Like everybody else, I've been watching the terrible news on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. However, I'll confess to some impatience with people who refused to leave when a mandatory evacuation was declared. I live in an area that floods so regularly that all the houses are built up high so we can get through it without damage, and even though we usually just sit it out, when the call for "mandatory evacuation" came down because the levee threatened to break, I got myself and my kids out of there. As long as evacuation is voluntary, I'm quite content to sit it out -- the pattern of floods is very predictable, and outside of the inconvenience of being stuck in the house while the river rages around us, we do just fine.
Of course, I realize that, in a large city like that, getting out may not be so easy, and that some people don't own cars, etc. But, for the rest, what tends to happen in areas that are threatened by a recurring danger like this (after all, there are hurricanes every year in the gulf), people get complacent. They've lived through them before, and figure they can do it again. And who wouldn't prefer sit it out at home rather than huddle in a shelter? Nevertheless, sitting it out is a very bad idea when things are dangerous enough that a mandatory evacuation is declared.
Another thing that happens whenever we have a flood is that people go sightseeing, and they drive straight through flood water -- many times getting themselves stuck requiring some brave cop or national guardsman to rescue them. (Safety Rule: Never drive your car through flood water, it could be swifter and deeper than it looks. Especially never drive around flood barriers.) People indulge in the same kind of stupidity during hurricanes -- the news reported people taking their kids out to see the waves, taking pictures, etc., as the storm moved closer.
Speaking of the National Guard, those guys have my deepest respect. Even when we choose to sit out a flood, it gives me a great sense of security seeing those big trucks chugging through the flood water, knowing help is close by if it should become necessary. Right now, they are out there risking their own lives to save others; they are heros and deserve our thoughts, prayers, and support.
In fact, some prayers in general would be appropriate now. Whatever my impatience at folks who didn't heed the warnings, *nobody* deserves to be suffering what tens of thousands are now suffering down there.
Additional thought: As I watch this massive effort to evacuate the entire city of New Orleans, I can't help but wonder why there wasn't a more organized effort to get people out beforehand. They knew that many of the city's poor didn't have the means to leave -- and it certainly is easier to evacuate people ahead of time than it is when there is water all over the place!
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
PIssing Away the Conservative Moment
Since most of the folks I know in cyberspace are liberal, I like to stick something up on my blog once in a while as a reminder that the words "intelligent conservative" are not necessarily an oxymoron.
There have been rumblings for some time from the religious right, some of whom are catching on to the fact, that for all their loud and boistrous political activity for the last 25-30 years, they actually have had very little success in achieving their ends. My own guess is that after Bush, who is, after all, one of their own, even more frustration is going to set in and people are going to either drop out of political activity or become even more radicalized -- like the guy who wants Christians to move to South Carolina so it can secede and become a Christian theocracy.
However, old-style conservatives aren't real happy about Bush either. Paleocons are isolationists at heart; economic conservatives want smaller government not the government expansion that goes along with war -- I have an aunt who voted Libertarian because she's outraged about the Patriot Act. Bainbridge, in the article I've linked to above says:
It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
Then, after voicing a number of complaints about the Iraq War he ends by saying:
What really annoys me, however, are the domestic implications of all this. The conservative agenda has advanced hardly at all since the Iraq War began. Worse yet, the growing unpopularity of the war threatens to undo all the electoral gains we conservatives have achieved in this decade. Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq, but what about the proverbial soccer moms? Gerrymandering probably will save the House for us at least through the 2010 redistricting, but what about the Senate and the White House?
You bet the soccer moms are going to vote Democrat next time -- this war could end up being a huge set-back for the Republicans, and the longer it lasts, the worse it's going to be. The high oil prices and attendant economic woes aren't going to help, either -- Americans vote their pocketbook when all is said and done. If we can't get out of Iraq while leaving a stable situation behind us, then our economy is going to be in real peril. As Juan was mentioning lately, nobody likes to think we went to war for oil(if we did, we *really* screwed up), but the fact is that gas prices have a real impact on all of our lives -- and the working class and poor that the left is supposed be supporting will feel especially pinched if the Iraq situation spirals out of control.
Politically, if the left is going to get anywhere, it's got to remember its roots are in being the champions of the working class instead of being the Party of People Not Like Us. It may never have a better opportunity than right now to get Bubba on its side.
There have been rumblings for some time from the religious right, some of whom are catching on to the fact, that for all their loud and boistrous political activity for the last 25-30 years, they actually have had very little success in achieving their ends. My own guess is that after Bush, who is, after all, one of their own, even more frustration is going to set in and people are going to either drop out of political activity or become even more radicalized -- like the guy who wants Christians to move to South Carolina so it can secede and become a Christian theocracy.
However, old-style conservatives aren't real happy about Bush either. Paleocons are isolationists at heart; economic conservatives want smaller government not the government expansion that goes along with war -- I have an aunt who voted Libertarian because she's outraged about the Patriot Act. Bainbridge, in the article I've linked to above says:
It's time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
Then, after voicing a number of complaints about the Iraq War he ends by saying:
What really annoys me, however, are the domestic implications of all this. The conservative agenda has advanced hardly at all since the Iraq War began. Worse yet, the growing unpopularity of the war threatens to undo all the electoral gains we conservatives have achieved in this decade. Stalwarts like me are not going to vote for Birkenstock wearers no matter how bad things get in Iraq, but what about the proverbial soccer moms? Gerrymandering probably will save the House for us at least through the 2010 redistricting, but what about the Senate and the White House?
You bet the soccer moms are going to vote Democrat next time -- this war could end up being a huge set-back for the Republicans, and the longer it lasts, the worse it's going to be. The high oil prices and attendant economic woes aren't going to help, either -- Americans vote their pocketbook when all is said and done. If we can't get out of Iraq while leaving a stable situation behind us, then our economy is going to be in real peril. As Juan was mentioning lately, nobody likes to think we went to war for oil(if we did, we *really* screwed up), but the fact is that gas prices have a real impact on all of our lives -- and the working class and poor that the left is supposed be supporting will feel especially pinched if the Iraq situation spirals out of control.
Politically, if the left is going to get anywhere, it's got to remember its roots are in being the champions of the working class instead of being the Party of People Not Like Us. It may never have a better opportunity than right now to get Bubba on its side.
Sunday, August 14, 2005
Easing back in
Well, it's been a long, hot stressful summer but I'm moving into what has become the mellowest time of the year: the early weeks of school. Unlike full-time teachers, who are very busy, substitute teachers generally aren't called until school is well under way; I've never yet been called in August.
On the Baha'i front, there's another liberal Baha'i in trouble. A young man in Canada, who posted some essays mildly critical of the status quo, has been called to a meeting by an ABM for Protection. What's really weird is that he had barely started posting; he's just a raw newbie. This meeting is being framed as informal and friendly, which appears to be standard procedure. It may even appear so when the meeting takes place-- although some ABMs get nasty and yell and that kind of thing -- but it's the report that is made on the meeting that ends up being the worst part. The victim then gets a letter telling him that he'd better shape up or else. That's pretty much what happened to Larry Rowe, and others. Baquia has more detail on this story. He's back from his summer blogging break, too. :-)
The only general news story that has caught my attention recently has been that of Cindy Sheehan. More power to her, I say. As I've made it clear on other posts here, if it were my son that were killed, my rage would be beyond measure. However, I'm finding it interesting that as soon as a grieving parent begins to be perceived as "political", sympathy wanes. Well, of course she's political. So were Terri Shaivo's parents. So was the lady who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who get involved in one particular political cause or another do so because of some kind of personal experience with the issue.
And for this war, in particular, where the reasons for going into it turned out to be false and where the
goals have turned out to be impossible to achieve , it is inevitable that more anger and resentment about it are going to build up. Americans are not particularly patient people when it comes to war -- we want to get in, kick butt, and bring the boys home. Most are willing to support the president when he decides to send troops somewhere, but are not willing to support a lost cause to the last gasp. The longer this goes on, the more people are going to turn against it.
On the Baha'i front, there's another liberal Baha'i in trouble. A young man in Canada, who posted some essays mildly critical of the status quo, has been called to a meeting by an ABM for Protection. What's really weird is that he had barely started posting; he's just a raw newbie. This meeting is being framed as informal and friendly, which appears to be standard procedure. It may even appear so when the meeting takes place-- although some ABMs get nasty and yell and that kind of thing -- but it's the report that is made on the meeting that ends up being the worst part. The victim then gets a letter telling him that he'd better shape up or else. That's pretty much what happened to Larry Rowe, and others. Baquia has more detail on this story. He's back from his summer blogging break, too. :-)
The only general news story that has caught my attention recently has been that of Cindy Sheehan. More power to her, I say. As I've made it clear on other posts here, if it were my son that were killed, my rage would be beyond measure. However, I'm finding it interesting that as soon as a grieving parent begins to be perceived as "political", sympathy wanes. Well, of course she's political. So were Terri Shaivo's parents. So was the lady who started Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of people who get involved in one particular political cause or another do so because of some kind of personal experience with the issue.
And for this war, in particular, where the reasons for going into it turned out to be false and where the
goals have turned out to be impossible to achieve , it is inevitable that more anger and resentment about it are going to build up. Americans are not particularly patient people when it comes to war -- we want to get in, kick butt, and bring the boys home. Most are willing to support the president when he decides to send troops somewhere, but are not willing to support a lost cause to the last gasp. The longer this goes on, the more people are going to turn against it.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
Stress, Heat, and Harry Potter
[Note: For the "Harry Potter" portion of this entry, there will be spoilers below, although I would suggest that anybody who seriously wants to avoid Harry Potter spoilers shouldn't be online anyway!]
I don't know if I've spent a period online in the last five years that I felt more unengaged with what's happening online -- partly because even before I was torn away by real life commitments, I hadn't been doing much. I haven't been paying much attention to the real-world news either. Grandma saw an interview with Juan, where he gave what-for to a real Neanderthal, apparently -- and I'm like, "O.K., I'll catch it online sometime". I'm not doing anything right now, other than behind-the-scenes moderation where I have a commitment to do that.
Part of it has been stress; things with the job haven't gone as well as I'd hoped -- although, I knew from the outset I was dealing with a tough group of kids. It's been damn hard work, and if I'd tried something like this before having a few years subbing experience under my belt, I would have completely fallen apart. However, I've written some minor things that have gone over well; I left a contributor to a newsletter who was extremely sensitive about editing, positively beaming over what I'd done with his article.
