Law and Sanctions

lunamoth said:
I remember that thread, and I know you've been here a long time too, brother. :)

Where is barefootgal? I miss her.

Laurie

Hi Laurie,

I miss her too. I haven't talked with her for several months, but she's doing well. In on the ground floor of a new Baha'i artists magazine, which is occupying all of her time. When i talk with her again, I'll give her your regards. :)

Have a nice day!
 
My own view on Baha'i laws is that very few of us today can anticipate future needs and developements of Baha'i societies.

Each case is dealt with on it's own merits by each Assembly.

There are many checks and balances I think in our communities from the local to the Natioanl level and guidance from the House of Justice.

Interpretations and implementations of these laws will developement over time.

And remember these are Baha'i laws for Baha'i communities and for the unique culture that will be developing.

- Art
 
Re: Baha'i Laws

lunamoth said:
Sorry, I'm not getting your point here. Seems you are talking about the relative nature of laws. You believe that Baha'u'llah has given a set of permanent laws that are inflexible for the next 850 plus years. I say that denies the work of the Holy Spirit. Do I think my own personal opinion on matters reflects God's will and the work of the Spirit? No! It comes through loving consultation within a communinty. Sound familiar?
<SNIPPED for focus>

That's not quite the way it works.

Baha`u'llah gives law in the Aqdas and His will and testament. He does not, however, give them in final- statutory form. That is left up to the Universal House of Justice to formulate in the future. That time is not now. Eight-hundred-and-fifty years? At least that long, perhaps longer, and the Baha`i's cycle of Revelation is for five hundred thousand years, during which the influence of Baha`u'llah will remain.

The fact that they were not formulated as statute is what makes them flexible. Flexibility is key. Here in the west many laws that were binding on the Persian and eastern friends were not yet binding on the west. Only recently (1992, the centenary of Baha`u'llah's passing have some of those laws been made binding to the western believers: Huquq'u'llah, for instance and the 95 reptitions of the Greatest name in prayer each day. It was not right away that the restriction on alcohol was made binding on the west. The old story goes that the Temple Unity council was meeting and having cocktails when the telegram from Abdu'l Baha arrived making the injunction against alcohol binding on the western believers. The drinks were poured out and the bar closed immediately.

There are still provisions in the Aqdas that are not binding on anyone. These are reserved for the time when the faith becomes nearly universal.When that time comes THEN will the laws of the Aqdas and the Surhiyyi Haykal be codified into statutes, and those statutes will become malleable to be flexible throughout the time they are in effect.

To some extent one might say that the statutes to be created will do what the Talmud does for the Torah - build a "fence" around the law. But no one has started digging post holes yet.

Regards,
Scott
 
9Harmony said:
Hi Laurie,

I miss her too. I haven't talked with her for several months, but she's doing well. In on the ground floor of a new Baha'i artists magazine, which is occupying all of her time. When i talk with her again, I'll give her your regards. :)

Have a nice day!

Hi Amy, Yes, please do give her my regards. I've never met her but we know people in common and she has been very kind and supportive to me.

Hope you are well too.

peace,
Laurie
 
arthra said:
My own view on Baha'i laws is that very few of us today can anticipate future needs and developements of Baha'i societies.

Each case is dealt with on it's own merits by each Assembly.

There are many checks and balances I think in our communities from the local to the Natioanl level and guidance from the House of Justice.

Interpretations and implementations of these laws will developement over time.

And remember these are Baha'i laws for Baha'i communities and for the unique culture that will be developing.

