Homosexual Fish

“Oestrogen had gotten into the water and changed the fish. It made them homosexual,”  he said.

A seemingly innocent comment made by a Bahai at a Bahai gathering, got me thinking. It was prejudice to my ears – yet I didn’t have the words at the time to respond so I was silent.

What it told me as listener, was that this person felt comfortable associating homosexuality as something abnormal in the company of other Bahais and while the conversation centered on the fish and pollution caused by the contraceptive pill, the comment also reminded me of another issue Bahais often bring up in connection with gay rights. That nature is geared towards reproduction and from this they imply that any relationship not geared towards reproduction is wrong because in their eyes it is against nature.

Look at any society: a ‘survival of the fittest’ type of rationale for relating to each other would be considered inhuman.

Relationships and partnerships endure because of love and friendship not because of children or how many children are reproduced. We are not fish, which do not form partnerships to start.

These words on the Bahai International Community website are so familiar that they are almost a mantra for Bahais:
“All human beings, Bahá’u'lláh states, have been “created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization.” The creation of a peaceful global society that fosters both individual and collective well-being is at the heart of the Bahá’í vision of the future.”

Bahá’u’lláh makes this disassociation with a ‘survival of the fittest’ mentality even more strongly:
“All men have been created to carry forward an ever-advancing civilization. The Almighty beareth Me witness: To act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man. Those virtues that befit his dignity are forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving-kindness towards all the peoples and kindreds of the earth. Say: O friends! Drink your fill from this crystal stream that floweth through the heavenly grace of Him Who is the Lord of Names. Let others partake of its waters in My name, that the leaders of men in every land may fully recognize the purpose for which the Eternal Truth hath been revealed, and the reason for which they themselves have been created.”
Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 346 [Some of the above also sourced near the end of Section IV of the "Promise of World Peace", a statement widely circulated in 1985]

And a 2010 statement by the Universal House of Justice specifically concerns homosexuality:
“…With respect to your question concerning the position Baha’is are to take regarding homosexuality and civil rights, … “
“Baha’is are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Baha’i is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.”

So, yes, any innocent comment made associating homosexuality with abnormality or illness is, in my view, an expression of prejudice or disdain. So how do we change this? How can we change the culture of our Bahai communities so that such comments were be a rare slip of the tongue, to which another could just say “You’re not serious?” to which that Bahai might say “Oh no, I’m sorry I didn’t mean to make this negative association” and so then the discussion would be the issue at hand, in that case, how pollution was affecting the population growth of the fish, which had nothing to do with homosexuality.

My silence at the time was not knowing how to voice my discomfort because so often when I do, I’m told I am over sensitive or that it is not prejudice to make such a disdainful association with homosexuality.

Some Bahais have also told me that this 2010 statement by Universal House of Justice is not actually about treating homosexuals with equality because further in the same letter is the following:
“In working for social justice, Baha’is must inevitably distinguish between those dimensions of public issues that are in keeping with the Baha’i Teachings, which they can actively support, and those that are not, which they would neither promote nor necessarily oppose. In connection with issues of concern to homosexuals, the former would be freedom from discrimination and the latter the opportunity for civil marriage. Such distinctions are unavoidable when addressing any social issue. For example, Baha’is actively work for the establishment of world peace but, in the process, do not engage in partisan political activities directed against particular governments.”

Their argument being that they interpret “neither promote nor necessarily oppose” as meaning what they consider as being the status quo which agrees with their personal view that same sex married couples must separate or leave the Bahai Faith or not marry to start with.
As you can read for yourself, you can see that the statement by the Universal House of Justice means that publically, no Bahai community should be seen as ‘for or against,’ but rather, just as on the topic of party politics, any said Bahai community is to take a neutral position. Individuals such as myself are certainly free to vote as they please, and likewise may advocate same sex marriage as valid as any other legally recognized marriage between consenting adults as both a right and a responsibility. I should and would never claim that my views are those of any Bahai community and likewise with any Bahai who holds the opposite view on this topic.

However until now there have been examples of Bahai communities advocating against homosexuality [see: 1996: NSA of the Bahais of the U.K., 1999: Guyana, 2007: Uganda, 2010: Guyana. Here I make some comments about interfaith groups, 2011: Baha'i Office for the Advancement of Women], so in my view to work for a Bahai culture of neutrality, as Bahais we not only need to work at even seemingly innocent comments about diseased fish as posing no opportunity for an expression of disdain towards an aspect of the diversity of humanity, but to voice differing views as I am doing in this blog, so not only our fellow Bahais realise that not all Bahais think there’s something fishy about being gay, but also so that the public in general are aware that there are Bahais who do advocate equal rights and responsibilities for their gay brothers and sisters.

Baha’u’llah & “The Subject of Boys”

A few months ago Baquia wrote a blog of the same name where s/he noted:

“If we search Baha’u'llah’s writings, we find something quite remarkable. Nowhere in Baha’u'llah’s writings is there an explicit mention of homosexuality (and neither by Abdu’l-Baha). Arguably, the only reference we have is an extremely brief mention in the Aqdas (more on that a bit later).

To understand why there is no wider mention of homosexuality and what exactly Baha’u’llah was referring and what Shoghi Effendi translated to the seemingly cryptic words, “the subject of boys”, we have to take a few steps back.

Ban on Interracial marriage between the 1660s and 1967

Sexual dynamics and mores differ greatly between cultures and time periods. What may be accepted sexual behavior at one point in time or within a specific society may be completely unknown or unacceptable in another time or place.”

(See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States)

Later in the blog Baquia writes: “That does not mean however that homosexuality did not exist at all in one guise or another during Baha’u'llah’s time. Homosexuality, after all, has been observed in nature among hundreds of species as well as throughout human history.

So while the current definition of homosexual relationships may not have existed, there certainly have always been some forms of homosexuality in human society, just as there have been many other acceptable sexual expressions, beyond the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

So to understand the extremely limited or non-existent Baha’i treatment of homosexuality, we have to first understand the sexual traditions prevalent in the Middle East during the 1800′s.”

One issue I was unaware of was a form of “lesbianism. It is sometimes referred to as sisterhood sighe and involved the consensual relationship between two women that was sexual in nature but not exclusively so. This was practiced in a society that allowed woman to travel together and spend time together (especially in harems where women were only allowed to frequent with other women freely).” [Link to this blog]

This was news to me and so since this existed during Baha’u'llah’s time, surely he would have made mention of this if this was an issue. In Kitab-i-Adqas Baha’u'llah wrote:
“”We shrink, for very shame, from treating the subject of boys. Fear ye the Merciful, O peoples of the world! Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desire.” (page 58, Kitab-i-Adqas, 1992 English edition)

Baquia then illustrated use and context for the Arabic term Baha’u'llah used “ghulaam” which refers to: slave, page; lad, or servant, and exclusively males.
The rest of the blog goes into the ‘subject of boys’ that is, the middle eastern practice young boys being treated like a sex slave. The English 1992 edition of Kitab-i-Adqas has a reference to note 134 on page 223 where the research department or the Universal House of Justice has noted that this refers to paederasty. The next sentence in that note states that Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations, but as far as I know Shoghi Effendi never wrote anything the topic of homosexuality. What we have and what is then quoted next in the same note is a Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.

The blog continues: “These relationships are markedly different from the homosexual relationships that we see practiced today. It is not a relationship between equals. Instead the adult male has resources, power, rank and authority and in effect ‘owns’ the younger male. He provides for the boy’s needs but expects certain reciprocation.”

And then quotes:

“Nineteenth-century Iranian society did not adhere to modern definitions or sensibilities concerning same-sex relations. Although legally prohibited, homosexual sex was common, and homoerotic passion was accommodated. Falling in love with a youth and celebrating that love were recognized practices, as long as the lovers remained circumspect and observed certain conventions. Elite urban men often flouted these conventions. In the royal court and among government officials, wealthy merchants, and clerics, the practice of keeping boy concubines was widespread and commonly known; close, homosexual relations between free adult men were less often discussed or divulged, however.”

p. 104, “Sexual Politics in Modern Iran”, by Janet Afary 1992, Cambridge University Press.

And further in the blog: “Through this vice, livat [lavat], betsche bazi [bacheh bazi], is strongly rebuked in the Qur’an and can even be punishable by death, it is nevertheless today generally widespread, among the lay people, especially… officers, schoolteachers, and even clerics. It is so overt that no one makes an attempt to conceal it. In almost every house of standing there is such a boy, even many, who are there to serve this purpose. No one is reserved about introducing them publicly. Indeed, one takes pride in possessing a splendid specimen. One is especially jealous about them. They are carefully watched and protected from seduction.”
(Polak [1861] excerpt from account of the court gynecologist and obstetrician, Dr. Polak cited in “Sexual Politics in Modern Iran”1982, p.41) [Link to Baquia's blog where there is more from this book]

Baquia then quotes the essay, Sexuality in the Aqdas by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram:

“It was simply taken-for-granted in Middle Eastern tradition that all men find boys sexually attractive and that men who are attracted to boys are not a ‘different’ type of men but, on the contrary, ‘normal’ men who desire intromissive ejaculation for which a boy taken in liwat is as fit as a woman taken in liwat or vaginal intercourse.

Although egalitarian relationships between pairs of adult men that involved mutual sexual activity have not been unknown in Middle Eastern societies, there was no specific term to cover such liasons before recent decades. They fell outside regular socio-cultural categories, and they were not subsumable under liwat.

If we note the widespread use of dancing boys dressed as girls for prostitution in the Middle East; and the practice of female prostitutes dressing as boys to increase their appeal to customers who would engage in either anal or vaginal intercourse with them; and remember that the customers of both the dancing boys and the travesti girls are married men: It is evident that expecting recent western terms like ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ to be readily applicable in this socio-cultural milieu in any meaningful way is futile.“
The Provisions for Sexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the Context of Late Nineteenth Century Eastern and Western Sexual Ideologies by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, 1996. The underlined text is my emphasis.

Baquia’s blog continues with more details and information.

The blog then quotes from another article by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram.

“A remark that it is shameful to keep a catamite presumably means first and foremost that it is shameful to keep a catamite. But from specific comments we may also develop generalizations. We are likely to be aided in generalizing by an understanding of the context in which the statement was made and received. However, apart from this there are two basic directions in which we may take our generalizing. The statement may be generalized to a condemnation of a broader range of homosexual acts; or it may be generalized to a condemnation of those in a position of power exploiting their dependents for their own ends. One type of generalization operates on the basis of presumed analogies among specific outward acts and the one in the statement; the other operates on the basis of a concern for the principles that may be inferred from the statement and how these may be related to motives, responsibilities, and relationships.
The important question is which type of generalization is more likely to produce results that may support a global value system that can flourish and develop in all cultures. Is God more interested in people’s actions than their hearts? Is the road to salvation a mechanically instrumental one? Of course actions matter, but what underlies the actions must matter at least as much if we are not to espouse a materialist view of existence. And not only individual actions matter but also the broader patterns of social interaction in which these actions are situated.
Bahá’í Faith and Sexuality, by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram, February 1996. The underlined text is my emphasis.

Baquia finishes by noting that “we of course pay attention to the translation and interpretation of the Guardian. Juxtaposing the two may provide us with a deeper insight into the discussion of the views and attitudes of the Baha’i Faith towards homosexuality.
Similar to the line of reasoning provided by R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram above, but with one important distinction, here is a question to ponder:
By ignoring the homosexual relationships between women, which were marked by consensual agreement between adult equals, and condemning specifically a despicable act of ritualized pederasty marked by the abuse of power and dominance of an adult over less fortunate minors, was Baha’u’llah telling us more about equality, justice and human rights than about merely a sexual act or orientation?”

About 2 weeks later I commented on 3 May 2011

SS wrote: What do you think of:
“Amongst the many other evils afflicting society in this spiritual low water mark in history, is the question of immorality, and over-emphasis of sex. Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u'lláh, is spiritually condemned. This does not mean that people so afflicted must not be helped and advised and sympathized with. It does mean that we do not believe that it is a permissible way of life; which, alas, is all too often the accepted attitude nowadays.”
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer,
May 21, 1954)

Some Bahais might think to use birth control is against the teachings of the Bahai Faith because a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi states it “as constituting a real danger to the very foundations of our social life.”
(A link to the letter is here – scroll to the comments below for the full letter)

So SS if you choose to treat everything penned by a secretary writing Letters on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf, as if this is scripture to be followed to the letter, I can only assume that you might have problems with Bahais who practice some form of birth control or anything else penned in these letters. As an individual there is nothing to stop you from following the advice in these letters, unless, and this is just my own opinion, your actions contradict any Bahai Teaching.

Some Bahais interprete anything penned by a secretary as if this has the same status as Bahai Scripture so here is a link to some statements about the status of these letters.

These letters have status, but not the same as anything penned by Baha’u'llah, Abdul-Baha, or Shoghi Effendi and here is a link to some of these letters which either contradict Bahai Scripture or have inaccuracies.

As Bahais we need to learn to see these distinctions if we want our Bahai community (here Shoghi Effendi is referring specifically to our administration) to: “be conceived as an instrument and not a substitute for the Faith of Baha’u'llah, that it should be regarded as a channel through which His promised blessings may flow, that it should guard against such rigidity as would clog and fetter the liberating forces released by His Revelation.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 9)

So in short Shoghi Effendi seems to be saying, let the priniciples of the Bahai Teachings guide us in our actions.

Now to the Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which you posted: I googled the phrase: “Homosexuality, according to the Writings of Bahá’u'lláh, is spiritually condemned.” and found it is sourced all over the place, including wikipedia, bahaikipedia and so on. However nowhere have I found anything in the Baha’u'llah’s Writings to back this up. Of course I realise many of His tablets are not yet translated but my argument here is, if there is a tablet somewhere that states clearly that homosexuality is spiritually condemned, it would be sourced or a priority would have been given, so such statements in Letters Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi would have some scriptural basis. We cannot assume that those secretaries had the power of divination to ‘know’ what was in a tablet without having read this themselves. It is not a Bahai Teaching to believe that Bahais such as those who served as secretaries had super-human powers.

But I can understand that anyone using the internet would think, well it must be somewhere in the Bahai Writings, otherwise why would this quotation often be the first thing quoted in places such as wikipedia. I would agree, I find this odd. Why does it seem to be that Bahais are so keen to damn homosexuality? Why do not more Bahais question this? Are Bahais more likely to damn homosexuality than any other individual? If you think so, then I’d say, do something about this.
Asking questions (to others or oneself) and investigating the truth are Bahai Teachings. We as individuals make what the Bahai community is in society – no people, no community. We need to do the investigating ourselves. It is our own responsibility.

Why does a religion that celebrates diversity and has equality as a teaching, have homosexuality as an exception? Where does the idea that homosexuality is bad come from? That’s my question. If it comes from those letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, and other issues mentioned in these letters are treated as advice for the particular individual/s it was addressed to, or not given a focus, then why are those mentioning homosexuality treated differently?

We cannot blame those letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi either, because it us, the Bahais, who are who treating the status of these letters differently to how other letters are being treated. Sen has written a blog which goes into some detail about the Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.

SS then asked me:
In that case, what are your views on this:

“The word translated here as ‘boys’ has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.
“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.”
(The Universal House of Justice: The Kitab-i-Aqdas: N 134, p. 223)

I responded on 5 May 2011:

I wrote about this on this blog some years ago and this is a direct link to the same post.

Here I show that since the notes section (the quotation you use) is penned by the U.H.J. or the Research department acting on their behalf.

“Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same.
Thus for example, the House of Justice enacteth today a certain law and enforceth it, and a hundred years hence, circumstances having profoundly changed and the conditions having altered, another House of Justice will then have power, according to the exigencies of the time, to alter that law.
This it can do because these laws form no part of the divine explicit Text. The House of Justice is both the initiator and the abrogator of its own laws.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 20)

I give more background on this here

Baquia has also pointed out the same in earlier comments. That there is no reference to homosexuality by Baha’u'llah or Abdul-Baha. And Shoghi Effendi did not write a word on the topic either. His secretaries did.