The weather has been unbearably hot, with day after day of temps over 100 degrees for the last two weeks, and no end in sight. It was 113 today. This is not especially unusual, although the last few summers have been milder. The record summer high is 122. I'm in a broad valley flanked by mountain ranges; it's like living in a reflector oven. We are far away from ocean breezes. For those of you who live in different climates, when things get this hot, people get short on energy, and short of temper. It's tough to sleep at night. Trevor is living upside down -- awake all night, and sleeping during the heat of the day; Tory spends as much time as she can at the public pool. I really feel sorry for people who have to do physical labor in heat like this. My only comfort is thinking of the soldiers in Iraq, who face even hotter temperatures -- and don't have the luxury of complaining under swamp coolers and fans.
With life being stressful, I've been veering towards mindless entertainment when I do have spare time. There are times when one just needs to veg out. Most of the time, Jim rules the television, with the kids being second-in-command, but I've been watching "The Closer", and "Into the West".
Then, of course, there's *Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince*-- which, just in case you've been living under a rock, was released Saturday admist unprecedented hoopla. The fun part, for me, has been that it's something I've been able to share with my son. He's at an age when kids seem to be beings from another planet, and it's nice to have something to enjoy together. I'm also of the opinion that one must be an adult to truly appreciate children's literature. One of the perks of being a teacher is "read-alouds" of some of the best stories around.
Trevor and I aren't hung up on spoilers. To me, there are very few books or movies that are "spoiled" by knowing what happens. Something like *The Sixth Sense* where one's whole perceptions of the film would be altered would be spoiled by knowing the end, but very few other things would bother me. The part that matters is the experience. So, Trevor and I eagerly watched the chapter synopses appear on wikipedia that night, not knowing whether we'd have a key to a locker (meaning we'd get the book Saturday as ordered), or whether I'd find a card (meaning we'd have to wait until Monday for the post office to be open).
My comments:
-My favorite of the books is still *Prisoner of Azkaban*, and this new book has not altered my opinion.
-It's nice to see Harry behaving a bit more maturely; the adolescent angst was laid on so thick in *Order of the Phoenix* that he was almost unbearably irritating. That it was so realistic, though, is probably a tribute to Rowling's writing rather than a criticism.
-Favorite scenes: When Harry tells the Ministry to take a flying leap, showing the hand scarred by Umbridge's pen; McGonogall telling Neville that his grandmother should be "proud of the grandson she has instead of the one she thinks she ought to have"; the glasses knocking against the Dursley's heads, asking to be drunk; Kreacher and Dobby fighting; Harry supporting the weakened Dumbledore in the cave.
- Unlike some fans, I'm not an ardent "shipper", but I was glad to see Harry hook up with Ginny, and the friendly break-up at the end only makes sense, considering the dangers yet ahead.
-Although it was great to see all the backstory about Voldemort, I was disappointed that so many other questions about other characters have not yet been answered. I guess that Rowling's promise that "there will be all the backstory necessary" will be fulfilled in the last book. In fact, there is a hint of that, as Harry prepares to return to Godric's Hollow.
-Somehow Snape declaring himself "the Half-Blood Prince" just didn't ring right; he doesn't seem the type to make grand declarations about himself. Oh, he's got an ego, but he tends to tear others down while demonstrating his own capabilities, rather than bragging about them.. The fans that are still trying to make Snape out to be a secret good guy are crazy; there was clear foreshadowing in Dumbledore's statement that he makes big mistakes sometimes -- and he made one about Snape, end of story.
I don't know if I've spent a period online in the last five years that I felt more unengaged with what's happening online -- partly because even before I was torn away by real life commitments, I hadn't been doing much. I haven't been paying much attention to the real-world news either. Grandma saw an interview with Juan, where he gave what-for to a real Neanderthal, apparently -- and I'm like, "O.K., I'll catch it online sometime". I'm not doing anything right now, other than behind-the-scenes moderation where I have a commitment to do that.
Part of it has been stress; things with the job haven't gone as well as I'd hoped -- although, I knew from the outset I was dealing with a tough group of kids. It's been damn hard work, and if I'd tried something like this before having a few years subbing experience under my belt, I would have completely fallen apart. However, I've written some minor things that have gone over well; I left a contributor to a newsletter who was extremely sensitive about editing, positively beaming over what I'd done with his article.
The weather has been unbearably hot, with day after day of temps over 100 degrees for the last two weeks, and no end in sight. It was 113 today. This is not especially unusual, although the last few summers have been milder. The record summer high is 122. I'm in a broad valley flanked by mountain ranges; it's like living in a reflector oven. We are far away from ocean breezes. For those of you who live in different climates, when things get this hot, people get short on energy, and short of temper. It's tough to sleep at night. Trevor is living upside down -- awake all night, and sleeping during the heat of the day; Tory spends as much time as she can at the public pool. I really feel sorry for people who have to do physical labor in heat like this. My only comfort is thinking of the soldiers in Iraq, who face even hotter temperatures -- and don't have the luxury of complaining under swamp coolers and fans.
With life being stressful, I've been veering towards mindless entertainment when I do have spare time. There are times when one just needs to veg out. Most of the time, Jim rules the television, with the kids being second-in-command, but I've been watching "The Closer", and "Into the West".
Then, of course, there's *Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince*-- which, just in case you've been living under a rock, was released Saturday admist unprecedented hoopla. The fun part, for me, has been that it's something I've been able to share with my son. He's at an age when kids seem to be beings from another planet, and it's nice to have something to enjoy together. I'm also of the opinion that one must be an adult to truly appreciate children's literature. One of the perks of being a teacher is "read-alouds" of some of the best stories around.
Trevor and I aren't hung up on spoilers. To me, there are very few books or movies that are "spoiled" by knowing what happens. Something like *The Sixth Sense* where one's whole perceptions of the film would be altered would be spoiled by knowing the end, but very few other things would bother me. The part that matters is the experience. So, Trevor and I eagerly watched the chapter synopses appear on wikipedia that night, not knowing whether we'd have a key to a locker (meaning we'd get the book Saturday as ordered), or whether I'd find a card (meaning we'd have to wait until Monday for the post office to be open).
My comments:
-My favorite of the books is still *Prisoner of Azkaban*, and this new book has not altered my opinion.
-It's nice to see Harry behaving a bit more maturely; the adolescent angst was laid on so thick in *Order of the Phoenix* that he was almost unbearably irritating. That it was so realistic, though, is probably a tribute to Rowling's writing rather than a criticism.
-Favorite scenes: When Harry tells the Ministry to take a flying leap, showing the hand scarred by Umbridge's pen; McGonogall telling Neville that his grandmother should be "proud of the grandson she has instead of the one she thinks she ought to have"; the glasses knocking against the Dursley's heads, asking to be drunk; Kreacher and Dobby fighting; Harry supporting the weakened Dumbledore in the cave.
- Unlike some fans, I'm not an ardent "shipper", but I was glad to see Harry hook up with Ginny, and the friendly break-up at the end only makes sense, considering the dangers yet ahead.
-Although it was great to see all the backstory about Voldemort, I was disappointed that so many other questions about other characters have not yet been answered. I guess that Rowling's promise that "there will be all the backstory necessary" will be fulfilled in the last book. In fact, there is a hint of that, as Harry prepares to return to Godric's Hollow.
-Somehow Snape declaring himself "the Half-Blood Prince" just didn't ring right; he doesn't seem the type to make grand declarations about himself. Oh, he's got an ego, but he tends to tear others down while demonstrating his own capabilities, rather than bragging about them.. The fans that are still trying to make Snape out to be a secret good guy are crazy; there was clear foreshadowing in Dumbledore's statement that he makes big mistakes sometimes -- and he made one about Snape, end of story.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
A Real Job
Well, folks, it looks like I'm going to be teaching summer school for the next five weeks. This literally dropped out of the clear, blue sky. This morning I woke up with the whole summer ahead of me, at 1:30 I was at a school district office signing the papers. Apparently, the person they had hired originally was a no-show at the orientation meeting, so the principal went desperately through the sub list, looking for someone with the proper credential (as opposed to just a sub credential). So, I managed to get a job without all the rigamarole -- application, interview, etc. (I'm a good teacher, but not a good job hunter.) It was really just sheer luck.
And, this is a real teaching job -- I have my own classroom; I'm getting paid teacher's wages, not the pittance subs get. I start Monday, so I've just got this weekend to figure out the curriculum. I'm teaching a 7/8 combo for reading and math. Remediation, I've done quite a bit of -- except it's going to be a pain doing two separate levels.
So this may, but not necessarily, mean that my pearls of wisdom here will be scarcer. My experience is, though, that the frequence of my posting really depends more on what I've got to say than the time I've got. If I have a lot to say, then I *make* time. If I don't, I end up telling myself "Maybe tomorrow".
And, this is a real teaching job -- I have my own classroom; I'm getting paid teacher's wages, not the pittance subs get. I start Monday, so I've just got this weekend to figure out the curriculum. I'm teaching a 7/8 combo for reading and math. Remediation, I've done quite a bit of -- except it's going to be a pain doing two separate levels.
So this may, but not necessarily, mean that my pearls of wisdom here will be scarcer. My experience is, though, that the frequence of my posting really depends more on what I've got to say than the time I've got. If I have a lot to say, then I *make* time. If I don't, I end up telling myself "Maybe tomorrow".
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Hitting Close to Home
I'm begging my reader's indulgence for going through rather a slow phase right now. It's weird that some days I've got all the feverish thoughts that have to be written down, and I'll put four or five stories here on my blog, or post on forums -- then there are other times when I just don't feel like saying much or talking to anybody.
But this story deserves my attention: Basically, an al-Qaeda cell has been found in the relatively small town of Lodi, California. (Yes, that's the Lodi that CCR sang about getting "stuck in, again".)
Now, those of you that know me, know that I'm a small town girl, making no bones about my rural roots and lack of sophistication. And, while I am horrified by violent events and the rise of the terrorist threat, they have always been rather distant. It's like crime; I live in a place where I don't bother to lock my front door, or my car. Oh, it's not paradise; we have our criminals -- but if there really is any safe place in the world, I feel like I live in it. Even Shasta Dam, although I heard that they stepped up security there, were it hit by a place like the trade center was, would escape major damage, leaving those of us downstream quite safe. And what other possible target could there be way up here in the upper reaches of California?
Lodi -- San Joaquin county. I was born in Stockton, and still have family there. Some of my cousins used to live in Lodi, which is just a few miles north. I grew up in little towns around that area -- except for the years I spent up here, where my mom's family comes from, about 2-3 hours northward.
Grandma used to always say that if terrorists really wanted to scare Americans, they'd dispense with hitting big symbolic targets and make the hits random -- big cities, little towns, government buildings, and private -- so that nobody could feel like they were safe.
Well, at least these guys were arrested. While affiliated with al-Qaida, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that any specific attack was being planned. But, it's a little too close for comfort.
