The Gift Of The Bab
	found on the BBC written by wandie, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 22 Mar 4:00pm
		Millions of Baha'is around the globe celebrated the Baha'i New Year's Day on March 21st. Bah what? you say? Baha'i is one of the youngest of the world's independent religions, a monotheistic faith whose members follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah, founder and prophet of the religion. Its central theme is that humanity is one single race and that the day has come for its unification in one global society.

	Running with that general theme, some of the basic laws of the Baha'i faith read more like the UN charter than a religion, Men and women are equal. Universal education for all. The eradication of extreme poverty and wealth. Establishment of a global village of nations. Abandonment of prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or class. Baha'is believe that, despite the dark times we're in right now, world peace is inevitable. Is this the bestest and most optimistic religion you didn't know about? Or not?

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 68 commentsbest: 2 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  No way it ever makes the big time   by Brian Jones       at Tue 22 Mar 4:51pm score of 1.5 helpful     Look at the big guys. God. Zeus. Thor. Nice solid monosyllabic names. Easy to chant. The Baha'i deity's name is too complicated. Too many apostrophes, plus all those vowels strung together. It's one umlaut away from being the name of a band that plays Hawaiian speed-metal. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: No way it ever makes the big time   by thefadd       at Tue 22 Mar 4:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Hmmm... I don't see Zeus doing so well these days. When was the last time someone killed in his name — 694 AD? I'm skeptical of any fairy-based morality system.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   5.  Re: No way it ever makes the big time   by Brian Jones       at Tue 22 Mar 5:18pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 2     When was the last time someone killed in his name — 694 AD? They've made shitty movies in his name. Whether any viewers were killed is unknown. Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   10.  Re: No way it ever makes the big time   by silence       at Wed 23 Mar 7:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     If there's no way to take power or make a lot of money, it'll never take off. People, in general, they just ain't no good.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: No way it ever makes the big time   by Leomoregi       at Wed 23 Mar 10:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Actually, the Baha'i deity is called "God." Baha'u'llah is just a prophet.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: No way it ever makes the big time   by 74westy       at Wed 23 Mar 11:23am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 1     Baha'u'llah. She's my baby. Baha'u'llah. Don't mean maybe. Baha'u'llah. She's my baby. Baha'u'llah. Don't mean maybe. Baha'u'llah. She-he-he's my baby doll, my baby doll, my baby doll. I am Sparticus!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  Dude   by thefadd       at Tue 22 Mar 4:58pm score of 1.5 funny     It's gotta be so damn easy to start your own religion. Honestly, is there anything easier? I don't think you even have to be able to tie your shoes. I'm skeptical of any fairy-based morality system.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

43.  Re: Dude   by ststrat       at Wed 23 Mar 9:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 3     Honestly, is there anything easier? Gulling the marks with an existing religion? Right?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: Dude   by thefadd       at Thu 24 Mar 1:00am score of 1   in reply to comment 43     Gulling the marks with an existing religion? Right? But then you have to occasionally pay attention to some crap some other people made up and at least explain your crap in terms of their crap. Sure you get built-in followers but they're not nearly as fun as newly converted zealots anyway. Start your own and you can make up all the crap yourself and everyone you do get on board is pretty much guaranteed to be a zealot. I'm skeptical of any fairy-based morality system.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Classic religion.   by Chronon       at Tue 22 Mar 5:05pm score of 2 succinct     It looks like another case of corruption by power. The censoring stuff looks pretty damning. My guess is the founder probably had high ideals, but once again we see the followers corrupting the movement for their political gain. The sad truth is that any message, no matter how [especially if?] positive can be used as a hook. Once you've got people dangling from your hook you have power.