Talk by former UHJ member Glendord Mitchell, re the separation of church and state

[Sen McGlinn]

It appears that the Universal House of justice may be recognizing the separation of church and state as part of Baha’u’llah’s world order. I’m reading the signs on this from two sections in a video by Glenford Mitchell on the Youtube channel Bahai Perspective. See Glenford Mitchell’s talk at the UK Bahai Summerschool, on the Youtube channel Bahai Perspective :

I made another Youtube video explaining why I think this is a significant development.

 

[badger]

It appears that the Universal House of justice may be recognizing the separation of church and state as part of Baha’u’llah’s world order. I’m reading the signs on this from two sections in a video by Glenford Mitchell on the Youtube channel Bahai Perspective. See Glenford Mitchell’s talk at the UK Bahai Summerschool, on the Youtube channel Bahai Perspective :

I made another Youtube video explaining why I think this is a significant development.

Hi Sen.......
In a Baha'i World when all control would be from the local, national and universal houses of justice could 'church' and 'state' be separated?
The above Houses would be responsible for delivering all control, justice, practices etc from themselves, wouldn't they?

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Hi Sen.......
In a Baha'i World when all control would be from the local, national and universal houses of justice could 'church' and 'state' be separated?
The above Houses would be responsible for delivering all control, justice, practices etc from themselves, wouldn't they?

I know of nothing in the Bahai writings that supports the idea that the Houses would be responsible for anything but the affairs of the Bahai community.
"Justice" in the sense of crime & punishment, and national security, are the sphere of government. The Bahai religious institutions may not interfere in that. Shoghi Effendi writes:
“Theirs is not the purpose,… to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.”
(Shoghi Effendi, in The World Order of Baha’u’llah 66.)

And Baha'u'llah puts security questions in the sphere of governments:

"The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath ever regarded, and will continue to regard, the hearts of men as His own, His exclusive possession. All else, whether pertaining to land or sea, whether riches or glory, He hath bequeathed unto the Kings and rulers of the earth. From the beginning that hath no beginning the ensign proclaiming the words “He doeth whatsoever He willeth” hath been unfurled in all its splendor before His Manifestation. What mankind needeth in this day is obedience unto them that are in authority, and a faithful adherence to the cord of wisdom. The instruments which are essential to the immediate protection, the security and assurance of the human race have been entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp, of the governors of human society. This is the wish of God and His decree…. .” (Gleanings, CII 206-7)

 

[badger]

I know of nothing in the Bahai writings that supports the idea that the Houses would be responsible for anything but the affairs of the Bahai community.
"Justice" in the sense of crime & punishment, and national security, are the sphere of government. The Bahai religious institutions may not interfere in that. Shoghi Effendi writes:
“Theirs is not the purpose,… to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.”
(Shoghi Effendi, in The World Order of Baha’u’llah 66.)

And Baha'u'llah puts security questions in the sphere of governments:

"The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath ever regarded, and will continue to regard, the hearts of men as His own, His exclusive possession. All else, whether pertaining to land or sea, whether riches or glory, He hath bequeathed unto the Kings and rulers of the earth. From the beginning that hath no beginning the ensign proclaiming the words “He doeth whatsoever He willeth” hath been unfurled in all its splendor before His Manifestation. What mankind needeth in this day is obedience unto them that are in authority, and a faithful adherence to the cord of wisdom. The instruments which are essential to the immediate protection, the security and assurance of the human race have been entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp, of the governors of human society. This is the wish of God and His decree…. .” (Gleanings, CII 206-7)

The local assemblies would surely have to administer local affairs, inheritances, misdemeanours........everything! If not, then who (,for instance) would be responsible for, say, the fire brigade, local police, courts etc etc?
Such issues couldn't be controlled from a national house!

If a country with 80% of Bahá'ís in population still has a secular government run by non Bahá'ís then your criminal, inheritance and all other laws need not have been written.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

The local assemblies would surely have to administer local affairs, inheritances, misdemeanours........everything! If not, then who (,for instance) would be responsible for, say, the fire brigade, local police, courts etc etc?
Such issues couldn't be controlled from a national house!

If a country with 80% of Bahá'ís in population still has a secular government run by non Bahá'ís then your criminal, inheritance and all other laws need not have been written.

