Magi728

Remember Nothing Happens Overnight, He also Called for Race equality...

And many other forms of equality... None Changing in a flicker, all are Progressive Movements, Being Assembled, By the Awakened Hearts...

Have Faith in the Foundation stones..

Of These Progressive Realities...




With Love,



Magi.......

arthra

Back last December 2011 Napkin wrote:

"I joined the faith about 2 years ago..." and now he says he just learned about the composition of the Universal House of Justice?

Nuck81

Napkin is obviously a young teen getting his kicks from trolling a message board.

He is not interested in anything but disruption and immaturity.

Just place him on your ignore list. Like I'm about too.

Truthseeker96

wow i cant believe you really remember that. Well he still does not like the ideal about it but decided he cant force me to believe something. I have a feeling that he has forgotten about it but this march when it is time to fast i am sure he will have things to say. I am still thinking of how to respond to what he might say. Might be a future thread

Napkin

Yeah anyone who disagrees with u is a troll

Emilia

Can you please point me to where I'm warned not to visit sites of people who've left the Faith?

Covenant Breakers, by definition, are people who did not "leave." If that's what you're referring to.

Or perhaps you just missed the part where at some point the UHJ will be consulted by those outside the Faith. Perhaps it isn't because *we* have an issue with women leading anything -- but much of the rest of the world obviously still does. And they would not take seriously any Institution that had women on it.

Yeah, obviously those women he married prior to "getting the call" -- well he should just irresponsibly ditch them to lead a life in a society where women are unable to support themselves. Maybe they could be hookers -- yeah, that would show some serious righteousness! Better a foolish consistency than compassion, duty or justice, I always say!

Emilia

It's the sort of sexist nonsense that recognizes that women are generally the first educators.

And if you can be bothered to read instead of assume, you might notice the bit about there is a duty for both sexes to be educated. If parents can't the community is supposed to step in to help.

Do you do such a crappy job of research for school papers as well?

I hope if you're in the sciences you don't use the same "logic" to analyze your data and draw any conclusions.

Normally one bases conclusions on actual evidence and not mere imaginings, unfounded assumptions, and emotional outbursts.

Emilia

I never heard a black person speak like that.

Try for a moment to stop insulting people, if that's at all possible.

And if not, at least educate yourself about the dialect you're referring to.

I believe some time with St. Frank Zappa might do you some good in that regard.

Emilia

In general, yes.

Women have a lower center of gravity (generally speaking) and thus we should be the ones riding motorcycles and not men. We steer better. No men should be allowed motorcycle licenses!

Jokes aside, also in general women have better lower body strength and men have better upper body strength. Um, that's why our trainer gives me and my husband different exercise routines?

Other than that, a lot of this conversation seems to revolve around taking some valid generalizations and insisting they apply to each individual.

At minimum this is a gross misuse of data.

Please reconsider.

Zhang

You know, Emilia, I understand that you are a scientist and although our disciplines are different I do respect your views, on chemistry that is. I am very skeptical of some other things however.

^ This paired with

Baffles me.

As per the topic, Emilia raises some interesting points, i'll have to ponder them some more.

Fadl, thanks for your ever-so-compassionate translation from English to Idiot I am assuming? Real nice, Mírzá would be very much pleased with you.

LordOfGoblins

what am i meant to reconsider. Men and women are NOT the same. Its just the truth.

Emilia

It's called "responding to an absurd statement with absurdity."

Sorry that baffles you.

Emilia

Yes *in general* they are not the same, however because *in general* men may have some capacity, it would be a mistake to assume no women are capable. (Also the reverse.)

Which probably you are not assuming, but it doesn't seem to come across that well in areas like this:

These things may explain division of labor in hunter/gatherer societies.

I'm not sure they mean so much in modern life, unless you're talking about heavy labor of some sort.

And even then, some women are capable, some men are not.

What I found the funniest in this thread so far is not anything you said, but it was the complaint about women not being allowed to have "leaders" in the Faith.

Um...we have "leaders"?

Women are everywhere across the administration except for one small thing that may lead but has no "leaders".

It's also hilarious it's only men I hear complaining about this horrid injustice.

