The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience

Sen McGlinn & FG - A 1996 Conversation, Censored....

[The soc.religion.bahai moderator intervened to censor and break off discussion,
pretending technical problems]

 

 

 

Message from discussion politics & religion (was review etc.)

 

From: "Sen McGlinn" <S.Mc_Gl...@ThuisNet.LeidenUniv.NL>
Subject: politics & religion (was review etc.)
Date: 1996/11/14
Message-ID: <"l5KJV.A.JjE.Ys5iy"@bounty>
X-Deja-AN: 196519781
distribution: world
priority: normal
organization: Leiden University
reply-to: S.Mc_Gl...@ThuisNet.LeidenUniv.NL
newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai

 

 

 

Excuse me butting in - but this thread that started with review and
moved on to politics and religion sounds interesting! Unfortunately
in the form I got it it is not quite clear which post comes from whom,
- the moderator tells me it is FG & John Haukness, but
I have the name [deleted] on my copy. Anyway, from the digest as I got
it I reconstruct the conversation as follows:

 

John wrote "it will take some time, for Western academic secularism,
and existentialism to accept the non-separation between religion and
state."  To which Frederick replied "Your conclusions don't appear to
me to be supported by the Baha'i Writings. / Given modern religious
history, since the 1600s really, Western secularism has quite rightly
[found?] that the separation of religion from the state is in
everyone's best interest." And John said that "The writings of the
Guardian make it clear to me that the american separation of Church
and state is based on fear and will fade away." Apologies if I have
attributed words to the wrong person. Let's suppose that the names
are arbitrary labels, and discuss these as two points of view:

 

1) I agree with them both. More of this later.

 

2) Both refer to 'the Baha'i Writings' and 'the writings of the
Guardian' without giving a reference at all. In a Faith as text-
based as the Baha'i Faith, this is not very helpful. In Frederick's
case a 'reference' would be difficult to find, since he is saying
essentially that there is *not* anything in the Writings to support
the non-separation of church and state - and so far as I know he is
correct. I've never seen anything to support that position. It's hard
to prove a negative, but you can always frame the question in a
positive way - what are the texts which *support* the separation of
church & state? - and then a reference can be found:

 

       ... your Lord hath committed the world and the cities
       thereof to the care of the kings of the earth, and made
       them the emblems of His own power, by virtue of the
       sovereignty He hath chosen to bestow upon them.
              He hath refused to reserve for Himself any share
       whatever of this world's dominion.  To this He Who is
       Himself the Eternal Truth will testify.  The things He
       hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men's hearts
       ...(Gleanings, CXXIX, p. 304. See also Proclamation of
       Baha'u'llah, p. 13; Gleanings, CXV, p. 206; Aqdas paras
       83, 95, The World Order of Baha'u'llah p. 66....)

 

This puts the onus on anyone arguing the opposite point of view to
find texts at least as weighty as these, or, more accurately, to come
up with a wider understanding which takes these into account. The aim
should be a synthesis which accounts for all the evidence rather than
an arm-wrestling match with the two parties trying to find texts that
are sufficiently muscular (persuasive and authoritative) to overwhelm
the opposition. John did provide one interesting quote which he
attributes to Shoghi Effendi, but without a source. I ran it through
the REFER programme and turned up nothing, so it is very unlikely
that this is any of the published works of Shoghi Effendi. It also
contains far more grammatical errors than one would expect of a text
from Shoghi Effendi. However there is a lot of material published in
The American Baha'i which is not included in the REFER programme, so
who knows? John also referred to the Hatchers, apparently in support,
but does not say what it is the Hatchers might have said or where, so
this again adds nothing. The ratio of light to heat produced in
discussions will probably be improved if the elementary discipline of
citing texts and giving sources is observed.