7 May 2011 SS asked me:
In response to your comment re: the authority of letters written on behalf of the Guardian: In a postscript appended to a letter dated 7 December 1930, written on his behalf to an individual believer, Shoghi Effendi described the normal procedure he followed in dealing with correspondence written on his behalf: I wish to add and say that whatever letters are sent in my behalf from Haifa are all read and approved by me before mailing. There is no exception whatever to this rule.

Posted on 25 June 2011
[sorry, I didn't realise that this response didn't get sent. It has been sitting here in the queue since May]

SS, I don’t want to clog up Baquia’s blog with repeating things I’ve already written on this blog, but I realise that it is hard to find links to particular comments, so that is why I posted the link.

Here it is again.  And in particular this link discusses the quotation you mention which is also a Letter Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, not penned by Shoghi Effendi himself.

I suggest that you look at the other letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi on my blog (all linked from the first link here) and if I’ve missed a letter you know of, then please do quote this, or if you disagree, or see a flaw in my argumentation, please address that here.

Surely you know the difference between ‘reading and approving’ and writing something yourself. And then when Shoghi Effendi was so clear when he was writing in his role as the Guardian. The letters have status, they needed to have status so Shoghi Effendi would not need to write them, so he could focus on his work as Guardian. But having status for the addresse is not the same as Bahai Scripture.

This is also why it doesn’t matter that these letters on his behalf contain errors and inconsistences. Their status was never intended to be treated as if they were interpretation on par with Shoghi Effendi and Shoghi Effendi set limits on his own role here as well.

I find it noteworthy that at those times when clearly Shoghi Effendi did not like the way these letters were being treated that his vehicle for expressing this was to have a secretary pen a letter. What this says to me is that he was being consistent. Using those letters for communication of another status to his role as Guardian. It seems to me, that he knew clearly the status of his writings as interpretator and so refrained from penning anything that did not fit within this framework. It would also mean that it would harder for letters penned by secretaries to become part of the canon of Bahai Scripture, but my guess is that he would operate from principle. That the principle was his role as official interpreter was not the same status or authority or role as those letters written on his behalf, often in response to a question.

Of course Shoghi Effendi did pen personal letters, and exactly what is the status of these and whether the status of all letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are all the same is something that can be debated. Personally I would treat the status of these letters as being applicable to the addresse because that is has been stated.

The medium Shoghi Effendi used is part of the message.
Sen’s blog has more on this here

So my suggestion would be, if something isn’t clear, go to Bahai Scripture and if it is not there, then assume this is an area the Universal House of Justice can rule on and that a future Universal House of Justice can change.

It’s Getting Better: Baha’i Faith & Homosexuality

 Demonstrator at the August 2007 anti-gay rally in Kampala, Uganda.
 Photo: Rebekah Heacock.

I posted the following blog on Bahai rants (http://bahairants.com/bahai-faith-homosexuality-its-getting-better-1358.html) on January 14th 2011 in response to the Universal House of Justice letter made public in a letter penned by the US N.S.A. on January 3rd 2011.
I’m reposting this here because I’ve been having a discussion on gaybahai.net and would like to be able to make direct links to some points. I also add some of my responses at the bottom and have updated a few external links. I suggest that you go to Bahai Rants where to date there are 95 comments from a great diversity of viewpoints.

On January 3rd, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States sent out a letter to the American Baha’i community, quoting parts of a letter from the Universal House of Justice to an individual:
“…With respect to your question concerning the position Baha’is are to take regarding homosexuality and civil rights, we have been asked to convey the following.
The purpose of the Faith of Baha’u’llah is the realization of the organic unity of the entire human race, and Baha’is are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Baha’i is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.”
(Letter from the UHJ to an individual, 27 October 2010)

And further in the same letter:
“[The Bahai Faith] does not see itself as one among competing social groups and organizations, each vying to establish its particular social agenda. In working for social justice, Baha’is must inevitably distinguish between those dimensions of public issues that are in keeping with the Baha’i Teachings, which they can actively support, and those that are not, which they would neither promote nor necessarily oppose. In connection with issues of concern to homosexuals, the former would be freedom from discrimination and the latter the opportunity for civil marriage.”

It seems to me that this letter would indicate that the Baha’i community should now not be publicly supporting or opposing actions such as the anti-gay activities in Uganda in 2007.

 Above is a screenshot from the Guardian, 17 September 2007.
 Accessed 6 January 2011.

The article in the Guardian shown in the screenshot above continues, lower on the page:
The rally was organised by the interfaith coalition against homosexuality, an alliance of Christian, Muslim and Bahai organisations.

This wasn’t a case of Baha’is just being associated with any interfaith organization but with an association called the Interfaith Rainbow Coalition Against Homosexuality. It has been suggested to me that an individual Baha’i got caught up in the events without the knowledge of the local Ugandan Baha’i community. When I first heard the reports, I too thought that, while individual Baha’is are certainly free to participate in activities such as this, Baha’is would not be participating in any representative sense, and newspapers can get things wrong. But how then, did the newspaper reports come to mention the word Baha’i, if this was not the case? Moreover, these reports first appeared a month before the Guardian story in the screenshot, and there were, as far as I know, no statements made from the Baha’i Community in Uganda to indicate that Baha’i representatives were not involved.

 Screenshot of an article in the Christian Post, 22 August 2007. Accessed 12
 January 2011. Click on the image to view the whole screenshot in another
 window

The following links, all dated in August 2007 and mentioning Baha’i involvement, indicate that it is not likely that the Ugandan Baha’i community was unaware of this association that had been made:

• USA Today: “Ugandans hold anti-gay demonstration” www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-08-21-uganda-gay-protest_N.htm
• Advocate: “Ugandans call for deportation of American journalist covering gay issues” www.advocate.com/article.aspx?id=39943

• MCNBC: “Ugandans seek deportation for writings on gays” www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20381352/ns/world_news-africa

• Washington Post: “Ugandans Hold Anti-Gay Demonstration”
  www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082100935.html
• Pravda: “Ugandans hate gays”
  english.pravda.ru/news/society/21-08-2007/96175-gay_uganda-0
• SF Bay Times: “GLBT Ugandans Launch Media Campaign”
  www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=6778
• Talk to Action: “Ugandan Pastor Leads Campaign Against Gay Rights”
  www.talk2action.org/story/2007/8/25/3390/83947

 
Whether this was one individual who joined this anti-gay coalition or not, the 3rd of January letter from the UHJ seems to mean that it is no longer appropriate for Baha’i communities to take an anti-homosexual stance. This has happened in the past, for example when the UK NSA made submission to a London educational advisory committee in 1996, and in 1999 when the Guyana NSA issued a statement against a government bill for equality.

I realise that this new policy of the Universal House of Justice is going to be difficult for some Baha’i communities, in countries where interfaith groups are against homosexuality, as you see in the screenshot below where Baha’is are named as members of the interfaith group.


 Screenshot of an article in the Voice of Africa article, 30 June 2010.
 Click on the image to view the whole screenshot in another window.
 Accessed 12 January 2011.

Should Baha’is now remove themselves from interfaith groups which take an anti-homosexual stance?
Baha’is have a long history of working with interfaith groups. Rather than leaving these groups, perhaps Baha’is will be motivated to discourage these groups from acts of discrimination against homosexuals.

However there are other also ways Baha’is can act to remove discrimination, and that is within the Baha’i community itself.

In August last year, the North American Association for Baha’i Studies hosted a conference in Vancouver on the theme: “Rethinking Human Nature” and there was an extensive line-up of impressive-sounding presentations.
Under the topic “Psychology and Sociology I” was the announcement of this presentation:

Lynne Schreiber,
Rethinking Same-Sex Attraction and General Principles of How to Overcome It
The fact that some people experience same-sex attraction as unwanted and take measures to overcome it remains somewhat hidden from society, including much of the mental health profession. Shedding light on this process may be encouraging news to those who struggle with such attraction. Understanding the complex factors that commonly shape same-sex attraction unlocks the possibility to conceptualize a new framework for growth.

There’s nothing wrong with an individual expressing their views at a Baha’i conference, although I wonder if a person would have been allowed to present the view that homosexuality does not need to be overcome.

However what drew my attention to this presentation was the fact that a handout she presented had been taken up by at least one American ABM (while the Baha’is do not have clergy, a person in this role has a function akin to a counsellor, and while his or her advice is not mandatory, some Baha’is would give it great weight) in his mission to put pressure on Baha’is who are gay in his area. Moreover Lynne Schreiber is giving presentations and workshops, I assume on how to ‘overcome’ being gay, in Baha’i communities in various locations in the US.

Again, one could argue that this is not discrimination. That it is not discrimination to promote the view that people need to change their orientation. I would disagree. But allow me continue.

Her handout is here and the quotations from the Baha’i writings in relation to morality, obedience and the importance of independent investigation do not refer to homosexuality. But she has placed these here as if there is some connection with homosexuality.

Her handout also includes some quotations from the UHJ, such as:
…the Faith does not recognize homosexuality as a ‘natural’ or permanent phenomenon. Rather, it sees this as an aberration subject to treatment
(to an individual, 22 March 1987)

and I wonder if she used such statements as support for reparative therapies or not. Then what caught my eye were the links at the end of the handout to organizations associated with extreme right-wing political agendas such as Exodus International and in particular to NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals), which advocates what I would consider barbaric reparative therapies. And while some readers here might think that providing conversion therapy to a five-year-old “prehomosexual” boy is an extreme case, this unfortunately is just one of many many examples in this article.
A summary of the unscientific methodologies of NARTH and their activities can be seen on this webpage.

So then I went to the NARTH website to see for myself and was surprised to see that Baha’is were mentioned as members.

Click to view the screenshot in another window or view the NARTH statement on their website. Accessed 12 January 2011 and still there on 31 May 2011.

Since this page was last updated on 19 May 2008, this support has been on public show for over two years now, making it unlikely that various Baha’i communities are unaware of this. I hope this is removed in the near future, as I interpret this as the Bahai community taking sides by associating themselves with an organization that not only is geared towards ‘curing’ gays but makes clear statements that homosexuality is wrong.

The Baha’i policy as I see it, is that gays should be celibate, that is not the same as saying gays need to be cured or that they are wrong.

Whether individuals who are Baha’is are members of NARTH is another matter. We are free to use our conscience along with our own understanding of the Baha’i Teachings to guide our actions as individuals. For example Baha’is vote as individuals, we may even tell others who we voted for and discuss this, but we do this as individuals.
The Baha’i community doesn’t take a particular position. And likewise some Baha’is might individually support same-sex marriage as a positive thing while other Baha’is would not.
What the 3rd of January letter implies is that gays who are married shouldn’t be discriminated against and that gays are to be treated just as heterosexuals are treated except that the Baha’i community is not to be seen as taking any position for or against same-sex marriage.

The implication of the January 3rd letter is that the area of same-sex marriage is to be treated like the issue of party politics. So the Baha’i position could be, that it does not take any particular position but adopts what the law of the land or that state has as its policy. I say could be, because we have a long way to go as a Baha’i community to work on the prejudice against homosexuality that currently dominates Baha’i discourse. Here are two examples of what I mean by this apart from Lynne’s presentation at a Baha’i conference.

An essay by Sam G. McClellan, M.D., “Some reflections on the Bahá’í Teachings as they relate to homosexuality.” (Prepared in consultation with the Institute on AIDS, Sexuality and Addictions) which used to be on the BNASAA (Bahá’í Network on Aids, Sexuality, Addictions, and Abuse) website, argues for tolerance while at the same time stating that individuals should not call themselves gay or lesbian.

Some Bahá’ís struggling with their sexual orientation have accepted into their core identity the concept “I am gay” or “I am lesbian” as a way of explaining the experience of uninvited sexual feelings towards others of the same sex, and even to imagine giving up this identity and the supportive community that goes along with it can be a fearful experience, calling for a major effort at sympathetic awareness by others of the difficulty involved. To change one’s self-definition requires much effort, support and encouragement, and it will, most likely, be a complex and lengthy process marked by small, cumulative successes and a great deal of struggle.
Excerpt of essay, Some reflections on the Bahá’í Teachings as they relate to homosexuality by Sam G. McClellan, M.D. (Accessed 12 January 2011. This essay is on a page noted as being last updated in November 2004, and in Firefox the main text, about halfway down the page, is white so you need to select the text to read it.)

He ends with:
In 1992, a group of these professionals formed a new organization, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Four Bahá’í mental health professionals attended the annual meeting of NARTH in Philadelphia in May 1994. Within the Bahá’í community a committee was recently appointed to assist Assemblies and individuals dealing with issues of homosexuality.

The website Religious Tolerance summarizes the Bahai position on homosexuality as being:
-The Baha’i Faith teaches that homosexual behavior is unacceptable among its members. Voting rights of some of their lesbian, gay and bisexual members (LGB) who are out of the “closet” have been suspended; some memberships have been terminated.

My hope is that the Bahai community will show that such statements are no longer true.
That, if there are sanctions that these are applied to heterosexuals or homosexuals, equally. That if a gay couple decide to join the Bahai community that their marriage will not be discriminated against and that youth will not be taught that homosexuality is a disease or an aberration, or that they must keep their orientation secret, but rather, the focus will be on celebrating the equality and diversity of humanity. Saying to any individual “we will tolerate you” is still a form of prejudice. In order not to discriminate we need to be welcoming.

—i’ll add a few of my responses to comments in a day or so—

Lady Gaga and “Born This Way”

Click to listen or watch “Born this way” by Lady Gaga

Today someone told me that a psychologist was recently warned against trying to “treat” homosexuality because it wasn’t supposed to be considered as a subject for “treatment”, in other words, “leave us alone, we like it this way”, it’s our “right”.
In response I used the phrase, “what’s wrong with being born this way?” and I remembered all the fuss back in March over Lady Gaga’s hit song “Born This Way”. Her title hit me with a new of sense of profundity. She uses ‘this’ for us, the human race, not ‘that’ – the other, the aberrant, but rather she includes and broadens what being human could mean and now I read her ‘alien’ look as being more than artistic expression. The ‘alienation’ sets us on edge and reminds us to be accepting of what we might find strange. That humanity is bigger than we think.

To recap: on March 25th, 2011, the Daily Express an independent national newspaper of East Malaysia ran the headline: “Lady Gaga deemed to have gone overboard” followed by a number of statements by religious organizations urging censorship of Lady Gaga’s song “Born This Way.” The statement from the Malay Baha’i Office for the Advancement of Women is what made me take notice:
“Malaysia does not promote gays and lesbians, and has rightly banned the offensive content in Lady Gaga’s song, said Yong Su Sien, a member of the Baha’i Office for the Advancement of Women.

“We do not condone abnormal sexual relationships, so we don’t want her song to influence the minds of youngsters,” she said.”

This is counter to the October 28th 2010 letter from the Universal House of Justice sent to an American Bahai and made public for the first time on January 3rd 2011 by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of the United States. So most likely the Baha’is of Malaysia were not aware of this.

It states: “…With respect to your question concerning the position Baha’is are to take regarding homosexuality and civil rights, … “
“Baha’is are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Baha’i is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.”
The full letter is here: http://senmcglinn.wordpress.com

The rest of the letter is mainly directed at civil unions and appears to be a response to the current situation in the U.S. where same sex marriage has been associated with politics. Here in Europe it is associated with human rights.
In my view, there is a dire need for Bahais to state publically that they do not support any form of discrimination towards any gay and lesbians and that begins with not using the word abnormal.

It is not just embarrassing but it shames me that a Bahai representative would refer to “abnormal sexual relationships” as meaning gay or lesbian. As if any gay or lesbian person was ‘abnormal’. This is going much further than the current Bahai policy which does not allow gays or lesbians a Bahai marriage ceremony (as far as I know).