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  so you're saying useless is better   by Anonymous Idiot       at Wed 23 Mar 12:34pm score of 0.5 compelling   in reply to comment 4     The flip side of that is that any religion without power is generally useless. It's nice, it's pretty and it has no ability to effect change in the world. You might compare it to the left during the Bush years: high ideals, zero effect. Power may corrupt, but without it you can't un-corrupt either.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  It won't succeed yet   by Grand High Wonko       at Wed 23 Mar 1:11am score of 1.5 novel     I had a Baha'i friend in university who was a religious refugee from Iran. Apparently after the revolution a large amount of Baha'i communities were wiped out or driven out. I generally liked the precepts of the faith except for the no intoxicants or coffee rule, but it won't be successful as a religion until someone finds a way to allow war and the idea that some people are better than others. Look at Christianity, it took the concepts of "just war" and "divine rule of kings" to get it to break into the big time. Islam already allowed war, but it was the Caliphates that really got it to take off. Buddhism's most successful incarnations were Thai Buddhism which allowed for both criteria and Japanese Zen which was appropriated by the samurai. I know that I'm being more than a bit cynical, but if the teachings of Christ can be perverted into "kill everyone who isn't like you", Baha'i could most certainly be altered to allow for these two precepts. "We were warriors then, and our tribe was strong like a river" - Hunter S. Thompson   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Re: It won't succeed yet   by philipmarlowe       at Wed 23 Mar 11:29am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     Buddhism's most successful incarnations were Thai Buddhism which allowed for both criteria and Japanese Zen which was appropriated by the samurai I would say that Mahayana buddhism, which by far the most widespread, is the most successful strain of Buddhism. Zen is really a small scale specialty by comparison. this is not a sig   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: It won't succeed yet   by MisterMetternich       at Thu 24 Mar 10:18am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 19     According to the Internet : Mahayana 56% 185,000,000 Theravada 38% 124,000,000 Of course Zen is a subsect of Mahayana, so one can hardly say that all Mahayana is, so to speak, stateless. To my mind, the most successful schools of Buddhism, insofar as they were doctrinally coherent as well as popular, were in the Thai Kingdom, and in the ancient Asokan empire. Still, Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) was really badly beaten in the polls, with only 6% of the world's Buddhists. The lesson we can draw from this is that if we are going to start our own religion it will take more than really massive hats, shady metaphysics, and esoteric chanting. It would help to have an army behind us besides the wisdom and compassion in our hearts.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: It won't succeed yet   by philipmarlowe       at Thu 24 Mar 10:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 51     I get your main point and I agree with it to a point. Mainstream Buddhism has very much adapted to a point that it doesn't much disturb money and warmaking. Had it not been able to, it would have never been more than a curiosity. Still, I think your characterization of Zen is wrong. It was used in the training of Samurai, but it's never been any kind of state religion, or a mainstream religion of any kind. Instead, it's a very monkish, intellectual specialty whose very esotericism has gained it a lot of attention, especially in the west where Buddhism is considered an exotic sort of mysticism for modern diletantes. this is not a sig   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: It won't succeed yet   by Norman108       at Fri 25 Mar 1:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 53     True about the dilettantes, but you can also look at one of Buddhism's strengths as the fact some it's esoteric aspects are so much more integrated into its structures. The Western view associating Buddhism with meditation and other esotericisms does not arise in a vacuum. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: It won't succeed yet   by Smash Hit Tom       at Fri 25 Mar 10:33am score of 1   in reply to comment 51     Still, Vajrayana (Tibetan Buddhism) was really badly beaten in the polls, with only 6% of the world's Buddhists. At least they can claim 97% of the world's dilettante celebrities. Though they have to watch their backs, Kabbalah is making a strong move. "When you think about it, Johnny Appleseed was a fucking ecological terrorist" - Oyster from C. Palahniuk's Lullaby   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: It won't succeed yet   by ghostwriter       at Sat 26 Mar 11:54pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     phillipmarlowe et al — I had assumed the same about Zen until a passing reference to this book, Zen at War, by Brian Victoria led me to read a bit more. Zen's influence has gone well beyond merely serving as a part of the Samurai Path. To swipe part of the description of Zen at War from the Amazon site, "Zen served as a powerful spiritual and ideological foundation for the fanatic and suicidal spirit displayed by the imperial Japanese military." Not quite the same thing as a state religion, but nonetheless a driving influence on the reigning power structure. Recently the leaders of two of Zen's main schools made formal apologies for the role that Zen had played in fomenting the war. This isn't to say that I disagree with your main point, though. Religion and power are so closely allied that I don't think there can be much dispute.