Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?

[oldbadger]

I think you misunderstood my post. When you pointed to that fake Baha'i site ..............................

Stop...! It was you that criticised all of those sites shown, and one of them was from a genuine bahai that showed that Shogi effendi had referred to your faith as a theocracy.

I was trying to impress on you that they do not represent the Baha'i Community and as an example I listed all the countries.

...you listed all the countries...... one country to a line, reinforcing.... what, exactly?
And how did the numbers in your faith refute any of the sites shown?
If I am kind I will suggest that to be 'redirection', if I am grumpy I will suggest that to be 'running interference'. Either of those could show that you would have prefered to leavre the subject matter.

They are only a very few people probably in the USA.

...............................?

If you have any other things I haven't cleared up I can definitely clear it up.

Great! Yes, you can clear something up.
The thread title is: Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?
................... just tell us straight that the Bahai Organisation has no intention of ever controlling any civil, education, government or military functions, even when/if it has an overwhelming majority of Bahais in the world...... you don't even mind if non-bahais run all of those functions and services.

 

[oldbadger]

As I've said in the blog posting you've referenced, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha endorsed "render unto Caesar" and the separation of church and state often and emphatically, but most of the early Bahais in the West had the opposite view. In part this was due to a simple mistake. Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha had advocated a Supreme Tribunal to be composed by the nations of the world, and a Universal House of Justice to be elected by the members of the Bahai National Spiritual Assemblies. When the French translation of Some Answered Questions was made (by Hippolyte Dreyfus, no relation of the famous Dreyfus in the Dreyfus Affair), he added footnotes where these terms were used, explaining that the Tribunal was the UHJ, and the UHJ the Tribunal. His French translation was then translated in English and German, along with the footnotes, and the book became very influential. His footnotes were corrected in later editions, but the idea was already established by then.

Shoghi Effendi then argued robustly against these already established ideas (among Bahais in the West, not among Persian Bahais). He writes for example that

"Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries,"​

and he selected a number of Baha'u'llah's anti-theocratic statements to include in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, which became a very influential book. So there's no doubt that Shoghi Effendi was fully in line with Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha on this one.

However, this question of the separation of church and state was overshadowed by a much bigger issue that plagued the Bahai communities in the West, and especially in the United States: in Abdu'l-Baha's time a considerable portion of the Bahai communities there envisioned the Bahais Faith as a vague spiritual community or awareness, additional to one's other religious identities. They were critical of organized religion and thought that the world needed another organized religion like a fish needs a submarine. These words, attributed to Abdu'l-Baha in a magazine called "The North Shore Review" (May 16, 1914), pretty much sums up the anti-establishment current in the American Bahai community:

The Bahai Movement is not an organisation. You can never organise the Bahai Cause. The Bahai Movement is the spirit of this age. It is the essence of all the highest ideals of this century.

The Bahai Cause is an inclusive Movement: The teachings of all the religions and societies are found here; the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Zoroastrians, Theosophists, Freemasons, Spiritualists, et. al., find their highest aims in this Cause. Even the Socialists and philosophers find their theories fully developed in this Movement.”​

These early Bahais had enough of the Bahai Writings to know that Baha'u'llah had written about the "House of Justice" being elected and having authority, but they thought he was talking about a civil government, and the international tribunal, that is, about a body that would rule the secular world and NOT rule religion, because religion needed no organisation. So you see how anti-establishment sentiment and the church&state issue were intertwined. Then Abdu'l-Baha died, and left a Will appointing his grandson Shoghi Effendi as Guardian, meaning head of the Bahai community, and Shoghi Effendi started to roll out the elected Bahai administrative institutions -- already existing in the Middle East -- in the Bahai communities of the West. The anti-establishment Bahais were perplexed, and not a few withdrew from the community, and there were law suits. This was the big issue in the Bahai community in the West: whether and how the community should be organized. Shoghi Effendi was not an American, and never visited America; he did not immediately recognize what the beliefs of Bahais were, but he heard about them through pilgrims who came to Palestine and through letters. In a couple of places he referred to the Bahai Administrative Order (the religious order, not a government system) as theocratic, and a Bahai wrote to him about that term, and the term theophany. A secretary answers on his behalf on 30 September 1949:

He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are in a sense theocracies. The Baha'i theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself.