Since it's women's ox that would be gored, you think we might be more liable to notice that terrible inequality of the sexes than men would.

LordOfGoblins

those are examples just to illustrate men and women are not identical. You know there is plenty of general statements from Abdul'baha that people can try to pick holes in. THey are never emant to be taken as absolute literal things. A man can always become a woman through hormone change so there is plenty of overlap as well. So please stop. Stop this "its my job to pick holes in what your saying" attitude. I never claimed those skills as hunting or climbing trees are illustrations of an absolute difference...

Napkin

I'm thinking Baha'ullah wanted women to be free in 19th century Iran, but he was smart enough to know allowing them to lead would make everyone think he's crazy. Like Abraham Lincoln, he wanted the slaves to be free, but he knew he'd loose all his supporters if he went after something that was absolutely out of the question at the time. Even when he did free the slaves, he said it was only a political necessity and not due to his desire to free the slaves.

Now we live in a time when women want to be equal and men agree. Today, not allowing women to lead is a ridiculous idea and the only people with that mindset live in shady parts of the country with low education rates, and sadly, some religious circles....Intelligent people are not attracted to religions that don't allow women to lead. This is one of the reasons door-to-door teachers focus on low income people who have less education. They are the only ones that might be willing to follow a religion that does not allow women to lead...let alone one that claims equality as it's goal. Any intelligent person will ask why you forbid women from leadership, and "trust the master, the answer will come to you" simply does not suffice.

LordOfGoblins

there is nothing in the writings as far as i know that says women are any less good leaders than men.. But the house of Justice is not considered a leadership position...

Zhang

Right, fighting fire with fire, just after giving a speech about not insulting people. Baffled.

Napkin

I'm sorry magi, thats just a silly quote.

you'll accept this as truth once your heart accepts this truth?....silly silly silly

Pete in Panama

Bless you for bringing this up, it's a truly fascinating topic. One thing I find particularly interesting is how the all people who've objected to me about this issue have been men wanting to protect women's interests. All the women I've talked to are OK with it.

I mean, my wife (fer instance) is flying to Haifa in a few months to vote for the the incoming House members. She once mentioned to me how virtually the entire election process is run by women because they're so much better on keeping a lid on campaigning male egos. Anyway, I'm not allowed to vote for House members, but in theory I can be voted for. So much for theory.

Napkin, please tell me (privately if you want) if you're a woman speaking out for your rights or if you're an overprotective hormone ruled man defending the rights of women who've never asked for your protection. I'd dearly love to finally find a woman who cared about this.

thanks

Napkin

Women actually want to cover themselves up in those Islamic countries and Baha'i women actually want to be forbidden from leading. Your wife is going to vote for something that she is forbidden to participate in because she doesn't have a penis. Nice Equality.

You would not sound ignorant if you studied American History. Before women were allowed to vote, they were extremely politically active. The rallied and campaigned for their candidates and supported their men when they ran for office. Just like Baha'i women do now, although they, themselves are forbidden from leading.

rreini

One can view positions of leadership in the Baha'i community as positions of service, for Assembly members and members of the learned are indeed serving the community and serving the Cause. Women have been and are serving in the service of God and humanity as members of spiritual assemblies, local and national; on regional councils; as Hands of the Cause of God; and as Auxiliary Board Members and Assistants. They have done so with distinction and no doubt will continue to do so.

The only positions in the Faith where women cannot serve are Members of the Universal House of Justice. No one knows with authority the reason why this is so, although 'Abdu'l-Baha has said that the reason will eventually be made clear. And while, to me, this inability to serve appears to conflict with the teachings about the equality of men and women, I also know that 'Abdu'l-Baha has said there is a wisdom behind this. I'm going to trust Him on this.

Does the fact that women cannot serve on the Universal House of Justice invalidate the extensive statements throughout the Baha'i Writings that women and men are equal in the sight of God? Not to me, it doesn't.