What message is this telling Bahai youth? That it is OK to discriminate and call other youth abnormal?
What message is this telling the world. That Bahais discriminate against gays and lesbians? Is this such an accepted matter of fact that a representative for the Advancement of Women does not see that this is an expression of prejudice?

Bahais have a policy of obeying the laws of their own country and if the representative had referred to this as the reason for support for the censorship of this song, it would be another matter. It would have been even better to have made no comment.
It would be nice to think that this was an isolated incident and that other Bahai representatives were making statements that peoples of all orientation were welcome and treated equally. But if that was the case, the world would know. OK some Bahai communities express prejudice and others don’t.
However so far there have only been public statements showing that Bahais damn homosexuality such as the U.K. Bahai statement, and the association of the Ugandan Bahais with the “Interfaith Rainbow Coalition Against Homosexuality“, the slamming of a film festival Guyana, and the Bahai support of the the anti-gay US organization NARTH.

Bahais have to do something to change the impression that the Bahai community discriminates against gays and lesbians. I realise too, of course, some Bahais might think that this letter would only apply to Bahais in the U.S.A. since it was addressed to a Bahai there and then was allowed to be distributed publically.
My position is if a policy is not clear then look at the principles of the Bahai Faith and what is in Bahai Scripture. Perhaps this letter is not clear because one Bahai has already informed me that in their view Bahais would still be free to discriminate because of the later part of the letter:

“In working for social justice, Baha’is must inevitably distinguish between those dimensions of public issues that are in keeping with the Baha’i Teachings, which they can actively support, and those that are not, which they would neither promote nor necessarily oppose. In connection with issues of concern to homosexuals, the former would be freedom from discrimination and the latter the opportunity for civil marriage. “

Here the argument is that the words “nor necessarily oppose,” could mean it is optional for a Bahai to oppose same-sex marriage. Since the rest of the letter makes a comparision with the Bahai principle of non-involvement in party politics and given that in the U.S. the issue of same-sex marriage is often mixed up with this, I think it means, individuals can do as they wish as individuals, but as Bahai representatives or as a community, the Bahais must remain neutral.

Here is the end of the letter: “Such distinctions are unavoidable when addressing any social issue. For example, Baha’is actively work for the establishment of world peace but, in the process, do not engage in partisan political activities directed against particular governments.”

Note that the U.H.J. refer to marriage as a social issue, just as Abdu’l-Baha listed this in the Will and Testament. Being a social issue this is an area for the U.H.J. to rule on.

And so to Lady Gaga’s song itself. Since there was a such a protest about it, I thought I’d better go and see what was so awful about the song that Bahais would show support of it being censored.

This is a country version – click play to listen while you scroll down to read.

The lyrics come from here It doesn’t matter if you love him, or capital H-I-M Just put your paws up ‘Cause you were born this way, baby My mama told me when I was young We’re all born superstars She rolled my hair, put my lipstick on In the glass of her boudoir “There’s nothin’ wrong with lovin’ who you are” She said, “‘Cause He made you perfect, babe” “So hold your head up, girl and you’ll go far, Listen to me when I say” I’m beautiful in my way, ‘Cause God makes no mistakes I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way Don’t hide yourself in regret, Just love yourself and you’re set I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way (Born this way) Ooo, there ain’t no other way Baby, I was born this way Baby, I was born this way (Born this way) Ooo, there ain’t other way Baby, I was born this way Right track, baby I was born this way Don’t be a drag, just be a queen Don’t be a drag, just be a queen Don’t be a drag, just be a queen Don’t be! Give yourself prudence and love your friends Subway kid, rejoice the truth In the religion of the insecure I must be myself, respect my youth A different lover is not a sin Believe capital H-I-M (hey, hey, hey) I love my life, I love this record and Mi amore vole fe yah I’m beautiful in my way, ‘Cause God makes no mistakes I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way Don’t hide yourself in regret, Just love yourself and you’re set I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way Ooo, there ain’t no other way Baby, I was born this way Baby, I was born this way (Born this way ) Ooo, there ain’t other way Baby, I was born way I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way ( Queen , Don’t be , Queen ) Don’t be a drag, just be a queen Whether you’re broke or evergreen You’re black, white, beige, chola descent You’re lebanese, you’re orient Whether life’s disabilities Left you outcast, bullied or teased Rejoice and love yourself today ‘Cause baby, you were born this way No matter gay, straight or bi lesbian, transgendered life I’m on the right track, baby I was born to survive No matter black, white or beige chola or orient made I’m on the right track, baby I was born to be brave I’m beautiful in my way ‘Cause God makes no mistakes I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way Don’t hide yourself in regret, Just love yourself and you’re set I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way, yeah! Ooo, there ain’t no other way Baby, I was born this way Baby, I was born this way (Born this way ) Ooo, there ain’t other way Baby, I was born this way I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way I was born this way, hey! I was born this way, hey! I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way, hey! I was born this way, hey! I was born this way, hey! I’m on the right track, baby I was born this way, hey!

The song begins with a reference to God as H-I-M. As a feminist, this is not how I’d refer to God, but Bahais don’t have rules about how one should refer to the divine. Baha’u'llah wrote: “O CHILDREN OF MEN! Know ye not why We created you all from the same dust? That no one should exalt himself over the other. Ponder at all times in your hearts how ye were created. Since We have created you all from one same substance it is incumbent on you to be even as one soul, to walk with the same feet, eat with the same mouth and dwell in the same land, that from your inmost being, by your deeds and actions, the signs of oneness and the essence of detachment may be made manifest. …” The Hidden Words (The Hidden Words (Arabic Hidden Word, Number 68) From info.bahai.org In case anyone might think the references to oneness mean acting the same, Abdu’l-Baha stresses the importance of diversity: How unpleasing to the eye if all the flowers and plants, the leaves and blossoms, the fruit, the branches, and the trees of the garden were all of the same shape and color! Diversity of color, form and shape enricheth and adorneth the garden, and heighteneth the effect thereof. In like manner, when divers shades of thought, temperament and character, are brought together under the power and influence of one central agency, the beauty and glory of human perfection will be revealed and made manifest.” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Tablets of The Divine Plan, p. 102 “And if this prejudice be the prejudice of nationality consider that all mankind are of one nation; all have sprung from the tree of Adam, and Adam is the root of the tree. That tree is one and all these nations are like branches, while the individuals of humanity are like leaves, blossoms and fruits thereof.” Selections of Writings of Abdu’l-Bahá p. 299 Surely phrases such as “Man is the supreme Talisman.” (Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u'lláh, CXXII, pp. 259-260) and “I loved thy creation, hence I created thee.” (Bahá’u'lláh, Arabic Hidden Word, nr 4) are like the words: “I’m beautiful in my way, ‘Cause God makes no mistakes” In fact I’m surprised at the spiritual values in the song. She even sings that we should believe in God! Believe that God is there. And other lines echo Baha’u'llah’s words, My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting. (Bahá’u'lláh, Arabic Hidden Word, nr 1) The song is about loving who you are and how you are born. With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for My work is perfect and My command is binding. Question it not, nor have a doubt thereof. … (Bahá’u'lláh, Arabic Hidden Word, nr 12) So I guess what upsets people are the lines: Don’t be a drag, just be a queen The lines mean don’t hate yourself, love yourself. Don’t be unhappy, be proud. I created thee rich, why dost thou bring thyself down to poverty? Noble I made thee, wherewith dost thou abase thyself? Out of the essence of knowledge I gave thee being, (Bahá’u'lláh, Arabic Hidden Word, nr 13) O SON OF SPIRIT! My claim on thee is great, it cannot be forgotten. My grace to thee is plenteous, it cannot be veiled. My love has made in thee its home, it cannot be concealed. My light is manifest to thee, it cannot be obscured. (Bahá’u'lláh, Arabic Hidden Word, nr 20)

Or is the protest because she mentions gays and straights and bisexuals and transexuals – all of humanity?

No matter gay, straight or bi
lesbian, transgendered life
I’m on the right track, baby
I was born to survive
No matter black, white or beige
chola or orient made
I’m on the right track, baby
I was born to be brave

Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee: therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty.
(Bahá’u'lláh, Arabic Hidden Word, nr 3)

There’s nothing in Bahá’u'lláh’s writings to suggest that some types of people were not made in His image. So thank you Lady Gaga, I’m one Bahai who is inspired by your lyrics celebrating diversity.

Bahá’u'lláh wrote that the

“Arts, crafts and sciences uplift the world of being, and are conducive to its exaltation.”
Bahá’u'lláh, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf (Wilmette, Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1979), p. 26.

And while some might find the idea of pop music the antithesis of what they would call inspiration, that’s a question of taste. In my view Lady Gaga’s lyrics exalt people to “(a)bide then in thy love for Me, that thou mayest find Me in the realm of glory.
(Bahá’u'lláh, Arabic Hidden Word, nr 14)

And art, such as this song, means you need to listen, need to make the effort to find out what ‘the story’ is for yourself. Is it about making the strange or estranged human? familiar? Is it about celebration? What is the role of the divine in the song? What are the birthing scenes about in the video? New ideas? Questions about what is cultured (man-made) and what is nature? What is human nature then?

"as one soul," limited edition lithograph by Sonja van Kerkhoff, 1991

On show in Leiderdorp until June 26th, 2011.

We need to make it better now!

David Kato, Ugandan gay activist, from his facebook account

From Baha’u'llah: “The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine own eyes…“

Yesterday, David Kato, a spokesperson for Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) was murdered in his home in Uganda.

Three weeks ago I wrote a blog on bahairants referring to this letter from the Universal House of Justice sent the the National Assembly of the U.S.A.

“The purpose of the Faith of Baha’u’llah is the realization of the organic unity of the entire human race, and Baha’is are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Baha’i is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.“
(Letter from the UHJ to an individual, 27 October 2010) Emphasis added.
The whole letter is here.

Further on in the blog I mentioned some instances of Bahais being associated with anti-homosexual organizations such as the “the Interfaith Rainbow Coalition Against Homosexuality” group in Uganda. I went into some detail there to show, that these examples were not just random nor small things and ended my blog with a plea for equality, a plea not to discriminate. In order to do that Bahais will need to change the current negative image towards a positive one of openness towards gays.

This blog is my attempt, and also a form of protest on hearing of the murder of Ugandan gay activist, David Kato.

Here is the story and please comment (anonymously or not).

From The Guardian, 21 October 2010:

“Human rights activists have warned that the lives of gay people in Uganda are in danger, after a newspaper published a story featuring the names and in some cases photographs of 100 homosexuals under the headline “Hang Them”.

At least one woman named in the story has been forced to leave her home after neighbours pelted it with stones, while several other people have been verbally abused, according to the campaign group Sexual Minorities Uganda…

The widely read tabloid Red Pepper has already “outed” dozens of gay people under headlines such as “Top Homos in Uganda named”. But the Rolling Stone story goes further in apparently inciting violence against gay people.

…Inside, a headline reads: “Hang them; They are after our kids!!” The article lists personal details of those named, including their addresses. There are also photographs of about a dozen people listed in the story. …

Frank Mugisha, chairman of Sexual Minorities Uganda, said his organisation initially chose to ignore the Rolling Stone story, since the newspaper was not widely read. It was launched in August and has a circulation of 2,000. But after a few days he started to receive reports of harassment from some of those who were named. In the worst case, a woman who works for a gay rights organisation was unable to leave her home after it was stoned. …

“We didn’t want to give the newspaper publicity so we held off on legal action,” he said. “But now the threat against our members is real, so we are considering going to court… “

Read the full article here:

Some background:

“Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) is a non-governmental organization based in Kampala, Uganda. It pushes for the protection and human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Ugandans.

In response to an article in the Ugandan newspaper Rolling Stone (of no relation to the American publican of the same name, which rejected the Ugandan paper and its actions as “horrific”), published a gallery of “100 Pictures of Uganda’s Top Homos Leak” and stated “Hang Them” [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39742685/ns/world_news-africa/], three members of SMUG whose faces appeared in the magazine – David Kato Kisulle, Kasha Jacqueline and Onziema Patience – filed a petition to the High Court seeking for the ending of the paper’s circulation of the article. The petition was granted on November 2, 2010, effectively ruling for the end of the Rolling Stone publication.

However, at 1 p.m. on January 26, 2011, Kato, whose picture was among the 100 listed in the Rolling Stone article and was featured on the cover of the edition, was assaulted in his home in Mukono Town by an unknown male assailant who hit him twice in the head before fleeing on foot; Kato later died on route to the Kawolo Hospital. The murder was decried by Human Rights Watch[http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/01/27/uganda-promptly-investigate-killing-prominent-lgbt-activist], with senior Africa researcher Maria Burnett adding that “David Kato’s death is a tragic loss to the human rights community”.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Minorities_Uganda

Some more background:

“LGBT Ugandans have lived under a menacing atmosphere for more than a decade. The anti-gay hysteria has increased significantly since the introduction of the draconian Anti-Homosexuality Bill into parliament in 2009. That bill, which remains under review Parliamentary committee, would impose the death penalty on LGBT Ugandans under certain circumstances and criminalize all advocacy by or on behalf of LGBT people. It would also criminalize even knowing someone who is gay if that person fails to report their LGBT loved one to police within 24 hours. Parliamentary elections are scheduled for February 18, and the bill is expected to be considered after Parliament returns for a lame-duck session before the new Parliament begins in May.

This horrendous murder adds to the fears that LGBT Ugandans regularly face over their safety. Brenda Namigadde, a lesbian asylum seeker in the U.K. has been threatened with deportation back to Uganda. Just yesterday, she received an ominous message from M.P. David Bahati, the author of the infamous Anti-Homosexuality Bill, in which he said that Brenda must “repent or reform” when she returns home.. “

Read the full artile here:

So Baha’is don’t wait, do something today in your home, in your community, to make things better for “The best beloved of all things in My sight“

Vote below as an act of solidarity or go to David’s page on Facebook and post a note on his wall or light a candle for him.

I will light a candle for him this evening, here in the Netherlands.

“We will all, verily, abide by the will of God.”

This is the Bahai marriage vow. I always loved the sentiment here — that individuals give themselves to God, rather than the promise to obey each other. In 1984 my spouse to be and I recited this at the same time, as it seemed fitting as an expression of equality. Our partnership as two consenting adults.

So roll on a decade or two and the hot discussion in some Bahai circles is the conviction that gays and lesbians cannot do the same, cannot “verily” state their committment as equals. They are not allowed marriage, family and a lifelong committment of partnership. There are some exceptions, some Bahai communities accept their married gay Bahais, however the majority don’t.

A very important Bahai Teaching is equality.
In fact I’d even say that it is probably the most important Bahai Teaching, along with a stress on diversity. The numerous quotations from the Bahai Writings about all the flowers in the garden being of value support this. There’s nothing there about some being more equal than others, being allowed to “verily” commit while others are not.

In other postings I’ve gone more into the status of the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. First trying to see why there is this seeming contradiction with equality in the letters that condemn homosexuality. (By “homosexuality” I mean orientation, being gay or lesbian.)
On one level it is true that these letters are expressions of the values of the times of the 1930-1950s, as guidance for individuals of the times and in a some cases as guidance for an institution, and all these letters have some authority, an authority that is not clearly defined but is something less than Shoghi Effendi’s own. Because this authority is not clear, I think that any issues depending on these letters are a matter for the Universal House of Justice, which gives some flexibility, some possibility for change now or in the future.
As I see it the Bahai Faith has two aspects: Scripture (not flexible nor changeable) and Authority (executed through the Bahai administration which is flexible or changeable) or in other words the carrying out of the day-to-day administration of how that scripture applies to our lives.