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   21.  Re: It won't succeed yet   by 74westy       at Wed 23 Mar 11:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 6     I know that I'm being more than a bit cynical, but if the teachings of Christ can be perverted into "kill everyone who isn't like you", Baha'i could most certainly be altered to allow for these two precepts. And it certainly will be. It's either a religion or it isn't. If it is it's based on faith, which is inherently subjective. People will always end up having faith in what they want to believe. Ulimately, like all religions, Baha'i will conform to human nature. I am Sparticus!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  My first experience with Baha'i   by Black Art       at Wed 23 Mar 3:56am score of 1.5 funny     The first time I saw a Baha'i church I had a very strong irony reaction. The sign out front said "everyone welcome". The sign in the window said "No Trespassing". "But Hercules -- I thought you wanted a stable job!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Feh.   by waldeaux       at Wed 23 Mar 7:22am score of 1     "Abandonment of prejudice based on race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or class..." ... but not sexual orientation which pretty much destroys the concept of unification in one global society unless there's some kind of final solution to get rid of us. Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Re: Feh.   by davidpalter       at Wed 23 Mar 8:51am score of 1.5 nuanced   in reply to comment 8     Yes, that's an interesting observation. I also read an interview with the Dalai Lama recently, in which he was asked about the position of Tibetan Buddhism about homosexuality, and he said that sex is for reproduction, an answer which succinctly reflects the conventional religious position of the Roman Catholic church and conservative religions everywhere. It's remarkable how a religion such as Baha'i which goes to such lengths to emphasize the need for tolerance and inclusion of all types of people within the human race, still makes an exception for homosexuals. Apparently homophobia is the one form of intolerance that even those who pride themselves on their tolerance still like to cling to, the last socially acceptable form of bigotry. In any event, I am not all that sympathetic toward religion, which insists upon introducing very implausible supernatural elements into philosophies which might otherwise be sound moral systems, but certainly I am not going to feel any sympathy toward those who use their religion to foster homophobia. They are just another bunch of hypocritical fools (and God will punish them for it). — dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Feh.   by wandie       at Wed 23 Mar 9:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Think about it this way. Religion is generally spread via people. To keep your religion alive whilst going through persecution, famine, , you'd need to produce more children than they can kill off and brainwa...teach them the holy word of your god. Preaching 'God Hates Gays', 'God Forbids Abortions', 'Thou Shall Not Waste His Seed' yadda yadda, in the churches and temples and mosques is just a nicer (and prolly more effective) way of saying 'We'll be outbred by the bastard infidels if you keep fucking your brother'.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: Feh.   by kingj02       at Wed 23 Mar 11:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     A homosexual that abstains from sex is still a homosexual; the act is not prerequisite. What is the Dalai Lama's view on homosexuals that don't (or can't) have sex? Bear in mind that his comment "sex is for reproduction" applies to straight couples, too. Unless the Dalai went into further detail, I wouldn't paint Buddhism with the homophobia brush just yet. Maybe I'm biased towards Buddhism since of the few Buddhists I've met, none of them struck me as the least bit intolerant. On the contrary, living in the Bible Belt of the US, there's nary a tolerant Christian to be found. Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Feh.   by landonair       at Wed 23 Mar 1:38pm score of 1 succinct   in reply to comment 11     Maybe, just maybe, it's because all cultures around the world in every age instinctively find the idea of two men having sex revolting. Ok, almost. I forgot the Greeks. "It's so easy to say things that are so idealistic without reasoning and thinking them out in the big picture"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Feh.   by davidpalter       at Wed 23 Mar 9:45am score of 1 astute   in reply to comment 12     In earlier historical times, when most of the world's religions had their origins, there was a real struggle to maintain a tribal population in the face of very high child mortality rates (in the absence of any real medical knowledge), tribal warfare, periodic famines, plagues, and assorted disasters. Even then, however, it wasn't actually necessary to ban homosexuality. After all, these same early cultures also practiced polygamy. The heterosexual men could have more wives, if the homosexual men didn't want them, and as long as all the fertile women had heterosexual husbands (even if several wives had to share a husband) then the birthrate would be just as high as if all the men participated in the reproductive process (although there would be slightly less genetic diversity, a concern that primitive tribes didn't have, not knowing anything about genetics anyway). Lesbian separatists could (slightly) threaten the birthrate, but except for the (probably legendary) Amazon warriors, they didn't exist until recent times (and are still not very numerous). Wives who had girlfriends on the side could still have husbands and become pregnant thereby. The birthrate would be just as high. Homosexuality never really threatened the birthrate. Anti-gay prejudice is even more ridiculous in the present time, when the world suffers from an excess of population rather than an insufficiency. Practical thinking (if people were capable of such a thing) would suggest that it is good to have homosexuals who are not reproducing, to reduce global population growth. Even though here are some specific ethnicities which are declining in population, the world as a whole is getting very crowded and resources are under great strain. There are too many people to fit on our single planet, and no interplanetary colonization is taking place. While I can imagine some hypothetical future in which the planetary population is greatly reduced and everyone's reproductive contribution is needed to help maintain the genetic diversity of the human species, there is no telling when, if ever, this may come to pass. And even then there would not be any reason to object to homosexuality, since homosexual men can still act as sperm donors. Relatively simple technology can make up for the lack of heterosexual ardor. — dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Re: Feh.   by philipmarlowe       at Wed 23 Mar 11:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     Maybe I'm biased towards Buddhism since of the few Buddhists I've met, none of them struck me as the least bit intolerant. Well, Buddhism is hardly a monolithic religion. Much less so than Christianity, which isn't all that monolithic in its own right. The Dalai Lama is only the spiritual leader of the Tibetans, who hardly form a majority of the worlds Buddhists. this is not a sig   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Feh.   by davidpalter       at Wed 23 Mar 11:40am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     It may well be that the view of the Dalai Lama (which is not necessarily the view of Buddhism in general, he speaks only for Tibetan Buddhism, or as it is more formally known, Vajrayana Buddhism) is that it is perfectly acceptable for people to be homosexual as long as they refrain from performing homosexual acts, but if so, that is still intolerant. I would like you to imagine, for a moment, that you travel to the mythical planet of Athos, where homosexuality is the norm and heterosexuality is regarded as a disgusting perversion. As you step off the spaceship you are advised that while you have every right to be a heterosexual and no one will hold this against you for a moment, you are strictly forbidden to ever perform a heterosexual act. And you are going to live on Athos for the rest of your life. Is this a satisfactory situation? Do you agree that you should never have sex (or at least, never have the kind of sex that you want to have) because someone else finds it offensive? Does that constitute tolerance by your definition? I can think of several possible explanations for the fact that Buddhists have never struck you as being intolerant. The situation may simply not have arisen. Perhaps they would be intolerant of homosexuality if they were ever exposed to it. Or, possibly they are not followers of the Dalai Lama (most Buddhists aren't). Even if they are Vajrayana Buddhists, they may not believe in rigid adherence to official doctrine. They may never even have heard of the official doctrine. I know that Pope John Paul II has expressed his disapproval of homosexuality, but I personally know several Catholics who are entirely tolerant of it. Religion means different things to everybody. We all wind up inventing our own versions. In general I would expect that Buddhists are more tolerant of a greater variety of human beings than Christians are, but not all Buddhists and not all Christians will conform to this general tendency. I mentioned the Dalai Lama because he is usually considered to