| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2008 6:23 pm Post subject: Politics and bigotry |
 |
|
We are not to be involved in partisan politics. That is a principle of our
faith. How we interpret that is up to us. If I think I can run for President
of the US without being involved in partisan politics no one will stop me
unless and until I start bringing to the Baha'i Faith things that are
counter to Baha'i principles.
We all interpret everything around us. So I have just the tiniest problem
with the huge issue of whether or not a Baha'i may or may not do anything.
We are opposed to lots of things beyond partisan politics, such as racial,
religious, ethnic prejudice. But do Baha'is occassionally pick a Baha'i
business or group to associate with instead of a better non-Baha'i group or
business? Assuredly. Is that religious prejudice? Baha'is are left free to
decide that for themselves.
A Baha'i institution (there is no clergy) might intervene if publicity which
associates our Faith with these un-Bahai principles (like prejudice or
partisanship) appears, or if someone asks them to interfere. But for the
most part we are expected to act like Baha'is merely because we are Baha'is,
not because someone is watching.
That is my tiny problem, we may hold appointed political office, we may try
to get elected, we may be religious bigots, but if you want to know what
Baha'i beliefs are you will have to go to our Writings, not to our
believers. We are all interpeting, and nothing we say is from God. It is our
interpretation of God's Will for us.
So can one be involved in politics without being partisan? That is better
your answer than mine. Because there is no "Baha'i" answer to that question.
But for my part, I believe it is Baha'i principle to look for the best
charities, the best medical facilities, the best academics, the best of
everything, not the Baha'i of everything. It is apparent to me that those
who follow Baha'i principles are the best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not.
If we think there is something about the name "Baha'i" and not the
principles "Baha'i" then we are bigotted and partisan.
--Kent |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
On Jul 13, 9:23 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | We are not to be involved in partisan politics. That is a principle of ou
r
faith. How we interpret that is up to us. If I think I can run for Presid
ent
of the US without being involved in partisan politics no one will stop me
unless and until I start bringing to the Baha'i Faith things that are
counter to Baha'i principles.
We all interpret everything around us. So I have just the tiniest prob
lem
with the huge issue of whether or not a Baha'i may or may not do anything
...
We are opposed to lots of things beyond partisan politics, such as racial
,
religious, ethnic prejudice. But do Baha'is occassionally pick a Baha'i
business or group to associate with instead of a better non-Baha'i group
or
business? Assuredly. Is that religious prejudice? Baha'is are left free t
o
decide that for themselves.
A Baha'i institution (there is no clergy) might intervene if publicity wh
ich
associates our Faith with these un-Bahai principles (like prejudice or
partisanship) appears, or if someone asks them to interfere. But for the
most part we are expected to act like Baha'is merely because we are Baha'
is,
not because someone is watching.
That is my tiny problem, we may hold appointed political office, we may t
ry
to get elected, we may be religious bigots, but if you want to know what
Baha'i beliefs are you will have to go to our Writings, not to our
believers. We are all interpeting, and nothing we say is from God. It is
our
interpretation of God's Will for us.
So can one be involved in politics without being partisan? That is better
your answer than mine. Because there is no "Baha'i" answer to that questi
on.
But for my part, I believe it is Baha'i principle to look for the best
charities, the best medical facilities, the best academics, the best of
everything, not the Baha'i of everything. It is apparent to me that th
ose
who follow Baha'i principles are the best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not.
If we think there is something about the name "Baha'i" and not the
principles "Baha'i" then we are bigotted and partisan.
--Kent
|
It is apparent to me that those
| Quote: | who follow Baha'i principles are the best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not.
|
From the first paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas:
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine
inspiration.
This clearly indicates that good deeds are not enough. The Baha'i
Faith IMO is about conscious knowledge of God's will for this day and
converting that knowledge into action. One without the other is
unacceptable.
The following excerpt from Abdul-Baha also sheds some light on this
matter:
"Although a person of good deeds is acceptable at the Threshold of the
Almighty, yet it is first "to know," and then "to do." Although a
blind man produceth a most wonderful and exquisite art, yet he is
deprived of seeing it...(‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Baha'i World Faith, p. 382-383)
cheers,
Rod |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Missaghian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:37 am Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
Hi Kent,
Pleasure to meet you as well.
| Quote: | This clearly indicates that good deeds are not enough.
