Archive for the ‘Freedom of Speech’ Category

h1

Be Kind

May 7, 2019

"We will all, verily, abide by the will of God."My favourite quotation is Baha’u’llah’s “My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, imperishable and everlasting.” (Baha’u’llah, The Hidden Words)

For me this stresses that our goal in life should be to make the world a nicer, kinder, safer place for all, in any manner available to each of us.

I wish the Bahai community was a kinder place towards our LGBTQ members – kinder so they didn’t have to leave, remain in the closet, or develop toughness to deal with discrimination ranging from slurs to condemnation to threats to exclusion. I wish the Bahai community was a kinder place, period. This might sound extreme to some ears who believe the Bahai community is open to diversity and does not discriminate, so I will explain.

In response to my last blog a number of not quite out of the closet individuals (one no longer wishes to be known as a Bahai) were privately harrassed by Bahais because they commented on a link to my blog which had been circulated on facebook. A lifetime of being told your kind are diseased, immoral, aberrant or shameful contributes to mistrust, distrust, fear, unhappiness or depression and so it doesn’t take much to tip the balance.

Another was told that she should be ashamed for liking my blog because that boy deserved to die. An elderly friend was told that they should be ashamed for liking the reference to my last blog and then she was told that she should be reported on because the UHJ (Universal House of Justice, international head of the Bahai community) condemns homosexuality. As I wrote in my previous blog, the UHJ no longer associates homosexuality with disease, but many Bahais turn to older UHJ policy which did. This elderly friend was so upset he asked me to intervene in some manner.
I decided that the best way to help was to write this blog because the worse possible response to discrimination is silence. Well, denying that there is any discrimination would be even worse.

Yes I have changed the gender. I mismatch most stories on my blog so it is not possible to trace comments to any particular individual but the incidents and the diverse locations are true.

Another Bahai wrote in reference to this same blog that this “sinful behaviour that is forbidden in the faith. The individual identifying as homosexual will always be socially shunned and politically stifled in the Baha’i Faith. This will not change.” Yes a Bahai from a western country wrote this in a closed facebook group in 2019!

Another gay Bahai thinking it was now safe for him to make it known that he was gay to his local community, contacted me, heartbroken because he was told he couldn’t be a Bahai any more by an ABM (an Assistant Board Member is appointed with a pastoral function in the Bahai community: some Bahais treat them more as authorities than as advisors). He left, later rejoined, left again. It saddens me that he feels that his lifetime of being a Bahai was no longer possible because now he couldn’t pretend he was not gay and now couldn’t even face the slurs or negative comments about homosexuality he used to be able to tolerate. He knew that that ABM had no right to say what he did, but it hurt him to the core and broke his faith in a future that would get better. Like many other gays and lesbians who have communicated with me, he couldn’t find the words to defend himself.
Some of these LGBTQ Bahais mention that they are celibate, which is none of my business, but they tell me anyway. I say this to illustrate the discrimination is against homosexuality, not about sexual practice, which many Bahais would say is no-one’s business. But those Bahais who say one’s private life is no-one’s business might also say, Bahais shouldn’t discuss homosexuality. For me the issue isn’t about the private life of any individual but about developing and maintaining an atmosphere of tolerance. No Bahai should have to live in the closet or keep their private life separate from the Bahai community to protect themselves from a complaint being made about them. One Bahai offered his home to a member of his LSA (a Local Spiritual Assembly is a group of 9 who run the Bahai community at a local level) who needed a place to stay. Then she made a complaint to the LSA which removed him from all Bahai committees and told him that he wasn’t allowed to mix with any other single Bahais. This individual was a professional teacher. He rang me, upset, because these were his childhood friends he was told he was not allowed to see on threat of having his voting rights removed. He had told no one of his sexual orientation but felt he couldn’t lie to his LSA when accused of being a homosexual.