The local fire brigade, police, courts etc must be controlled by a civil government, obviously. The Bahai assemblies / houses of justice are not a government, and as Shoghi Effendi said, the Bahais will never allow this machinery of Bahai community administration to supersede the civil government.

As for laws of inheritance and marriage and the like, in the Middle East of Baha'u'llah's time, and largely to the present day, religious communities organise and enforce such matters for their own members, using religious courts. This is why Shoghi Effendi wanted to establish Bahai religious courts in six Muslim countries: to administer these matters and to establish the principle that the Bahai community stands on equal footing with other religious communities. Read more about it here:
Bahai courts – a short guide

As for our political theology, ie our teachings about how a state should be run, one of the most important principles is the separation of church and state. The state should be run by political agencies, as a political agency, while religious leaders of all sorts -- including the House of Justice -- should not interfere.

He Who is the Spirit (Jesus) — may peace be upon Him — was asked: “O Spirit of God! Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not?” And He made reply: “Yea, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” He forbade it not. These two sayings are, in the estimation of men of insight, one and the same, for if that which belonged to Caesar had not come from God, He would have forbidden it.
(Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 89)

Know thou that We have annulled the rule of the sword, as an aid to Our Cause, and substituted for it the power born of the utterance of men. Thus have We irrevocably decreed, by virtue of Our grace. Say: O people! Sow not the seeds of discord among men, and refrain from contending with your neighbor, for your Lord hath committed the world and the cities thereof to the care of the kings of the earth, and made them the emblems of His own power, by virtue of the sovereignty He hath chosen to bestow upon them. He hath refused to reserve for Himself any share whatever of this world’s dominion. To this He Who is Himself the Eternal Truth will testify. The things He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men’s hearts, that He may cleanse them from all earthly defilements, and enable them to draw nigh unto the hallowed Spot which the hands of the infidel can never profane.
(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, 303)

Forbear ye from concerning yourselves with the affairs of this world and all that pertaineth unto it, or from meddling with the activities of those who are its outward leaders. The one true God, exalted be His glory, hath bestowed the government of the earth upon the kings. To none is given the right to act in any manner that would run counter to the considered views of them who are in authority. That which He hath reserved for Himself are the cities of men’s hearts; and of these the loved ones of Him Who is the Sovereign Truth are, in this Day, as the keys. Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, 241

The Constitutional Government, according to the irrefutable text of the Religion of God, is the cause of the glory and prosperity of the nation and the civilization and freedom of the people. (Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha, 492)

“Should they place in the arena the crown of the government of the whole world, and invite each one of us to accept it, undoubtedly we shall not condescend, and shall refuse to accept it.” ( Tablets of the Divine Plan 51)

The signature of that meeting should be the Spiritual Gathering (House of Spirituality) and the wisdom therein is that hereafter the government should not infer from the term “House of Justice” that a court is signified, that it is connected with political affairs, or that at any time it will interfere with governmental affairs. … (Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha Abbas vol. 1, page 5).

Another important Bahai principle for civil government is the duty to protect the oppressed and oppose the aggressor and oppressor.

For is it not your clear duty to restrain the tyranny of the oppressor, and to deal equitably with your subjects,... God hath committed into your hands the reins of the government of the people, that ye may rule with justice over them, safeguard the rights of the down-trodden, and punish the wrong-doers. (Suriy-ye Muluk, in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, CXVI 247)

Hearken ye, O Rulers of America and the Presidents of the Republics therein, ... Adorn ye the temple of dominion with the ornament of justice and of the fear of God, and its head with the crown of the remembrance of your Lord,
(The Kitab-i-Aqdas, 52, para 88)

Ask Me Anything ~ sen

 

[TheLightWithin]

Separation of church and state is so crucial to religious freedom. I just hope we do not lose this in my country. It is so foundational so us as a nation

 

[Sen McGlinn]

The non-establishment principle in the USA has worked there -- at the Federal level only, at first. The extent to which non-establishment achieves the separation of church and state has varied, and there are countries, such as England, which have an established church but still achieve the separation of church and state. There are presidential prayer breakfasts in the USA, but no equivalent in the UK -- so where is the separation of church and state more secure?

