Karen's Posts April-June 2002

April 3, 2002
Forum: talk.religion.bahai

I hate to break it to you, Karen, but organizing protests against the Institutions is in violation of the Covenant.

Not any Covenant I ever believed in. But then I never believed that the Institutions would ever do anything worth protesting. Such was my naivete. If someone had asked me as a hypothetical, I would have said it was impossible, the Institutions would never do that. I was fool enough to trust them. Well, y'all better start informing people about that before they sign a card, that all other principles are subordinate to mindless obedience and conformity. Of course, you won't get many members that way, but at least you won't have troublesome folks like myself that believe in free expression hanging around, which I'm sure would make you much happier.

In any case, no protest was ever organized, and some Majnunis, as we know, stomped on the idea.

Karen

April 9, 2002
Forum: Unenrolled Baha'i

Dear X,

It's easy to believe in an infallible governing body if you don't know much about what they do. For me, the UHJ was always very distant -- out there guiding the Baha'i world, writing letters every Ridvan, and making plans and stuff. I already knew that it couldn't be completely infallible, because I believed the system was mutilated and that they couldn't help but stray into the interpretive sphere sometimes. However, rather contradictorily, the idea that they would do something really *wrong* had never entered my head. In some ways, though, the discovery that there are Baha'is who virtually treat the UHJ as an object of worship was just as shocking as finding out about some of the unjust decisions that have been made. Nobody I knew ever talked like that.

You know, I wonder sometimes how many Baha'is are really "loyal to the Covenant" in the way that conservatives think is a requirement. I've run across Baha'is who never bought into infallibility in the first place. Probably all those inactive and lost people on the rolls don't believe in it. Just recently a person commented to me that "organizing protests is against the Covenant", and I could only respond "Not any Covenant I ever believed in." That's the thing -- the powers-that-be have this notion of what is covenantal and what is not, and they pretty much expect that everybody "knows" where that line is. But it isn't true.

Somebody floated the idea that the community should go back to requiring new believers to deepen on the Will and Testament before signing a card, just to avoid getting all these pesky freethinking types into the Faith. I wonder when that practice stopped? I always figured it was after Shoghi Effendi's death and the Guardianship ended, in order to avoid those uncomfortable questions about there not being a living Guardian. Does anybody know?

Love, Karen

April 9, 2002
Forum: Unenrolled Baha'i

Dear X,

Well, to my mind, the biggest problem with the lack of a living Guardian is that it has basically taken the flexibility out of the system. Whatever policy Shoghi Effendi established in the 1930s still goes, no matter how impractical or outdated it might be. The other thing is that there would be a second power center to balance the UHJ. On the other hand, it's easy to imagine that all would be well if we only had a Guardian -- there are problems with having a single, charismatic individual at the top as well. It would have been nice, though, if we could have had at least two or three before the line ran out. As it is, one person's viewpoint is indelibly marked on the Baha'i world in an unchangeable, and unchallengeable, way.

I accepted the infalliability of the House on enrolling but it always seemed faroff so I never gave them much thought. It was at the local community level that I saw things I didn't agree with, and it was the administrative people who were always using the infalliablity of the House to legitimate their actions. So I figured that was the source of the problem.

I never so much ran into people who used the House to legitimize their actions. However, the higher-ups set the tone with their plans and letters, and so on. The people real into the administrative stuff tend to take it and run with it, while the rest of us sort of don't know what to do with it. Feast consultation would end up being "O.K., what are we going to do to meet the goals of the Plan?.", and we'd all just be there looking at each other wondering what to do, except for the one or two people that were into that stuff -- and who would basically end up leading the rest. The whole thing really doesn't work, when you get right down to it. We never met the goals, and we never really built a functioning community, either.

Love, Karen

April 13, 2002
Forum: All Relgions are One

Dear X and Y,

If I may butt in here: I see things a little differently than Paul, but before I tell you how, you should understand that matters of theology are not as central in Baha'i teaching as they are for Christianity. That is, having the "correct" understanding of the relationship between God and the Manifestation is not a crucial factor in Baha'i belief. On one occasion, a former Muslims jurist wrote to Baha'u'llah, saying that the friends (i.e. the Baha'is) were arguing two different viewpoints on the Divinity of the Manifestation, and Baha'u'llah said that both of them were approved, and arguing about it was disapproved. The idea one finds in the Baha'i writings is that of "standpoint epistomology" that is, human beings invariably will differ in their understandings and that various perspectives can all be "correct". Since God is ultimately unknowable, *all* human perspectives on His nature and relationship to creation are limited.

Untrue. I've been interested in the Baha'i Faith, and Baha'u'llah's claim in that religion to be (technical term) a Manifestation of God is the same claim as that of Christ to be God. Could you expand on that? Manifestation of God and Incarnation sound very different to me, although you mention it's a technical term.

The idea of "mazhar-i-illahi" or Manifestation of God, ultimately comes from Shi'ih Islam. To some extent, all things in creation reflect the attributes of the Creator, but there is no direct relationship between the two. The Manifestation embodies all the attributes of God, and is really as much of God as can be revealed in this world. I would say the concept is somewhat different than the Christian idea of Incarnation, where Jesus is thought to be fully God. My understanding of Baha'i teaching is that nothing but God can be "fully God", and He can't be fully incarnate in human form, only his attributes and qualities can be revealed in that way, not His essence.

In my meditation last night, I was reading this passage, which may help explain:

"The loftiest sentiments which the holiest of saints can express in praise of Thee, and the deepest wisdom which the most learned of men can utter in the their attempts to comprehend Thy nature, all revolve around that Center [i.e., the Manifestation] Which is wholly subjected to Thy sovereignity, Which adoreth Thy beauty, and is propelled through the movement of Thy Pen."

The Manifestation is not God, but He is as close to God as we can get, and is, in a sense "God" in relationship to mankind.

I was once told that the Orthodox essence/energy distinction (I'm not sure if you know of it) was similar to Baha'i ideas, but it doesn't seem that way. I believe God's essence is totally unknowable, but God acts, has energies, and these allow creation to interact with God existentially. But this energy is fully God. Does that sound familiar? I think I might have been the one who told you that. I would agree with everything except that the "energy" is not "fully God", but the expression of His attributes. Pretty fine distinction, huh? As I said, I wouldn't argue much with a Baha'i(or a Christian, for that matter. :-)) who saw it differently -- this is only my understanding.

Therefore, the Baha'i concept of "Manifestation" exactly reflects the Christian doctrine of Jesus' dual nature, ie, the idea that Jesus is both "fully God", and "fully human".

While for the most part, Paul has given a very good explanation here, I would disagree with describing the Manifestation as "fully God". "No God is there but God" as the Muslims say, and nothing and no one else can be "fully God". However, the Manifestation is the supreme embodiment of His attributes, and thus, as close to God as it is possible to get in creation.

Although, you could interpret Jesus that way, that is certainly not what the Councils meant by "fully God" and "fully human". Indeed that seems to miss the point of Christianity, that Jesus was not just here to teach about God, but to save humanity. What's so "good" about the Good News of a Jewish wanderer preaching in Galilee, whose morality is really just the developement of the ideas of the prophets?

It is interesting what people find meaningful in religion, and what they don't. I find I differ even with many Baha'is on what is meaningful about Baha'i teaching. To me, the spiritual path is what is meaningful, the Teachings are what is meaningful. Salvation is the transformation that comes about through developing the virtues, which Baha'is regard as divine attributes, that are taught by the Manifestations.

Love, Karen

April 14, 2002
Forum: uk.religion.interfaith

Karen(previously): I've been working on another article concerning responses to the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice -- the article is not yet complete, but I've done an extensive survey of over 250 Baha'i posters concerning this issue, which I can share if anybody's interested.

Women are not excluded from serving on the Universal House of Justice in the sense you mean. Every female Bahai I have ever known was fully aware of not being able to serve on the Universal House of Justice as part of their investigations of the Bahai Faith before they became Bahai's.

I wasn't. And I've run into a lot of people who weren't. It doesn't show up in all the promotions about how we believe in gender equality. Probably a more accurate statement is that most Baha'is believe in the advancement of women, not equality.(Baha'u'llah, however, said "In this day, women are as men".) In my survey, I found a range of responses from quite fundamentalist and hostile to anyone even discussing the issue to those openly critical of the policy. The majority (52% IIRC) fell into what I call the "Conservative/Positive" response -- acceptance of the exclusion, denial that it contravenes the principle of equality, combined with a tendency to create spiritualized "explanations" to put it into a positive light. I did this on the up and up, X -- I honestly wanted to find out what the numbers were. I looked in every Baha'i forum I had access to, with posts going as far back as 1992. If there's a Baha'i anywhere in cyberspace who has commented on this issue that I missed, it wasn't for lack of trying.

So Abdul-Baha clearly states that the education of girls "is more necessary than that of sons". This is one of many examples in the Bahai Faith, examples which can be found in all World Religions of the equality between the sexes being a relative and not absolute concept . Of course in your effort to fracture Bahai unity you are not telling people about this . It won't work Karen people can read things up for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

You don't know what I'll tell people, because the article I'm working on now, of which this survey is a part, isn't even written yet. It is quite evident and obvious that the principle of sexual equality is important to Baha'is, this is why the exclusion from service on the UHJ is quite painful to some. I ran into many posters who are deeply conflicted about it. Quite frankly, X, your interpretation of my statements as "an effort to fracture Baha'i unity" says a whole lot more about you than it does about me. Indeed, people can read this matters and decide for themselves. I believe in freedom of expression, and would never have it any other way.

So , if you think the Bahai's do not practice equality between the sexes and you are suggesting an impossible state of full equality between the sexes I would be grateful if you could tell everyone what you really believe in which cannot be full equality between the sexes because it is impossible. What are your beliefs on equality between the sexes and how politically are you going to do it. I think you do not have an answer to the former so you will have no idea about the latter either . You want Utopia my friend but it means "No place"!

The exclusion from the UHJ is not based upon any biological differences at all. Indeed, no explanation whatsoever is given, although Baha'is tend to make them up. After all if one is "biologically unfit" to serve on the UHJ, why wouldn't they be "biologically unfit" to serve on National and local bodies, or in appointive positions which can also be quite time-consuming and taxing? The exclusion is based primarily upon letters from 'Abdu'l-Baha, which were actually written to Corinne True concerning the House of Justice in Chicago -- where women were originally excluded, and 'Abdu'l-Baha later overturned that ruling. Shoghi Effendi interpreted these letters as applying only to the UHJ. 'Abdu'l-Baha's actual intentions are a matter of much debate among historians, and the matter is far from settled. My own position is what I have called in my survey "Liberal/Positive" i.e. that the exclusion is an unclear matter that may be decided upon by the UHJ. At present they have decided to maintain the status quo; a future House of Justice may decide differently, and I hope they do.

I would really get yourself out of the Allison Marshal camp and start to think for yourself . You claim you still believe in Baha'u'llah, fair enough I accept that , but if you do believe in the investigation of the truth and this is the first Bahai Principle

Why is it that fundamentalist Baha'is always think that if you don't agree with them, you aren't thinking for yourself? 'Tis a puzzlement. :-)

it does mean to search for the whole truth , because how can truth be anything but whole, all of it ? Because you are pursuing a sectarian line of argument, practicing spiritual apartheid , you are being very economical with the truth about the Bahai Faith.

I am telling the truth as I see it.

Just remember the expression "the oxygen of publicity " and what it say in the Bahai Writings about those who misrepresent the Bahai Faith

I am misrepresenting nothing, and I don't appreciate being called a liar.

Karen

April 14, 2002
Forum: uk.religion.interfaith

So, what the hey, I'll give you my survey results. However, I'll do so with the disclaimer that while it is substantially finished and I think these numbers can be regarded as fairly firm, I'm still double-checking on some things, and the numbers may differ slightly when (and if) it goes into publication as part of an article. I find it interesting because it reveals a definite ideological spectrum among Baha'is. The exclusion of women from the UHJ is a good issue to work with because it has been extensively discussed over a long period of time by a great many posters. As I said earlier, I examined posts from 259 posters over a ten-year period.

