Fundamentalism song

[arthra]

Working together to find agreement...

But no one can publicly disagree with house, is that not true?

We look to the House of Justice as authoratative in it's scope Awaiting... Public discussion and consultation occurs all the time in our Faith.. We just had our local Unit Conventions and our communities have continual consultations on a wide band of issues depending.

Campaigning for a partcular view and having parties is not though something you'll find so much among Baha'is. Bitter disputes and argumenatation are not valued as much as efforts to work together and find areas of agreement...so this is probably topsy tervee to some of us here. .

- Art

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Art,

I am sorry, I did go off on a bit of a rant there. I was not accusing Baha'iism of being fundamentalist. I was only pointing out what I considered to be an irony in an earlier post by Popeyesays.

Peace
AT5

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Art,

I think this thread began with a "song" and is becoming another area of dispute about Baha'i Faith... Somehow this seems awry to me and just a repeat of some past discussions. Been there ...done that.

From my view this is because Baha'is on this forum repeatedly hold the Baha'i Faith up as superior to other religions with respect to x, y, z (rational rather than superstitious, in harmony with science, no dogma, no prosyletizing, no ritual, no discrimination due to gender, no ruling clergy, no paternalism, no schism, etc.), and yet in reality there are exceptions to each of claims.

In science the exception does not make the rule, it means that the rule is either faulty or inadequate. In religion perhaps this is not the case because we, so far, must accept many things based upon faith. My view is just that we should be very careful about the claims we make and distinguish, as best we can, what is rational and what is based in faith, what is love, what is not logical. This topic has turned to humility. That is in itself notable.

The term "fundamentalism" gets bandied about and is usually today viewed by many with extreme negativity. It's even associated I think sometimes with terrorism which I don't think is necessarily justified.

In an earlier generation terrorism was also associated with Nihilism. So the danger I think is perhaps using too wide a brush in characterizing these things.

Fundamentalism can be discussed I think and should be better understood. To me the issue of fundamentalism in the world is essentially that it occurs where many are feeling a lack of direction and so more or less for security reasons they seek some fundamental truths.

They see the moral and ethical standards around them slipping and are trying to hold on to some core values of life. I think that could be a reason de entre for fundamenatlism.

What goes along with fundamentalism is a turning to certain institutional groups that are present in religion for authoritative confirmation.

All human groups have authoritative figures and I would suggest laws and institutions are all based on this... We also have checks and balances when considering these things.

There is the polarity of fundamentalism/conservatism or liberalism and most of us find ourselves somewhere in between. I can be a conservative when it comes to some issues and in other respects be more liberal...so I think we can mischaracterise ourselves and others by too liberal a use of these terms like fundamenatlist and that's my "song".

- Art

I agree with what both you and Scott have to say about fundamentalism.

peace,
Laurie

 

[Popeyesays]

But no one can publicly disagree with house, is that not true?

You can always question the House, but it is done the right way or the wrong way.

Anyone may ask the House to reconsider any issue.

What one may not do is propose that an individual's interpretation or ruling should be binding on anyone other than the individual.

So, if I say publicly that the House is wrong, and everyone should leave the faith and start a Baha`i Faith according to MY vision, then this is unequivocally wrong, and I am breaking the Covenant.

I can publicly say I feel the House is mistaken, but I will be obedient awaiting the House to amend its decision in the future - and I am blameless.

I can say publicly that I cannot consider myself a Baha`i in the community of Baha`i's because the House rules on something and withdraw, and I am blameless.

That's, essentially, "the nutshell", but remember there is no such thing as precedent in Baha`i consultation on any matter.

Regards,
Scott

 

[smkolins]

Hello,

But Scott, and I am sorry for sounding like a broken record here, how does the exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice fit into this outlook on things? Frankly I find it inconsistent with the principle of equality of the genders, yet there is no other answer except Baha'u'llah said so and "it will become clear as the noon day sun" at some undefined point in the future. It is not rational.

Actually it was 'Abdu'l-Baha who said its reason would becomes clear as the noon day sun.

One angle I propose for consideration is that if women and men truly are equal then it doesn't matter what pattern of men or women are in the position of authority. There is a suposition based on the inequalities of the past that only women can effectively represent women or present a unique and equally acceptable voice. I don't think that holds inherently. If that were true no member of one group could suffice for any other group and instead of democracies we would have, well I don't even know what to call it, a government of races or something. We'ld have a department of African American Women and another for Men and one for Cuban American .... Rather the reverse can be true - few can expound an issue than one who has consciouly and deeply explored a matter and such an effort has no fundamental bearing on whether one is female or male, otherwise there could be no equality between women and men.