Bahai teachings endorse "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what belongs to God," which, since it gives the believer two duties and two masters, requires the separation of church and state. But Bahai teachings are not so prescriptive about establishment/non-establishment. Bahais expect the Bahai Faith to be an/the established religion in the future, but we also expect constitutional monarchies to survive, and we regard both the establishment of religion(s) and monarchies as a good thing - in principle. National settlements reflect the potential of the nation, the degree of religious diversity, the political theology of the major religious groups, the degree of trust in institutions and so on. The Bahai teachings don't specifically endorse American non-establishment, or Anglican establishment, or French laïcité, or any other of the many variations. In Belgium the government officially recognizes the Roman Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Orthodox Greek (and Russian) forms of Christianity, and also Judaism, Islam, and secular humanism. No flying spaghetti monsters. And not Bahai. But this works for Belgium, and if it works and the result is freedom of conscience and freedom of association and freedom of worship, and freedom from religious imposition, and political discourse that is a common space for people of all beliefs, why not? Yet such recognition would be counter to the non-establishment principle in the USA.

 

[badger]

The local fire brigade, police, courts etc must be controlled by a civil government, obviously. The Bahai assemblies / houses of justice are not a government, and as Shoghi Effendi said, the Bahais will never allow this machinery of Bahai community administration to supersede the civil government.

As for laws of inheritance and marriage and the like, in the Middle East of Baha'u'llah's time, and largely to the present day, religious communities organise and enforce such matters for their own members, using religious courts. This is why Shoghi Effendi wanted to establish Bahai religious courts in six Muslim countries: to administer these matters and to establish the principle that the Bahai community stands on equal footing with other religious communities. Read more about it here:
Bahai courts – a short guide

As for our political theology, ie our teachings about how a state should be run, one of the most important principles is the separation of church and state. The state should be run by political agencies, as a political agency, while religious leaders of all sorts -- including the House of Justice -- should not interfere.

Another important Bahai principle for civil government is the duty to protect the oppressed and oppose the aggressor and oppressor.

Ask Me Anything ~ sen

Special Courts for Bahá'ís?
Have those, but the Baha'i Criminal laws and Bahai sentencing of offenders can't ever be introduced...these were just ideas for thought?

As long as all Baha'i Courts have no power and the nations' legal systems can be supreme in all final judgements......no problem.

But the trouble is, that in a Baha'i World then Baha'i could return to local and national houses of Justice, and take control of criminal and civil legislation.

 

[badger]

The non-establishment principle in the USA has worked there -- at the Federal level only, at first. The extent to which non-establishment achieves the separation of church and state has varied, and there are countries, such as England, which have an established church but still achieve the separation of church and state. There are presidential prayer breakfasts in the USA, but no equivalent in the UK -- so where is the separation of church and state more secure?

Dickens wrote about the Church Courts and they were quite rotten with corruption, you know. His descriptions were quite shocking.

Can you show me any mentions by Bahauallah about Baha'i majority countries being controlled by non Bahá'ís?

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Special Courts for Bahá'ís?
Have those, but the Baha'i Criminal laws and Bahai sentencing of offenders can't ever be introduced...these were just ideas for thought?

As long as all Baha'i Courts have no power and the nations' legal systems can be supreme in all final judgements......no problem.

But the trouble is, that in a Baha'i World then Baha'i could return to local and national houses of Justice, and take control of criminal and civil legislation.

The supremacy of civil law and civil courts over religious law and courts is another principle in Bahai political theology. Shoghi Effendi writes:

"Let them proclaim that in whatever country they reside, and however advanced their institutions, or profound their desire to enforce the laws, and apply the principles, enunciated by Bahá'u'lláh, they will, unhesitatingly, subordinate the operation of such laws and the application of such principles to the requirements and legal enactments of their respective governments. Theirs is not the purpose, while endeavoring to conduct and perfect the administrative affairs of their Faith, to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country's constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries." (The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 65)

This is a logical outcome of the "Render to Caesar" principle, endorsed by Baha'u'llah.

I think it unlikely, and undesirable, that a government would put criminal law in the sphere of religious courts. That has happened in Iran, but Iran is a historical anomaly. Baha'u'llah puts crime & punishment and the military in the sphere of civil governments:

"The instruments which are essential to the immediate protection, the security and assurance of the human race have been entrusted to the hands, and lie in the grasp, of the governors of human society. This is the wish of God and His decree…. .” (Gleanings, CII 206-7)

 

[badger]

It makes me wonder why Bahauallah bothered to write all that criminal and civil law, then.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

It makes me wonder why Bahauallah bothered to write all that criminal and civil law, then.