Pete in Panama

My wife's penis or lack of same is not the issue; yours is. OK, you've got one and even if you're uncomfortable talking about it you're still a guy who's deciding unasked what women want. This issue is not one of equal rights for those that say they want them, but rather a question of how open we are to other people running their own lives as they see fit. In the US men are not allowed to urinate in public. Most other places in the world they are. Different places have different rules for how much skin which sexes can show. The question is how much we want to interfere in the private affairs of 'consenting adults' in other cultures.My studying US history doesn't change the fact that other cultures are going to set rules as they see fit and you may not always approve. You seem to have decided to 'protect' a group that hasn't asked for and does not want your protection. You may want to rethink that.

Napkin

If you had any knowledge of US history, you'd know that the argument you are making has been made before. Paul Fikelman has a little book called "Defending Slavery". It is filled with argument very similar to yours. There are also extensive articles BY WOMEN arguing against women's suffrage. The difference is, most of those writings explain why they think women should not vote. Your argument is simply: "the master said so".

Speaking of culture, how many people, in the American culture, are going to be satisfied with "because the master said so"?

Itena

Well, yes, because the answer, as "The Master said", will be clear in the future, and not now. And yes, we will follow what the Master says, because we believe in Him, we trust Him, we love Him.

It's like how you have to trust your hairdresser; you can't be anxious and questioning everything the hairdresser does, because even when some steps don't make any sense to you, the end result is a beautiful hair-do. So you just have to believe them and give them your confidence.

Napkin

I understand thats your own personal perspective, and that you dont speak for all Bahais, but what you are describing is the very definition of a cult.

A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

Itena

Soooo.... I happen to think that Abdu'l Baha was trustworthy and worth my love and respect... and you believe that's the very definition of a cult?

IndistinctDreamer

There is a fundamental point that seems to be missing. In my opinion anyway when we say equality it does not mean everyone must be the same. Lets take a soccer team for example, one must play the goalkeeper and one must play the striker, lets say a male plays the goal keeper and a female the striker. Are they equal? yes, in that without the other the team would not be able to function. Are they the same? no, you cannot have the entire team be strikers, I will leave the reasoning behind that for your logical mind to calculate (it shouldn't be too difficult).

Fadl

Let me see if I follow.

Suppose I have an apple and a banana. Both are equally fruit, but they taste different and don't look the same and nobody's got the right to say one is better than the other because you can't have a fruit salad without both. Am i right? Or bananas and oranges are only equal once they acquire the same function and characteristic??

Jeesh, this equality stuff is tricky!

IndistinctDreamer

Interesting perspective

Fadl

It gives me the idea that God likes diversity. Just maybe!

rockollector

I do not consider muself "not allowed" to be a member of the UHJ. Instead, I am exempted. One distinction in Baha'i elections is that one does not aspire to any position. In the perfect world, to aspire to a position of authority would be considered a stumbling block to serve is such a position. Just look at the humble attitude of Hands of the Cause such as Mr. Khadem who always begged the friends not to give him too much respect lest it "go to his head". It is a service if one is selected by their fellow members to be a part of any level of the Administrative Order. This can be a difficult concept to grasp in today's competitive, even hostile political climate.

Rani

Exactly.

'Election to an Assembly, from a Baha'i point of view, is not a right that people are entitled to, or an honor to which they should aspire; it is a duty and responsibility to which they may be called. The purpose is that those who are elected to an Assembly should be the most worthy for this service; this does not and cannot mean that all those who are worthy will be elected'.

(From a memorandum dated 16 November 1988 written bu the Universal House of Justice to the International Teaching Centre, The Sanctity and Nature of Baha'i Elections, no. 18, p.4.)


Whether it is election to an Assembly, local or National, or to the Universal House of Justice, the same principle applies.
God forbid that anyone would see service as a member of such an Institution as a status to achieve. Any lust and desire for 'leadership' surely breeds the potential for corruption.
It is not something that anyone should covet, as some kind of status, no.
That would be the beginning of the end, as far as I'm concerned. It is a service to which a very few people will be called and which they endeavour to carry out in extreme humility.

Napkin

Safe to say Baha'is would not vote for a female US president?

Rani

Hi Napkin,

Really, Gender has nothing to do with a person's qualification for the job of President. If I were voting essentially for the election of a National leader, I would not consider gender important, but would look at criteria like their values, their policies, competency and effectiveness in their work role to date and character.