If that is true then when the House of Justice has only male members it can play a role of being a test. It is clear in the Writings that God also tests believers. What would be a test if not this? If it really doesn't matter then it won't matter. But if you hold to the history of inequality then you can never be equal. Granted the general population may have generations of work to become fair. That's one of the jobs of the House in fact.

As for the irony.... Understanding, rather than meer obedience, is a highly prized quality and demanded of us by the teachings of the Baha'i Faith as I understand it. But the questions of late have not been what we believe but why. What something means can be miles from why we beleive it. Fundamentally we beleive these things because we accept Baha'u'llah is who He said He was, and so 'Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi and the House. The particular phrasing of the quoted from one person's paper can seem awefully ironic given statements in various threads and the experiences of individuals here and beyond. But if you don't accept Baha'u'llah the argument of what it means isn't brought up - but instead its all about why we should or should not beleive. Any teaching's degree of sensibleness is horribly vulnerable, as I've mentioned in some recent posts, to our circumstances rather than to the truth itself. Derived from acceptance is all manner of personal investigation and delving into the meaning of one or another teaching. To hold up a book and pronouce it the truth and have little idea what it means is rather useless.

But these are just some thoughts.

 

[smkolins]

Hi Art,

From my view this is because Baha'is on this forum repeatedly hold the Baha'i Faith up as superior to other religions with respect to x, y, z (rational rather than superstitious, in harmony with science, no dogma, no prosyletizing, no ritual, no discrimination due to gender, no ruling clergy, no paternalism, no schism, etc.), and yet in reality there are exceptions to each of claims.

I would offer that to the extent the religions are about and adhere to the eternal verities then they truly, absolutely, are equal. A good Baha'i is of him or her self no better than a good Christian or .... In the same vein the respect for the position of the Founder and the Source of their Revelation no Faith has such explicit commendations to be found. They all could have, and viewed in a certain light I could even say they do but this is not the position generally held by any of them. Additionally while we affirm some aspects of all the religions to higher degrees than you might find reference to it is also true that to the extent they have been clothed with manmade teachings they are no longer equal and are not as they were when Founded, loosing their purity and greatness to some extent, more or less, depending on how much human made dogma has become involved.

Additionally, in an argument of equality as might be common in an interfaith effort there is often no sense that they are actually related, foretelling oneanother, building and correcting one another. All the scriptures speak to other scriptures and not in only the kindest terms.

 

[iBrian]

Okay, this thread is becoming a thread about the Baha'i faith, and it really shouldn't be - can we please try and keep to the discussion topic, rather than rationalise any particular religious position?

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

[Devils_Advocate]

Shouldn't we all be fundamentalist? I mean, if we really believe that we have the truth, we should do everything in our power to spread the truth to the rest of humanity.

Maybe in the end we'll thank Al-Qaeda for bringing us all to islam, or perhaps we will sing the praises of the American Christian Fundamentalists when they have wiped evey other religion from the face of the world.

And if they are not doing these things, maybe they should?

If I were to force you all to convert to Buddhism at the point of my gun, it would be very bad karma for me personally, but all the people I killed would be reborn into a world where Buddhism was the universal religion and we could all achieve full enlightenment much more easily.

If a monotheistic religion were to do do the same, future generations would know that there is only one God and it is right to serve him. There would still be free will, a choice between believing or not believing, but there would be only one thing to believe, the truth!

So tell me, one and all, why not fundamentalism, why not great religious wars to the death, sacrifice a generation of suffering for the perfect future of all mankind.

[/Devils_Advocate]

 

[wil]

Okay, this thread is becoming a thread about the Baha'i faith, and it really shouldn't be - can we please try and keep to the discussion topic, rather than rationalise any particular religious position?

oh bother.

Fundamentalism can be discussed I think and should be better understood.

Fundamentalism to me is strict adherence to a very defined (sometimes biased for a 'political' reason) supposed literal translation of religious text. Not to step on the toes of all those that have religious superiority issues (ie, my way is the one and only way to find enlightenment/get into heaven/understand God....) nor the toes of those that think that there are many paths and each has its own merits... But I often wonder if religious freedom, if all these choices has and does slow down the progress to any path. When I think of certain aboriginal people who had their faith..and that was all there was due to lack of communication/contact with others....or the countries that legislate/dictate solo religious belief, there is no question who, how and what to ascribe to... sometimes I see this 'fundamentalist' thought has an advantage v. the melting pot, where many seem to find disallusion as they see others of differing faiths and them troubled in their own, and the need to find yourself occurs.

thoughts....(is this on topic or must I go look for a honey jar?)

namaste,

 

[truthseeker]

[Devils_Advocate]
So tell me, one and all, why not fundamentalism, why not great religious wars to the death, sacrifice a generation of suffering for the perfect future of all mankind.

[/Devils_Advocate]

Reading is Fundamental! Open a Book, Open Your Mind!