For the kings and rulers, to educate and advise them. And to reprove them too.

"Twenty years have passed, O kings, during which We have, each day, tasted the agony of a fresh tribulation. ... They that rose up against Us have put us to death, have shed our blood, have plundered our property, and violated our honor. Though aware of most of our afflictions, ye, nevertheless, have failed to stay the hand of the aggressor. For is it not your clear duty to restrain the tyranny of the oppressor, and to deal equitably with your subjects, that your high sense of justice may be fully demonstrated to all mankind?

God hath committed into your hands the reins of the government of the people, that ye may rule with justice over them, safeguard the rights of the down-trodden, and punish the wrong-doers. If ye neglect the duty prescribed unto you by God in His Book, your names shall be numbered with those of the unjust in His sight.

(Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 247)

 

[badger]

For the kings and rulers, to educate and advise them. And to reprove them too.

Hmmm.....you're thinking of the intermediate situation. The ultimate goal is the establishment of a Baha'i government, judiciary and all. This is a short extract about the Baha'i World order....the Law of Bahauallah.....:-
........word should now be said regarding the theory on which this Administrative Order is based and the principle that must govern the operation of its chief institutions. It would be utterly misleading to attempt a comparison between this unique, this divinely-conceived Order and any of the diverse systems which the minds of men, at various periods of their history, have contrived for the government of human institutions. Such an attempt would in itself betray a lack of complete appreciation of the excellence of the handiwork of its great Author. How could it be otherwise when we remember that this Order constitutes the very pattern of that divine civilization which the almighty Law of Bahá’u’lláh is designed to establish upon earth? The divers and ever-shifting systems of human polity, whether past or present, whether originating in the East or in the West, offer no adequate criterion wherewith to estimate the potency of its hidden virtues or to appraise the solidity of its foundations.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Hmmm.....you're thinking of the intermediate situation. The ultimate goal is the establishment of a Baha'i government, judiciary and all. This is a short extract about the Baha'i World order....the Law of Bahauallah.....:-
........word should now be said regarding the theory on which this Administrative Order is based and the principle that must govern the operation of its chief institutions. It would be utterly misleading to attempt a comparison between this unique, this divinely-conceived Order and any of the diverse systems which the minds of men, at various periods of their history, have contrived for the government of human institutions. Such an attempt would in itself betray a lack of complete appreciation of the excellence of the handiwork of its great Author. How could it be otherwise when we remember that this Order constitutes the very pattern of that divine civilization which the almighty Law of Bahá’u’lláh is designed to establish upon earth? The divers and ever-shifting systems of human polity, whether past or present, whether originating in the East or in the West, offer no adequate criterion wherewith to estimate the potency of its hidden virtues or to appraise the solidity of its foundations.

The key is, whatever happens in the future, it will be because it has been voted in by the people of that age, they will embrace what they have voted for.

The current nationalist self based mindset of current humanity would have matured to a vision of the oneness of humanity with an acceptance that the earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.

It is impossible to impart the current political and moral expectations on to that future society and its choices.

That great change will be a result of this misguided age of humanity, who's current trend of destruction in the pursuit of personal and national agenda's, will forever change the future pursuits of the minds of men, strengthening their spiritual resolve.

Regards Tony

 

[Sen McGlinn]

Hmmm.....you're thinking of the intermediate situation. The ultimate goal is the establishment of a Baha'i government, judiciary and all. This is a short extract about the Baha'i World order....the Law of Bahauallah.....:-
........word should now be said regarding the theory on which this Administrative Order is based and the principle that must govern the operation of its chief institutions. It would be utterly misleading to attempt a comparison between this unique, this divinely-conceived Order and any of the diverse systems which the minds of men, at various periods of their history, have contrived for the government of human institutions. Such an attempt would in itself betray a lack of complete appreciation of the excellence of the handiwork of its great Author. How could it be otherwise when we remember that this Order constitutes the very pattern of that divine civilization which the almighty Law of Bahá’u’lláh is designed to establish upon earth? The divers and ever-shifting systems of human polity, whether past or present, whether originating in the East or in the West, offer no adequate criterion wherewith to estimate the potency of its hidden virtues or to appraise the solidity of its foundations.

