Baha'i rift: Baha'is upset with Orthodox Baha'i Faith

I wonder then, if they do take this case, would government then be deciding the issues of a faith and perhaps even limiting its power through its decision? This is such an interesting case. Why would a religion wish to put its head on the proverbial chopping block? It seems the true purpose is masked; but clues demonstrate that the group litigating is seeking political power.

Do the Baha'i have a prohibition against the merging of state and religion or collusion with a secular government?

I have a feeling that the Supreme Court may not want to take the case to begin with. It has happened in the past that it rejects cases it doesn't want to get trapped into making rulings on.

It certainly will be interesting, given how other denominations want to gain political power to impose their religious beliefs on society. I will be watching this story as it develops. Please keep me posted.

To be brief: the idea of someone, or some institution, or some group, being over "spiritual matters" is precisely what has ruined and destroyed all the religions and revelations and civilizations of the past. This is the very falsehood that allowed the dark ages in Europe under Popery for 200 years, the hijacking of Christianity by the various clergy class; and the abomination of oppression under the lands hijacked by the Sunni shade and black Shi'i night of Islam. In fact for the free thinking rugged spiritual individualist – that is to be the real citizen of this Kingdom (Davidic) from God, whom Shoghi Effendi terms, the "warrior Baha'i" (ADJ, p. 41 ff) – (so much for pacifism), heirs to the Babi martyrs, this is the very root and offspring of falsehood that the Covenant of Baha'u'llah and the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha used in the right hands is the all-powerful infallible instrument to extricate out of the earth once and for all time.

The fact that in this dispensation no one is to be over the spiritual is further clarified by the fact that Baha'u'llah has outlawed a clergy class in this dispensation.

Baha'u'llah has completely done away with the clergy class and Popery. There is absolutely no one that is to interpret or explain the "spiritual teachings". Each person by himself and for himself is to see with his own eyes and hear with his own ears, and to understand with his own mind. No one! Absolutely no one is to impose their understanding of the "spiritual teachings" on anyone else. Also there is absolutely, positively, and certainly, no institution—Baha'u'llah's House of Justice or otherwise, that is over spiritual matters.

Thus no person, no individual, no institution, no Pope, no Hands, and, as Shoghi Effendi excluded himself, even no Guardian, and certainly no Universal House of Justice (as Baha'u'llah Himself wrote in the 8th Ishraqat) is to be over the spiritual matters.

Thus even these, the Manifestations of God, are obedient and submissive unto God, humble servants, how much more the ministers of State that we will elect to serve us, the free people. Therefore anyone who would in this day after the ascension of the Bab, Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha DELIBERATELY and KNOWINGLY vaunt themselves or their "UHJ" as over "spiritual matters" is an anathema in the face of God and in the presence of the people that are the lovers of God seeking His pleasure and reunion with him. In the United States, for example, they have given this "inalienable right" of which we are "endowed by our Creator" therefore as priority one in the first amendment, and the State's role is to protect, guard and defend those rights of the people, not infringe upon them or remove them. Thus should a fanatical and militant group seeking to overthrow the first amendment, organize the spiritual and subdue the people with weapons arise within this country, that is now a matter of State, and the government has every right to protect the people and their rights and freedoms from those militant fanatics using proportionate force and any means necessary. See `Abdu'l-Baha's "Tablet on Leadership" for more.

Now obviously the people who are the members of the militant force that seeks to overthrow the government will see this as "tyranny" of their "rights". Again `Abdu'l-Baha clears up this difficult matter in the Tablet of Leadership, and also writes to this point in the Secret of Divine Civilization:

"A conquest can be a praiseworthy thing, and there are times when war becomes the powerful basis of peace, and ruin the very means of reconstruction. If, for example, a high-minded sovereign marshals his troops to block the onset of the insurgent and the aggressor, or again, if he takes the field and distinguishes himself in a struggle to unify a divided state and people, if, in brief, he is waging war for a righteous purpose, then this seeming wrath is mercy itself, and this apparent tyranny the very substance of justice and this warfare the cornerstone of peace. Today, the task befitting great rulers is to establish universal peace, for in this lies the freedom of all peoples."(`Abdu'l-Baha, Secret of Divine Civilization, pp. 70-71)

The point is, that mankind has fought long and hard for the freedom to be able to live in a truly open society, and express their individual spirituality, in the form of art, science and profession, as well as form their own business and livelihood free from oppressive forms. In the name of these "rights" are they now to allow some other fanatic group, or false ideology to arise to subvert this very same system? Thus the world is faced with a powerful battle and great dilemma at this time, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and this entire conundrum, which the Revelation that God gave through Baha'u'llah, contains the medicine that this sick world so desperately needs, but of which they have been deprived from recognizing at this time, for lack of being able to recognize the true College of Physicians, that is the true UHJ of Baha'u'llah.

"All matters of State should be referred to the House of Justice,

but acts of worship must be observed according to that

which God hath revealed in His Book." (Baha'u'llah, 8th Ishraqat)

There are currently Nine main groups that claim to be "Baha'i", seven that accept the Will and Testament of `Abdu'l-Baha, and two that probate it (see 7 Rites of the Baha'i' Faith for more http://www.uhj.net/bahai-faith-history.html). Within this overall picture there are still smaller groups as well as individual vocal scholars with their own views and perspectives.