Election to the House of Justice is open to men only and as you know we're told that the reason for that according to Abdu'l-Baha 'will erelong be made manifest as clearly as the sun at high noon.'

There is no reason why females cannot serve as leaders in political positions; and as it's been pointed out, women fill roles in all other parts of the Baha'i Administration.

I don't think it's a matter of capacity of women vs. men. For most baha'is it's entirely an issue of trust. That is, we trust that there is a reason for this law that we don't presently comprehend. And truly, why should it matter? All service to God is service.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emilia Normally one bases conclusions on actual evidence and not mere imaginings, unfounded assumptions, and emotional outbursts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhang ^ This paired with

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emilia Maybe they could be hookers -- yeah, that would show some serious righteousness!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhang Baffles me.

What--so now you're admitting you've never heard of--let alone studied--irony??!!!

As has already been mentioned, women have served in every other capacity in the Baha'i Faith, including Hand of the Cause of God and Continental Counsellors.

You're also overlooking that fact that in some circumstances, the Baha'i scriptures mandate women PREFERENCE OVER MALES!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhang Mírzá would be very much pleased with you.

You're showing your ignorance yet again:

"Mirza" is a title, not a name, and simply means "Mister." So it's completely wrong to use it as you have here.

And you're completely ignoring the actual name.

Less talking/posting and a bit more study just might work wonders!

Bruce

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Napkin [W]hat you are describing is the very definition of a cult.

Well, since it obviously seems to need clarification:

Based on Combating Cult Mind Control" by Steven Hassan, here are the criteria for determining "cults":

1. How new members are found.

Dangerous Cults: With many cults, you don't get to know what you are getting into until after you have made a commitment.

Baha'i Faith: What you see is what you get: there are no secrets.


2. How funding is obtained.

Dangerous Cults: Commercial operations and/or mandatory donations (often large percentages) by members.

Baha'i Faith: Has no commercial businesses, collection plates are never passed, and donations are completely voluntary and accepted from enrolled members only.


3. Charismatic central figure.

Dangerous Cults: Cults usually have a central living figure who often lives on income from adherents.

Baha'i Faith: There is no living central figure in the Baha'i Faith (and there has been none since 1957); government is by bodies freely elected from the membership. There is no clergy, paid or unpaid.


4. Investigation of truth.

Dangerous Cults: Members are often told that it is dangerous to investigate other religions.

Baha'i Faith: Baha'is are encouraged to investigate all religions, and to appreciate truth no matter where it is found.


5. Behavior control, as defined by Hassan. *

Dangerous Cults: Persons may be told where to live, what to wear, or what (and how much) to eat. Sleep and freedom to travel or move about may be limited.

Baha'i Faith: Baha'is do not live in communes, but in the world as normal individuals and families. They wear no special or required clothing. The religion has no food requirements other than abstaining from alcohol, and the annual nineteen-day fast during which food and drink is not consumed during daylight hours only. Baha'is may get as much sleep as they want, eat whatever they want, work and live where they want.


6. Thought control as defined by Hassan. *

Dangerous Cults: There is often use of "thought-stopping" techniques such as chanting or speaking in tongues for long periods of time, setting up a type of hypnotic atmosphere.

Baha'i Faith: Chanting and prayer are not prolonged, nor is their intent to block thought. There is no speaking in tongues. Thought and investigation are encouraged.


7. Emotional control, as defined by Hassan. *

Dangerous Cults: Guilt and fear are often used to control members, including alternating praise and public humiliation or forced confession, and indoctrination against leaving the group.

Baha'i Faith: Confession to and humiliation of others are forbidden. Members are free to leave the Faith at any time if they so choose, without stigma.


8. What happens when people leave the religion.

Dangerous Cults: People who leave cults are often considered to be dangerous and are usually shunned.

Baha'i Faith: Baha'is are generally permitted and encouraged to remain friends with people who leave. The only exception is in the case of a person declared to be a "Covenant breaker" by the Universal House of Justice due to an attempt to split the Baha'i Faith. There is no condemnation of those who voluntarily choose to leave.

o O o

* Hassan, Steven, Combating Cult Mind Control, Park Street Press, One Park Street, Rochester, Vermont 05767, 1988, ISBN 0-89281-311-3. "The Four Components of Mind Control", pages 59-67.