So the answer refers to the nature not of a Bahai civil government but to the Bahai Administrative Order, which governs the internal affairs of the Bahai community. Shoghi Effendi says that this system of government of the religious community is unlike other “recognized types of theocracy, whether it be the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian ecclesiastical organizations, or the Imamate or the Caliphate in Islam.” (World Order of Baha’u’llah 152, see also God Passes By 326-7). He is comparing the institutions that govern religious communities in various religions, and the issue is whether and how the Bahai community can be organized. To the Bahais of the time, that was not a rhetorical question. In addition to the "cannot organize" current in the Bahai community, there was a group that accepted organization providing it was a flat organization: a "pure spiritual democracy" without any officers. That idea was completely incompatible with having a hereditary Guardianship, and people called "aghsan" who were descendants of Baha'u'llah. Shoghi Effendi tries to relate the Bahai Administrative Order to systems the Bahais were familiar with, such as aristocracy, democracy and monarchy, and he also uses this term Bahai theocracy, but in none of this discourse is the question "how to organise the state?" It is always about how to organise the Bahai community.



A large enough group of cat lovers (say 99% of the population) could rule the world, working via cute kittens on facebook. What stops the Bahai organisation ruling the world is that its charter, the Bahai scriptures, forbid this. I've already quoted plenty on this issue: see "much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government" above. Abdu'l-Baha changed the name of the Houses of Justice to "Spiritual Assemblies" precisely to make it clear that these bodies were not courts or governments. He writes:

The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the government should not infer from the term “House of Justice” that a court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs. … (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha Abbas vol. 1 p. 5)​

Peace, unity, equality, prosperity and progress -- and primarily, to establish the awarness of the oneness of humanity in the minds of the masses, and transform their hearts (and our own hearts) to feel it. For the detailed programme, I can refer you again to Peter Terry's overview of the lists of Bahai principles, but for me the essential thing is that no programme at the level of superstructure can have a lasting effect unless it is built on a deeply felt conviction that all humanity is one, the planet is one homeland, and we are all in this together -- so help us God.

I need to break this down into smaller posts. It is very confusing (for me) to read 'real-bahai' on one line, and 'anti-bahai' on another, so I am sticking with what you have told me is real bahai. OK?

Sen, of course you will 'render to Caesar' by submitting to the governmentrs of countries that yiou reside within. But when the people mostly become Bahais those governments won't be there! Bahai Houses of Justice will be there, and National Houses. If you are telling me that at that point Bahai will say, 'No, we won't take control of education, policing, law, Justice, taxation, services etc.....we'll invite others to handle all this, we're just a spirit-body.' then I cannot believe that.

And Shogi Effendi's secretary spelled it out! 'The Catholic and other theocracies were-not-ordained-by-God!!!!!'
But Bahai is............
Quoting:- a Bahai wrote to him about that term, and the term theophany. A secretary answers on his behalf on 30 September 1949:
He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are in a sense theocracies. The Baha'i theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself.

Ergo: Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?
It looks like: Yes.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I need to break this down into smaller posts. It is very confusing (for me) to read 'real-bahai' on one line, and 'anti-bahai' on another, so I am sticking with what you have told me is real bahai. OK?

Sen, of course you will 'render to Caesar' by submitting to the governmentrs of countries that yiou reside within. But when the people mostly become Bahais those governments won't be there! Bahai Houses of Justice will be there, and National Houses. If you are telling me that at that point Bahai will say, 'No, we won't take control of education, policing, law, Justice, taxation, services etc.....we'll invite others to handle all this, we're just a spirit-body.' then I cannot believe that.

