Path: rQdQ!remarQ73!supernews.com!remarQ.com!nuq-peer.news.verio.net!newshub.northeast.verio.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!130.185.14.36!torn!nott!cunews!freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!bn872
From: bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael McKenny)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.bahai
Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi believed 1963 would be the calamity year
Date: 12 Jul 1999 16:07:42 GMT
Greetings, Geoff.
Could you kindly quote a snippet of what you're responding to for the
sake of clarity. I assume you're replying to me, but don't know for sure.
I don't quite follow you. As far as I know, the line is in action, not
freedom of expression. There are extremes (please lets not hear of shouts
about fires) but in general, normally, usually, one ought to be allowed to
search independenttly for truth, as the Baha'i principle is, and to report
the findings.
It is generally, usually, normally, quite harmful to impose censorship.
This is quite often done to the advantage of the dominating individuals and
clique to the disadvantage of truth, the greater good and society as a whole
as is borne out again in the example of recent Baha'i history.
As Baha'u'llah said anything carried to extremes (yes, including shouting
fire unnecessarily) is the source of harm. Thus, the principle of obeying
the legitimate authorities (the Covenant) carried to the extremes of letting
a fundamentalist group of men to discriminate against women, to strive very
hard to suppress information (including, amazingly the greater part of the
writings of someone, Baha'u'llah, who died one hundred and seven years ago!)
and to drive out of the religion those most outspoken in favour of its
principles, thus, being a cause of the disunity of the influence of the
very prophet of harmony, is likewise a clear source of harm.
I suspect what you're missing in much of your lengthy hypothetical
dialog (with me?) is both the scientific and the ideal Baha'i attitude of
open-mindedness, of being constantly receptive to the views of others, of
indeed, accepting the validity of a variety of viewpoints. Abdu'l Baha
said that to be a Baha'i was to be a lover of humanity, to see the light
in whatever lamp it was shining, to realize that names are meaningless.
One has freedom of thought and expression, as do all others, and not only
one voice, nor one single spiritual path has validity.
I completely deny that any biological difference in gender renders
the traditionally dominant sex inherently deserving of exclusive rule
at the top. I am a pagan. I consider the monotheistic paradigm with its
single male deity and its male priesthoods and its patriarchal societies
an extreme, the extreme of unbalanced force. My experience is that this
extreme has been harmful and that it is based on no evidence other than
domination by force.
It is astonishing for me to read your words that there is no ground
to the principle of the equality of male and female other than the words
of the Baha'i prophet. I have seen the works of enough male leaders,
including the Baha'i patriarchs, the UHJ members, and enough female ones
to know that there are no legitimate grounds for patriarchal rule. And,
within normal, instead of obscure extremist, parameters, there are no
areas of human endeavour which ought to be completely reserved for only
the gender previously dominant on account of the exercise of brute force.
It is more astonishing still that anyone can claim that s/he accepts
the principle of the equality of male and female, but women may not rise
to top position, this being reserved for men. Absolutely astounding.
One is free to think and to say whatever one thinks, and even to hold
to and to express the opinion that the Faith says X, X being a literal
reading, and one is also free to say that the Faith says non X because
the literal reading is a gross violation of an essential principle such
as the equality of women and men.
Where harm comes in is where the one saying the Faith teaches X (this
literal violation of principle) must be believed by everyone else, that
historical evidence may be suppressed, that scholarship in general and
individuals in particular may be cast in a bad light, that believers may be
harrassed, called names, driven out of the religion, that only this one
fundamentalist viewpoint may be applied as a definition for the religion
which sufferred so many martyrs at the hands of fundamentalists.
This is what has happened in recent Baha'i history, and, alas, the men
who would continue to rule in violation of essential Baha'i principle have
confirmed the correctness that anything (even the Covenant) carried to
extremes is harmful.
May those who would have their actions determined by others be granted
the insight to learn where to draw the line, and the magnanimity to show
accepting kindness to others, and the spirituality to see with their own
eyes the value and validity of the light shining in so very many lamps, not
only their own.
May the great harmonizing beneficial principles of the Baha'i prophet,
the independent investigation of truth, the validity of a variety of
spiritual paths, the equality of women and men, etc ever grow in their
influence on the souls of mortals, on the spirits on those who call
themselves after Baha'u'llah, on the rulers of the religion still using his
name.
May today find the human species thriving, may tomorrow treat it even
more kindly and may each day after that be better than the one it succeeds.
All the Best,
Michael
"Geoff Churchill" (fedge@clear.net.nz) writes:
> Kia Ora Koutou,
>
> Firstly, I want to know why Freedom of Thought is so crucial (I'm waiting
> for a massive response for this comment, and I intend to follow through with
> my argument if you will just bare with me).
>
> In fact, by every piece of scientific logic, there is no evidence for me to
> believe that men and women are equal.
>
> So why, contrary to all my scientific logic, do I believe in the essential
> equality of men and women?
>
> Because I'm a fundamentalist. (I never thought that I would ever say those
> words, but that is the only conclusion that I can draw).
>
> Now, having established that, if the Prophet of this Faith said something,
> and I didn't understand it, I might not believe it for the sake of what it
> was, but I would believe it due to my belief in its source.
>
> Much Love
> Geoff Churchill
>
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Homepage
|