The numbers don't add up to 100% because slightly over 30% gave more than one kind of response. I'm not categorizing *people* here, so much as responses. For example, some posters gave both liberal and conservative responses -- they themselves could probably be regarded as moderate fence-sitters, but their responses were recorded in both categories. Most respondents in multiple categories, of course, gave responses along a "border" e.g. both fundamentalist and conservative.

A brief (and anything brief will necessarily be inadequate) explanation for the benefit of non-Baha'is here: The Baha'i Faith includes the equality of men and women among its basic principles, and indeed is quite progressive compared to many other religions on that issue. Women often hold powerful positions, both elected and appointed, in the Baha'i administration. They are, however, not eligible to be elected to the Universal House of Justice, the Faith's supreme governing body. The exclusion is based upon what are regarded as authoritative interpretations of scripture, in which no justification is given other than the reason will become clear in the future. This extensive survey categorizes the responses of Baha'is to this conflict between principle and practice in five ways:

Fundametalist/Hostile responses: 29.3% These posters demonstrated a hostility either to the issue being discussed, to the posters bringing it up, taking a hardline that the exclusion must be accepted or one simply wasn't a Baha'i. Accusations that such posters were trying to "undermine" the Faith were common; non-Baha'i critics were sometimes characterized as "closed-minded".

Conservative/Positive responses: 52.5% These posters accept the exclusion, and generally try to put it in a positive light (e.g. calling it an "exemption" as if not being allowed to serve was a special benefit women are given). There is a strong tendency among conservatives, and some moderates to offer non-scriptural "explanations" for the exclusion -- some very spiritualized, some blatantly sexist. However, these posts did not demonstrate the hardline hostility of the fundamentalists.

Moderate/Unresolved responses: 28.2% In this category, responses reflect an awareness, denied by the conservatives, that the exclusion is problematic and in conflict with the Baha'i Faith's teaching on gender equality. However, unlike liberals, they didn't see any way out of the dilemma. This group was more of a mixed bag than any other. Some defended the status quo, differing only from conservatives in that they recognized a problem. Others were unhappily resigned. Some were quite disturbed and in conflict about the issue. It is, perhaps, symptomatic, that half of all posters making moderate responses also made other types of responses as well, demonstrating an inability to satisfactorily resolve the issue.

Liberal/Optimistic responses: 16.7% These posters reject the official stand that the exclusion is permanent and unalterable, largely using historical and contextual arguments to do so. However, these posters demonstrated a willingness to wait until a future UHJ would legislate on the matter, so their posts were not openly critical.

Dissident/Critical: 5.8% These posts openly criticize the exclusion, calling it unjust, hypocritical, unscriptural etc. This is a dramatic break from Baha'i norms, where criticism of the Baha'i administration, and most especially the Universal House of Justice is strongly disapproved of, and can lead sanction or expulsion.

So, there you have it. Forgive me if this is less than fascinating to non-Baha'i readers here; it's just that this is what I've been working on right now, and there was some discussion here about divisions among Baha'is, so I didn't feel like it was terribly off-topic. However, this survey is intended for publication in a non-Baha'i academic journal as part of an article, so responses from a non-Baha'i audience could be useful.

Love, Karen

April 14, 2002
Forum: uk.religion.interfaith

Yep. Sadly, that's the way it is right now. Actually, you can probably disagree with the Pope more easily than you can the UHJ. I don't think the Catholic church has ever excommunicated people over email messages, for example, that express the opinion that women ought to be priests. The UHJ has threatened excommunication (with an attached penalty of shunning), and has simply dropped people from the rolls based upon their opinions expressed in cyberspace.

However, it should be noted that freedom of expression is upheld in Baha'i scripture, and not all Baha'is (e.g. the liberals in my survey) accept this hardline version of Baha'i "unity". I don't, for one. The watchword of the Baha'i Faith is supposed to be "unity in diversty"; it's biggest hope is the "big tent" where a variety of perspectives are allowed. To me, unity means nothing if it can't accomodate diversity -- any religion can claim to be united if it is only limited to people who agree on everything. However, the administration has openly opposed opinions that come from solid scholarship (which they deem "materialistic"), and any sort of grassroots reform. I outline the story in the article I linked to in my first post, if you're interested.

I make a clear separation between the teachings of Baha'u'llah, and current practice. I consider myself an unenrolled Baha'i -- a believing Baha'i that is not a formal member of the administration.

Love, Karen

Forum: uk.religion.interfaith

Dear Y, It would not be accurate to characterize the Baha'i Faith as a cult, which is a word with a very flexible definition anyway. However, there are cultists within it, compared to which X is a pussycat. ( Trust me; I've tangled with some of them.)What is surprising to many about the Faith is that it has a very broad-minded and liberal reputation, and those principles actually do exist in Baha'i scripture, but the reality is that, when it comes to lack of tolerance for dissent and authoritarianism, it's probably on the level of fringe groups like Jehovah's Witnesses. Most Baha'is, however, don't realize this, and seem to treat this sort of behavior as a normal thing that all religions do. However, it would be a definite injustice to compare the Baha'i Faith to dangerous, totalitarian cults. I'm a little leary of the concept of "brainwashing.", although there are various sorts of pressure put on to make sure people tow the line. As I hope my survey pointed out, there is a range of views among Baha'is, but some of these views can get people into trouble. Yes, some Baha'is do have a cult-like attitude towards authority, but this is not the norm.

One big difference between the Baha'i Faith and cults is that there is no stigma attached to leaving the Faith (although some have an attitude that those that leave are in some way spiritually inadequate). In fact, dissenters are actually encouraged and/or forced to leave. Most cults are quite strongly condemning of apostasy, and try to force conformity in ways other than throwing people out, or they make the prospect of leaving so frightening (you'll go to hell etc.) that a person has no choice but to conform. As I pointed out in my article, the big fear in the Baha'i Faith is of the *internal* enemy. Nothing would make most conservative Baha'is happier than if I were to convert to another religion, and stop talking about Baha'i issues on the Internet. But since I've retained my Baha'i identity and belief, that makes me a real baddie.

As far as X's discourse -- he does tend to repetitively use a variety of buzzwords, some of which are typical, others are not. His continuing emphasis on the "democratic" nature of the Baha'i institutions is rather unique to him; I usually don't run into that.

Love, Karen

April 21, 2002
Forum: All Religions are One

How do Baha'is see the fundamental relationship between God and humans? You implied the idea of a personal God was absent but what replaces it?

Dear X,

Before I try to answer that, I think it is important for you to realize that the Baha'i Faith is a young religion. Its theology has never been systemetized, and works of Baha'i theology are rare. When you speak of Christian theology, that's something that brilliant minds have been working on for centuries. When I speak of Baha'i theology, you are mostly looking at a single individual's view of the Writings.

Another factor is that the Baha'i Faith is, outside of Iran and the communities in the Middle East, a religion of converts. And these converts bring their own notions of the Divine with them, something made easier by the religion's lack of emphasis on theology. Lots of Baha'is have a very personal idea of God. In the West, certainly, where Christianity has influenced our religious thinking, the Baha'i attitude towards Baha'u'llah is very like the Christian attitude towards Jesus. In India, which is now the largest national Baha'i community, they call Him Bhagavan Baha -- and He is seen very much like a Hindu Avatar, like Krishna.

So, with those caveats, I'll give you my view of the Baha'i view of the relationship between man and God. The central idea in Baha'i thinking is that of Covenant. It is probably more central to the Baha'i Faith than just about any other religion, except maybe Judaism. God created man because He wanted to be known and loved. Being the Creator is part of God's nature, what He is. In return, man has the capacity, the desire placed within him to know and love God. An individual may not entirely recognize it as that -- but human beings are meaning-seeking creatures. The Baha'i Writings refer to a primal covenant, often referred to by the Sufis, where God says to all human souls "Am I not your Lord?", and man responds "Yea, we bear witness." (There are a lot of Sufi concepts in the Baha'i Writings.)

God, as I've said, is not part of Creation. But all things in Creation have qualities of the Creator. The closest tie between man and God is the Manifestation of God, the perfect Mirror of Divinity. One might think of Him as the perfect vehicle for the divine logos -- except we differ from Christianity in that we do not believe that there was only one human being that held this status. The promise of what Baha'is call the Greater Covenant is that God always has, and always will, send these Messengers to mankind, to show them the way to Him. Baha'u'llah makes no claim of finality or exclusivity for Himself. We establish a relationship with God, through His Manifestation.

That's the best explanation I can come up with, anyway. If anything doesn't make sense, or you have more questions, let me know.

Love, Karen

April 23, 2002
Forum: talisman9

Dear X,

Yeah, I came into the faith having been told that Baha'is don't proselytize. The reality came as a big shock. I always felt guilty about it, after running through everybody I knew, what was I supposed to do, grab people off the street? If I talked about the Faith, smiles would freeze on people's faces, and their eyes would dart around trying to find some excuse to get away. It just never worked. But the pressure can be really bad in a community that is barely viable anyway. If we couldn't pull together a decent community life, it was always our fault for not teaching enough.

But online, I'm generally hanging out with people who are interested in religion -- people who are asking questions and really want to know.

True that... but detachment is really freakin' hard! I used to believe the only fitting end to my spiritual journey was Hell... lots of sins and I really needed to burn...

Well, the whole spiritual path is '"really freakin' hard". :-) It's a bridge "finer than a hair, sharper than a sword, and hotter than fire" and it's suspended over Hell. But it's better than being dead -- which is where you're at if you don't start walking at all. It isn't really Hell anyway -- more like Purgatory, the stuff you have to go through to get where you're going. More than once I've been knocked for a loop and had to start at square one looking again at what I believed. Pretty bad to go through, but good in the long run -- I think we need to be shaken up once in a while. It doesn't do to get too complacent. I'm a little suspicious of people who say they've never had doubts, in fact. If they haven't, then they aren't thinking about anything.

[quote snipped]

What I'm scared of is possibility of being shunned or being compelled, by the threat of spiritual death and everlasting damnation, to shun someone close to me. My supersitious fear of Covenant-Breakers is mostly gone - just going to Beliefnet a couple of times did that for me. :-) I didn't burn my computer when I saw my first Remeyite post, so I can't be all that bad...

No, I'd say there's definitely hope for you. :-) But Baha'u'llah didn't tell us to shun anyone; quite the opposite. He was concerned with breaking down the barriers between people associating with each other "in joy and fragrance." I think of shunning as an unfortunate legacy of what happened with Muhammad 'Ali's rebellion. Later groups of covenant-breakers are mostly people who couldn't cope with major shifts in the faith -- Shoghi Effendi's emphasis on administration, then the ending of the Guardianship. The fear that Baha'is have of them just gives them more significance than is really their due.

This fear of internal enemies even spills over onto people who *haven't* been specifically named covenant-breakers. You might have seen Y's reference to the guy who just had to announce to me that he knew very well how to shun me! If you've been over to Beliefnet, you know the kind of people I'm talking about. Those people do far more harm to the Cause of God than any Remeyite ever thought about doing. So maybe this is heretical, but I don't shun. I just tell people who follow one of the guardian-claimants that I don't want to discuss Guardianship issues, and since that's their main interest, they don't talk to me much. But I think that's a whole lot better than running screaming in the opposite direction, or even worse, following them about crying "Unclean!"

As for your own fears, I don't know what to say. I don't have family in the faith, so the threat of shunning isn't so terrifying to me. So it's a bit too easy for me to say "Don't be afraid." But I think the whole shunning threat is a pretty rotten way of keeping people in line. It was supposed to be a way of protecting the Faith from schism, not a means of imposing orthodoxy.

Love, Karen

April 24, 2002
Forum: talisman9

Hmm... I believe somewhere I saw Y.Z. produce a quote in which Baha'u'llah instructed shunning of those who followed Azal... I don't remember the details, however, nor do I have any idea where the quote is from.

