Saturday, January 17, 2015
Via JMG: Editorial Of The Day
From the editorial board of the New York Times:
Justice Antonin Scalia, who has voted against constitutional protections for gays and lesbians at every opportunity, foresaw this moment more than a decade ago, when the court reversed its own precedent and banned state anti-sodomy laws.
In the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote that the Constitution protects “adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” The opinion said it was not deciding the question of same-sex marriage, but Mr. Scalia begged to differ. If states may not use laws to express moral disapproval of homosexual conduct, he wrote in dissent, “what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising the liberty protected by the Constitution?”
Precisely.
The 12 years since 2003 have seen enormous social change on this issue. Before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized same-sex marriage in November 2003, no state permitted such marriages. Today, 36 states do, along with the District of Columbia — representing more than 70 percent of all Americans. A solid and growing majority now believes in marriage equality; among those 18 to 29, support is at nearly 80 percent.
For same-sex couples and their families, friends and communities, this moment has been a long time coming. The justices have the power and the responsibility to give meaning to the promises embedded in the Constitution, and end the exclusion and inequality of gays and lesbians in America.
Labels: Antonin Scalia, editorials, LGBT rights, marriage equality, New York Times, SCOTUS, Sixth Circuit Court
Via JMG: IRAQ: ISIS Executes Two Men Accused Of Being Gay By Hurling Them Off Roof
The Islamic State (IS) group in Iraq has published photographs that appear to show a man being thrown from the roof of a tall building apparently in Mosul, as punishment for being gay. The graphic photographs were uploaded to the Justpaste.it website on January 15 and shared on social media. One photograph, taken from the top of the building from where the man was apparently pushed to his death, shows a large crowd gathered in the public square below.According to the above-linked report, ISIS yesterday also stoned a woman to death after accusing her of adultery. (Tipped by JMG reader Zachary)
Another image shows a man with his face covered by a black balaclava, reading out the sentence imposed on the man under the IS group's version of Shari'a law. The caption to the photograph says that the verdict was issued by a Shari'a court in "Wilayat Nineveh," IS's name for Mosul and its environs.
Another image shows the victim being held by another man, apparently his executioner, on the edge of a rooftop. Text accompanying the photograph says that the man is being punished with "Hadd," meaning a punishment that is determined in the Koran and the Hadith for crimes considered to go against the rights of God. The caption noted that the man had committed the crime of the practices of the "people of Lot," a euphemism for sodomy, and that he must be killed by being "thrown from a high place."
Via LGTB Nation: Thousands protest lesbian couple’s ejection from Vienna cafe for kissing
Ronald Zak, AP
Protestors
hold a poster which reads “Join us in the 21st century” during an
protest in support of gay kissing, in Vienna, Austria, on Friday, Jan.
16, 2015. The protest was called after the manager of a cafe in Vienna
told a smooching lesbian couple to leave.
Ronald Zak, AP
Protestors
hold a poster reading ” Kiss me I’m cute” during an protest in support
of gay kissing, in Vienna, Austria, on Friday, Jan. 16, 2015.
Police estimated around 2,000 people participated in the protest Friday, forcing the closure of one downtown street. Some of the demonstrators exchanged long kisses.
The manager of Cafe Prueckel has apologized for telling the couple to leave last weekend. But the pair – Anastasia Lopez and Eva Prewein – say the demonstration is meant to draw attention to the general prevalence of discrimination against gays in Vienna.
Vienna hosts several events each year that attracts gays, bisexuals and cross-dressers from across Europe, and Austrian singer Conchita Wurst has become the figurehead for Europe’s non-straight community.
Vienna’s tourist agency has criticized the expulsions.
Flor do Dia - Flor del Día - Flower of the Day - 17/01/2015
“Amor, assim como Deus, é uma palavra que foi muito distorcida. Muita
gente usa essa palavra para expressar nada. Dizem “eu te amo” quando, no
fundo, sentem raiva. Mas, se pudermos ser mais honestos com o uso das
palavras, reencontraremos seu verdadeiro sentido. Amor no seu estado
mais puro é sinônimo de doação desinteressada; é o desejo sincero de ver
o outro feliz, de ver o outro brilhar. Essa capacidade de se doar,
essa capacidade de ser um canal de bênçãos para o outro, é a fragrância
do divino no ser humano. É por isso que eu digo que Deus é amor, e que o
amor é Deus.”
“Amor, assim como Deus, é uma palavra que foi muito distorcida. Muita gente usa essa palavra para expressar nada. Dizem “eu te amo” quando, no fundo, sentem raiva. Mas, se pudermos ser mais honestos com o uso das palavras, reencontraremos seu verdadeiro sentido. Amor no seu estado mais puro é sinônimo de doação desinteressada; é o desejo sincero de ver o outro feliz, de ver o outro brilhar. Essa capacidade de se doar, essa capacidade de ser um canal de bênçãos para o outro, é a fragrância do divino no ser humano. É por isso que eu digo que Deus é amor, e que o amor é Deus.”
“Amor, así como Dios, es una palabra que fue muy distorsionada. Mucha
gente usa esta palabra para expresar nada. Dicen "yo te amo" cuando, en
el fondo, sienten rabia. Pero si podemos ser más honestos con el uso de
las palabras, reencontraremos su verdadero sentido. Amor en su estado
más puro es sinónimo de donación desinteresada; es el deseo sincero de
ver al otro feliz, de ver al otro brillar. Esta capacidad de donarse,
esta capacidad de ser un canal de bendiciones para el otro, es la
fragancia de lo divino en el ser humano. Es por eso que digo que Dios es
amor, y que el amor es Dios.”
“Love, just like God, is a word that has become very distorted. Many people use the word ‘love’ to not really express anything. They say ‘I love you’ when, below the surface, they feel anger. If we could be more honest with our use of words, then we would rediscover their true meaning. Love in its purest state is synonymous with selfless giving. It is the sincere desire to see the other be happy, to see the other shine. This capacity to give of oneself and to be a channel of blessings for the other is the fragrance of the Divine in a human being. This is why I say that God is love, and that love is God.”
“Love, just like God, is a word that has become very distorted. Many people use the word ‘love’ to not really express anything. They say ‘I love you’ when, below the surface, they feel anger. If we could be more honest with our use of words, then we would rediscover their true meaning. Love in its purest state is synonymous with selfless giving. It is the sincere desire to see the other be happy, to see the other shine. This capacity to give of oneself and to be a channel of blessings for the other is the fragrance of the Divine in a human being. This is why I say that God is love, and that love is God.”