The true UHJ of Baha'u'llah is to be over material matters – matters of State – and NOT over "spiritual matters". Anyone, or any group that see this different, is not in congruence with what Baha'u'llah Himself is stating on this all-important point. Anyone who interprets either `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi, as being against Baha'u'llah on this point, or attempts to use the writings of either `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi to insert themselves or some sort of "UHJ" as being over spiritual matters is also off the mark on this point. This is not intended to put those people down, but to guide them back to the Reality of the 8th Ishraqat, that is the AQDAS, that no UHJ and no one after the Manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah, and the single appointed Center of the Covenant, `Abdu'l-Baha, is to be over "spiritual matters" – the Manifestation that reveals it (Baha'u'llah), and the Center, and Perfect Exemplar('Abdu'l-Baha) that delineates it.

In this light, Baha'u'llah has stated of Himself in regard to the "spiritual matters" that he considered Himself "coarser than clay" (World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 113), and `Abdu'l-Baha reckoned himself personally as the "first of sinners" and stated that we should "all be equal". Thus even these two personages do not exult themselves, even as humble Jesus walked amongst the peoples, had nowhere to lay his head, and allowed them to so cruelly put him death, even stating: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:25-28 RSV)

Hey CZ,
Great comments, questions, and observations.

Actually I am among the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant which is one of the defendants (currently victors) in the litigation written about in the article.

The BUPC legal reps declined to comment as it's currently in appeal. The courts ruled in favor of the various groups being attacked by the organization based in Haifa which initiated the action. We're all awaiting the court's decision regarding an appeal by that Haifan organization to see if it goes to the supreme court ultimately. If it does go that far and is argued before the highest court in the U.S. it promises to have potentially grave consequences for everyone, not only those who claim adherence to the Baha'i Faith.

This litigious group who initiated this offensive through the secular courts has very oppressive policies toward women, the GLBTGQ communities, and others including specific individuals who've been so bold as to question the wisdom of some of their policies and if given the type of power they're seeking through this secular court action they'll be enabled to expand their oppressions to totalitarian proportions within all sects of the Baha'i Faith.

We, the Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant know that they have no intention of stopping there. The other point that is important to keep in mind is that if the U.S. Supreme Court allows itself to rule on what is from front to back and through and through a fundamentally religious question dealing with the interpretation of a religious text it will have crossed that line between church and state and caused a breach of inestimable consequences for all U.S. citizens of all as well as no religious faiths.

Fascinating articles and comment by CZ, Thanks for this, I will continue reading. Oh and BTW Nice to see you back Bahai144. Welcome back.

How awful that the woman would be encouraged to divorce her husband over this issue. My knowledge of the context is superficial, but it would seem to me that an analogous situation would be if my Lutheran wife were encouraged by our church to divorce me if I decided to leave Lutheranism and embrace Mormonism, since Mormons similarly diverge from mainstream Protestant ideology by asserting the existence of Joseph Smith as the successor to Jesus in the line of Christian prophets (I am probably mangling the underpinnings of their faith, but that is my understanding).

Please do not respond if this question is insensitive or inappropriately intrusive, Bahaii144, but can I assume that you are among the much larger mainstream group -- and if so, do you have an opinion on this issue or is it something you prefer to leave to others?

Our church is currently struggling with a recent ruling that I actually felt was pretty innocuous. Our church allows heterosexual pastors to marry and, while single, to engage in sexual activity so long as it occurs within a committed, monogamous relationship. Previously, the church ALSO allowed homosexual (gay and lesbian) pastors to minister to congregations.

However, in what I and many others considered a bizarre restriction, they were not allowed to engage in homosexual activity even in their private lives while serving as pastors. So at my urging and the urging of thousands of others with the same view, the rule was changed so that heterosexual and homosexual pastors were treated in the same manner...i.e., that they could minister to their congregations and engage in sexual activity in their private lives so long as it occurred as part of a committed, monogamous relationship.

I personally think even that latter requirement is an unnecessary intrusion into their private lives (why shouldn't a young pastor have two girlfriends, for example, if both relationships are consensual and all of the parties understand that no commitment to exclusivity has (yet) been made? But one step at a time. At the moment, even the rule change making treatment of heterosexual and homosexual pastors consistent has caused an uproar among a certain segment of our faith's community. Perhaps 1 in 10 of the members of my own church have stood up to protest the rule change...and about a half dozen (our membership is roughly 500) have penned letters indicating their intent to leave the congregation in protest.

And there are literally dozens of churches where the proportion is considerably higher, leading to the threat of a small but nonetheless regrettable splinter forming. There is much wringing of hands and calls for the reconsideration of the rule change. My own feeling is that this progress is of critical imporance to the long-term viability of my religion and that therefore we must stand firm and wave a tearful -- but firm -- good-bye to those who would hold us on a course that is unfair, unenlightened and frankly hurtful to pastors who engage in activity that is both lawful and none of our darned business...

Here's what's going on with the Baha'i Faith in Federal Court. The Case is currently in the appeals process and a decision is pending. Basic Constitutional staples such as Freedom of Religion and the Separation of Church and State are at risk here.