Not enough for what?
|
Not enough perhaps isn't the based way of putting it is it? Instead,
let me say that good deeds on their own, without the conscious
knowledge of the Manifestation do not allow the actor to fully
comprehend the significance of his/her actions. It is as Abdul Baha
says "It is first to know and then to do"
...
| Quote: | "Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed..." |
So, unless we accept the Manifestation of God for this day we have
gone astray, though we be the authour of ever righteous deed. At
least, thats how I read it.
I agreed with a lot you said; the reason for my post and inclusion of
that quote was based on the comment you made:
| Quote: | "It is apparent to me that those who follow Baha'i principles are the best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not" |
Yes, I agree that one can call himself a Baha'i, or anything for that
matter, but if they do not practice what they preach can appear
hypocritical.
However, I think that without conscious knowledge of the source of our
morality (which can only come from the fountainhead of knowledge, the
Manifestation God for this day), we can never appreciate the
significance of our good deeds. Thus, we will have gone astay. In that
sense, it becomes important to identify oneself as a Baha'i.
| Quote: | Isn't that what I said, if not how so?
|
Please explain to me what you mean by:
| Quote: | It is apparent to me that those who follow Baha'i principles are the best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not |
because this seems to suggest that one needn't know of Baha'u'llah,
which would remove the idea of conscious knowledge from the equation.
| Quote: | When I read that verse I think about the recognition of the attributes of
God: love, knowledge, spirit, power... That those who recognize |
those
attributes as God have recognized that the One True God guides
humanity to
become better in every way. That we know God by His attributes, and
when we
adopt those attributes as our own we are joining God's Cause for
humanity,
and if we do that we will attain unto all good. And that we know we
are
attaining by our deeds, that recognizing the attributes is not the
same as , pg
attaining. That attaining unto all good require adopting the
attributes
that we have recognized as belonging to God.<<
Interesting stuff. I would like to share this small excerpt from Some
Answered Questions:
"Therefore, all that the human reality knows, discovers and
understands of the names, the attributes and the perfections of God
refer to these Holy Manifestations. There is no access to anything
else.." (SAQ, p148)
all the best,
Rod |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
Hi Rod, nice to meet you.
| Quote: | This clearly indicates that good deeds are not enough.
|
Not enough for what?
When I read that verse I think about the recognition of the attributes of
God: love, knowledge, spirit, power... That those who recognize those
attributes as God have recognized that the One True God guides humanity to
become better in every way. That we know God by His attributes, and when we
adopt those attributes as our own we are joining God's Cause for humanity,
and if we do that we will attain unto all good. And that we know we are
attaining by our deeds, that recognizing the attributes is not the same as
attaining. That attaining unto all good require adopting the attributes
that we have recognized as belonging to God.
Isn't that what you read?
| Quote: | The Baha'i
Faith IMO is about conscious knowledge of God's will for this day and
converting that knowledge into action. One without the other is
unacceptable.
|
Isn't that what I said? If not, how so?
-- Kent
<rod.missaghian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XMKdnSwZq55UIObVnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Jul 13, 9:23 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | We are not to be involved in partisan politics. That is a principle of ou
r
faith. How we interpret that is up to us. If I think I can run for Presid
ent
of the US without being involved in partisan politics no one will stop me
unless and until I start bringing to the Baha'i Faith things that are
counter to Baha'i principles.
We all interpret everything around us. So I have just the tiniest prob
lem
with the huge issue of whether or not a Baha'i may or may not do anything
....
We are opposed to lots of things beyond partisan politics, such as racial
,
religious, ethnic prejudice. But do Baha'is occassionally pick a Baha'i
business or group to associate with instead of a better non-Baha'i group
or
business? Assuredly. Is that religious prejudice? Baha'is are left free t
o
decide that for themselves.
A Baha'i institution (there is no clergy) might intervene if publicity wh
ich
associates our Faith with these un-Bahai principles (like prejudice or
partisanship) appears, or if someone asks them to interfere. But for the
most part we are expected to act like Baha'is merely because we are Baha'
is,
not because someone is watching.
That is my tiny problem, we may hold appointed political office, we may t
ry
to get elected, we may be religious bigots, but if you want to know what
Baha'i beliefs are you will have to go to our Writings, not to our
believers. We are all interpeting, and nothing we say is from God. It is
our
interpretation of God's Will for us.
So can one be involved in politics without being partisan? That is better
your answer than mine. Because there is no "Baha'i" answer to that questi
on.
But for my part, I believe it is Baha'i principle to look for the best
charities, the best medical facilities, the best academics, the best of
everything, not the Baha'i of everything. It is apparent to me that th
ose
who follow Baha'i principles are the best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not.