Killing in the Name | January 17, 2015
What does it mean to call oneself a Buddhist when these are the actions
committed in the name of Buddhism? I'm sure this is a question that
Muslims are faced with constantly, as they are caught in the vice
between Islamic fundamentalism and international anti-Muslim fervor. . .
. Ultimately, whether Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any
other -ism, the worldwide push toward fundamentalism is also
heartbreaking in that it forces those of us sustained by some sort of
faith to have to say what should be obvious: these acts of violence do
not speak for us.
- Nayomi Munaweera, "The Real Enemy is Religious Extremism"
- Nayomi Munaweera, "The Real Enemy is Religious Extremism"
Friday, January 16, 2015
Via JMG: Catholic Bishops Have The SCOTUS Sadz
"It’s hard to imagine how the essential meaning of marriage as between
the two sexes, understood in our nation for over two hundred years, and
consistent with every society throughout all of human history, could be
declared illegal. To those arguing for a constitutional redefinition of
marriage, one must ask: when did the Constitution suddenly mandate a
novel and unfounded definition of marriage? To ask such a question is
not a judgment on anyone. It is a matter of justice and truth. The
central issue at stake is: what is marriage? The answer is: a bond which
unites a man and a woman to each other and to any children who come
from their union. Only a man and a woman can unite their bodies in a way
that creates a new human being. Marriage is thus a unique and beautiful
reality which a society respects to its benefit or ignores to its
peril." - "Father of Prop 8" and drunk driver Archbishop Salvatore
Cordileone, in a press release issued on behalf of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Labels: California, Catholic Church, drunk driving, marriage equality, Proposition 8, religion, Salvatore Cordileone, SCOTUS, The Sadz
Via Daily Dharma
Practice for the People | January 7, 2015
How fantastic if we, as a Buddhist community, had a tradition of
supporting sangha to study and practice. Of course there are many
Buddhist retreat centers in the West and many are as generous as they
can be to those who cannot afford to pay full fare. But more ubiquitous
and affordable retreats offered to more people would be a sign of good
times. Getting to that point would require more people to cultivate a
habit of giving joyfully and generously to sustain the practice of
others.
- Noa Jones, "If You Build It, They Will Need Food"
- Noa Jones, "If You Build It, They Will Need Food"
Via JMG: Supreme Court To Consider All Four Cases From Sixth Circuit Court
Via SCOTUSblog:
Taking on a historic constitutional challenge with wide cultural impact, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to hear four new cases on same-sex marriage. The Court said it would rule on state power to ban gay and lesbian marriage and state power to refuse to recognize such marriages performed out of state. A total of one hour and ninety minutes was set for the hearings, likely in the April sitting. The Court fashioned the specific questions it is prepared to answer, but they closely tracked the two core constitutional issues that have led to a lengthy string of lower-court rulings striking down state bans. As of now, same-sex marriages are allowed in thirty-six states, with bans remaining in the other fourteen but under court challenge.
Labels: Kentucky, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Michigan, Ohio, SCOTUS, Sixth Circuit Court, Tennessee, United States
Via JMG: LGBT Rights Groups React To SCOTUS
Freedom To Marry
"The Supreme Court's decision today begins what we hope will be the last chapter in our campaign to win marriage nationwide - and it's time," said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry. "Freedom to Marry's national strategy has been to build a critical mass of marriage states and critical mass of support for ending marriage discrimination, and after a long journey and much debate, America is ready for the freedom to marry. But couples are still discriminated against in 14 states, and the patchwork of discrimination harms families and businesses throughout the country. We will keep working hard to underscore the urgency of the Supreme Court's bringing the country to national resolution, so that by June, all Americans share in the freedom to marry and our country stands on the right side of history."People For The American Way
“This is unquestionably an important step towards marriage equality for all Americans,” said Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way Foundation. “Since the Sixth Circuit got this wrong and denied people in four states their basic rights, the Supreme Court did the right thing by taking these cases. Now the Court needs to do the right thing by making a clear statement about the Constitution’s guarantee of fundamental equality for all people. The time is long overdue for every American to have the right to marry the person they love.” “That said, this is likely to be yet another five-four decision from the Court that gave us Citizens United and Hobby Lobby and gutted the Voting Rights Act. That should be a reminder that our fundamental rights are in jeopardy in our nation’s highest court— and the future of the Court and these rights will be in the next President's hands. Americans should be able to depend on the Supreme Court to defend the rights of ordinary Americans—whether that’s the right to marry, or to vote, or to be treated fairly on the job, or to control their own reproductive health.National Center For Lesbian Rights
The Tennessee plaintiff couples are Dr. Valeria Tanco and Dr. Sophy Jesty of Knoxville; Army Reserve Sergeant First Class Ijpe DeKoe and Thom Kostura of Memphis; and Matthew Mansell and Johno Espejo of Franklin. They are represented by Shannon Minter, Christopher F. Stoll, and David C. Codell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), Tennessee attorneys Abby Rubenfeld, Maureen Holland, and Regina Lambert, and the law firms of Sherrard & Roe PLC and Ropes & Gray LLP. Today’s decision follows the couples’ request that the Supreme Court hear the case to ensure that the marriages of same-sex couples are treated equally across the country. “This is an important day because it means that our family will finally have an opportunity to share our story with the Court and explain how this discriminatory law hurts us each day,” said Tanco, who has a young daughter with Jesty. “We live in fear for ourselves and our little girl because we don’t have the same legal protections in Tennessee as other families. We are hopeful the Supreme Court will resolve this issue so we no longer need to live in fear.”Lambda Legal
The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it has granted review of all six marriage equality cases decided by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, including two Ohio cases litigated by Lambda Legal, the ACLU and Gerhardstein & Branch. The two cases are Henry v. Hodges, where Lambda Legal joined Gerhardstein & Branch, and Obergefell v. Hodges, where the ACLU joined Gerhardstein & Branch. Oral argument is expected to take place later this year. “After years of struggle and the dedicated work of thousands across the movement, we are finally within sight of the day when same-sex couples across the country will be able to share equally in the joys, protections and responsibilities of marriage,” said Jon W. Davidson, Legal Director and Eden/Rushing Chair at Lambda Legal. “While these cases will carry the marriage standard before the Supreme Court, they represent literally dozens of cases in state and federal courts nationwide and the collective effort of Lambda Legal, NCLR, the ACLU, GLAD, and other sister LGBT groups and private (often pro-bono) counsel dating back years.”ACLU
The American Civil Liberties Union and Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic are co-counsel in the two Kentucky cases, Bourke v. Beshear and Love v. Beshear, brought by lawyers at Clay Daniel Walton & Adams and the Fauver Law Office. These cases challenge Kentucky’s anti-marriage laws on the ground that they violate due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU along with Lambda Legal and Gerhardstein & Branch are also co-counsel in the Ohio case, Obergefell, et al v. Hodges. “We are thrilled the court will finally decide this issue,” said James Esseks, director of the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender & HIV Project. “The country is ready for a national solution that treats lesbian and gay couples fairly. Every single day we wait means more people die before they have a chance to marry, more children are born without proper protections, more people face medical emergencies without being able to count on recognition of their spouses. It is time for the American values of freedom and equality to apply to all couples.”