And Shogi Effendi's secretary spelled it out! 'The Catholic and other theocracies were-not-ordained-by-God!!!!!'
But Bahai is............
Quoting:- a Bahai wrote to him about that term, and the term theophany. A secretary answers on his behalf on 30 September 1949:
He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are in a sense theocracies. The Baha'i theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself.

Ergo: Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?
It looks like: Yes.

The answer is no. Our administration is for the governance of the Baha'i Faith not the world. If you already have made up your mind then why are asking?

The people of the world will always run the world the way they like. We are not to interfere and are non political.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Stop...! It was you that criticised all of those sites shown, and one of them was from a genuine bahai that showed that Shogi effendi had referred to your faith as a theocracy.


...you listed all the countries...... one country to a line, reinforcing.... what, exactly?
And how did the numbers in your faith refute any of the sites shown?
If I am kind I will suggest that to be 'redirection', if I am grumpy I will suggest that to be 'running interference'. Either of those could show that you would have prefered to leavre the subject matter.


...............................?


Great! Yes, you can clear something up.
The thread title is: Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?
................... just tell us straight that the Bahai Organisation has no intention of ever controlling any civil, education, government or military functions, even when/if it has an overwhelming majority of Bahais in the world...... you don't even mind if non-bahais run all of those functions and services.

No it doesn't. The jurisdiction of the Universal House of Justice is over the Baha'i Faith only.

This is the Constitution of the Universal House of Justice. It's jurisdiction is only over members of the Baha'i Faith.

http://www.bahai.org/documents/the-universal-house-of-justice/constitution-universal-house-justice

 

[loverofhumanity]

As I've said in the blog posting you've referenced, Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha endorsed "render unto Caesar" and the separation of church and state often and emphatically, but most of the early Bahais in the West had the opposite view. In part this was due to a simple mistake. Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha had advocated a Supreme Tribunal to be composed by the nations of the world, and a Universal House of Justice to be elected by the members of the Bahai National Spiritual Assemblies. When the French translation of Some Answered Questions was made (by Hippolyte Dreyfus, no relation of the famous Dreyfus in the Dreyfus Affair), he added footnotes where these terms were used, explaining that the Tribunal was the UHJ, and the UHJ the Tribunal. His French translation was then translated in English and German, along with the footnotes, and the book became very influential. His footnotes were corrected in later editions, but the idea was already established by then.

Shoghi Effendi then argued robustly against these already established ideas (among Bahais in the West, not among Persian Bahais). He writes for example that

"Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries,"​

and he selected a number of Baha'u'llah's anti-theocratic statements to include in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, which became a very influential book. So there's no doubt that Shoghi Effendi was fully in line with Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha on this one.

However, this question of the separation of church and state was overshadowed by a much bigger issue that plagued the Bahai communities in the West, and especially in the United States: in Abdu'l-Baha's time a considerable portion of the Bahai communities there envisioned the Bahais Faith as a vague spiritual community or awareness, additional to one's other religious identities. They were critical of organized religion and thought that the world needed another organized religion like a fish needs a submarine. These words, attributed to Abdu'l-Baha in a magazine called "The North Shore Review" (May 16, 1914), pretty much sums up the anti-establishment current in the American Bahai community:

The Bahai Movement is not an organisation. You can never organise the Bahai Cause. The Bahai Movement is the spirit of this age. It is the essence of all the highest ideals of this century.