A young European Bahai after declaring, knew of the discrimination and could handle this, seeing it as a residue of the prejudices in society in general, but when her LSA told her she could no longer give Bahai children’s classes this was the last straw. Her profession was also as a teacher and now that action by that LSA made her feel like a second class citizen. Unfortunately such actions often go unnoticed. Other members, noticing that she has left or resigned might think it is not their business to pry. Any individual who might have made that complaint to the LSA – after all she had been giving these classes for some years – would have felt justified by the LSA’s action. It could even have been the case that within the LSA some members might have argued for tolerance but that they were outvoted. However what matters in the end is the action of discrimination. Even if this was just one example (and I have many more), this matters. That community now has no gay or lesbian members and the next person to declare or the next youth to come out is likely to be treated in the same manner unless the discrimination is addressed. If that community had discussed homosexuality before that wo-man had joined that community, perhaps they could have been kinder? Perhaps the person who made the complaint didn’t realise that this would cause so much pain? Perhaps that Bahai thought it was impossible to be gay and a Bahai? Perhaps if that gay individual knew that gays and lesbians were not allowed to give children’s classes in that community, then they might not have been so hurt? Perhaps the community might have had time to discuss the pros and cons of having a gay or a lesbian Bahai conduct children’s classes? I have many stories of lesbians and gays being removed from Bahai committees because it became known that they were gay or lesbian. And those most hurt were ones who had kept their sexuality private, so it only took one Bahai to be intolerant, one Bahai to make a complaint.

A part of the reason that there is so much unaddressed discrimination against any hint of LGBQT visibility is that Bahais tend to look the other way when someone says something offensive about gays, or worse Bahais say there is no discrimination because they do not hear about it. They do not hear it because they do not have any LGBTQ friends who would trust them enough to say anything. These same individuals do not notice that there are no out of the closet LGBTQ Bahais in their Bahai community either. Absence. Silence. What’s missing here? I have been told that it doesn’t matter because homosexuality shouldn’t exist.

Just think, decades of being part of a loving community, perhaps growing up identifying with a worldwide community aimed at unity in diversity and then being told, as another friend was recently told ‘Baha’u’llah forbids your kind’ – in other words, you do not belong. This is harsh. Especially harsh to a young person who might not even be sure what their sexuality is. But not just young people either. A middle-aged woman asked me if she really wasn’t allowed to be a Bahai any more and a few months later her NSA (The National Spiritual Assembly runs the Bahai community at a national level) removed her voting rights without even meeting with her. Of the 40 of more instances of discrimination, I know of only two LSAs who treated their LGBTQ members with kindness. One is referred to in this blog “Love and Legalism – a tale of two Bahai communities” and the other LSA was informed by an NSA member that they were under investigation because some members of that LSA attended a same sex wedding by a Bahai from another community.
Another Bahai told me that she had attended her son’s wedding even though she knew Bahais were not allowed to do this but she didn’t have the heart not to. She was referring to this: “…about believers attending weddings of Bahá’ís who are marrying contrary to Bahá’í law, and we have been asked to convey to you the following. “If it is known beforehand that a believer is violating such laws, it would be inappropriate for the friends to attend the ceremony.” From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of New Zealand, November 11, 1974: Australian Bahá’í Bulletin, No. 243, September 1975, p. 4 and in Lights of Guidance (1983).

Yet another Bahai told me that she knowingly attended her daughter’s non-Bahai wedding saying to me that she was discrete and that’s what Bahais should do. I do not agree. I think all parents should be free to attend their children’s weddings whether their children are Bahais or not. I would imagine that in 99% of all cases, no Bahai would dream of making a complaint. But it only takes one Bahai to complain and that’s the problem. Perhaps a future UHJ will make new policy stating that family members may attend their children’s weddings even if the children are gay or lesbian.

