Acts of violence in the name of the Baha’i Faith

[Jim]

Does anyone know of any documented acts of violence in the name of the Baha’i Faith, in the last 100 years?

 

[Marcion]

Are they all strict vegetarians?

 

[Jim]

Are they all strict vegetarians?

No, but I’ve never heard of any Baha’is eating anything and saying they were doing it for the Baha’i Faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

Are they all strict vegetarians?

Do you advocate uncontroled violence against vegetables?

Serious note: They advocate a vegetarian diet as the best diet in the future.

 

[Jim]

... I’ve never heard of any Baha’is eating anything and saying they were doing it for the Baha’i Faith.

They do have refreshments in their meetings sometimes, which sometimes include meat, but it might be hard to find documentation for that.

 

[Marcion]

It is not violence in the name of the religion but it does mean something for me as a neohumanist.

It means the ideal of not wanting to harm others is somewhat limited to humans, so more humanistic than neohumanistic.
Neohumanism wants to serve the Spirit as the spiritual Centre of all creatures in or behind the Universe and humanism wants to serve humans unconditionally.

 

[shunyadragon]

It is not violence in the name of the religion but it does mean something for me as a neohumanist.

It means the ideal of not wanting to harm others is somewhat limited to humans, so more humanistic than neohumanistic.
Neohumanism wants to serve the Spirit as the spiritual Centre of all creatures in or behind the Universe and humanism wants to serve humans unconditionally.

What is Neohumanism????

The radical view of strict vegetarianism has many problems. You ignore natural evolution and the science of human natural nutrition. Humans are unable to make their own B12 without significant technology, and maintain a strict vegetarian diet. Humans evolved as opportunistic omnivores with varied diets across the planet. Considering the diverse climates that humans live and evolved in such as the arctic is unbelievably unrealistic that humans could live there on a strict vegetarian diet, Third your view represents a vary narrow cultural view of what is violence, and not the reality of the natural evolving humanity.

 

[shunyadragon]

There was a recent US shooting by a Baha'i. https://gizmodo.com/what-we-know-about-youtube-shooter-nasim-aghdam-1824313816

This person appears to a bit weird and likely mentally ill. One report I read said she was Jewish. This a stretch that anything here is related to the Baha'i Faith. She was a radical vegan, and animal rights activist,

I wouldn't say it was in the name of the Baha'i faith, but also there are other shootings that are because of ill individuals of a certain religion, but then the press attributes it to the faith.

Problem here with vague accusations without references.

So just because violence happens by members of faith doesn't mean it's because of that faith. It might be over land, over politics, or just a personal grudge.

Baha'i numbers are really small compared to Christian or Muslim numbers, so that's a factor too. Because Baha'i have always been a minority, it's less likely. Fear of widespread retaliation would keep it in check. So we have to consider the hypothetical question, "What if they were the majority?" Both Christian and Muslim faiths can portray themselves as peaceful religions, and we all know how that's been.

There remains no organized nor disorganized violence attributed to the Baha'i Faith. As a witness of the reality size of the belief system has not been a gauge as to whether Baha'is commit violence in the 'name of their faith.'

There are millions of Baha'is world wide, and sufficient in numbers to be a witness as to whether there is any organized violenc in the name of the Baha'i Faith in the past 150 years, and there are no reports of violence committed on any organized level in the name of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Jim]

There are millions of Baha'is world wide, and sufficient in numbers to be a witness as to whether there is any organized violenc in the name of the Baha'i Faith in the past 150 years, and there are no reports of violence committed on any organized level in the name of the Baha'i Faith.

Exactly.

 

[Jim]

I certainly hope that the Baha'i folks here aren't suggesting that the Baha'i have a monopoly on non-violence.

You’re changing the subject again.

ETA: You’re changing the subject again, but even allowing that, actually yes, the Baha’i faith is the only case in which there is no branch of the religion which has ever used the religion as an excuse for organized violence, even in defense against multitudes of its members being murdered. As far as I know, even the factions that have turned against the central figures and the House of Justice, have never used the Baha’i Faith as a reason for any organized violence.

 

[Marcion]

What is Neohumanism????

The radical view of strict vegetarianism has many problems. You ignore natural evolution and the science of human natural nutrition. Humans are unable to make their own B12 without significant technology, and maintain a strict vegetarian diet. Humans evolved as opportunistic omnivores with varied diets across the planet. Considering the diverse climates that humans live and evolved in such as the arctic is unbelievably unrealistic that humans could live there on a strict vegetarian diet, Third your view represents a vary narrow cultural view of what is violence, and not the reality of the natural evolving humanity.

Neohumanism is humanism extended to all living creatures or even the whole natural world.
Humanism takes protecting the sanctity of humans as its ideal but neohumanism looks at the underlying Spirit which lives in all living beings and even in the non-living (e.g. protecting certain landscapes or water sources from degradation).

There is nothing radical or unnatural about adopting a vegetarian diet. Normally humans would ingest B12 with the bacteria that live in the soil as a part of their natural daily raw diet.
Since humans stopped eating raw foods (without extreme washing) the need has arisen to ingest B12 in other ways. Vegetarians who do not eat eggs or dairy will typically eat B12 inside a tablet. Most non-vegetarians will get their B12 from animals who were fed artificial B12 added to their fodder.

Our distant ancestors were mostly vegetarians who fed on fruits, nuts, roots and leaves with the occasional insect or small animal. In glacial periods the humans in the North of course had to a eat a lot of meat especially in winter time for lack of anything else to eat. They would die young as was the case with the Inuit before they got to buy imported foods.