 

3a) as I said, I agree with both John and Frederick. First
Frederick: "Western secularism has quite rightly that the separation
of religion from the state is in everyone's best interest." I think
this is indisputable as a matter of history, although it is perhaps
not as modern or western as one might think. There have been very few
societies which have ever had a genuine melding of the religious and
civil orders. Most of these have been very short-lived experiments,
in some cases due to unique temporary circumstances (Muhammad at
Medina), in other cases because the society collapsed or developed
de facto or de jure separate institutions. Theocracy, in general,
doesn't work.
    Only one exception comes to mind: Egypt under the
God/Kings - that one became *too* stable. I think there were not too
many prophets denouncing Pharoah's iniquities and generally keeping
the social conscience alive in ancient Egypt (one prominent Exception
comes to mind, and He was obliged to vacate double-quick), and
perhaps this contributed to the social stasis. Other relatively
stable theocracies (Mayans?) have also been states in which the state
absorbed the religion rather than vice versa. Can anyone suggest an
instance of a society in which the religious order assumed the task
of civil government which did not end in quick and messy disaster?

 

The lesson thus far can be learned from history - we didn't need a
Manifestation to tell us that. What the Baha'i revelation adds to
this is in providing a *religious* justification for the existence
and work of the state. Christianity and Islam have not really
provided this. Confucianism did I think, but it will hardly help us
in the 20th century. The Christian justification for the state is
based on Romans 13: 1-3, which I will quote in the form Baha'u'llah
cites it, so as to make two points with one quote:

 

   In the Epistle to the Romans Saint Paul hath
   written:  "Let every soul be subject unto the higher
   powers.  For there is no power but of God; the
   powers that be are ordained of God.  Whosoever
   therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance
   of God."  And further:  "For he is the minister of
   God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that
   doeth evil."  He saith that the appearance of the
   kings, and their majesty and power are of God.
        Moreover, in the traditions of old, references have
   been made which the divines have seen and heard.
   We beseech God--blessed and glorified be He--to
   aid thee, O Shaykh, to lay fast hold on that which
   hath been sent down from the heaven of the bounty
   of God, the Lord of the worlds.  The divines must
   needs unite with His Majesty, the Shah, and cleave
   unto that which will insure the protection, the security,
   the welfare and prosperity of men. A just king
   enjoyeth nearer access unto God than anyone.
              (Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, pp. 91-92.)

 

You can see here the Christian justification for the existence of
the worldly 'powers' - which is pretty thin, since Caesar's only
function is to execute wrath, as a sort of divinely justified
hangman. We also see Baha'u'llah's reinterpretation, which is much
stronger: Kingship in His interpretation of this text becomes a
reflection of the attributes of God. The religious order and the
civil order are to work together, and this is possible because the
king has a revealed religious mandate - just as the Baha'i
institutions have. They can therefore *work together* for the good of
humanity on equal terms. The kings and rulers (civil government) are
every bit as much divinely ordained as the religious institutions!
This is not the separation of the church and state as it is
understood in America, but it is "formal and complete separation of
Church and State" (Unfolding Destiny, p. 76; Baha'i Administration,
p. 149.) in one sense. They are separated *so that* they can work
together as 'two forces' (Will and Testament of `Abdul-Baha, pp 14 -
15). [BTW - note that science and religion are also referred to as
the 'two forces' in 'the promise of World Peace']. I think this
theological justification for the separation (differentiation is a
better term) is significant. *If* the religious order accepts that
the civil order has a right to exist and a dignity before God which
is equal to its own, and *if* the civil order recognizes the vital
role of religion in achieving the goals of the civil order (security
and human development), there is the foundation for a close working
relationship that can go far beyond the situation in which church and
state live alongside one-another, each pretending that the other does
not exist. Behind this again is something rather metaphysical, but in
the long term of great practical importance. The creation, in Baha'i
theology, is conceived of as a structure of pairs:

 

