Does God Care Whether We Support the Government?

[BruceDLimber]

. . . 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./quote]

No, Luna:

As I thought you knew, the point is that, as the quote said, we must obey the government if it attempts to restrict administrative or other non-belief matters, but may not obey government commands to renounce our Faith or violate our spiritual beliefs!

This holds whether the effect is on the individual or a third party.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[lunamoth]

. . . 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./quote]

No, Luna:

As I thought you knew, the point is that, as the quote said, we must obey the government if it attempts to restrict administrative or other non-belief matters, but may not obey government commands to renounce our Faith or violate our spiritual beliefs!

This holds whether the effect is on the individual or a third party.

Peace,

Bruce

Hi Bruce, Thank you for the clarification.

 

[lunamoth]

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

Hi Scott,

The distinction I'm making is when a government has or initiates a law or policy that goes against a principle Baha'is uphold in their teachings, such as the rights and equality of women or people of different races, or when there is an economic policy in place that exaggerates the difference in wealth between the richest and poorest. In the US of course we have the opportunity to vote on these matters, but sometimes these issues won't even come up for legislation until after there has been some kind of public demand for reform.

The segregation laws of the South are a good example. Was Rosa Parks wrong when she took her famous seat in that diner? Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Sojourner Truth, these icons for peace and justice in the world would not have accomplished anything if they remained quietly in agreement with the government. And these folks were living inside what we might consider good governments.

So, the question again is how do we determine which laws and governments are righteous for all people?

I know this does not apply just to the Baha'i Faith as someone has also pointed out above that in Romans Paul also tells Christians to uphold their government. The difference as I see it is that Paul's words were not meant to be made into a new religious law and applied as a mandate for all time.

luna

 

[Katzpur]

How do you determine a righteous law?

Since we believe in the concept of agency (i.e. free will) a righteous law would have to permit freedom of religious thought and practice.

 

[lunamoth]

Since we believe in the concept of agency (i.e. free will) a righteous law would have to permit freedom of religious thought and practice.

So you would be free to protest a law that prohibited freedom of religion?

I'm actually asking a broader question than that though, not just about freedom to practice your faith. Are there any circumstances in which members of the LDS are allowed to protest (non-violently) against their government? If the circumstance is determined by whether a law or action is righteous or not, how then do you determine righteousness?

luna

 

[Popeyesays]

Hi Scott,

The distinction I'm making is when a government has or initiates a law or policy that goes against a principle Baha'is uphold in their teachings, such as the rights and equality of women or people of different races, or when there is an economic policy in place that exaggerates the difference in wealth between the richest and poorest. In the US of course we have the opportunity to vote on these matters, but sometimes these issues won't even come up for legislation until after there has been some kind of public demand for reform.

The segregation laws of the South are a good example. Was Rosa Parks wrong when she took her famous seat in that diner? Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, Sojourner Truth, these icons for peace and justice in the world would not have accomplished anything if they remained quietly in agreement with the government. And these folks were living inside what we might consider good governments.

So, the question again is how do we determine which laws and governments are righteous for all people?

I know this does not apply just to the Baha'i Faith as someone has also pointed out above that in Romans Paul also tells Christians to uphold their government. The difference as I see it is that Paul's words were not meant to be made into a new religious law and applied as a mandate for all time.

luna

It's not a simple yes or no, from the viewpoint of Baha`i administration. There are different topics of guidance that need to be applied together and it's impossible to make a blanket policy. Blanket policies and precedent are not really part of Baha`i administration either, for that matter.

Here's a couple or three pieces of information:

"1197. Administrative Action in Cases Involving Disobedience to Civil Law
"We have your letter... asking about administrative action in cases involving disobedience to civil law. 357
"...We think it is not possible to make a categorical statement applying to all cases. Each case should be decided on its own merits."
(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, December 7, 1969: Ibid)"
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 356)

"Criteria for Deciding on Association
/// The following questions must be asked: Are the aims of the organization compatible with Bahá'í laws and principles? Is membership open to persons of all racial and religious backgrounds? Is it free from partisan politics and political controversies? Does it refrain from civil disobedience and violence? To answer these questions it would be necessary to review carefully an organization's activities and charter.
/// Association of Bahá'í institutions with other organizations requires close scrutiny because the activities of Bahá'í Assemblies and committees imply automatic representation of the Faith. Local institutions should satisfy themselves that the aims and methods of the organization in question approximate the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh. In general, the closer the approximation, the closer can be the relationship. At times an official relationship would be not only appropriate but advisable.
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

"Letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated September 7, 1965, to a National Spiritual Assembly
Bahá'u'lláh also recognizes that human beings are fallible. He knows that, in our weakness, we shall repeatedly stumble when we try to walk in the path He has pointed out to us. If all human beings became perfect the moment they accepted the call of Bahá'u'lláh this world would be another world. It is in light of our frailty that 'Abdu'l-Bahá appealed to the friends everywhere to love each other and stressed the emphatic teaching of Bahá'u'lláh that each of us should concentrate upon improving his or her own life and ignore the faults of others. How many times the Master stressed the need for unity, for without it His Father's Cause could not go forward."
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

Regards,
Scott

(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

 

[lunamoth]

It's not a simple yes or no, from the viewpoint of Baha`i administration. There are different topics of guidance that need to be applied together and it's impossible to make a blanket policy. Blanket policies and precedent are not really part of Baha`i administration either, for that matter.

Here's a couple or three pieces of information:

"1197. Administrative Action in Cases Involving Disobedience to Civil Law
"We have your letter... asking about administrative action in cases involving disobedience to civil law. 357
"...We think it is not possible to make a categorical statement applying to all cases. Each case should be decided on its own merits."
(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, December 7, 1969: Ibid)"
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 356)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I thought that non-violent civil disobedience was catagorically prohibited in the Baha'i Faith.

"Criteria for Deciding on Association
/// The following questions must be asked: Are the aims of the organization compatible with Bahá'í laws and principles? Is membership open to persons of all racial and religious backgrounds? Is it free from partisan politics and political controversies? Does it refrain from civil disobedience and violence? To answer these questions it would be necessary to review carefully an organization's activities and charter.
/// Association of Bahá'í institutions with other organizations requires close scrutiny because the activities of Bahá'í Assemblies and committees imply automatic representation of the Faith. Local institutions should satisfy themselves that the aims and methods of the organization in question approximate the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh. In general, the closer the approximation, the closer can be the relationship. At times an official relationship would be not only appropriate but advisable.
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

Here it looks like participation in non-violent civil disobedience is prohibited, say something like marching to the sea to make salt or helping slaves escape to freedom on the underground railroad.

"Letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated September 7, 1965, to a National Spiritual Assembly
Bahá'u'lláh also recognizes that human beings are fallible. He knows that, in our weakness, we shall repeatedly stumble when we try to walk in the path He has pointed out to us. If all human beings became perfect the moment they accepted the call of Bahá'u'lláh this world would be another world. It is in light of our frailty that 'Abdu'l-Bahá appealed to the friends everywhere to love each other and stressed the emphatic teaching of Bahá'u'lláh that each of us should concentrate upon improving his or her own life and ignore the faults of others. How many times the Master stressed the need for unity, for without it His Father's Cause could not go forward."
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)

No doubt there is humanity and mercy in the implementation of Baha'i laws, I realize that. But I am concerned with any law that requires I remain obedient to any government or law without question.

Thanks again for your answers Scott,
luna

 

[Ody]

Does deity every care whether we support a particular government or oppose it? If so, how do you know deity cares? If not, how do you know deity doesn't care?

Who can protest an injustice but does not is an accomplice to the act

-The Talmud

 

[Popeyesays]

The Talmud quote is perfectly in alignment with Baha`i principles. In this country, at least, I am free to protest whatever I might. I just have to think twice before I join an organization of people who protest in unison.

As to participating in the escape of slaves, individually I would do so. Baha`u'llah was the first religious leader to ban slavery. As a matter of histoical fact, there were no Baha`i's in North America until 1892, so this principle was never tested in the face of laws supportive of slavery as an institution in this country.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

The Talmud quote is perfectly in alignment with Baha`i principles. In this country, at least, I am free to protest whatever I might. I just have to think twice before I join an organization of people who protest in unison.

That Talmud quote is great and it is exactly the idea I am concerned is compromised by a law which requires complete obedience to any government. If a government is unjust, cruel or corrupt how realistic is it to expect it can be changed from within and without some kind of disobedience to its governance? The US government came into existence because of disobedience to the Monarchy of England, because of issues it considered unjust. I'm hard-pressed to think of any examples in which a cruel or unjust government was replaced without at least non-violent disobedience.

