-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does God Care Whether We Support the Government?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Hi!
The scriptures of the Baha'i Faith specifically list obedience to established government as one of our teachings, along with non-involvement in partisan politics.
And our own administration, already operating world wide, is fully democratic while being completely non-political, with no nominations, campaigning, or discussion of individual personalities.
Best,
Bruce
Sunstone said:
The scriptures of the Baha'i Faith specifically list obedience to established government as one of our teachings, along with non-involvement in partisan politics.
And our own administration, already operating world wide, is fully democratic while being completely non-political, with no nominations, campaigning, or discussion of individual personalities.
Best,
Bruce
CDRaider
Well-Known Member
I don't think he really cares is we support it or are against it, I just think he cares about how we act upon either.
If we DO NOT support the government, it is not up to use to massacre all the leaders and to stage a coup and to rampage throughout the city. It is our responsibility to be a kind of a check on the morality of our government and work with in the system for change in a peaceful pattern.
If we DO support the government, it is not our repsonsibility to make all other believe in it by killing the non believers and persecuting those who speak against it. It is our responsibility to support in the ways that we can to maintain the government the way that we see as the best possible.
If we DO NOT support the government, it is not up to use to massacre all the leaders and to stage a coup and to rampage throughout the city. It is our responsibility to be a kind of a check on the morality of our government and work with in the system for change in a peaceful pattern.
If we DO support the government, it is not our repsonsibility to make all other believe in it by killing the non believers and persecuting those who speak against it. It is our responsibility to support in the ways that we can to maintain the government the way that we see as the best possible.
Ozzie
Well-Known Member
Being fully democratic are you free to discuss and criticise your founders? I think the non-political aspiration of the Bahai is commendable, but I am not that comfortable with discussion of individual political personalities not being allowed. Is there some connection with the history of persecution of Bahai in Iran for the apolitical stance?BruceDLimber said:Hi!
The scriptures of the Baha'i Faith specifically list obedience to established government as one of our teachings, along with non-involvement in partisan politics.
And our own administration, already operating world wide, is fully democratic while being completely non-political, with no nominations, campaigning, or discussion of individual personalities.
Best,
Bruce
CDRaider
Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
Absolutely not. You have a moral obligation to support a government that is established to the benifit of the people. When the government becomes harmful to the people, it is your responsibility to God to help his people get relief from mistreatment.
In my opinion, standing by and doing nothing while unjust things are being done to people is as bad as doing them.
I see governments as the equivalent of large gangs which have successfully staked out and monopolized extensive turfs (turves?).
Governing gangs are despotic at first, but soon learn that offering a few social services will elicit a certain degree of support from non gang members, create stability, and cut down on the need for violence to maintain control.
A good example of an incipient government occurred in Chicago, USA, in the late 1920s. A violent gang, headed by Al Capone, managed to achieve control over large areas of the city. After a couple of years residents of these areas were enjoying regular trash pick-up, safer streets, and a better social welfare system than residents in areas still under control of the previous gang, ie: the City Administration.
As we all know, the Capone government was eventually taken over by the larger, previously existing gang, but it remains a good illustration of what government really is under all the official trappings.
Personally, I feel no allegiance toward any gang/government. I find it disturbing that most people feel an obligation to the gang controlling the turf they chanced to be born in.
Government is not ordained by God. It is the result of a power-grab by nefarious thugs. It is wrong to support such an institution.
I believe people should support actions and policies rather than the government that may be propounding them. If governments found that they enjoyed public support only when they were doing good they might become less rapacious and more benign.
Governing gangs are despotic at first, but soon learn that offering a few social services will elicit a certain degree of support from non gang members, create stability, and cut down on the need for violence to maintain control.
A good example of an incipient government occurred in Chicago, USA, in the late 1920s. A violent gang, headed by Al Capone, managed to achieve control over large areas of the city. After a couple of years residents of these areas were enjoying regular trash pick-up, safer streets, and a better social welfare system than residents in areas still under control of the previous gang, ie: the City Administration.
As we all know, the Capone government was eventually taken over by the larger, previously existing gang, but it remains a good illustration of what government really is under all the official trappings.
Personally, I feel no allegiance toward any gang/government. I find it disturbing that most people feel an obligation to the gang controlling the turf they chanced to be born in.
Government is not ordained by God. It is the result of a power-grab by nefarious thugs. It is wrong to support such an institution.
I believe people should support actions and policies rather than the government that may be propounding them. If governments found that they enjoyed public support only when they were doing good they might become less rapacious and more benign.