Fundamentalism gives those who need to fight something to fight for. It gives those who has other things to focus on a set of rules when they have to deal with religion. It gives those who would otherwise believe in nothing something concrete to believe in - while everything else around you is changing, you can be certain that this is 'written in stone'.

I love to read. But my mind doesn't stop there. I never accept what I read as absolute truth; what it does is open my mind to even greater truths that make me more accepting of the world around me and beyond me. If I understand fundamentalism correctly, it doesn't appear to be one that serves its followers an anointment or to a path of enlightenment.

 

[smkolins]

[Devils_Advocate]So tell me, one and all, why not fundamentalism, why not great religious wars to the death, sacrifice a generation of suffering for the perfect future of all mankind.

[/Devils_Advocate]

Because fundamentalism fundamentally limits answers to pre-existing literal answers, and one must and can only explore truth for oneself which cannot really be anything but an organic exploration for oneself, arriving at various emphasized topics or angles at any particular time.

Or, put another way, literalism is not the truth. Even this statement has it's limits.

 

[smkolins]

Okay, this thread is becoming a thread about the Baha'i faith, and it really shouldn't be - can we please try and keep to the discussion topic, rather than rationalise any particular religious position?

Now why wasn't that objection raised when the question was asked rather than when it was answered? isn't there an inherent unfairness there? And it isn't enough that others spoke of their understanding - my contribution was authentic, not a duplication. Indeed was it not the very individual speculation that has been so much harped upon as lacking in Baha'i participation? So this is the point where the thread gets jumped on?

And is there anything more on topic to a thread about fundamentalism than a non-fundamentalist answer to a question?

 

[Quahom1]

Christopher Robin and I walked alone
Under branches lit up by the moon
Posing our questions to Owl and Eeyore
As our days disappeared far too soon
But I've wandered much further today than I should
And I can't seem to find my way back to the woods

​

So help me if you can, I've got to get
Back to the house at Pooh Corner by one
You'd be surprised, there's so much to be done
Count all the bees in the hive
Chase all the clouds from the sky
Back to the days of Christopher Robin
...And Pooh.

Winnie the Pooh doesn't know what to do
Got a honey jar stuck on his nose
He came to me asking help and advice
And from here no one knows where he goes
So I sent him to ask of the Owl if he's there
How to loosen a jar from the nose of a bear

So help me if you can I've got to get
Back to the house at Pooh Corner by one
You'd be surprised there's so much to be done
Count all the bees in the hive
Chase all the clouds from the sky
Back to the days of Christopher Robin
,,,And Pooh

So help me if you can I've got to get
Back to the house at Pooh Corner by one
You'd be surprised there's so much to be done
Count all the bees in the hive
Chase all the clouds from the sky
Back to the days of Christopher Robin
Back to the ways of Christopher Robin
Back to the ways of Pooh

There is always more pressing matters, and always another option...

thanks Brian for the insight.

v/r

Q

 

[iBrian]

Now why wasn't that objection raised when the question was asked rather than when it was answered? isn't there an inherent unfairness there?

I'm not able to read every post as it's posted - but if something perhaps requires attention, I make a point of raising it once I'm finally aware of it.

There was no intent to warn any individual against posting - just a polite request to move the discussion forward.

 

[juantoo3]

Anyone here ever read "The Tao of Pooh" or "The Te of Piglet?"

 

[InLove]

Exploration is the key to innerspace, now if we could only get the budget of NASA....

Well, Brian, really--I've got to hand it to you. Once again, a meaningful conversation in which any brave soul may participate.

By the way, wil, welcome to CR. Look forward to hearing from you again.

For now, I will remember the days of Christopher Robin and Pooh (even if I don't remember them--I remember the song).

Many Smiles and Much Love,
InLove

 

[juantoo3]

It's so nice to see you around, InLove!

 

[InLove]

Hey Juan--

Now, I know this has nothing do to with Christopher Robin or Pooh (or does it?). One of my grandsons is in Naples, and God knows that I am so tired of hurricanes. So since you are from the great state of Florida, what do you think about all these storms (and this is way off the subject, I guess---I dunno--fundamentalism, Winnie-the-Pooh, even Star Wars, maybe, but....

How are you in Florida, Juan?

(May Wilma register less than one--and lift up all those when it was more....)

I no longer dream of living on the coast....back to the days of ....woods and mountains where Pooh-bears find honey in the trees. No more toes in the sand. Just can't dream of that again...<sigh>.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[smkolins]

Anyone here ever read "The Tao of Pooh" or "The Te of Piglet?"

Yes, I've read both. I like both for different reasons. I identify more with Piglet, if I may say so.

 

[Quahom1]

Guess I didn't make my point.

This is us, ultimately...

We are so different, each of us, but so much the same. And we all need eachother...badly.

That is mankind in a snapshot.

v/r

Q