Labels: ACLU, Freedom To Marry, Kentucky, Lambda Legal, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Michigan, NCLR, Ohio, People For The American Way, SCOTUS, Sixth Circuit Court, Tennessee
Via JMG: Eric Holder: Federal Government Will Back Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs At SCOTUS
"After the Justice Department's decision not to defend the
constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, the
Supreme Court sent a powerful message that Americans in same-sex
marriages are entitled to equal protection and equal treatment under the
law. This landmark decision marked a historic step toward equality for
all American families.
"The Supreme Court has announced that it will soon hear several cases raising core questions concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. As these cases proceed, the Department of Justice will remain committed to ensuring that the benefits of marriage are available as broadly as possible. And we will keep striving to secure equal treatment for all members of society—regardless of sexual orientation.
"As such, we expect to file a ‘friend of the court’ brief in these cases that will urge the Supreme Court to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans. It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans—no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love." - Attorney General Eric Holder, via press release.
posted by Joe Jervis
"The Supreme Court has announced that it will soon hear several cases raising core questions concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriages. As these cases proceed, the Department of Justice will remain committed to ensuring that the benefits of marriage are available as broadly as possible. And we will keep striving to secure equal treatment for all members of society—regardless of sexual orientation.
"As such, we expect to file a ‘friend of the court’ brief in these cases that will urge the Supreme Court to make marriage equality a reality for all Americans. It is time for our nation to take another critical step forward to ensure the fundamental equality of all Americans—no matter who they are, where they come from, or whom they love." - Attorney General Eric Holder, via press release.
Labels: DOJ, Eric Holder, feds, LGBT rights, marriage equality, Obama administration, SCOTUS, Sixth Circuit Court
Via Lee Dorsey: Pope Francis says 'Family is threatened by gaymarriage'
#PopeFrancis says 'Family is threatened by gaymarriage'
http://t.co/a2fMa1jOFg
HOGWASH, #MarriageEquality creates beautiful #GAYFamilies every day
WAKE UP #PopeFrancis... this is 21st Century not 6th...
1) ALL #GAY PEOPLE can have children ...
See More
http://t.co/a2fMa1jOFg
HOGWASH, #MarriageEquality creates beautiful #GAYFamilies every day
WAKE UP #PopeFrancis... this is 21st Century not 6th...
1) ALL #GAY PEOPLE can have children ...
See More
Via JustaBaha'i: What does Baha’i Scripture say about homosexuality?
November 11, 2014
Nothing. For Baha’is, Baha’i Scripture is everything penned by
The Bab and Baha’u’llah, and the interpretations by Baha’u’llah’s son
‘Abdul-Baha, and where Shoghi Effendi (‘Abdul-Baha’s grandson) wrote in
his capacity as official interpreter of Baha’i Scripture. It is a source
of pride for many Baha’is to be able to state that we have
authoritative scripture. That is to have access to the actual texts (or
accurate translations of texts) as the sources for Baha’i Scripture.
“Unity of doctrine is maintained by the existence of the authentic texts of Scripture and the voluminous interpretations of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, together with the absolute prohibition against anyone propounding “authoritative” or “inspired” interpretations or usurping the function of Guardian. Unity of administration is assured by the authority of the Universal House of Justice.”
Universal House of Justice, to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Netherlands, March 9, 1965: Wellspring of Guidance, pp. 52-53
The only mention of homosexuality in authoritative Bahai text (not Scripture) is in five letters written by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi penned between 1949 and 1955.
The authority of these letters is unclear. It seems clear that they were intended as advice for the addressee but the authority of this advice is not clear:
“The exact status which Shoghi Effendi has intended the friends to give to those communications he sends to individual believers is explained in the following statement written through his secretary to the National Assembly on November 16, 1932:
“As regards Shoghi Effendi’s letters to the individual Bahá’ís, he is always very careful not to contradict himself. He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the Bahá’í News. Only letters with special significance should be published there.” “
Published in the US Bahai Newsletter, No. 71, February 1933, pp. 1-2
However it is clear that Shoghi Effendi did not wish the status of these letters penned by secretaries to be confused with the authority of his own writing nor that of Bahai Scripture.
“I wish to call your attention to certain things in “Principles of Bahá’í Administration” which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá’u’lláh’s Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá’u’lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.”
Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 25 February 1951 in The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260)
However if you do a search on the internet you will find Bahais stating that it is a Bahai Teaching that homosexuality is forbidden and many Bahais have told me that Baha’u’llah forbids homosexuality. If Baha’u’llah had written on the topic of homosexuality we would have access to this by now. I think it is a stroke of genius by Shoghi Effendi to have secretaries pen these letters so there can be no confusion with anything he penned himself. Shoghi Effendi also stated that not everything he penned [footnote 1] is to be considered as authoritative on a par with Bahai Scripture, but given that he did not write on the topic of homosexuality there’s no need here to discuss what should be considered part of the canon of Bahai Scripture.
So if homosexuality is not mentioned in Bahai Scripture why do so many Bahais think it is? Prejudice against homosexuality has been around for a long time so that’s one reason. Another is that in 1983 the compilation book “Lights of Guidance” was published. It is a valuable source of quotations however, unfortunately, the author doesn’t make distinctions between what is Bahai Scripture and what isn’t, and she presents the Bahai Teachings as list of rules. If this book is used as a way to locate sources, all good and fine. I use it myself in this manner. But if it is used as a book of rules… well see screenshot below.