 

[lunamoth]

You know, a lot of people told Ghandi that his methods would never work, that he was a dreamer and his ideas were anything but realistic. Those people could never in a thousand years imagine that his methods would be succesful, and yet they were. Just food for thought.

Jeff, that's exactly my point. What Gandhi did was use non-violent civil disobedience to effect change...the same non-violent disobedience Baha'is are told is not allowed by God. Gandhi was not effective because he was obedient...he was effective because he was disobedient...in a non-violent way.

luna

 

[Katzpur]

So you would be free to protest a law that prohibited freedom of religion?

Absolutely.

I'm actually asking a broader question than that though, not just about freedom to practice your faith. Are there any circumstances in which members of the LDS are allowed to protest (non-violently) against their government?

Oh, sure. We are encouraged to be politically active, which would include being free (possibly even encouraged) to protest non-violently.

If the circumstance is determined by whether a law or action is righteous or not, how then do you determine righteousness?

You lost me, luna. Could you give me an example of what you're thinking of? Thanks.

 

[lunamoth]

You lost me, luna. Could you give me an example of what you're thinking of? Thanks.

Yeah, sorry.

I think we need to back up a bit first. Are LDS required by doctrine to support your government? You say you are allowed to be involved in politics (obviously from recent threads here), and that you are allowed non-violent protest...would that include non-violent civil disobedience?

I thought I read Becky as saying that you must support your government as long as it is 'righteous.' My initial question was that if this is true, how do you define what is righteous? By LDS doctrine? By individual conscience?

 

[lunamoth]

And my point is that people thought that his methods would never in a thousand years succeed, just like you think our methods would never in a thousand years, succed. So just because you see it as impossible, does not make it so.

Which people thought his methods would never work in a million years?

Exactly how does one work within a cruel and corrupt system to effect change without either 1. aiding in the perpetuation of the corrupt system or 2. disobeying?

However, you probably want a more realistic answer, so how about this, let's look at Palestine and Iran. In Palestine, the people are being oppressed and mistreated, and they are lashing out. As a result, the world is divided as to what is the proper course of action to take, some people are simpathising with the Palestinians while others simpathise with the Israelis, some call the Palestinians victims and heros while others label them as criminals.

I do not advocate violence. I am only speaking about non-violent civil disobedience. I agree that vioence only begets more violence. Bad idea.

In Iran, the Baha'is are being persecuted, but they are doing nothing of the sort, and all the world over, those who see the Baha'is and their situation there all see them as victims. Everyone who knows about the situation is of the same practical mindset that what is going on is unfair and needs to change. Do you think the same thing would happen if we decided to be disobedient? I sure don't, in fact, I think it would hurt our image just like the Palestinians image is being hurt by the behavior of a select few.

I do not advocate violence. Baha'is are being persecuted for their religious affiliation in Iran and in fact this is the one area where Baha'is are allowed to practice disobedience, as Scott and Bruce have already pointed out. But if Baha'is went ahead and elected Spiritual Assemblies in Iran in non-violent protest I don't think this would cause the rest of the world to turn their backs on the Baha'is there. If Baha'is started throwing bombs...different story.

As for the whole Ghandi example, yeah, he brought attention to the plight of the people in India and yes he garnered a lot of support for his cause, but there were also Indian citizens who thought he was a huge trouble maker and that he shouldn't be doing what he was doing because it was causing trouble.

Yes, he sure was uppity wasn't he.

And what happened after India gained it's independence? Oh yeah, Ghandi was assasinated, an Indo-Pakistani war, and communal violence that killed an estimated 1 million hindus. I'm sure that's exactly what Ghandi had in mind, isn't it?

Non-sequitur. You can't say that all violence that follows independence was caused by Gandhi's non-violent actions.

 

[Katzpur]

Yeah, sorry.

I think we need to back up a bit first. Are LDS required by doctrine to support your government? You say you are allowed to be involved in politics (obviously from recent threads here), and that you are allowed non-violent protest...would that include non-violent civil disobedience?