But this story deserves my attention: Basically, an al-Qaeda cell has been found in the relatively small town of Lodi, California. (Yes, that's the Lodi that CCR sang about getting "stuck in, again".)
Now, those of you that know me, know that I'm a small town girl, making no bones about my rural roots and lack of sophistication. And, while I am horrified by violent events and the rise of the terrorist threat, they have always been rather distant. It's like crime; I live in a place where I don't bother to lock my front door, or my car. Oh, it's not paradise; we have our criminals -- but if there really is any safe place in the world, I feel like I live in it. Even Shasta Dam, although I heard that they stepped up security there, were it hit by a place like the trade center was, would escape major damage, leaving those of us downstream quite safe. And what other possible target could there be way up here in the upper reaches of California?
Lodi -- San Joaquin county. I was born in Stockton, and still have family there. Some of my cousins used to live in Lodi, which is just a few miles north. I grew up in little towns around that area -- except for the years I spent up here, where my mom's family comes from, about 2-3 hours northward.
Grandma used to always say that if terrorists really wanted to scare Americans, they'd dispense with hitting big symbolic targets and make the hits random -- big cities, little towns, government buildings, and private -- so that nobody could feel like they were safe.
Well, at least these guys were arrested. While affiliated with al-Qaida, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that any specific attack was being planned. But, it's a little too close for comfort.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Baha'is Arrested in Iran
I still rather feel like I'm not firing on all cylinders as far as my Internet activity is concerned, but this is important news -- and even though most of my Baha'i readers have probably heard this by now, I felt I should post it here, just on the principle that information is the greatest weapon in opposing human rights abuses. The story does not appear to be getting much press outside the Baha'i community -- I checked out the "Human Rights Watch", "Amesty International" and "Iran Focus" websites and saw no mention of it. Strange, since *Iran Focus* picked up on the storyseveral months ago, apparently from the Iranian press, about Baha'i missionaries being arrested and deported-- a story that was denied by the Baha'i administration. I find it very strange that a false story about two non-Iranian missionaries would get press, and a true story about eleven arrests would not.
I first heard about the recent arrests on one of the lists I'm subscribed to, a couple of weeks ago, but didn't see any official confirmation until yesterday. The scuttlebutt is that most of the Baha'is arrested were organizing Ruhi study circles.
6 June 2005
State Bahá'í Councils
State Bahá'í Administrative Committees
Selected Local Spiritual Assemblies
Dear Bahá'í Friends,
We are informed by the Universal House of Justice that it "has received
alarming news of a number of arrests in Iran in the span of the last two
weeks, thus worsening the already perilous situation of the Bahá'ís in that
country.
On 16 May 2005, in the city of Simnán, eight Bahá'ís were summoned to appear
before the office of the Public Prosecutor. The very next day, another
Bahá'í in that city received a similar summons. They are Ms. Mahnáz
'Askarínasab, Mr. 'Ádil Faná'íyán, Mr. Afshín Íqání, Mr. 'Abbás Núrání, Ms.
Shádí Núrání, Ms. Zhínús Núrání, Mrs. Shu'lih Tá'if, Ms. Súsan Tibíyáníyán,
and Mr. Bihshád Vujdání.
These Bahá'ís were charged with "creating anxiety in the minds of the public
and those of the Iranian officials" and "propaganda against the government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran". The charges were associated with
distributing to various Iranian officials copies of the letter of appeal
dated 15 November 2004 addressed to President Khatami on behalf of the
Iranian Bahá'í community. When they arrived at the Prosecutor's office on 18
May 2005, they were asked to post bail ranging from 30 to 60 million Iranian
rials (approximately US$3,360-US$6,720) each. As they were concerned that
producing this sum could lead to further arrests and bail demands on other
Bahá'ís, they declined to do so. They were detained overnight and
subsequently freed on their own recognizance on 20 May 2005, with the
understanding that they would appear for a hearing at a later date. Mrs.
Shu'lih Tá'if's husband also provided personal guarantees that they would
return to court.
Soon after this incident, on 25 May 2005, the Iranian authorities entered
the homes of six other Bahá'ís in Tehran and six Bahá'ís in Shiraz, where
they conducted searches and confiscated Bahá'í documents, computers, CDs,
cheques, financial records, and other belongings. All six in Shiraz and four
of the six in Tehran were taken to an unknown location. The other two
Bahá'ís from Tehran, Mr. Násir Mansúr and Mr. Jamál Thábit, were not home at
the time. However, Mr. Thábit was later arrested as he was returning from a
trip. Those arrested in Tehran are Mrs. Zhínús Jiddí Farnúsh, who is the
wife of Mr. Háshim Farnúsh who had previously been killed for being a
Bahá'í and the sister of Mr. Shahrám Jiddí who was arrested on 16 March 2005
and is still in custody; Mrs. Faríbá Kamálábádí Tá'ifí; Mr. Táhir Safájú;
Mrs. Mahvash Shahríyárí Thábit; and Mr. Jamál Thábit. Those from Shiraz are
Mr. Vahdat Dáná, Mr. Adíb Haqpazhú, Mr. Fúád Ithádu'l-haq, Mr. Shahrám
Mansúr, Mr. Sa'íd Ridá'í, and
Mr. Farhád Sarafráz. All of the Bahá'ís arrested were playing key roles in
the educational programmes of the community.
On 30 May 2005, the nine Bahá'ís from the village of Katá in the province of
Buyír-Ahmad and Chármahál-Bakhtíyárí, whose arrest was communicated in our
letters dated 28 April 2005 and 8 May 2005, were released from prison after
a business license was used as collateral. They will be required to attend a
hearing at a later date.
These arrests and confiscations of property signal a new phase in the
government's implementation of its strategy to eradicate the Bahá'í
community in Iran, which was, as you know, set out in the Supreme
Revolutionary Cultural Council's confidential memorandum dated 25 February
1991.
Since the beginning of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Bahá'ís have been
subject to a series of egregious acts of persecution, such as having had
their religious institutions banned; been executed for their beliefs;
deprived of rights enjoyed by other Iranians, including their right to
employment and to receive their pensions following long and faithful service
in their jobs; suffered destruction and desecration of properties held as
sacred by Bahá'ís throughout the world in a concerted effort that has been
described as cultural cleansing; been assaulted and had their businesses and
means of livelihood destroyed or confiscated; denied fair trials; and been
prevented from admission to universities despite empty promises to rectify
this gross violation of their right to higher education. There was, however,
a period in which it appeared to many that the situation had been improving,
but which was no more than a chimera. Students who had been barred from
admission to universities had been led to believe that the prohibition had
been removed; they remain unable to enrol in institutions of higher
education. Almost all prisoners had been released; there are now sixteen
Bahá'ís in prison and an additional eighteen out on bail awaiting trial.
The last few months have witnessed the destruction of Bahá'í holy places,
the desecration of Bahá'í cemeteries, beatings of members of the community,
destruction and confiscation of businesses, arrests, and searches and
seizures of private property, which apparently have led the authorities to
identify and now arrest those who have leadership roles in educating the
community. The Iranian Bahá'ís are once again being exposed to
ever-escalating intimidation, harassment, arrests, imprisonment, and
arbitrary detention. The Bahá'ís in prison and those released on bail are
now awaiting trial on preposterous charges."
Whilst the National Spiritual Assembly, through its Office of Diplomatic
Affairs is taking the necessary actions to appraise our Government and
requesting for their assistance on behalf of the Bahá'ís in Iran, we urge
friends in every community to pray for the safety and well-being of all our
beloved spiritual brothers and sisters in the Cradle of the Faith.
With loving Bahá'í greetings,
Dr. A.K. Merchant
Secretary
I first heard about the recent arrests on one of the lists I'm subscribed to, a couple of weeks ago, but didn't see any official confirmation until yesterday. The scuttlebutt is that most of the Baha'is arrested were organizing Ruhi study circles.
6 June 2005
State Bahá'í Councils
State Bahá'í Administrative Committees
Selected Local Spiritual Assemblies
Dear Bahá'í Friends,
We are informed by the Universal House of Justice that it "has received
alarming news of a number of arrests in Iran in the span of the last two
weeks, thus worsening the already perilous situation of the Bahá'ís in that
country.
On 16 May 2005, in the city of Simnán, eight Bahá'ís were summoned to appear
before the office of the Public Prosecutor. The very next day, another
Bahá'í in that city received a similar summons. They are Ms. Mahnáz
'Askarínasab, Mr. 'Ádil Faná'íyán, Mr. Afshín Íqání, Mr. 'Abbás Núrání, Ms.
Shádí Núrání, Ms. Zhínús Núrání, Mrs. Shu'lih Tá'if, Ms. Súsan Tibíyáníyán,
and Mr. Bihshád Vujdání.
These Bahá'ís were charged with "creating anxiety in the minds of the public
and those of the Iranian officials" and "propaganda against the government
of the Islamic Republic of Iran". The charges were associated with
distributing to various Iranian officials copies of the letter of appeal
dated 15 November 2004 addressed to President Khatami on behalf of the
Iranian Bahá'í community. When they arrived at the Prosecutor's office on 18
May 2005, they were asked to post bail ranging from 30 to 60 million Iranian
rials (approximately US$3,360-US$6,720) each. As they were concerned that
producing this sum could lead to further arrests and bail demands on other
Bahá'ís, they declined to do so. They were detained overnight and
subsequently freed on their own recognizance on 20 May 2005, with the
understanding that they would appear for a hearing at a later date. Mrs.
Shu'lih Tá'if's husband also provided personal guarantees that they would
return to court.
Soon after this incident, on 25 May 2005, the Iranian authorities entered
the homes of six other Bahá'ís in Tehran and six Bahá'ís in Shiraz, where
they conducted searches and confiscated Bahá'í documents, computers, CDs,
cheques, financial records, and other belongings. All six in Shiraz and four
of the six in Tehran were taken to an unknown location. The other two
Bahá'ís from Tehran, Mr. Násir Mansúr and Mr. Jamál Thábit, were not home at
the time. However, Mr. Thábit was later arrested as he was returning from a
trip. Those arrested in Tehran are Mrs. Zhínús Jiddí Farnúsh, who is the
wife of Mr. Háshim Farnúsh who had previously been killed for being a
Bahá'í and the sister of Mr. Shahrám Jiddí who was arrested on 16 March 2005
and is still in custody; Mrs. Faríbá Kamálábádí Tá'ifí; Mr. Táhir Safájú;
Mrs. Mahvash Shahríyárí Thábit; and Mr. Jamál Thábit. Those from Shiraz are
Mr. Vahdat Dáná, Mr. Adíb Haqpazhú, Mr. Fúád Ithádu'l-haq, Mr. Shahrám
Mansúr, Mr. Sa'íd Ridá'í, and
Mr. Farhád Sarafráz. All of the Bahá'ís arrested were playing key roles in
the educational programmes of the community.
