Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

h1

Should I still call myself a Bahai?

May 21, 2016

“I am a 2nd generation Baha’i who is also gay. For the last 21 years, I have been happily “married” to the most loving and amazing man in the world – easily and without question my Soulmate. During this time, and for a number of years prior, I have been inactive in the Faith. I still consider myself a Baha’i – but I find it increasingly difficult to abide by the current stance of the Faith toward gays. (I am not “sick,” “unnatural,” or “handicapped.” I was made this way. And our Creator does not make an imperfect creation. I am perfect just the way I am. But enough on the truth it’s taken me my lifetime so far to realize.)
On to my question…

Is there any reason for me to continue to have any affiliation with a faith that questions my inherent and God-given perfection? Is it finally time for me to just throw in the towel with the Baha’i Faith as an organization and seek spirituality and nearness to my Creator on my own (something I’ve been doing for the past 25+ years anyway)?
To be completely honest, given the Faiths stance toward gays, I’m ashamed to tell people I’m a Baha’i. I feel much more love, acceptance, support, peace, unity- and even spirituality! – within the Buddhist community. What has happened to the Baha’i Faith? Has it already failed less than 200 years later?
I see that I have asked more than one question. I suppose I’ve always believed that the only bad question is the one not asked. Reading over what I’ve just written, some of you may get the impression that I’m angry. I’m not. Just frustrated – and wanting to know your thoughts.”

A: Only you can decide if the Baha’i Faith is still right for you. I have chosen to go it alone. I can not be part of a religion that doesn’t fully accept us and I don’t see any chance of them accepting us in the future.

B: It is the question that I have been struggling with for over 30 years since my administrative rights were removed. It helps to voice the question, and the frustration. I can see a time when I will be able to completely disassociate myself from the Faith, but that moment hasn’t arrived. I keep hoping that there will be a positive change toward embracing all. It defies reason that it hasn’t happened yet, but I keep hoping.

C: I have similar questions, myself. I usually tell people I’m an ex-Bahá’í, even though I haven’t removed myself from the Faith, only stepped back for 10 or 11 years. I still have some lingering hope somewhere that if enough voices within the Bahai community speak up for LGBT+ acceptance (not this strange sort of tolerance where we’re seen as having an affliction to be cured), then the Faith will move forward. I’m a 3rd generation Bahai and I’m trans and mga (multiple gender attracted), and I’ve been in a same-gender relationship with my partner since 2007.

D: I’m a transwoman – I was in the Faith for 32 years but finally had to leave because it wasn’t working for me on a number of levels. But I think the big one was that it did not give me a way to understand myself that I could accept or live with. And by that meaning that God had made me a man outwardly and inwardly given me the heart and soul of a woman. When I left to find something else – I wasn’t sure what – it was the beginning of a huge awakening still going on today. And one of the first things I learned was that God loved and accepted me far more than I had ever realized before. But I guess I haven’t entirely cast the Faith aside, as I am here reading what others say and making comments.

E: It all depends on if you believe Bahaullah is who he said he is. If so you are a Bahai whether you have rights or not. If you believe that in the big picture the Bahai model is best for the future then support the faith. I disagree with the UHJ not doing their job in modifying the social teachings for the current age. I believe that the continuance of the covenant through the UHJ was to provide a body to bring the faith through 1000 years, updating the social principles of the faith as humanity matures. They seem reluctant to do that. I believe that our spiritual journey is our own and we are responsible to listen to others then prayerfully make our own conclusions.

F: I agree with the Faiths basic belief that we as individuals are responsible for our own spiritual health and growth (hence, no clergy – which I couldn’t agree with more). But I never thought that would include rejecting the “clergy” of the UHJ. (I suppose they are just fallible men and women, after all, but…) I’m all for self discovery, exploration, and personal truth seeking, … but I never thought as a gay man that I’d have to “boldly go where no one has gone before” (to coin a phrase) with my own faith! The prospects are both lonely and scary. And exciting.

G: Gandhi was excommunicated by the Hindu religious authorities for travelling overseas. His friends and family would have been excommunicated as well if they saw him off at the wharf. These days, however, nobody thinks of him as a bad Hindu. I’m hoping the conditions Bahais face within their religion are also temporary, but I won’t hold my breath. I don’t regret my time as an active and involved member of the Bahai community, but I vastly prefer being unaffiliated.
Unaffiliating, whether you remain a believer or not, is enormously disruptive in the short term. But it may be better in the long-term. In the short-term, you're closing a door, but in the long-term, it may well re-open. For example, the 25-year Ruhi program has only five more years to run. Only the individual can decide what to do — but I think it's important to think both short and long-term when making the decision.