I'd say that we are required to support our government to the degree that it protects the right to religious freedom and civil rights. But even that gets kind of fuzzy, doesn't it? In high school, I knew two boys whose families had both immigrated to the U.S. from Germany as a direct result of World War II. Both families were LDS and the boys were best friends. One boy's father had defected to the U.S. in protest of Hitler's policies against the Jews. The other boy's father had fought in the Nazi army, even though he personally believed Hitler to be wrong. He justfied his actions by saying that Latter-day Saints are expected to be loyal citizens of their country. After the war, he brought his family to the U.S. They used to debate which of their fathers was actually the better member of the Church. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know the answer to this question. I would tend to agree with the first boy, whose father had defected. (Of course, he was my boyfriend at the time. )

I thought I read Becky as saying that you must support your government as long as it is 'righteous.' My initial question was that if this is true, how do you define what is righteous? By LDS doctrine? By individual conscience?

My own answer would be by individual conscience, although there is naturally some "overlap." Much -- but not all -- of what my conscience tells me is right is what I have been taught in Church. I don't think I would hesitate to stand up for something that went contrary to the teachings of my Church if I were truly convinced I was right. As a very insignificant example: Years ago, there was a movie theater in downtown Salt Lake that was showing "dirty" movies (this was long before Hollywood's rating system was ever in effect, so I'm not sure just how "dirty" the supposed movies actually were). Members of the Church were encouraged to picket the theater so that this kind of entertainment would not become a part of the community. I remember telling my husband, "Absolutely not!" I have a real problem with censorship. Even though I am totally opposed to pornography and find it disgusting and degrading, I believe that it's no more my right to tell a total stranger what kind of movies he can watch than it's his right to tell me what I can watch. (That's the liberal side of me talking; the conservative side of me would probably look down on people who were into porn.) Anyway, I didn't picket. Neither did my husband. (I suspect he didn't dare! )

 

[lunamoth]

Thank you Katz for your reply. These are exactly the kinds of dilemmas I'm thinking about.

I'd say that we are required to support our government to the degree that it protects the right to religious freedom and civil rights. But even that gets kind of fuzzy, doesn't it? In high school, I knew two boys whose families had both immigrated to the U.S. from Germany as a direct result of World War II. Both families were LDS and the boys were best friends. One boy's father had defected to the U.S. in protest of Hitler's policies against the Jews. The other boy's father had fought in the Nazi army, even though he personally believed Hitler to be wrong. He justfied his actions by saying that Latter-day Saints are expected to be loyal citizens of their country. After the war, he brought his family to the U.S. They used to debate which of their fathers was actually the better member of the Church. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know the answer to this question. I would tend to agree with the first boy, whose father had defected. (Of course, he was my boyfriend at the time.)

I would agree with the first boy as well. These are the kinds of situtations that really test us...slavery and the oppression of women were similarly maintained by the idea that they were supported by the Bible. Both sides claimed that Scripture supported their side and now it's hard for us (in the West) to even imagine saying that slavery is OK or women should not be allowed to vote.

My own answer would be by individual conscience, although there is naturally some "overlap." Much -- but not all -- of what my conscience tells me is right is what I have been taught in Church. I don't think I would hesitate to stand up for something that went contrary to the teachings of my Church if I were truly convinced I was right.

Interestingly this is the same answer given by the Episcopal Church. We have doctrine, and as I like to say we don't tend to hit each other over the head with it, but it is there. However, if there is a situtation in which our individual conscience conflicts with doctrine over something, we are to go with our conscience, keeping in mind that we may be wrong of course, that there is a reason that the collective wisdom of our faith comes to a different conclusion.

As a very insignificant example: Years ago, there was a movie theater in downtown Salt Lake that was showing "dirty" movies (this was long before Hollywood's rating system was ever in effect, so I'm not sure just how "dirty" the supposed movies actually were). Members of the Church were encouraged to picket the theater so that this kind of entertainment would not become a part of the community. I remember telling my husband, "Absolutely not!" I have a real problem with censorship. Even though I am totally opposed to pornography and find it disgusting and degrading, I believe that it's no more my right to tell a total stranger what kind of movies he can watch than it's his right to tell me what I can watch. (That's the liberal side of me talking; the conservative side of me would probably look down on people who were into porn.) Anyway, I didn't picket. Neither did my husband. (I suspect he didn't dare! )

That's an interesting example and a bit of a flip on the situation as we've been talking about it. In this case you used your own judgement about what was appropriate in conflict with others in your community. (Good for you!). I'm very heartened to hear that LDS allows such freedom of conscience.

luna

 

[Popeyesays]

Civil upheaval is often a cruel process. Part of the cruelty is the behavior of factions against one another. India became free because the British finally realized what monsters they were to a large extent.

