• 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!

Baha'i Totalitarian Oligarchy?

ppp

Well-Known Member
There is a great deal of misinformation on the internet. The source you quoted is clearly biased. What is it you are wanting to discuss?
I agree that they are biased. But as I keep pointing out, bias alone is not evidence that someone is wrong. We are both biased against ISIS - I hope - but that doesn't mean we are mistaken in our assessment of them.

Its a long bow to draw comparing the Vatican with the Baha’i Faith.
Is it? I am comparing two organizations comprised of human beings with a religious faith that they are a) sponsored by God, and b) have the correct path of moral rectitude for all humanity. I am not accusing Bahai of witch burning, or torturing Jews until they convert, Adrian. The comparison is in the language used, and the nature of humans to non-specific noble language to allow behaviors that can be rationalized away.

Which is why I asked, specifically, what are the rights to which that quote was referring?
Cool. How do you avoid that with a Baha'i government? I mean that is literally a theocracy. Hell, the US has an ostensibly secular government, and Christians have been abusing their power for centuries.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Can I ask what "not getting involved in politics" means? Are you not permitted to vote? Not permitted to be part of a political party? Not permitted to run for office or be part of a political campaign?

Adrian may be busy so I will offer a reply.

As a Baha'i we follow the laws of the Country, pay our taxes and we also vote in elections.

The way we vote is for the person, their values and their morality.

We do not involve ourselves in party politics, so yes we will not join a political party.

“ The Bahá’í Faith as it forges ahead throughout the western world and particularly in lands where the political machinery is corrupt and political passions and prejudices are dominant among the masses, should increasingly assert and demonstrate the fact that it is non-political in character, that it stands above party, that it is neither apathetic to national interests nor opposed to any party or faction, and that it seeks through administrative channels, rather than through diplomatic and political posts to establish, beyond the shadow of a doubt, the capacity, the sane patriotism, the integrity and high-mindedness of its avowed adherents. This is the general and vital principle; it is for the National representatives to apply it with fidelity and vigor"

This link has the information.

Politics - Bahaipedia, an encyclopedia about the Bahá’í Faith

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Can you run for office in state/local elections?

We can enter our local government elections, we do it as an independent and we also do not canvass for votes.

We would not enter party political debates at that level. Our motive is for the good of all humanity.

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Can I ask what "not getting involved in politics" means? Are you not permitted to vote? Not permitted to be part of a political party? Not permitted to run for office or be part of a political campaign?

I see this answer by Shoghi Effendi shows how a Baha'i is trying to change the world, from the grassroots up. I see that is treating the cause and not only the symptoms.

"...The cardinal principle which we must follow … is obedience to the government prevailing in any land in which we reside…. “We see therefore that we must do two things—Shun politics like the plague, and be obedient to the Government in power in the place where we reside… We must obey in all cases except where a spiritual principle is involved, such as denying our Faith. For these spiritual principles we must be willing to die. What we Bahá’ís must face is the fact that society is disintegrating so rapidly that moral issues which were clear a half century ago are now hopelessly confused and what is more, thoroughly mixed up with battling political interests. That is why the Bahá’ís must turn all their forces into the channel of building up the Bahá’í Cause and its Administration. They can neither change nor help the world in any other way at present. If they become involved in the issues the Governments of the world are struggling over, they will be lost. But if they build up the Bahá’í pattern they can offer it as a remedy when all else has failed.”

It is the Baha'i Administrative order, that I see, will become a role model of the future, there is the promise of the Lesser Peace, which I see may not be that far away.

Indicates how the Faith will have a direct influence in the future on the Lesser Peace

"The Lesser Peace itself will pass through stages: at the initial stage the governments will act entirely on their own without the conscious involvement of the Faith; later on, in God's good time, the Faith will have a direct influence on it in ways indicated by Shoghi Effendi in his 'The Goal of a New World Order'. In connection with the steps that will lead to this latter stage, the Universal House of Justice will certainly determine what has to be done, in accordance with the guidance in the Writings, such as the passage you quoted from 'Tablets of Bahá'u'lláh', page 89. In the meantime, the Bahá'ís will undoubtedly continue to do all in their power to promote the establishment of peace." (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, January 31, 1985: Ibid., in Lights of Guidance, no. 1430)

The passage quoted from Baha'u'llah from page 89 is this advice;

"...Whilst in the Prison of ‘Akká, We revealed in the Crimson Book that which is conducive to the advancement of mankind and to the reconstruction of the world. The utterances set forth therein by the Pen of the Lord of creation include the following which constitute the fundamental principles for the administration of the affairs of men:

First: It is incumbent upon the ministers of the House of Justice to promote the Lesser Peace so that the people of the earth may be relieved from the burden of exorbitant expenditures. This matter is imperative and absolutely essential, inasmuch as hostilities and conflict lie at the root of affliction and calamity.