Screenshot from a page in the 1983 book,
Lights of Guidance, edited by Helen Hornsby.
Link to this index page on the Bahai Library
You will note only 3 of the sources refer to letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and all the others refer to policy of the Universal House of Justice. Since 2010 the Universal House of Justice no longer refers to homosexuality as a condition that needs curing or to be overcome and instead urges the Bahais to stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians. Therefore, I will only focus on the letters written behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
In the Bahai Faith we have two sources of authority. One is Bahai Scripture and the other is the authority of the Bahai Administration, headed by the 9-member Universal House of Justice.
‘Abdul-Baha made it clear that the Universal House of Justice was free to make and change its own policy and that in fact this flexibility to change policy is important. “(S)ubsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place.”, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Rahíq-i-Makhtúm” vol. I, pp. 302-4; “Bahá’í News” 426 (September 1966), p. 2; cited in “Wellspring of Guidance” pp. 84-6 [footnote 2]
Below is the context for the letter which was given the title “1223. Through Advice, Help of Doctors, and Prayer, Can Overcome This Handicap ” in Lights of Guidance.
The letter was written by an American who was serving as a member of the National Spiritual Assembly at the time the letter was written.
Do note that below the letter penned by the secretary, Ruhiyyih Khanum, Shoghi Effendi’s own note is a note of encouragement while making no reference to the content of the letter itself.
In Lights of Guidance the excerpt from following letter, shown here in full, is titled: “1221. Acts of Immorality”
21 May 1954
To an individual believer
Dear Bahá’í Sister:
Your letter of April 19th has been received by the beloved Guardian, and he has instructed me to answer you on his behalf.
He is very happy to have this opportunity of welcoming you personally into the service of our Faith; and hopes that, both in your professional career as a social worker, and in your life as a Bahá’í, you will be able to help many needy and troubled souls.
Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history, is the question of immorality, and overemphasis of sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, is spiritually condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe it is a permissible way of life; which, alas, is all too often the accepted attitude nowadays.
We must struggle against the evils in society by spiritual means, and medical and social ones as well. We must be tolerant but uncompromising, understanding but immovable in our point of view.
The thing people need to meet this type of trouble, as well as every other type, is greater spiritual understanding and stability; and of course we Bahá’ís believe that ultimately this can only be given to mankind through the Teachings of the Manifestation of God for this Day.
He will pray that you may be successful in your services to mankind as a Bahá’í.
With kind regards,
R. Rabbani
[From the Guardian:]
Assuring you of my loving prayers for your success and spiritual advancement,
Your true brother,
Shoghi
[The above letter is online here]
For the following letter I have only been able to find the excerpt as it is recorded in Lights of Guidance.
“The question of how to deal with homosexuals is a very difficult one. Homosexuality is forbidden in the Bahá’í Faith by Bahá’u’lláh; so, for that matter, are immorality and adultery. If one is going to start imposing heavy sanctions on people who are the victims of this abnormality, however repulsive it may be to others, then it is only fair to impose equally heavy sanctions on any Bahá’ís who step beyond the moral limits defined by Bahá’u’lláh. Obviously at the present time this would create an impossible and ridiculous situation.
He feels, therefore, that, through loving advice, through repeated warnings, any friends who are flagrantly immoral should be assisted, and, if possible, restrained. If their activities overstep all bounds and become a matter of public scandal, then the Assembly can consider depriving them of their voting rights. However, he does not advise this course of action and feels that it should only be resorted to in very flagrant cases.” From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, August 20, 1955; cited in Lights of Guidance, #1230, p. 367-368.
However you might note that the latest letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi on the topic of homosexuality stresses tolerance and to only to take action in exceptional cases. In Lights of Guidance, the title given to this letter, “Homosexuality, Immorality and Adultery Are Forbidden in the Faith” misses what appears to be the main point: tolerance and the possibility of the loss of voting rights in extreme cases where it could or would be a matter of public scandal. Bahais could understandably read the title “Homosexuality, Immorality and Adultery Are Forbidden in the Faith” and interpret the title as a Baha’i law.
If anyone has more context for this letter or any of these letters please let me know. Indicate with the word “private” if you do not wish your response to me to be made public. I will then cut and paste your comment so you can remain anonymous.
I found reference to a 5th letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in a 1993 compilation published by the Universal House of Justice, but the excerpt is so short I cannot be sure about the context. Here is the excerpt:
“Bahá’u’lláh has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration, as He has against adultery and immoral conduct in general. We must try and help the soul to overcome them.” 25 October 1949
In the Kitab-i-Aqdas Baha’u’llah refers to shame – “We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys.” Perhaps in the 1949 it was a common assumption among Baha’is to think this referred to homosexuality? It refers to a practice of the time, in parts of the Middle East, for a man to take a younger male as a form of sex slave. The word Baha’u’llah uses can also mean slave. [footnote 3]
However, it seems to me that the reference to adultery and immoral conduct in the excerpt indicates that the secretary who penned this letter is thinking of the quotation by Baha’u’llah where he mentions liwat and not homosexuality. See my blog where I look at the original text by Baha’u’llah
Until 2010, when the Universal House of Justice wrote “to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith,” [Footnote 4] letters from the Universal House of Justice referred to homosexuality as “an aberration subject to treatment” (22 March 1987) or “ “abnormality, handicap, affliction, problem, etc.”… the House of Justice feels that just such words can be a great help to the individuals concerned.” (16 March 1992) [Footnote 5]. Searching on the internet will show that Baha’is still prefer to refer to this earlier policy.
In the same 2010 policy the Universal House of Justice wrote “The Baha’i Writings state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are restricted to a couple who are married to each other. Other passages from the Writings state that the practice of homosexuality is not permitted.”