      ...the union of created things doth ever yield most
     laudable results. From the pairing of even the smallest
     particles in the world of being are the grace and bounty of God
     made manifest; and the higher the degree, the more momentous is
     the union. 'Glory be to Him Who hath created all the pairs, of
     such things as earth produceth, and out of men themselves, and
     of things beyond their ken.' (Selections from the Writings of
     'Abdul-Baha, p. 119. The quotation is from the Qur'an 36:36)

 

The pairing of these diverse elements is beautiful and gives Glory to
God. Their diversity reflects the different names of God, and these
should sing together in harmony. This is unity-in- diversity. One of
the besetting sins of the 19th and 20th centuries has been to attempt
to achieve unity through uniformity or by subjecting one order of
society to another - for instance by subjecting arts & commerce to
the demands of the political order (Communism & Fascism) or by
subjecting morality and politics to economic theory (utilitarian
capitalism). Obviously this doesn't work as a matter of practical
experience - the various orders (organs) of society have to know
their own limitations and learn to know and respect the capacities of
the other orders. Structural pluralism in short. But these
20th-century attempts at monolithic unity are more than (murderous)
practical blunders: if the orders of society reflect the names &
attributes of God (science reflects the name 'the all-knowing' and
the attribute 'knowledge', for instance), then these attempts are
blasphemous: either one is ranking the attributes of God one above
the other, or even worse, trying to create a monolithic oneness
(beyond different attributes) which can exist only in the Godhead
itself. Hubris. The unity which we can achieve is a harmony of
diverse notes in one chord,not and never a unity of being, which is
proper only to Godself. Thisis why we should emphasise that the unity
which Baha'u'llah speaks is an organic unity - not resembling in any
way these revolting 20th-century attempts to combine all-in-one:

 

       Regard ye the world as a man's body, which is afflicted
       with divers ailments, and the recovery of which dependeth
       upon the *harmonizing of all of its component elements.*
       (Proclamation of Baha'u'llah, p. 22.)

 

With this sort of metaphysical equipment, it is obvious that the
Baha'i Faith is right at home in modern societies. I think in fact
that it is 'tailor-made' for such societies - by the Divine Tailor.
Here I part company with John Hatcher, in The Law of Love Enshrined
p.180, where he envisages a Baha'i society as "a commonwealth of
autonomous and closely knit communities, much like tribal communities
in the collaboration and close association among their members". I
think the Faith is suited for, and will create, a cosmopolitan
society based on overlapping and mutually interdependent matrix
structures. Modern at the very least, presumably post-modern,
certainly not a return to the unity of the tribe. Hatcher's
assumption (he provides neither text nor argument) that the Baha'i
society would be theocratic (p. 176) is I think due to his
neo-tribal idea, and even then I don't think many tribes have
actually had theocratic structures. The differentiation between the
medicine-man/woman and the chief is rather widespread.

 

3b) now I promised to agree with the point of view I have
tentatively labelled as 'John', and I will, even if you might suspect
that my heart is not in it :-)
First of all, "the american separation of Church and state is based
on fear and will fade away." Yay. To be replaced by something more
mature, a harmony of diverse elements. For the present, the fear has
some justification and the present form of separation needs to be
defended as an interim protection. But fear is a damn poor basis for
a developing society. I have shown (I think) why, when the Baha'i
teachings are accepted, especially by the Baha'is, that fear may
eventually become redundant, and a harmony based on love and respect
may become possible. To calm the fear, we should be shouting the
essential texts regarding this Baha'i principle from the rooftops,
putting them in newspaper advertisements, memorising them in
summerschools, making them the subject of public talks, etc:

 

       Theirs is not the purpose, ... to allow the machinery of
       their administration to supersede the government of their
       respective countries.  (The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p
       66)

 

The message is: "Don't worry, good people. We're not coming to stage
a takeover. God wouldn't let us do it if you asked us too. Relax...".
Might take a few generations and a lot of repetition to get through
I'm afraid.