H: I’ve noticed some recent outreach to me by the local community (for teaching training as an example, which is opened up to anyone to help implement the 5 year plan), so while I’m a non-enrolled convert…I remain hopeful. At the very least (and this can be considered separate but equal), the community seems to be trying to figure out how to fit folks in who can’t follow all the “rules” or whatever. It’s a step.

h1

“Equal Access to Public Accommodations Act”

May 21, 2016

A lot has happened in the past couple of weeks. Simply keeping up has been exhausting. There is so much painful hatred and willful ignorance being spewed that I have, to some degree, shut down and …

Source: “Equal Access to Public Accommodations Act”

h1

President Obama Says Racism And Homophobia Come From The Same Mindset

August 10, 2015

I am very busy working on a few blogs but in until I have time, I leave you with these inspiring words of Obama Barack:
“You can’t, on the one hand, complain when somebody else does that to you, and then you’re doing it to somebody else,” the president pointed out. “You can’t do it. There’s got to be some consistency to how you think about these issues. And that’s going to be up to young people — because old people get stuck in their ways.”

Read the full article by Jean Ann Esselink here >>

h1

Can a rainbow be partisan?

June 30, 2015
A Rainbow with the Bahai Ringstone symbol designed by Jesse McBride.

A Rainbow with the Bahai Ringstone symbol designed by Jesse Mcbride.

There is a flurry of rainbows on facebook, in celebration of the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision on June 26, 2015, that 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses require states to license same-sex marriages and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully licensed and performed in other US states.

In a Bahai run group, a Bahai stated that Baha’is publicly supporting gay rights will lead to grave consequences in other countries. It is an argument I have heard many times before, and it holds no water. The fact that our international administration is seated in Israel and that Baha’is believe in a messenger of God after Muhammad are much stronger reasons for any Muslim to be upset at Bahais. We do not hear of Bahais saying, we must stop public statements of belief in Baha’u’llah do we? On the contrary, if Bahais were seen as were a source of comfort or safety, in countries where gays and lesbians are oppressed, that would do wonders for our image as a religion that preaches equality and justice. I am not saying Bahais must be defenders for the oppressed, but it sounds like a good idea to me.

Rainbow flag and the nine pointed star. The star is a symbol often used by Bahais as a metaphoro for unity in diversity. The design is by Jesse Mcbride.

Rainbow flag and the nine pointed star. The star is a symbol often used by Bahais as a metaphoro for unity in diversity. The design is by Jesse McBride.

Then the administrator of another Bahai-run group objected to the flurry of rainbows, arguing that it was divisive, that the rainbow flag represents an ideology of a special interest group instead of representing the broad global needs that the Baha’i Faith aims to serve – ranging from the equality of men and women, elimination of prejudice to education for all children and the eradication of poverty.

Clearly these Bahais have missed the point of the rainbow flag symbol because a celebration for equality and justice for gay and lesbians is also a celebration of the diversity of humanity. Celebrating this does not reduce the equality and justice available to heterosexuals. The assumption made by these Bahais is that a celebration of gay and lesbian rights is something just for gays and lesbians.. This is like saying gender equality only benefits women, but it’s as clear as the noon day sun that when women have equality, society benefits – men and women benefit, not just women. So the flag is only divisive for those who do not believe in equality and justice for all of humanity.

I finish by quoting a few excerpts written by the SCOTUS judges:
“The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change…. For example, marriage was once viewed as an arrangement by the couple’s parents based on political, religious, and financial concerns; but by the time of the Nation’s founding it was understood to be a voluntary contract between a man and a woman…. As the role and status of women changed, the institution further evolved. Under the centuries-old doctrine of coverture, a married man and woman were treated by the State as a single, male-dominated legal entity…. As women gained legal, political, and property rights, and as society began to understand that women have their own equal dignity, the law of coverture was abandoned….

[T]he Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution… It cannot be denied that this Court’s cases describing the right to marry presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners. The Court, like many institutions, has made assumptions defined by the world and time of which it is a part…

The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.

A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy…. A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. … A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education…. Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order …

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. …

[B]y virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intolerable in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society….

Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied….

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”
-The excerpts above come from religionclause.blogspot.com

See Sen McGlinn’s blog on some implications of SCOTUS in Obergefell for the policies of Bahai institutions.

h1

My Turn To Come Out

January 7, 2015
h1

Leserbrief eines schwulen Bahá’ís an die Zeit Online

December 5, 2014

"Ich würde es genauso wieder machen" (Sophie Scholl)

Kürzlich erschien in der Rubrik “Wer’s glaubt” der Zeit Online ein Leserartikel unter dem Titel “Wie eine Perversion menschlicher Natur“, geschrieben von einem schwulen Bahá’í unter dem Pseudonym Lukas Jung. Da ich aus eigener Erfahrung weiß, dass solche Leserbriefe häufig stark nachbearbeitet und sozusagen medienkonformer gemacht werden um mehr Aufmerksamkeit anzuziehen, fragte ich nach dem Original und möchte dieses zur Ergänzung und Richtigstellung des bereits erschienenen und veränderten Artikels veröffentlichen.