On 30 May 2005, the nine Bahá'ís from the village of Katá in the province of
Buyír-Ahmad and Chármahál-Bakhtíyárí, whose arrest was communicated in our
letters dated 28 April 2005 and 8 May 2005, were released from prison after
a business license was used as collateral. They will be required to attend a
hearing at a later date.
These arrests and confiscations of property signal a new phase in the
government's implementation of its strategy to eradicate the Bahá'í
community in Iran, which was, as you know, set out in the Supreme
Revolutionary Cultural Council's confidential memorandum dated 25 February
1991.
Since the beginning of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, Bahá'ís have been
subject to a series of egregious acts of persecution, such as having had
their religious institutions banned; been executed for their beliefs;
deprived of rights enjoyed by other Iranians, including their right to
employment and to receive their pensions following long and faithful service
in their jobs; suffered destruction and desecration of properties held as
sacred by Bahá'ís throughout the world in a concerted effort that has been
described as cultural cleansing; been assaulted and had their businesses and
means of livelihood destroyed or confiscated; denied fair trials; and been
prevented from admission to universities despite empty promises to rectify
this gross violation of their right to higher education. There was, however,
a period in which it appeared to many that the situation had been improving,
but which was no more than a chimera. Students who had been barred from
admission to universities had been led to believe that the prohibition had
been removed; they remain unable to enrol in institutions of higher
education. Almost all prisoners had been released; there are now sixteen
Bahá'ís in prison and an additional eighteen out on bail awaiting trial.
The last few months have witnessed the destruction of Bahá'í holy places,
the desecration of Bahá'í cemeteries, beatings of members of the community,
destruction and confiscation of businesses, arrests, and searches and
seizures of private property, which apparently have led the authorities to
identify and now arrest those who have leadership roles in educating the
community. The Iranian Bahá'ís are once again being exposed to
ever-escalating intimidation, harassment, arrests, imprisonment, and
arbitrary detention. The Bahá'ís in prison and those released on bail are
now awaiting trial on preposterous charges."
Whilst the National Spiritual Assembly, through its Office of Diplomatic
Affairs is taking the necessary actions to appraise our Government and
requesting for their assistance on behalf of the Bahá'ís in Iran, we urge
friends in every community to pray for the safety and well-being of all our
beloved spiritual brothers and sisters in the Cradle of the Faith.
With loving Bahá'í greetings,
Dr. A.K. Merchant
Secretary
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot
Still trying to catch up with what's going on in the world. Lots of talk about Amnesty International's harsh report on the way the U.S. in treating its prisoners in Guantanamo and elsewhere. I don't suppose I can add all that much intelligent commentary to what's out there, but it did cause a rare domestic disagreement. I normally don't take on Jim about politics, usually because disagreement on my part will ends up with my being on the receiving end of an hour-long lecture on why I'm wrong, naive, etc. (It's a family joke; my kids have noted the same trait in their dad. I don't lecture on such things; I just blog. :-)) However, after watching O'Reilly, the topic naturally came up, and I said that the Third World dictators that Anmesty takes on over their human rights abuses probably aren't real fond of that organization, either, and say it's unfair, absurd, etc. But Americans are just fine with having those guys roasted; we just don't want the same standard applied to us.
Just like one of Amnesty's representatives said:
Amnesty has fired right back, pointing out that the administration often cites its reports when that suits its purposes. "If our reports are so 'absurd,' why did the administration repeatedly cite our findings about Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war?" wrote William F. Schultz, executive director of the group's United States branch, in a letter to the editor being published Saturday in The New York Times. "Why does it welcome our criticisms of Cuba, China and North Korea? And why does it cite our research in its own annual human rights reports?"
Depends on whose ox is being gored. The rest of the article is here.
Jim launched into a big lecture about how Anmesty International is a lot like the ACLU -- an organization that started out doing good things, but came under the influence of far-left radicals and went off the deep end, yada, yada, yada. Instead of my normal tack of ignoring that stuff, I interrupted him and said "You know, that's bullshit. I don't give a damn about their politics. The question is 'Is our military torturing and mistreating people or is it not?' And if they are, it's wrong, and that's all there is to it." Jim still thinks it's all just a matter of a handful of people going too far, and not a systemic thing. I think that's bullshit, too, but was disinclined to cry "Bullshit!" twice in the same conversation.
O'Reilly also took on a mom who is opposed to military recruitment in schools, and definitely doesn't want her son serving. Actually, he wasn't as nasty as I've seen him be to some people, but it still was the old "How can you not support the military when you've got young guys fighting for your freedom out there?" This mom responded, like I would have, that the soldiers in Iraq aren't doing a whole lot for our freedom, then O'Reilly just dodged towards talking about the War on Terror in general. Maybe, if they're short on soldiers, and really interested in getting the thugs who attacked us, maybe they should have more soldiers doing that, rather than messing around in Iraq? Why should we trust a government that lied to us, and isn't making us any safer?
Just like one of Amnesty's representatives said:
Amnesty has fired right back, pointing out that the administration often cites its reports when that suits its purposes. "If our reports are so 'absurd,' why did the administration repeatedly cite our findings about Saddam Hussein before the Iraq war?" wrote William F. Schultz, executive director of the group's United States branch, in a letter to the editor being published Saturday in The New York Times. "Why does it welcome our criticisms of Cuba, China and North Korea? And why does it cite our research in its own annual human rights reports?"
Depends on whose ox is being gored. The rest of the article is here.
Jim launched into a big lecture about how Anmesty International is a lot like the ACLU -- an organization that started out doing good things, but came under the influence of far-left radicals and went off the deep end, yada, yada, yada. Instead of my normal tack of ignoring that stuff, I interrupted him and said "You know, that's bullshit. I don't give a damn about their politics. The question is 'Is our military torturing and mistreating people or is it not?' And if they are, it's wrong, and that's all there is to it." Jim still thinks it's all just a matter of a handful of people going too far, and not a systemic thing. I think that's bullshit, too, but was disinclined to cry "Bullshit!" twice in the same conversation.
O'Reilly also took on a mom who is opposed to military recruitment in schools, and definitely doesn't want her son serving. Actually, he wasn't as nasty as I've seen him be to some people, but it still was the old "How can you not support the military when you've got young guys fighting for your freedom out there?" This mom responded, like I would have, that the soldiers in Iraq aren't doing a whole lot for our freedom, then O'Reilly just dodged towards talking about the War on Terror in general. Maybe, if they're short on soldiers, and really interested in getting the thugs who attacked us, maybe they should have more soldiers doing that, rather than messing around in Iraq? Why should we trust a government that lied to us, and isn't making us any safer?
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Since I've Been Gone Awhile, I Might As Well Start With a Goofy Quiz
You Are a Pundit Blogger! |
 Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read. Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few. |
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Raising Moral Kids
The previous entry got me thinking, naturally about my own kids, who are both teenagers now, and how you raise kids with good family values. And, I don't know how I did it, but both of my kids have pretty good values. My son rejects religion, but is as straight-laced morally as the strictest religious conservative could desire. This is a kid who would only go to lunch with Grandma on the condition that she not take him to the restaurant at the casino -- because he disapproves of gambling. His main concern about sex is that he doesn't want to give way to temptation. My daughter is a bit more of a rebel, and certainly more curious about sex, but she's in no big hurry either. Once she was watching one of those godawful daytime shows where families air their dirty laundry for fifteen minutes of fame. I was just about to insist she turn the channel when she says "Mom, that girl is really mean to her mother -- and her mother loves her!" She was in tears about it. (The girl on t.v. was openly and deliberately trying to get pregnant.) Tory also has a very solid sense of self, and isn't likely to be pushed around by some guy. She told me once that she wanted to marry a nerd, so she could push him around!
Now, I know that some folks will think "Ah, but you don't really know what your kids are doing behind your back". Oh, yes I do -- 'cause I'm around and I pay attention. All that's been happening so far are giggling talk about some 7th grade cutie in Tory's case, and unrequited longing in Trevor's case. I'm not even getting phone calls from boyfriends or girlfriends, much less ever met one.
Now, this didn't happen because I've given my kids stern lectures about the value of chastity, and I absolutely disapprove of the scare tactics popular among the Christian right. I answer questions, and tell it like it is as best I can. The closest I came to giving a lecture to my daughter was I used an example of one of her friends, who was in a bad family mess, and I said "Your dad and I have given you a home with two parents who love each other, and who love you. If you have a child before getting married, that baby won't grow up with that."
I think example, and that atmosphere a child is raised in has more to do with their moral viewpoint than any kind of lecture.
Now, I know that some folks will think "Ah, but you don't really know what your kids are doing behind your back". Oh, yes I do -- 'cause I'm around and I pay attention. All that's been happening so far are giggling talk about some 7th grade cutie in Tory's case, and unrequited longing in Trevor's case. I'm not even getting phone calls from boyfriends or girlfriends, much less ever met one.
Now, this didn't happen because I've given my kids stern lectures about the value of chastity, and I absolutely disapprove of the scare tactics popular among the Christian right. I answer questions, and tell it like it is as best I can. The closest I came to giving a lecture to my daughter was I used an example of one of her friends, who was in a bad family mess, and I said "Your dad and I have given you a home with two parents who love each other, and who love you. If you have a child before getting married, that baby won't grow up with that."
I think example, and that atmosphere a child is raised in has more to do with their moral viewpoint than any kind of lecture.
Virginity or Death!
There have been successful trials of a vaccine that will immunize young women against the human pampilloma virus -- a sexually transmitted virus that is responsible for about 70% of all cervical cancer. Good news, right? Not according to the Christian right who seem to think that reducing the risk of getting cancer in middle age is going to figure into the sexual choices of teenagers. This article calls it "honor killing on the installment plan". O.K., a bit dramatic, but it's quite appalling that such a simple thing -- a single shot! -- that could prevent women from dying of cancer is a matter of controversy. These people *want* sex to mean death.
These conservative Christians can't even keep their own kids from having sex before marriage, although I suspect they start sexual activity at later ages, and marry a bit earlier. Nearly 90% of teenagers that sign those "virginity pledges" default. If the intense pressure put on these kids doesn't work, then nothing will, short of locking the girls up in convents and rushing them from there to their wedding, strictly chaperoned.
It's not that I'm against chastity, especially for vulnerable young girls, but if they can't quite live up to the ideal, I don't think they ought to die for it.