Dear X,

I don't remember the quote; I'd have to see it. Now, IIRC, most of the time when Baha'u'llah uses the term "shun", it is in connection with avoiding people who are immoral, who might tempt us into destructive ways. I don't think that the Faith, in its early days, had the kind of systematic shunning that came about later. After all, Baha'is must have been talking to Babis -- that's where most of the Baha'is came from! And before Baha'u'llah made His claim, most of them saw Azal as the legitimate leader, so a blanket, systematic shunning of "followers of Azal" would have been pretty difficult.

Karen(previously): "I think of shunning as an unfortunate legacy of what happened with Muhammad 'Ali's rebellion." The Master was certainly very serious about the shunning of those whom he labeled as Covenant-Breakers, as was the Guardian. Did they both get it wrong, or was shunning somehow perhaps only right for their time, and is no longer needed?

Yes, that's what I think. Shunning was a means of avoiding foundational schisms in the Faith, during a very precarious situation. But I don't see how it helps anything now. Those few who are convinced by Remeyite arguments aren't going to be deterred by the threat of shunning -- if anything they are likely to take a martyr's attitude of being persecuted for the "truth". They don't have a wide appeal; it's not as if they are any kind of major threat to the Faith. They themselves are splintered into different groups, each following a different claimant to the Guardianship.

But when the threat of shunning can be used against Baha'is who are not attempting to create a schism, but who simply have views that are more liberal than the mainstream, then the whole thing has gone from useless into outright harmful. Indeed, it is destructive of the very unity the Covenant was supposed to preserve.

Love, Karen

April 24, 2002
Forum: Unenrolled Baha'i

Dear X,

The official stand is that the Guardianship still exists, even though there is no living person holding the office. So we have the "ship" part without the "Guardian" part! For all practical purposes, Shoghi Effendi is still the Guardian--his body of writings is supposed to provide the guidance we need. For example, I've told a certain Lady on trb that without a Guardian, we can't even really define the spheres of the Twin Institutions, because that's interpretive. She said "We don't have to; Shoghi Effendi already defined them." Years ago, when I brought this quote up to our ABM, she said "We have *never* been divorced from the Guardianship". That's the official line: flat, loopy denial.

From the official perspective, to set aside Shoghi Effendi's interpretation excluding women from the UHJ would "mutilate" the Cause and divorce the Guardianship from the World Order. That's why we're stuck with "Shoghi dogma" as you call it. So I don't know if you'll get very far with your argument, because in theory primogeniture is still operational. Yes, I know it's dumb, but that's what you're up against.

A lot of fundies were going along with the mutilation but I didn't get to second base.

Interesting -- a lot of people seem unaware of what the official line actually is. When I first became a Baha'i, the UHJ was presented more or less as the successor to Shoghi Effendi -- that's why the discovery of how these institutions were to work together came as a shock. Then, I found out that we are supposed to have this sort of ghost Institution, which has always struck me as ridiculous. No doubt it would strike a lot of people so if it were brought to their attention. But it's going to be hard to sell the idea that *anything* Shoghi Effendi said, interpretation or not, was mistaken or is outdated.

The stronger argument for women on the House is the many, many things 'Abdu'l-Baha said about women's equality and how women would enter all fields of endeavor. And the fact that he himself changed his earlier ruling and allowed women on local and national "Houses of Justice".

There is a nice quote about from SE saying he is only 'human' and not to be compared to the Central Figures. I am sick of Shoghi Dogma that is being developed.

Well, I'm certainly with you on that one. Shoghi Effendi bent over backwards to present his station as not being anything like that of the Central Figures. I don't believe he expected to be Guardian past his own lifetime either. If he had lived a few more years to see the UHJ elected, and the issue of the lack of a legitimate successor was dealt with, I just can't see him accepting the idea that his writings would make up a "Guardianship" and that he would be a perpetual Guardian. This position does sort of make him a de facto Central Figure in Baha'i thinking -- a position he clearly rejected.

Do you know where the recent article is about Islam eventually falling due to its fundamentalism and adopting the BF? It seems the ME people almost never read the English translations and therefore have different orientations and a wealth of Baha'i Writings Westerner's do not. This means that Western BF orientation will fall into nothingness if Islamics adopt the BF. See what I'm getting at?

I've never heard of this article. Where did it appear? I wouldn't count Islam out just yet -- it's got a billion adherents, and it's one of the fastest-growing religions on the planet. I'm sure, however, that people with Muslim background have a different understanding of the Faith -- they can't not. In the West we are, in a way, cut off from a major part of our heritage. I know that through the years I was always running into things in Islam that was promoted among Baha'is as being unique to the Faith -- and it's just because Baha'is in the West don't know much about Islam.

In the future, the Western orientation of the Faith will have to diminish, just because the proportion of Westerners is diminishing. It'll take a while -- after all, Iranians still have a pretty strong influence even though they are a small minority of the world's Baha'is. But we have all these Third World Baha'is whose voices really haven't had an impact yet. But that's where the Faith is growing. I know that Baha'i teaching is pretty thin on the ground in some of these countries, and the converts are poor and uneducated a lot of the time -- but if trends continue, there are eventually going to be other perspectives on the Baha'i Faith that emerge, that are neither Islamic nor Western. That's my long-range prediction anyway.

Love, Karen

April 25, 2002
Forum: All Religions are One

It is undeniable that some religions have been more violent than others. Why?

If you're talking about the world's religions as a whole, I would beg to differ. All the great religions have had periods of violence, and periods of tolerance. Most of them uphold peaceful ideals. Religions get violent when they feel under threat somehow -- when they feel strong and confident, they don't resort to violence usually. That's why sectarian movements often tend to be more violent than larger religions -- they feel they are the only ones holding up the light against the darkness. I took a class recently about apocalyptism in religion, especially American Protestantism. Do you know that the homicide/suicides of cults is frequently related to internal and external stresses that threaten to destroy the group's cohesion? Part of the phenomenon of fundamentalism is the feeling of being threatened by modernity and secularism, which threatens to rob religion of its meaning to some people.

And this can happen in *any* religion. A friend of mine was at a gathering, speaking to a Hindu man, and mentioned it being "a tolerant religion" -- the man laughed at him, because of the Hindu/Muslim violence that has happened. The Baha'i Faith openly forbids resorting to violence to promote the teachings; the death penalty for apostasy, present in Islam, has been specifically abrogated in Baha'i scripture. It is completely against Baha'i teaching to use coercion in any way. Nevertheless, one prominent ex-Baha'i critic of the Faith was actually beaten up by Baha'is for being a "covenant-breaker". The peaceful ideals we hold, and the explicit scriptural prohibition was not enough to stop this when these people felt like their religion was being threatened.

So, I think it is a mistake to blame the violence present in religion on the nature of that religion itself -- it is a human problem, a result of human failing, not more inherent in one religion than another.

Love, Karen

April 25, 2002
Forum: talisman9

Doug Martin recently came to the US and repeatedly said that the notion of individual conscience is a Christian idea that is jettisoned in the Baha'i faith.

Dear X,

I don't know about Doug Martin's talks, but I remembered when I read your post seeing something along these lines before, so I dug it up. In that little series called "The Power of the Covenant" put out by the NSA of Canada this idea is repeated in Part 3: The Face of Opposition, on page 28. It says that the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit allows every individual to claim inspiration and therefore, opens the door to sectarianism. The passage continues:

"The result was to create in the minds of most Christians a vague assumption that, when the individual prays directly to God, he receives guidance through his private conscience. Many times, the promptings of conscience contradict the apparent meaning of Christian scriptures (as in the case of St. Paul's statements on celibacy) or the explicit teachings of a particular church (as with race relationships). Increasingly, however, it is conscience which is regarded as the reliable guide, a guide which has no objective check on it."

Even more striking on p. 30:

"This system of belief has had many admirable results in the individual spiritual life. Its unrestrained influence on social history, however, reveals many limitations. It permitted the growth of the conviction not only that personal conscience is the ultimate authority in life, but also that personal freedom is the highest good. The rise of a democratic political philosophy and democratic processes in the West gave the final blessing to this doctrine of individualism. "Christianity" and "Democracy" in time blended in the public mind as one vaguely defined, but immensely influential popular cult of individualism, embracing people of all religious denominations. Such a cult differs in several important ways from the Teachings of Baha'u'llah".

Can we assume that Martin had something to do with the writing of this?[Note: After writing this post, I discovered that Doug Martin was, indeed, one of the authors of this booklet. khb]

April 28, 2002
Forum: talisman9

Dear X, We are set up for that kind of disillusionment. Long before I came onto the Internet, I felt that it was one of the many sad ironies of the Faith that it is tailor-made for attracting people willing to think outside the box -- after all, it takes quite a leap in our culture to convert to a religion completely outside Christianity. Then it takes those same people and pushes them towards this narrow little mold. It doesn't work.

"We have inherited a dangerous delusion from Christianity that our individual conscience is supreme. This is not a Baha'i belief. In the end, in the context of both our role in the community and our role in the greater world, we must be prepared to sacrifice our personal convictions or opinions. The belief that individual conscience is supreme is equivalent to "taking partners with God" which is abhorrent to the Teachings of the Faith." -Doug Martin

Actually, the attitude that the UHJ speaks with the voice of God is "joining partners" in a major way. Baha'u'llah said clearly said that no one has a share in the Most Great Infallibility -- that has to mean treating "conferred infallibility" as something other than absolute. If someone other than the Manifestation is treated as absolutely infallible, then that sure sounds like a "partner" to me.

This idea that people who believe in the individual conscience are claiming that conscience is infallible is a huge straw man that I run into all the time. Even worse, I run into it, not so much among ordinary conservative posters, but among big wheels like Martin. There's even a UHJ letter that talks about unreliable individual conscience is as a guide. Nobody claims that their own individual conscience is infallible; however, the alternative of handing one's own conscience to someone else, letting someone else define right and wrong for you, is a nightmarish alternative.

Love, Karen

May 2, 2002
Forum: Unenrolled Baha'i

Dear G., Actually, the Baha'i Faith is rather unique in its insistence on equating belief in the Founder with acceptance of all policies that come down from the central authority. It's like saying that unless you believe the Pope is infallible, you don't really believe in Jesus.

It is precisely this that makes the discovery of how wrong things are in the administration such a faith-shaker. Nothing that happened locally, no matter how dysfunctional things were, could have made me send in my resignation letter. I'd finally gone inactive, our of sheer frustration, about six months before I resigned. But discovering that upper echelons could act in such a un-Baha'i fashion just blew me totally out of the water. But in the end, I couldn't walk away from Baha'u'llah, so I had to grapple with what it meant to be a Baha'i without the administration. It was really a struggle, and I still have my moments sometimes, but in another way it's quite liberating -- nothing they can do, now, can take Baha'u'llah away from me.

Love, Karen

May 4, 2002
Forum: Unenrolled Baha'i

Dear X and everybody, I don't think most people who embrace the Faith initially know much about infallibility as it is popularly seen in the Baha'i community. It's one of those things they get "deepened" into later. For me, as a new believer, I was so ga-ga over Baha'u'llah that the implications of a distant institution being infallible somehow didn't even really register.

I've talked about how I see infallibility before, but I'm not sure if I have on this forum, so I'll do it again. As Juan mentioned, the Arabic word for infallibility means "protected". If I understand correctly from what he and other Arabists have said, this is a *moral* quality, and doesn't have anything to do with being factually inerrant. So if, for instance, 'Abdu'l-Baha said something that is not scientifically or historically accurate, it is not really necessary to turn all kinds of logical flip-flops in order to make him be correct. That he is incorrect is such matters does not detract at all from his "infallibility".

