Some might want to compare these various messages on individual conscience
with the 29 December 1988 Individual Rights and Freedoms: A Statement of the universal
house of justice, which many believe basically interprets individual rights out
of existence: https://bahai-library.org/published.uhj/irf.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bahai Faith" <BI*P*GS@liberty.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.org.un,alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,soc.culture.indian,
soc.culture.iranian,soc.culture.israel,talk.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Individual conscience... uhj's justification for coercion to Maneck.....
Karen,
I had thought perhaps you were aware of some other
statement regarding conscience. The letter to Maneck
you cite is her old rag from the uhj that she has regularly
dredged up for years to justify their fanatical views and
doesn't add anything new to the discussion. My comments
on it below:
"Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
news:udhfrcstjgrib0@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> --
> "The essence of all that We have revealed for thee is Justice . .
." --
> Baha'u'llah
> Bahai Faith <BI*P*GS@liberty.com>
wrote in message
> news:ab67ve$fnoat$1@ID-75545.news.dfncis.de...
> > "Karen Bacquet" <karenbacquet@hotmail.com>
wrote in message
> > news:udd3787ql6j0f3@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > There have also been remarks in more recent UHJ letters
disparaging
> > >the role of individual conscience.
> >
> > Karen,
> >
> > When you have a chance, could you quote those disparaging uhj letters?
> >
> > I'm sure I would not be alone in finding them interesting.
>
> Dear Fred,
>
> I was thinking of the following passage from the Feb. 8, 1998 letter to
> Susan Maneck, which I'm sure she has quoted here before. I'm
including
the whole context -- one the on hand they uphold freedom of conscience, then
on the other speak about how limited it is. There is again, in this
passage
> the disparagement of Christianity that we saw in the other quotes
mentioned here. Basically, the only real "freedom" that Baha'is have
is the freedom
to leave the Faith.
>
> Love, Karen
> ******************
> This brings us to the specific points raised in your email of 17 November
> 1997. As you well understand, not only the right but also the
responsibility
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck
> U.S.A. 8 February 1998
> Page 3
>
> ". . . of each believer to explore truth for himself or herself
are
> fundamental to the Baha'i teachings. This principle is an integral feature
> of the coming of age of humankind, inseparable from the social
> transformation to which Baha'u'llah is calling the peoples of the world.
It is as relevant to specifically scholarly activity as it is to the rest of
> spiritual and intellectual life. Every human being is ultimately
responsible to God for the use which he or she makes of these possibilities;
conscience is never to be coerced, whether by other individuals or institutions.
So false, given the uhj's incessant harassment and coercion of conscience,
Dialogue, Cole, McKenny, Marshall, et al.... The double speak of a
tyrant....
> Conscience, however, is not an unchangeable
absolute. One dictionary
> definition, although not covering all the usages of the term, presents the
> common understanding of the word "conscience" as "the sense
of right and
> wrong as regards things for which one is responsible; the faculty or
> principle which pronounces upon the moral quality of one's actions or
> motives, approving the right and condemning the wrong".
>
> The functioning of one's conscience, then, depends
upon one's
> understanding of right and wrong; the conscience of one person may be
> established upon a disinterested striving after truth and justice, while
> that of another may rest on an unthinking predisposition to act in
> accordance with that pattern of standards, principles and prohibitions
which is a product of his social environment. Conscience, therefore, can serve
> either as a bulwark of an upright character or can represent an
accumulation of prejudices learned from one's forebears or absorbed from a
limited
social code.
Rather, "an accumulation of prejudices learned from" one's fellow
fundamentalists, from the "limited social code" current among
aparatchiks in Haifa, Wilmette, and elsewhere.... And no member
of the Bahai Faith may speak up and say without the wrath of
the power-hungry coming down on him or her.... More despicable
double speak....
> A Baha'i recognizes that one aspect of his
spiritual and intellectual
> growth is to foster the development of his conscience in the light of
divine Revelation -- a Revelation which, in addition to providing a wealth of
> spiritual and ethical principles, exhorts man "to free himself from
idle
> fancy and imitation, discern with the eye of oneness His glorious
handiwork, and look into all things with a searching eye". This process of
development, therefore, involves a clear-sighted examination of the conditions
of the
> world with both heart and mind. A Baha'i will understand that an upright
> life is based upon observance of certain principles which stem from Divine
> Revelation and which he recognizes as essential for the well-being of both
> the individual and society. In order to uphold such principles, he knows
> that, in certain cases, the voluntary submission of the promptings of his
> own personal conscience to the decision of the majority is a conscientious
> requirement, as in wholeheartedly accepting the majority decision of an
> Assembly at the outcome of consultation.
The majority can be wrong, secular or religious, or any combination
thereof. Much of civilization has learned the bitter lesson of caution
when assuming the majority knows best but not the tyrants who ride
Carmel, digging their spurs into the souls of Baha'u'llah's subjects....
> In the discussion of wisdom in your email of 21
September 1997, you
> observe that maybe "Baha'i academics all too often have not recognized
that to a great extent failure to exercise wisdom represents a failure of
love." The House of Justice agrees that the exercise of wisdom calls for a
measure of love and the development of a sensitive conscience. These, in turn,
> involve not only devotion to a high standard of uprightness, but also
> consideration of the effects of one's words and actions.