I am not thinking of an intermediate situation. I am looking back to what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi thought and taught, and I have quoted them. The claim that Bahais have a secret long-term agenda that is different to what is in the writings is just propaganda. If it's not in the Writings, it's not the ultimate goal.

The quote you provided is about the Bahai Administrative Order, and its chief institutions (the Guardianship and the House of Justice, the Huquq, the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar/House of worship, etc.) . This Order is not a government, and may never replace a government:

“The Administrative Order is not a governmental or civic body, it is to regulate and guide the internal affairs of the Bahá’í community; consequently it works, according to its own procedure, best suited to its needs. (on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Messages to Canada, 276)

“… the Assembly is a nascent House of Justice and is supposed to administer, according to the Teachings, the affairs of the Community.” (Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 41)

"It should always be made clear that we are a religious non-political community working for humanitarian ends.”
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Teaching Committee for Central America, July 3, 1948)

"“Theirs is not the purpose,… to violate, under any circumstances, the provisions of their country’s constitution, much less to allow the machinery of their administration to supersede the government of their respective countries.”
(Shoghi Effendi, in The World Order of Baha’u’llah 66.)

No honest reading could insert "interim situation" into such words. This "religious, non-political community" has teachings about how the world should be governed. This is a very explicit, once-for-all vision for global governance, and the Bahai institutions mentioned above have no part in it. Shoghi Effendi writes (and he is paraphrasing Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha):

A world, growing to maturity, must ... recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life.

...

The unity of the human race, as envisaged by Bahá'u'lláh, implies the establishment of a world commonwealth in which all nations, races, creeds and classes are closely and permanently united, and in which the autonomy of its state members and the personal freedom and initiative of the individuals that compose them are definitely and completely safeguarded. This commonwealth must, as far as we can visualize it, consist of a world legislature, whose members will, as the trustees of the whole of mankind, ultimately control the entire resources of all the component nations, and will enact such laws as shall be required to regulate the life, satisfy the needs and adjust the relationships of all races and peoples. A world executive, backed by an international Force, will carry out the decisions arrived at, and apply the laws enacted by, this world legislature, and will safeguard the organic unity of the whole commonwealth. A world tribunal will adjudicate and deliver its compulsory and final verdict in all and any disputes that may arise between the various elements constituting this universal system. A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 202)

In view of these teachings, what would a "Bahai Government" look like? So far as I know, there is no reference to a Bahai government in the Bahai writings, in English or in Persian & Arabic, and there is no "Bahai government" today, so we can't say that the words mean what they mean in everyday speech. However there is a definition of a Bahai State: "the Bahá'í state itself, functioning, in all religious and civil matters, in strict accordance with the laws and ordinances of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas,..." (Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Baha'i World - 1950-1957, p. 155). Can we agree that when we say "a Bahai government" we mean a government functioning in accordance with the Aqdas, and that "Aqdas" is an umbrella term that does not mean all of that book (because it contains personal obligations such as prayer and fasting), but does include social matters that are built on the concepts of the Ketab-e Aqdas?

On that definition, when would a government be justifiably described as "a Bahai government?" I have commented on the term "a Bahai State" on my Bahai studies blog here:

What about: the Bahai state?

One of Tajan Tober’s PhD theses (he has completed two, so far), is entitled “A Global Federal State under the rule of law at the End of Time: The state and the religious order in Bahai theolo…

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

"...we must go to the Aqdas, where we find many relevant prescriptions and recommendations for the state, and for the House of Justice. They are distinct. At the international level, Abdu’l-Baha says “Ultimately, war will be entirely banned, and when the laws of the Most Holy Book [the Aqdas] are enacted, arguments and disputes will, with perfect justice, be settled before a universal tribunal of governments and peoples [محکمه عموميّه دول و ملل ], and any difficulties which may arise will be resolved. (Some Answered Questions, ‘Commentary on the 11th Chapter of Isaiah, 2015 BWC translation). So Abdu’l-Baha equates implementing the Aqdas with establishing a world civil Tribunal to fulfill the prophetic vision of Isaiah. “Peoples” (ملل ) has the Quranic connotation of religious communities. The same principle must apply at the national level, to a state wishing to function in strict accordance with the Aqdas.