Being changeable does not mean that authority is less important than scripture but I would say that scripture should inform or guide the actions taken by Bahai administration and Bahai communities. I suspect that when Bahais get upset at me when I discuss the flexibility in the Bahai Teachings, they think I’m demeaning the value and importance of the Letters Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. That is not my intent. My intent is to see how they might fit – how Shoghi Effendi might have intended them to be used and most importantly how are they used by the Bahai community at large. Are these Letters used as guidance, as inspiration or are they being used like a big stick, used to promote prejudice or intolerance? I hope not.

You might be wondering why I bother, when the authority of these Letters is not the same as the authority of Baha’u'llah’s writings, is not the authority of Abdul-Baha’s writings nor that of Shoghi Effendi when he wrote in his role as official interpretator of Bahai Scripture.
Well many Bahais place great value on these letters. And in 1983 the book “Lights of Guidance” compiled by Helen Hornby came out, and it seems now that many Bahais treat this book as if it is Bahai Scripture. Actually more like a book of rules. And in this book, Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are placed underneath various sections such as “1221. Acts of Immorality” as if this is Bahai Scripture. So one can hardly blame Bahais for assuming that Letters Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi have the same status as what Baha’u'llah wrote. [See a few of these letters which show that they do not have the same status as Bahai Scripture]

Homosexuality title in Lights of Guidance

[This link goes to where this screenshot was taken from]

But I have realised that I am possibily approaching the issue of inequality from the wrong direction as it seems that when I argue about the status and authority of the Letters Written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Bahais see red and in one case a Bahai responded to me recently writing that anyone treating these letters as if they were not written by Shoghi Effendi was “challenging covenantal authority.”

So it got me to thinking, why did I start down this line of thinking?

The current Bahai practice is that some people are more equal than others. That some individuals may not marry, may not raise children, may not voice themselves openly, should believe that they are diseased or need to keep their orientation secret so that they are treated with respect.
This hurts me deeply. It hurts me deeply that my Faith is allowing individuals to tell other individuals that they are not equal.
They might not use those words. These Bahais might even believe that it is equality afterall  –  as is often said, you volunteer to be a Bahai, you can leave. This is like saying, well this flower can’t blossom here. This Bahai garden is just for straight voices. I know of course, Bahais celebrate diversity, I see it everywhere. But you can’t celebrate diversity without equality.

Homosexuality and the Baha’i Community: a conversation

Sonja: Recently I was told that writing for a Baha’i gay audience was an oxymoron, and when I pointed out that I found this comment offensive the response was that the problem was with me and the writer went so far as to state that I needed to take this up with the House of Justice, as if his statement automatically reflected their views. My point here is that so often when in discussion with Baha’is on the topic of homosexuality, at some point a Baha’i tells me I am disagreeing with the House of Justice or the Baha’i Teachings as a way of trying to silence me. To start this discussion I’d like to focus first on homosexuality as a form of identity.

It seems to me that some Baha’is pretend that gay Baha’is don’t exist or don’t have a voice, viewpoint or audience. I’m an artist and a Baha’i, and while I might not have any sort of Baha’i audience, I certainly have a Baha’i artistic voice, which is informed by my experiences and beliefs. This is what I mean by a gay Baha’i voice. What do you think?

Of course there’s a huge difference between no one in my Baha’i community being interested in what sort of art I’m making and a gay Baha’i having to keep their sexuality a secret in order to be treated with dignity and equality.

Lee: First, let me say “thank you” for asking me to participate in this project. I am humbled and a little nervous, as our discussions are bound to dredge up a lot of uncomfortable feelings that I have quite successfully moved beyond. I am willing to do this work, however, on the chance that it might help someone else in some way. I am a Baha’i, and I am gay — so there is definitely a “gay Baha’i audience.” I don’t think it is an audience of only one! And I do have a voice that springs from my belief in Baha’u’llah, and the reality that I am a homosexual.

I firmly believe that true spiritual principles are never in conflict. When I read the situation you have described, I ask myself “What spiritual principles are these people following?” Yes, the clash of differing opinions is a tool for arriving at what is true, but there are other definitions of “true” than simply “right”. One definition that I like to apply is “Proper alignment or adjustment.” When a door is hung “true” it closes properly and fits snugly, insulating from the cold. When the sailor sets a “true” course, it is one that guides the ship closer to its goal.

I was fortunate to sit in the Baha’i Temple in Wilmette a few weeks ago with my daughter, who is currently wrestling with the decision to either remain a member of the Baha’i Faith or to have her name removed from the rolls. We talked about how we felt being in this building, how our feelings have changed over the years, and whether or not we still identify with all the Temple symbolizes. Does it still feel “true” to us?

I first set foot in this place in the summer of 1970, a fresh convert from a small town in the West attending my first Youth Conference. I prayed and wept in the Cornerstone Room, which my daughter and I were shocked to discover has now been utterly “de-spiritualized” and “demystified” by removing the walls around it — taking away its aura of “sanctum” and eliminating the possibility of quiet, meditative reflection. Back then I was filled with hope and youthful idealism, and dedicated my life to serving a Cause that I saw as the only hope for humanity. Having come from a myopic, stark black-white/right-wrong, fundamentalist background where outward piety masked hatred of “others” and harsh judgments of fellow believers, I was thrilled to be welcomed into a diverse community which espoused the elimination of all forms of prejudice.

I suppose my first inkling that all was not “true” or in perfect alignment came when I accompanied my two “spiritual mothers” on a visit to the home of some believers who had just moved into our little community. They were two older gentlemen who were living in a colorfully decorated home, and who were themselves fastidious in their attire and a little “precious” in their demeanor. We left the visit, and I saw these two women (who I truly adored) look at each other and chorus: “homos!” That was the last attempt by anyone in the community to include these newcomers in any activities. I had not yet begun to explore this element of my sexuality, but I got the message loud and clear that it would not be OK to be gay! Rather than confront the issue head-on, and try to get to the essence of the spiritual principles being applied in this instance, I simply bottled up my feelings and continued to immerse myself in my early Baha’i education.

Now, more than 40 years later, I am sitting with my daughter in the Baha’i House of Worship in Wilmette, and we are both marveling at how the light has gone out of the Temple for us. I look around at the quotes from the Hidden Words, and I am unmoved. I have seen too clearly the evidence from my own life experience of how this place, which is intended to stand as a beacon of hope for all, and to welcome all within its doors no matter what path they have taken to reach it, is really not a haven of peace and joy for a significant portion of the human family.

I turned to my daughter and said: “Look, I don’t have the temerity or lack of humility to claim that I understand the Grand Design. I am willing to concede that I may be totally out of alignment myself, and perhaps the conflict I am feeling springs from my own ignorance of ‘true’ spiritual principles.” For that reason I never speak ill of the Baha’i Faith. I still teach its core principles avidly, even when my auditors are incredulous that I am still so passionate about a belief system that tells me I am somehow “unnatural.”

I don’t know the way to bridge the divide, and I have honestly given up trying. All I know is what my heart tells me is “true.” My heart tells me that the universe and everything in it is bound together by the force of attraction, which is the force of love. Everything is gradually aligning toward love and unity, whether it is apparent or not. The underlying purpose of all the Prophets and Holy Messengers has been to foster that love and unity, and ‘Abdu’l-Baha said that if religion is a source of discord and disunity we are better off without it! I believe that the world is better off with the Revelation of Baha’u'llah, and that someday all the diverse manifestations of humanity will truly be welcomed, valued and appreciated for being exactly how God created them.

Sonja: I had a close gay friend of the same age when I was 18, and in particular loved it that we could be such close friends without the trappings of “romance”. I encountered the Baha’is a few years later but was never aware of any particular aversion towards gays.
I knew that the official position was that gays were welcome as long as they remained celibate. It didn’t seem fair as it meant condemning gays to a life of singleness, but like many Baha’is around me in the 1980s we took the position as an assembly or community in treating the gays in our community with equality and we didn’t consider that it was any of our business to pry into their personal lives. However, all of these gay friends of mine eventually left the Faith, very angry, and rightly so because they knew that the Baha’i Teachings were not treating them with equal rights and responsibilities.

Lee: I think many Baha’is blithely state that all are welcome in the community, including gays, and that Baha’is don’t hold gays to any different standard than they hold up for straight people. All are expected to live celibate lives outside the sacred institution of marriage, which has been designed as a “fortress for well-being.” They don’t consider the painful and, honestly, abusive reality behind that concept. You expressed one aspect of it: “Condemning gays to a life of singleness.” When you really stop and think about everything that is implied by the “fortress” which has been erected to exclude and isolate gays, it is not surprising that many of your friends left the Faith.

I got married, but by not being honest and true to who I really am, my fortress was actually a prison. I was accepted and honored in the Baha’i community as long as I could hold up the mask and continue the charade, but once the truth came out my life was utterly shattered. A representative of the National Assembly met with me to impart the news that my administrative rights were going to be removed. I asked if that meant that if I was ever to live as just a roommate with a man in the future, in a non-sexual relationship, I still could not have my rights back? Tearfully, she said that I could not ever cohabitate with a man in the future since, now that it is known I am homosexual, the presumption of innocence could not apply.

I knew in that awful moment that the doors to my acceptance in the community were closed forever. I am not someone who thrives in solitude. I don’t think that is how the human species is engineered. There are too many of life’s spiritual qualities that can best be learned and practiced in intimate association with another — humility, selflessness, honesty, acceptance, surrender, to name just a few. So here is the bitter reality of it — gays are not just condemned to a life of “singleness” but to one of solitude and deprivation of all the growth and sorrows and joys that come from the intertwining of two lives for better or worse. Is this “true”? Is this spiritual? Is this the will of a loving and caring Creator?

We talk about Unity in Diversity, and the elimination of prejudice in all its forms. In fact, this is one of the three pillars of our Faith — the Oneness of God, the Oneness of Religion, and the Oneness of Humanity. Who among us has not waxed rhapsodic as we relate the Beloved Master’s parable of the flowers in the garden? Every Baha’i speaks the words, and knows in his or her heart that the garden is much more beautiful when it is ablaze with a diversity of plants and flowers. Yet there is one variety of plant appearing throughout history in the beautiful garden of humanity that Baha’is are actively culling. Baha’is believe that plant is not appropriate. It does not belong. It is somehow “unnatural.”

Another fundamental spiritual principle of the Baha’i Faith is that Science and Religion go hand in hand. There is no disagreement between the two. Again, I go back to my original premise that “true” spiritual principles are never in conflict. Is it true that homosexuality has been a variety of the human condition for as long as there is recorded history? Is it true that homosexuality, by appearing in the natural world in many forms, is a gift from an all-loving Creator Who has a Purpose in His Designs? Is it true that the scientific community has removed homosexuality from its list of illnesses that need to be “cured”? Is this scientific truth in alignment with the current Baha’i stance? What do Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha say about the state of religion when it is in conflict with scientific truth? The word “superstition” comes to mind, but “ignorance” and “prejudice” work just as well.

Sonja: For me whether something is considered natural or not is not the issue, because what we consider ‘natural’ is a cultural construct. I think it is natural that men should have equal involvement in raising their children, for example. I view humanity, identity and orientation as a range, and I made an art work called “First Lessons in Relativity” of suspended male and female dolls as an expression of this idea. The work was triggered by the birth of my first son, and a gift of a blue male and pink female doll with their heads connected by string intended to be hung above his bed like other items of conditioning, and his indeterminate name. People couldn’t tell what sex this baby was and berated me when I “unnaturally” referred to him as a baby and not as a he or her, or didn’t correct them when they referred to him as she.

It got me thinking about other instances related to identity where people seem to loose all sense of rationality, and in particular to when Baha’is get angry at me for even mentioning homosexuality. As if I am mentioning that which should not be mentioned. I wonder if some of the hate and rejection of homosexuality as one of the flowers in the garden of humanity is not a reaction of fear of one’s own identity or at least a fear of change? I find this a strange idea for a religion that has such progressive teachings and where our administrative system is built for flexibility and change.

Lee: I know a lot of the damnation is fear-based. Look at how many fundamentalist Christian ministers hack away from the pulpit at the homosexual “lifestyle” and are later found with a male prostitute. There is a great movie now “outing” congressional leaders who vote against gay rights but are secretly homosexual themselves.

Sonja: Yes and it is a pity that so many Bahais involved prominently in the Bahai community these days keep this aspect of their identity hidden and then Bahais think that there are no gay Bahais.
They might keep this hidden because they feel ashamed or wrong, but in the end it would be because most gay Bahais know that even if they live lonely celibate lives, they will still be constantly faced with Bahais who accuse them of being ‘diseased’ or ‘unnatural’ and most likely they would be removed from any position in which they serve their Bahai communities, as you were. (See my blog “Is the Bahai community homophobic” for a taste of these attitudes). Of course this is complex and in the end an individual must be responsible for their own actions, but one of the reasons I’ve found you so inspiring, is that you are not bitter towards the Baha’i community when you were rejected, lost your friends and family, lost your job, your community, and lost all sense of love and respect.

Lee: I deeply regret that I was more concerned about my “position” in the Community, and my image as a straight, family man, than about being open and living in truth. The primary harm I caused was to myself, for lying and contorting myself into the image of what I thought people wanted to see. But I cannot deny the harm I caused to others. As you mentioned above, I did a disservice to the Community by trying to disappear in a magic trick of smoke and mirrors, perpetuating the idea that a man who is gay by nature could be equally happy in a straight relationship. By living this lie I was unknowingly cutting the legs out from under anyone else who was trying to be honest and open. I take responsibility for my decision to live a lie. That was the only “unnatural” thing about my being gay. And in not being true to myself and others, I caused great harm and pain for my family and for the Baha’i institutions. I love Baha’u’llah and am grateful for all the profound changes that have happened in my life as a result of embracing His Revelation. I am a far better person today for trying to follow Baha’u’llah’s teachings in my daily life than I could have ever been otherwise. For that reason, I can never speak ill of the Faith or harbor any resentments. It has given me my life, and my life today is truly blessed!

Sonja: The issue is the practice of discrimination. It does make you wonder when a Baha’i or a Baha’i Institution appears set on removing voting rights such as in your case, even if you have a male flatmate. That is not equal treatment with heterosexuals who have flatmates. Or when a Bahai says: “only if homosexuals practice,” to which I think, when am I not a practising heterosexual? When I sleep?

This way of thinking seems to be an obsession with treating homosexuality as some sort of ailment instead of it being part of the spectrum of human orientation. What is there to fear? However the real issue is pretense. Pretending the issue is about celibacy, when it is really about visibility which brings me back to my first statement. The silencing of gay Baha’is by treating them as lesser beings. Silencing is one aspect of prejudice, a very painful one and hard to address because it is invisible to those perpetuating the prejudice.

Lee: If I were to tell you not to think about something that is close to your heart because it is not acceptable, like an idea for an art project that is welling up within you, and urge you to put it out of your mind entirely, what would happen? I am sure that the more you try to silence that thought, the more it will come to the forefront of your thinking. Any form of repression (internal or external) brings about a strong impulse in the opposite direction. Treating homosexuality as something to be cured breeds sick behavior. I sought counseling and treatment to no avail. There is no fix for something that is not broken. Attempts to change the core of one’s psyche and one’s reality result in nothing but harm, and that harm extends to everyone involved. Through my inability to be honest about who I really am with my wife, my children and with my coreligionists, I caused great pain. Betrayal of my inner reality led to a betrayal of my marriage vows and a shattering of the facade of happy family life. It was a devastating time for everyone, including the Baha’i Institutions, but especially for my wife and children. I don’t want to sound like I am ducking responsibility for my actions and the pain I caused, but I would like people to consider how the institutionalization of an atmosphere of “sickness” and “disease” and “abnormality” around a group of people who have absolutely no choice in the matter of their sexuality actually breeds the sickness of deceit, and the disease of denial, and the abnormality of self loathing. Unconditional love and acceptance is what is needed for healing and wholeness, and this is absent in the Baha’i community when it comes to its homosexual members.