The Universal House of Justice does not have the authority to interpret Baha’i Scripture, that is to say what the Bahai Scriptures mean, so in my view, the way to read this statement is that this understanding underlies their policy. Their understanding and their policy can change. I am not suggesting that I know whether, or how, the Universal House of Justice may change its policy on Bahai marriage and I see the wisdom in not issuing any statement until Baha’i communities around the world have ceased to associate homosexuality with ideas such as handicap or affliction. But this poses a catch 22 for gay Bahais, unless their local community takes an approach of tolerance or their Assembly provides an exemption should a Bahai choose a civil wedding ceremony because a Bahai one is not possible. It also poses a problem for the local Bahai community if the law of their country considers this discrimination. My next blog will consider the principles that apply if a married same sex couple wish to join the community. For me personally, being part of a community where members appear to believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality is a problem in itself. I believe such displays of discrimination do not fit with the Bahai concept of “unity in diversity,” and this dissonance has inspired me to write on this topic.
Notes
1. In a 1974 letter from the Universal House of Justice, the House refers to two letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, the 1944 one (sorry I have no further information about the dating of this letter) states: “The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc. When he feels that a certain thing is essential for the protection of the Cause, even if it is something that affects a person personally, he must be obeyed, but when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a previous letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free to follow it or not as you please.” You can read the rest of the 1974 letter here.
I realise that relying on a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi is not as reliable as anything penned by Shoghi Effendi himself. When I find a suitable text penned by Shoghi Effendi I will add it here.
2. In his text, “The World Order of Baha’u’llah” under the heading: ‘A Living Organism,’ Shoghi Effendi explains why it is important that the Universal House of Justice is free to change its own policy.
“…the machinery of the Cause has been so fashioned, that whatever is deemed necessary to incorporate into it in order to keep it in the forefront of all progressive movements, can, according to the provisions made by Bahá’u’lláh, be safely embodied therein. To this testify the words of Bahá’u’lláh, as recorded in the Eighth Leaf of the exalted Paradise: “It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable to them. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.” Not only has the House of Justice been invested by Bahá’u’lláh with the authority to legislate whatsoever has not been explicitly and outwardly recorded in His holy Writ, upon it has also been conferred by the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the right and power to abrogate, according to the changes and requirements of the time, whatever has been already enacted and enforced by a preceding House of Justice.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 22-23)
3. See my blog: mainly-about-homosexuality/#paederasty
4. “Baha’is are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Baha’i is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.” Universal House of Justice, 27 October, 2010
5. Both quotations are from a 1993 compilation by the compiled by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, which is here.
“Unity of doctrine is maintained by the existence of the authentic texts of Scripture and the voluminous interpretations of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi, together with the absolute prohibition against anyone propounding “authoritative” or “inspired” interpretations or usurping the function of Guardian. Unity of administration is assured by the authority of the Universal House of Justice.”
Universal House of Justice, to the National Spiritual Assembly of the Netherlands, March 9, 1965: Wellspring of Guidance, pp. 52-53
The only mention of homosexuality in authoritative Bahai text (not Scripture) is in five letters written by secretaries on behalf of Shoghi Effendi penned between 1949 and 1955.
The authority of these letters is unclear. It seems clear that they were intended as advice for the addressee but the authority of this advice is not clear:
“The exact status which Shoghi Effendi has intended the friends to give to those communications he sends to individual believers is explained in the following statement written through his secretary to the National Assembly on November 16, 1932:
“As regards Shoghi Effendi’s letters to the individual Bahá’ís, he is always very careful not to contradict himself. He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the Bahá’í News. Only letters with special significance should be published there.” “
Published in the US Bahai Newsletter, No. 71, February 1933, pp. 1-2
However it is clear that Shoghi Effendi did not wish the status of these letters penned by secretaries to be confused with the authority of his own writing nor that of Bahai Scripture.
“I wish to call your attention to certain things in “Principles of Bahá’í Administration” which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text. This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá’u’lláh’s Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá’u’lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.”
Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 25 February 1951 in The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260)
However if you do a search on the internet you will find Bahais stating that it is a Bahai Teaching that homosexuality is forbidden and many Bahais have told me that Baha’u’llah forbids homosexuality. If Baha’u’llah had written on the topic of homosexuality we would have access to this by now. I think it is a stroke of genius by Shoghi Effendi to have secretaries pen these letters so there can be no confusion with anything he penned himself. Shoghi Effendi also stated that not everything he penned [footnote 1] is to be considered as authoritative on a par with Bahai Scripture, but given that he did not write on the topic of homosexuality there’s no need here to discuss what should be considered part of the canon of Bahai Scripture.
So if homosexuality is not mentioned in Bahai Scripture why do so many Bahais think it is? Prejudice against homosexuality has been around for a long time so that’s one reason. Another is that in 1983 the compilation book “Lights of Guidance” was published. It is a valuable source of quotations however, unfortunately, the author doesn’t make distinctions between what is Bahai Scripture and what isn’t, and she presents the Bahai Teachings as list of rules. If this book is used as a way to locate sources, all good and fine. I use it myself in this manner. But if it is used as a book of rules… well see screenshot below.
Screenshot from a page in the 1983 book,
Lights of Guidance, edited by Helen Hornsby.
Below I have noted the sources
1221. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1954
1222. Jan 12, 1973 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1223. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1950
1224. refers to Baha’ullah’s reference to ‘boys’ (paederestry) + the notes added by the Universal House of Justice
1225. March 14, 1973 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1226 + 1227. January 9, 1977 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1228. July 16, 1980 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1229. July 16, 1982 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1230. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1955
1221. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1954
1222. Jan 12, 1973 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1223. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1950
1224. refers to Baha’ullah’s reference to ‘boys’ (paederestry) + the notes added by the Universal House of Justice
1225. March 14, 1973 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1226 + 1227. January 9, 1977 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1228. July 16, 1980 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1229. July 16, 1982 letter from the Universal House of Justice.
1230. Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, 1955
You will note only 3 of the sources refer to letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and all the others refer to policy of the Universal House of Justice. Since 2010 the Universal House of Justice no longer refers to homosexuality as a condition that needs curing or to be overcome and instead urges the Bahais to stand up for the rights of gays and lesbians. Therefore, I will only focus on the letters written behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
In the Bahai Faith we have two sources of authority. One is Bahai Scripture and the other is the authority of the Bahai Administration, headed by the 9-member Universal House of Justice.
‘Abdul-Baha made it clear that the Universal House of Justice was free to make and change its own policy and that in fact this flexibility to change policy is important. “(S)ubsidiary laws are left to the House of Justice. The wisdom of this is that the times never remain the same, for change is a necessary quality and an essential attribute of this world, and of time and place.”, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “Rahíq-i-Makhtúm” vol. I, pp. 302-4; “Bahá’í News” 426 (September 1966), p. 2; cited in “Wellspring of Guidance” pp. 84-6 [footnote 2]
| There is also a 4th letter
written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in the same book. These 4 letters
have been repeated so often that it seems as if there are more, so I
thought it was time to have these letters listed together with as much
context as I can find for easy reference. There is a 5th letter too but
I’ll come to this.