...

It is possible to get a qualitative picture of what Shoghi Effendi means by a Bahai state, and it is possible to read Baha’u’llah’s prescriptions and recommendations and see what he was thinking of, in detail. We can also see what is definitely proscribed in a Bahai State: the Bahai administration may not replace the government; the rights of minorities and individuals may not be curtailed; the press may not be manipulated and so forth. It is not possible to predict the future, but that is another question: we can certainly see what was in the minds of these authors when they spoke.

Shoghi Effendi writes:

[The House of Justice’s] different spheres of activity will be departmental [a local government area, in French ~Sen], national and international. It is broadly speaking the nucleus of the Bahai State. Church and State thus far from being divorced from one another are harmonized, their interests are reconciled, are brought to co-operate for the same end, yet for each is reserved its special and definite sphere of activity. Indeed if one glances at the outstanding precepts of the Movement … all these teachings go to show that religion far from being excluded from man’s social life should on the contrary quite stabilize and protect it.

That gives us another clue as to how he envisioned a Bahai State.

A Bahai State is a term broader than "Bahai government", and the latter is not in the writings, but I suppose that while a state embraces a territory and its population, the term "government" focusses on the institutions of civil governance, whether that be the King's court and regional appointees, in an absolute monarchy, or the three powers of legislature, judiciary and executive in modern governments. The crucial point (for me) is, that Shoghi Effendi's term "Bahai State" may include a population committed to following the laws of "the Aqdas" (broadly defined). When Armenia became the first Christian State, it was because the King and some nobles wanted it so -- but ancient Armenia cannot be compared closely to modern societies.

[re the term: "Bahai Government" in Persian, it does appear in Persian translations of Shoghi Effendi's English writings, but this is a translation error. See
Commonwealth and government : a translation crux ]

 

[badger]

The key is, whatever happens in the future, it will be because it has been voted in by the people of that age, they will embrace what they have voted for.

Regards Tony

That's it! You re absolutely correct about that, Tony.
What the people have voted for.......... and at this time that is a particularly poignant point for the world to consider.

What the people vote for is what they get, but most Western countries trust that their foundations allow for regularly opportunities to change their minds........ we'll see in the next few years whether that still holds true, of course. We live in dodgy times.

 

[badger]

I am not thinking of an intermediate situation. I am looking back to what Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi thought and taught, and I have quoted them. The claim that Bahais have a secret long-term agenda that is different to what is in the writings is just propaganda. If it's not in the Writings, it's not the ultimate goal.

The quote you provided is about the Bahai Administrative Order, and its chief institutions (the Guardianship and the House of Justice, the Huquq, the Mashriqu'l-Adhkar/House of worship, etc.) . This Order is not a government, and may never replace a government:

But Bahai has got to sell that to the World, Sen.
A very hard sell.
Many Bahair friends see it differently, you know:-

Jeff Simmonds, who is in other respects a very sympathetic non-Bahá'í commentator on the Faith, said:

While it is often down-played by Bahá'ís, the fact is that the ultimate goal of the Bahá'í Faith is the establishment of a completely Bahá'í society which means a Bahá'í State or a theocracy where religion and politics, or "church" and state are not separate. The Universal House of Justice will be the governing body of the world or of those states which become Bahá'í. This goal is not incidental, but is central to the teachings of the Faith. [4]
Denis MacEoin writes that "the Bahá'ís are actively working to establish religious states in which the functions of government will be taken over by Bahá'í institutions".
If this is not what you know to be true then you are free to doubt me. If you are interested in learning more I can collect the source materials particularly from the writings of Shoghi Effendi. The Baha'i leadership is very aware of that which will not fly in the modern West. I know for a fact for many years the law book (Aqdas) would not be released in the English language for concerns over multiple issues that would not fly well in the modern western world (I doubt today that it's yet been released in its entirety.)