There is a strong tendency for Bahais to sit on the fence about anything out of a fear of showing disunity. There is only disunity if individuals with widely differing views accuse the other view, perspective or interpretation of being wrong. A minority voice is not a sign of disunity. Abdul-Baha clearly expected it to be a Bahai community norm for individual Bahais to have differing views when he wrote of “every member expresseth with absolute freedom his own opinion and setteth forth his argument. Should anyone oppose, he must on no account feel hurt for not until matters are fully discussed can the right way be revealed. The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions. If after discussion, a decision be carried unanimously well and good; but if, the Lord forbid, differences of opinion should arise, a majority of voices must prevail.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 87) and Shoghi Effendi quoted this same text in the book, Bahai Administration (p.21)

So it seems to me that it is a core Bahai teaching that diversity of opinion is essential to what I view as a holistic community life. But the discrimination against homosexuality is so strong that I, as an individual have never brought this up as a topic at any Bahai gathering. Even when it has come up privately with Bahais, they bombard me with words, like Shoghi Effendi said, the UHJ says with words like, forbidden, wrong, immoral … so all I can squeeze out is, wouldn’t be better to be tolerant so it doesn’t look like prejudice? Because those ears are not open to the idea that a gay or lesbian has a right to exist. Of course not all Bahais who see homosexuality as part of a slippery slope are that intolerant, and I’ve had some insightful conversations with Bahais who view same sex marriage as wrong. Some of these Bahais wouldn’t make a complaint about anyone and would, I believe, be kind. So for me it isn’t a question of convincing Bahais there is nothing wrong with homosexuality but of creating a community where a gay or lesbian Bahai would feel they were treated with dignity and be free from a phone call or email telling them that they cannot attend any Bahai event aimed for their own age group or that they have to overcome their homosexuality.
A year ago a newly declared Bahai was shown the door at a deepening and two others had to leave with him because he had the car. These two were confused by what happened and when he said that it was because that Bahai knew he was gay, their response was that while they had sympathy for him, it was his own fault. It transpired that it was his fault for not knowing the ‘gay position’ before declaring. They had never had a gay declare in their community before. He has since resigned, so that community can go back to its idea of unity.

Any Bahai community that chooses to reduce the attitudes of discrimination against homosexuality have a tough task but they could start with just talking about how they might treat an individual in their community if they were gay or lesbian. It could be a way to address the more intolerant perspectives within their own community. Bahais thank me privately for my blog adding that they don’t dare say a word because they can’t handle the heat. Many of them are heterosexuals with some standing in the community and I understand and appreciate that they can’t do more. No one should have to step into an unkind space. Bahais regularly make complaints, even about this blog I write. The Universal House of Justice has not asked me to remove this blog and so these complaints are the opinions of Bahais, no matter what they might say behind my back. When I hear of these things it disgusts me but so far, I see it as fear, fear of difference, fear of people not like themselves but there is a bigger issue here than just the topic of homosexuality and that is a fear of the visibility of divergent or minority views within the Bahai community.

So why do I write on a topic that Bahais often tell me is divisive? Writing about homosexuality in relation to the Bahai teachings or community is only divisive if you think there is something wrong with homosexuality or if you think Bahais shouldn’t have differing opinions or perspectives. For me what is so amazing about the Bahai teachings is the often quoted ‘unity in diversity’ – it seems to me that Baha’u’llah intended to create a religious community based on differences – voices – not just one way of thinking or living or behaving. So diversity is not just something to be tolerated but at its essence having diverse views, interpretations or approaches is the means for holistic forms of problem solving. There are many passages in the Bahai Writings in support of the importance of diversity (“When thou doest contemplate the innermost essence of things and the individuality of each, thou wilt behold the signs of they Lord’s mercy…” (Selections. from the Writings of ´Abdu´l-Bahá, p. 41) but also in the manner of how the Bahai community affairs operates where there are elected individuals who consult together and where decisions are intended to be flexible and to evolve. “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.” (Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 20)

Abdul-Baha states that the authority of the UHJ’s rulings is the same as what is in Bahai Scripture but this does not mean that it is entirely the same, as clearly shown in the second half of the sentence. The UHJ can change its own policies (“repeal the same”). So if a UHJ states today that gays or lesbians may not have the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexuals, it is possible that a future UHJ might state a different understanding of the Bahai teachings.

