teachings state is to misrepresent the Baha’i Faith.

Being a Baha’i is a voluntary act but we do have the responsibility to uphold the beliefs and principles of the Faith otherwise why be a Baha’i?

Agreed ... I think this belongs in the Baha'i DIR.

Agreed it should be moved to Baha’i DIR.

 

[Jim]

... it is clear that some of your statements are confusing for those on this forum who are either unfamiliar with the Baha’i Faith or have limited knowledge of it. My comments are to provide clarity and correct and misunderstandings.

I ask you again, have you been authorized by any Baha’i institution to call my views erroneous, in these forums?

From what you’ve been saying in another thread, some people might think that you have been authorized by a Baha’i institution to publicly accuse me of violating a rule of the Baha’i Faith, without first advising me about it privately. I don’t think that any Baha’i institution would ever do such a thing. Do you?

 

[Jim]

This is an excerpt from the Will and Testament of Abdul-Baha, Eldest Son of Baha’u’llah and what He says must be the attitude of Baha’is towards Shoghi Effendi’s and the Universal House of Justice.


The sacred and youthful branch, the Guardian of the Cause of God, as well as the Universal House of Justice, to be universally elected and established, are both under the care and protection of the Abhá Beauty, under the shelter and unerring guidance of the Exalted One (may my life be offered up for them both). Whatsoever they decide is of God. Whoso obeyeth him not, neither obeyeth them, hath not obeyed God; whoso rebelleth against him and against them hath rebelled against God; whoso opposeth him hath opposed God; whoso contendeth with them hath contended with God; whoso disputeth with him hath disputed with God; whoso denieth him hath denied God; whoso disbelieveth in him hath disbelieved in God; whoso deviateth, separateth himself and turneth aside from him hath in truth deviated, separated himself and turned aside from God. May the wrath, the fierce indignation, the vengeance of God rest upon him!

According to this clear text one cannot dispute or contend with whatever Shoghi Effendi and the House of Justice states.

To call oneself a Baha’i and then publicly make statements opposite to what our teachings state is to misrepresent the Baha’i Faith.

Being a Baha’i is a voluntary act but we do have the responsibility to uphold the beliefs and principles of the Faith otherwise why be a Baha’i?

Do you think that I am disputing or contending with Shoghi Effendi or the House of Justice, when I say that I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against all homosexual relationships, or against a relationship between two women or two men being called a marriage or legalized as one? If so, have you been authorized by a Baha’i institution to say so publicly in these forums? I’ve been saying that in Internet discussions for more than ten years, and no Baha’i institution has advised me against that, even when I’ve informed them about what I’ve been doing.

 

[Jim]

Does anyone have any doubts or questions now, about where the censorship and repression of the views of Baha’is is coming from, in Internet discussions?

 

[Jim]

Once again I ask, does anyone have any authority from any Baha’i institution to say that I am violating a rule of the Baha’i Faith when I say publicly that I don’t see any prohibition in Baha’i scriptures against all homosexual relationships, or against a relationship between two women or two men being called a “marriage” or legalized as one?

Does anyone have any authority from any Baha’i institution to say that I am violating a rule of the Baha’i Faith when I say publicly that I’m not sure that the House of Justice can not decide that women are eligible for election to the House of Justice?

To avoid some possible misunderstandings, I will say that I would never agree with certifying a marriage between two women or two men as a Baha’i marriage, and I think that it would be wrong to try put any kind of social or political pressure on the House of Justice to allow for women to be eligible for election to the House of Justice. Also, I’m not convinced about that one way or another, myself.