 

I also thoroughly agree with John (and `Abdul-Baha) about the
integration of 'holy teachings' in education. I don't follow the
line of reasoning which then leads him to suppose that religion and
science should therefore be 'inseparable' in education - it seems to
me that a 'barrier' between them (see Qur'an 55:19-22) is vital to
both:
 
       Glory be unto Him who hath produced growth in the
       adjoining fields of various natures!
       Glory be unto Him who irrigated them with the same
       waters gushing forth from that Fountain! (Tablets of
       'Abdul-Baha, p 398.)

 

The wouldn't be 'two fields' or at least their 'various natures'
would not remain distinct, without the wall of separation between
them. If science and religion are not kept quite separate in our
minds, there is a high likelihood of muddled thinking which will
eventually become blasphemous in one way another.

 

John, I am intrigues by the 'existentialism' in the reference to
"Western academic secularism, and existentialism" in your posting.
Is that western academic existentialism, or is the existentialism
something quite separate (not academic or not western), and in
either case what is it doing here?

 

Sen.

 

PS don't forget to send me a copy! Otherwise I have to browse the
bulletin boards every night! And the postings do get gloriously mixed
up in my system.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn                           Sen.McGl...@Bahai.NL
                                 ***
When, however, thou dost contemplate the innermost essence of things,
                 and the individuality of each,
         thou wilt behold the signs of thy Lord's mercy . . ."

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

 

 

 

 Message from discussion politics & religion (was review etc.)

 

From: FG <[delete].Glays...@moa.net>
Subject: Re: politics & religion (was review etc.)
Date: 1996/11/15
Message-ID: <"un1XEB.A.u9F.YwJjy"@bounty>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 196679879
distribution: world
organization: Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, U.S.A.
newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai

 

Sen McGlinn wrote:
>

 

[clip]

 

> institutions have. They can therefore *work together* for the good of
> humanity on equal terms. The kings and rulers (civil government) are
> every bit as much divinely ordained as the religious institutions!
> This is not the separation of the church and state as it is
> understood in America, but it is "formal and complete separation of
> Church and State" (Unfolding Destiny, p. 76; Baha'i Administration,
> p. 149.) in one sense. They are separated *so that* they can work
> together as 'two forces' (Will and Testament of `Abdul-Baha, pp 14 -
> 15). [BTW - note that science and religion are also referred to as
> the 'two forces' in 'the promise of World Peace']. I think this
> theological justification for the separation (differentiation is a
> better term) is significant.

 

An interesting way of looking at it.  Do you think in practice this
will actually happen?

 

*If* the religious order accepts that
> the civil order has a right to exist and a dignity before God which
> is equal to its own, and *if* the civil order recognizes the vital
> role of religion in achieving the goals of the civil order (security
> and human development), there is the foundation for a close working
> relationship that can go far beyond the situation in which church and
> state live alongside one-another, each pretending that the other does
> not exist. Behind this again is something rather metaphysical, but in
> the long term of great practical importance. The creation, in Baha'i
> theology, is conceived of as a structure of pairs:
>

 

A very big "if."  History seems to show, at best, a volatile tension;
a conflict, if you will, that energizes both sides, without ever
resolving the issue.

 

[clip]

 

> itself. Hubris. The unity which we can achieve is a harmony of
> diverse notes in one chord,not and never a unity of being, which is
> proper only to Godself. Thisis why we should emphasise that the unity
> which Baha'u'llah speaks is an organic unity - not resembling in any
> way these revolting 20th-century attempts to combine all-in-one:
>

 

"Attempts to combine all-in-one" are and have been revolting--and bloody.
The Baha'i Faith will never become such an attempt?  Given the fanaticism
of some in the Baha'i Faith, seemingly encouraged by some in authority,
I'm not so confident.

 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sen McGlinn                           Sen.McGl...@Bahai.NL
>                                  ***

 

--
FG
Rochester, Michigan USA

 

 

 

 Message from discussion politics & religion (was review etc.)