These conservative Christians can't even keep their own kids from having sex before marriage, although I suspect they start sexual activity at later ages, and marry a bit earlier. Nearly 90% of teenagers that sign those "virginity pledges" default. If the intense pressure put on these kids doesn't work, then nothing will, short of locking the girls up in convents and rushing them from there to their wedding, strictly chaperoned.
It's not that I'm against chastity, especially for vulnerable young girls, but if they can't quite live up to the ideal, I don't think they ought to die for it.
One Common Faith, paragraph 36
Besides, the diversity of practices, the paper goes on to condemn the clergy of earlier religions, for their theological views:
36
More detrimental still to religious understanding has been theological presumption. A persistent feature of religion's sectarian past has been the dominant role played by clergy. In the absence of scriptural texts that established unarguable institutional authority, clerical elites succeeded in arrogating to themselves exclusive control over interpretation of the Divine intent. However diverse the motives, the tragic effects have been to impede the current of inspiration, discourage independent intellectual activity, focus attention on the minutiae of rituals and too often engender hatred and prejudice towards those following a different sectarian path from that of self-appointed spiritual leaders. While nothing could prevent the creative power of Divine intervention from continuing its work of progressively raising consciousness, the scope of what could be achieved, in any age, became increasingly limited by such artificially contrived obstacles
I think this is a little harsh -- after all, for centuries, the vast majority of people were not literate, and could not pursue "independent intellectual activity" even if they wanted to. I was just reading a while back that women in Saudi Arabia have gone from mostly illiterate to mostly literate only within the last generation. You can only begin to dispense with clergy when most adherents are educated -- and even then clerical training has some value, certainly in terms of study in the scriptural languages, and in having a perspective on the history of the tradition. In fact, technically, Judaism and Islam doesn't have "clergy", like Christianity; what they have are "scholars" which these communities depended upon to give rulings on religious law, because they are knowledgeable.
Besides, I don't find that Baha'i administrators are free from the faults it attributes to clergymen -- it has done its own share of "impeding the current of inspiration and discouraging independent intellectual activity". For all the claims that no one has individual authority within the Baha'i Faith, upper-level Baha'i administrators are enormously powerful, and their ideas very influential, even at times becoming doctrine with very little basis in the Writings. The idea that the Baha'i Faith is opposed to individualism is one outstanding example. And just like the religious leaders of old, Baha'i administrators are extremely concerned with holding on to their authority, reacting vehemently to the least challenge. The conflict I mentioned in my previous entry within the Anglican church over the acceptance of homosexuality would be inconcievable in the Baha'i Faith -- a person like Maggie Ross could easily be booted out of the Faith for writing an article like that, and that would happen long before any sort of cohesive movement for reform got off the ground. But, as she pointed out, it isn't about homosexuality (or women's rights, or freedom of expression or whatever issue you want to name); the response of religious leadership is really about power and control. And one feature of modern life that is going to cripple any chance the Baha'i Faith has to be more than just an exotic alternative to mainstream religion is that people can choose not to be ordered around by their religious leaders -- and they will. Even conservative Christian preachers complain that their congregations won't hang around on Sunday if they are lectured about their sins, creating an ethical dilmemma over whether or not folks in the pews should be told what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. And the Baha'i administration does more than lecture; Baha'is live under the threat of sanction to a much greater extent than any of the well-established religions, and that's one reason so many leave.
36
More detrimental still to religious understanding has been theological presumption. A persistent feature of religion's sectarian past has been the dominant role played by clergy. In the absence of scriptural texts that established unarguable institutional authority, clerical elites succeeded in arrogating to themselves exclusive control over interpretation of the Divine intent. However diverse the motives, the tragic effects have been to impede the current of inspiration, discourage independent intellectual activity, focus attention on the minutiae of rituals and too often engender hatred and prejudice towards those following a different sectarian path from that of self-appointed spiritual leaders. While nothing could prevent the creative power of Divine intervention from continuing its work of progressively raising consciousness, the scope of what could be achieved, in any age, became increasingly limited by such artificially contrived obstacles
I think this is a little harsh -- after all, for centuries, the vast majority of people were not literate, and could not pursue "independent intellectual activity" even if they wanted to. I was just reading a while back that women in Saudi Arabia have gone from mostly illiterate to mostly literate only within the last generation. You can only begin to dispense with clergy when most adherents are educated -- and even then clerical training has some value, certainly in terms of study in the scriptural languages, and in having a perspective on the history of the tradition. In fact, technically, Judaism and Islam doesn't have "clergy", like Christianity; what they have are "scholars" which these communities depended upon to give rulings on religious law, because they are knowledgeable.
Besides, I don't find that Baha'i administrators are free from the faults it attributes to clergymen -- it has done its own share of "impeding the current of inspiration and discouraging independent intellectual activity". For all the claims that no one has individual authority within the Baha'i Faith, upper-level Baha'i administrators are enormously powerful, and their ideas very influential, even at times becoming doctrine with very little basis in the Writings. The idea that the Baha'i Faith is opposed to individualism is one outstanding example. And just like the religious leaders of old, Baha'i administrators are extremely concerned with holding on to their authority, reacting vehemently to the least challenge. The conflict I mentioned in my previous entry within the Anglican church over the acceptance of homosexuality would be inconcievable in the Baha'i Faith -- a person like Maggie Ross could easily be booted out of the Faith for writing an article like that, and that would happen long before any sort of cohesive movement for reform got off the ground. But, as she pointed out, it isn't about homosexuality (or women's rights, or freedom of expression or whatever issue you want to name); the response of religious leadership is really about power and control. And one feature of modern life that is going to cripple any chance the Baha'i Faith has to be more than just an exotic alternative to mainstream religion is that people can choose not to be ordered around by their religious leaders -- and they will. Even conservative Christian preachers complain that their congregations won't hang around on Sunday if they are lectured about their sins, creating an ethical dilmemma over whether or not folks in the pews should be told what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. And the Baha'i administration does more than lecture; Baha'is live under the threat of sanction to a much greater extent than any of the well-established religions, and that's one reason so many leave.
Praying With Our Feet
I came across this article by Maggie Ross, author of one of my favorite books on mysticism *The Fountain and the Furnace: The Way of Tears and Fire*. She's a Christian solitary, bound by all the vows of a nun, but not living in a bounded community. One might expect that she would have a rather old-fashioned outlook on the rest of the world -- and in fact, the texts she studies and talks about are much older-fashioned than anything that comes from conservative Christians who think they have "that old-time religion". But that expectation would be wrong.
This article is a fiery denunciation of those that are refusing to accept gay priests in the Anglican church. But what she says would be true for any issue, or any religious community. Some quotes:
Faith is not about suspending critique, but about exercising it.
The sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels apply to discernment in this life. He wishes to teach us a wisdom into which we grow progressively that enables us to shake off the shackles imposed in the name of the closed and unthinking strictures imposed by family, culture and even religion. We might say especially religion, since our Christian religious institutions seem to have recreated the very sort of religious climate that Jesus spent his entire ministry criticizing.
But faith is precisely about challenging complacency. It is about finding security in insecurity, the realization that unless we work hard to maintain a hole in the heavens (Lathrop, 2003) by which the closed universe of human self-consciousness is breached, human engagement will be tragically determined by the fear of "death," which is not mortality but our fantasies about mortality, which are in fact fantasies about power and control, in whose name real death is inflicted on others.
By contrast, so-called values imposed on others by frightened people can only be abusive, and values inflicted under the name of religion by the bigoted, the arrogant and the greedy are no values at all. A culture based on greed and fear wants its members to be team players, sycophants, ciphers. It does not want to produce people who can exercise a critique.
It also means that in our learning and teaching we have reverence for a kind of holy self-doubt. Our thoughts are not God's thoughts, and when we start pretending they are, we create havoc.
There is always risk involved in such a stance. Such people may be regarded as mere crackpots. As non-members of the establishment, particularly the religious establishment, they are considered presumptuous even for raising their voices to be heard, much less insisting on keeping on being heard. And if by some miracle they escape censure, or persecution, or being silenced if only by being ignored or isolated, they will continue to speak out until their last breath.
With so many fake Christians around, it's really nice to meet a real one. And a real Christian has a lot to teach those of us who follow other spiritual paths.
This article is a fiery denunciation of those that are refusing to accept gay priests in the Anglican church. But what she says would be true for any issue, or any religious community. Some quotes:
Faith is not about suspending critique, but about exercising it.
The sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels apply to discernment in this life. He wishes to teach us a wisdom into which we grow progressively that enables us to shake off the shackles imposed in the name of the closed and unthinking strictures imposed by family, culture and even religion. We might say especially religion, since our Christian religious institutions seem to have recreated the very sort of religious climate that Jesus spent his entire ministry criticizing.
But faith is precisely about challenging complacency. It is about finding security in insecurity, the realization that unless we work hard to maintain a hole in the heavens (Lathrop, 2003) by which the closed universe of human self-consciousness is breached, human engagement will be tragically determined by the fear of "death," which is not mortality but our fantasies about mortality, which are in fact fantasies about power and control, in whose name real death is inflicted on others.
By contrast, so-called values imposed on others by frightened people can only be abusive, and values inflicted under the name of religion by the bigoted, the arrogant and the greedy are no values at all. A culture based on greed and fear wants its members to be team players, sycophants, ciphers. It does not want to produce people who can exercise a critique.
It also means that in our learning and teaching we have reverence for a kind of holy self-doubt. Our thoughts are not God's thoughts, and when we start pretending they are, we create havoc.
There is always risk involved in such a stance. Such people may be regarded as mere crackpots. As non-members of the establishment, particularly the religious establishment, they are considered presumptuous even for raising their voices to be heard, much less insisting on keeping on being heard. And if by some miracle they escape censure, or persecution, or being silenced if only by being ignored or isolated, they will continue to speak out until their last breath.
With so many fake Christians around, it's really nice to meet a real one. And a real Christian has a lot to teach those of us who follow other spiritual paths.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
One Common Faith, paragraphs 28-35
28
In short, through the ongoing process of revelation, the One Who is the Source of the system of knowledge we call religion demonstrates that system's integrity and its freedom from the contradictions imposed by sectarian ambitions.. . .
This is something of a Baha'i myth i.e. that schism and creation of sects is inevitably the result of "ambition". That just doesn't hold up in the light of history. There is such a thing as sincere disagreement over what a religion means. Since the next few paragraphs largely concern the idea of progressive revelation -- a belief common to all Baha'is -- I really have little to say about them.
31
The objection most commonly raised against the foregoing conception of religion is the assertion that the differences among the revealed faiths are so fundamental that to present them as stages or aspects of one unified system of truth does violence to the facts. Given the confusion surrounding the nature of religion, the reaction is understandable.. . .