Jaymes
The cake is a lie
Romans 13 seems to imply he cares quite a lot.
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
How do you define a 'righteous law'? An interesting question, Baha`i's are guided thus in Lights of Guidance, pg. 466:
"1455. The Bahá'ís Should Obey the Government even at Risk of Sacrificing Administrative Affairs -- In Matters of Faith no Compromise Allowed, even though Outcome is Death
"For whereas the friends should obey the government under which they live, even at the risk of sacrificing all their administrative affairs and interests, they should under no circumstances suffer their inner religious beliefs and convictions to be violated and transgressed by any authority whatever. A distinction of a fundamental importance must, therefore, be made between spiritual and administrative matters. Whereas the former are sacred and inviolable and hence cannot be subject to compromise, the later are secondary and can consequently be given up and even sacrificed for the sake of obedience to the laws and regulations of the government. Obedience to the state is so vital a principle of the Cause that should the authorities in ... decide to-day to prevent Bahá'ís from holding any meeting or publishing any literature they should obey ... But, as already pointed out, such an allegiance is confined merely to administrative matter which if checked can only retard the progress of the Faith for some time. In matters of belief, however, no compromise whatever should be allowed, even though the outcome of it be death or expulsion."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 446)
Baha`i's live with all the ramifications of this in Iran today. Some are called upon to give up their faith in order to obtain working papers, accedss to education, pensions, burial, the legal opportunity to leave Iran and escape oppression.
Regards,
Scott
"1455. The Bahá'ís Should Obey the Government even at Risk of Sacrificing Administrative Affairs -- In Matters of Faith no Compromise Allowed, even though Outcome is Death
"For whereas the friends should obey the government under which they live, even at the risk of sacrificing all their administrative affairs and interests, they should under no circumstances suffer their inner religious beliefs and convictions to be violated and transgressed by any authority whatever. A distinction of a fundamental importance must, therefore, be made between spiritual and administrative matters. Whereas the former are sacred and inviolable and hence cannot be subject to compromise, the later are secondary and can consequently be given up and even sacrificed for the sake of obedience to the laws and regulations of the government. Obedience to the state is so vital a principle of the Cause that should the authorities in ... decide to-day to prevent Bahá'ís from holding any meeting or publishing any literature they should obey ... But, as already pointed out, such an allegiance is confined merely to administrative matter which if checked can only retard the progress of the Faith for some time. In matters of belief, however, no compromise whatever should be allowed, even though the outcome of it be death or expulsion."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 446)
Baha`i's live with all the ramifications of this in Iran today. Some are called upon to give up their faith in order to obtain working papers, accedss to education, pensions, burial, the legal opportunity to leave Iran and escape oppression.
Regards,
Scott
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Jensa said:
Jesus also personally spoke to this in the famous "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" verse. It does not refer JUST to taxation.
Regards,
Scott
lunamoth
Will to love
Popeyesays said:
First let me say that I share your concerns about the plight of Baha'is in Iran today Scott. The persecutions going on there are inexcusable.
However, and as you know from our discussions elsewhere, the above teaching from the Lights of Guidance leaves me with the impression that Baha'is are allowed to disobey a government for their own religious rights, but would be prohibited from disobeying/protesting on behalf of the rights of others, in a non-violent way of course.
luna
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Sunstone said:
It depends on what it is the government is supporting. If the government intends to invade a country for acme love dolls you bet a pretty penny I will not support it (sorry Phil).
I think God does want us to support and respect the government in conjunction to His Law....
Which pretty much means you pick and choose like everyone else.
lunamoth
Will to love
jmoum said:
I agree Jeff, absolutely. But this does not seem to be how this particular aspect of teachings is interpreted. I'd be delighted to learn differently but my understanding is that Baha'is are discouraged from participating in things like non-violent protests. I remember for example Abdul Baha'is quote (somewhere) about how it was wrong the way women went about gaining equal rights in this country, even though equality for women is a Baha'i principle.
Popeyesays
Well-Known Member
Well, it says if forced into a position where I must foreswear my religious beliefs or die, the better thing is to die.
If someone is in deadly, immediate danger, I can act individually to defend them. If it is an arrest by governmental agencies that means death for the individual, is it the same thing? Probably, yes.
Now am I allowed to join in groups who are disobeying in support of a political cause? No, I am not. Such a demonstration is in fact partisan politics--no matter how justifiable the cause may be. Partisan politics create division. The cause of the faith is unity. I cannot support both at the same time.