Second: Languages must be reduced to one common language to be taught in all the schools of the world.

Third: It behoveth man to adhere tenaciously unto that which will promote fellowship, kindliness and unity.

Fourth: Everyone, whether man or woman, should hand over to a trusted person a portion of what he or she earneth through trade, agriculture or other occupation, for the training and education of children, to be spent for this purpose with the knowledge of the Trustees of the House of Justice.

Fifth: Special regard must be paid to agriculture. Although it hath been mentioned in the fifth place, unquestionably it precedeth the others. Agriculture is highly developed in foreign lands, however in Persia it hath so far been grievously neglected. It is hoped that His Majesty the Sháh—may God assist him by His grace—will turn his attention to this vital and important matter.

Were men to strictly observe that which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed in the Crimson Book, they could then well afford to dispense with the regulations which prevail in the world...."

Regards Tony
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It was a response to the text Tony specifically excepted from my post. Text which did not refer to the OP, but specifically and explicitly referenced entries of another Baha'i poster here.

My post:


Tony's post:
View attachment 42942

This is where you get all querulous (again) and blame me for your mistakes.
I know what I was responding to.

I do not care what Tony said before and I did not even read it.
This is the ONLY post I was responding to, as the evidence in the forum clearly demonstrates.

Joe W said: If you actually knew that I "misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple," you would already know what I was commenting upon. Thanks for the kneejerk denial, but no thanks,

Trailblazer said: Tony did not say that you "misunderstood what was offered, plain and simple."
I think you understood what the article said and that is what you were commenting upon.
Whether the article accurately represented the Baha'i Faith is another matter altogether.
C:\Users\Home\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif


#33 Trailblazer, Today at 4:17 PM


MY response was not in response to any of what you just posted, as I clearly showed in my my colorful post to you. I make a lot of mistakes, but this was not one is them, as I clearly demonstrated.
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree that they are bias. But as I keep pointing out, bias alone is not evidence that someone is wrong. We are both biased against ISIS - I hope - but that doesn't mean we are mistaken in our assessment of them.

I agree that they are biased. But as I keep pointing out, bias alone is not evidence that someone is wrong. We are both biased against ISIS - I hope - but that doesn't mean we are mistaken in our assessment of them.

Bias doesn’t mean its right either.

ISIS is a great example of the worst kind of theocracy. It has no element of democracy, is based on an interpretation of Sharia law that has no place in the modern world and imposes archaic laws on everyone. Basic human rights we all take for granted are completely discarded.

Is it? I am comparing two organizations comprised of human beings with a religious faith that they are a) sponsored by God, and b) have the correct path of moral rectitude for all humanity. I am not accusing Bahai of witch burning, or torturing Jews until they convert, Adrian. The comparison is in the language used, and the nature of humans to non-specific noble language to allow behaviors that can be rationalized away.

Which is why I asked, specifically, what are the rights to which that quote was referring?

Let’s look at what the Baha’i governing body says:

The writings of our Faith make it clear that under a Bahá’í system the rights of minorities must always be respected and upheld. Shoghi Effendi has enunciated this principle:

Unlike the nations and peoples of the earth, be they of the East or of the West, democratic or authoritarian, communist or capitalist, whether belonging to the Old World or the New, who either ignore, trample upon, or extirpate, the racial, religious, or political minorities within the sphere of their jurisdiction, every organized community enlisted under the banner of Bahá’u’lláh should feel it to be its first and inescapable obligation to nurture, encourage, and safeguard every minority belonging to any faith, race, class, or nation within it. (The Advent of Divine Justice (Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 2006, 2015 printing), p. 53)


This document from the Baha’i international community may be of interest:

Consultation and the Protection of Diversity

I suspect the specific question you are asking is will the rights of the gay community be upheld? Its a good question. Its worth noting that Baha’i marriage laws are only applicable to Baha’is and it would be inappropriate to impose such laws on non-Baha’is. So Muslims, Jews etc would marry and divorce in accordance to their traditions and customs. Would such rights be extended to the gay community to have same sex marriage and adopt children despite explicit laws forbidding homosexual behaviour amongst Baha’is? Its a good question and I honestly don’t know.

Cool. How do you avoid that with a Baha'i government? I mean that is literally a theocracy. Hell, the US has an ostensibly secular government, and Christians have been abusing their power for centuries.