Secondly, Baha'u'llah was very clear that no one has a share in the Most Great Infallibility. Everybody other than the Manifestation has the lesser sort that is called "conferred" or "acquired" infallibility. Now, fundamentalists tend to treat infallibility as an absolute, sometimes actually saying "You can't be more or less infallible." That leaves virtually no difference between the essential infallibility of the Manifestation and the conferred infallibility of the authorized interpreters -- except as a kind of theoretical thing, a sort of lip-service given to the difference in station between them. But as a practical reality, it puts the statements of the authorized interpreters and the House of Justice on pretty much the same plane, and I think that's wrong. To me, the only thing that makes sense is that "infallibility", that "protectedness" is limited, compared to that of the Manifestation.

It is also worth noting that 'Abdu'l-Baha explained "acquired infallibility" as being a quality of "every holy soul" i.e. you don't have to be a person named in scripture as being the Faith's authorized interpreter in order to be "protected from error". It is one of the divine qualities that souls can acquire.

When it comes to the "infallibility" of the Guardian and the House of Justice, I think that it is limited to their respective spheres -- interpretation for the Guardianship, and legislation for the House of Justice. There's a whole lot of things that Shoghi Effendi said that wasn't really interpretation. And there's almost nothing that the UHJ has ever done that fits in the sphere of legislation. And even in those areas, there's lots of questions: Are a Guardian's interpretations meant to stand beyond his lifetime? How can we draw the line between interpretation and legislation without an authorized interpreter? Anyway, I think it's pretty evident that the House of Justice is not "error-free" in the sense most Baha'is believe it is.

Love, Karen

May 7, 2002
Forum: Unenrolled Baha'i

Dear X,

Well, I think the vast majority of disillusioned Baha'is don't get that way because of some big, dramatic event. It happens because all these little things collectively start gradually getting to you, like a dripping faucet. Then something snaps. You feel like if you have to endure one more pointless meeting, or one more inane letter you'll scream or barf or something. Or you hear the phrase "entry by troops" and you realize you don't believe it's going to happen anymore. For me, it was standing on a front porch where there was supposed to be children's classes, but nobody was home. Something snapped; I finally didn't give a damn anymore. I wasn't going to try anymore. So I went inactive.

And part of what I felt when I found out the coercive tactics used to suppress information and opinions was that "I put up with this bullshit for years, and those people upstairs are just a bunch of big liars and the whole system is a farce." I felt ripped-off.

[short snip] Also, I appreciate reading a Ridvan letter or feast letter or a UHJ message every now and then in a posting, since I don't receive any Baha'i news at all (because they don't know where I am at present). I share your sense of gloat in the general malaise gripping Baha'i at present, not because I (or you) want to see the movement fail, but because we believe the status quo has to bottom out before a reawakening and a renewal of the movement can begin.

Yes, I think it is healthy for people to react with disgust to things that are disgusting. The problem is we lose them, instead of them being a force for change. You know, people just don't expect to work that hard at being in a religion. It's supposed to be a comfort, not a great big headache. I just hope there's enough Baha'is who recognize the problems, but are willing to hang in there. It's hard. I look at what's happening locally, and wonder sometimes if I could have made a difference if I'd stayed in, knowing what I know now. Probably not; I'd have just got myself in trouble. Certainly with the stuff I've done on the Internet, I'm pretty certain that if I were on the rolls, I'd be next in line to be booted off them. I don't know if you're on Talisman, but we've just had word today of another Baha'i liberal that's having the screws put on him.

These stories about the travails of communities and LSA's bring back so many feelings that were suppressed when I participated in the AO, thinking that the endeavor, though depressing and exhausting, would be rewarded from On High, or at least validated by a steadily increasing Baha'i influence on the world scene. Uh, no, I don't think so. Not then, not now, and not in my lifetime. Of course,God's Plan doesn't end with my earthly existence. So there's probably still hope down the generational line.

Well, God's plan is God's business, I figure. Each of us individually has to contribute what we have in the time we have, and hope for the best.

Love, Karen

May 21, 2002
Forum: Zuhur19

>There was a discussion back on talisman1 initiated by research Ahang >Rabbani was undertaking at the time. You might want to look in the >archives on Juan's site. To make a long story short, the Bab saw both >Quddus and Tahirih as practically co-equal manifestations. > >Nima Dear X,

Y and I have been talking about this a bit off-list, which may very well be the blind leading the blind, since so little of the Bab's Writings are available in English. But I ran into a passage in the Selections from the Writings of the Bab, when the Qurratu'l-Ayn addressed in the Qayyum'u'l-Asma is pictured in clearly feminine terms. Now, I know the official explanation is that this title refers to the Bab Himself, and that the phrase is actually masculine in the original Arabic. But on p.52-53, Qurratu'l-Ayn is told to "deliver the summons" to "the handmaids among Thy kindred"; is called "The Mother of the Remembrance", and called upon to "recognize the station of Thy Son", and furthermore says that this figure has been "immortalized" as "the Mother of the Faithful".

Either we've got some major gender ambiguity going on here (which is possible; it's in Baha'u'llah's Writings as well), or the Bab is addressing a female figure other than Himself, with the name of Qurratu'l-Ayn.

So, am I onto something here, or am I way off base?

Love, Karen

May 21, 2002
Forum: Zuhur19

I agree. If we can make Baha'u'llah the Most Great Beauty and the Maid of Heaven, there's no reason we can't make the Bab into the Solace of Mine Eyes. If the two pictures we have of Him are authentic, He is definitely foxy in a traditional, Middle Eastern sense.

Well, maybe. After all, elsewhere the Bab says "I am the Maid of Heaven begotten by the spirit of Baha". A friend of mine was firmly convinced that Baha'u'llah's houri was really the Bab. (But he's never seen the Houri tablets.)

However, the Bab also just happens to have a prominent female disciple, with the name of Qurratu'l-Ayn, who carried considerable spiritual charisma of her own, to the point that some Babis believed she was a Manifestation. The official story is that she is not being addressed in the Qayyum'u'l-Asma, but these days I think it's good to question official stories. :-)

Love, Karen

May 21, 2002
Forum: Zuhur19

But my conclusion stands, drawn from almost two score as a Western Baha'i, that I don't understand 19th century Persian/Baha'i culture at all. And most of the rest of us don't either.

Dear X,

It's that lack of understanding that makes me hesitate to jump to absolute conclusions. I picked up from somewhere that this whole chapter in the QA is called "The Surah of the Houri" -- and we don't have the whole thing in English. I don't know about you, Cal, but I don't even know what all this stuff means yet, much less do I feel comfortable saying anything absolutely about it.

I spent a little time last night looking up "Qurratu'l-Ayn" statements in the QA, and there aren't any absolute answers there, either, at least among the passages that are available in English. What I don't know is why they're so darn sure that it *doesn't* refer to Tahirih.

Love, Karen

May 22, 2002
Forum: Zuhur19

[snip]

Karen, Tahirih was a manifestation...so were heaps of people claiming to be getting divine messages at that time....S/HWGWMM - It was the new Spirit of the Age. Love, Karen

May 25, 2002
Forum: Zuhur19

Hi Karen, the reply you got from the US NSA sounds like a badly written release from a second-rate politician's PR office. It is both ludicrous and tragic. There's one question I'd like to ask you and the other Zuhuristas: why would it have been so wrong if A Modest Proposal had been circulated among the Baha'is?

Dear X,

That's the thing -- they changed the rules. There is nothing in the Writings or even Shoghi Effendi that prevents circulation of this kind to delegates.

Were there any precedents?

Yes. In the 1960s a paper concerning race relations was circulated among the delegates at Convention.

Why would it be wrong for the believers to petition the NSA or the UHJ on any matter? Wasn't the Huquq introduced after some American Baha'is petitioned for it?

Yes, but I remember Y (I think) telling a story about how the whole thing was rather staged. Of course, it's a different thing when Baha'is are saying "Please, please let us pay you more money" and when Baha'is are saying "Maybe we should establish term limits". I guess you're only supposed to petition them to do things they want to do anyway.

I tend to think that what the authorities really objected to was the content of A Modest Proposal, but they could not say that aloud, and had to make up an excuse. Pretending to object to the "method", they had an easy escape from looking into the content (and, most of all, they hoped to have nobody else look into the content).

Yes, the official stance is that the content was irrelevant, but that's pretty hard to believe. However, I think even more than the content, it was that the authors were members of the "LA group" and were already suspect. If the *right* people, with the *right* ideas had done exactly the same thing, they wouldn't have gotten into trouble. If you are an insider, you don't get accused of being "partisan".

Besides all of that, the charge that *A Modest Proposal* had been circulated is completely bogus. The idea was discussed, but it didn't happen. The only delegates who saw it were the two from LA.. However, I'm not sure what they mean by "distributed". They could be sticking to the story that it was circulated to the delegates, but also the UHJ claimed that, because the article was submitted with seven co-authors, that this was equivalent to "circulating a petition". Also, why are they saying that the "question of review was raised" only *after* this supposed circulation took place? I mean, all of Dialogue's articles went through review, so what the hell are they talking about? They, of course, did not at all address the question of why it was necessary to publicly denounce this article and its authors. As "uninformed" as I am, I'd sure like them to explain *that* in terms of "Baha'i principles"!

Love, Karen

May 27, 2002
Forum: Zuhur19

Yes, it's amazing that a Faith that prescribes consultation on the most futile things should stop people from circulating documents over weighty matters.

Dear X, I guess the theory goes that there shouldn't be any public community discourse -- it's all supposed to be within the confines of proper channels. Of course, those channels also allow anybody who wants anything to be changed to be isolated and ignored. You could have a thousand Baha'is bring up the same issue at Feast, or write the Institutions, and they could all be given little pat answers and told to "Shoo!" That's probably why they fear anything that looks like a group or faction -- they'd actually have to pay attention.

I dug out my copy of "Principles of Baha'i Administration" -- brushing off the cobwebs, and blowing away the dust -- since looking at administrative stuff was never my favorite pass-time, even while I was enrolled. I was trying to find where this very restrictive view of "going through channels" came from. I mean, Shoghi Effendi said that individuals have the right to set up independent Baha'i magazines, calling such an effort "praiseworthy" -- presumably such publications would address community issues outside "channels". Now the whole "channel" thing has been elevated to a "fundamental Baha'i principle".

I've never been to Convention (thank God), but in my experience people at large meetings cannot be expected to make sound decisions on delicate matters, unless they have had the time to get informed, think it over, ask questions, hear what others have to say etc. That cannot be done in one day.

Well, National Convention is better than Unit Convention. I only went that once, of course, but things were very well orchestrated, and there was this cheerleading atmosphere. It would be tough to bring up a "delicate" matter. Somebody did mention, while I was back there, how difficult it is to change anything, when delegates don't even know who to vote for, and this person wanted to see who else was getting enough votes to be "in the running". I suspect this question comes up a lot, because it was handled very deftly. The issue was put at the end of the agenda, and by time we got there the whole mood of the place had changed. There had been this earlier suggestion that we all spend time upstairs, praying for entry by troops, so by time the issue of perpetual incumbancy came up Henderson got up there and said "Friends, do we really want to talk about this, or do we want to go upstairs and pray for entry by troops in this country!" Well, hell, by that time everybody was all primed for that, and somehow the voting issue seemed sort of mundane and unimportant, so we all flocked upstairs, and the issue was dropped. I don't know how that change of mood happened exactly, but Henderson's a guy who knows how to work a crowd.

Karen(previously): Yes. In the 1960s a paper concerning race relations was circulated among the delegates at Convention.

What happened to it and the people who had proposed it?

One of them got elected to the UHJ! See what I mean about the *right* people with the *right* ideas?

Karen(previously): Besides all of that, the charge that *A Modest Proposal* had been circulated is completely bogus. The idea was discussed, but it didn't happen.

Yes, I know. I did not mean to say that it WAS circulated. What I meant was: "and what if it had been?", but I know it was NOT. That's one of the reasons why the NSA did not answer your questions. The more I think about it, the more I think their reference to "circulation" is to the fact that there were co-signers. Look at what they said: "the question of review was raised only after the statement had already been circulated to Baha'is". This can't possibly be referring to the delegates at Convention, because the paper was already in the review process by then. The whole statement here is confusing, because all of Dialogue's article's passed through review -- it wasn't imposed just on that one article. These people are incapable of expressing themselves clearly -- it's just amazing. They need to hire themselves a good writer.