So why did I start this blog?

In 2009 a Bahai attempted to silence me in a Bahai discussion group by having me blocked so I couldn’t correct his claim that I was belittling the letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi. I knew at that moment I had to make my words public so that his rewording and his interpretation of what I wrote could not be used behind my back as if these were my words. What did I write? I wrote that mention of homosexuality is only in these letters. He took the word, “only” and claimed that I was saying these were only letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, as if these had no authority, and had me blocked from the group so I couldn’t respond. Fortunately for two days I could read all the comments agreeing with his words, damning those words I never wrote.

I also decided not to hide who I am because I have been a Bahai for a long time and am in a position to defend myself from slurs such as:
“My impression of your post is you are using Lucas in a dishonest way to give credence to your personal feelings that are in conflict with Baha’u’llah’s teachings.”

I can handle it if a Bahai claims that what I write is in conflict with Baha’u’llah but it certainly helps that I can call on a number of scholars to help me to understand Bahai Scripture in the original languages. It also helps that because my mother tongue is English, I am in the fortunate position of being able to easily read the large amount of Bahai writings in translation. I am also very careful about when to reveal someone’s identity on my blog and when not to.

The point of my blog about Lucas was to open up the question of how can we show that the Bahai community is a safe place for our LGBTQ teens? So the next time someone is down they can go to someone. So they don’t die of an unstated cause alone in their apartment.

One person told me that I should leave the Bahai Faith and stop writing from the viewpoint of a Bahai, because he thought the Bahai Faith would never accept gays or lesbians as equals and so could never deal with the discrimination. I disagreed with him because I do not think the Bahai teachings are flawed. There’s nothing to stop the UHJ ruling one day that the policy on same sex marriage could be treated like: “In general, marriages entered into by parties prior to their enrollment in the Faith are recognized as valid under Bahá’í Law, and in such cases an additional Bahá’í marriage ceremony is not permitted. This applies whether the marriage was established under civil or religious law or under tribal custom.” (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Panama, September 7, 1981, Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 379). <a hr
ef=”http://bahai-library.com/hornby_lights_guidance_2.html&chapter=2#n1270″>Also in Lights of Guidance.

or perhaps,

“Furthermore, the Faith accepts in certain cases unions which are ‘immoral but accepted’ by the society in which the people live.” (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice to the National Spiritual Assembly of Peru, June 23, 1969). Cited in Lights of Guidance.
(A link to the index on marriage in Lights of Guidance)

However the current 2018 policy from the UHJ states: “… it is not possible to recognize a same-sex union within the Baha’i community.” (Department of the Secretariat, 5 June 2018)

But I live for today and not some distant future. Today I am here to support those who are discriminated against and I stand for equality for all which I know to my bones is a Bahai teaching without any exceptions. I am also happy to be the person a Bahai might choose to accuse of doing something wrong or the Bahai they make accusations about to others. I have a thick skin and a very fortunate life so I have the confidence to do this. My advice to anyone, whether gay or not, is to find a world where one’s orientation is a non-issue so you can just be. If one of your worlds is the Bahai community then it will be easier to see slurs or threats as discrimination and to ignore them, and there are networks of support (that don’t associate sexuality with alcoholism or drug dependency) for our rainbow members.