- Art

from Alsino Marshall

In its submission to the court, the National Spiritual Assembly outlined what it argues is acceptable procedure when disenrolling a member:

9.3 In terms of decision-making required when Baha'i membership is at issue or when infringements of Baha'i law are of concern to the institutions, decisions are made based on Baha'i principles. The Baha'i administration is non-adversarial in nature and works in subtle ways. There can be no comparison with the terminology used in legal proceedings in the community at large. For example, Baha'i institutions do not lay any 'charge' against an individual believer, and there is no necessity for giving 'direct notice' to the individual. Similarly, the concept of a 'case to be heard' is foreign to the Baha'i administration. It is at the discretion of the Baha'i administrative body to act as it sees fit in full accordance with the Baha'i principles. ... 9.4 Attempts by a National Spiritual Assembly to correct misunderstandings about the Faith by individual believers can be achieved in a variety of ways. The NSA does not employ the practice of formally approaching an individual before making a decision in every instance. There are many occasions when the deficiencies in understanding of individuals are addressed in a general, all-embracing way with the whole community (for instance, the presentation of community classes dealing with particular issues) rather than singling out individuals for specific attention.

Where, precisely, are those checks and balances?

Laurie
 
Re: Baha'i Laws

Popeyesays said:
That's not quite the way it works.

Baha`u'llah gives law in the Aqdas and His will and testament. He does not, however, give them in final- statutory form. That is left up to the Universal House of Justice to formulate in the future. That time is not now. Eight-hundred-and-fifty years? At least that long, perhaps longer, and the Baha`i's cycle of Revelation is for five hundred thousand years, during which the influence of Baha`u'llah will remain.

The fact that they were not formulated as statute is what makes them flexible. Flexibility is key. Here in the west many laws that were binding on the Persian and eastern friends were not yet binding on the west. Only recently (1992, the centenary of Baha`u'llah's passing have some of those laws been made binding to the western believers: Huquq'u'llah, for instance and the 95 reptitions of the Greatest name in prayer each day. It was not right away that the restriction on alcohol was made binding on the west. The old story goes that the Temple Unity council was meeting and having cocktails when the telegram from Abdu'l Baha arrived making the injunction against alcohol binding on the western believers. The drinks were poured out and the bar closed immediately.

There are still provisions in the Aqdas that are not binding on anyone. These are reserved for the time when the faith becomes nearly universal.When that time comes THEN will the laws of the Aqdas and the Surhiyyi Haykal be codified into statutes, and those statutes will become malleable to be flexible throughout the time they are in effect.

To some extent one might say that the statutes to be created will do what the Talmud does for the Torah - build a "fence" around the law. But no one has started digging post holes yet.

Regards,
Scott

So, in other words, more laws in the future, not less.

Will the Baha'i community ever raise its voice together to ask whether the sanctions against gay Baha'is is really just? Will they ever together consult about the paradox of Abdu'l Baha'i saying that the full equality of women is not just helpful, but imperative for peace vs. the male-only UHJ?

You're all wearing me down here.

peace,
lunamoth
 
Re: Baha'i Laws

PrimaVera said:
Dear Laurie,
Quick answers are, no, I don't agree and no. No institution answers to me. They answer to God.

I'm not asking if they answer to you--do they answer for you, or do you abdicate responsibility for their decisions?

Do you think it's not compassionate, because you think being gay is not a choice?
I've said this already. I think it is similar to the condition of obesity and bottom line in some cases, no, there is no choice. Some have the fortitude to remain celibate, some obese people have the willpower or medical intervention to help them lose weight, but for some the best option is to accept that part of themself and love themself the way they are.

I'm not talking about sex--I'm talking about intimacy and a shared life experience that heterosexual couples take for granted.

And, I might be wrong that it is disorder. It might very well be exactly like skin color or gender. How would you feel about it if to the best determination of science this were proven the case? There was lots of Biblical justification for keeping slavery and women as property.


I think we're already discussing this in the other thread in this discussion, no?
I can only do one thread at a time. You started this second thread so I came over here.

This gets dicey. The specific issues you mention stem from a particular theory of justice that's ensconsed in some western democracies. I emphasize the word "some," because some of these concepts don't exist in all of them.

The lack of transparency in proceedings is a two-edged sword. There's a reason that juvenile proceedings are closed-door proceedings even in the United States.