Love, Karen

June 19, 2002
Forum: Unenrolled Baha'i

But what I wanted to mention was a very good reliable Baha'i friend told me the other day that seminars are to be held for the Baha'is to tell them how they should deal with information on the internet. I have no idea how they think they can control a person's private moments but they are going to try.

Dear X,

I don't know what they are doing these days, but I know that in 1997 they were telling Baha'is to stay off the Internet completely. A friend of mine did a brief stint as an Assistant, and he was told this at the training. They seem to have backed off some of these extreme statements -- and this is an impossible thing to control anyway. But it would not surprise me that they are still trying to inoculate people against the ideas and information they find out here.

One thing they have already been told is that if they happen to run into a CB in a chat room they don't have to leave but MUST NOT engage in any conversation with said person. An impossible task they have set for themselves I should think. Have any of you heard of this?

I've heard that the "official" stance exactly what you said. In fact, if a seeker is present, they are definitely *not* supposed to leave, but address only the seeker and not the CB. But it is impossible. Some people are so emotional about covenant-breakers, and so keen to "protect" the Faith that they end up doing more harm than good. Over on Beliefnet, I saw a seeker driven straight *toward* the Remeyites, because of the hysterical reaction of fundamentalists over there. Then, she disappeared, probably figuring Baha'is weren't people she wanted to be around.

You are right, it is impossible to avoid covenant-breakers in cyberspace, unless you stick to lists that require you give your Baha'i i.d. number to get on it. Even if you exclude known CBs, they can always hang around under a pseudonym. My own policy is to ban discussion concerning claimants to the Guardianship; it's off-topic for a list like this anyway. On sites that are run by non-Baha'is, you can't exclude them at all. After you are in cyberspace for a while, you discover they don't really have horns and hooves; in fact, most aren't even very interesting. If you don't want to get tangled up in conversation with a CB, you just don't respond. Interestingly enough, the people who seem to have the toughest time staying away from them are the protection-minded types I mentioned before. They can't seem to resist saying "Hey, look over here! Yoo-hoo, I'm shunning you!" :-) Or they have to make big cautionary statements to anyone who might be passing by that these folks aren't really Baha'is, or to warn Baha'is not to talk to these people. This kind of behavior makes Baha'is look really bad.

They can't put the genie back in the bottle -- Baha'is of all kinds are going to be out here, saying their piece. Personally, I think the openness out here is healthier -- CBs, negativity, and all. It sure beats running scared and being afraid of ideas.

Love, Karen

June 22, 2002
Forum: Unenrolled Baha'i

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts on this. Looking back, I find myself wondering why I didn't take the whole CB thing as a red flag. But I didn't. I was told about them as a starry-eyed new believer, but it was something so remote, and CBs were presented as being so unreasonable and perverse that somehow it didn't click what it all really meant.

However, I always was uncomfortable with the notion that they were things I wasn't supposed to read, and when I had the opportunity, I read CB literature. I never ran into an actual person who had been named a covenant-breaker until I came into cyberspace -- and when it comes down to treating another human being badly, without even knowing them, I just didn't have the heart to do it. I rarely talk to them because I'm not interested in getting into extensive arguments about the Guardianship, not because I fear some kind of contamination.

The saddest thing of all is that this whole fear of covenant-breakers turns what Baha'u'llah tried to do on its head. There wasn't supposed to be a category of "unclean" people; He said that whatever leads us all to shun one another had been abolished. It's just the way Baha'i history played out. Love, Karen

When Principle and Authority Collide: Baha'i Responses to the Exclusion of Women from the Universal House of Justice

Published as: Karen Bacquet,"When Principle and Authority Collide: Baha'i Responses to the Exclusion of Women from the Universal House of Justice" Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions Volume 9, Number 4, May 2006:34-52 ©2006 by the Regents of the University of California. COPYING AND PERMISSIONS NOTICE: Authorization to copy this content beyond fair use (as specified in Sections 107 and 108 of the U. S. Copyright Law) for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by the University of California Press for libraries and other users, provided that they are registered with and pay the specified fee via Rightslink® on CaliberTM, http://caliber.ucpress.net or directly with the Copyright Clearance Center, http://www.copyright.com/.

Abstract: The Baha’i Faith regards the equality of men and women as one of its fundamental tenets, yet excludes women from service on its international governing body, the Universal House of Justice, based on what are believed to be infallible interpretations of Baha’i scripture. This article outlines how the exclusion developed, and describes challenges from liberal Baha’i scholars, as well as the response to these challenges from the administration and rank-and-file adherents. It demonstrates that, when confronted with a contradiction between a basic principle upheld by religious teaching and loyalty to authority, the Baha’i administration and the majority of adherents have chosen the latter.

The Baha’i Faith is well-known for including several liberal social principles as part of its basic religious outlook, including gender equality. Not only is the equality of men and women explicitly advocated in Baha’i scripture, it is also commonly referred to in public statements by Baha’i institutions, is a frequent subject of study by Baha’i scholars, and a subject of concern in ordinary consultation in local Baha’i communities. The education and advancement of women is a common target for social service projects in the developing world.[1] Women vote in Baha’i elections, and serve in powerful positions at all levels of the administration.

However, it should also be remembered that the Baha’i Faith is a religion standing squarely within the Abrahamic tradition, based upon texts that are believed to be a revelation from God. While these scriptures promote women’s equality in a way quite remarkable for a religion that began in nineteenth-century Iran as a messianic movement within Shi‘ih Islam, that equality is not absolute. Men and women are occasionally treated differently in Baha’i law, either because of physical differences or based on the assumption of a patriarchal family structure.

While Baha’is profess a strong commitment to the advancement of women, the religion takes a strongly quietist stance on political activity, which discourages participation in secular women’s movements. Baha’i writers on the subject have noted that Baha’i discussions of gender issues tend to lag behind feminist explorations, and can seem “naive, . . . if not childish” by comparison. [2] Moreover, Baha’is tend to have conservative views on sexual morality, since Baha’i law limits sexual expression to heterosexual marriage, and generally disapprove of abortion, although they avoid the political “pro-life” label.

The importance of women’s equality is also often framed in terms of the millennialist belief that in the new era inaugurated by the Baha’i revelation, stereotypically “feminine” qualities, such as compassion and nurturing, will be more highly valued, and the advancement of women is thought to be directly tied to the Baha’i hope for world peace.[3]

The most glaring inconsistency between the broader principle of gender equality and Baha’i practice is that women are not allowed to serve on the religion’s highest governing body, the Universal House of Justice (UHJ), which is elected every five years and has its seat in Haifa, Israel. Women are among the electors, which consist of the world’s National Spiritual Assemblies (NSAs), the elected bodies that govern the affairs of Baha’i communities in individual countries, but they are not considered eligible for election themselves, based on the authoritative interpretations of Baha’i scripture.

This exclusion tends to be downplayed in public presentations, so that it is not uncommon for converts to discover it only after joining the community. Indeed it is fairly typical for Baha’is to deny that the exclusion is even relevant to their religion’s stand on gender equality. However, as became very evident with the expansion of the Internet in the 1990s, not all adherents are quite so sanguine concerning this conflict between principle and practice in their religion.

The issue as to whether or not the exclusion of women from service on the UHJ can be changed, or is an unalterable feature of Baha’i governance was a perennial topic of debate throughout the 1990s and a touchstone issue dividing liberals from conservatives in the clashes over scriptural interpretation raging in Baha’i cyberspace. Indeed, because it has been debated over a period of years, by a wide variety of posters, it becomes a useful lens through which this conflict can be examined. It touches on concerns about authority within the religion and challenges presented to popular Baha’i beliefs from the academic examination of its history.

When faced with the contradiction inherent in believing in gender equality as an article of faith while excluding women from its highest governing body, the majority of adherents have chosen loyalty to authority over adherence to the broader principle. Liberal attempts to reconcile the two through the examination of how the exclusion evolved have been rejected, and are viewed as an attempt to undermine the religion itself. The most articulate proponents for women’s full equality have been sanctioned, or threatened with sanctions in an effort to marginalize or stigmatize discussion about the possibility of reform. While official statements from the administration actively promote the ideal of equality in the world at large, Baha’i women themselves are not only excluded from the top of the hierarchy, but are also expected to remain content with the exclusion.

Fundamentalism and Liberalism in the Baha’i Community

The mix of progressive and authoritarian teaching in Baha’i scripture has resulted in a parallel tension between Baha’is who emphasize one aspect over the other since the earliest days of the Baha’i Faith in the West. Peter Smith notes divisions between those who saw the Baha’i Faith as an inclusive movement that embodied “the spirit of the age”, and those who took a more authoritarian attitude on doctrine, in the first decade of the twentieth century. The early liberals were lukewarm towards, and at times openly opposed, the development of Baha’i administration, and there were some short-lived attempts, such as Ahmad Sohrab’s New History Society in the 1930s, to create a more inclusive, less structured alternatives to the Baha’i mainstream.[4]

Several authors have commented on fundamentalist tendencies in the Baha’i community, marked by concern with doctrinal conformity and submission to a divinely-guided, infallible leadership as a key part of religious identity.[5] Baha’i liberalism has not yet been as well described, but its features include a greater tolerance for diversity of thought and a less deferential attitude towards religious authority, with a Baha’i identity more strongly rooted in the progressive teachings of the religion. In neither case is there a self-identified faction, but instead liberalism and fundamentalism should be thought of as a collection of definable attitudes and viewpoints. Baha’is tend to avoid, or even disparage, the use of terms like “liberal” or “conservative” to describe these perspectives, seeing them as divisive. However, liberal intellectual writers and publishers, who by the late 1980s were regarded as a distinct dissident group by the administration, have received an enthusiastic response from some Baha’is, while being vigorously attacked by others, indicating some differences in mentality among adherents.

There has been no serious attempt, in the current generation, to create an alternative organization, or even a cohesive liberal movement, with most efforts focused simply on the circulation of ideas. Baha’i liberals, in common with their more conservative co-religionists, have a strong aversion for the creation of a schism in the religion. When confronted by disapproving Baha’i officials, they have either ceased, or greatly moderated, the expression of their views, or have resigned their membership in the Baha’i Faith. Some of those who resigned have maintained their personal faith as unenrolled Baha’is. [6]

Significant areas of tension, besides women’s exclusion from the UHJ, include the scope and meaning of infallibility when applied to Baha’i authorities, scriptural literalism opposed to academic methods when applied to Baha’i history and scripture, Baha’i teachings on church and state, freedom of expression and its limits within the Faith, and tolerance of homosexuality in the community.

Historical Context for Women’s Exclusion

The Baha’i Faith was founded in the nineteenth century by the Iranian nobleman, Mirza Husayn ‘Ali Baha’u’llah (1817-1892). He had been part of the millenarian Babi movement, established by Siyyid ‘Ali Muhammad (1819-1850), known in the West as the Bab, meaning “gate”. This young merchant from the southern Persian city of Shiraz proclaimed himself the Qa’im, the messianic figure expected by Shi‘ih Islam. In 1850, the Bab was executed and thousands of his followers were massacred, driving the remainder of his followers underground. Baha’u’llah was imprisoned, then sent into exile, where he claimed to be the “Manifestation of God” promised to appear after the Bab, and transformed the radical sect into a religion based on principles of racial and religious tolerance and peace.

In his will, Baha’u’llah appointed his eldest surviving son, ‘Abdu’l-Baha (1892-1921) as the leader of the Faith and authorized interpreter of his writings. In turn, ‘Abdu’l-Baha appointed his eldest grandson Shoghi Effendi Rabbani (1921-1957) as Guardian, a hereditary position granted executive power and the authority to interpret scripture. Since he died childless and without appointing a successor, no further authorized interpretations are possible, and it is largely his vision that has shaped the Baha’i Faith as we know it today. While Baha’u’llah’s writings provide for the religion to be governed by consultative bodies he called “Houses of Justice”, the organization of the administration took place over a long period of time, most markedly during Shoghi Effendi’s ministry, and the Universal House of Justice was not elected until 1963.