If we think there is something about the name "Baha'i" and not the
principles "Baha'i" then we are bigotted and partisan.
--Kent
|
It is apparent to me that those
| Quote: | who follow Baha'i principles are the best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not.
|
From the first paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas:
The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition
of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His
laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause
and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained
unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who
reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory,
to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world.
These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the
other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine
inspiration.
This clearly indicates that good deeds are not enough. The Baha'i
Faith IMO is about conscious knowledge of God's will for this day and
converting that knowledge into action. One without the other is
unacceptable.
The following excerpt from Abdul-Baha also sheds some light on this
matter:
"Although a person of good deeds is acceptable at the Threshold of the
Almighty, yet it is first "to know," and then "to do." Although a
blind man produceth a most wonderful and exquisite art, yet he is
deprived of seeing it...(‘Abdu'l-Bahá, Baha'i World Faith, p. 382-383)
cheers,
Rod |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:40 am Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
Hi Rod,
| Quote: | ...without conscious knowledge of the source of our
morality (which can only come from the fountainhead of knowledge, the
Manifestation God for this day), we can never appreciate the
significance of our good deeds.
|
The Source of our morality is Baha'u'llah? Was no one moral before 1863?
In my view God is the eternal Author of our morality. His Manifestations on
earth are undeniable, timely, and unspeakably glorious. But if we attach to
His Name we miss His Message.
I like how you worded it: "our morality". He is the Source of "our
morality" and we need conscious knowledge of that Source, and most
importantly, to act on that knowledge. The knowledge is what makes the
deeds valuable and allies us with the Source. Without the deeds there is
nothing, begins in words and ends in words.
"Have ye shut out yourselves from Me by reason of My Name? Wherefore ponder
ye not in your hearts?" (Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 9)
It is a two way street. You can't believe in Baha'u'llah without believing
that several Others have lit that street with our morality.
Me:
| Quote: | "It is apparent to me that those who follow Baha'i principles are the best,
whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not"
|
You:
| Quote: | Yes, I agree that one can call himself a Baha'i, or anything for that
matter, but if they do not practice what they preach can appear
hypocritical.
|
Appearing hypocritical has nothing to do with it. This is about being
moral, about following principles that you and I have named "Baha'i" but
others in history have named Christian or Islam or something different. But
you and I agree that those principles are timeless, eternal, glorious, and
apparently, confusing.
It is our morality we are talking about, isn't it? Or is it that "...good
deeds are not enough"? or that we need to "appreciate the significance of
our good deeds"? That "it becomes important to identify oneself as a
Baha'i"?
No, I say the point is simple, direct, clear and in danger of being
perverted again, this time by Baha'is. If a Baha'i can't say that principle
not prejudice is motivation... If we can't say loudly and clearly "those
who follow Baha'i principles are the best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not", well, then Baha'is have lost it, and we can only pray the
Light is shining elsewhere.
--Kent
"Rod Missaghian" <rod.missaghian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:moudnXALkZ8-YubVnZ2dnUVZ_rbinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Hi Kent,
Pleasure to meet you as well.
This clearly indicates that good deeds are not enough.
Not enough for what?
Not enough perhaps isn't the based way of putting it is it? Instead,
let me say that good deeds on their own, without the conscious
knowledge of the Manifestation do not allow the actor to fully
comprehend the significance of his/her actions. It is as Abdul Baha
says "It is first to know and then to do"
..
"Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is
deprived thereof hath gone astray, though
he be the author of every righteous deed..."
So, unless we accept the Manifestation of God for this day we have
gone astray, though we be the authour of ever righteous deed. At
least, thats how I read it.
I agreed with a lot you said; the reason for my post and inclusion of
that quote was based on the comment you made:
"It is apparent to me that those who follow Baha'i principles are the
best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not"
Yes, I agree that one can call himself a Baha'i, or anything for that
matter, but if they do not practice what they preach can appear
hypocritical.
However, I think that without conscious knowledge of the source of our
morality (which can only come from the fountainhead of knowledge, the
Manifestation God for this day), we can never appreciate the
significance of our good deeds. Thus, we will have gone astay. In that
sense, it becomes important to identify oneself as a Baha'i.
Isn't that what I said, if not how so?
Please explain to me what you mean by:
It is apparent to me that those who follow Baha'i principles are the
best, whether they call themselves
Baha'is or not, whether they have heard of Baha'u'llah or not
because this seems to suggest that one needn't know of Baha'u'llah,
which would remove the idea of conscious knowledge from the equation.