Sonja: Just like those who told me I’d be mixing up my son’s maleness by not straight-jacketing his identity, Bahai’s state that homosexuality is lesser, wrong or worse because that’s what the Baha’i Writings say. Well they don’t.
Think about it, why would it matter to a Manifestation of God what the sexual orientation of an individual is?
I agree with you that Baha’i communities should act with compassion, but I’d also go a step further and say that Baha’is should think about the consequences of their actions. If they believe that homosexuals are lesser beings – which they must do if they apply different laws and remove their voting rights – how does this square with the principle of equality? One law that demands celibacy and in your case this was taken a step further: no co-habitation, no close friendship, no falling in love, no companionship, for all of one’s life. And another law that allows individuals to develop close friendship, to fall in love, to marry and to raise children. That’s two sets of laws and not equality.

I don’t believe that Baha’u’llah was inconsistent, so that was why I started to look around in the Baha’i writings to see where these homophobic ideas came from. Some ideas expressed by Bahai’s come from letters penned by secretaries writing letters to individuals on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. The ideas of many of these letters reflect the norms and values of the 1930-50s and some contain clear errors, however it is not an issue for me, because Shoghi Effendi made it clear that his own doctrinal authority was only when interpreting the “revealed word”. So if he considered his statements he made as head of the Baha’i Faith as not having the authority of interpretation, how could he have considered those letters penned by others as authorative interpretations?
A Baha’i asked me why Shoghi Effendi did not correct some of these letters written on his behalf, and I realised that he wouldn’t have seen a need to because it appears that he saw the authority of these letters as being advice or instruction for the addressee. [A link to more about this]

So actually my position when it comes to the metaphor of the flowers of the garden, is that as gays are currently excluded from open and active participation in Baha’i communities (of course, I might be wrong, some Baha’i communities might welcome gays and gay couples as equals) it means that the visions, viewpoints and energy of this minority group is missing. My motive is not out of pity for gays, but because I believe that the Baha’i community is a poorer place by not having the input of all people.

Often when something is out of balance, actions and events show this to be the case and make the imbalance even worse. It isn’t just a case of gays being expected to live lonely lives, and then being treated with equality and respect in all other cases, but in your case you were told you could never have a flatmate who is male or even a celibate male friend you share your life with. This inequality breeds prejudice.

Baha’is express what I consider hate speech against gays and sometimes it is so strong that it makes me feel ill.
‘Abdul-Baha wrote that

“among the teachings of Bahá’u'lláh is, that religious, racial, political, economic and patriotic prejudices destroy the edifice of humanity”
(Tablet to the Hague, p. 5)

and it seems to me that the garden of the Baha’i community is missing some of its humanity.

Lee: You are using strong language when you say that what some Baha’is are doing is expressing “hate speech” toward gay people. But when you look someone in the eyes and tell them, in even the most loving voice possible, that they are spiritually sick and in need of treatment, what else can you call it but hate speech? You are teaching such persons to hate themselves, and the consequences of this type of speech are horrific. We have seen it all too often end in suicide, and the insidious thing is that such speech breeds a culture where it is OK to act in prejudicial ways toward gays.

There is currently a law banning homosexuality being debated in Uganda. It imposes harsh prison sentences, and in some cases death, for a convicted homosexual. Uganda is a country where all the fundamentalist religions seem bent on outdoing each other in their outward displays of piety. You drive down the street and see things like a “Praise the Lord Butchery” sign hung over a window display of freshly slaughtered and disemboweled animal carcasses! The religious groups in Uganda have jostled one another in their eagerness to support this heinous new law, and ensure that it is passed. I am appalled to say that the Baha’i administrative order in Uganda fell into line and added its voice in support of the proposed death sentence for gays! THIS, from the community entrusted with the care of the Mother Temple of the African Continent, meant to be a beacon of light to all nations.

I spoke with a Baha’i in Uganda recently who was equally appalled by this situation. I was happy to hear that the World Center sent a Counsellor to educate the community about the harm this action is doing to the Faith, but where are the Counsellors flying into other communities where the termination of gay Baha’is in a spiritual sense is taking place every day? Where are the members of the community who will dare to speak the truth about the incalculable harm being done by the closed-minded culling of a particular variety of flowers in the garden of humanity? How many more beautiful Baha’is will commit suicide because of the untenable position they have been forced into by their love for Baha’u’llah and their unyielding and (dare I say it?) unspiritual “Spiritual Assemblies?” As you said before, the Community is lessened, and this has created incalculable harm.

Any Baha’i who wishes to continue using beautiful analogies about how the Baha’i Faith cherishes the diversity of the human family like it does the flowers of the garden must find some way to reconcile the evident conflict between the spiritual principles he or she is espousing and the reality in the Baha’i community. This is what is really being taught: “No gay flowers are allowed in this garden. If you are gay, and you try to grow here, you will be maimed and mutilated, and perhaps exterminated.” That is the truth. It is not in accord with spiritual principles and it is not in accord with scientific principles, but it is the current state of the Baha’i Community nonetheless.

Sonja: That Baha’is adamantly state that there is no discrimination against gays is one reason for publishing this discussion we are having. I assume most base their opinion on their own observations of the fact that there are no gays in their Baha’i community, and somehow feel that this is a healthy situation of diversity. Baha’is such as yourself who dare to be open, are driven out and well-meaning Baha’is, who have said or done nothing to stop the intolerant Baha’is, are also part of the problem by pretending it doesn’t exist or by looking the other way. This is not “innocent” behaviour when it results in injustice.

When your voting rights were removed, did your local community still make you feel welcome? Did they try and arrange events so you could still participate? Invite you and your partner to social events? Did anyone try and do something? If this happened in my community, my response would be to look at what would be a way forward, a way to include. But having had something similar happen to me personally and our local community turn their backs on us, I know it is difficult. It is up to your local Baha’i community to make some effort to show that they are inclusive and not up to you, the one who has been excluded.

In 2009 the U.H.J sent a letter to all N.S.A.s suggesting alternatives such as

“The House of Justice has decided that, in such instances, rather than eliminating the administrative portion completely or asking the visitors to withdraw, those conducting the programme can modify this part of the Feast to accommodate the guests.” Transmitted by email, To all National Spiritual Assemblies, 17 May 2009

However Baha’i community is as inclusive as the Baha’is choose to make it.

Lee: I am afraid that no matter how many overtures of inclusion and welcome a local community makes to its disenfranchised homosexual members, few will respond positively or want to participate until there is a fundamental change in the Baha’i belief system. Knowing that I am considered an aberration of nature, do you think I want to go and hang out with the Baha’is? Through years of pain and suffering, therapy, and intensive internal work I have finally come to a place where I can honestly say I love myself. Having reached this beautiful place, why would I ever choose to associate again with a community of people who do not (no matter what they say to my face) truly accept me for who I am? This is a huge dilemma for believers, like yourself, who want inclusion and healing. You are not able to change the Baha’i belief system. Only the Universal House of Justice can do that, and I have not seen to this point any evidence that this Body (of whom I knew two of their sons who were homosexual) is willing to do what is necessary to heal this festering wound in the Baha’i Community. They have the tools and the authority to do it, as you have pointed out so well elsewhere.

Sonja: Actually it is not a dilemma personally, because I am convinced that Baha’u'llah’s teachings are really about equality for all of humanity, but I agree it is tough when Baha’is think they can’t do anything because the U.H.J. has the current policy of celibacy for all gays.
Change never happens overnight. If Baha’i communities start to have the tolerance and flexibility they show for straight Baha’is who are not married (which of course depends on the local social climate), then sooner or later the U.H.J. might see a relevance in looking at their current policy. But they are unlikely to do this while countries discriminate against gays in the ways that Iran and Uganda currently do where even an expression of tolerance is not tolerated. I do not see a point in petitioning the U.H.J. and it is not my place to do so. I see any rules a U.H.J. makes as the most conservative aspects of the community and this makes sense, as this is a force for stability and these rules need to be universal.
I do, however, see a point in promoting tolerance and flexibility in Baha’i community life so that gays are not rejected and so that Baha’i communities can prosper from the creative input of gay voices, just as we have a need for all sorts of voices in order to develop Baha’i communities of diversity.

Your reference to what is happening to gays in Africa is very relevant. In 1996 the U.K. N.S.A. published a letter in support of a current bill, Section 28 (a ban on councils and schools stating that homosexuality was a valid alternative lifestyle. See my “Change is a Law of Nature” blog). Thankfully their letter has since been edited to remove the references to disease [<note: the text of this statement on the bahai-library.com has since changed adding these references back in, so now the original statement which was circulated plus an introduction explaining the context in 1996 is available here on scribd] but it remains online in 2010 with statements such as “Baha’is reject the idea that homosexuality is something to be regarded as normal and its practice merely a valid lifestyle alternative.” (accessed 6 July 2010, and available here). So, far from aiming for neutrality or tolerance, Baha’i communities seem to be perpetuating the idea that homosexuality is something ‘abnormal’.

The following 1999 statement by the N.S.A. of Guyana is an argument against human rights whether individuals are Baha’is or not.
“The National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Guyana asks that your Government ensure that any legislation enacted safeguards the rights of all, but only insofar as the limits of morality may not be transgressed. It would not be acceptable for example, if the Constitution implicitly allows same sex persons to demand the right to be married. We do not believe this may have been the intention of the Amendment, but it should be sufficiently carefully constructed that such a situation does not automatically follow.”
Accessed from: http://www.gy.bahai.org/amendment.html on 24 April 2010.

The whole statement petitioning against equality has since been removed from the Guyana Baha’i website.

I don’t blame the Guyanan N.S.A. in particular because their action is a result of the same line of thinking as expressed in the statement by the U.K. N.S.A., that homosexuality is not a valid lifestyle.
My question is why can’t gays have equal rights and responsibilities as Baha’is? It is a human rights issue and it wouldn’t be one if individuals were treated equally.

Lee: Have you heard about how gay men in Iraq are being tortured and having their anuses sealed shut with super glue so that they die a horrible death? Where do we draw the line with regard to discrimination against a segment of humanity? We hastily condemn the actions of the perpetrators of such horrors in Iraq, but it is the same doctrines as expressed by the Baha’is in Uganda and in Guyana that merely take the “official Baha’i stance” on homosexuality to their obvious conclusion and thereby open the door to such horrific behavior. Freedoms must be curtailed if you want to hang the label of “evil” or “sick” on a certain form of human love. Equality can never exist in such a system. Pretty words and legalistic arguments cannot obscure the fundamental and jarring inconsistency of a religion preaching unity and inclusion while excluding from active participation a significant minority of the human family.

As I have said before, I believe that the Teachings of Baha’u’llah have the power to unite the world and bring peace. I continue to pray and fast, to live my life according to spiritual principles, to love and accept others as they are, unconditionally, and to do my best to serve humanity with the spirit that work is worship. This is, in essence, what I think it means to be a Baha’i. I will never give up hope that someday I will be welcomed into the Community of fellow believers just as I am.

Lee is a pseudonym. He lives in the U.S.A.

Is there homophobia in the Baha’i community?

First Lessons in Relativity
an installation
by Sonja van Kerkhoff

Is there homophobia in the Baha’i community? In April this year Korey started a discussion on a Bahai Facebook group called “homophobia”. This is what he posted:

If you are gay or not, you should forward this as a support of your friends and loved ones that are. Love is not defined by color, belief, or gender.

I am the mother that is not allowed to see the children she gave birth to, took care of and raised. The courts say that I do not fulfill the requirements to be a mother now that I live with another woman.

I am the boy that never finished his degree because every day I was called a Faggot.

I am the girl who was kicked out of her house because I confessed to my mother that I was a lesbian.

I am the prostitute working in the streets because no one wants to hire a transsexual.

I am the sister that tightly hugs her gay brother during long nights of fear and crying.

We are the parents that barried their daughter much sooner than they should have.

I am the man who died alone in a hospital because who was my partner for 27 years, was not allowed access to my room.

I am the orphan that wakes up at night due to nightmares, because I was taken from the only home where I was shown love, simply because I have two fathers.

How I would like to be adopted. I am not amongst those who were lucky.

I took my own life only weeks before I would graduate from college. I wouldn’t take it anymore.

We are the couple that the landlord stood up when he found out we wanted to rent a room for two men.

I am the person that never knows which bathroom to use in order not to be sent to the management office.

I am the survivor of domestic abuse that realized that the support system became cold and distant when they found out that my abusive partner was also a woman.

I am the survivor of domestic abuse that doesn’t have a support system to go to because I am a man.

I am the father that was never able to hug his own child because I grew up with fear to show any affect towards other men.

I am the economics teacher who always wanted to be a sports teacher until someone told her that only lesbians do that.

I am the woman who died when the paramedics stopped treating her when they found out I was a transsexual.

I am the person who feels guilty because I think I could be a better person if society didn’t despise me.

I am the man who left his beliefs aside, not because I stopped believing, but because I was rejected as a person.

I am the warrior who keeps serving its own country but without being able to reveal my own lifestyle because in the army, I am not allowed to be gay.

I am the person who has to hide and keep to myself what this world needs the most: love.

I am the young girl who is embarrassed to confess to her friends that she is a lesbian, because they are constantly making fun of them.

I am the young man tied to a pole, brutally beaten and abandoned because two “macho” men wanted to “teach me a lesson.”

On October 7, 1998, Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson took Matthew Shepard to a remote area of the East side of Laramie, where they conducted unimaginable acts of hate. Matthew was tide up to a pole, where he was beaten up and abandoned to the awful weather of a cold fall night. Almost eighteen hours later he was found by a cyclist, who initially confused him for a battered doll. Matthew died October 12 at 12:53 am in a hospital in Fort Collins, Colorado.
MURDERED FOR BEING GAY.

IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HOMOPHOBIA IS WRONG, AND IT KEEPS US AWAY FROM BEING A SOCIETY THAT IS JUST AND UNDERSTANDING, FORWARD THIS WITH THE TITLE ‘HOMOPHOBIA’

Below are the comments I posted in this discussion. Most of those who posted took a differing position to mine and most are Bahais, so, based on my responses decide for yourself if there is homophobia in the Baha’i community.
In July the discussion was removed from the Facebook group and I end this blog with some thoughts on this. Ironically, Korey, a Christian himself posted this as part of the work he is doing with the United Nations Global Youth Coalition on HIV/AIDS. It was not in response to any particular experience he has had with Bahai’s but rather a message he sent out to various religious organizations. My response below is responding to the first person who responded to the above.

My 18 May 2010 response

BB wrote “I am tired of the intimidation.
I’m just tired, of being accused of being hateful, because I think Baha’u'llah is right to forbid same sex relations, and because the Baha’i Faith will not permit same sex marriage to its members.
People deserve to live without violence and hatred.”

First I looked for the signs of intimidation and all I could find was Korey’s list of suggestions for tolerance toward peoples of all persuasions. Then realised, well, the only thing you could be responding to was the word “homophobia” because Korey’s list of suggestions for tolerance doesn’t make any specific reference to the Bahai Faith either.

Then you jump in and state: that “Baha’u'llah is right to forbid same sex relations”, when I would have thought you would be aware that this is not true. Baha’u'llah mentions the shame of sex with children. (link to this reference opens in a new window), but you have taken this a step further to exclude gay relationships. Now I see where the word might ‘homophobia’ apply.

As a Bahai you are telling the world there is no place for same sex equality. You might not hate gays but your act of writing this indicates that you see no problem in discriminating against them. I’m sorry if this comes across so bluntly but you began your post by claiming some form of intimidation and state people shouldn’t have to live with hatred. Where’s the line here?
In the various postings after yours, I see no sign of tolerance, no sign of openness. Where is the love towards all of humanity?

BB continued:
“But people also deserve to state their opinions without being shouted down. The Baha’i approach is one of loving education, to realize that the Law of God is what brings us the greatest happiness, and brings to society the greatest tranquility; the Baha’i approach is not one of hatred and violence, so kindly stop associating the prohibition of same-sex sexual relations, with hatred and causing death.”
My response is, please stop associating same-sex orientation with disease or drug addiction or worse with morality.