In the column on the right is the context for the 1953 letter which
is below. I have inserted white spaces between each point so it is
easier to read. The original flows as one text. Clearly the tone of the whole letter is one of giving information and advice and not that of setting down Bahai law and definitely not a letter that could or should be confused with the status of Bahai Scripture. There is a world of difference in meaning between how the text is presented on the right and how it is presented in the book Lights of Guidance which I have copied below. In the book, the editor has added the title. “185. Homosexual Acts Condemned by Bahá’u’lláh” “Regarding the question you asked him about one of the believers who seems to be flagrantly a homosexual–although to a certain extent we must be forbearing in the matter of people’s moral conduct because of the terrible deterioration in society in general, this does not mean that we can put up indefinitely with conduct which is disgracing the Cause. This person should have it brought to his attention that such acts are condemned by Bahá’u’lláh, and that he must mend his ways, if necessary consult doctors, and make efforts to overcome this affliction, which is corruptive for him and bad for the Cause. If after a period of probation you do not see an improvement, he should have his voting rights taken away. The Guardian does not think, however, that a Bahá’í body should take it upon itself to denounce him to the Authorities unless his conduct borders on insanity.” (From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of Canada: Messages to Canada, p. 39) |
Haifa, Israel, June 20, 1953. National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Canada. Your letters … have been received by the beloved Guardian, and he has instructed me to answer you on his behalf. He regrets very much the delay in answering your letters. Unfortunately he has had to delay in replying to all national bodies during the last year, because of the pressure of work here, which has steadily increased during this Holy Year. ACQUISITION OF NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS AND SHRINE The purchase of your national headquarters, he feels, was an important milestone in the history of the Faith in Canada, and he hopes that it will be put to good use, during the coming years, by your Assembly. To this institution you will soon be adding the Maxwell Home+E18 in Montreal, which should be viewed in the nature of a national shrine, because of its association with the beloved Master, during His visit to Montreal. He sees no objection to having one room in the house being used as a little museum associated with Mr. and Mrs. Maxwell. He was most happy to hear that all of your goals were achieved. This augurs well for the future of your activities, especially during the Ten Year Plan just launched. He wishes through your body to thank all the pioneers, teachers and Bahá’ís who helped achieve this great victory. They have every reason to feel proud of themselves, and grateful to Bahá’u’lláh. Undoubtedly His divine assistance, combined with their determination and faith, enabled them to fulfill their objectives. He was very happy to know that Charlottetown not only achieved Assembly status, but that the believers there are mostly self-supporting, as this is a sound basis for the expansion of the work in any place, especially in such a difficult one. The Bahá’í Exhibit held at the Canadian National Exhibition was an excellent means of obtaining publicity. He hopes that advantage will be taken of similar opportunities in the future. He urges your assembly to press for recognition of the Bahá’í marriage in Ontario, and, gradually, where the Cause is strong enough, in other Provinces. Regarding the question you asked him about one of the believers who seems to be flagrantly a homosexual–although to a certain extent we must be forbearing in the matter of people’s moral conduct because of the terrible deterioration in society in general, this does not mean that we can put up indefinitely with conduct which is disgracing the Cause. This person should have it brought to his attention that such acts are condemned by Bahá’u’lláh, and that he must mend his ways, if necessary consult doctors, and make efforts to overcome this affliction, which is corruptive for him and bad for the Cause. If after a period of probation you do not see an improvement, he should have his voting rights taken away. The Guardian does not think, however, that a Bahá’í body should take it upon itself to denounce him to the Authorities unless his conduct borders on insanity. The Guardian attaches the greatest importance, during this opening year of the Ten Year Campaign, to settling the virgin areas with pioneers. He has informed, or is informing, the other National Assemblies that there is no reason why believers from one country should not fill the goals in other countries. In other words, Canada should receive foreign pioneers for her goals, who would operate under her jurisdiction; likewise, Canadians could go forth and pioneer in other countries’ goal territories if the way opened for them to do so. Naturally, they must feel their first responsibility should be toward the Canadian part of the Plan, as they are Canadians, but sometimes health, business openings or family connections might take people into other goal countries. He realizes that the objectives in the far north are perhaps the hardest. On the other hand, the harder the task, the more glorious the victory. You may be sure that he is praying for your success, and, what is more, he is confident that this young, virile Canadian Community can and will succeed in carrying out its share of the World Spiritual Crusade, so vast and challenging, upon which we are now launched. With warmest Bahá’í love, R. RABBANI. |
Below is the context for the letter which was given the title “1223. Through Advice, Help of Doctors, and Prayer, Can Overcome This Handicap ” in Lights of Guidance.
The letter was written by an American who was serving as a member of the National Spiritual Assembly at the time the letter was written.
Do note that below the letter penned by the secretary, Ruhiyyih Khanum, Shoghi Effendi’s own note is a note of encouragement while making no reference to the content of the letter itself.
In Lights of Guidance the excerpt from following letter, shown here in full, is titled: “1221. Acts of Immorality”
21 May 1954
To an individual believer
Dear Bahá’í Sister:
Your letter of April 19th has been received by the beloved Guardian, and he has instructed me to answer you on his behalf.
He is very happy to have this opportunity of welcoming you personally into the service of our Faith; and hopes that, both in your professional career as a social worker, and in your life as a Bahá’í, you will be able to help many needy and troubled souls.
Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history, is the question of immorality, and overemphasis of sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, is spiritually condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe it is a permissible way of life; which, alas, is all too often the accepted attitude nowadays.
We must struggle against the evils in society by spiritual means, and medical and social ones as well. We must be tolerant but uncompromising, understanding but immovable in our point of view.
The thing people need to meet this type of trouble, as well as every other type, is greater spiritual understanding and stability; and of course we Bahá’ís believe that ultimately this can only be given to mankind through the Teachings of the Manifestation of God for this Day.
He will pray that you may be successful in your services to mankind as a Bahá’í.
