From: McKenny Michael <bn872@freenet.carleton.ca>
To: smaneck@berry.edu <smaneck@berry.edu>
Cc: talisman@umich.edu <talisman@umich.edu>
Subject: More on Trying Constructively
Date: Thursday, February 12, 1998 6:50 PM
Greetings, Susan, from Ottawa.
If you are well, it is well.
You wrote:
>Not necessarily. Direct acts of disobedience to the Center of the
>Covenant can make one a Covenant Breaker.
In my humble opinion, this is an indication of the problem. The
issue appears to be that in orthodox Baha'i thought excessive weight
is placed on enforcing compliance of commands with what I view as
threats of draconian sanctions, , for goodness sakes, as if
we were in the Dark Ages.
The one aspect of this, if you are correct, is that quite clearly
the UHJ was right in saying somehow I did not understand the Covenant
and they are right in that I had no intention of learning, if this is
what they mean by what I needed to learn.
Authoritarianism, the concern only with issuing orders and seeing
them obeyed is, IMHO, wrong both ethically and as a means of effective
administration. What works best is to win voluntary support because
the measures are unmistakably understood to be workable as well as
fair. Laws will be obeyed even by people grumbling about them, if they
are allowed to grumble and if these laws are seen to be fair. Those
regimes which concentrated on compliance at all costs are not ones
to be emulating. And which of these regimes, despite the most extreme
measures, was able to achieve respect for authority?
You continue:
>The terms "unprincipled" and "mutiliated" are drawn from statements
>you and Juan have made. And my characterization of the House does not
>go nearly as far as you suggest. But I do not think the House *ever*
>acts "unprincipled" (or at least I've not seen evidence for
>this.) Sometimes the principle of their action may not fully be
>accord with yours or mine. As I suggested in my last post, part of
>the problem is that we refuse to try and understand what the princple
>for their actions are. Only by assuming that each of us act in accord
>with principle and attempting to understand what the principles of
>the "others" actions are can we ever hope to arrive at a resolution
>of our difference. That is why labeling others as "unprinciple" is so
>destructive and can only be seen as an attack which will invariably
>elicit counter-attacks.
What I mean when I use the term unprincipled is that the basic
principles of the Baha'i Faith: independent investigation of truth,
the harmony of science and religion, "the equality of men and women and
their equal sharing in ALL rights" <emphasis added> etc (see pages 248
and 249 of SELECTIONS OF THE WRITINGS OF ABDU'L BAHA et al.) what was
used to define this religion to me in 1971 when I stated that yes,
this I believe, these fundamental principles are being subordinated to
something else.
I remain all ears to you listing and explaining whatever other
principles are actually the guiding light of the Universal House of
Justice.
However, if these other principles are simply attention to the
personality rather than the issue, so, the need to accept the perfect
knowledge of Shoghi Effendi or even his secretary, even to allow such
to have the gretest weight among all the central figures of the Baha'i
revelation, the necessity to uphold institutional authority at all
costs (Burl's friend reporting 25 irregularities of one NSA to the
Universal House of Justice; maybe they really were insignificant,
though why should one bother the UHJ with what is insignificant; still,
is there a principle that authority trumps everything else) the need
for seeming agreement and unanimity (despite the principle of harmony,
unity in great diversity) please don't be upset if I listen but am
not easy to convince.
You quoted me:
>> I believe that previous monotheistic religions achieved some
>> kind of success despite unprincipled leadership, unethical behavior,
>> intolerance and oppression.
and you commented:
>Yes, they have. But the Baha'i Faith has to justify the existance of
>but one more in a world that has plenty already. And if we have no
>hope of fulfilling our purpose of bringing about the unity of
>humanity what can we possibly contribute that the other monotheistic
>traditions cannot already offer?
My sentiments exactly. In my view it is the fundamental Baha'i
principles: independent investigation of truth, harmony of science and
religion, complete equal rights for men and women, etc. which alone
justify the claims of the Baha'i Faith as an independent world
religion.
This other stuff, the divine right of the Pope or the Caliph,
infallibility, doctrinal purity, excommunication, interdict, heresy,
etc. this we've had before. We've worn that T-shirt and such
authoritarianism, while it has, at times, had some worldly success, it
has not achieved that kind of harmony (not unity, not uniformity, but
harmony, unity in diversity) which this idealistic world federalist
saw as the goal of the Baha'i Faith as it was presented in 1971.
You quoted me:
>> And why in the world is it impossible for the Baha'i Faith to
>> achieve principled leadership. Indeed, what I think Baha'is ought to
>> be using all their alleged consultative skills considering is how
>> may there be a transformation of present reality into the stage of
>> principled leadership and all the other aspects of maturing Baha'i
>> and human life.
And you replied:
>It would be impossible if one understands the quote from Shoghi
>Effendi in the manner in which Juan does; namely, that the
>Cause will be inevitably mutilated if there is not a living Guardian.
>[Juan makes this assessment not withstanding the fact that most of
>the practices he finds the most "cultish" were implemented in their
>present form by the Guardian and not the House of Justice at all!]
Juan may correct me. My reading of this is that, so long as a
literalist approach is taken, according greatest weight to the words,
right or wrong, of Shoghi Effendi, or his secretary, so long as the
democratically elected head of the Faith hesitates to take the actions
required to bring the Faith forward into the modern age, so long as the
position is that only an offspring of Shoghi Effendi, alas, can take
the necessary action, then, yes, so long as that the Cause will remain
mutilated.
Goodness gracious, I am a democrat. I don't believe the people
sent to Haifa (and maybe it would make a good deal of difference here
if the people really did send them there through direct elections)
ought to feel hogtied by the contested interpretation of someone who
died forty years ago. If the feeling is that Shoghi Effendi, or which
individual soever sitting in his seat today, would implement basic
principle today, now that it matters, then such principle should be
unhesitatingly implemented.
I have elsewhere stated that if it is possible to have the
functions of the Hands of the Cause continued by individuals with a
different title, then there is no reason that an individual may not
be entrusted with exercising the functions of the Guardian, though
someone called something else, and even subject to alternative
conditions such as direct election, five year terms and a two term
limit. However, personally, I am very reluctant to consider such an
idea in a conservative climate and a literal landscape. I prefer
world councils, though perhaps they should have more than nine members,
to monarchies and papacies. I think it would be great if you could have
a real democratically elected president, though the absence of such an
official does not really prevent the Universal House of Justice from
implementing Baha'i principle (I mean these things they listed for me
in 1971). All that's needed is the will to implement principle.
I will read with keen attention any principles you list as being
worthy of consideration, and any words you care to share explaining
these principles which you suggest are the guiding lights of the
Universal House of Justice.
>Warmest, Susan
May this find you very well, and may the future be more beneficial
than we may imagine.
All the Best,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)