To an even larger extent it was the result of the action and example of just one individual. When more and more flocked to Ghandi's camp and cooperation became more and more important. Unfortunately the formation of factions destroyed Ghandi's vision of a united India, causing decades of violence between Pakistan and India, and violence within India right up to this very day.

It's a matter of record how this disunity saddened Ghandi.

No government on this earth is a totally 'just' government. Baha`i's believe that we won't have a just government until the unity of mankind is achieved. We also believe that's where we come in.

We can't truly bring about unity if we use methods which create disunity.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

Which people thought his methods would never work in a million years?

Well considering that there have been people in my Philosophy and religions classes that call Ghandi's methods unrealistic even after both he and MLK Jr. proved that they can and do work, chances are there were people back then who had complete doubts. And you know what? Chances are there were people back then who voiced those opinions, but unfortunately, the history books don't really talk about them so I can't give you any concreted details. But if you ask me, it's a very logical assumption. Oh! Wait! I think the British didn't believe he could seriously do what he set out to do with the methods he intended to do them with. Ah yes, those Brits. Gotta love them.

OK, I'll concede that point.

Well lets see, you can vote them out (in a democracy of course),

And if it's not a democracy? And if it's a corrupt democracy, where you need to be part of the corruption to have any influence?

appeal to other nations for intervention, and probably some other methods that I can't come up with at the top of my head cause I'm pretty exhausted.

And what should the other nations do?

You know, there have been "Peace Marches" that have broken out into both minor and major riots. I'm sure that wasn't their original intent. At the same time, a lot of the things these things are seen as confrontational, and as human beings, we tend to react towards confrontation fairly negatively, don't we? I bet that doesn't help their cause much.

I do not advocate violence. I am not talking about violent responses. I'm talking about non-violent civil disobedience and you keep trying to say how non-violent civil disobedience is actually violent. Is this what you mean?

Meh, he was human.

Yes, and a very inspiring one at that, at least I think so.

No, but I can say this. Ghandi wanted the British out. He got what he wanted. Chaos ensued.

OK, so the whole non-violent disobedience thing was actually a mistake and Gandhi should not really be held up as an icon of peace and justice. Same true for the civil rights protests in the US south to end segregation? Same true for women who marched to get the vote?

Those were his methods. The Baha'i way? We fix what is broken and keep what works. We don't throw the whole government away because the government is an already established order that keeps things in check.

Jeff, I am not clear on what you mean. Exactly how do Baha'is fix what is broken and keep what works? I'm not suggesting that anyone throw our government away, but I certainly think there are some governments that could use significant reform, and I'm not exactly how one brings that about without minimally speaking out against what one sees as broken.

I hope you kind of catch what I'm saying because I can't put it into better words at the moment cause I'm so tired. :sorry1:

Maybe I am misunderstanding you. Get some sleep and we can try again when you're rested.

'nite,
luna

 

[lunamoth]

Civil upheaval is often a cruel process. Part of the cruelty is the behavior of factions against one another. India became free because the British finally realized what monsters they were to a large extent.

To an even larger extent it was the result of the action and example of just one individual. When more and more flocked to Ghandi's camp and cooperation became more and more important. Unfortunately the formation of factions destroyed Ghandi's vision of a united India, causing decades of violence between Pakistan and India, and violence within India right up to this very day.

It's a matter of record how this disunity saddened Ghandi.

No government on this earth is a totally 'just' government. Baha`i's believe that we won't have a just government until the unity of mankind is achieved. We also believe that's where we come in.

We can't truly bring about unity if we use methods which create disunity.

Regards,
Scott

That's a very good post Scott, well said.

I guess I'm just not suited to the idea of letting the whole old world order burn down so that a pheonix can rise in its place. I just can't trust that it will really work that way. To me it seems like every advance we have made in creating a more just world has been made because someone had the courage to speak out against a situation they saw as a cause of suffering and less than our human compassion should allow.

Laurie

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi again!

The difference as I see it is that Paul's words were not meant to be made into a new religious law and applied as a mandate for all time.

Nor are the teachings of the Baha'i Faith!

As I trust you know, there will be more Divine Messengers bringing new religious dispensations in the future, without end!

Best,

Bruce