Does God Care Whether We Support the Government?

[lunamoth]

Hi again!



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

OK then! Thanks!

 

[lunamoth]

Good morning Jeff, hope you are well today.

Appeal to the powers of other nations.

But isn't this in a way failing to support one's government? Might it not even be considered treason if the request for assistance comes from the citizens of the nation?

Really, isn't any challenge to the status quo, whether it comes from the citizens or from other nations, an act of disunity and potential violence?

Well, there are a lot of different techniques out there that the international community is working on, but you have to remember we're all new at this, so we're still trying to figure out what works best. But it seems that diplomatic pressure seems to work from time to time and when that fails, economic sanctions tend to have an impact, but only if all the nations are unified in their efforts. I personally don't know how to change the world on an international level, but I do know that if all the nations strive for a common goal, it's more easily achieved, and that economic pressure does work.

However, whichever means the international community chooses it is going to amount to a challenge to the existing government and be disunifying and potentially violent. My main question here, however, is what is the role of individual conscience in matters of percieved social injustice? If every individual must obey their government without resistance, who will initiate change?

It's not the principle of unity I have difficulty with...it's the idea of a law that says we can never question authority...whether that authority is our civil government or our religious leaders.

Non-violent civil disobedience in the form that we know of is indirectly violent because it is still confrontational, and as a result, covertly aggressive. Because of that, when people perform civil disobedience, it has a tendency to make their oppenents defensive, sometimes angry, it rubs them the wrong way, etc. etc. I wish I could explain that better, because I can make sense of the concept in my head but I can't put it into words.

By this line of reasoning I would say that any form of authority whatsoever is also indirectly violent because authority can only be upheld by the threat of punishment or violence. I suggest reading The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy.

I admire Ghandi, I admire him a lot. But that doesn't mean I overlook his flaws. We can learn a lot from him, both from the amazing things he did, as well as where he fell short.

What amazing thing did he do and where did he fall short?

Sorry to keep pressing you on this...but by this reasoning the only difference between Gandhi and Osama bin Laden is a matter of degree.

No. Not at all. Because he had a lot of great ideas and inspired a whole nation, if not the world. However, as great as he and his followers did, they could have done things better.

And my question still is...how could he have done things better? It seems that the only answer is that he should have done nothing because anything he did would cause disunity.

Now that I'm awake, Baha'is work with the government instead of trying to get rid of it. We encourage that they change from the inside and move for such a change. The reason this is is because the government is an established order, and when that order is gotten rid of, things fall apart. There is a struggle for power and people often become divided. If the government is kept, that wouldn't happen. Now, I know what you're going to say next "What if the government is totally corrupt and unjust?" So, refer to my earlier answers about voting people out and trying to appeal to the international community.

This is admirable. It's a difficult problem Jeff I agree...is it better to support a bad government that keeps the peace by force and oppression of minority views than cause disunity by instigating change? I'm not asking you to solve this...if any of us had the answers then we would not need to be having this discussion. When it comes to changing whole governments I'm flummoxed. I agree with the Baha'i approach to implementing change through international cooperation and peaceful means within systems to whatever extent is possible.

I actually am starting to think that the Baha'i position on individual consceince is not as rigid as I previously believed, or if it is officially so then individual Baha'is realize that they may end up disobeying Baha'i law under some circumstances. Like the situation Katz brought up...if you were in Nazi Germany would you support and obey the regime even if you thought it was wrong...would you serve as miliatry in the concentration camps if that was what was asked of you...would you help Jews escape...those things are matters of individual conscience and some of those decisions might result in disobedience to you government.

I don't have rigid answers myself Jeff. I'm not saying that the Baha'i approach is even wrong...I'm just saying that if it is inflexible, that inflexibility is a danger.

luna

 

[lunamoth]

Hey Jeff...thank you for the reply. I've just had a little breakthrough in my thinking...thank you for the conversation.

Best wishes,
Laurie

 

[lunamoth]

I certainly hope the breakthrough isn't "Jeff's an idiot, dismiss everything he's said."

Not at all Jeff.

 

[Popeyesays]

"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."

When Khomeini came into power the National Spiritual Assembly of Iran just vanished. To this day no one knows what happened to them. The Baha`i's were prepared, in fact the individuals who were voted 10-18 on the election were immediately given office as the next National Spiritual Assembly. They were all arreseted along with the members of the Local SPiritual Assembly of Tehran.

Electing assemblies at this point would not only be disobedient to the law and to the Universal House of Justice, it would be a death sentence for the individuals elected and many others if the government took it into their heads to declare the Baha`i's in insurrection.

It would in effect be a "Reichstag Fire" leading to Krystallnacht, leading to the Nuremburg Race Laws leading to death camps. It would be grossly irresponsible for the Baha`i's of Iran to initiate that process with their own hands.

Regards,
Scott