BB wrote: “…the appalling lack of moral clarity in society today… In my view, most of society who support same-sex marriage, have not done so thoughtfully. It hasn’t been a process of listening carefully and weighing things, it is being cowed by being bludgeoned…”

You state that the debate (I assume on equal rights for homosexuals) is no longer respectful. My response is to start with yourself, don’t assume that I have not thought thoroughly about why I believe homosexuals are a valuable part of the garden of humanity.

Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in the 1950s shouldn’t be an excuse for this attitude. I don’t see Bahais taking much notice of the letter which informs Bahais that they shouldn’t use birth control (see). It seems to me, that most of those who have posted here, think it is OK to discriminate against homosexuals and so then choose to use these letters as if they are Bahai Law (A link to a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi about the differing authority of these letters.).

The following seems a pretty hateful statement to me:)
BB wrote: “Why would I tell you that behavior is healthy and good for you, when the Manifestation of God says it is not? I won’t lie to you. You may hate what I say, when I repeat the divine laws; but it’s still my job as a Baha’i to vindicate their truth, and to take heat for doing so:”

But, please BB you are lying. Baha’u'llah never wrote this. Never wrote a word that even comes close to this, unless somehow, you think pederasty (sex with children: see source for an elaboration) relates to this. Perhaps in the 1950s Bahais might have made this connection but Baha’u'llah’s Word is not limited by the exigencies of the time (Link to a quotation about flexibility + change in the Will + Testament) and certainly not by my nor your ideas. You mention “popularity” as a false excuse for promoting gay rights, which reminds me of similar arguments made against the suffragettes by those who wanted to keep the status quo.

Here are my reasons for arguing for equality and for trying to see if the current prohibitions on equality for gay couples is something embedded in Baha’i Scripture and therefore not open to change or not.

1. The Bahai Faith is for all of humanity without exceptions or discrimination.
2. The Bahai Faith is able to be flexible and change because that was Baha’u'llah’s intention for having a House of Justice. (see some quotations here)
3. That is it wrong, very wrong, for Baha’i youth to learn at puberty that at best anything other than being straight is a handicap, at worst, this is some sort of ‘disease’ which upsets their family and their friends. If what I write can help stop one Baha’i from committing suicide, then I’m relieved. That’s my main motive for hunting around in the Baha’i Writings to try and see where these ‘homophobic’ ideas Bahais such as yourself state, might come from and see if anything is actually unchangeable Bahai Scripture. I have yet to find a single word.
4. It perpetuates discrimination in society and in my view any form of discrimination creates imbalance for those in and out of the circle that has been created. The Baha’i community is missing out on an aspect of diversity. I notice the absence of the orchids in the garden of humanity.

I realise BB in your advice to Pey to contact the Baha’i Network on AIDS, Sexuality, Addictions and Abuse group you probably mean well, but it is like rubbing salt onto a wound.
Pey is not ashamed of being gay, doesn’t need counselling, and obviously from his comments, doesn’t need understanding and confidentiality. He doesn’t have to be in the closet and I hope for the day that more Baha’is are able to live out of the closet too. That depends on the Baha’is and their communities.

Another of my responses to BB about a week later

BB thank you for choosing to take the route of using the Writings in your arguments. I appreciate this. However, I am not taking any issue with anything Shoghi Effendi wrote as interpretator of the Bahai Writings.
Not at all.

In your response you don’t seem to see a distinction between what Shoghi Effendi wrote and the 1000′s of Letters written by secretaries on his behalf. Unfortunately I haven’t been able to find anything penned by Shoghi Effendi himself that mentions the status of these letters.
However here are three letters written on his behalf which give some indication that they are not the same as Bahai Scripture and do not have the same status as anything penned by Shoghi Effendi himself:

“Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.
He feels that in any future edition this fault should be remedied, any quotations from Bahá’u’lláh or the Master plainly attributed to them, and the words of the Guardian clearly differentiated from those of his secretaries.“

Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, published in The Unfolding Destiny of the British Baha’i Community, p. 260

What this doesn’t tell us, is whether the ‘authority’ of the letters by secretaries is an extension of the Guardian’s executive authority as head of the Faith — meaning, “it must be obeyed by the addresse” or of the Guardian’s authority as authorised interpreter of the writings, meaning “they become part of the sacred text.”
What we can say is there is nothing explicit to indicate that a letter by a secretary can share in the Guardian’s unique role as authorised interpreter.
There is also nothing explicit to say that the Guardian’s secretaries do not share the authority of interpretation. However the phrase “their authority less” seems to suggest this, because an exective authority can be greater or less, direct or indirect, can apply to a local or individual situation or to all Bahai communities, but when the Guardian interprets scripture that interpretation becomes part of the scripture concerned.

The following letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi is addressed to a National Assembly which they then published with the following intro:

“The exact status which Shoghi Effendi has intended the friends to give to those communications he sends to individual believers is explained in the following statement written through his secretary to the National Assembly on November 16, 1932:

“As regards Shoghi Effendi’s letters to the individual Bahá’ís, he is always very careful not to contradict himself. He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the Bahá’í News. Only letters with special significance should be published there.” “

Published in the US Bahai Newsletter, No. 71, February 1933, pp. 1-2

Those letters regarding homosexuality were either addressed to individuals or do not have a clear context. I haven’t seen any letters addressed to a National Assembly or any other institution on this topic. To argue that these letters apply to anyone else other than the addresse, you would need to show that they were clearly intended as such. Even then, any letter does not have the same ‘authority’ as Baha’i Scripture which the Universal House of Justice cannot change.

Another letter states the limits of The Guardian’s role as interpretor and makes a distinction between his own writing and a letter written on his behalf:

“The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc. When he feels that a certain thing is essential for the protection of the Cause, even if it is something that affects a person personally, he must be obeyed, but when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a previous letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free to follow it or not as you please.”

17 October 1944, Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 33-34

Here it seems that letters to individuals were not intended to be binding on that individual, but rather advice for that individual.

If we look at what Shoghi Effendi himself wrote about his role as interpretor we can see he was very clear about the limits of his interpretation:

“From these statements it is made indubitably clear and evident that the Guardian of the Faith has been made the Interpreter of the Word and that the Universal House of Justice has been invested with the function of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the teachings.
The interpretation of the Guardian, functioning within his own sphere, is as authoritative and binding as the enactments of the International House of Justice, whose exclusive right and prerogative is to pronounce upon and deliver the final judgment on such laws and ordinances as Bahá’u'lláh has not expressly revealed. Neither can, nor will ever, infringe upon the sacred and prescribed domain of the other.”
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 150-51)

The point here is that the arguments you make are all based on what Shoghi Effendi wrote himself and in those cases where Shoghi Effendi was clearly referring to something in the Baha’i writings.

The point I make is what Shoghi Effendi did not write himself, that the Letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi have another authority. I am not saying the letters are irrevelant but I am saying that they are not part of unchangeable Bahai Scripture, quoting the 3 letters written on his behalf to support this view.

So to what you wrote:
“However, Shoghi Effendi determined that this implies a prohibition on homosexual relations. Having said so, that’s the Baha’i Teaching.”

In the notes section (Note 134, p. 223 in the 1992 edition) of the Kitab-i-Aqdas (The Most Holy Book) the Universal House of Justice or the Research department have written
“Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations.” [More is here]

And then just as you have done above, a Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi is quoted as if this is unchangeable Bahai Scripture.

The notes section of Kitab-i-Adqas are able to be changed because these are penned by the Universal House of Justice or the Research department under their instruction. And so when 6 months after the first publication of the Kitab-i-Adqas, editorial changes were made by the Universal House of Justice (For example major changes to Note 108), this demonstrates clearly that this part of in the Kitab-i-Adqas can be changed.

While it is true that Shoghi Effendi started work on the Kitab-i-Aqdas in his role as official interpretor, he never finished this. I’ve been told that he completed 20 of the 194 sections in the notes [see and I've written more on the notes here] but I haven’t found a source for this.

However, I trust the Universal House of Justice. If anything in this book was penned by Shoghi Effendi as official interpretator, then they would have indicated this. The Kitab-i-Aqdas is our book of laws and as lawgiver, the Universal House of Justice, are well able to make and change its own laws.

There is also another way of looking at the status, authority or role of the Letters written on bahalf of Shoghi Effendi and that is at the texts as evidence themselves. Apart from the fact that there is nothing penned by Shoghi Effendi to indicate that these count as interpretation, and that the opposite seems to me more likely: Shoghi Effendi was exact and clear when he wrote in his role as interpretor, would he leave up to various secretaries to pen what Shoghi Effendi would consider unchangeable Scripture? I doubt it.

So to the texts: There are many letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi that show the limited knowledge of the writer and, in my view, not the limited knowledge of Shoghi Effendi as The Guardian.

“In regard to the question as to whether people ought to kill animals for food or not, there is no explicit statement in the Bahai Sacred Scriptures (as far as I know) in favour or against it.” (9 July 1931, Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi)

Is this expressing the Guardian’s limited knowledge, or the secretary’s?
There are tablets from Abdu’l-Baha [and Baha'u'llah] on this topic.
Do we assume from this that Shoghi Effendi was inconsistent or made a mistake or forgot, or that it doesn’t matter as these are not Shoghi Effendi’s own words but words of another authority.

There are more examples here

So BB, show me where in Shoghi Effendi’s own words as interpretator of Bahai Scripture, he makes any reference to the issue of homosexuality or sexual orientation.

My response to MDB

MDB wrote: “As Bahais we are to obey the laws of the land in which we live. If the law forbids gays to be married then even if that was not forbidden in the Faith, we could not allow it as it would go against the laws of the land. I realize that i may be wrong. Also, even though gay marriages are not recognized in the Faith, gays are free to marry and the Faith cannot in any way prevent that marriage, it simply will not be recognized.”

Yes, as Bahais we must obey the laws of the country.

“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.”

(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u'llah, p. 65-66)

Since some countries recognise homosexual marriages and forbid any discrimination, while other countries make being a homosexual a crime, the Bahai practice will vary from one country to another.

Meaning that in countries where not only gays may marry but it would be against the law of that country to discriminate against them, I would understand Bahai law to mean here that gays who are married and join the Bahai Faith would not be discriminated against. It would also mean that in countries where couples have a civil union (not marriage), just is the practice with heterosexual couples, homosexual civil unions would be recognized. And I can imagine that it would make sense for such rulings to be decided by National Spiritual Assemblies because in some countries, even accepting a civil union between a man and a woman as a valid marriage might appear ‘immoral’ in that culture.

The Universal House of Justice wrote:
“As you see, the Baha’i Faith accepts as man and wife couples who prior to becoming Baha’is, have had a valid marriage ceremony, whether this be civil, religious or by tribal custom, even if this has resulted in a polygamous union.
Furthermore, the Faith accepts in certain cases unions which are immoral but accepted by the society in which the people live. In all these cases, because the union is accepted by the Faith, there is no question of a couple’s having a Bahai wedding ceremony subsequently because, as the Guardian says, ‘Bahai marriage is something you perform when you are going to be united for the first time, not long after the union takes place’. If, however, such a couple would like to have a meeting of their friends at which Bahai prayers and readings are said on behalf of their marriage now that they are Bahais, there is no objection to their doing so, although it must be understood that this does not constitute a Bahai marriage ceremony.”

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Peru, June 23, 1969) (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 380)

There is also the precedent of allowing those who have more than one spouse to remain married after they become Bahais where it is up to the National Spiritual Assembly to decide on this. It seems that the principle here is that in some cultures or countries, a situation where a Bahai had more than one spouse would be acceptable or perceived as being flexible whereas in another country this would be unacceptable.

It seems to me that rules about marriage would fall under what Abdu’l-Bahai refers to as “daily transactions” in the Will and Testament.
In a provisional translation of a tablet Abdu’l-Baha (in “Amr wa Khalq” volume 4) it seems that ‘social laws’ could be intended to be laws to be decided or adjusted by National Spiritual Assemblies.

“As for marriage, this falls entirely within the social laws.
…In short, whatever ruling the House of Justice makes on this question, that is in truth the decisive decree…
…For whenever a difficulty may arise and a local decision is required, at that point, since the House of Justice delivered the previous ruling, the secondary House of Justice, can issue a new national ruling on a national case and topic, in the light of local imperatives. To entirely avoid any risks, the rulings that the House of Justice has made, it can also abrogate.”
More of this quotation is here

I am not stating this is the case, just that this seems to be a possibility. That perhaps in the future in some countries same sex marriage could be recognized in order not to break the law of the country or because the National Spiritual Assembly in some countries has decided on this as a policy.

It is possible that the ‘daily transactions’ aspects of Bahai Law is intended to be this flexible. To be applied differently in different countries. I find this a rather exciting idea. A religion where the religious laws work with the diverse cultures of the world. It’s quite a different idea to how we tend to think of religious law, as something set in stone and something that is uniformly applied. Perhaps this is unity in diversity?

Of course I am not saying this is how Bahai law will be applied, just suggesting that this could be a possibility given the examples of polygamous marriages and the examples where until the 1950s in the middle east only men were allowed to be elected to local and national spiritual assemblies.
see near the bottom of this article for sources for this.

My response to WW

WW wrote: “religious law doesn’t have to be mentioned by Baha’u'llah if it was part of the prior religious law…
If there was not a change needed in a prior subject, then it didn’t need to be explained further. Man/Woman marriage and standards of chastity were established back in the Jewish chapter of our Faith. ”

In case you don’t consider what is in the Kitab-i-Aqdas as covering this in relation to marriage, here is a quotation from Shoghi Effendi.

“This Book [the Bayan] at once abrogated the laws and ceremonials enjoined by the Qur’án regarding prayer, fasting, marriage, divorce and inheritance, and upheld, in its integrity, the belief in the prophetic mission of Muhammad…”
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 25)

However I do not agree with your statement that it is a Bahai Teaching to accept all previous religious law unless specifically abrogated. First a four quotations:

“…could the Law of the Old Testament be enforced at this epoch and time? No, in the name of God! it would be impossible and impracticable; therefore, most certainly God abrogated the laws of the Old Testament at the time of Christ.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 94)

“In conclusion of this theme, I feel, it should be stated that the Revelation identified with Bahá’u'lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, upholds uncompromisingly the eternal verities they enshrine, recognizes firmly and absolutely the Divine origin of their Authors, preserves inviolate the sanctity of their authentic Scriptures, disclaims any intention of lowering the status of their Founders or of abating the spiritual ideals they inculcate, clarifies and correlates their functions, reaffirms their common, their unchangeable and fundamental purpose, reconciles their seemingly divergent claims and doctrines, readily and gratefully recognizes their respective contributions to the gradual unfoldment of one Divine Revelation, unhesitatingly acknowledges itself to be but one link in the chain of continually progressive Revelations, supplements their teachings with such laws and ordinances as conform to the imperative needs, and are dictated by the growing receptivity, of a fast evolving and constantly changing society,…”
(Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By, p. 100)

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries — this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 47)

“Our Exalted Herald — may the life of all else besides Him be offered up for His sake — hath revealed certain laws. However, in the realm of His Revelation these laws were made subject to Our sanction, hence this Wronged One hath put some of them into effect by embodying them in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas in different words. Others We set aside.”
(Baha’u'llah, Tablets of Baha’u'llah, p. 132)

Aside from the references above to all previous laws being abrogated by the presence of Baha’u'llah’s Revelation, for me an important part of the above quotation are the words “Others [meaning other laws] We set aside.”
I read this to mean other laws for the Universal House of Justice to decide on.

If there was a Bahai teaching that stated that all religious law not specifically abrogated by Baha’u'llah would be applicable, then the Universal House of Justice wouldn’t be able to make law on issues not specifically “mentioned in the book” They couldn’t “gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book.
Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same.”
(The Will and Testament of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 20, see)

However I do not think it is a Baha’i Teaching otherwise Baha’is would be following these religious laws of the Torah not abogated by Baha’u'llah.