When I read that verse I think about the recognition of the attributes
of
God: love, knowledge, spirit, power... That those who recognize
those
attributes as God have recognized that the One True God guides
humanity to
become better in every way. That we know God by His attributes, and
when we
adopt those attributes as our own we are joining God's Cause for
humanity,
and if we do that we will attain unto all good. And that we know we
are
attaining by our deeds, that recognizing the attributes is not the
same as , pg
attaining. That attaining unto all good require adopting the
attributes
that we have recognized as belonging to God.
Interesting stuff. I would like to share this small excerpt from Some
Answered Questions:
"Therefore, all that the human reality knows, discovers and
understands of the names, the attributes and the perfections of God
refer to these Holy Manifestations. There is no access to anything
else.." (SAQ, p148)
all the best,
Rod
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Rod Missaghian
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:09 pm Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
Good Morning Kent,
| Quote: | The Source of our morality is Baha'u'llah? Was no one moral before 1863?
|
I would say look to the concept of progressive revelation and you will
have my answer. Certainly, peeople were moral before 1863 :)
| Quote: | In my view God is the eternal Author of our morality. His Manifestations on
earth are undeniable, timely, and unspeakably glorious. But if we |
attach to
His Name we miss His Message. <<
I agree. Another way of looking at it for me, is that the Primal Will/
Holy Spirit is the Author of our morality.
| Quote: | It is a two way street. You can't believe in Baha'u'llah without believing
that several Others have lit that street with our morality, |
No question. I agree.
| Quote: | Appearing hypocritical has nothing to do with it. This is about being
moral, about following principles that you and I have named "Baha'i" |
but
others in history have named Christian or Islam or something
different. But
you and I agree that those principles are timeless, eternal, glorious,
and
apparently, confusing<<
Yes. This quote, one of my favs is from Paris Talks:
"All these divisions we see on all sides, all these disputes and
opposition, are caused because men cling to ritual and outward
observances, and forget the simple, underlying truth. It is the
outward practices of religion that are so different, and it is they
that cause disputes and enmity -- while the reality is always the
same, and one. The Reality is the Truth, and truth has no division.
Truth is God's guidance, it is the light of the world, it is love, it
is mercy. These attributes of truth are also human virtues inspired by
the Holy Spirit"
Rod |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | We are not to be involved in partisan politics. That is a principle of ou
r
faith. How we interpret that is up to us. If I think I can run for Presid
ent
of the US without being involved in partisan politics no one will stop me
unless and until I start bringing to the Baha'i Faith things that are
counter to Baha'i principles.
|
Dear Kent,
I think you are wrong about this. Dick Gregory tried to run for
president in this manner and I'm pretty sure the NSA stopped him.
Ultimately it is the institutions and not the individual who decides
the applicability of Baha'i law. As Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
Briefly, this is the wisdom of referring the laws of society to the
House of Justice. In the religion of Islam, similarly, not every
ordinance was explicitly revealed; nay not a tenth part of a tenth
part was included in the Text; although all matters of major
importance were specifically referred to, there were undoubtedly
thousands of laws which were unspecified. These were devised by the
divines of a later age according to the laws of Islamic jurisprudence,
and individual divines made conflicting deductions from the original
revealed ordinances. All these were enforced. Today this process of
deduction is the right of the body of the House of Justice, and the
deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no
authority, unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice. The
difference is precisely this, that from the conclusions and
endorsements of the body of the House of Justice whose members are
elected by and known to the worldwide Bahá'í community, no differences
will arise; whereas the conclusions of individual divines and scholars
would definitely lead to differences, and result in schism, division,
and dispersion. The oneness of the Word would be destroyed, the unity
of the Faith would disappear, and the edifice of the Faith of God
would be shaken.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1966 May 27, Guardianship and the U
HJ)
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | We are not to be involved in partisan politics. That is a principle of ou
r
faith. How we interpret that is up to us. If I think I can run for Presid
ent
of the US without being involved in partisan politics no one will stop me
unless and until I start bringing to the Baha'i Faith things that are
counter to Baha'i principles.
|
Dear Kent,
I think you are wrong about this. Dick Gregory tried to run for
president in this manner and I'm pretty sure the NSA stopped him.