I have certainly seen Christian objections to the Baha'i Faith of exactly this type. What it comes down to is what one thinks is important about religion. Christianity, historically, has made theology a major issue, so naturally the idea of the unity of religion looks like utter nonsense to them. If you don't equate conceptions of God with God Himself, then theology ceases to matter so much. For Baha'is, God is unknowable, therefore arguments concerning what we think we know are rather pointless. However, the Baha'i community is not, unfortunately, completely free of rigidity concerning the nature of God -- more than one liberal intellectual got into trouble, at least partly, because he held a "low theology" of Baha'u'llah.
The next few paragraphs focus on the difference is religious practices, giving the basic Baha'i view that the former religious laws were revealed as appropriate to past ages.
35
The concept of progressive revelation places the ultimate emphasis on recognition of the revelation of God at its appearance. The failure of the generality of humankind in this respect has, time and again, condemned entire populations to a ritualistic repetition of ordinances and practices long after these latter have fulfilled their purpose and now merely stultify moral advance. Sadly, in the present day, a related consequence of such failure has been to trivialize religion. At precisely the point in its collective development where humanity began to struggle with the challenges of modernity, the spiritual resource on which it had principally depended for moral courage and enlightenment was fast becoming a subject of mockery, first at those levels where decisions were being made about the direction society should take, and eventually in ever-widening circles of the general population. There is little cause for surprise, then, that this most devastating of the many betrayals of trust from which human confidence has suffered should, in the course of time, undermine the foundations of belief itself.
Again, it remains to be seen how the Baha'i Faith will do better on this score. Already there are issues, some of which were mentioned in this paper, where the prevailing interpretations of Baha'i teaching seem to be pushing mankind backwards towards a more authoritarian era. There is no point whatsoever, for example, to excluding women from the UHJ -- even that body itself admits that it doesn't know the reason for it. When I was researching this issue, I found the arguments made in support of this exclusion to be virtually identical to those made by the Catholic Church for its exclusion of women from the priesthood. Very well, religious communities decide to hold on to their traditions and the authority they deem so essential for the preservation of the Founder's teachings. However, they then give up any viable claim to be compatible with modernity, or to be on the cutting edge of human progress.
In short, through the ongoing process of revelation, the One Who is the Source of the system of knowledge we call religion demonstrates that system's integrity and its freedom from the contradictions imposed by sectarian ambitions.. . .
This is something of a Baha'i myth i.e. that schism and creation of sects is inevitably the result of "ambition". That just doesn't hold up in the light of history. There is such a thing as sincere disagreement over what a religion means. Since the next few paragraphs largely concern the idea of progressive revelation -- a belief common to all Baha'is -- I really have little to say about them.
31
The objection most commonly raised against the foregoing conception of religion is the assertion that the differences among the revealed faiths are so fundamental that to present them as stages or aspects of one unified system of truth does violence to the facts. Given the confusion surrounding the nature of religion, the reaction is understandable.. . .
I have certainly seen Christian objections to the Baha'i Faith of exactly this type. What it comes down to is what one thinks is important about religion. Christianity, historically, has made theology a major issue, so naturally the idea of the unity of religion looks like utter nonsense to them. If you don't equate conceptions of God with God Himself, then theology ceases to matter so much. For Baha'is, God is unknowable, therefore arguments concerning what we think we know are rather pointless. However, the Baha'i community is not, unfortunately, completely free of rigidity concerning the nature of God -- more than one liberal intellectual got into trouble, at least partly, because he held a "low theology" of Baha'u'llah.
The next few paragraphs focus on the difference is religious practices, giving the basic Baha'i view that the former religious laws were revealed as appropriate to past ages.
35
The concept of progressive revelation places the ultimate emphasis on recognition of the revelation of God at its appearance. The failure of the generality of humankind in this respect has, time and again, condemned entire populations to a ritualistic repetition of ordinances and practices long after these latter have fulfilled their purpose and now merely stultify moral advance. Sadly, in the present day, a related consequence of such failure has been to trivialize religion. At precisely the point in its collective development where humanity began to struggle with the challenges of modernity, the spiritual resource on which it had principally depended for moral courage and enlightenment was fast becoming a subject of mockery, first at those levels where decisions were being made about the direction society should take, and eventually in ever-widening circles of the general population. There is little cause for surprise, then, that this most devastating of the many betrayals of trust from which human confidence has suffered should, in the course of time, undermine the foundations of belief itself.
Again, it remains to be seen how the Baha'i Faith will do better on this score. Already there are issues, some of which were mentioned in this paper, where the prevailing interpretations of Baha'i teaching seem to be pushing mankind backwards towards a more authoritarian era. There is no point whatsoever, for example, to excluding women from the UHJ -- even that body itself admits that it doesn't know the reason for it. When I was researching this issue, I found the arguments made in support of this exclusion to be virtually identical to those made by the Catholic Church for its exclusion of women from the priesthood. Very well, religious communities decide to hold on to their traditions and the authority they deem so essential for the preservation of the Founder's teachings. However, they then give up any viable claim to be compatible with modernity, or to be on the cutting edge of human progress.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Worldview Quiz
O.K. I'll admit it; I like doing goofy little quizzes. Credit for pointing me to this one goes to Umm Yasmin, who once upon a time was known as Maryam Rachel Woodlock in Baha'i circles, but who has apparently chosen an honorific in celebration of her baby girl -- which sounds like a terrific idea to me remembering those precious days when my kids were babies. Actually, there was a phase in my kids' lives where all the children in the neighborhood called me "Trevor's Mom", which isn't so different, I suppose. :-)
Anyway, my quiz results:
Anyway, my quiz results:
 | You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.
What is Your World View? created with QuizFarm.com |
One Common Faith, paragraphs 24-27
As I mentioned in the previous entry, the next paragraphs continue with a restatement of some pretty basic Baha'i teachings:
24
The teachings of Bahá'u'lláh cut through this tangle of inconsistent views and, in doing so, reformulate many truths which, whether explicitly or implicitly, have lain at the heart of all Divine revelation. . . .
The only problem I have with this is the rather arrogant dismissal of previous traditions; it is, of course, Baha'i teaching that Baha'u'llah has reconfirmed many of the basic and eternal truths these traditions contain.
25
To presume to judge among the Messengers of God, exalting one above the other, would be to give in to the delusion that the Eternal and All-Embracing is subject to the vagaries of human preference . . .To imagine, further, that the nature of these unique Figures can be-or needs to be-encompassed within theories borrowed from physical experience is equally presumptuous.
These kinds of statements always worry me, because this was the basis for harrassing Baha'i scholars i.e. that they used academic methods, regarded by the House as "materialist" to examine the Faith -- and in particular, the treatment of Baha'u'llah as a human being and historical figure.
What is meant by "knowledge of God", Bahá'u'lláh explains, is knowledge of the Manifestations Who reveal His will and attributes, and it is here that the soul comes into intimate association with a Creator Who is otherwise beyond both language and apprehension: . . . 26
Religion, thus conceived, awakens the soul to potentialities that are otherwise unimaginable. To the extent that an individual learns to benefit from the influence of the revelation of God for his age, his nature becomes progressively imbued with the attributes of the Divine world:
However, it might be pointed out that the soul can be awakened to such potentialities by following the teachings of any of the Manifestations.
27
Belief is thus a necessary and inextinguishable urge of the species that has been described by an influential modern thinker as "evolution become conscious of itself".16 If, as the events of the twentieth century provide sad and compelling evidence, the natural expression of faith is artificially blocked, it will invent objects of worship however unworthy-or even debased-that may in some measure appease the yearning for certitude. It is an impulse that will not be denied.
I really don't know what is meant by "artificially blocked" here. Something similar is mentioned in the introduction to this paper: accelerating breakdown in social order calls out desperately for the religious spirit to be freed from the shackles that have so far prevented it from bringing to bear the healing influence of which it is capable.
I do not know what they think is preventing religion from doing its healing work; we have religious freedom -- indeed, religious choice has never in history been more free than it is right now. This is not universal, of course, there are still countries that limit, or even actively persecute religious minorities, but it is precisely in the Western "materialist" countries so condemned by this paper that religion is most free -- and material techological advances that have made information about different religions more free than anyone could ever have dreamed possible. However, it may be that freedom of religious choice is not what they are talking about here.
24
The teachings of Bahá'u'lláh cut through this tangle of inconsistent views and, in doing so, reformulate many truths which, whether explicitly or implicitly, have lain at the heart of all Divine revelation. . . .
The only problem I have with this is the rather arrogant dismissal of previous traditions; it is, of course, Baha'i teaching that Baha'u'llah has reconfirmed many of the basic and eternal truths these traditions contain.
25
To presume to judge among the Messengers of God, exalting one above the other, would be to give in to the delusion that the Eternal and All-Embracing is subject to the vagaries of human preference . . .To imagine, further, that the nature of these unique Figures can be-or needs to be-encompassed within theories borrowed from physical experience is equally presumptuous.
These kinds of statements always worry me, because this was the basis for harrassing Baha'i scholars i.e. that they used academic methods, regarded by the House as "materialist" to examine the Faith -- and in particular, the treatment of Baha'u'llah as a human being and historical figure.
What is meant by "knowledge of God", Bahá'u'lláh explains, is knowledge of the Manifestations Who reveal His will and attributes, and it is here that the soul comes into intimate association with a Creator Who is otherwise beyond both language and apprehension: . . . 26
Religion, thus conceived, awakens the soul to potentialities that are otherwise unimaginable. To the extent that an individual learns to benefit from the influence of the revelation of God for his age, his nature becomes progressively imbued with the attributes of the Divine world:
However, it might be pointed out that the soul can be awakened to such potentialities by following the teachings of any of the Manifestations.
27
Belief is thus a necessary and inextinguishable urge of the species that has been described by an influential modern thinker as "evolution become conscious of itself".16 If, as the events of the twentieth century provide sad and compelling evidence, the natural expression of faith is artificially blocked, it will invent objects of worship however unworthy-or even debased-that may in some measure appease the yearning for certitude. It is an impulse that will not be denied.
I really don't know what is meant by "artificially blocked" here. Something similar is mentioned in the introduction to this paper: accelerating breakdown in social order calls out desperately for the religious spirit to be freed from the shackles that have so far prevented it from bringing to bear the healing influence of which it is capable.
I do not know what they think is preventing religion from doing its healing work; we have religious freedom -- indeed, religious choice has never in history been more free than it is right now. This is not universal, of course, there are still countries that limit, or even actively persecute religious minorities, but it is precisely in the Western "materialist" countries so condemned by this paper that religion is most free -- and material techological advances that have made information about different religions more free than anyone could ever have dreamed possible. However, it may be that freedom of religious choice is not what they are talking about here.
