From: Michael McKenny <bn872@FreeNet.Carleton.CA>
Subject: Re: Shoghi Effendi believed 1963 would be the calamity year
Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 4:20 PM
Greetings, Geoff.
Many thanks for your patience, and, touch wood, I've actually got a
moment or so to read your post more carefully.
Actually, I disagree with you about the necessity to connect freedom
of speech with freedom of action, if I understand what you mean correctly.
In Canada, as far as I know, we still do not have the death penalty, but
individuals are allowed to speak in favour of the death penalty, although
such freedom of speech does not mean they may go out and execute someone.
Submitting to the teachings of the Faith means putting into practise
the essential principles of the Baha'i Faith, including independent
investigation of truth, freedom of thought and expression, the harmony
of religion and science and the equality of women and men. Only one of
the teachings of the Baha'i Faith is that there is to be a democratically
elected international spiritual council (Universal House of Justice). Yes,
the principled decisions of this body are to be obeyed, but such literal
text as emphasizes that does not justify this body seeking to impose what
is contrary to principle upon the believers.
Those who argue that there is a distinction in the authority of the
UHJ and of the Papacy, thus, explaining how it is that the Baha'i system
is to remain undivided into sects as happened in Christianity, aside from
ignoring the sectarianism which already exists, as anyone may note from
reading this newsgroup, are missing the chief reason for the rejection of
the authority of the Papacy by those Christians who bolted. It was not in
the least that the Popes claimed too inadequate a backing from heaven, and
now in place of the assertion that God had said (Jesus after all is God to
Christians) Peter (and his legitimate successors) were to guide with divine
approval, now God (Baha'u'llah) had written a will providing a family tree
of inheritance all the way to the present UHJ. No, God's word was good
enough spoken or written, had only the people asserting on such grounds they
had such authority behaved in a principled manner.
The history of the Vatican, as Abdu'l Baha said, is most extraordinary.
This provides quite satisfactory explanation for the sectarianism that took
place, regardless of claims to divine authority.
Since the UHJ has sought to censor the historical facts concerning the
prohibition on the election of women to the UHJ, since they have violated
this essential principle of the equality of women and men, since they have
spoken against scholarship and individual scholars have faced pressures to
shut up or leave the Faith, since without final warning they simply declared
Michael McKenny was not a member of the Baha'i community, etc. they have
committed acts equally demonstrating the extremism connected with claims
to divine authorization of whatever they please. And, precisely as some
humans faced with such extremes from popes rejected the unprincipled
behaviour of the popes, so do those learning of what is going on in Baha'i
include those who reject the correctness of the misbehaviour of the UHJ,
asserting to rule on the basis of literal text.
The distinction has been clearly made that one may be the legitimate
ruler or ruling body and this does not necessarily mean that the rules
one seeks to impose are proper. So long as one is providing proper guidance
one may claim that one has infallible divine backing for one's legislation,
and it doesn't matter. The legislation is proper and on that ground, it will,
heaven willing, be attractive to human souls, anyway. However, when one has
strayed from what is proper and instead concentrates on assertions of the
ability to do any unprincipled thing at all, because of literal words in
scripture saying, "Whatsoever," then there is a problem. If religious
authorities strive to impose what is unprincipled, then only a section of
their people, and certainly only a section of humanity can possibly accept
such literal justification for what is unprincipled.
The essential Baha'i principles resonated all over the world because
they were beneficial for this age. The concept of simply obeying what
unprincipled commands soever which leaders have the power to impose has a
long and sorry history in the sad annals of this species. It has been well
tested, and the experience of humanity is that the goal of the prophet of
Baha'i, the harmonious progress of this species, is not furthered through
the attempted imposition of this hoary and sorry idea. Better to implement
the independent investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and expression,
the harmony of science (reason) and religion (inspiration), the equality
of women and men, etc.
I pause here, though I may soon write more on the rest of your post.
Again, sorry for being so hurried earlier.
May today find humanity thriving, may tomorrow treat this species even
more kindly and may each day after that be replete with increasing
blessings.
All the Best,
Michael
"Geoff Churchill" (fedge@clear.net.nz) writes:
>
> I made the argument that you cannot have freedom of expression without
> freedom of action, not because of anything against freedom of expression but
> that it is fruitless without the necessary freedom of action to put such
> beliefs into practice. Yes, the Baha'i Faith follows the principal of the
> right to the individual investigation of truth, but this is qualified. If
> you have acknowledged the essential truth of the Faith (as this applies) you
> must submit to its teachings. To quote the Aqdas...
>
> "The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the RECOGNITION of Him
> Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His Laws.... It
> behoveth everyone who reachethis most sublime station , this summit of
> transcendent glory, to OBSERVE EVERY ORDINANCE of Him Who is the Desire of
> the world."
> (Kitab-i-Aqdas p.1, my emphasis added)
>
> Okay, this is not a direct statement on the principal of Indepedent
> Investigation of Truth, but bare me out here. Yes, I believe whole heartedly
> in the right to independently invistigate the truth, but I believe that it
> needs to be balanced by the duty prescribed upon those rights. If we
> acknowledge the truth of Baha'u'llah as he who he claims to be, then we must
> follow his ordinances. If Baha'u'llah is the Messanger of God for this day,
> the Fountainhead of His Laws as he declares, then we must abide by those
> laws, otherwise what is the use. As individuals I'm sure you would agree
> that we are fallible. I can't hope to understand the universe perfectly,
> therefore I can't be asked to make perfect choices. But if I have
> acknowledged Baha'u'llah as a Being (whatever you regard that to mean) Who
> has revealed perfect instructions (God's Laws) about that society, then
> surely it is in my best interests to follow those ordinances.
>
> Now, before you ask, I do not believe that the duty of individual
> investigation of truth ends when you become a Baha'i, but that at that point
> all investigation must be tempered by that obedience.
>
>
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Homepage
|