The Torah tells you not to castrate your cat or dog (Lev. 22:24),
to observe the sabbath and to eat matzah on the first night of Passover (Ex. 12:18)
but not after mid-day on the fourteenth of Nissan (Deut. 16:3),
not to work on Rosh Hashanah (Lev. 23:25),
to dwell in booths seven days during Sukkot (Lev. 23:42),
to let the land lie fallow in the Sabbatical year (Ex. 23:11;
Lev. 25:2), never to settle in the land of Egypt (Deut. 17:16),
to make the rapist of a virgin marry her (Deut. 22:28-29),
not to cross-breed cattle of different species (Lev. 19:19),
not to sow grain or herbs in a vineyard (Deut. 22:9),
not to wear garments made of wool and linen mixed together (Deut.
22:11).

And this video clip “West Wood – Biblical Quotes” makes the point of the dangers of religious law being used out of context, brilliantly. Enjoy! For me, it supports the Baha’i Teaching of progressive revelation.

Later responses to WW

WW wrote: “Pederasty… it is a multi-faceted act. By definition, it must include, in the classical view, 1) youth below the age of consent (usually before puberty) and a grown adult 2) is between two males (more modern view also has two females and 3) may include the act of sodomy. If we agree that the act of Pederasty is forbidden, are we assuming it is only one aspect such as the first part which is forbidden or could it be all 3 aspects are forbidden?”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

And unfortunately part of the culture of the times of Baha’u'llah see this article by Jackson Armstron-Ingram

Comparing adult relationships with pedophilia, is in my view, as inappropriate as suggesting that marriage has a connection with rape. When I am discussing homosexuality I am only discussing adult relationships of equality, nothing else.
And my question in response is, what is so threatening about a couple of the same sex being married and raising children? Primarily homosexuality is about orientation not about sex.

Please show me why you have added points 2 and 3 to a definition that only applies to point 1. If this is just your opinion that’s fine, if this is something you think applies to the Baha’i teachings, then please show me with quotations how you see this. If you read the notes of the Kitab-i-Aqdas you’ll see that the definition is as it is known to the rest of the world, pederasty means sex with children, and I agree with Baha’ullah, it is shameful.

WW wrote: “However, it should be noted that Shoghi Effendi never wrote anything contrary to that statement, even after that letter was written. What does that imply? It means either he didn’t know it was written or he was aware of it and agreed.”

My view is that Shoghi Effendi didn’t write about anything on any of the 100s of topics covered by the letters written on his behalf either because he didn’t consider them Scripture to start with or because he considered the areas they covered as being under the auspices of the Universal House of Justice.

I’ll back up my comments with quotations if you ask me to.
It is all here

WW asked “how would you define sodomy?”

I think the important question is what Baha’u'llah would have meant by the use of the word “liwaat”.

In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Questions and Answers, #49, is the text: “Concerning the penalties for adultery, sodomy, and theft, and the degrees thereof”
Baha’u'llah’s answer: “The determination of the degrees of these penalties rests with the House of Justice.” (The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 121, 1992 edition)

The question asks about:
zinaa’ (= adultery, fornication) and
liwaat (= sodomy, paederasty) and
sariqa (= theft)

Liwaat is the word used meaning both sodomy and paederasty in Arabic and Persian so it will be up to the UHJ to determine whether this includes homosexuality or not.
In the notes (note 134, page 223) the UHJ at the time of the publication wrote that “the subject of boys had the implication of paederasty.” and state that Shoghi Effendi interpreted this as a prohibition on all homosexuals but further down the only source they give is a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. As I read this there is no source penned by Shoghi Effendi in his role as interpretator of the Bahai Writings.
However, unless (or until) a future UHJ makes a differing statement this connection made with homosexuality as a prohibition should be seen as their policy (at least that is the case 18 years ago), but this is not the same as a prohibition on homosexuality being penned by Baha’u'llah which is not subject to change.

Another thought on Question #49: In those times the punishment for those crimes was stipulated in Islamic law and not left up to the judge or ruler. So it seems that in Baha’u'llah’s answer he making the punishment for these things at the discretion of the UHJ.

I think it is likely that Baha’u'llah intended his laws to be used as principles which individuals and institutions could work with.

“Think not that We have revealed unto you a mere code of laws. Nay, rather, We have unsealed the choice Wine with the fingers of might and power”
Baha’u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 21

Baha’u'llah states that he doesn’t give just us a code of laws. I would argue that the code of laws he established is the UHJ as legistrator of laws. A UHJ which is flexible and free to change its own laws in a changing world.

And on that note while travelling homeward through the U.K. some months ago was this headline in the papers:
“Anger at Pope’s attack on British equality laws”.

The Pope’s argument being that it was against natural law. Interestingly one commenter wrote: “How can the sexual nature of 6-10% of humans be unnatural? How can something which occurs across the world in practically every culture and has been recorded since history itself began to be recorded be unnatural?
It would make more sense to suggest that mountains are unnatural, as they occur far less commonly than gay people.”

And this leads me to a text in an article by Jackson Armstrong-Ingram:

“Both zina and liwat are sexual relations that take place outside of a context in which the long term rights of both participants are regarded. Unlawful sex is literally unprotected sex — it takes place in relationships that are not associated with social supports and long-term obligations. Lawful sex, as defined in the Aqdas, takes place in marriages, which are relationships embedded in a network of familial support and providing for the mutual development of the partners.”

“The Provisions for Sexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the Context of Late Nineteenth Century Eastern and Western Sexual Ideologies”

So perhaps it is possible that what Baha’ullah means by the terms, zina and liwaat is any sexual activity that would be considered unnatural or illegal. What is considered unnatural is certainly a cultural question, and so it seems to mean that while Baha’u'llah is clear in the Aqdas about sex with children (paederasty) never ever being ok, he treats question of other areas of “illicit” sex as something the Universal House of Justice would rule on.

This strikes me as prophetic. In his day the idea of homosexual marriage would have been unheard of, and yet, in making other areas of ‘illicit’ something for the Universal House of Justice to rule on, it means they can make and change law on how homosexual partnerships are to be treated.

WW wrote: “I guess the final stance is wanting to take specific words and apply new, modern meanings to them to justify a behavior which was not justified with the prior meanings. “
to which I can respond by saying “I guess the final stance is wanting to take specific words and apply old meanings to them. “

One either believes Baha’u'llah was a prophet of God with a vision or not.
I’m assuming your use of material from the Koran rather than relating to any of the quotations I referred to from Baha’i Scripture means that these writings are more important to you. That’s fine, but my position is to treat Baha’i Scripture with more importance. We will just have to difer on the issue of sodomy in that case.

Responses to DD + WW

DD thanks for your response.
You refer to the discrimination towards gays by Bahais as allegations. Please take the time to read just a few of these stories before dismissing the suffering of our gay youth >> gaybahai.net/read-stories

Clearly sometimes the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are ignored such as the one advising Bahais not to use any form of birth control, which I quoted in an earlier post on this discussion.

So if Bahais wish to treat these letters as if they have the same level of authority as Bahai Scripture, despite this not being what Shoghi Effendi wanted, then I’d say do this with all those letters in that case, not just the ones that state the homophobic attitudes of the times.

WW wrote: “doesn’t make the prior Revelation any less worthy, just merely outdated.”
I agree, and so my view is that your Islamic idea of the meaning of ‘liwaat’ is more limited or outdated than how I read what Baha’u'llah could have meant in his use of this in the Kitab-i-Adqas. I say “could” because I think the real issue is that it isn’t so clear what is intended by these ‘illicit’ forms of relations. And because it isn’t clear, I do think this is an issue for the UHJ to rule on. Being an issue for them to rule on, means also that this is an issue that is open to change. And that is about sodomy or liwaat, not homosexuality which is not the same thing. My arguments here are about homosexuality as an orientation. As Bahais if we do not discuss things we can’t really understand them. The UHJ has never ever written that Bahais must not question, must not search the Writings to come to understandings and so on.

WW, I realise that you may mean well by hoping that I am earnest, but I am not questioning your honesty or motives. It would make any discussion between people with differing views more fruitful if Baha’is didn’t do this. I’m making this comment not just because you use this, but because very often Baha’is assume I must be wrong if I state things like ‘I can’t find anything in unchangeable Baha’i Scripture that is anti-gay’ or ‘why are Baha’is so keen to up hold the homophobic 1950s attitudes of the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi while ignoring other 1950s attitudes such as birth control being wrong’ and then usually resort to making some slanderous remark about my motive or even worse telling me that I am disagreeing with the UHJ or that I am breaking the Covenant. What people are really doing is throwing sticks and stones with their words.

And it is only when I’ m discussing homosexuality that this happens.

It really saddens me that Baha’is seem so homophobic. By homophobic I mean, so often it seems to touch some deep unsecurity or fear. Baha’is who are most likely very open and wonderful in other aspects of their thinking or feeling, come out with comments such as those written by others in this discussion where a young gay Bahai’s suicide was dismissed as “no ones fault that [he] did not listen and follow.” when this person had suffered shunning by his religion and family. My question: what is so threatening that people react like this?

I do not believe Baha’ullah ever intended his religion to be so intolerant, so unfeeling for people of diversity. So my challenge to those of you who read this, is face your fears about homosexuality and you just might find there’s nothing to fear. Please make the Baha’i community a kinder place for homosexuals, even if you think homosexuality is wrong.

And here’s a link to an inspiring article by a gay Baha’i whose parents sound amazing.

July 2010: My response to the moderator for removing the discussion

T thanks for putting an explanation of why you deleted the ‘homophobia’ discussion thread and while I appreciate that you had complaints made to you about this thread and then just before you deleted this someone referred to my use of the writings as:
“attacks on the foundations of the Baha’i Faith” and “frontal assaults“, and I would agree when people resort to calling argumentation attacks or assaults this lowers the tone of discussion. However I would suggest that you delete the posts that resort to name-calling or attacking the credibility of other posters and not delete the whole thread. In deleting the whole thread you are censoring this discussion and as much as I know that many Bahais would like the issue of equality for gays to disappear, this is not going to go away.

I am sad that you deleted the minority voices: the gay Bahais who at my encouragement participated thinking here was a Baha’i forum where they would not be silenced. They didn’t expect a particularly gay-friendly environment but at least they could speak. I realise that your intention was not to silence these voices, but this what has happened. Majority voices will always prevail so the real effect is on the silencing of those for whom it took courage to speak.

The principle of ‘mutatis mutandis’

I started writing occasional blogs for Bahai Rants (bahairants.com) several years ago and I intend to continue to do this as time permits. In August 2009 I wrote a blog on the topic of homosexuality and equal rights in response to recent changes in the U.K. (linked here).

There are over 500 responses on this blog. So I started a blog here listing some of my responses and thoughts. This blog is now ‘Part two’ because that got too long.

Responses to this blog are moderated, mainly for practical reasons: I couldn’t cope the traffic that the Bahai Rants blog has. If you wish to be 100% sure your response is aired, then post it on Bahai Rants where I am likely to find it and if not, someone else will. Each of my comments below links to where it appears on bahairants.com:

Sonja’s comment posted on 24 April 2010
BahaiReply wrote: “We both know that neither R. Jackstrong-Ingram nor R. Jackson Armstrong-Ingram are authoritative interpreters of the sacred writings”
Jackson didn’t make up the principle of ‘mutatis mutandis’, his quotation:

“Following from the principle of mutatis mutandis it is not simply a case of what is expressed as from a man to a woman incorporates from woman to man, and vice versa, but that gendered language is in fact rendered degendered. This is made explicit in other writings where it is stated that women are as men in this dispensation. Gendered textual usage should be read as gender inclusive.
Thus, although licit sex is limited to marriage, it could be regarded as a valid reading of the text to consider the sexes of the partners unspecified and irrelevant.”
(link to his paper on Scribd)

is a response to the following quotation from the introduction of the Kitab-i-aqdas, penned by The Universal House of Justice.

“In general, the laws of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are stated succinctly. An example of this conciseness can be seen in the fact that many are expressed only as they apply to a man, but it is apparent from the Guardian’s writings that, where Bahá’u’lláh has given a law as between a man and a woman, it applies mutatis mutandis between a woman and a man unless the context makes this impossible.
For example, the text of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas forbids a man to marry his father’s wife (i.e. his stepmother), and the Guardian has indicated that likewise a woman is forbidden to marry her stepfather. This understanding of the implications of the Law has far-reaching effects in light of the fundamental Bahá’í principle of the equality of the sexes, and should be borne in mind when the sacred Text is studied. That men and women differ from one another in certain characteristics and functions is an inescapable fact of nature and makes possible their complementary roles in certain areas of the life of society; but it is significant that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá has stated that in this Dispensation “Equality of men and women, except in some negligible instances, has been fully and categorically announced.”
p. 8, accessed from: http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KA/ka-2.html

BahaiReply continues: “so are u saying when Bahá’u’lláh said, “Beware that ye take not unto yourselves more wives than two” he also meant two husbands? That doesn’t make much sense. He is obviously referring to a specific Islamic tradition that he was changing.”

It seems that you are choosing to ignore the introduction and the principle of equality expressed in the use of the principle of ‘mutatis mutandis’ and have decided you know that Baha’u'llah’s intentions were only from a male point of view in a marriage, whereas to quote Sen on his blog,

“(m)any laws that are stated briefly in the Aqdas are detailed in the Bayan”
and if you went to the Bayan and can read Persian, you would find what Sen has translated into English on his blog:

“If a man or woman proves incapable of having a child, it is legitimate for the spouse who is not infertile (whichever it may be) to marry again after having obtained the permission of the other party, but not without her permission”
Persian Bayan, wahid 8 section 15

Link to Sen’s blog, “The puzzle of the Aqdas…” which discusses this more

Sonja’s comment posted on 9 Feb 2010
The article by Jackson Armstrong-Ingram,
“The Provisions for Sexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas in the Context of Late Nineteenth Century Eastern and Western Sexual Ideologies” is
here: bahai-library.org/conferences/sex.aqdas.html and available on Scribd

In the Questions + Answers section of the Aqdas, liwaat is translated as sodomy. In the Aqdas, the section referring to ‘boys’ is translated as pedaesty.
This correlates with Jackson’s argument that “Both zina and liwat are sexual relations that take place outside of a context in which the long term rights of both participants are regarded. Unlawful sex is literally unprotected sex — it takes place in relationships that are not associated with social supports and long-term obligations. Lawful sex, as defined in the Aqdas, takes place in marriages, which are relationships embedded in a network of familial support and providing for the mutual development of the partners.”

In my searching around the only texts I have found that refer to homosexuality have been penned by secretaries writing Letters on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.

When Shoghi Effendi was writing in his role as official interpreter of the Bahai
Writings he cites the scripture he is interpreting. Sen’s essay “More interpretive principles” bahai-library.org/articles/interpretive.principles.html gives some examples of this.

In the Aqdas there is no source given in the section of the Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, so I can only assume that it is not the case that the secretary who wrote that letter actually could read Baha’u'llah’s mind, rather the writer wrote this assuming, based on his or her own’s knowledge of the Bahai Faith, that this was a Bahai Teaching.

“A clear distinction is made in our Faith between authoritative interpretation and the interpretation or understanding that each individual arrives at for himself from his study of its teachings.
While the former is confined to the Guardian, the latter, according to the guidance given to us by the Guardian himself, should by no means be suppressed. In fact such individual interpretation is considered the fruit of man’s rational power and conducive to a better understanding of the teachings, provided that no disputes or arguments arise among the friends and the individual himself understands and makes it clear that his views are merely his own. Individual interpretations continually change as one grows in
comprehension of the teachings…”

(From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual
believer, May 27, 1966) (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 311-312)

That leaves us with the question then, when is something penned by Shoghi Effendi to be considered interpretation, hence unchangeable, and how can we treat the status of the ten of thousands of Letters written on his behalf.