I write this blog because gays and lesbians are being told that they are diseased. They ring or text me when they are attacked. I can’t tell them to consult the LSA because half the time it is the LSA or an LSA member or an ABM who has told them that they are diseased, have to isolate themselves from their childhood friends, have to leave their community.
Lucas, the subject of my previous blog, told me that views on homosexuality were expressed with such hostility that he didn’t dare talk to anyone in his community and so he spoke to me – a Bahai half way across the globe. Then again, a few years older in another country and community, he shared what a secretary wrote to him about needing to overcome his homosexuality. I expressed sympathy and suggested he only mix with those who did not see him as a lesser human and told him that it was not a Bahai teaching to discriminate against gays and lesbians. But he needed kindness from Bahais around him and, from what he wrote to me, it seems there was no one. There was no one in his local community who just said, it’s ok. You are just fine as you are, you are part of the diversity of humanity.
I finish with this New Zealand Māori saying:
“He kokonga whare, e kitea;
He kokonga ngakau, e kore e kitea.”

Corners of a house can be seen but corners of the heart cannot be seen.

Please, even if you think homosexuality is despicable, for the sake of unity, hold your tongue when it comes to condemning homosexuality. If you don’t want to talk about it, don’t. But don’t go behind a person’s back and make a complaint to an Assembly. Work at making your Bahai community a space where anyone is welcome, in whatever manner that is possible. Just be kind and if you can, “Be a treasure to the poor, an admonisher to the rich, an answerer of the cry of the needy …. a lamp unto them that walk in darkness, a joy to the sorrowful, a sea for the thirsty, a haven for the distressed, an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression. … a dew to the soil of the human heart…”
(Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 285)
.

Advertisements
h1

Does this mean that one may not express critical thought?

March 19, 2018

Freedom of Speech cartoon found on a blog possibly by a Russian cartoonist. The initials are AZ.

Cartoon found on this blog,
possibly by a Russian cartoonist
by the name of Azim or AZ where I have
changed the texts.

Recently in a discussion a Baha’i wrote:
“We as Baha’is I believe should look at each quote and prescribe it to ourselves. This is one I take very much to heart”.
“To accept the Cause without the administration is like to accept the teachings without acknowledging the divine station of Bahá’u’lláh. To be a Bahá’í is to accept the Cause in its entirety. To take exception to one basic principle is to deny the authority and sovereignty of Bahá’u’lláh, and therefore is to deny the Cause. The administration is the social order of Bahá’u’lláh. Without it all the principles of the Cause will remain abortive. To take exception to this, therefore, is to take exception to the fabric that Bahá’u’lláh has prescribed; it is to disobey His law.”
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to the National Spiritual Assembly of the United States and Canada, May 30, 1930: Bahá’í News, No. 43, August 1930, p. 3)

This Baha’i was using this quotation to imply that “to exception to” meant that no one is allowed to disagree with any policy of the head of the Bahai Administration, The Universal House of Justice. I then looked for the context to this letter because I think Baha’is are free to express their personal opinions on the topic of equality for the LGBTQ community or same sex marriage. This was the context for the sharing of that quotation.

It is my view that one of the most basic of the Bahá’í principles is that each individual has the right and duty to seek out the truth which means the individual’s right to free expression, but I also believe that the context for how one expresses one’s views is just as important and sometimes silence might be better than causing pain or suffering. That is how I interpret Baha’u’llah’s text: “Say: Human utterance is an essence which aspireth to exert its influence and needeth moderation. As to its influence, this is conditional upon refinement which in turn is dependent upon hearts which are detached and pure. As to its moderation, this hath to be combined with tact and wisdom as prescribed in the Holy Scriptures and Tablets.” (Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 143)

Sometimes silence is best and sometimes speaking up is best. So are there rules for Bahais in relation to freedom of speech?