While only the writings of Baha’u’llah are considered to be divine revelation, the interpretations of his successors ‘Abdu’l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi, while theoretically holding a different “station”, are given virtually equal weight as far as Baha’i belief and practice are concerned. This position that each of these successors held as infallible interpreters is part of the doctrine that Baha’is call “the Covenant”. That is, the belief that turning to, and accepting the authority of the successive heads of their religion is an essential element in maintaining its unity, and opposing that authority, or turning to an alternative, is the worst spiritual crime that a Baha’i can commit, a violation that can be punished with excommunication and shunning.[7] Most Baha’is also believe that the UHJ is divinely guided in its decisions, so that open criticism or opposition to any policy is seen as impermissible, and can provoke extremely hostile reactions.

The interpretations of Baha’i scripture that disallow women’s service on the Universal House of Justice are based upon Baha’u’llah’s use of the Arabic word rijal, meaning “men”, to describe its membership. However, this term is not quite as clear as it might first appear, since in Persian usage, the word can also be used to refer to notables or prominent people, regardless of gender.[8]

Another aspect is that Baha’u’llah refers to the members of the plural “Houses of Justice”, i.e. the local governing bodies, as rijal as well, and current Baha’i practice is that women are eligible to serve on them. In fact, Baha’u’llah specifically states that in this age “the maidservants of God are accounted as men”, with rijal being the term used there. He calls upon his female followers to “arise in a masculine way” to serve his religion, essentially equating masculinity with such qualities of character as courage, steadfastness, and knowledge. [9] In any case, Baha’u’llah makes no direct command to limit the membership of the Houses of Justice to men, only, at most, an assumption that members would be men. In the nineteenth century Middle East there were very few educated women who would be prepared for service on such a body, and mixed-gender meetings would have been considered immoral. In fact, women in Iran were not given permission to serve on local and national spiritual assemblies until 1954, forty years later than their Western counterparts.

When the Baha’i Faith became established in the U.S. in the 1890s, women served in various offices, but on the instructions of Persian teachers sent by ‘Abdu’l-Baha, the elected governing councils of the larger Baha’i communities became exclusive to men, and women formed their own separate councils and committees. Many Baha’i women were unhappy about this situation, and there was a good deal of tension between these segregated bodies.[10]

In 1902, Corinne True, one of the most prominent of these women, wrote to ‘Abdu’l-Baha, asking him to allow women to serve on the governing board in Chicago. The answer she received remains the key to today’s practice:

Know thou, O handmaid, that in the sight of Baha, women are accounted the same as men, and God hath created all humankind in His own image, and after His own likeness. That is, men and women alike are the revealers of His names and attributes, and from the spiritual viewpoint there is no difference between them. Whosoever draweth nearer to God, that one is the most favoured, whether man or woman. How many a handmaid, ardent and devoted, hath, within the sheltering shade of Baha, proved superior to the men, and surpassed the famous of the earth.

The House of Justice, however, according to the explicit text of the Law of God, is confined to men; this for a wisdom of the Lord God’s, which will erelong be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon.

As to you, O ye other handmaids who are enamoured of the heavenly fragrances, arrange ye holy gatherings, and found ye Spiritual Assemblies, for these are the basis for spreading the sweet savours of God, exalting His Word, uplifting the lamp of His grace, promulgating His religion and promoting His Teachings, and what bounty is there greater than this? [11]

Part of the confusion here is that Baha’i terminology for their administrative bodies was still in flux. While “House of Justice” (in Arabic, baytu’l-‘adl) is the term Baha’u’llah used, current Baha’i practice is to name both national and local councils “Spiritual Assemblies”, with “House of Justice” reserved for the internationally-elected center in Haifa. However, in the early American community, elected bodies bore a variety of names like “Board of Counsel” and “House of Spirituality”, and the scriptural term “House of Justice” was avoided, on ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s instructions, for fear it would seem like the Baha’i bodies were claiming governmental authority. Until 1911, “spiritual assembly” could mean virtually any Baha’i gathering, and it was common to refer to the entire local community as an “assembly”. [12] But, for present-day Baha’is, most of whom are unaware of the historical context, ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s letter appears to prohibit the service of women on the Universal House of Justice, and it is generally quoted as a justification for the exclusion.

Corinne True continued to press the issue, and in 1909 received another letter from ‘Abdu’l-Baha’, telling her that women could serve in all capacities except the House, using the Arabic term baytu’l-‘adl-i-‘umumi. The Baha’i administration argues that this is a technical term referring specifically to the Universal House of Justice, and it is used as such in ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s Will and Testament[13], which describes its responsibilities and conditions for its election. However, some Baha’i scholars have pointed out that ‘umumi can also mean “general”, and that the immediate issue concerning Corinne True and the American Baha’i community was the membership of the local elected councils, not a theoretical international institution which did not then exist, and would not be elected for another fifty years. In fact, this second letter names existing committees that ‘Abdu’l-Baha reminds True that women are encouraged to serve on, even if excluded from the “House of Justice.” However, True herself interpreted the letter as applying to only the international body, and again began lobbying for women to be elected, but the Chicago House was reluctant to accept her interpretation or change the policy.[14] The matter was finally resolved during ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s visit to America in 1912, when he called for a mixed-gender council to be elected in Chicago. Baha’i historians continue to debate whether or not this was when he overturned his earlier ruling, or whether he was simply confirming what he said in the 1909 letter, which they believe excluded women from the UHJ only. The official stance of the Baha’i administration is that this second letter simply clarified the 1902 letter, and that neither one were intended to apply to then-termed House of Spirituality in Chicago, but to the international body that would be created in the future. [15]

A few posters have suggested that ‘Abdu’l-Baha, rather than changing his interpretation of the text, he may have decided that these elected committees did not qualify as “Houses of Justice”, and, in fact, he wrote several letters that explicitly distinguish between spiritual assemblies and the body called for in Baha’i scripture, saying that it was not the time to elect the latter. [16] However, ‘Abdu’l-Baha was making this distinction as early as 1901, long before his decision to allow women to be elected, so this is unlikely to have been a factor in his changed ruling. The issue is still ambiguous, however, since he initially referred to the Chicago board as a House of Justice, and Shoghi Effendi would later interpret ‘Abdu’l-Baha as treating the two bodies as “to all intents and purposes, identical”.[17]

‘Abdu’l-Baha seems to have taken a flexible approach to the matter, rather than trying to establish a uniform practice. For example, in 1911, he advised the Kenosha, Wisconsin community to resolve the friction between men and women by electing separate assemblies for each. Later that same year, he told the New York community to expand the membership of its board to twenty-seven and women were elected to it. Some of the smaller communities had never had an all-male board, or did without an elected committee altogether. [18]

The final known reference ‘Abdu’l-Baha makes to the issue is a letter written in Paris in 1913, which enthusiastically describes the “extraordinary privileges” that women will eventually attain to, including their entry into politics, at the same time saying that Baha’u’llah limits the membership of the House of Justice to men.[19] In addition, no Persian original of this letter is available, so there is no way to verify the accuracy of the translation. Even the name of the recipient is unknown.[20]

The position of Shoghi Effendi, however, is clearer. Four separate letters written on his behalf refer to the 1902 letter, interpreting ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s stance as allowing women on all elected and appointive institutions except the Universal House of Justice, and it is these statements that have made the practice normative in the Baha’i community. None of these letters written by his secretaries refer to either the 1909 or 1913 letters, but only to the promise in the 1902 letter that the reason for the exclusion would become “clear as the noonday sun.” [21] Many Baha’is, believing both interpreters to be divinely guided, are disquieted by the idea that Shoghi Effendi may have misinterpreted his grandfather’s intentions, or even that ‘Abdu’l-Baha may have changed his mind between the writing of his letters to Corrine True and his visit to the U.S.

Liberal Challenges and Administrative Responses

In the early 1970s the Baha’i community experienced a large influx of young converts in Western communities, most particularly in the U.S., some of whom were intellectually inclined and chose courses of study related to the Baha’i Faith. This created a class of Baha’i scholars that were trained in more critical methods of analyzing scripture and historical context, which have led them to conclusions that challenge both administrative policies and popular beliefs current in Baha’i culture. Many of them, in common with their non-Baha’i “Baby Boom” peers, have a keen interest in social issues, including gender equality.

At the 1988 Baha’i Studies conference in New Zealand, a group of these young intellectuals presented a paper titled “The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha’i Faith” which argues that . . .since this instruction of the Guardian [that is, the exclusion] is tied so closely to the meaning of the one Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-Baha which promises that the wisdom of the exclusion of women will become manifest in the future, and since it is known that the meaning of the Tablet was that women should be excluded only temporarily from the Chicago House, the assumption that women will be permanently excluded from the current Universal House of Justice may be a faulty one. A temporary exclusion may be intended. [22]

Many of the authors of the “Service of Women” paper were associated with the controversial and short-lived magazine dialogue, which shut down that same year in response to the administration’s hostility. [23] The UHJ wrote a letter to the New Zealand NSA officially ruling that the exclusion of women cannot be overturned and that “the ineligibility of women for membership of the Universal House of Justice does not constitute evidence of the superiority of men over women.” [24] The paper was not published until the rise of the Internet in the 1990s, where it, or the ideas behind it, have had a measurable impact on the attitudes of many Baha’i participants in cyberspace forums. As we shall see, a significant minority are uncomfortable with the exclusion, so at variance with their ideals of gender equality, and some can be readily persuaded to the view that it can be overturned, once they are exposed to it.

The rise of the Internet in the 1990s brought Baha’is together to discuss issues in a more direct way than had ever been possible in a print culture that was tightly controlled by the administration. [25] The issue of women’s exclusion from service on the UHJ rapidly became a favorite topic of discussion. Some of the original authors of the “Service of Women” paper were participants on the academic email list, Talisman@indiana.edu, and spirited arguments broke out over what ‘Abdu’l-Baha intended by his letters on the subject.[26] In 1996, six of Talisman’s prominent posters were investigated concerning the opinions they were expressing on the Internet, and the list closed down. While there have been successor lists to the original Talisman, which have kept its intellectual and liberal tone, four of the posters investigated resigned their membership in the Baha’i Faith, and some of the most active posters dropped out of cyberspace.[27]

It should be noted that no institutional action against Baha’i liberals has been solely on the basis of the controversy over women’s exclusion, but rather it should be seen as one of a cluster of issues which are seen by the administration as threatening. In a 1999 letter referring to the crackdown and its aftermath, the UHJ cited the liberal viewpoint on women’s exclusion, along with others that were being most cogently presented on Talisman, as being features of a “campaign of internal opposition to the Teachings” taking place on the Internet:

The effort, rather, has been to sow the seeds of doubt among believers about the Faith's teachings and institutions by appealing to unexamined prejudices that Baha'is may have unconsciously absorbed from non-Baha’i society. In defiance of the clear interpretation of ‘Abdu’l-Baha and the Guardian, for example, Baha'u'llah's limiting of membership on the Universal House of Justice to men is misrepresented as merely a “temporary measure” subject to eventual revision if sufficient pressure is brought to bear.[28]

There is no evidence to support the House’s belief that Baha’i liberals, no matter how openly critical in online discussions, are engaged in any sort of campaign to “pressure” the institutions into changing the policy i.e. through petitions and/or organized protest. Nor is there evidence of deliberate “misrepresentation” on the part of Baha’i historians, who have advanced the theory that ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s letters excluding women were intended to apply temporarily to the local situation. What has happened is that the previously-suppressed “Service of Women” paper has become publicly available and the idea that the exclusion need not be permanent has spread beyond an initially narrow circle of intellectuals and scholars.

It is also noteworthy here that the UHJ characterizes objection to the exclusion of women from its ranks as an “unexamined prejudice” i.e., if the non-Baha’i world sees this as a form of discrimination, then that is where the bias lay, rather than in the Baha’i practice. It is fairly common, in its letters, for the UHJ to critique contemporary social attitudes in this way, contrasting them unfavorably with the Baha’i system.