With kind regards,
R. Rabbani
[From the Guardian:]
Assuring you of my loving prayers for your success and spiritual advancement,
Your true brother,
Shoghi
[The above letter is online here]
For the following letter I have only been able to find the excerpt as it is recorded in Lights of Guidance.
“The question of how to deal with homosexuals is a very difficult one. Homosexuality is forbidden in the Bahá’í Faith by Bahá’u’lláh; so, for that matter, are immorality and adultery. If one is going to start imposing heavy sanctions on people who are the victims of this abnormality, however repulsive it may be to others, then it is only fair to impose equally heavy sanctions on any Bahá’ís who step beyond the moral limits defined by Bahá’u’lláh. Obviously at the present time this would create an impossible and ridiculous situation.
He feels, therefore, that, through loving advice, through repeated warnings, any friends who are flagrantly immoral should be assisted, and, if possible, restrained. If their activities overstep all bounds and become a matter of public scandal, then the Assembly can consider depriving them of their voting rights. However, he does not advise this course of action and feels that it should only be resorted to in very flagrant cases.” From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States, August 20, 1955; cited in Lights of Guidance, #1230, p. 367-368.
However you might note that the latest letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi on the topic of homosexuality stresses tolerance and to only to take action in exceptional cases. In Lights of Guidance, the title given to this letter, “Homosexuality, Immorality and Adultery Are Forbidden in the Faith” misses what appears to be the main point: tolerance and the possibility of the loss of voting rights in extreme cases where it could or would be a matter of public scandal. Bahais could understandably read the title “Homosexuality, Immorality and Adultery Are Forbidden in the Faith” and interpret the title as a Baha’i law.
If anyone has more context for this letter or any of these letters please let me know. Indicate with the word “private” if you do not wish your response to me to be made public. I will then cut and paste your comment so you can remain anonymous.
I found reference to a 5th letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in a 1993 compilation published by the Universal House of Justice, but the excerpt is so short I cannot be sure about the context. Here is the excerpt:
“Bahá’u’lláh has spoken very strongly against this shameful sexual aberration, as He has against adultery and immoral conduct in general. We must try and help the soul to overcome them.” 25 October 1949
In the Kitab-i-Aqdas Baha’u’llah refers to shame – “We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys.” Perhaps in the 1949 it was a common assumption among Baha’is to think this referred to homosexuality? It refers to a practice of the time, in parts of the Middle East, for a man to take a younger male as a form of sex slave. The word Baha’u’llah uses can also mean slave. [footnote 3]
However, it seems to me that the reference to adultery and immoral conduct in the excerpt indicates that the secretary who penned this letter is thinking of the quotation by Baha’u’llah where he mentions liwat and not homosexuality. See my blog where I look at the original text by Baha’u’llah
Until 2010, when the Universal House of Justice wrote “to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith,” [Footnote 4] letters from the Universal House of Justice referred to homosexuality as “an aberration subject to treatment” (22 March 1987) or “ “abnormality, handicap, affliction, problem, etc.”… the House of Justice feels that just such words can be a great help to the individuals concerned.” (16 March 1992) [Footnote 5]. Searching on the internet will show that Baha’is still prefer to refer to this earlier policy.
In the same 2010 policy the Universal House of Justice wrote “The Baha’i Writings state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are restricted to a couple who are married to each other. Other passages from the Writings state that the practice of homosexuality is not permitted.”
The Universal House of Justice does not have the authority to interpret Baha’i Scripture, that is to say what the Bahai Scriptures mean, so in my view, the way to read this statement is that this understanding underlies their policy. Their understanding and their policy can change. I am not suggesting that I know whether, or how, the Universal House of Justice may change its policy on Bahai marriage and I see the wisdom in not issuing any statement until Baha’i communities around the world have ceased to associate homosexuality with ideas such as handicap or affliction. But this poses a catch 22 for gay Bahais, unless their local community takes an approach of tolerance or their Assembly provides an exemption should a Bahai choose a civil wedding ceremony because a Bahai one is not possible. It also poses a problem for the local Bahai community if the law of their country considers this discrimination. My next blog will consider the principles that apply if a married same sex couple wish to join the community. For me personally, being part of a community where members appear to believe there is anything wrong with homosexuality is a problem in itself. I believe such displays of discrimination do not fit with the Bahai concept of “unity in diversity,” and this dissonance has inspired me to write on this topic.
Notes
1. In a 1974 letter from the Universal House of Justice, the House refers to two letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, the 1944 one (sorry I have no further information about the dating of this letter) states: “The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc. When he feels that a certain thing is essential for the protection of the Cause, even if it is something that affects a person personally, he must be obeyed, but when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a previous letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free to follow it or not as you please.” You can read the rest of the 1974 letter here.
I realise that relying on a letter on behalf of Shoghi Effendi is not as reliable as anything penned by Shoghi Effendi himself. When I find a suitable text penned by Shoghi Effendi I will add it here.
2. In his text, “The World Order of Baha’u’llah” under the heading: ‘A Living Organism,’ Shoghi Effendi explains why it is important that the Universal House of Justice is free to change its own policy.
“…the machinery of the Cause has been so fashioned, that whatever is deemed necessary to incorporate into it in order to keep it in the forefront of all progressive movements, can, according to the provisions made by Bahá’u’lláh, be safely embodied therein. To this testify the words of Bahá’u’lláh, as recorded in the Eighth Leaf of the exalted Paradise: “It is incumbent upon the Trustees of the House of Justice to take counsel together regarding those things which have not outwardly been revealed in the Book, and to enforce that which is agreeable to them. God will verily inspire them with whatsoever He willeth, and He, verily, is the Provider, the Omniscient.” Not only has the House of Justice been invested by Bahá’u’lláh with the authority to legislate whatsoever has not been explicitly and outwardly recorded in His holy Writ, upon it has also been conferred by the Will and Testament of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá the right and power to abrogate, according to the changes and requirements of the time, whatever has been already enacted and enforced by a preceding House of Justice.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 22-23)
3. See my blog: mainly-about-homosexuality/#paederasty
4. “Baha’is are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Baha’i is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.” Universal House of Justice, 27 October, 2010
5. Both quotations are from a 1993 compilation by the compiled by Research Department of the Universal House of Justice, which is here.
17 comments
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Universal House of Justice does not have the authority to interpret Baha’i Scripture, that is to say what the Baha’i Scriptures mean, so in my view, the way to read this statement is that this understanding underlies their policy”. The UHJ is an infallible source of guidance in their decisions and they do have the authority NOT YOU! Your outrageous claim contained above proves you are a covenant breaker, plain and simple.