Sen has written a few posts on these topics. One is here:
“Anything Shoghi Effendi said is Baha´i doctrine”
[click to read this in a new window]

The following letter indicates that Shoghi Effendi did not want Bahais to place too much emphasis on these letters and that they are intended for the addresse.

“He has also said that whenever he has something of importance to say, he invariably communicates it to the National Spiritual Assembly or in his general letters. His personal letters to individual friends are only for their personal benefit and even though he does not want to forbid their publication, he does not wish them to be used too much by the Bahá’í News. Only letters with special significance should be published there.”

(Letter Written on Behalf of Shoghi Effendi 1932.)

Flexibility in Bahai Law in relation to homosexuality

The following is a response to a thread on the Bahai Planet forum called “AIDS Faith conference” where the intitial poster was curious to know if there had been any Bahai statements on AIDS and the loss of life due to this. The discussion quickly turned to the rights and wrongs of homosexuality. I stepped later on in the discussion and the following is one of my posts.

I’m posting it here because although the forum is open and you can read material as a guest, I wanted a place where I could make links to some of the material here. I’ve changed the individual’s name to SS.

What Sonja posted on this discussion thread on 3rd May 2010
SS wrote: “With all due respect this is just a red herring. You conveniently left out that the House of Justice cannot make any changes in the teachings of any of its predecessors. The teachings on homosexuality are pretty clear.”

Abdu’l-Baha wrote they can change what previous Houses of Justice have decided:
“It is incumbent upon these members (of the Universal House of Justice) to gather in a certain place and deliberate upon all problems which have caused difference, questions that are obscure and matters that are not expressly recorded in the Book.
Whatsoever they decide has the same effect as the Text itself. Inasmuch as the House of Justice hath power to enact laws that are not expressly recorded in the Book and bear upon daily transactions, so also it hath power to repeal the same.
Thus for example, the House of Justice enacteth today a certain law and enforceth it, and a hundred years hence, circumstances having profoundly changed and the conditions having altered, another House of Justice will then have power, according to the exigencies of the time, to alter that law.
This it can do because these laws form no part of the divine explicit Text. The House of Justice is both the initiator and the abrogator of its own laws.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 20)

In this passage in the Will and Testament, “daily transactions” or mu’aamaalat (the term Abdul-Baha uses here) is a category used in Islamic law, variously translated as social transactions, interractions between people, mutual dealings, mundane matters. It includes:

* Financial transactions
* Endowments
* Laws of inheritance
* Marriage, divorce, and child care
* Foods and drinks (including ritual slaughtering and hunting)
* Penal punishments
* Warfare and peace
* Judicial matters (including witnesses and forms of evidence)
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah)

Abdu’l-Baha also wrote a tablet about the wisdom of assigning such matters to the Universal House of Justice, rather than having them laid down in scripture, which is printed in “Amr wa Khalq” volume 4, from page 298. http://reference.bahai.org/fa/t/c/AK4/ak4-302.html

On pages 301-2 Abdu’l-Baha wrote:
(provisional translation from Persian by Sen McGlinn)

“As for marriage, this falls entirely within the social laws. Nevertheless, the preconditions are found in the Law of God, and its fundamentals are evident. The union of relatives, however, is not explicitly treated, and is referred to the House of Justice, which will give a ruling in accordance with social customs and medical requirements, wisdom, and suitability for human nature. According to social and medical principles, and nature, there is no doubt that, in marriage, distance is nearer than nearness.
In this light, consider the Christian religious law. Although marriage to relatives is in reality permitted, since there is no explicit impediment in the Text, the early Christian councils entirely forbade marriages between relatives, to the seventh degree, and today this is enforced in all the Christian churches, since this is purely a social question.
In short, whatever ruling the House of Justice makes on this question, that is in truth the decisive decree, it is God’s sharp sword. No one may deviate from it. If you consider, it will be apparent how much this rule (that is, referring social laws to the House of Justice) is consistent with wisdom. For whenever a difficulty may arise and a local decision is required, at that point, since the House of Justice delivered the previous ruling, the secondary House of Justice, can issue a new national ruling on a national case and topic, in the light of local imperatives. To entirely avoid any risks, the rulings that the House of Justice has made, it can also abrogate.”

If by: “predecessors”, you mean the Bahai Scripture cannot be changed, I agree.

Bahai scripture is what is penned by Baha’u'llah, interpreted and elaborated on by Abdul-Baha, and then when Shoghi Effendi wrote himself as interpretator of the writings of Baha’u'llah + Abdul-Baha. The Bab’s Writings are important but are not strictly Bahai Scripture. None of these writings (as far as I know) include anything about homosexuality, let alone about the question of whether married homosexuals can be accepted in the Bahai community.

I am sorry, if it sounds as if I am beating a drum here, but I repeat this only because your response indicates that you didn’t notice in my earlier post how I showed that letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not part of Bahai Scripture. I am not suggesting that they are not relevant nor that they are not important for Bahais, because they are not part of Bahai Scripture. I’m saying that they have another role. I can back up my statements here with many more examples and I hope what is below is sufficient to show you what I mean. If you disagree, please show me how the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi can be part of Bahai Scripture.

However if we did take the letters written by the Guardian’s secretaries to be equivalent to authoritative interpretations Bahai Scripture, how would we deal with the secretary’s letter that states that “this is the day which will not be followed by the night” (a prophecy of Baha’u'llah, in “The Summons of the Lord of Hosts”, p. 34) as meaning that it refers to a never-ending line of Guardians.
“The Guardians are the evidence…” The full letter is here >>
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, November 25, 1948: Bahai News, No. 232, p. 8, June 1950) also in Directives from the Guardian, p. 34)

Or how could we deal with letter from a secretary written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, which states “He (the Guardian) does not feel that the friends should make a practice of saying grace or of teaching it to children. This is not part of the Bahai Faith, but a Christian practice,…” – when in fact it is ordained by Baha’u'llah, and Abdu’l-Baha said grace himself and gave us a number of prayers to use for the purpose (and Shoghi Effendi also said grace himself, at least sometimes)
This letter (27 September 1947) is quoted in full near the bottom of this page.

Or another letter by a secretary which states: “Regarding your question whether there is any special ceremony which the believers should perform when they wish to “name” a baby; the Teachings do not provide for any ceremony whatever on such occasions. We have no “baptismal service” in the Cause, …”, when in fact Abdu’l-Baha has given us a form for the “spiritual baptism” of a newborn child, in Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha pp 149-50.
This letter (December 20th, 1938, Arohanui: Letters from Shoghi Effendi to New Zealand, p.47) can be found here.

Or a letter from a secretary that states “The words Israel, used throughout the Bible, simply refers to the Jewish people, and not to the Chosen ones of this day.” (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, April 21, 1939; Lights of Guidance, p. 498)

Whereas the Guardian wrote: “Turning to Bah’u'llah and repeating his request, he was honored by a Tablet, in which Israel and his children were identified with the Bab and His followers respectively…” (God Passes By, p. 116)

Or the letter that states:
“In regard to the question as to whether people ought to kill animals for food or not, there is no explicit statement in the Bahai Sacred Scriptures (as far as I know) in favour or against it.” (9 July 1931)

Is this expressing the Guardian’s limited knowledge, or the secretary’s? There are tablets from Abdu’l-Baha [and Baha'u'llah] on this topic. The letter goes on:
“It is certain, however, that if man can live on a purely vegetarian diet and thus avoid killing animals, it would be much preferable….”

If we take this as the Guardian speaking as interpreter, he is offering an interpretion on something which he himself thinks is not in the Writings – and therefore is in the province of the UHJ not the Guardian. Shoghi Effendi wrote in the “Dispensation of Baha’u'llah” that the role of the Guardian is to interprete what is in the Bahai Writings, while the role of the Universal House of Justice is to legislate on all other matters.

Then the next sentence says
“This is, however, a very controversial question and the Bahais are free to express their views on it.”

- so the writer (the secretary in my opinion) does not think this defines Bahai belief. But aren’t the authoritative interpretations of the Guardian supposed to do that?
(The letter is in The Compilation of Compilations vol. I, p. 475)

All this is not to suggest that the Guardian’s letters can be disregarded. That would be just as simplistic as supposing that all these letters are the words of Shoghi Effendi.

Shoghi Effendi himself wanted the Bahais to make a clear distinction between his writings and those written by his secretaries:
“Although the secretaries of the Guardian convey his thoughts and instructions and these messages are authoritative, their words are in no sense the same as his, their style certainly not the same, and their authority less, for they use their own terms and not his exact words in conveying his messages.” (Unfolding Destiny, p.260 () )

If these letters had doctrinal authority, it would not make much sense to say they had `less authority.’ and I’ve already elaborated on what I mean by this in this thread, but if you missed this you can read it here.

I’ve chosen examples of letters where I would think at least some of you might see that it could be illogical to accept the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if they were part of Bahai Scripture.
But I think the practice of a Bahai community is also important, and it seems to me that some Bahais treat some letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as these as if they were Bahai Scripture, while ignoring other letters.

The following letter which in the context of 1935 when it was written might not have been such an unusual view, is clearly ignored by most Bahais today, myself included.
For those of you who are not married, think of large Catholic families (who sooner or later must as my parents did after their 9th child, practice some form of contraception given that now children tend to survive birth). Then think of the Bahai families around you. You don’t need to pry into anyone’s private life to realise that if a couple are not having a child every few years throughout their marriage, some form birth control is being used.

“…the Bahai Teachings, when carefully studied imply that such current conceptions like birth control, if not necessarily wrong and immoral in principle, have nevertheless to be discarded as constituting a real danger to the very foundations of our social life.”
(October 14, 1935)

If you wish to treat the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi as if this is Bahai Scripture, as an individual you are free to do so, but I hope that I’ve shown that the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi are not part of Bahai Sacred Scripture. And that in examples above, have shown that not all letters are followed by Bahais in practice.

SS wrote: “As for the quote you used. Some how I do not think Shoghi Effendi’s understanding of what is progressive is yours. Combine this with what The Guardian wrote regarding homosexuality it is highly doubtful that he saw this topic in the same way as you do.”

You are referring to letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, not Shoghi Effendi’s own writing. If something I’ve written above is not clear in explaining this, just ask.

SS wrote: “As for equality that too is misguided. No person is denied any privilege or opportunity in the Faith that any other person enjoys. All can marry with in the laws of the Faith or choose not to.”

A gay Bahai friend of mine had two Bahais who were to be witnesses and so he was planning to have a Bahai marriage ceremony, except that his parents refused to give permission. So he went ahead and had only a state marriage instead and his voting rights were taken off him by the NSA of the USA for these reasons: ‘same sex marriage’ and his “support of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle for Bahais” and not because he didn’t have his parents permission.
Two Bahais wanted to marry, but the man’s parents who were Moslims wouldn’t give permission. This couple tried again and again, year after year, living together now, and finally the parents gave permission when their first child was about to be born.
Two Bahais lived together, had a child, and then 2-3 years later parted company.

The gay friend I mentioned above has been trying to get acceptance from his parents for over 15 years for his partner, and in Brazil years earlier they had a state marriage. So technically he didn’t need another state marriage but wanted to have it in his state while it was possible.
The heterosexual couples I mentioned above, all people I knew well, were always welcomed at all Bahai events, and because of this atmosphere remained actively involved in the community.

I’m not suggesting that Bahais should have double standards but in the stories above, tolerance was given to the heterosexual couples and not given to the gay couple. I realise this is just a story of 3 couples. So I’ll add one more story:
Shoghi Effendi, at times would go to Switzerland for short breaks and one of his closest friends there was the painter Mark Tobey, who was known in his circles as a homosexual. Whether or not Mark was celibate is not the issue and it is not the issue in regards to discussion of same-sex marriage either.
The issue is a lifestyle where having a partner is being denied. Mark lived for decades with a friend, caring for him as he wrote himself, and was a member of his local spiritual assembly for long periods of time. There is no evidence to suggest that Mark Tobey was ever admonished in any form, let alone any indication that he might lose his voting rights. In fact to the contrary, it seems that he was accepted as a part of his community and from what I know of his exchanges with Shoghi Effendi, Shoghi Effendi valued their friendship. If Shoghi Effendi had such an abhorance of homosexuality, then surely it would be “highly doubtful” that he would maintain this friendship. Particularly when you think this is in the 1930-50s. Shoghi Effendi’s actions don’t indicate any prejudice or intolerance.

SS wrote: “As for this nonsense of the laws of nature??? It is the very laws from God that attempt to enable us to rise above the laws of nature while correctly defining just what is natural and what is not. It is clear just how the Faith see homosexuality. I think the Faith see It is immoral and not part of our natural reality. To my thinking this makes it a perversion of nature.”

Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Actions are moral or immoral.
Is a heterosexual still a heterosexual if they never have sex? or never marry? Of course they are.

You might be thinking of this statement by the Universal House of Justice:
“…the Baha’i Faith strongly condemns all blatant acts of immorality, and it includes among them the expression of sexual love between individuals of the same sex.” (Printed in The American Baha’i (Qawl 152/November 23, 1995) and to be found here)

It also states: “To regard homosexuals with prejudice and disdain would be entirely against the spirit of Baha’i Teachings.”

It seems to me, here in the letter the Universal House of Justice is condemning any expression of sexual love while you have taken this a step further to condemn homosexuality. Your logic here doesn’t surprise me. There are many examples in the history of humanity where people have taken things from religion then made that issue into an argument for their own to arguments about what is immoral as a basis for their prejudice.

Some of you wonder why I bother, and in particular bother examining what is in the Bahai Writings.
SS’s statements above are often what I hear from Bahais, they conclude based on the current Bahai policy that homosexuals must remain celibate, that then homosexuals are lesser and from this prejudice rises its ugly head. And worse, not only are gays rejected from the Bahai community but even Bahais such as myself who want to see, “Is there a way for gays not to be rejected?” “Is there a way for a Bahai community to accept a married gay couple into their community?”, are told to go elsewhere or that I shouldn’t speak.

SS wrote: “You may not agree and that is your choice and right. And thank God for our choices and rights. But if you insist on attempting to whine about how unfair the Faith is about this at least be truthful about just what the Faith teaches and how it really works.”

Yes, my perspective is different to yours and I try to back up my statements with quotations from the Bahai Writings as much as I can to try and be “truthful about just what the Faith teaches and how it really works.”. Where are my examples of ‘whining’ in doing this?

SS wrote: “You are always free to start your own version of the Faith that embraces all the current PC stuff about being progressive. But when that happens it does not seem to work out to well.”

It seems from your comments above that you think the Bahai Faith cannot match science with religion. Or that the Faith can’t hold up its head in a world where values such as equality for all dominate. I hope I have misunderstood you here. My view is the the Bahai Faith is not only more than capable to operate in a world where equality dominates but has something to offer that world too.

SS wrote: “Or if you are not a Baha’i you are free not to join the Cause. No one is forcing you or twisting your arm to be a Baha’i. I find it interesting that you insist on trying to twist mine? But that is the nature of being a so called progressive in this culture. One losses oneself to vile accusations while pretending to be tolerant. That my friend is call hypocrisy. Agree or not agree at least the Faith is not hypocritical. And in this day and age that is most distinctive.”

Your comment above, strikes me as like child in the playground who says, ‘you can’t play here, go find some other friends to play with.’

If you don’t like my comments, don’t respond, but don’t say as a Bahai I do not have a right (for me it is an obligation) to investigate the Bahai Writings on this topic to try and to share my findings, as an individual. It would be hypocritical to say, Bahais have the principle of independent investigation, which stops the moment you declare yourself to be a Bahai. At least I know this is certainly not the case for myself. I am inspired and in awe of how studying the Bahai Writings seems to be a never ending process of discovery and development for me.