Just the facts.

Bruce

Napkin

Bruce,
I never believed Baha'i was a cult until I read your post....

1. How new members are found.
Many ex Baha'i s left because they didn't know what they got themselves into til they signed and were allowed into the feast/money collection event. People are told Bahai agrees with science, and believes in equality, then they learn Baha'is deny evolution, women cannot lead, and gays are considered handicap. I've attended recruitment training events (reflection meetings) where they teach young recruiters to twist the truth and not even mention they are from a religious group, unless directly questioned. Bahai's have also changed the names of things to mislead seekers. For example, proselytizing is now called teaching, Going to church is going to the feast, clergy is called a facilitator, etc.

2) How funding is obtained.
Baha'is are required to pay 19% of their income. I have personally witnessed Baha'i leaders repeatedly remind very poor people that they have not contributed enough.

3) Charismatic central figure.
You r right about this one.*

4) Investigation of truth
I was told not to ever visit any sites that say anything against Baha'i and not to attend any church or I would be sanctioned. Bahai leaders also made fun of christian beliefs, and I don't think you can argue that Baha'is hate Muslims.

5) Behavior control
Baha'is are trained from childhood to migrate to where the leaders think they are needed. By the time they are grown ups, they see this as a point of pride. They are given a list of countries they need to pioneer to.

6) Thought control
Are you telling me Baha'is do not chant Arabic for hours?? I hope you are kidding. At the feast, they chant in Arabic for hours. I know several older American Baha'is who left the religion because they simply could not tolerate the outloud Arabic chanting anymore. Most prayers are about giving God what he wants. At the end of the chanting, they tell the hypnotized members God wants money.

7) Emotional control
You are right about this one too. Bahai's are free to leave and they have been leaving by the thousands. In my area, I have met more ex-Bahai's than active Baha'is.

8) What happens when people leave the religion
Every ex-bahai I met agrees that once you leave you are shunned, unfriended on FB, not greeted when your accidentally run into them.

*Conclusion: The main difference between Baha'i and a cult: Bahai's leader is no longer living.

Zhang

Whoa whoa now, I love you Napkin but the hijab IS a choice in Islam despite what the criminals might tell you. It's not even in the Qur'an. It just says dress modestly.

But Napkin raises some very good points. What's the deal with the chanting?! That's crazy. Are you sure it's Arabic or is it Farsi?

I've met two Baha'is in my life and they were super-nice and super-accepting.

However, it is worth saying that I was in fact raised in a cult for the first part of my life, and the Baha'is around here don't really smell like it. Trust me I know a cult when I see one. It was a terrifying and horrible experience.

A good point aswell, that although the faith seems to uphold science very seriously, many of it's members don't believe in evolution (as if it could be believed in, any more than gravity or sunshine) and our recent poll showed that almost half of the members on this forum who answered the question think there is an issue with homosexuality. (A little less if we ignore Iconodule)...

Please don't ignore Napkin, I look forward to hearing his claims addressed.

Itena

I don't know about chanting for hours, but even so what on Earth is wrong with chanting? I think it's the most uplifting kind of music. So, so beautiful! I don't understand why you think it's a form of brainwash; all it is is the prayers sung by people. People are influenced by other people's thoughts, by exposing themselves directly to things, not by some mysterious sounds that are in a language you can't understand.

IndistinctDreamer

2) That's not how huququ'llah works, no one forces you to do it that's between you and God. Donations at feast are voluntary, no one should be pressuring anyone else into donating to the fund.

4) I find that hard to believe, from my understanding if we want to go to a church we are free to do so, not sure what kind of community your living in. Baha'i's hate Muslims? what are you even basing this on?

5) This is based on what? your assumptions?

6) How long does your feast go for that allows Arabic chants to go on for hours? if in our community we have a Persian or Arabic chant it would be one or two at most and they aren't very long. I've never heard of anyone telling others what God wants after a chant.

Either your community is messed up or your pulling things from thin air, I have reason to believe from the nature of all your previous posts that it is the latter.