Many denominations that deny women full access to authority roles claim that they support gender equality, but that the differences between the sexes justify exclusion.[29] The attitude of the Baha’i administration bears a striking resemblance to that of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the exclusion of women from the priesthood: Both religions claim that the leadership is not authorized to change the exclusion, that it was intended by the founder and cannot be attributed to historical circumstances. Both deny that the practice is discriminatory, and insist that all faithful adherents must accept it.[30]

Mark Chaves theorizes that denominations that refuse to ordain women are making a statement that they will not be influenced by the changing standards of the wider society. [31] To some degree, this is true of the Baha’i institutions which, as in the quote above, are concerned about the influence of outside ideas on adherents, and anxiety about the possibility of internal lobbying for reform. However, unlike Christian fundamentalist groups, for whom the refusal to ordain women is symbolic of an overall anti-modernist identity, the Baha’i Faith perceives itself as being largely compatible with, or even in advance of, the progressive ideas of the modern age. The refusal to reconsider the exclusion is a message aimed entirely towards adherents, that it is an irrevocable part of Baha‘i scripture and that any attempt to change it would be an action against the Covenant, and therefore, intolerable.

A more direct tie between the issue of women’s exclusion and punitive action by the UHJ can be found in the case of Michael McKenny, a Canadian fantasy writer and Baha’i of twenty-five years standing who was summarily removed from the membership rolls in 1997. According to his own account, McKenny initially came to Talisman in early 1996 looking for translations of some of Baha’u’llah’s mystical works. A Talisman member sent him a copy of the Service of Women paper, an event he describes as “staggering” in its impact. Not only did McKenny find its arguments convincing, but he was shocked that the paper had been censored and that the UHJ refused to reconsider the policy. He became an active poster on the successor lists to Talisman, with both the exclusion of women and the religion’s censorship system being his main concerns.

Beginning in January 1997, a Baha’i official engaged McKenny in a detailed correspondence with him about his views, and also met with him personally concerning his activities in cyberspace. [32] McKenny took her advice to write to the House about his concerns, and received a response restating the official position. In the meantime, he continued to post his opinions on several forums. On July 25, 1997, he received a terse note from the Canadian NSA stating that the UHJ had decided that he did not meet the requirements for membership, and that his name had been removed from the rolls.[33] This penalty was a somewhat shocking innovation, since up until that time most Baha’is believed that members could only be removed from the rolls by writing a letter of resignation explicitly renouncing belief in Baha’u’llah.

In September, McKenny’s wife, Catherine Woodgold, wrote the House of Justice expressing her outrage over how his case had been handled. The UHJ’s response did not refer directly to the issue of women’s exclusion, but described his transgression as “challenging the institutional authority that is an integral part of the Faith one professes to have accepted”.[34] But since his “challenge” was based largely on his views concerning gender equality, the two can be regarded as inextricable.

Opposition to women’s exclusion was also an issue in the New Zealand NSA’s investigation of Alison Marshall. Marshall is a Baha’i poet and mystic who, like McKenny, became an active Internet poster in the wake of the Talisman crackdown. She also was judged by the UHJ as not meeting the requirements for Baha’i membership, and was dropped from the rolls without warning in March 2000. In the NSA minutes concerning her, it was noted that, among other concerns, she “had problems in accepting such things as the infallibility of the House, and the absence of women on the House”. [35] It appears that the UHJ and the NSA were conducting separate investigations into Marshall’s beliefs and activities, and it is difficult to tie her disenrollment directly to the exclusion issue, or indeed, any specific issue other than general lack of faith in the administration, it is clear that at the national level, at least, her support of women’s full equality was among the reasons she was investigated.

Baha’is have been, in certain instances, able to articulate views that differ from Baha’i scripture, such as belief in astrology or reincarnation, with little interference from the administration. The issues of infallibility and women’s exclusion are sensitive because liberal arguments are seen as undermining the authority of the UHJ and Shoghi Effendi. The “internal opposition” has also been condemned for imposing “dogmatic materialism” on the study of the Faith and advancing the idea that Baha’u’llah taught the separation of church and state.[36]

Rank-and-File Response

While the administration insists that the exclusion of women from the UHJ is clearly rooted in Baha’i scripture and therefore unalterable, attitudes among rank-and-file Baha’is vary. In an informal survey, I categorized the posts, dated 1992-2002, of 256 Baha’i posters discussing the exclusion issue, on eleven Internet forums, being careful to exclude participants who did not have a Baha’i identity. I also exclude pseudonymous posters, except when I knew the person’s real identity, or the name had been used consistently over a period of time. Because the survey consists only of Baha’i Internet users, it may not represent the Baha’i community as a whole but will be somewhat skewed towards Baha’is who had access to online forums in the early years of cyberspace, and towards those who felt strongly enough about the issue of women’s exclusion to participate in these discussions.

The posts were sorted into the following groups: “Fundamentalist/hostile”, which were those that said those who didn’t accept the exclusion could not be Baha’is, or which demonstrated hostility to the topic being debated. “Conservative/positive” responses were those that accepted the exclusion, but took a positive, optimistic attitude about it. Posts that expressed regret over the exclusion, but could not see how it could be changed were called “moderate/resigned”. “Liberal/reformist” posts rejected the official stance that the exclusion is permanent, leaving it in the hands of the UHJ to decide when it would be lifted. “Dissident/critical” posts openly criticized the UHJ for refusing to change the exclusion. The survey results were as follows:

Fundamentalist/Hostile: 26%
Conservative/Positive: 52%
Moderate/Resigned: 24.5%
Liberal/Reformist 17.7%
Dissident/Critical 6.4%

The numbers exceed 100% because roughly a third of the posters made more than one type of response.

Michael McMullen, in his study of the Atlanta Baha’i community, found attitudes that correspond roughly to those I have called “moderate” and “conservative” responses to women’s exclusion. That is, he notes the discomfort that many Baha’is feel about the contradiction between principle and practice, and a willingness on the part of most Baha’is to accept the policy on faith. He also found, as I did, a tendency to emphasize the positive aspects of Baha’i teaching on gender equality, and to come up with rationalizations for the exclusion. Interestingly, he found a slight tendency for Baha’i women to be somewhat more negative about administrative authority, speculating that this might be related to the tension between ideal and reality on gender equality.[37] He does not mention Baha’is holding opinions that correspond to my other categories, suggesting that the Internet environment either creates, or provides a platform for, ideas and attitudes that do not usually find expression within the Baha’i community.

In my survey, open dissidence or criticism of the current policy is relatively rare, with slightly over 6% of the posters responding to the exclusion in that way. Nearly all Baha’is accept the UHJ’s authority to make the final decision on the matter, even if the exclusion makes them uncomfortable, or they believe it can be changed at some point. I found that a quarter of them took the moderate stand of regretting that the exclusion was in place, even though they didn’t see how any change could be made while remaining consistent with Baha’i beliefs concerning authority. A few posters in this category were deeply conflicted over the issue, even to the point of considering resignation of their Baha’i membership; others didn’t attach much importance to it at all, and were unwilling to allow a single policy to undermine their faith in the religion.

Over 17% of the posters in my study rejected the official position that women can never be elected to the UHJ, expressing the hope that in the future the exclusion can be overturned. While some liberals will simply argue from the perspective of “natural justice”, or the harm that the contradiction between principle and practice does to the Baha’i community and its potential for growth, the major arguments for allowing women to serve appeal to recognized Baha’i principles and sources of authority. First among these are the multitude of statements by Baha’u’llah, and especially, ‘Abdu’l-Baha concerning the necessity and inevitability of women’s advancement. In dealing with his letters that exclude women from service, liberals argue that, although he initially excluded them from local councils, he later reversed his decision; therefore the exclusion must have been a temporary measure that was abandoned as soon as the time was ripe. This principle of the gradual application of Baha’i law is well-understood within the Baha’i community; there are yet laws that exist in scripture that are believed to be for a future time, when the community is ready for them, that are either put into practice only among Iranian Baha’is, or not at all. [38] In the case of the exclusion, of course, there is no specific law allowing women to serve on the UHJ, only the general promise of their full equality.

Other liberal arguments rest on the confusing and contradictory nature of the authoritative interpretations themselves. Baha’u’llah made no distinction between the local and universal houses of justice as far as their membership was concerned, describing both as rijal, so that if the exclusion were truly based on the sacred text, the current Baha’i practice of allowing women to serve on national and local bodies violates it. ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s written statements contradicted his action in allowing women to be elected in 1912. Shoghi Effendi justified the exclusion at the international level based entirely upon references to ‘Abdu’l-Baha’s 1902 letter, which referred to the local house in Chicago. In light of this confusion, the liberals argue, it is within the purview of the UHJ to legislate a solution, since it is explicitly given authority in scripture to resolve obscure questions relating to Baha’i law. And, since such legislation is not a permanent part of the text, the current stance of the administration could conceivably be overturned by a future UHJ.

The most common response to the exclusion is the one I have termed “conservative/positive“, where posters depict it in a positive light, denying that it contradicts the religion’s teaching on sexual equality. In fact, very often the term “exclusion” is rejected in favor of the more benign word “exemption”, and some compare it with other exemptions women are given under Baha’i law e.g. being excused from fasting during menstruation and pregnancy. For these adherents, the scriptures, authorized interpretations, and administration are divinely inspired, therefore, the policy must, in the long run, be a beneficial one, even if the reasons for it are not evident. They point to the fact the women serve in all other elected and appointed positions, and to various heroines in Baha’i history as proof of the religion’s enlightened viewpoint.

It is also commonly argued that protests about restricting women in this fashion completely misunderstand the nature of Baha’i administration. Being elected to the UHJ is supposed to be a rather burdensome service, not a position of privilege or power, since members are not given authority as individuals, but only as a corporate group. This reflects an idealized view of power relationships within the religion that is found frequently among Baha’is. [39]

Another common reaction from posters in this category was to attempt to explain the exclusion. Such speculations are frequently countered by other posters, who point out that no justification is actually given in scripture, only the promise that the reason would eventually become clear. It is impossible to say exactly how widespread any particular explanation is within the Baha’i community, but they seem to fall into three basic groups: The first, based on the spiritualized view of the House mentioned above, is that since men have been oppressors through the history of mankind, that they now must learn to be its servants -- a lesson they need far more than women do. The second is that the world’s peoples are not yet ready for feminine leadership, and that women themselves will not be prepared for such a position until barriers for their advancement are removed. The final group of explanations focuses on the differences between men and women, insisting that equality of station does not imply that the sexes must play identical roles. Some of these are blatantly sexist, including: a woman’s menstruation periods leave her physically and emotionally unfit; her role as primary caretaker of children takes precedence; that women are, by nature, too “compassionate” to make impartial and just decisions; that women do not have adequate problem-solving skills; or that their sexual attractiveness would be too great a distraction for male members.

About a quarter of the posters reacted to the debate in a defensive, fundamentalist fashion. For the fundamentalist, God has ordained this exclusion, and one cannot “pick and choose” which elements of the Baha’i Faith one finds acceptable, at least, if one wants to become and/or remain a Baha’i. Some demonstrated hostility to the matter even being discussed. While most fundamentalist posters, however hard-line, were polite, some extremists accused their more liberal co-religionists of “attacking the Faith” or of being “covenant-breakers.”

Conclusion

Baha’is respond to the conflict between their religion’s teaching on the equality of the sexes, and the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice in a variety of ways, but the majority is willing to compromise the broader principle for the sake of upholding beliefs about religious authority. Attempts on the part of liberal adherents to interpret the historical context in a way that would allow for the exclusion to be lifted have been rejected.