There are laws of the land that apply to everyone and laws that apply to a specific religious community. A clear distinction is made between the two. Laws concerning marriage and divorce clearly have aspects that are religion specific and applicable to everyone.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Bias doesn’t mean its right either.
I agree. It doesn't mean that they are correct. it doesn't mean that they are incorrect. Yet, at least 3 baha'i have raised it as their first statement. It seems to me that y'all are raising as a reason to dismiss or discredit the author.

It's a common human reaction to the criticism of a treasured intuition. I do not insist that is the reason for raising bias, but I am hearing hoofbeats and thinking horses.

ISIS is a great example of the worst kind of theocracy. It has no element of democracy, is based on an interpretation of Sharia law that has no place in the modern world and imposes archaic laws on everyone. Basic human rights we all take for granted are completely discarded.
I agree.

Let’s look at what the Baha’i governing body says:
Yes. I read that when Truthseeker9 posted it earlier in #35.

I suspect the specific question you are asking is will the rights of the gay community be upheld? Its a good question. Its worth noting that Baha’i marriage laws are only applicable to Baha’is and it would be inappropriate to impose such laws on non-Baha’is. So Muslims, Jews etc would marry and divorce in accordance to their traditions and customs. Would such rights be extended to the gay community to have same sex marriage and adopt children despite explicit laws forbidding homosexual behaviour amongst Baha’is? Its a good question and I honestly don’t know.

That was certainly my exemplar. Considering that the goal of the Baha'i seems to be a benevolent theocracy. Or at least what they consider to be benevolent, it certainly seems an appropriate one. Considering that the defining traits of people in power tend towards the self-serving and the self-righteous, I think that the most reason reasonable answer to that question is that gays would be oppressed and persecuted. To the tunes of the cliche, For their own good.

Theocracies, no matter how earnest, favor the devout. They are systems that are designed to be unequal.

There are laws of the land that apply to everyone and laws that apply to a specific religious community. A clear distinction is made between the two. Laws concerning marriage and divorce clearly have aspects that are religion specific and applicable to everyone.
I am not clear here. Are the laws that religious specific in this scenario enforced by the secular government? Is there a secular government with no ties to the Baha'i?
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It doesn't matter what you were responding to.
This was a false statement.
Believe whatever you want to believe. I am not going to argue with you anymore.
Apparently it is important to you that you are right and I am wrong.
It does it matter to me one way or another because I have no need to be right.
The only reason I ever pursued this is because I don't think it is just to accuse people falsely...
Baha'u'llah was big on justice.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Believe whatever you want to believe. I am not going to argue with you anymore.
It's texually there in my screen. It seems to me that you are insisting that something that is there in black and white is not actually there. Then getting annoyed (or whatever) because I believe my eyes over you. Blame me (again) if you like, but there you go.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
It's texually there in my screen. It seems to me that you are insisting that something that is there in black and white is not actually there. Then getting annoyed (or whatever) because I believe my eyes over you. Blame me (again) if you like, but there you go.
You proved nothing. You just believe you did.
What you see on your screen is what you want so see so you can believe you are right.
I know what I said to whom I said it and when and why I said it.
You completely ignored the evidence I presented.
Tony also saw what happened, it was as clear as day.

Trailblazer said: It was a response to the the post to which it was directly applying.

Joe W said: It was a response to the text Tony specifically excepted from my post. Text which did not refer to the OP, but specifically and explicitly referenced entries of another Baha'i poster here.


How dare you speak for me and tell me what I was responding to. I never even read those posts that Tony posted so how how could I be responding to them?
 
Last edited:

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree. It doesn't mean that they are correct. it doesn't mean that they are incorrect. Yet, at least 3 baha'i have raised it as their first statement. It seems to me that y'all are raising as a reason to dismiss or discredit the author.

It's a common human reaction to the criticism of a treasured intuition. I do not insist that is the reason for raising bias, but I am hearing hoofbeats and thinking horses.

Reading the title of your OP (Baha’i Totalitarian Oligarchy?) and the opening paragraph of your source, it sounds provocative so will get a reaction out of one of the Bahá’ís. Was that your intent?

The ‘source’ is written by someone who is LBQT-affirming, identifying religions that share that outlook or don’t. In regards sexuality, the Baha’i Faith teaches that sexual intercourse is permissible between a man and a woman who are married. We clearly don’t tick the author’s LGBT ideals so we’re lumped together with the Muslims, Catholics and all the other religions that don’t promote homosexuality. The author then proceeds to analyse and critique the Baha’i Faith, a religion he clearly knows little about IMHO.