No honest reading could insert "interim situation" into such words. This "religious, non-political community" has teachings about how the world should be governed. This is a very explicit, once-for-all vision for global governance, and the Bahai institutions mentioned above have no part in it. Shoghi Effendi writes (and he is paraphrasing Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha):

Herewith, an honest answer:-

‘The Dispensation of Baha’u’llah,’ a letter that is entirely devoted to explaining the principles underlying the Bahai Administrative Order,
The Bahai theocracy, on the contrary, is both divinely ordained as a system and, of course, based on the teachings of the Prophet Himself '.
" Inasmuch as the Order of Bahá’u’lláh is an integral part of the divine Revelation that He, as a Manifestation of God, has given us, one could say that this Order is essentially theocratic, but inasmuch as it is entirely devoid of any kind of clergy or priesthood, it is not at all a "theocracy" in the sense in which the term is generally used and understood. (Universal House of Justice"
The Baha’i Commonwealth of the future, of which this vast Administrative Order is the sole framework, is, both in theory and practice, not only unique in the entire history of political institutions, but can find no parallel in the annals of any of the world’s recognized religious systems. No form of democratic government; no system of autocracy or of dictatorship, whether monarchical or republican; no intermediary scheme of a purely aristocratic order; nor even any of the recognized types of theocracy, whether it be the Hebrew Commonwealth, or the various Christian ecclesiastical organizations, or the Imamate or the Caliphate in Islam – none of these can be identified or be said to conform with the Administrative Order ... [which] ... incorporates within its structure certain elements which are to be found in each of the three recognized forms of secular government, without being in any sense a mere replica of any one of them ...
The Administrative Order ... is ... unique in the annals of the world’s religious systems. ... Nor is the principle governing its operation similar to that which underlies any system, whether theocratic or otherwise, which the minds of men have devised for the government of human institutions. Neither in theory nor in practice can the Administrative Order of the Faith of Baha’u’llah be said to conform to any type of democratic government, to any system of autocracy, to any purely aristocratic order, or to any of the various theocracies, whether Jewish, Christian or Islamic which mankind has witnessed in the past.

In view of these teachings, what would a "Bahai Government" look like?

Whyever do religions use this term.....'teaching'?
I'm sorry but I have to say that most Bahai writings do look like either sales or political speeches.
Every time I hear about Prophets teaching people I think of our Prime Ministers giving press releases from outside 10, Downing Street.....
Imagine a BBC announcement such as, '.....and at 1pm today Sir Kier Starmer will give teaching to the nation about the relecent budget'.

So far as I know, there is no reference to a Bahai government in the Bahai writings, in English or in Persian & Arabic, and there is no "Bahai government" today, so we can't say that the words mean what they mean in everyday speech. However there is a definition of a Bahai State: "the Bahá'í state itself, functioning, in all religious and civil matters, in strict accordance with the laws and ordinances of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas,..." (Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Baha'i World - 1950-1957, p. 155). Can we agree that when we say "a Bahai government" we mean a government functioning in accordance with the Aqdas, and that "Aqdas" is an umbrella term that does not mean all of that book (because it contains personal obligations such as prayer and fasting), but does include social matters that are built on the concepts of the Ketab-e Aqdas?

On that definition, when would a government be justifiably described as "a Bahai government?" I have commented on the term "a Bahai State" on my Bahai studies blog here:

What about: the Bahai state?

One of Tajan Tober’s PhD theses (he has completed two, so far), is entitled “A Global Federal State under the rule of law at the End of Time: The state and the religious order in Bahai theolo…

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

Shoghi Effendi writes:


That gives us another clue as to how he envisioned a Bahai State.

A Bahai State is a term broader than "Bahai government", and the latter is not in the writings, but I suppose that while a state embraces a territory and its population, the term "government" focusses on the institutions of civil governance, whether that be the King's court and regional appointees, in an absolute monarchy, or the three powers of legislature, judiciary and executive in modern governments. The crucial point (for me) is, that Shoghi Effendi's term "Bahai State" may include a population committed to following the laws of "the Aqdas" (broadly defined). When Armenia became the first Christian State, it was because the King and some nobles wanted it so -- but ancient Armenia cannot be compared closely to modern societies.

[re the term: "Bahai Government" in Persian, it does appear in Persian translations of Shoghi Effendi's English writings, but this is a translation error. See
Commonwealth and government : a translation crux ]

The thing is, that in my opinion Bahai has so many writings which can contend with each other, Sen.
Shoghi Effendi has mentioned Bahair Theocracy before, you know.

 

[Sen McGlinn]

...
The thing is, that in my opinion Bahai has so many writings which can contend with each other, Sen.
Shoghi Effendi has mentioned Bahair Theocracy before, you know.

