Re: Non-partisanship...
I agree.![Smile :) :)]()
I'm not trying to tell Baha'is how the Baha'i faith runs - I'm trying to raise discussion issues based on how it looks from the outside.
My comments may look clumsy in places, but they are based on honest enquiry.
I don't deny that the Baha'i faith is involved with a lot of good work, and there is actually a lot of common theological ground between myself and the Baha'i faith.
I don't deny your sincerity and honesty, either, Bruce, so my apologies if it reads like I'm questioning your personal motivations - I'm simply trying to raise an interesting subject on the political issues relating to the Baha'i faith, and see where it leads.
The upside of this is that it keeps the cause pure from outside interference. However, isn't there a downside in terms of outside accountability? Also, wouldn't this policy of exclusivism mean that Baha'i projects may not work in direct partnership with non-Baha'i funded projects?
Indeed, that's quite a volume of writing to work with.![Smile :) :)]()
My point in that regard was that the Baha'i faith comes across as an authoritan organisation not too dissimilar to the Jehovah's Witnesses - there is a core authority who determine what the correct interpretations of scripture are, and these must be adhered to. In which case, you can search the volumes of wrting for meanings, but those meanings are not allowed to contradict what has already been indoctrinated to the faith.
I'm not saying that UK democracy is an ideal - simply that my impression given of the Baha'i organisation is that there is a diminishing accountability for the higher levels to the lowest levels. And in such a political structure, political abuse will eventually become an inevitability.
I'm not talking about the Baha'i faith now, as much as postulating a future scenario - imagine that the UK were under Baha'i control - what influence can the individual member have on the overall structure of government? It's this sort of political question I'm at least in part trying to ask as an exploration of the subject.
If you have any specific links to help educate me against any misconceptions then you're more than welcome to post them - I'm only communicating my impression so far, and it could easily be a misperception.
BruceDLimber said:I put it to you that this only signifies an unfamliarity with both the Baha'i Faith and its teachings.
I agree.
I'm not trying to tell Baha'is how the Baha'i faith runs - I'm trying to raise discussion issues based on how it looks from the outside.
My comments may look clumsy in places, but they are based on honest enquiry.
BruceDLimber said:For example, we have well over a thousand socioeconomic development projects around the world which have been caaomplishing many wonderful things without even asking for anything in return.
I don't deny that the Baha'i faith is involved with a lot of good work, and there is actually a lot of common theological ground between myself and the Baha'i faith.
I don't deny your sincerity and honesty, either, Bruce, so my apologies if it reads like I'm questioning your personal motivations - I'm simply trying to raise an interesting subject on the political issues relating to the Baha'i faith, and see where it leads.
BruceDLimber said:(And as you may not already be aware, Baha'is won't even accept--let alone solicit!--contributions to Baha'i Funds from non-members!)
The upside of this is that it keeps the cause pure from outside interference. However, isn't there a downside in terms of outside accountability? Also, wouldn't this policy of exclusivism mean that Baha'i projects may not work in direct partnership with non-Baha'i funded projects?
BruceDLimber said:On the contrary, Baha'is question stuff all the time! And even our scriptures advocate contrary oipinions and discussion thereof as the means of clarifying what the truth is.
Indeed, that's quite a volume of writing to work with.
My point in that regard was that the Baha'i faith comes across as an authoritan organisation not too dissimilar to the Jehovah's Witnesses - there is a core authority who determine what the correct interpretations of scripture are, and these must be adhered to. In which case, you can search the volumes of wrting for meanings, but those meanings are not allowed to contradict what has already been indoctrinated to the faith.
BruceDLimber said:Further, in claiming this would be so "brilliant" a system for oppression, you obviously ignore the bottom-up nature of Baha'i administration, in which each level is based on the will of those beneath it.
I'm not saying that UK democracy is an ideal - simply that my impression given of the Baha'i organisation is that there is a diminishing accountability for the higher levels to the lowest levels. And in such a political structure, political abuse will eventually become an inevitability.
I'm not talking about the Baha'i faith now, as much as postulating a future scenario - imagine that the UK were under Baha'i control - what influence can the individual member have on the overall structure of government? It's this sort of political question I'm at least in part trying to ask as an exploration of the subject.
If you have any specific links to help educate me against any misconceptions then you're more than welcome to post them - I'm only communicating my impression so far, and it could easily be a misperception.