The Bahai Cause is an inclusive Movement: The teachings of all the religions and societies are found here; the Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Zoroastrians, Theosophists, Freemasons, Spiritualists, et. al., find their highest aims in this Cause. Even the Socialists and philosophers find their theories fully developed in this Movement.”​

These early Bahais had enough of the Bahai Writings to know that Baha'u'llah had written about the "House of Justice" being elected and having authority, but they thought he was talking about a civil government, and the international tribunal, that is, about a body that would rule the secular world and NOT rule religion, because religion needed no organisation. So you see how anti-establishment sentiment and the church&state issue were intertwined. Then Abdu'l-Baha died, and left a Will appointing his grandson Shoghi Effendi as Guardian, meaning head of the Bahai community, and Shoghi Effendi started to roll out the elected Bahai administrative institutions -- already existing in the Middle East -- in the Bahai communities of the West. The anti-establishment Bahais were perplexed, and not a few withdrew from the community, and there were law suits. This was the big issue in the Bahai community in the West: whether and how the community should be organized. Shoghi Effendi was not an American, and never visited America; he did not immediately recognize what the beliefs of Bahais were, but he heard about them through pilgrims who came to Palestine and through letters. In a couple of places he referred to the Bahai Administrative Order (the religious order, not a government system) as theocratic, and a Bahai wrote to him about that term, and the term theophany. A secretary answers on his behalf on 30 September 1949:

He thinks your question is well put: what the Guardian was referring to was the theocratic systems, such as the Catholic Church and the Caliphate, which are not divinely given as systems, but man-made, and yet, being partly derived from the teachings of Christ and Muhammad are in a sense theocracies. The Baha'i theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself.

So the answer refers to the nature not of a Bahai civil government but to the Bahai Administrative Order, which governs the internal affairs of the Bahai community. Shoghi Effendi says that this system of government of the religious community is unlike other “recognized types of theocracy, whether it be the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian ecclesiastical organizations, or the Imamate or the Caliphate in Islam.” (World Order of Baha’u’llah 152, see also God Passes By 326-7). He is comparing the institutions that govern religious communities in various religions, and the issue is whether and how the Bahai community can be organized. To the Bahais of the time, that was not a rhetorical question. In addition to the "cannot organize" current in the Bahai community, there was a group that accepted organization providing it was a flat organization: a "pure spiritual democracy" without any officers. That idea was completely incompatible with having a hereditary Guardianship, and people called "aghsan" who were descendants of Baha'u'llah. Shoghi Effendi tries to relate the Bahai Administrative Order to systems the Bahais were familiar with, such as aristocracy, democracy and monarchy, and he also uses this term Bahai theocracy, but in none of this discourse is the question "how to organise the state?" It is always about how to organise the Bahai community.



A large enough group of cat lovers (say 99% of the population) could rule the world, working via cute kittens on facebook. What stops the Bahai organisation ruling the world is that its charter, the Bahai scriptures, forbid this. I've already quoted plenty on this issue: see "much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government" above. Abdu'l-Baha changed the name of the Houses of Justice to "Spiritual Assemblies" precisely to make it clear that these bodies were not courts or governments. He writes:

The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the government should not infer from the term “House of Justice” that a court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs. … (Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha Abbas vol. 1 p. 5)​

Peace, unity, equality, prosperity and progress -- and primarily, to establish the awarness of the oneness of humanity in the minds of the masses, and transform their hearts (and our own hearts) to feel it. For the detailed programme, I can refer you again to Peter Terry's overview of the lists of Bahai principles, but for me the essential thing is that no programme at the level of superstructure can have a lasting effect unless it is built on a deeply felt conviction that all humanity is one, the planet is one homeland, and we are all in this together -- so help us God.

You said it clearly. Thanks for your comments.

 

[oldbadger]

No it doesn't. The jurisdiction of the Universal House of Justice is over the Baha'i Faith only.

Yes........ now. At this time. Presently. Today, Tomorrow and next month. Next year.........
But if there was a huge majority of Bahais in the World:-
1. Would the Bahai Faith like that?
2. Does the Bahai Faith hope for that?
3. Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?

...and you seem to be quite unable to write down, clearly, that in such a majority, that it would not be interested in taking control of education, local services, national services, power sources, the military, armaments, industry, commerce, finance or any other secular activity, and I think that this is simply because Bahauallah wrote about all of them.

There are Bahais out there that seem to say say, 'Yes', of course we would want to bring all of these vital functions under our wing; and to them I would reply. 'OK. Gottit!'