Lukas Jung schrieb das Folgende:

Einheit in Vielfalt. Wissenschaft und Religion stehen in Harmonie zueinander. Vorurteile müssen überwunden werden. Selbstständige Suche nach Wahrheit. All das sind Aussagen, die die grundlegenden Prinzipien der Bahá’í-Religion beschreiben. Und es sind Schlagwörter, mit denen Bahá’í gerne ihre Religion erklären. Es waren jene Schlagwörter, die mich dazu gebracht haben, diese Weltanschauung näher zu unter-suchen. Doch wie steht das in Verhältnis zu meinem Schwulsein?

Ich war noch sehr jung und hatte einen…

View original post 1,393 more words

h1

Baha’is and the LGBTQ Community – Part Two

January 1, 2014

Does Baha’i scripture limit marriage to a union between only one man and one woman?

Not as far as I know. I have found nothing in the Baha’i writings that specifically prohibits same-sex marriage. It’s my personal opinion that the question of how Bahaí communities are to respond to the new phenomenon of same-sex marriage is in the hands of the Universal House of Justice, the democratically-elected body that administers the global Baha’i community. The Universal House of Justice has yet to make a policy that deals specifically with the question of individuals in legally and socially recognized same-sex marriages. I think it is very likely to be a policy which gives National Spiritual Assemblies a major role because conditions vary so much in terms of social acceptance and the law.
The Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha’u’llah’s book of laws, refers to marriage between men and women. That’s why most Baha’is assume that marriage means only a heterosexual union. But in the same book, it is also assumed that men take journeys while women stay at home. In fact all of the laws are presented in the context of the customs of the 19th century middle east which when this was written.

Because no specific scripture stipulates that only men may take journeys, for example, the Universal House of Justice applies the law of “mutatis mutandis” (Latin for changing what needs to be changed) to the gender-specific laws in the Kitab-i-Aqdas. In other words, all of the Baha’i laws apply equally to men or women unless the context makes this impossible.

Is same-sex-marriage impossible for Baha’is today? There’s no text that stipulates marriage is only between one man and one woman and Baha’u’llah provided ways for the Baha’i Faith to adapt and change over time. Baha’is believe that science and religion agree, and that religion should not conflict with science. That’s why the Universal House of Justice can make new policy and change old policy on any issue not defined in Baha’i Scripture.

The Universal House of Justice can also decide to stipulate whether such rulings apply universally or locally. An example of Baha’i policy being applied differently in line with prevailing social conditions in various cultures, is the changing policy on males and females living as roommates in the same house. Even today in some societies such arrangements would be perceived as scandalous, while other cultures view it as completely acceptable. In the same way, some societies view same-sex couples as just as morally upstanding as any heterosexual couple, and civil and marriage laws are rapidly changing to reflect this.

Given that the current policy of the Universal House of Justice — that marriage can only be between a man and woman — what should local Baha’i communities do if a same-sex couple wants to join the community? Or if a gay Baha’i asks for a Baha’i wedding?

According to Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Baha’i Faith, Baha’i administration should be flexible:

“…whatever is deemed necessary to incorporate into it in order to keep it in the forefront of all progressive movements, can, according to the provisions made by Baha’u’llah, be safely embodied therein.”
The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 22.

Shoghi Effendi also wrote:
“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 Baha’u’llah, 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.” The World Order of Baha’u’llah, p. 65

In the past, the policy of the Universal House of Justice was that gay couples were not allowed to join the Bahai community:
“… if persons involved in homosexual relationships express an interest in the Faith, they should not be instructed by Bahá’í institutions to separate so that they may enroll in the Bahá’í community, for this action by any institution may conflict with civil law. The Bahá’í position should be patiently explained to such persons, who should also be given to understand that although in their hearts they may accept Bahá’u’lláh, they cannot join the Bahá’í community in the current condition of their relationship.” – Universal House of Justice letter to an individual, 5 March 1999.

That policy from Universal House of Justice has been followed by this 2010 policy:
” … 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.” – Universal House of Justice letter to an individual, 27 Oct 2010.

However some Bahai communities might still refuse married gays admittance to the Bahai community. For example the author of the current Wikipedia entry for “Homosexuality and the Baha’i Faith” states: “someone involved in a same-sex marriage or union will be prevented from registering as a Baha’i and joining the community.” (last accessed, 1 January, 2014) When the 1999 policy was written, same-sex marriage didn’t exist. Today it exists in many countries and the principle that Bahai policy must be subordinate to the laws of the land, would be another consideration by Bahai communities.

As a Baha’i, I hope that the tide of marriage equality now sweeping the world will eventually extend to people of every Faith.