>
> A Baha'i's duty to pursue an unfettered search
after truth should lead
> him to understand the Teachings as an organic, logically coherent whole,
> should cause him to examine his own ideas and motives, and should enable
him to see
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck
> U.S.A. 8 February 1998
> Page 4
>
> that adherence to the Covenant, to which he is a party, is not blind
> imitation but conscious choice, freely made and freely followed.
"The Covenant": I.e., their literal, intolerant, hateful
interpretation
of it, which they wield to coerce and silence anyone who reveres
Abdul-Baha's unequivocal respect for moderate and sensible
freedom of conscience.
> In many of His utterances, `Abdul-Baha extols
governments which
uphold freedom of conscience for their citizens. As can be seen from the
context,
> these statements refer to the freedom to follow the religion of one's
> choice. In the original of a passage to which you refer in your email of
17 November 1997, He gives the following analysis of freedom.
>
>
> There are three types of freedom. The first is
divine freedom, which
is one of the inherent attributes of the Creator for He is unconstrained in
His> will, and no one can force Him to change His decree in any matter
> whatsoever....
> The second is the political freedom of Europeans,
which leaves the
> individual free to do whatsoever he desires as long as his action does not
> harm his neighbour. This is natural freedom, and its greatest expression
is seen in the animal world. Observe these birds and notice with what freedom
> they live. However much man may try, he can never be as free as an animal,
> because the existence of order acts as an impediment to freedom.
>
> The third freedom is that which is born of
obedience to the laws and
> ordinances of the Almighty. This is the freedom of the human world, where
> man severs his affections from all things. When he does so, he becomes
> immune to all hardship and sorrow. Wealth or material power will not
deflect him from moderation and fairness, neither will poverty or need inhibit
him
> from showing forth happiness and tranquillity. The more the conscience of
> man develops, the more will his heart be free and his soul attain unto
> happiness. In the religion of God, there is freedom of thought because
God, alone, controls the human conscience, but this freedom should not go
beyond courtesy. In the religion of God, there is no freedom of action outside
the law of God. Man may not transgress this law, even though no harm is
> inflicted on one's neighbour. This is because the purpose of Divine law is
> the education of all -- others as well as oneself -- and, in the sight of
> God, the harm done to one individual or to his neighbour is the same and
is reprehensible in both cases. Hearts must possess the fear of God. Man
should endeavour to avoid that which is abhorrent unto God. Therefore, the
freedom that the laws of Europe offer to the individual does not exist in the
law
of God. Freedom of thought should not transgress the bounds of courtesy, and
> actions, likewise, should be governed by the fear of God and the desire to
> seek His good pleasure.
>
>
> Education of the individual Baha'i in the Divine
law is one of the
> duties of Spiritual Assemblies. In a letter to a National Assembly on 1
> March 1951, Shoghi Effendi wrote:
>
> The deepening and enrichment of the spiritual life
of the individual
> believer, his increasing comprehension of the essential verities
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ----
> Dr. Susan Stiles Maneck
> U.S.A. 8 February 1998
> Page 5
>
>
> underlying this Faith, his training in its
administrative processes,
his understanding of the fundamentals of the Covenants established by its
Author and the authorized Interpreter of its teachings, should be made the
supreme objectives of the national representatives responsible for the
edification, the progress and consolidation of these communities.
"Training": i.e., coercing of conscience, their interpretation of it.
> Such is the duty resting on the elected
institutions of the Faith for
> the promotion of the spiritual, moral and ethical lives of the individual
> believers. Parallel with this, the Baha'i Faith upholds the freedom of
> conscience which permits a person to follow his chosen religion: no one
may be compelled to become a Baha'i, or to remain a Baha'i if he
conscientiously wishes to leave the Faith. As to the thoughts of the Baha'is
themselves --
> that is those who have chosen to follow the religion of Baha'u'llah -- the
> institutions do not busy themselves with what individual believers think
> unless those thoughts become expressed in actions which are inimical to
the basic principles and vital interests of the Faith.
Unless anyone disagrees with the uhj's fanatical coercion of
conscience, interpretation, and has the courage of conviction to say
so publicly, the willingness to sacrifice themselves on the altar of
service and obedience to Baha'u'llah, not the corrupted uhj....
> With regard to the accusation that to make such
distinctions borders
on restriction of the freedom of speech, one should accept that civil society
> has long recognized that utterance can metamorphose into behaviour, and
has taken steps to protect itself and its citizens against such behaviour when
> it becomes socially destructive. Laws against sedition and hate-mongering
> are examples that come readily to mind.
I.e., the uhj has the right to suppress freedom of speech and conscience,
and define out of existence what they are. More double speak.
> It will surely be clear to you from the above
comments that the
> categories of "issues of doctrinal heresy which must therefore be
> suppressed" and "the imposition of orthodoxy on the Baha'i
community", to
> which you refer, are concepts essentially drawn from the study of
> Christianity and are inapplicable to the far more complex
interrelationships> and principles established by the Baha'i Faith."
More subtle coercion and suppression of conscience according
to their own self-serving, twisted interpretation of Baha'u'llah and
Abdul-Baha.
--
FG
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
https://members.fortunecity.com/bahaicensorship
|