But to the majority-Bahais, the largest group separate from all the schisms and smaller factions, that have redirected, run interference, ducked and dived the simple question and prevaricated, all that I can say is, 'This looks a lot darker than I ever thought possible.'

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes........ now. At this time. Presently. Today, Tomorrow and next month. Next year.........
But if there was a huge majority of Bahais in the World:-
1. Would the Bahai Faith like that?
2. Does the Bahai Faith hope for that?
3. Does the Bahai Faith hope and intend to be a World Theocracy?

...and you seem to be quite unable to write down, clearly, that in such a majority, that it would not be interested in taking control of education, local services, national services, power sources, the military, armaments, industry, commerce, finance or any other secular activity, and I think that this is simply because Bahauallah wrote about all of them.

There are Bahais out there that seem to say say, 'Yes', of course we would want to bring all of these vital functions under our wing; and to them I would reply. 'OK. Gottit!'

But to the majority-Bahais, the largest group separate from all the schisms and smaller factions, that have redirected, run interference, ducked and dived the simple question and prevaricated, all that I can say is, 'This looks a lot darker than I ever thought possible.'

The Baha'i Faith hopes for world peace and world unity and an end to wars and oppression. We are about serving humanity only.

If you can't accept what Baha'u'llah clearly states then there is nothing more I can say to convince you our goal is peace.


By the righteousness of God! It is not Our wish to lay hands on your kingdoms. Our mission is to seize and possess the hearts of men. Upon them the eyes of Baha are fastened. To this testifieth the Kingdom of Names, could ye but comprehend it. – Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, pp. 49-50.

None must contend with those who wield authority over the people; leave unto them that which is theirs, and direct your attention to men’s hearts. – Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 54.

 

[Unification]

No it doesn't. The jurisdiction of the Universal House of Justice is over the Baha'i Faith only.

This is the Constitution of the Universal House of Justice. It's jurisdiction is only over members of the Baha'i Faith.

http://www.bahai.org/documents/the-universal-house-of-justice/constitution-universal-house-justice

"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence." -Jiddu Krishnamurti

Calling oneself a Baha'i or member of something does just that if the third eye has the faculty to be aware of such. Jurisdiction also represents control. Even if only over its "members." Which also presents divide. One can be a natural member and walk freely of and in love, peace, compassion, humanity, freedom of mind, goodness without being a member of what is being presented.

 

[oldbadger]

This from Bahai.org:-
http://www.bahai.org/action/institutional-capacity/
The energy that Bahá’ís devote to enhancement of institutional capacity, and the care with which they follow the evolution and development of administrative processes and structures, is not motivated simply by a wish to increase the efficiency with which the Bahá’í community’s own affairs are to be managed. They recognize in this development a necessary contribution to the pattern of a new social order envisaged by
Bahá’u’lláh, to the new ways that a mature humanity will attend to its political, social, and cultural affairs.

....here it is. Written!

 

[psychoslice]

From what I have seen it seeks to bring all religions under an monotheist umbrella, including the non-theist traditions. For me that is sufficient reason to reject it.

But I don't believe they want to force anyone to Join them, it will happen through the realization that they are not dogmatic fundermenalist, that they except everyone just the way they are, not many religion can claim that.

 

[CG Didymus]

The answer is no. Our administration is for the governance of the Baha'i Faith not the world. If you already have made up your mind then why are asking?

The people of the world will always run the world the way they like. We are not to interfere and are non political.

So what is the difference of having God's Law and people can choose to not join the Baha'i Faith and not have to obey it? If you don't plan on imposing God's Law, then there will always be people that don't what to comply. If you don't impose God's Law on the world, who will rule the world? Imperfect, non-believers?

But the big question is, what are you going to do if the Baha'i Faith ever becomes the majority? Who's going to get elected to government positions? If Baha'is get voted in to positions of power in government, then what laws are they going to put into practice? At that point, how will the government enforce its laws?