Ultimately it is the institutions and not the individual who decides
the applicability of Baha'i law. As Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
Briefly, this is the wisdom of referring the laws of society to the
House of Justice. In the religion of Islam, similarly, not every
ordinance was explicitly revealed; nay not a tenth part of a tenth
part was included in the Text; although all matters of major
importance were specifically referred to, there were undoubtedly
thousands of laws which were unspecified. These were devised by the
divines of a later age according to the laws of Islamic jurisprudence,
and individual divines made conflicting deductions from the original
revealed ordinances. All these were enforced. Today this process of
deduction is the right of the body of the House of Justice, and the
deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no
authority, unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice. The
difference is precisely this, that from the conclusions and
endorsements of the body of the House of Justice whose members are
elected by and known to the worldwide Bahá'í community, no differences
will arise; whereas the conclusions of individual divines and scholars
would definitely lead to differences, and result in schism, division,
and dispersion. The oneness of the Word would be destroyed, the unity
of the Faith would disappear, and the edifice of the Faith of God
would be shaken.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1966 May 27, Guardianship and the U
HJ)
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
| Quote: | The Source of our morality is Baha'u'llah? Was no one moral before
1863?
|
Are there different morals and ethics today than say a 1,000 years ago?
In other words does each new Revelation bring new morals and ethics to
mankind?
regards,
doug |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Douglas McAdam
<douglasmcadam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
The Source of our morality is Baha'u'llah? Was no one moral before 1863?
Are there different morals and ethics today than say a 1,000 years ago? In
other words does each new Revelation bring new morals and ethics to mankind?
|
Some morals and ethics change and some do not. No religion ever said
it was okay to murder, steal or lie. But they have said things that
are no longer applicable such as women being subordinate to men or
slavery being okay.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:54 am Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
Hi Rod.
So I think we understand each other better now. I think you see how I can
call a preference to mediocre to things named Baha'i to an excellence of
things not so named, partisanship if not a kind of religious bigotry.
Baha'is should seek excellence in all things, not seek Baha'i in all things.
Doing the latter is attachment to the name of God, not reunion with Him.
And whenever I quote Paris Talks or PUP some around here scream "pilgrims'
notes!" as though they don't believe Abdu'l-Baha actually said words to that
effect.
--Kent
"Rod Missaghian" <rod.missaghian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8Iidnf_dFqDOWOHVnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Good Morning Kent,
The Source of our morality is Baha'u'llah? Was no one moral before 1863?
I would say look to the concept of progressive revelation and you will
have my answer. Certainly, peeople were moral before 1863 :)
In my view God is the eternal Author of our morality. His Manifestations
on
earth are undeniable, timely, and unspeakably glorious. But if we
attach to
His Name we miss His Message.
I agree. Another way of looking at it for me, is that the Primal Will/
Holy Spirit is the Author of our morality.
It is a two way street. You can't believe in Baha'u'llah without
believing
that several Others have lit that street with our morality,
No question. I agree.
Appearing hypocritical has nothing to do with it. This is about being
moral, about following principles that you and I have named "Baha'i"
but
others in history have named Christian or Islam or something
different. But
you and I agree that those principles are timeless, eternal, glorious,
and
apparently, confusing
Yes. This quote, one of my favs is from Paris Talks:
"All these divisions we see on all sides, all these disputes and
opposition, are caused because men cling to ritual and outward
observances, and forget the simple, underlying truth. It is the
outward practices of religion that are so different, and it is they
that cause disputes and enmity -- while the reality is always the
same, and one. The Reality is the Truth, and truth has no division.
Truth is God's guidance, it is the light of the world, it is love, it
is mercy. These attributes of truth are also human virtues inspired by
the Holy Spirit"
Rod |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:18 am Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
Hi Susan, I am wrong about what? That the NSA lays in wait for people to
declare their candidacy?
I think I said "one will stop me unless and until I start bringing to the
Baha'i Faith things that are counter to Baha'i principles." That " we are
expected to act like Baha'is merely because we are Baha'is, not because
someone is watching."
You: "Ultimately it is the institutions and not the individual who decides
the applicability of Baha'i law."
Of course. As I said "A Baha'i institution ... might intervene if publicity
which associates our Faith with these un-Bahai principles (like prejudice or
partisanship) appears" They have every right to protect the Faith I love,
and are empowered to do so by the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lZ-dnV9NHL8GVeHVnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:23 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | We are not to be involved in partisan politics. That is a principle of ou
r
faith. How we interpret that is up to us. If I think I can run for Presid
ent
of the US without being involved in partisan politics no one will stop me
unless and until I start bringing to the Baha'i Faith things that are
counter to Baha'i principles.
|
Dear Kent,
I think you are wrong about this. Dick Gregory tried to run for
president in this manner and I'm pretty sure the NSA stopped him.