 

View parsed - Show only message text from: "Sen McGlinn" <S.Mc_Gl...@ThuisNet.LeidenUniv.NL>
Subject: Re: politics & religion (was review etc.)
Date: 1996/11/19
Message-ID: <56slri$min@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
X-Deja-AN: 197451002
distribution: world
organization: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden
x-posted-by: rdetw...@206.165.5.108 (rdetweil)
newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai

 

I referred to the religious and civil orders (church and state) as
separated and cooperating. Frederick asked if I thought this would in
practice happen.

 

Yes and No. That the religious and civil orders in a Baha'i society
would remain separated is clear, if only because the Faith has a
clear authority structure and is text-oriented. The Guardian, who was
the authorized interpreter of the Baha'i Writings said that the
Baha'is should not " under any circumstances"..." allow
 the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of
 their respective countries." ( in World Order of Baha'u'llah, p.
66). Since the line of the guardians has ended, there is no-one with
the authority to cancell or re-interpret this. Thus even if my
reading of Baha'u'llah's writings (ie that He advocates permanent
formal separation of church & state  *and* cooperation between
elected representatives, hereditary monarchs, religious authorities
and other social interests) - even if this view of the ultimate aim
is not accepted and some Baha'is or some Baha'i institutions think
that a theocratic state is ultimately desirable, there is just no way
we can get there from here.

 

If separation is permanent, then some sort of accomodation and
patterns of working together will be worked out in practice in every
society. And this will probably seldom attain an ideal of harmony &
synergy - this is the real world, and perfection remains only an
ultimate goal. There is a similar pair-relationship within the
Baha'i administrative order between elected institutions (Spiritual
Assemblies or Houses of Justice) and appointed institutions
(Counsellors, their auxilliary boards, and *their* local assistants).
Does it work in practice? well it works a lot better than having only
one hierarchical structure would - there is at the least an
alternative line of communication and action if the institutions on
one side are gridlocked. And it doesn't work perfectly - the elected
institutions have been known to be jealous of the freedom of the
appointed institutions to set and persue their own agendas (which may
have little relationship to the Plan (with a mental capital P) which
the elected institutions are persuing. And appointed people have been
known to step outside their role and start administering things. Each
side has to really understand the other for the cooperation to work,
and I think this understanding is growing, gradually. But it is
already 'working in practice' to some extent.

 

Likewise the church-state relation: I don't expect it ever to be
perfectly resolved. Next to the relationship between men & women,
this is the most fundamental social differentiation. It is an issue
in one way or other in every society I know of. If someone proposes
one solution as permanent and complete (whether that be theocracy or
separation in hermetic compartments), I know they haven't grasped the
issue. Body & soul, faith and knowledge, male & female, church &
state, and should I start with peanut butter or jam. Some issues are
meant to be lived with, not resolved.

 

PS: just to complicate things: I have talked about the relationship
between the state and Baha'i institutions with the implication that
the Baha'i institutions concerned would be the elected (ie
administrative) institutions. But from the quote in my tagline
regarding the Mashriq'ul-adhkar and the reference to the appointed
institutions above, you can see that the Baha'i Faith has a rather
complex internal structure. Maybe it makes more sense to think about
the relationship between the state (eg the local government) and the
Mashriqu'l-Adhkar (house of worship, or 'church' in the NT sense of a
body of people worshipping together rather than a church
organisation). After all the Mashriq is the crowning institution of
the community, and is also the institution most open to the world,
it is "God's universal House of Worship", a home for all peoples,
rather than a club for the true believers. And the
institutions where church-state is a Big Question - such as schools -
are dependencies of the Mashriq'ul-adhkar rather than extensions of
the elected institutions. So this may be the place where a good
working relationship with the state institutions matters most.

 

Sen

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sen McGlinn                           Sen.McGl...@Bahai.NL
                                 ***
            Let the friends recall and ever bear in mind
  the repeated exhortations and glowing promises of our beloved Master
               with reference to the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar,
         the crowning institution in every Baha'i community.

 

                      (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, page 108)
------------------------------------------------------------------------