 

[Sen McGlinn]

But the big question is, what are you going to do if the Baha'i Faith ever becomes the majority? Who's going to get elected to government positions? If Baha'is get voted in to positions of power in government, then what laws are they going to put into practice? At that point, how will the government enforce its laws?

The separation of church and state does not mean that people of faith can't serve in government and in elected positions, or that politicians and civil servants cannot be believers. At the individual level, the separation of church and state means that each person wears two hats: they are citizens, and they are members of various religious communities including the don't knows and atheists and humanists. When you are doing politics, or government, "God says so" is not an argument, because politics in a democracy requires a particular kind of reasoning and discourse, in which the expected effects of action/inaction have a strong weight. Politics is the art of the possible, and it hinges ultimately on coercion, since the monopoly on violence is the essential claim of the state. We -- as citizens -- endorse the state to apply coercion to solve the freeloader problem. Religion and morality has a different kind of reasoning, relating to the ideal, and they have to be free of coercion to have any value.

Having believers in some religion in positions of authority is not a problem (and anyway, excluding believers would be VERY problematical) --- providing this is, that those elected/selected understand that their religious beliefs and the religious ways of reasoning and speaking (discourse) cannot be applied in politics and government. Those who cannot separate the duties entailed by their public roles from their private convictions need to get out. I think the court clerk who refuses a gay marriage is wrong in principle, although I also see the need for a transition period where a law has changed, with compromises to allow those already in public service to find alternatives while new people are recruited.

The flip side of this is that the state cannot endorse any ideology, religious or otherwise. Yet if it has no ideology, no officially approved "ideal," how is it to get virtuous citizens? The state needs most of its citizens to be at least law-abiding most of the time, and it needs ideals such as public service and philanthropic and other forms of idealism to prevail in society, or the society becomes ungovernable. The state gets its virtuous citizens from families with their traditions, and from religious and ethnic and other communities. From "civil society." Civil society fosters diverse value systems, but they are built from the virtues the state needs. No religion promotes lying and stealing. So you see that once Church and State are thoroughly separated, including in the understanding of individuals, they find they need one another.

Even if you cannot understand how it works, you can look at working examples. The United Kingdom was, and perhaps still is, a majority Christian country. How does that work? Same for the Netherlands, Canada and any number of other countries: having one majority religion, who are also a majority in government, is Not A Problem.

 

[loverofhumanity]

"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence." -Jiddu Krishnamurti

Calling oneself a Baha'i or member of something does just that if the third eye has the faculty to be aware of such. Jurisdiction also represents control. Even if only over its "members." Which also presents divide. One can be a natural member and walk freely of and in love, peace, compassion, humanity, freedom of mind, goodness without being a member of what is being presented.

This comes to mind that just calling oneself anything does not make it so.

The man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is already a Bahá’í. On the other hand, a man may call himself a Bahá’í for fifty years, and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá’í. An ugly man may call himself handsome, but he deceives no one, and a black man may call himself white, yet he deceives no one, not even himself. - Abdul- Bahá

 

[David1967]

The world needs another theocracy like a fish needs a bicycle...

I assume you're talking about those walking catfish. I guess you could teach them to ride a bike.

 

[loverofhumanity]

This from Bahai.org:-
http://www.bahai.org/action/institutional-capacity/
The energy that Bahá’ís devote to enhancement of institutional capacity, and the care with which they follow the evolution and development of administrative processes and structures, is not motivated simply by a wish to increase the efficiency with which the Bahá’í community’s own affairs are to be managed. They recognize in this development a necessary contribution to the pattern of a new social order envisaged by
Bahá’u’lláh, to the new ways that a mature humanity will attend to its political, social, and cultural affairs.

....here it is. Written!

Thank you very much for quoting from an official source and I'm happy to try and give my understanding of it.

Note that there is no hint of imposing or taking over and that the quote suggests humanity will adopt new ways of attending to its affairs as opposed to Baha'is taking over.