Although a significant minority of Baha’is express at least some degree of discomfort with the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice, the vast majority accept the policy, even if some believe it amenable to change. There is no grassroots movement demanding reform, and indeed, it is difficult to see how one could possibly develop in a community where the simple presentation of historical and scriptural arguments is seen, both by the administration and many adherents as an attack on the religion itself. Any sort of organized protest movement would be considered “covenant-breaking” and result in excommunication, and so Baha’i dissidents remain a loosely-connected group of individuals who share a common perspective. There is no “women’s movement” within the Baha’i Faith comparable to that existing in many other religious groups. In fact, given the importance of sexual equality to Baha’i identity, Baha’i men are as likely to voice objections to the exclusion as Baha’i women.

Overall, one is left with a sense of missed opportunity. The scriptures of the Baha’i Faith explicitly uphold the equality of men and women, and the promotion of this principle is an essential part of Baha’i identity, especially among Western Baha’is. Yet, the exclusion of women from the highest elective office has created a culture of denial, and has even caused some Baha’is to engage in sexist and stereotypic thinking about women in order to explain it. While the Baha’i Faith has a positive role to play, especially among its adherents in the developing world, and it gives women comparatively more power than they have in most religious hierarchies, its potential for progress is hampered by a conservative approach to religious authority and the interpretation of religious texts.



Endnotes:
[1] See, for example, “The Advancement of Women,” available at http://www.bahai.org/article-1-8-0-4.html, accessed 8 October 2005*.
[2] Trevor R.J. Finch, “Unclipping the Wings: A Survey of Secondary Literature in English on Baha’i Perspectives on Women,” Baha’i Studies Review 4 (1994): 1, available at http://bahai-library.com/articles/unclipping.wings.html, accessed 8 October 2005. See also Susan S. Maneck, “Women and the Baha’i Faith,” Religion and Women (Albany: SUNY press, 1994) ed. Arvind Sharma, 211-227, alao available at http://women.susanmaneck.com, accessed 8 October 2005.
[3] Universal House of Justice, “The Promise of World Peace,” October 1985, available at < http://bahai-library.org/published.uhj/world.peace.html >, accessed 8 October 2005.
[4] Peter Smith, The Babi & Baha’i Religions: From Messianic Shi‘ism to a World Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 109-114.
[5] The fullest and most recent treatment of Baha’i fundamentalism is Juan R.I. Cole, “Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha’i Community,” Religious Studies Review 43, (March 2002): 195-217, available at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm, accessed 8 October 2005. However, there are several articles that mention the phenomenon, especially in the context of the problems it poses for the development of Baha’i Studies, e.g., Denis MacEoin, “Baha’i Fundamentalism and the Academic Study of the Babi Movement,” Religion 16 (1986): 57-84; and Moojan Momen, “Fundamentalism and Liberalism: Towards an Understanding of the Dichotomy,” Baha’i Studies Review 2.1 (1992), available at http://bahai-library.com/bsr/bsr02/22_momen_fundamentalism.htm", accessed 8 October 2005.
[6] I should alert the reader here that I have been a Baha’i since 1985, resigning my membership in 1999. I have since then been an active participant on the liberal side of Baha’i debates on the Internet. I continue to maintain my personal faith as an unenrolled Baha’i.
[7] Schismatics are the primary targets of excommunication, or in Baha’i terminology, declared “covenant-breakers”. Baha’is have been declared covenant-breakers for other reasons, however, such as refusing to shun relatives that have been excommunicated. See Moojan Momen, “The Covenant,” available at http://bahai-library.org/encyclopedia/covenant.html, accessed 8 October 2005.
[8] The argument that the Persian usage of rijal includes women has been recently used by Iranian women who claim they have the right to run for the presidency under that country’s current constitution. See “New Times on Iran’s Constitution,” Indiana Student News (29 September 2000), available at http://idsnews.com/story.php?id=776, accessed 8 October 2005.
[9] A more thorough examination of Baha’u’llah’s thinking on gender issues can be found in Juan R.I. Cole, Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha’i Faith in the Nineteenth Century Middle East (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), 163-187.
[10] Robert H. Stockman, The Baha’i Faith in America: Early Expansion 1900-1912, (Oxford: George Ronald, 1995), 46-63. See also Anthony A. Lee, Peggy Caton, Richard Hollinger, Marjan Nirou, Nader Saiedi, Shahin Carrigan, Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, and Juan R.I. Cole, “The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha’i Faith,” Unpublished typescript, 1988, available at http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol3/wmnuhj.htm, accessed 8 October 2005.
[11]Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, ( Haifa: Baha’i World Center, 1978), 79-80
[12] Stockman, The Baha’i Faith in America, 394-396.
[13] A rejection of the argument that the Chicago House is referred to in the 1909 letter is referred to in a Research Department memorandum to the Universal House of Justice, “Translation of “Umumi’ in the Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Baha,” 30 March 1997, available at http://bahai-library.com/uhj/umumi.html, accessed 8 October 2005.
[14] Robert Stockman, “Notes on the Thornton Chase papers 1910-1912,” n.d., available at http://bahai-library.com/resources/chase.papers/ch.1910-12.html, accessed 8 October 2005.
[15] Universal House of Justice, “Translation of “Umumi’ in the Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Baha’.” For a more general rejection of the argument that Baha’i texts allow for women’s exclusion to be overturned, see “Letter to the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of New Zealand,” 31 May 1988, available at http://bahai-library.com/uhj/women.uhj.html, accessed 8 October 2005.
[16] For example, see ‘Abdu’l-Baha, “Letter to the Spiritual Assembly of Kenosha, Wisconsin,” 4 March 1911, and “Letter to Albert Windlust,” 23 October 1913. Both of these unpublished letters are available from the Baha’i National Archives, Wilmette, Illinois.
[17] Shoghi Effendi, World Order of Baha'u'llah, (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1938), 6.
[18] Stockman, Baha’i Faith in America,338-339.
[19]‘Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks (Wilmette: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1972), 181-184, available at http://www.ibibio.org/Bahai/Texts/EN/PT/PT-59.html
[20]Sen McGlinn “PT - Example of unauthentic text,” posted to talisman9@yahoogroups.com, 16 September 2003. McGlinn argues that the translation of this letter is misleading.
[21] Lee, et. al., “The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha’i Faith.”
[22] Lee, et. al., “The Service of Women on the Institutions of the Baha’i Faith.”
[23] A brief outline of the dialogue incident is described in Karen Bacquet “Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the Baha’i Community,” Cultic Studies Journal18 (2001):140-171.
[24] Universal House of Justice, “Letter to the Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of New Zealand”.
[25] All written material, including academic work, published by members of the Baha’i Faith about their religion must be submitted to “pre-publication review” at the national level on pain of sanction, although there have been occasions when the UHJ itself has intervened to prevent publication, or has insisted that material be altered.
[26] A partial archive of Talisman@indiana.edu is available at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/tarc1196.htm
[27] The investigation was carried out from Feb-July 1996 by Counsellor Stephen Birkland, and in letters, cited below, written to two of those investigated made it clear his actions were with the knowledge and approval of the UHJ. A “Counsellor” is the highest appointed official in the Baha'i administrative hierarchy, responsible for the “protection and propagation” of the religion. They are directed by the International Teaching Center (ITC) in Haifa, and appointed by the UHJ. Birkland is a member of the Continental Board of Counsellors in the Americas.
All six people investigated are named in K. Paul Johnson, “Baha'i Leaders Vexed by Online Critics,” Gnosis (Winter 1997), available at http://bahai-library.com/newspapers/gnosis.talisman.html
The targets of the investigation were:

Juan Cole, Professor of History at the University of Michigan, resigned his membership in the Baha'i Faith publicly on May 4, 1996. One of several accounts of his interview with Birkland is “Re: Mazindarani and the Interrogation,” posted to Talisman@umich.edu, 12 June 1998, available at http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Cole10.htm, accessed 8 October 2005.

David Langness, a publicist for Los Angeles-area hospitals, had been sanctioned by the U.S. NSA on April 24, with the loss of his administrative rights over an email post he had made on Talisman. Shortly thereafter, Birkland told Langness over the phone that the ITC announced that he had “said things contrary to the Covenant”. His account can be found in “Rights”, posted to Talisman@indiana.edu, 17 May 1996; this email post refers to a meeting with Birkland that was to take place that day. Langness remains a member of the Baha'i Faith, although the sanctions imposed upon him severely limit what Baha’i activities he may participate in.#

Anthony Lee, co-founder and co-owner of Kalimat Press, remains a Baha'i in good standing. A reference to his meeting with Birkland and Auxiliary Board member Pierre-Yves Mocquais in May 1996 can be found at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fulltext.htm

Steven Scholl, publisher and owner of White Cloud Press in Ashland, Oregon, would only agree to meet with Birkland if the conversation was tape recorded. Birkland’s response to him can be found at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/bhcouns2.htm Scholl resigned his membership in 1996.

John Walbridge is a Professor of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at the University of Indiana; he was the listowner of Talisman@indiana.edu. Birkland interviewed Walbridge in February 1996, and the Counsellor’s letter to him can be found at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/bhcouns.htm He resigned his membership in the Baha’i Faith two years after the Talisman investigation.

Linda Walbridge was an anthropologist specializing in Islam; she refused to meet with Birkland, but her response to the investigation can be found in Rifkin, Ira “Critics Chafe at Baha’i Conservatism,” Religion News Service (1997), available at http://bahai-library.com/newspapers/chafe.html Linda Walbridge resigned her membership in May 1996, eventually returning to the Roman Catholic Church; she died in December 2002.

[28]Universal House of Justice, “Letter to National Spiritual Assemblies,” 7 April 1999, available at http://bahai-library.com/compilations/issues.scholarship.html, accessed 8 October 2005.
[29] Mark Chaves, Ordaining Women: Culture and Conflict in Religious Organizations (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 2-3.
[30] Kelly A. Raab, When Women Become Priests, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000), 29-31.
[31] Chaves,Ordaining Women 91-101.
[32] Michael McKenny, “Re: One Area in Which Liberty is Limited in the Baha’i Community,” posted to talk.religion.bahai 25 July 1999, available at http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/Mckenny17.htm, accessed 11 October 2005.
[33] “Documents Related to the Expulsion by the Universal House of Justice of Michael McKenny from the Baha’i Faith 25 July 1997,” available at http://www.h-net.org/~bahai/docs/vol3/mckenny.htm, accessed 11 October 2005.
[34] Universal House of Justice, “Letter to Catherine Woodgold,” 24 September 1997, available in “Documents”, cited above.
[35] A chronology of the events leading up to Alison Marshall’s disenrollment can be found on her website at http://www.whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/chron.html;other documents pertaining to her case can be found at http://whoisbahaullah.com/Alison/expulsion.html, accessed 11 October 2005.
[36] Universal House of Justice, “Letter to National Spiritual Assemblies.”
[37] Michael, McMullen, The Baha’i: The Religious Construction of a Global Identity, (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2000), 58-71. It should be noted here that McMullen did not include questions about women’s exclusion in his detailed survey of the Atlanta community. What is included in his book are impressions gained from interviews. However, he does have interesting data concerning attitudes about administrative authority: Nearly 87% of his respondents either “agree” or “strongly agree” that they submit to administrative authority, even when they disagree, and over 63% either “disagree” or “strongly disagree” that individuals should have a great deal of latitude in following UHJ decisions. While this accords with my observations, McMullen’s survey also suggests the presence of a significant minority within the Baha’i community that is either ambivalent or negative towards placing administrative directives over personal conscience.
[38] In the past decade, for example, two laws, that of Huquq’u’llah, a religious tax on capital gains, and the devotional requirement to recite Allah’u’abha (God is Most Glorious) 95 times daily became binding on the entire Baha’i community for the first time, through an announcement by the UHJ.
[39] A discussion of the politics involved in Baha’i elections can be found in Juan R.I. Cole, “The Baha’i Faith as Panopticon,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 37 (June 1998):234-248, available at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/1999/jssr/bhjssr.htm

*In early discussions of this paper, there was confusion over the late, and very similar access dates given for webpages in the endnotes. These access dates reflect a final check on the availability of these pages prior to publication, not the time of my original research, which was mostly in late 2002-2003. khb