The reality for Baha’is is we’re ordinary people with busy lives, family and friends and not thinking at all on this dystopian Baha’i world order the author is fixated on. There’s never been a territory let alone a country that’s been governed according to Baha’i principles and there’s unlikely to be one anytime soon. Any specifics if it ever comes to pass is pure speculation.

In the past, the gay community has had a great deal of persecution from religions that hold conservative views about sex and marriage. As the Baha’i Faith holds similar views we’re fair game for whatever misinformation the author wants to peddle under the guise of research.

That was certainly my exemplar. Considering that the goal of the Baha'i seems to be a benevolent theocracy. Or at least what they consider to be benevolent, it certainly seems an appropriate one. Considering that the defining traits of people in power tend towards the self-serving and the self-righteous, I think that the most reason reasonable answer to that question is that gays would be oppressed and persecuted. To the tunes of the cliche, For their own good.

Theocracies, no matter how earnest, favor the devout. They are systems that are designed to be unequal.

As said, there’s never been a Baha’i theocracy so its speculation. No one knows.

I am not clear here. Are the laws that religious specific in this scenario enforced by the secular government? Is there a secular government with no ties to the Baha'i?

If there’s ever a Baha’i theocracy, it will be decided through democratic means and the will of the people. Such a decision can only be made after thoroughly consulting on all the relevant facts including these types of questions. When that time comes the Baha’is will be in a position to offer a more detailed proposal. Its unthinkable that a religion that’s based on justice, equality, compassion and consultation will exclude anyone.
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Its unthinkable that a religion that’s based on justice, equality, compassion and consultation will exclude anyone.
It is only as unthinkable as it is to think that a religion based on equality would exclude women from its highest leadership Adrian.

We can't ignore potential exceptions to the basic principles when those exceptions may well be supported by the Baha'i teachings.

I wouldn't go so far as to say there is an exception in this case, but there could be based on logical deduction as follows;
1. Non Baha'i can't vote out members of Baha'i institutions
2. It hasn't been made clear whether Baha'i institutions will replace secular institutions, if the institutions do then automatically non-Baha'i will find themselves under a leadership they can not vote out.

To not make explicitly clear such an issue of pressing importance was clearly a sign of short-sightedness on behalf of the central figures of the faith, and imo a sure sign that none of them where omniscient
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Reading the title of your OP (Baha’i Totalitarian Oligarchy?) and the opening paragraph of your source, it sounds provocative so will get a reaction out of one of the Bahá’ís. Was that your intent?
If by provocative you mean, inflammatory or infuriating...no. But it was certainly intended to be eye-catching and stimulating. What I actually expected...well, hoped for... was a discussion from some Baha'i on the actual goals and practical plans of implementations of those goals.
The ‘source’ is written by someone who is LBQT-affirming, identifying religions that share that outlook or don’t. In regards sexuality, the Baha’i Faith teaches that sexual intercourse is permissible between a man and a woman who are married. We clearly don’t tick the author’s LGBT ideals so we’re lumped together with the Muslims, Catholics and all the other religions that don’t promote homosexuality. The author then proceeds to analyse and critique the Baha’i Faith, a religion he clearly knows little about IMHO.
Organizations that derrogate race or demean women may have different structures, ethics, or missions, but we still get to criticize them all based on that particular characteristic. I think that you are being 'lumped together' because you all discriminate against a group of people on the same basis. Albeit to different degrees.
The reality for Baha’is is we’re ordinary people with busy lives, family and friends and not thinking at all on this dystopian Baha’i world order the author is fixated on. There’s never been a territory let alone a country that’s been governed according to Baha’i principles and there’s unlikely to be one anytime soon. Any specifics if it ever comes to pass is pure speculation.
The specifics are not pure speculation. They are commonplace It's the observation of what repeatedly and observably happens when human nature, religious dogma and power are combined. The author is literally accusing Baha'is of being ordinary people from whom we can expect ordinary behaviors.

If there’s ever a Baha’i theocracy, it will be decided through democratic means and the will of the people. Such a decision can only be made after thoroughly consulting on all the relevant facts including these types of questions. When that time comes the Baha’is will be in a position to offer a more detailed proposal. Its unthinkable that a religion that’s based on justice, equality, compassion and consultation will exclude anyone.
In any theocracy, the laws are of the enforcement of that religion's tenets and doctrine upon the population. People who are not adherents of that religion are forced to adhere to the laws (doctrines and tenets) of that religion. People who are not adherents are barred from holding policy-making positions, because their policies would not be based in that religion. Theocracies cannot be systems of equality and justice.

I think it is worth noting that I am not singling out Baha'i. I am stating that I have no reason to expect any non-standard effects from a Bahai't theocracy's than from any other.
 
Top