Regards,
Scott
If someone is in deadly, immediate danger, I can act individually to defend them. If it is an arrest by governmental agencies that means death for the individual, is it the same thing? Probably, yes.
Now am I allowed to join in groups who are disobeying in support of a political cause? No, I am not. Such a demonstration is in fact partisan politics--no matter how justifiable the cause may be. Partisan politics create division. The cause of the faith is unity. I cannot support both at the same time.
Regards,
Scott
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Hi, Ozzie!
Only in reverse!
IOW, the stance of Baha'is in Iran is a result of this teaching of fostering unity and avoiding partisan politics, which has existed since the Faith's inception.
And yes, Baha'is are free to express their opinions, including about our Central Figures (though I suspect few would be "critical" of them). Certainly we can (and do) discuss them all the time!
What I was referring to is that we don't have discussion of individuals as a prelude to our elections, which could be seen as electioneering, either pro or con. As mentioned, we also don't have nominations or campaigning.
Instead, our elections begin with prayers; then, each individual votes (by secret ballot) for the person or persons he or she feels are best qualified to serve. Those receiving the most votes are automatically elected. There is thus no chance to "run for office"--and indeed, appearing to do so would likely cause one not to be voted for-- nor, if elected, to refuse to serve (except for extraordinary circumstances like illness or having small children).
We find this system works very well, and is most helpful for fostering unity!
I think it's worth noting that we're encouraged to discuss the traits and attributes that are appropriate and helpful for those serving on elected bodies. It's only the discussion of individuals that's prohibited. This is in part because one of the strongest condemnations/prohibitions in the Baha'i Faith is on backbiting, and statements of this type could easily become such. Our scriptures say this:
213 [The seeker] must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence, and refrain from idle talk. For the tongue is a smoldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century.
214 That seeker should also regard backbiting as grievous error, and keep himself aloof from its dominion, inasmuch as backbiting quencheth the light of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul.
-- The Book of Certitude, p. 193
And indeed, our scriptures also say it's the one thing worse than murder.
To bring this full circle, as I indicated, Iranian Baha'is endeavor to practice respect of others the same as all other Baha'is, and this has nothing whatever to do with the persecutions that the government and religious hierarchy there practice on Baha'is. (These are partially political and partially religious <to the extent that they can be called religion>, but Baha'is' desire to avoid partisanship is entirely unrelated. And Baha'i practice there continues whether persecution exists or not.
I hope you'll find this explanation helpful.
Regards,
Bruce
Bruce said:
Ozzie said:
Only in reverse!
IOW, the stance of Baha'is in Iran is a result of this teaching of fostering unity and avoiding partisan politics, which has existed since the Faith's inception.
And yes, Baha'is are free to express their opinions, including about our Central Figures (though I suspect few would be "critical" of them). Certainly we can (and do) discuss them all the time!
What I was referring to is that we don't have discussion of individuals as a prelude to our elections, which could be seen as electioneering, either pro or con. As mentioned, we also don't have nominations or campaigning.
Instead, our elections begin with prayers; then, each individual votes (by secret ballot) for the person or persons he or she feels are best qualified to serve. Those receiving the most votes are automatically elected. There is thus no chance to "run for office"--and indeed, appearing to do so would likely cause one not to be voted for-- nor, if elected, to refuse to serve (except for extraordinary circumstances like illness or having small children).
We find this system works very well, and is most helpful for fostering unity!
I think it's worth noting that we're encouraged to discuss the traits and attributes that are appropriate and helpful for those serving on elected bodies. It's only the discussion of individuals that's prohibited. This is in part because one of the strongest condemnations/prohibitions in the Baha'i Faith is on backbiting, and statements of this type could easily become such. Our scriptures say this:
213 [The seeker] must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence, and refrain from idle talk. For the tongue is a smoldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century.
214 That seeker should also regard backbiting as grievous error, and keep himself aloof from its dominion, inasmuch as backbiting quencheth the light of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul.
-- The Book of Certitude, p. 193
And indeed, our scriptures also say it's the one thing worse than murder.
To bring this full circle, as I indicated, Iranian Baha'is endeavor to practice respect of others the same as all other Baha'is, and this has nothing whatever to do with the persecutions that the government and religious hierarchy there practice on Baha'is. (These are partially political and partially religious <to the extent that they can be called religion>, but Baha'is' desire to avoid partisanship is entirely unrelated. And Baha'i practice there continues whether persecution exists or not.
I hope you'll find this explanation helpful.
Regards,
Bruce
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
N/A, Sun: No existing government anywhere in the world is "God-ordained."
Peace,
Bruce