Bahá’ís may have differing views, and we are even taught that “The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.” (Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 87). In this light finding a differing opinion looks like a promising ingredient to make a further step in our own understanding about which we have been told in one of those letters written on behalf of the Guardian (August 25th 1926) that “The more we read the Writings, the more truths we can find in them, the more we will see that our previous notions were erroneous.”
For sure, no individual has any right to declare anybody covenant breaker, no matter how much their opinion goes against our own best understanding. This is presumptios, it is no contribution to unity and it is no step towards better understanding either.
Thanks for your thoughts. I’ve spent most of my day today thinking about this subject, and though our conclusions differ, Im grateful to you for inspiring me to think, research and verbalize my thoughts on this matter.
With respect, Liv.
I quote:
“I wish to call your attention to certain things in “Principles of Bahá’í Administration” which has just reached the Guardian; although the material is good, he feels that the complete lack of quotation marks is very misleading. His own words, the words of his various secretaries, even the Words of Bahá’u’lláh Himself, are all lumped together as one text.
This is not only not reverent in the case of Bahá’u’lláh’s Words, but misleading. Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages. [emphasis added]
He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá’u’lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.”
Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260
What this doesn’t tell us, is whether the ‘authority’ of the letters by secretaries is an extension of the Guardian’s executive authority as head of the Faith — meaning, “it must be obeyed by the addresse” or of the Guardian’s authority as authorised interpreter of the writings, meaning “they become part of the sacred text.” What we can say is there is nothing explicit to indicate that a letter by a secretary can share in the Guardian’s unique role as authorised interpreter.
There is also nothing explicit to say that the Guardian’s secretaries do **not** share the authority of interpretation. However the phrase “their authority less” seems to suggest this, because an executive authority can be greater or less, direct or indirect, can apply to a local or individual situation or to all Bahai communities, but when the Guardian interprets scripture that interpretation becomes part of the scripture concerned.
Stating that they have a lesser authority does not mean that anyone would not “give them real weight in making decisions of our actions” and I certainly take these letters seriously myself, but for me they are not Bahai Scripture and so for the following letter: “the Bahai Teachings, when carefully studied imply that such current conceptions like birth control, if not necessarily wrong and immoral in principle, have nevertheless to be discarded as constituting a real danger to the very foundations of our social life.” (October 14, 1935)
It is not an issue if most Bahais clearly do use some form of birth control. And they must or otherwise most Bahai families would have ten or more children in them.
I would consider it hypocritical to pick and choose, saying, oh that letter must be obeyed and that other letter not. So to bring us back to the topic of the blog above it is only in letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi where there is any mention of homosexuality. For me, this is no justification for Bahai communities to treat gays or lesbians any differently than any other individual. If the Universal House of Justice instructs Bahai communities to treat gays and lesbians differently, that is another matter. Then it is a policy of the Universal House of Justice, but this blog is about what is in Bahai Scripture, which means texts that cannot be changed.
I am of the view that Shoghi Effendi was very wise in assigning a lower and separate status to these letters so that the Bahais do not end up telling other Bahais, you must do this (not use birth control) when it is not a Bahai teaching.
If any individual wishes to treat these letters as if the advice applies to him or her, then of course, they are free to. I then add, but please be consistent and treat all these letters in this manner. Do just pick some letters and say, this is a Bahai Teaching. Instead I would say, go to Bahai Scripture for the Bahai Teachings.
“The Research Department at the Bahá’í World Centre has confirmed that the Guardian’s manuscript notes for the Codification of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, which includes in the list of prohibitions the word “homosexuality”, are in his own handwriting in English.”
http://bahai-library.com/?file=uhj_homosexuality_uganda
Since he himself wrote this, not a secretary or anyone else, the prohibition is authoritative, and the Universal House of Justice can’t change it.
The case is closed for this servant. What do you think, Sonja?
In the Kitabi Aqdas it is written — (1)Ye are forbidden sodomy (2)We shirk from shame, from the mention of boys. By boys H Bahaullah was referring to the use of teenage boys for purposes of sexual pleasure by dominant older males, a practice common to Ottoman Turkey 100 years ago
Id be curious at what the truth is. From my understanding the social laws of Kitabi Aqdas are there to be used as guidelines for future use. From my understanding H Bahaullah, as with all moral teachers, prescribes sex within marriage — ye are not allowed more than 2 wives — and same sex marriage was unknown 100 years ago.
Furthermore, although you do not mention the “2010 policy” of regarding prejudice and disdain towards homosexuals as much as some of your other blog posts, this servant would like to humbly refer you to a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice and dated November 23rd, 1995:
“To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of Bahá’í Teachings. The doors are open for all of humanity to enter the Cause of God, irrespective of their present circumstances; this invitation applies to homosexuals as well as to any others who are engaged in practices contrary to the Bahá’í Teachings.”
http://bahai-library.com/uhj_homosexual_practices
Perhaps this quotation does not change your view that there has been a policy change regarding homosexuality. This servant simply wishes, for the sake of truth, to show that the attitude towards prejudice and disdain with regard to homosexuals is not as recent as 2010.
Have a wonderful day. Peace.
By new policy I am referring to the new policy of the U.H.J. where in reference to same sex marriage Bahai communities are asked not to take sides. I agree that the U.H.J. has been referring to Baha’u’llah’s words about standing up for the rights of all for decades.
Thank you for your dedication to finding truth. :)
I can give you three concrete examples of this. In 1996 the NSA of the UK addressed a London SACRE (Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education) with a formal statment arguing against equal rights for gays and lesbians. I refer to this here: https://justabahai.wordpress.com/2010/10/30/a-conversation/#nsauk
In 2007 the name of the Bahai community was associated with an anti-gay coalition. I wrote a blog summarizing what this was here. https://justabahai.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/getting-better/
To date the USA+Canadian NSA approved Bahá’í Network on Aids, Sexuality, Addictions, and Abuse (BNASAA) associate homosexuality with something negative. See https://justabahai.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/getting-better/#bnassa
So the change in policy by 2010 letter is a change in asking the Bahai community not to take sides on same sex marriage whereas earlier policy implied that homosexuality was not to be tolerated and therefore any community might assume this meant being against same sex marriage.