Slaughtering sentient animals unnecessarilly is a form of violence. Evolved humans have been conscientious vegetarians for many thousands of years. Of course not everyone has yet equally evolved to the moral level of neohumanism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

All I can think of is Abdu’l-Baha, The Face Slapper.

Then again in traditional Zen, they hit you with the stick. "0)

 

[Jumi]

Nasim was a sad case, I wouldn't say she did what she did for any religion, but because she felt she was target of injustice. She had serious mental illness that should have been cared for by society.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Neohumanism is humanism extended to all living creatures or even the whole natural world.

That's already covered by humanism:

"That's the spirit of humanism. Man can do it. Man can understand his world, predict and at times control parts of it, and in so doing improve the human condition and that of the beasts, and that no gods will be helping us along the way." source

Humanism takes protecting the sanctity of humans as its ideal

Humanism is the belief that man and man alone can make life better for not just mankind, but all creatures capable of suffering. The reference to humans is not a reference to who will be helped, but who is capable of doing the helping.

I don't know what the sanctity of humans means, or why it needs protecting.

 

[Jim]

All I can think of is Abdu’l-Baha, The Face Slapper.

That’s all I could ever find too.

 

[Marcion]

That's already covered by humanism:

"That's the spirit of humanism. Man can do it. Man can understand his world, predict and at times control parts of it, and in so doing improve the human condition and that of the beasts, and that no gods will be helping us along the way." source

Humanism is the belief that man and man alone can make life better for not just mankind, but all creatures capable of suffering. The reference to humans is not a reference to who will be helped, but who is capable of doing the helping.

I don't know what the sanctity of humans means, or why it needs protecting.

English is not my native tongue but what I meant to say by sanctity of humans is that humans have an intrinsic value of their own which should be respected and protected.
Neohumanism extends this to also recognizing this intrinsic value in animals and plants taken from the idea that you should consider the Spirit existing within all of creation rather than the spirit of human beings alone.

So this means that a humanist will foremost try to improve or protect the situation of human beings (without needing to consider any spiritual or religious goals) whereas a neohumanist will do the same also for members of the animal kindom and for the plant world and indeed for the benefit of the whole planet.

Of course you can explain humanism in another way if you wish, but the general idea is that a neohumanist will seek to promote the well-being or protect the existence of all living beings and a humanist may or may not do the same because they focuss primarily on the human condition.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You’re changing the subject again.

ETA: You’re changing the subject again, but even allowing that, actually yes, the Baha’i faith is the only case in which there is no branch of the religion which has ever used the religion as an excuse for organized violence, even in defense against multitudes of its members being murdered. As far as I know, even the factions that have turned against the central figures and the House of Justice, have never used the Baha’i Faith as a reason for any organized violence.

There is another: Jehovah's Witnesses. We won't even join in nationality conflicts...in the name of any nation.

 

[shunyadragon]

Neohumanism is humanism extended to all living creatures or even the whole natural world.
Humanism takes protecting the sanctity of humans as its ideal but neohumanism looks at the underlying Spirit which lives in all living beings and even in the non-living (e.g. protecting certain landscapes or water sources from degradation).

There is nothing radical or unnatural about adopting a vegetarian diet. Normally humans would ingest B12 with the bacteria that live in the soil as a part of their natural daily raw diet.

In the history of the evolution of primates and humanity, a vegan vegetarian diet is unnatural. Insects have been a part of most primate diets at a minimum.

Since humans stopped eating raw foods (without extreme washing) the need has arisen to ingest B12 in other ways. Vegetarians who do not eat eggs or dairy will typically eat B12 inside a tablet. Most non-vegetarians will get their B12 from animals who were fed artificial B12 added to their fodder.

Scientifically and medically false. You still face the problem of arctic and Nordic peoples of the world where they evolved naturally a dominantly carnivore diet,

Our distant ancestors were mostly vegetarians who fed on fruits, nuts, roots and leaves with the occasional insect or small animal. In glacial periods the humans in the North of course had to a eat a lot of meat especially in winter time for lack of anything else to eat. They would die young as was the case with the Inuit before they got to buy imported foods.

Absolutely false, In the evolution of primates and the primates alive today vegetarian diet is a minority.

Slaughtering sentient animals unnecessarilly is a form of violence. Evolved humans have been conscientious vegetarians for many thousands of years. Of course not everyone has yet equally evolved to the moral level of neohumanism.

Unnecessarily is the key and I would agree in part with you, but you advocate an extreme cultural view of diet which is unnatural to humanity and our evolution.
The historical, archaeological, anthropology, and paleontology evidence finds only one minor Neolithic culture today in human history.

 

[Jumi]

1- If your looking for acts of violence by by Baha'is, then there is plenty. I'll name only two recent incidents:
a- Nasim Najafi Aghdam the youtuber who attacked attacked youtube headquarters a few months ago then committed suicide.
b- Mr Mokhtar Hosseini who killed his wife with a scissors in Australia in 2015.

Two cases by followers of any religion in three years is not much and doesn't seem significant if it wasn't done in following their teachings. Thinking of my own country there were easily more kills in three years by followers of different religions. Not that the religion had anything to do with it in almost all cases.

 

[shunyadragon]

1- If your looking for acts of violence by by Baha'is, then there is plenty. I'll name only two recent incidents:
a- Nasim Najafi Aghdam the youtuber who attacked attacked youtube headquarters a few months ago then committed suicide.
b- Mr Mokhtar Hosseini who killed his wife with a scissors in Australia in 2015.

Already addressed this in detail neither of these 'incidents,' reflect killing in the name of religion.

The subject is have the Bah'is committed violence in the name of religion in the past 100 to 150 years.

Please address the subject of the thread.