Shoghi Effendi wrote:
“At the very root of the Cause lies the principle of the undoubted right of the individual to self-expression, his freedom to declare his conscience and set forth his views. If certain instructions of the Master are today particularly emphasized and scrupulously adhered to, let us be sure that they are but provisional measures designed to guard and protect the Cause in its present state of infancy and growth until the day when this tender and precious plant shall have sufficiently grown to be able to withstand the unwisdom of its friends and the attacks of its enemies.” (Bahai Administration, p. 63)

The second sentence does not refer to limiting the freedom of expression of the individual. It refers to “prepublication literature review” which Abdul-Baha brought in as a temporary measure. This means that Bahais are not allowed to publish any book, paper or article without a committee approving the contents of this. However the UHJ has stated clearly that blogs or websites are free from this as long as the author makes it clear that what they write is just their own understanding.
“In general, at this stage in the development of the World Wide Web, the House of Justice feels that those friends desiring to establish personal homepages on the Internet as a means of promoting the Faith should not be discouraged from doing so. It is hoped that the friends will adopt etiquettes consistent with the principles of the Faith, including clearly indicating what materials constitute their own interpretations. While it is inevitable that some attempts will be found wanting, the House of Justice has not formulated guidelines or policies specifically addressed to Internet sites.” (The Universal House of Justice, 1997 Apr 24, Personal Web Pages Promoting the Faith Approved)

So what does “to take exception to one basic principle” refer to in that letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi? And how might it have been perceived by the readers in 1930?

I found that “to take exception to the fabric that Bahá’u’lláh has prescribed; it is to disobey His law” refers to rejecting the idea of a Bahai administration.

Some background
From 1914 onwards some Baha’is thought that the reference in Baha’u’llah’s Kitab-i-Aqdas to Houses of Justice was about a form of parliament and that the Baha’i community was not to have any form of administration. In fact the number of references to the idea that the “Bahai Movement is not an organization…” suggests that it was a common idea among various Bahais of the times (See a circa 1917 publication) as it was attributed to Abdul-Baha via a pilgrim’s note. See Sen McGlinn’s blog (“You can never organize the Bahai Cause”) where he shows more context for this.

The text is not authentically Abdul-Baha. Page 4 of the booklet, Some Vital Bahai Teachings by Charles Mason Remey, published circa 1917

NOTE: The text is not authentically Abdul-Baha. Page 4 of the booklet, Some Vital Bahai Teachings by Charles Mason Remey, published circa 1917. See the booklet here


Then in March 1922, in the magazine Star of the West there was a 5 page essay called ‘Baha’i Organization: Its basis in the revealed word,’ written by Louis G. Gregory, Agnes S. Parsons and Mariam Haney at the request of the National Spiritual Assembly to counter this pilgrim’s note.
To paraphrase from Sen McGlinn’s blog: This begins by pointing to a generalised distrust of all organization, as an infringement on liberty and then refers to the Bahai Writings that specify the establishment of Bahai Houses of Justice in every town, and cites briefly a tablet from Abdu’l-Baha on religious law and the House of Justice, (Sen has translated this tablet by Abdul-Baha here).Then it switches to a discussion of the International Court, a different institution, to be organized by the Governments of the world (p 324), before switching back to citing Abdu’l-Baha’s instructions to organize spiritual assemblies. Then it states, “It is known that some misapprehension exists as to the need of organization in the Cause. This has grown out of a widely circulated statement, attributed to Abdul baha, that the Bahai Cause could never be organized. The true statement was, as corrected by Abdul Baha, that the Bahai Cause can never be rigidly organized; it can never be confined to an organization. The context of the statement tells why, namely: “It is the Spirit of the Age, the essence of all the highest ideals of the century.”
At Haifa, Syria, in 1920, the following question was asked Abdul Baha by some American pilgrims:
“It is misleading, is it not, to say that the Bahai Cause cannot be organized?”
Abdul Baha replied: “How is it possible that there should be no organization?
Even in a household if there is not organization there will be hopeless confusion. Then what about the world? What is meant is that organization is not rigid! In ancient times it was rigid. In the Torah all the political affairs were rigidly fixed, but in this Cause they were not. In this Cause there is political freedom i.e., in each time the House of Justice is free to decide in accordance with what is deemed expedient. This is a brief explanation of the matter.” (Star of the West, Volume 13, no. 12, March, 1923, p. 325)