I don't think the Baha'i Administrative Order lacks accountability or checks and balances. The accountability and checks and balances differ from what we see in the United States, but I think the Baha'i system operates under a different theory of justice--one primary difference being the process by which facts are ascertained. You can take a look at Germany's legal system for an alternative to our adversarial system.

When we start getting down to particulars, justice is a very complex issue, and, when an issue is as complex as this one is, I tend to not reach any hard and fast conclusions. "I don't know," is a phrase I'm often led to utter.

All that is fine, but I'm judging by what I can see now. Perhaps if things were not kept so secret I'd be able to come to better conclusions about what is going on.

And as for justice being complex, I agree. That is why I think it is better to err on the side of forgiveness at the end of the day.

I mentioned early on in this thread that I think we're really talking about the fundamental religious problem: how do we know what God's will is? Not an easy question to answer.
Not easy at all. You think you know it. I don't. I'm just doing the best I can with what I've been given.

peace,
Laurie



Apology accepted, and, yes, you did mention the stress. I believe I've already said that you're on my prayer list.[/QUOTE]
 
Re: Baha'i Laws

lunamoth said:
So, in other words, more laws in the future, not less.

Will the Baha'i community ever raise its voice together to ask whether the sanctions against gay Baha'is is really just? Will they ever together consult about the paradox of Abdu'l Baha'i saying that the full equality of women is not just helpful, but imperative for peace vs. the male-only UHJ?

You're all wearing me down here.

peace,
lunamoth

In a legal sense there is no laaw at all right now. Why? Because no social laws from the Baha`i Faith are socially binding anywhere.

WSe are dealing with "law" without defining same. There is bound to be confusion. So:
Main Entry: 1law
Pronunciation: 'lo
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at [size=-1]LIE[/size]
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : [size=-1]COMMON LAW[/size] b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : [size=-1]LITIGATION[/size] (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : [size=-1]CONTROL[/size], [size=-1]AUTHORITY[/size]
2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : [size=-1]PENTATEUCH[/size], [size=-1]TORAH[/size] -- see [size=-1]BIBLE [/size]table
3 : a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>
4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : [size=-1]JURISPRUDENCE[/size] c : legal knowledge
6 a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
- at law : under or within the provisions of the law <enforceable at law>
synonyms [size=-1]LAW[/size], [size=-1]RULE[/size], [size=-1]REGULATION[/size], [size=-1]PRECEPT[/size], [size=-1]STATUTE[/size], [size=-1]ORDINANCE[/size], [size=-1]CANON [/size]mean a principle governing action or procedure. [size=-1]LAW [/size]implies imposition by a sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all subject to that authority <obey the law>. [size=-1]RULE [/size]applies to more restricted or specific situations <the rules of the game>. [size=-1]REGULATION [/size]implies prescription by authority in order to control an organization or system <regulations affecting nuclear power plants>. [size=-1]PRECEPT [/size]commonly suggests something advisory and not obligatory communicated typically through teaching <the precepts of effective writing>. [size=-1]STATUTE [/size]implies a law enacted by a legislative body <a statute requiring the use of seat belts>. [size=-1]ORDINANCE [/size]applies to an order governing some detail of procedure or conduct enforced by a limited authority such as a municipality <a city ordinance>. [size=-1]CANON [/size]suggests in nonreligious use a principle or rule of behavior or procedure commonly accepted as a valid guide <the canons of good taste>. synonym see in addition [size=-1]HYPOTHESIS[/size]
pixt.gif

-------------------

The "Law of the Aqdas" exists only as definition #2 above. Dewfinitions 1,3, 4, 5. and 6 have no relevance whatsoever.
The law of Moses (10 commandments) have no existence whatsoever in "common law, or jurisprudence, other than in the ways they have been presumed by and written into common law. As to the "sum of the law" expressed by Jesus (Thous shalt love God, thy God with all your heart. And love thy neighbor as thyself.)" exists in no common law whatsoever. Law tells us we must respect the rights of others, and cause no harm, but it cannot regulate that we love anyone.