No, Shoghi Effendi did not mention a Bahai theocracy. That's a misunderstanding that arose from publishing a few words out of their context. David Hofman used the term "theocracy" in his commentary on the Will and Testament of Abdu'l-Baha, (he believed in a future Bahai theocracy), and what he said seemed to contradict what the Guardian had said about past theocracies, (because Hofman and Shoghi Effendi used the word in completely different senses), so a study class that was reading Hofman's commentary wrote to Shoghi Effendi. A secretary sort of clarified the contradiction, but it wasn't clear to readers of the time. I have made it clear, in a blog posting

What about “the Bahai theocracy”?

“This seems to reconcile the Guardian’s statement with Mr. Hofman’s,” according to the secretary. What needs to be reconciled, in their concepts of theocracy?

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

and a youtube video:

In Shoghi Effendi's thinking, theocracies are of the past and the Bahai Admin does not resemble any past theocracy; in Hofman's terms there never has been a theocracy but there will be a Bahai theocracy. But both of them have definitions of "theocracy" that do not match current usage, as well as being different to one another.

The opinions of Bahais on this topic are not important, because the consensus of the faithful is not a "source" in Bahai theology, in the way it is in Christian and Islamic theologies. See my blog at

The consensus of the faithful in Bahai theology

The apparent impossibility of achieving doctrinal consensus in the Bahai community is not a negative finding, as those religious communities that do accept the consensus of the faithful as a source…

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

 

[Thomas]

The opinions of Bahais on this topic are not important, because the consensus of the faithful is not a "source" in Bahai theology, in the way it is in Christian and Islamic theologies. See my blog at

The consensus of the faithful in Bahai theology

The apparent impossibility of achieving doctrinal consensus in the Bahai community is not a negative finding, as those religious communities that do accept the consensus of the faithful as a source…

senmcglinn.wordpress.com

Just a quick note here – the article states:
"In Christianity, the Church Fathers translated their assurance that the believers are guided by the “Spirit of Truth” ... into a conviction that the body of believers collectively could not agree on an error : “Ecclesia generalis non potest errare” in the much later formulation of Thomas Aquinas (Summa. Th. Suppl. 25.1)"

I rather think you misunderstand here – The phrase 'Ecclesia generalis' literally translates to 'the general Church', but in every translation of the ST III Sup. Q25 A1 the wording: "Praeterea, Ecclesia generalis non potest errare..." in its English translation reads: "Further, The universal Church cannot err... " and in the parlance of the Catholic Church, the phrase 'universal Church' refers to a greater context than the lay community.

Furthermore:
Although the Christians knew from the Gospels that the disciples had disputes among themselves, which Jesus resolved, they believed that the disciples, and the believers everywhere and of every age, would never agree on an error. (Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, in the words of Vincentius de Lérin)
Clearly this is not the case, as the history of heresy and dispute testifies. Anyone with a passing knowledge of history knows no Christian in
their right mind would believe this.

The phrase is: Magnopere curandum est ut id teneatur quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" – "Great care must be taken to maintain that which is everywhere, which is always, which is believed by all" – by which he meant the faith of the Church as professed in the Creed and that 'which is believed by all' in union with their presbyters and bishops.

(Aside:
When the authorities of the Emperor in Constantinople kidnapped St Martin I and St Maximus the Confessor, they tried to convince the latter that the Pope, and therefore the Church, believed in a doctrine that refuted Maxiumus' teaching. The venerable old monk (then in his 80s or thereabouts) replied, "Then they are wrong, and I am the Church!")

Sadly, St Vincent himself was not infallible, as he is regarded as a semipalagian, later defined as a heresy

Nevertheless, it became a Roman Catholic doctrine that the consensus fidelium – what is stated with the agreement of all believers – cannot err.
LOL, no doubt the magisterium of the Church and myself are in accord when we say we wish that were true – But if you can show me a theology of the Church that enjoys 'the agreement of all believers' and arose from consensus, I'd be astounded, because I've never come across one.

The 'consensus fidelium' denotes a supernatural sign in the Church which transcends theologies ... dare I say it, doctrines and dogmas also.

 

[Thomas]

The above aside ... how is the Truth of the Baha'i Teaching to be preserved from error, and by whom, and on what authority?