Ultimately it is the institutions and not the individual who decides
the applicability of Baha'i law. As Abdu'l-Baha wrote:
Briefly, this is the wisdom of referring the laws of society to the
House of Justice. In the religion of Islam, similarly, not every
ordinance was explicitly revealed; nay not a tenth part of a tenth
part was included in the Text; although all matters of major
importance were specifically referred to, there were undoubtedly
thousands of laws which were unspecified. These were devised by the
divines of a later age according to the laws of Islamic jurisprudence,
and individual divines made conflicting deductions from the original
revealed ordinances. All these were enforced. Today this process of
deduction is the right of the body of the House of Justice, and the
deductions and conclusions of individual learned men have no
authority, unless they are endorsed by the House of Justice. The
difference is precisely this, that from the conclusions and
endorsements of the body of the House of Justice whose members are
elected by and known to the worldwide Bahá'í community, no differences
will arise; whereas the conclusions of individual divines and scholars
would definitely lead to differences, and result in schism, division,
and dispersion. The oneness of the Word would be destroyed, the unity
of the Faith would disappear, and the edifice of the Faith of God
would be shaken.
(The Universal House of Justice, 1966 May 27, Guardianship and the U
HJ)
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
Hi Doug,
According to my recent perceptions of the issues, it seems to me that each
new Revelation from God has as it point to bring people back to moral,
productive, spiritual behavior. And immediately the true believers distort
the clear message until, after a few hundred years the simple message is
unrecognizable.
It only takes a few decades, apparently, for the vast majority of God's
chosen to completely disregard the moral teachings, which are the primary
teachings. We all seem to be looking for the mystery, when the plain Truth
is right in front of us.
It is for us to do God's will. That's the point.
--Kent
"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:vuqdnf-5L-SqeeHVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: |
The Source of our morality is Baha'u'llah? Was no one moral before
1863?
Are there different morals and ethics today than say a 1,000 years ago? In
other words does each new Revelation bring new morals and ethics to
mankind?
regards,
doug
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
| Quote: | Hi Susan, I am wrong about what? That the NSA lays in wait for people to
declare their candidacy?
|
Dear Kent,
I think you are wrong about it being okay to run for a Baha'i to run
for the presidency so long as they don't bring up the Baha'i Faith or
run on a party ticket. The NSA doesn't have to lie in wait for anyone.
If you declare your candidacy for president you either become
conspicuous or you don't get any votes.
As I said "A Baha'i institution ... might intervene if publicity
| Quote: | which associates our Faith with these un-Bahai principles (like prejudice or
partisanship) appears"
|
I'm saying that they are likely to intervene if you run for president
regardless.
Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:10 pm Post subject: Re: Politics and bigotry |
|
|
Hi Susan,
I don't think I said it is "okay to run for a Baha'i to run for the
presidency so long as they don't bring up the Baha'i Faith or run on a party
ticket."
I think I said I might choose to interpret the Writings in such a way, and
delude myself to such a degree, that it is okay to run for President if I
could avoid partisan politics. I said no one would stop me unless my
actions were to bring the Baha'i Faith into a negative light.
My issue is about interpretation, not candidacy, but I think the analogy
holds. Certainly if I were to assert that it is okay to be stingy, not
generous and search through the Writings for ways to back up my beliefs I
could do that, and no one would stop me (except as explained above).
However, please don't say I am wrong about it being okay to be stingy.
Of course the point I had in writing all this was to make this point, which
I think bears repeating again and again:
The principles we associate with the Baha'i Faith, all the virtues, are the
point of the Baha'i Faith. If we prefer the name "Baha'i" above any other
name that more closely reflects the virtues we as Baha'i admire, we are
partisan and bigoted.
It is the virtues we admire, not the name. I hope you don't think I am
wrong about that.
At least in this case you, Susan, misunderstood me.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:q9mdneWr3f8ZTODVnZ2dnUVZ_rHinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Hi Susan, I am wrong about what? That the NSA lays in wait for people to
declare their candidacy?
Dear Kent,
I think you are wrong about it being okay to run for a Baha'i to run
for the presidency so long as they don't bring up the Baha'i Faith or
run on a party ticket. The NSA doesn't have to lie in wait for anyone.
If you declare your candidacy for president you either become
conspicuous or you don't get any votes.
As I said "A Baha'i institution ... might intervene if publicity
which associates our Faith with these un-Bahai principles (like prejudice
or
partisanship) appears"
I'm saying that they are likely to intervene if you run for president
regardless.
Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