THe "Law of Chastity" as expressed by Baha`u'llah, and interpreted by Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi, has no existence as jurisprudence anywhere in the world. It is one of those things that defines a believer within the faith, but not within society as a whole. MAYBE in the future it will not be formulated under statute. Until then it isn't relevant.

Public lewdity, adultery, promiscuity, homosexuality are all largely illegal under common law today, but that common law is under revision over the last few decades. I would submit that such Bahai common law when it comes to pass will needfully be under revision as well. Time will tell. But at this time we largely do not know what it will be or what the society in question will be. Arguing it NOW only tries to carve in stone what is written in ink, and its not really worth the effort.
"Thus have We unfolded to thee things hidden beyond the veil, inscrutable to all save God, the Almighty, the All-Praised. In the fullness of time, the Lord shall, by the power of truth, exalt it in the eyes of all men. He shall cause it to become the Standard of His Kingdom, the Shrine round which will circle the concourse of the faithful. Thus hath spoken the Lord, thy God, ere the day of lamentation arriveth. This revelation have We given thee in Our holy Tablet, lest thou sorrow for what hath befallen Our House through the assaults of the enemy. All praise be to God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 115)
"In this regard, Shoghi Effendi affirms that the Administrative Order "will, as its component parts, its organic institutions, begin to function
with efficiency and vigour, assert its claim and demonstrate its capacity to be regarded not only as the nucleus but the very pattern of the New World Order destined to embrace in the fullness of time the whole of mankind""

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, notes. p. 248)


Regards,
Scott
 
lunamoth said:
from Alsino Marshall



Where, precisely, are those checks and balances?

Laurie

In what particular regard?
Are we still discussing administrative sanctions?
If so it goes like this:
1) A local assembly is made aware of a problem.
First check= Assembly does some fact finding to determine what the problem is and is it possibly founded.
second check = Assembly communicates with involved individuals, determines if the problem is substantive, if so it goes to step two
2) Communication with the individual to determine what knowledge the individual has as to whether the matter is intentional or inadvertent. Inform the individual of the problem and offer means to rectify it.
First check=Determine whether the individual is willing to rectify or not.

3( Step three IS a check and balance, because the local assembly must communicate with the National Assembly, summarize the facts determined, explain the process of counseling and guidance and make a recommendation.
4)(This is also a check and a balance National writes back, usually to determine what the methods of the local assembly have been like so far, and to determine if a change has ocurred.
Next check, the local reports their actions, and the status of the individual towards ammending the situation.
5) If National agrees that the situation has been handled properly to this point, the National asks the Local Assembly for its recommendations. National may or may not contact the individual in question.
6) As it sees fit, the National accepts or rejects the local recommendation.
That recommendation may have been for more counseling with the individual (if they will accept such) or it may suggest that administrative rights be revoked. This is a temporary sanction, pending the actions of the individual to acceptably rectify the situation.

During this whole time the individual is free to appeal decisions to another local assembly, to the National Assembly, or even to the House of Justice. These appeals are another check and balance.

During this whole time any member of the assembly who is dissatisfied with the process is free to take it to an Auxiliary Board Member (an appointed consultative individual), or the national assembly or to the House of Justice. This is another series of checks and balances.

Of course, none of this is jurisprudence. It is neither civil nor criminal law.

During the process the individuals have the same right of confidentiality of communications that are legally binding under law concerning the confessional and consultation with a lawyer or doctor - it is privileged communicatgion and this is the only part of the whole thing which comes under "common law".

As to disclosure? All administrative bodies in the faith are required to make their decisions public within the faith. Their consultations however, are not part of the record, as all consultation and fact finding in any matter are privileged communications under common law and Baha`i Law.

What constitutes, "Due Process" under Baha`i Law and under civil law sometimes contiguous and sometimes not. Baha`i law is not part of jurisprudence within the social order, however.