Rules for the Religious Right
For those readers who are getting tired of *One Common Faith* -- I thought you might enjoy this. My favorites:
1. If any member of the religious right has been divorced, they must sit out of any conversation directly or indirectly about so-called "family values." Duct tape will be placed on the mouth of a religious rightist if they have divorced a spouse while she (or he) was sick or in the hospital, just to let everyone know that they have nothing meaningful to add to a discussion of family values.
5. If you have had an extra-marital affair, dated your secretary, or been with a prostitute (paid or unpaid), you must leave the field. You cannot tell the rest of us what to do when you don't live by your own rules. This is a very fair deal considering that you don't have to wear any scarlet letters.
10. Anyone who says they know what God meant by anything, especially anything written in a holy book, scroll, or divine fingerpainting is immediately to be dismissed from influencing the public life of the republic. Since you know what God wants, then politics is probably the last thing that you should spend your time on. Really.
1. If any member of the religious right has been divorced, they must sit out of any conversation directly or indirectly about so-called "family values." Duct tape will be placed on the mouth of a religious rightist if they have divorced a spouse while she (or he) was sick or in the hospital, just to let everyone know that they have nothing meaningful to add to a discussion of family values.
5. If you have had an extra-marital affair, dated your secretary, or been with a prostitute (paid or unpaid), you must leave the field. You cannot tell the rest of us what to do when you don't live by your own rules. This is a very fair deal considering that you don't have to wear any scarlet letters.
10. Anyone who says they know what God meant by anything, especially anything written in a holy book, scroll, or divine fingerpainting is immediately to be dismissed from influencing the public life of the republic. Since you know what God wants, then politics is probably the last thing that you should spend your time on. Really.
One Common Faith, paragraphs 21-23
21
Few today among those who have some degree of objective familiarity with the subject are likely, therefore, to entertain an illusion that any one of the established religious systems of the past can assume the role of ultimate guide for humankind in the issues of contemporary life, even in the improbable event that its disparate sects should come together for that purpose.
Oh, I don't know. People who are seeking such guidance from their religion on these issues generally find it. The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not do research on stem cells obtained from aborted fetuses", yet many Christians find a religious basis to object.
Each one of what the world regards as independent religions is set in the mould created by its authoritative scripture and its history. As it cannot refashion its system of belief in a manner to derive legitimacy from the authoritative words of its Founder, it likewise cannot adequately answer the multitude of questions posed by social and intellectual evolution.
Religion is constantly being re-fashioned and re-interpreted, in every age. There are plenty of people who are quite certain they have all the answers they need. Of course, those answers don't do the rest of us that much good, because for them, the answer is for the rest of the world to adopt their religious viewpoint. In fact, I think this may be the kind of answer this paper is offering us.
Distressing as this may appear to many, it is no more than an inherent feature of the evolutionary process. Attempts to force a reversal of some kind can lead only to still greater disenchantment with religion itself and exacerbate sectarian conflict.
I am guessing that by "reversal" they mean the solutions proposed by fundamentalism -- which does disenchant those who can't swallow it and lead to sectarian conflict.
22
The dilemma is both artificial and self-inflicted.
The dilemma being, I suppose, that religion is needed, but none of the older traditions are adequate. Well, I suppose it is "self-inflicted" to choose a religion other than the Baha'i Faith.
The world order, if it can be so described, within which Bahá'ís today pursue the work of sharing Bahá'u'lláh's message is one whose misconceptions about both human nature and social evolution are so fundamental as to severely inhibit the most intelligent and well-intentioned endeavours at human betterment.
O.K., but this paper is quite vague on what Baha'i answers are going to be superior to those already tried.
Particularly is this true with respect to the confusion that surrounds virtually every aspect of the subject of religion. In order to respond adequately to the spiritual needs of their neighbours, Bahá'ís will have to gain an in-depth understanding of the issues involved. The effort of imagination this challenge requires can be appreciated from the advice that is perhaps the most frequently and urgently reiterated admonition in the writings of their Faith: to "meditate", to "ponder", to "reflect".
Again, there's this vagueness -- Baha'is are exhorted to think about these issues. That's great; I can get behind the notion of thinking about issues. I've been doing that right here, but I'm not sure the UHJ would appreciate the thoughts I've come up with.
23
A commonplace of popular discourse is that by "religion" is intended the multitude of sects currently in existence. Not surprisingly, such a suggestion at once arouses protest in other quarters that by religion is intended rather one or another of the great, independent belief systems of history that have shaped and inspired whole civilizations.
Actually, that depends on the awareness of the person one is talking to. Probably most Americans, when talk about "religions" think of the various denominations of Christianity. In the vernacular, to "get religion" means to become a Christian. Most of the people I know that have a broader awareness of religion are those that have been interested enough in the subject to look outside Christianity.
This point of view, in turn, however, runs up against the inevitable query as to where one will find these historic faiths in the contemporary world. Where, precisely, are "Judaism", "Buddhism", "Christianity", "Islam" and the others, since they obviously cannot be identified with the irreconcilably opposed organizations that purport to speak authoritatively in their names?
Actually, these religions are quite unconcerned about that. When Baha'is go bragging to Christians about how united they are, Christians just look at them blankly -- they don't view the multiplicity of denominations as a fault. Denominational lines have become less important than the liberal/fundamentalist divide, anyway. It reminds me a bit of when Christians criticize the Baha'i Faith for not promising salvation, saying "You don't know you're saved". Well, that's because it isn't an issue to us. If you're going to talk to other religions, a good first step might be to find out what they *do* care about.
Nor does the problem end there. Yet another response to the enquiry will almost certainly be that by religion is intended simply an attitude to life, a sense of relationship with a Reality that transcends material existence. Religion, so conceived, is an attribute of the individual person, an impulse not susceptible of organization, an experience universally available. Again, however, such an orientation will be seen by a majority of religiously minded persons as lacking the very authority of self-discipline and the unifying effect that give religion meaning.
The "spiritual, but not religious" category is one of the fastest-growing approaches to religion in this country. It must be meaningful to somebody. I would agree that it is sometimes approached in a rather haphazard fashion, where you're religious when you feel like it, but don't have to worry about any of those pesky restrictions on behavior. I have even seen supposed devotion to one's spiritual quest used as an excuse for utter selfishness. However, that does not necessarily have to be the case. Nor does formal adherence to an organized religion necessarily mean "self-discipline" and "unity". The person who goes to church on Sunday, and plays dirty the rest of the week is a cliche all of us have heard about. The person who prays and meditates daily, carefully weighing their moral actions, but does not belong to a religious community is certainly more devout than the one who checks in once a week in his best clothes and doesn't give God a thought the rest of the time.
Some objectors would even argue that, on the contrary, religion signifies the lifestyle of persons who, like themselves, have adopted severe regimens of daily ritual and self-denial that set them entirely apart from the rest of society.
Well, that most certainly is one form that religion can take.
What all such differing conceptions have in common is the extent to which a phenomenon that is acknowledged to completely transcend human reach has nevertheless gradually been imprisoned within conceptual limits-whether organizational, theological, experiential or ritualistic-of human invention.
Wait a minute. Didn't this document just say that being outside an organizational framework, and just operating as a spiritual individual was meaningless? I would certainly agree that God cannot be contained within any kind of conceptual limits, or organization, or theology, or ritual -- that's basic Baha'i teaching. In fact, the next several paragraphs go on to recap some basic Baha'i teachings, and so this is a good place to break.
Few today among those who have some degree of objective familiarity with the subject are likely, therefore, to entertain an illusion that any one of the established religious systems of the past can assume the role of ultimate guide for humankind in the issues of contemporary life, even in the improbable event that its disparate sects should come together for that purpose.
Oh, I don't know. People who are seeking such guidance from their religion on these issues generally find it. The Bible doesn't say "Thou shalt not do research on stem cells obtained from aborted fetuses", yet many Christians find a religious basis to object.
Each one of what the world regards as independent religions is set in the mould created by its authoritative scripture and its history. As it cannot refashion its system of belief in a manner to derive legitimacy from the authoritative words of its Founder, it likewise cannot adequately answer the multitude of questions posed by social and intellectual evolution.
Religion is constantly being re-fashioned and re-interpreted, in every age. There are plenty of people who are quite certain they have all the answers they need. Of course, those answers don't do the rest of us that much good, because for them, the answer is for the rest of the world to adopt their religious viewpoint. In fact, I think this may be the kind of answer this paper is offering us.
Distressing as this may appear to many, it is no more than an inherent feature of the evolutionary process. Attempts to force a reversal of some kind can lead only to still greater disenchantment with religion itself and exacerbate sectarian conflict.
I am guessing that by "reversal" they mean the solutions proposed by fundamentalism -- which does disenchant those who can't swallow it and lead to sectarian conflict.
22
The dilemma is both artificial and self-inflicted.
The dilemma being, I suppose, that religion is needed, but none of the older traditions are adequate. Well, I suppose it is "self-inflicted" to choose a religion other than the Baha'i Faith.
The world order, if it can be so described, within which Bahá'ís today pursue the work of sharing Bahá'u'lláh's message is one whose misconceptions about both human nature and social evolution are so fundamental as to severely inhibit the most intelligent and well-intentioned endeavours at human betterment.
O.K., but this paper is quite vague on what Baha'i answers are going to be superior to those already tried.
Particularly is this true with respect to the confusion that surrounds virtually every aspect of the subject of religion. In order to respond adequately to the spiritual needs of their neighbours, Bahá'ís will have to gain an in-depth understanding of the issues involved. The effort of imagination this challenge requires can be appreciated from the advice that is perhaps the most frequently and urgently reiterated admonition in the writings of their Faith: to "meditate", to "ponder", to "reflect".
Again, there's this vagueness -- Baha'is are exhorted to think about these issues. That's great; I can get behind the notion of thinking about issues. I've been doing that right here, but I'm not sure the UHJ would appreciate the thoughts I've come up with.
23
A commonplace of popular discourse is that by "religion" is intended the multitude of sects currently in existence. Not surprisingly, such a suggestion at once arouses protest in other quarters that by religion is intended rather one or another of the great, independent belief systems of history that have shaped and inspired whole civilizations.
Actually, that depends on the awareness of the person one is talking to. Probably most Americans, when talk about "religions" think of the various denominations of Christianity. In the vernacular, to "get religion" means to become a Christian. Most of the people I know that have a broader awareness of religion are those that have been interested enough in the subject to look outside Christianity.