The Baha'i System is a model and pattern of how to govern a community without war or conflict and is only offered to the world as a model upon which they can rebuild their own systems and make them function without continual conflicts.

This is from a letter of the Universal House of Justice to a believer in 1995

"As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932, the well-established
principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the Bahá’í institutions to those of the country in which the Bahá’ís reside make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country’s constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of
government. This is an integral element of the Bahá’í principle of abstention from involvement in
politics. However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by
constitutional means, decide to adopt Bahá’í laws and practices and modify its constitution or
method of government accordingly."

 

[CG Didymus]

Even if you cannot understand how it works, you can look at working examples. The United Kingdom was, and perhaps still is, a majority Christian country. How does that work? Same for the Netherlands, Canada and any number of other countries: having one majority religion, who are also a majority in government, is Not A Problem.

Hmmm? Wasn't the U.S. started by mostly Christians? Didn't they impose a Christian morality on society? Didn't the Moral Majority try and curb the swing away from those Christian values that were being eroded away by the elected politicians? Isn't Christian morals still being eroded? If they have little or no say in government, how are they going to change that?

Weren't nearly all European countries at one time all Catholic or some form of Protestantism? How well did that work out? And, how about countries that are primarily Islamic, like Iran? Don't they impose Islamic law on the country? How well is that working for those that aren't Islamic?

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Hmmm? Wasn't the U.S. started by mostly Christians? Didn't they impose a Christian morality on society? Didn't the Moral Majority try and curb the swing away from those Christian values that were being eroded away by the elected politicians? Isn't Christian morals still being eroded? If they have little or no say in government, how are they going to change that?

Weren't nearly all European countries at one time all Catholic or some form of Protestantism? How well did that work out? And, how about countries that are primarily Islamic, like Iran? Don't they impose Islamic law on the country? How well is that working for those that aren't Islamic?

Most of the states in the US began as church-states, but the Province of Pennsylvania, West Jersey, Delaware Colony and the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations did not conflate church membership with state citizenship. They had majority Christian populations, the first two had mainly Quaker populations at first, but they also separated the concept of citizenship from church status, which is the first and most essential element of the separation of Church and State. One by one, the other states adopted this model, allowing people who were not church members to vote and hold office. They still had majority Christian populations. So to repeat the obvious: having a majority of one religion is Not A Problem. Having a clear separation between church and state is important, and -- as the moral majority shows -- this has to be more than an institutional or constitutional arrangement, it actually has to be understood and endorsed by the main religious organisations. As the Bahais here have shown with numerous scriptural quotes, the Bahai teachings do endorse the separation of church and state, more strongly and explicitly that the New Testament does. That is not to say that every Bahai understands it, and the dominion theology movement in the US is evidence that not all Christians put "render unto Caesar" at the center of their political theologies. Society only has an issue if a large number of effectively organized believers are united in rejecting the separation of church and state. This is the case in some Muslim countries, but not all. Which shows again that belief is not the issue, the separation of church and state is the issue.

Yes, European countries were, and most still are, majority Christian. The United Kingdom has an established church. This is Not A Problem. Wars of religion were a problem, but once again, the problem was not the existence of a religious majorities, it was the entanglement of religion and politics, especially where there was NOT one clear religious majority, and where the minority could appeal for protection to an neighbouring prince of their own persuasion.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Again I wish to quote from a letter of the Universal House of Justice of 1995 stating that......

"As for the statement made by Shoghi Effendi in his letter of 21 March 1932, the well-established principles of the Faith concerning the relationship of the Bahá’í institutions to those of the country in which the Bahá’ís reside

make it unthinkable that they would ever purpose to violate a country’s constitution or so to meddle in its political machinery as to attempt to take over the powers of government.

This is an integral element of the Bahá’í principle of abstention from involvement in politics.

However, this does not by any means imply that the country itself may not, by constitutional means, decide to adopt Bahá’í laws and practices and modify its constitution or method of government accordingly."