After the death of Abdu’l-Baha in 1921, Ruth White, an American Bahai who also challenged the authenticity of Abdul-Baha’s Will appointing Shoghi Effendi as the Guardian of the Bahai Faith, produced a pamphlet called, The “Bahai Organisation, the enemy of the Bahai Religion,” where on page 5 she wrote of a recollection from 9 years earlier, “when I visited Abdul Baha at Haifa, Palestine, in 1920. … one day when he very opportunely spoke of certain conditions existing in America among the Bahais, I mentioned to him that I had never belonged to the Bahai organization (Spiritual Assemblies). His face beamed with happiness as he replied:
Good, very good. The organization that the Bahais have among themselves has nothing to do with the teachings of Baha’ollah. The teachings of Baha’o’llah are universal and cannot be confined to a sect.
The same thought runs through all the writings of Baha’o’llah and of Abdul Baha. It is expressed in many different ways, ranging from the above, and the following unequivocal statement: “The Bahai Religion is not an organization. You can never organize the Bahai Cause,” to the less obvious way of saying the same thing. For instance, Abdul Baha says that it will be impossible to create any schism in the Bahai Religion. The Bahais have interpreted this as meaning that two Bahai organizations cannot be formed when, as a matter of fact, both Baha’o’llah and Abdul Baha show that no organization can be formed” (on h-net.org)

In February 1929, a month after Ruth White’s pamphlet was published, Shoghi Effendi wrote to the members of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahais of the United States and Canada stating:
“It should be remembered by every follower of the Cause that the system of Bahá’í administration is not an innovation imposed arbitrarily upon the Bahá’ís of the world since the Master’s passing, but derives its authority from the Will and Testament of `Abdu’l-Bahá, is specifically prescribed in unnumbered Tablets, and rests in some of its essential features upon the explicit provisions of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas. It thus unifies and correlates the principles separately laid down by Bahá’u’lláh and `Abdu’l-Bahá, and is indissolubly bound with the essential verities of the Faith. To dissociate the administrative principles of the Cause from the purely spiritual and humanitarian teachings would be tantamount to a mutilation of the body of the Cause [emphasis added), a separation that can only result in the disintegration of its component parts, and the extinction of the Faith itself.” (World Order of Baha’u’llah by Shoghi Effendi)

So the similarity of the words in the 1930 letter by the secretary to the 1929 text above indicates that in context “one basic principle” in the 1930 letter refers to the existence of a Bahai Administration and not freedom of speech regarding policies of the day. Perhaps there is more context to this 1930 letter that one day someone else can provide.

I read the text “To take exception to this, therefore, is to take exception to the fabric that Bahá’u’lláh has prescribed; it is to disobey His law.” in the way Shoghi Effendi wrote “To dissociate the administrative principles of the Cause from the purely spiritual and humanitarian teachings would be tantamount to a mutilation of the body of the Cause …” Not that this means Bahais may only express their own interpretations of the Bahai Writings if these are in agreement with the policies of the Baha’i Administration.

It would be a different story if the Universal House of Justice stated that it was a Bahai law that Bahais were not allowed to express their own views, understandings or perspectives or if the Universal House of Justice announced that Bahais were not allowed to discuss the topic of homosexuality. They have not. So individual Bahais cannot then imply it is disobedience to “His law” if Bahais do interpret the Writings for themselves or express their own views or even discuss the topic of homosexuality. It isn’t a closed case nor a taboo subject.