This point of view, in turn, however, runs up against the inevitable query as to where one will find these historic faiths in the contemporary world. Where, precisely, are "Judaism", "Buddhism", "Christianity", "Islam" and the others, since they obviously cannot be identified with the irreconcilably opposed organizations that purport to speak authoritatively in their names?
Actually, these religions are quite unconcerned about that. When Baha'is go bragging to Christians about how united they are, Christians just look at them blankly -- they don't view the multiplicity of denominations as a fault. Denominational lines have become less important than the liberal/fundamentalist divide, anyway. It reminds me a bit of when Christians criticize the Baha'i Faith for not promising salvation, saying "You don't know you're saved". Well, that's because it isn't an issue to us. If you're going to talk to other religions, a good first step might be to find out what they *do* care about.
Nor does the problem end there. Yet another response to the enquiry will almost certainly be that by religion is intended simply an attitude to life, a sense of relationship with a Reality that transcends material existence. Religion, so conceived, is an attribute of the individual person, an impulse not susceptible of organization, an experience universally available. Again, however, such an orientation will be seen by a majority of religiously minded persons as lacking the very authority of self-discipline and the unifying effect that give religion meaning.
The "spiritual, but not religious" category is one of the fastest-growing approaches to religion in this country. It must be meaningful to somebody. I would agree that it is sometimes approached in a rather haphazard fashion, where you're religious when you feel like it, but don't have to worry about any of those pesky restrictions on behavior. I have even seen supposed devotion to one's spiritual quest used as an excuse for utter selfishness. However, that does not necessarily have to be the case. Nor does formal adherence to an organized religion necessarily mean "self-discipline" and "unity". The person who goes to church on Sunday, and plays dirty the rest of the week is a cliche all of us have heard about. The person who prays and meditates daily, carefully weighing their moral actions, but does not belong to a religious community is certainly more devout than the one who checks in once a week in his best clothes and doesn't give God a thought the rest of the time.
Some objectors would even argue that, on the contrary, religion signifies the lifestyle of persons who, like themselves, have adopted severe regimens of daily ritual and self-denial that set them entirely apart from the rest of society.
Well, that most certainly is one form that religion can take.
What all such differing conceptions have in common is the extent to which a phenomenon that is acknowledged to completely transcend human reach has nevertheless gradually been imprisoned within conceptual limits-whether organizational, theological, experiential or ritualistic-of human invention.
Wait a minute. Didn't this document just say that being outside an organizational framework, and just operating as a spiritual individual was meaningless? I would certainly agree that God cannot be contained within any kind of conceptual limits, or organization, or theology, or ritual -- that's basic Baha'i teaching. In fact, the next several paragraphs go on to recap some basic Baha'i teachings, and so this is a good place to break.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
One Common Faith, paragraphs 12-20
It would end up being repetitive to go through the next several paragraphs piece by piece, so I'm just going over this in general. The reader should refer to the original document to get all the details.
Paragraphs 12-16 speak of the forces of globalization, which I don't think anyone would dispute. The very fact that I can write these words, and they can be read by people all over the world is little short of a miracle -- and this increasingly global exchange of ideas certainly has an impact on the spiritual life of mankind, and how diverse peoples view each other. The response to a disaster like December's tsunami is just an obvious example -- the people affected are foreign, having a very different culture and outlook than our own, yet there was an outpouring of charitable effort like nothing I've never seen. And, of course, that's only one very obvious example among many.
The paper shifts, beginning at paragraph 17, from a denunciation of materialism and secularism, to a discussion of the benfits that religion has brought mankind. In paragraph 18, the UHJ asks Why, then, does this immensely rich heritage not serve as the central stage for today's reawakening of spiritual quest? Then, in the next paragraph, answers its own question:
It is here that the spiritual nature of the contemporary crisis comes into sharpest focus because most of the decisions called for are not merely practical but moral. In large part, therefore, loss of faith in traditional religion has been an inevitable consequence of failure to discover in it the guidance required to live with modernity, successfully and with assurance.
Well, actually, the "rich heritage" of the older religions actually *has* been the focus of spiritual quest for the vast majority of people. One thing I've seen online is a great resurgence of interest in Christian mysticism, and what the early Church fathers had to say about that. There are certainly more examples, but the most spiritual exploration goes on within the framework of these religious traditions, so I don't even know what the UHJ is talking about here.
What remains to be seen, however, is how the Baha'i Faith will be more successful in dealing with the ethical problems that come about through social and technological change. Baha'is, after all, do not live in a bubble; we are subject to the same forces of modernity as everyone else is. And it is strange that the UHJ should bring up such tricky moral questions such as stem cell research and sexual identity, when it has avoided ruling on such topics.
Then, the paper goes on to say:
A second barrier to a re-emergence of inherited systems of belief as the answer to humanity's spiritual yearnings is the effects already mentioned of global integration . . .
Basically, the idea I'm picking up here is that since people of various religions have been thrown together, they find they have much in common, and inevitably can't regard their own religion in quite the same light. What the UHJ doesn't mention is that while such contact can and does create interfaith understanding, it also can and does result in the defensive stance of fundamentalism.
People have been asking about what *A Common Faith* is aimed at -- what's it's general message? That actually hasn't been all that easy to figure out. So far, what I've gotten is that materialism and secularism, while they have brought mankind unimagined material benefits, have neglected its spiritual nature, bring moral chaos and the degeneration of society. So, basically, if lack of religion is the problem, then religion is the answer, but the world's religious systems haven't been able to do much about the world's problems either. At this point, the paper has shifted to examining the reasons for that.
Paragraphs 12-16 speak of the forces of globalization, which I don't think anyone would dispute. The very fact that I can write these words, and they can be read by people all over the world is little short of a miracle -- and this increasingly global exchange of ideas certainly has an impact on the spiritual life of mankind, and how diverse peoples view each other. The response to a disaster like December's tsunami is just an obvious example -- the people affected are foreign, having a very different culture and outlook than our own, yet there was an outpouring of charitable effort like nothing I've never seen. And, of course, that's only one very obvious example among many.
The paper shifts, beginning at paragraph 17, from a denunciation of materialism and secularism, to a discussion of the benfits that religion has brought mankind. In paragraph 18, the UHJ asks Why, then, does this immensely rich heritage not serve as the central stage for today's reawakening of spiritual quest? Then, in the next paragraph, answers its own question:
It is here that the spiritual nature of the contemporary crisis comes into sharpest focus because most of the decisions called for are not merely practical but moral. In large part, therefore, loss of faith in traditional religion has been an inevitable consequence of failure to discover in it the guidance required to live with modernity, successfully and with assurance.
Well, actually, the "rich heritage" of the older religions actually *has* been the focus of spiritual quest for the vast majority of people. One thing I've seen online is a great resurgence of interest in Christian mysticism, and what the early Church fathers had to say about that. There are certainly more examples, but the most spiritual exploration goes on within the framework of these religious traditions, so I don't even know what the UHJ is talking about here.
What remains to be seen, however, is how the Baha'i Faith will be more successful in dealing with the ethical problems that come about through social and technological change. Baha'is, after all, do not live in a bubble; we are subject to the same forces of modernity as everyone else is. And it is strange that the UHJ should bring up such tricky moral questions such as stem cell research and sexual identity, when it has avoided ruling on such topics.
Then, the paper goes on to say:
A second barrier to a re-emergence of inherited systems of belief as the answer to humanity's spiritual yearnings is the effects already mentioned of global integration . . .
Basically, the idea I'm picking up here is that since people of various religions have been thrown together, they find they have much in common, and inevitably can't regard their own religion in quite the same light. What the UHJ doesn't mention is that while such contact can and does create interfaith understanding, it also can and does result in the defensive stance of fundamentalism.
People have been asking about what *A Common Faith* is aimed at -- what's it's general message? That actually hasn't been all that easy to figure out. So far, what I've gotten is that materialism and secularism, while they have brought mankind unimagined material benefits, have neglected its spiritual nature, bring moral chaos and the degeneration of society. So, basically, if lack of religion is the problem, then religion is the answer, but the world's religious systems haven't been able to do much about the world's problems either. At this point, the paper has shifted to examining the reasons for that.
One Common Faith, paragraph 12
12
Clearly, materialism's error has lain not in the laudable effort to improve the conditions of life, but in the narrowness of mind and unjustified self-confidence that have defined its mission.
Well, as I said earlier, I'm not sure "materialism" has a mission, except if you're talking about Marxism. But since the previous paragraph was complaining about consumerism, I assume they're talking about the West.
The importance both of material prosperity and of the scientific and technological advances necessary to its achievement is a theme that runs through the writings of the Bahá'í Faith. As was inevitable from the outset, however, arbitrary efforts to disengage such physical and material well-being from humanity's spiritual and moral development have ended by forfeiting the allegiance of the very populations whose interests a materialistic culture purports to serve.
I'm trying to make sense of this. Are they complaining that religion has not been injected into scientific endeavors? One reason for that is that religion very often has fought against, and sought to place limits on scientific experimentation that would destroy its very foundation. The relationship between scientists and religionists has not, historically, been very friendly. The last thing any scientist is going to want is interference by any religion, telling them that they can't investigate in certain areas, or that their conclusions must be rejected on the basis of religious dogma. I'd like to know exactly how the UHJ thinks the two should be blended. Would they like scientists to talk about God or scold us about risky behaviors while they try to cure disease? Would they prefer certain avenues of research to be prohibited on a religious basis?
Clearly, materialism's error has lain not in the laudable effort to improve the conditions of life, but in the narrowness of mind and unjustified self-confidence that have defined its mission.
Well, as I said earlier, I'm not sure "materialism" has a mission, except if you're talking about Marxism. But since the previous paragraph was complaining about consumerism, I assume they're talking about the West.
The importance both of material prosperity and of the scientific and technological advances necessary to its achievement is a theme that runs through the writings of the Bahá'í Faith. As was inevitable from the outset, however, arbitrary efforts to disengage such physical and material well-being from humanity's spiritual and moral development have ended by forfeiting the allegiance of the very populations whose interests a materialistic culture purports to serve.
I'm trying to make sense of this. Are they complaining that religion has not been injected into scientific endeavors? One reason for that is that religion very often has fought against, and sought to place limits on scientific experimentation that would destroy its very foundation. The relationship between scientists and religionists has not, historically, been very friendly. The last thing any scientist is going to want is interference by any religion, telling them that they can't investigate in certain areas, or that their conclusions must be rejected on the basis of religious dogma. I'd like to know exactly how the UHJ thinks the two should be blended. Would they like scientists to talk about God or scold us about risky behaviors while they try to cure disease? Would they prefer certain avenues of research to be prohibited on a religious basis?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)