Many Baha'i laws have already been adopted by governments not as Baha'i laws but they are still Baha'i laws in essence. For instance the law of one year separation before a divorce has been implemented in a number of countries but has been a Bahai law for over 100 years.

That doesn't mean Baha'is are taking over government only that some countries see some Bahai laws as beneficial to their society, the same with multiculturalism and interfaith which are deeply ingrained Bahai principles of unity between religions and cultures but over 100 years old teachings only being adopted now.

The Baha'is have not imposed these things only spread the idea of the oneness of mankind and religion and those that like our teachings adopt some of them.

This is very different to your statements about us 'taking over'. This is not our agenda to take over. It is up to humanity how much, if any, they want to use or adopt of our teachings.

This should be clear by now from the examples below and how strikingly similar in wording yet one is from the government and the other from Baha'u'llah 100 years earlier.....

The end choice always belongs to the people.

Australian Family Law Act 1975 (Divorce)

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/wps/w...atters/separation-and-divorce/divorce/divorce

"You need to satisfy the Court that you and your spouse have lived separately and apart for at least 12 months, and there is no reasonable likelihood of resuming married life."

Baha'u'llah in His Most Holy Book around 1873 in it He states...

“Should resentment or antipathy arise between husband and wife, he is not to divorce her but to bide in patience throughout the course of one whole year, that perchance the fragrance of affection may be renewed between them. If, upon the completion of this period, their love hath not returned, it is permissible for divorce to take place”

Excerpt From: Bahá’u’lláh. “The Kitab-i-Aqdas.” Bahá’í

You look at the exact conditions the court lays down and what Bahaullah lays down. Identical!!! Except Bahaullah revealed this law 100 years earlier and society found it useful so they adopted it.

This is from their choice not our imposition and is a gradual process where Baha'i ideas are seen as cutting edge and adopted without stating they are Baha'i ideas or Baha'is imposing them.

 

[Unification]

This comes to mind that just calling oneself anything does not make it so.

The man who lives the life according to the teachings of Bahá’u’lláh is already a Bahá’í. On the other hand, a man may call himself a Bahá’í for fifty years, and if he does not live the life he is not a Bahá’í. An ugly man may call himself handsome, but he deceives no one, and a black man may call himself white, yet he deceives no one, not even himself. - Abdul- Bahá

Very true, another wise reason not to call oneself anything.

"The human being who lives by the teachings of the light within, is already of the light and is a free human being. This being has constitutions written within their DNA, not from paper. The human being who lives by the teachings of another human being is not a free human being. Better yet, for this human being who walks by the light, there is neither free nor slave, all are part of One. There is neither member nor non-member, all are part of One. The human being who calls themselves ugly or handsome, black or white is neither, for this creates divide and makes unnecessary judgements, for they are a human being."
-Unification

 

[loverofhumanity]

Very true, another wise reason not to call oneself anything.

"The human being who lives by the teachings of the light within, is already of the light and is a free human being. This being has constitutions written within their DNA, not from paper. The human being who lives by the teachings of another human being is not a free human being. Better yet, for this human being who walks by the light, there is neither free nor slave, all are part of One. There is neither member nor non-member, all are part of One. The human being who calls themselves ugly or handsome, black or white is neither, for this creates divide and makes unnecessary judgements, for they are a human being."
-Unification

Here's another one I think we may see similarly and speaks about a future world civilisation or commonwealth.

"The oneness of the kingdom of humanity will supplant the banner of conquest, and all communities of the earth will gather under its protection.

No nation with separate and restricted boundaries — such as Persia, for instance — will exist.

The United States of America will be known only as a name. Germany, France, England, Turkey, Arabia — all these various nations will be welded together in unity.

When the people of the future are asked, “To which nationality do you belong?” the answer will be, “To the nationality of humanity…

” The people of the future will not say, “I belong to the nation of England, France or Persia”; for all of them will be citizens of a universal nationality — the one family, the one country, the one world of humanity — and then these wars, hatreds and strifes will pass away. – "

Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 18.