On the two or three occasions where the Baha`i Administrative order has been taken to civil court it has universally been found to be within its rights
to hold confidential the consultation whereby it reached a decision as privileged communication.

Regards,
Scott
 
Re: Baha'i Laws

lunamoth said:
Will the Baha'i community ever raise its voice together to ask whether the sanctions against gay Baha'is is really just?

Probably if and when a future Messenger ever revokes the law of chastity.

And in the meantime, there are no Baha'i "sanctions" against anyone--gay or not!--who obeys Divine Law. So perhaps not making up spurious accusations is in order.

lunamoth said:
Will they ever together consult about the paradox of Abdu'l Baha'i saying that the full equality of women is not just helpful, but imperative for peace vs. the male-only UHJ?

Please note that 'Abdu'l-Baha never said (or even implied) "versus" in the sense you have presented it. Perhaps it's only paradox to the extent that one sees only part of the picture.... I'm afraid your wording "poisons the well" (yet another form of logical fallacy, along with "begging the question" in the sense that your question implies that the answer has already been given and is what you say it is <that a paradox exists>).

lunamoth said:
There was lots of Biblical justification for keeping slavery and women as property.

Then why is it you're apparently so eager to throw Bible passages at us? Having your cake and eating it too? Galatians comes immediately to mind.

lunamoth said:
You're all wearing me down here.

Pots and kettles again? You think there's nothing we'd rather be doing than refute all this carping?!

YOU are the one who keeps insisting on posting attacks based on misinformation, so who's wearing down whom?

And all this after I thought we'd already agreed yesterday to knock off the hostilities?

To misquote Douglas Adams, "Oh, I see. This is some new definition of 'knocking off hostilities' with which I was previously unfamiliar."

I put it to you that we still await the renewal of cordial dialogue instead of Yet More Acrimony. God willing, the wait won't be still more prolonged!

Peace, <=== how about for BOTH of us?!

Bruce
 
Re: Baha'i Laws

BruceDLimber said:
Probably if and when a future Messenger ever revokes the law of chastity.

And in the meantime, there are no Baha'i "sanctions" against anyone--gay or not!--who obeys Divine Law. So perhaps not making up spurious accusations is in order.



Please note that 'Abdu'l-Baha never said (or even implied) "versus" in the sense you have presented it. Perhaps it's only paradox to the extent that one sees only part of the picture.... I'm afraid your wording "poisons the well" (yet another form of logical fallacy, along with "begging the question" in the sense that your question implies that the answer has already been given and is what you say it is <that a paradox exists>).



Then why is it you're apparently so eager to throw Bible passages at us? Having your cake and eating it too? Galatians comes immediately to mind.



Pots and kettles again? You think there's nothing we'd rather be doing than refute all this carping?!

YOU are the one who keeps insisting on posting attacks based on misinformation, so who's wearing down whom?

And all this after I thought we'd already agreed yesterday to knock off the hostilities?

To misquote Douglas Adams, "Oh, I see. This is some new definition of 'knocking off hostilities' with which I was previously unfamiliar."

I put it to you that we still await the renewal of cordial dialogue instead of Yet More Acrimony. God willing, the wait won't be still more prolonged!

Peace, <=== how about for BOTH of us?!

Bruce

In this instance I do not think peace can be imposed. It can only be adopted by resolutely giving up one's own hostile reactions, for gentler reason.

Regards,
Scott
 
PrimaVera said:
Is there not some point where we have to say that God understands the balance between justice and compassion better than we do?

I think this is a core issue with many faiths - not least of the Letter of the Law vs the Spirit of the Law, which seems to be a key focus of this thread.

Ultimately, where it is for men to rule on the what God wants, there will be others to call on the fallibility of such men to make such judgements. It remains a matter of faith as to which is sided with.