A lesson I learnt from looking at Ruth White was that she was both the victim of her own misunderstanding and stuck with an idea of the Bahai community as static – as she first experienced and understood it during the lifetime of Abdul-Baha. The establishment of the House of Justice is clear in the Bahai writings and the development of an international tribunal is also clear. But a footnote in the 1908 English translation of Some Answered Questions asserted that these were the same thing. If the House of Justice was just another word for the supreme tribunal, which was to be elected by the nations and solve political questions, then you can see how she might think that there was no provision in the Writings for an administration of a Bahai community by Bahai institutions. Then there was the widely circulated pilgrim’s note saying “you cannot organize the Bahai movement…” So perhaps because Shoghi Effendi was working on the establishment of the Bahai Administration, something that she saw as false, made her assume that the Will and Testament was a fake – an idea she pursued in the face of all evidence. [See Sen’s 2009 blog, “Mitchell’s mistake”]

So as I see it we always need to be open to the idea that our own interpretation of the Bahai Teachings might be wrong and we need to remain open to change if evidence shows new information or to keep the Bahai Administration “in the forefront of all progressive movements.” (Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 22)

That’s why, sometimes, I hammer on about only authentic Scripture, being what counts, not what a Bahai or even 99% of Bahais might say to me. Perhaps somewhere there is a text penned by Baha’u’llah that does restrict marriage to only be possible between a man and a woman? I will keep writing that it is my belief that there is nothing in Bahai Scripture that supports discrimination against lesbians or gays until someone shows me some evidence. Even if I should be wrong – on the topic of freedom of expression the Universal House of Justice – wrote:
“Because the Most Great Peace is the object of our longing, a primary effort of the Bahá’í community is to reduce the incidence of conflict and contention, which are categorically forbidden in the Most Holy Book. Does this mean that one may not express critical thought? Absolutely not. How can there be the candor called for in consultation if there is no critical thought? How is the individual to exercise his responsibilities to the Cause, if he is not allowed the freedom to express his views? Has Shoghi Effendi not stated that “at the very root of the Cause lies the principle of the undoubted right of the individual to self-expression, his freedom to declare his conscience and set forth his views”?
(Addressed to the NSA of the USA, 29 Dec., 1988)

So while some Bahais might think that no Bahai is allowed to express any view, or write anything that is not in agreement with the policies of the Universal House of Justice, such as their current policy which does not allow gays or lesbians to marry in countries where this is legal, I think that the Universal House of Justice does allow individuals such as myself to express their views. I certainly do understand that raising this topic at a Bahai event might not be appropriate but a Bahai such as myself may express my views on my own blog where it is clear that my views are just my own.

Another Bahai wrote in that same discussion:
Abdul-Baha last will and testament: “To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular conviction. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error”

This isn’t the first time this selectively cut quotation has been presented to me. Without any further context it appears that Abdul-Baha is saying that our own opinion or expression is not allowed, however what Abdul-Baha was referring to at the end of the Will and Testament was to avoid the schisms and infighting after the death of Baha’u’llah. Abdul-Baha meant that we (Bahais) must accept Shoghi Effendi as Centre of the Cause.

“O ye the faithful loved ones of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá! It is incumbent upon you to take the greatest care of Shoghi Effendi, the twig that hath branched from and the fruit given forth by the two hallowed and Divine Lote-Trees, that no dust of despondency and sorrow may stain his radiant nature, that day by day he may wax greater in happiness, in joy and spirituality, and may grow to become even as a fruitful tree.
For he is, after ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the guardian of the Cause of God, the Afnán, the Hands (pillars) of the Cause and the beloved of the Lord must obey him and turn unto him. He that obeyeth him not, hath not obeyed God; he that turneth away from him, hath turned away from God and he that denieth him, hath denied the True One. Beware lest anyone falsely interpret these words, and like unto them that have broken the Covenant after the Day of Ascension (of Bahá’u’lláh) advance a pretext, raise the standard of revolt, wax stubborn and open wide the door of false interpretation. To none is given the right to put forth his own opinion or express his particular convictions. All must seek guidance and turn unto the Center of the Cause and the House of Justice. And he that turneth unto whatsoever else is indeed in grievous error.”
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Will and Testament, p. 25)

I elaborate on this in my 2015 blog “Is Criticism Allowed” here.

So back to the beginning, the above and the first quotation assert the importance of the authority of the Universal House but when you see the context of each, this authority doesn’t infringe on the duty of each of us to express our views, hopefully with wisdom and tact.