There have been some very interesting points of faith raised in this dicussion so far - I sincerely hope to see it continue, but perhaps with a little tempering of certain passions. :)
 
My participatoin here

How have my posts been hostile today? Is questioning considered hostile? I feel I have been polite, or at least neutral today. :(

I am not intentionally misrepresenting anything. If you feel I misrepresent things, then this has given you an opportunity to clarify them.

Scott, I still see one line of authority that has no accountability outside itself and no way for the system to be challenged or changed if injustice is perceived. It doesn't make sense to me that you say it is apart from our civil law yet then appeal to that authority to support the rulings of the Faith. But I am getting quite tired (physically, mentally and spiritually) from all this, so there may just be something I don't see.

peace,
lunamoth
 
Re: Baha'i Laws

Dear Laurie,

lunamoth said:
I'm not asking if they answer to you--do they answer for you, or do you abdicate responsibility for their decisions?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question. What responsibility do I have for the decisions of the Universla House of Justice that you think I might be abdicating? Are you interpreting my adherence to the clear denunciations, in the Baha'i Writings, against conflict and contention as abdicating responsibilty for something? You've lost me entirely.

I'm not talking about sex--I'm talking about intimacy and a shared life experience that heterosexual couples take for granted.

I don't see how we can't be talking about sexual intercourse. There is nothing in Baha'i law that discourages people of the same sex from having a deeply loving, nurturing relationship. Indeed, every level of intimacy is entirely allowed except sexual intercourse.

How would you feel about it if to the best determination of science this were proven the case?

Likely no different than I feel now: given that we are spiritual beings, the notion that sexual intercourse needs to be an inherent part of "intimacy" strikes me as woefully materialistic, and that chastity, in whatever flavor that operates, must be the standard we strive to achieve, not just for our individual spiritual well-being but for the well-being of society as well.

All that is fine, but I'm judging by what I can see now. Perhaps if things were not kept so secret I'd be able to come to better conclusions about what is going on.

And, if Baha'i institutions didn't maintain confidentiality, those people whose conduct falls horribly short of Baha'i ideals would be subject to much shame in the community. As I pointed out, openness is a dual-edged sword. Why should an individual's right to confidentiality be subjugated to our curiosity?

And as for justice being complex, I agree. That is why I think it is better to err on the side of forgiveness at the end of the day.

I'm not sure I understand this. As an individual, I'm specifically encouraged by the Baha'i writings to act in a way that embodies "love, unity, forgiveness and a sin-covering eye".

Not easy at all. You think you know it. I don't. I'm just doing the best I can with what I've been given.

When did I say I think I know what God's Will is? In fact, I just said in the message you quoted that I'm often lead to say "I don't know."

We're all simply doing the best we can with what we've been given. I don't know why we should be surprised to find that doing the best we can with what we've been given often leads us to different places.
 
Dear Laurie,

lunamoth said:
Where, precisely, are those checks and balances?

I think we've already outlined them. Excerpts from the Individual Rights and Freedoms letter, the Constitution of the Universal House of Justice and discussions of the process by which Baha'i Law is applied and the details of the Baha'i electoral process are rife with descriptions of these checks and balances. Is there much benefit to rehashing them?

I think the issue is that you're looking for specific checks and balances that don't exist, but that does give rise to the question of whether or not those specific checks and balances ought to exist under a theory of justice that's congruent with Baha'i principles.

If we don't look at this issue from the standpoint of finding a theory of justice that's congruent with Baha'i principles, then your objection to any lack of a particular check and/or balance is no different than objecting to the concepts of spherical geometry on the basis that those concepts contradict the same ideas as expressed within the framework of plane geometry.
 
Re: My participatoin here

lunamoth said:
[To a third party:] It doesn't make sense to me that you say it is apart from our civil law yet then appeal to that authority to support the rulings of the Faith.

(I'm taking the "you' here to mean "you Baha'is.")

I may not be construing this correctly, but this appears to be referring to one (or more) recent court cases.

Were these not in fact situations where the Baha'is had been sued by someone else and were responding in court to the charges being laid?

Peace,

Bruce
 
Back
Top