be an example of a particularly enlightened and benevolent person, filled with love for all humanity. Like the Baha'i religion, he has a strange blind-spot. And yes, the doctrine that "sex is for reproduction" does apply to heterosexuals as well, and again in a strangely Roman Catholic way. Such things as birth control pills or masturbation or oral sex (etc.) are all examples of non-reproductive sex that neither the Catholic Church nor the Dalai Lama approve of, if sex must be reserved solely for reproductive purposes. To me it is obvious that sex does have some important purposes other than reproduction, although reproduction does remain one of the important purposes of sex. And not everybody is obligated to reproduce, either. Such choices should be left to individuals. I do not like to have clergymen or anyone else telling me what kind of sex I should or should not be having. — dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Feh.   by Adipic Acid       at Wed 23 Mar 11:49am score of 1 nuanced   in reply to comment 13     Anti-gay prejudice is even more ridiculous in the present time, when the world suffers from an excess of population rather than an insufficiency. Really? How do you figure that we have an excess of population? We can most certainly feed, clothe, and care for the entire current population of the Earth with the current resources available. We choose not to. That is not an indication of an excess of population, but a deficit of compassion. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: Feh.   by davidpalter       at Wed 23 Mar 12:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 23     There are several methods by which we could in theory improve the living standards of everybody without having to reduce the global population. You suggest a more compassionate world (although you don't explain how it is that we can make the world more compassionate — perhaps very eloquent comments posted on Plastic will have a massive social influence, although given our inability to prevent the re-election of George W. Bush, I have my doubts). Alternatively, we could develop a sophisticated high-tech civilization in which the resources of the entire solar system are exploited to support the needs of people on Earth. There are vast quantities of resources that we haven't even touched, such as metals from the asteroid ring, solar power that is currently radiating uselessly out to space rather than being collected by photovoltaic cells, hydrocarbons from the moons of Jupiter, etc. The Matrix. Put everybody into a full-time virtual reality simulation and they can live in electronic coffins and use less resources (also this is a great way to hold down the rate of reproduction — all sex will be imaginary). Genetically alter people to be able to breathe under water, and let them colonize the ocean floor. New resources open up like magic. Petition God to send down more manna from Heaven. It worked for Moses, why not do it again? Use your psychic powers to hypnotise the entire human race and force them to abandon all selfish and destructive activities in favor of racial harmony and cooperation. These are all TERRIFIC solutions which I hope will come to pass. Until that time I still claim that there are just too many people competing for the scarce resources of our limited world. That is the ugly reality, like it or not. — dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: Feh.   by wandie       at Wed 23 Mar 12:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     "These are all TERRIFIC solutions which I hope will come to pass. Until that time I still claim that there are just too many people competing for the scarce resources of our limited world. That is the ugly reality, like it or not. — dp " Competition has always been part of people's lives. Reducing the population to X century levels won't solve the problem. Resources will always be scarce or be perceived to be scarce. And people will fight for them with big guns and bombs or with sticks and stones. But I like your fatalistic sense of humour.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: Feh.   by Adipic Acid       at Wed 23 Mar 12:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     Until that time I still claim that there are just too many people competing for the scarce resources of our limited world. That is the ugly reality, like it or not. If it is reality, then it should be easy to prove, yes? We produce enough food to feed everyone, we have sufficient technology to create fresh water from the 75% of our planet covered in the stuff, etc, etc. We are no where near the carrying capacity of this planet. That is the ugly reality, like it or not. If you believe otherwise, please do the rest of us a favor and shoot yourself — it's the only moral thing to do if overpopulation is truly the root cause of all of our present problems. No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: Feh.   by kingj02       at Wed 23 Mar 1:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     Does that constitute tolerance by your definition? A "your allowed, but ::wink, wink, nudge, nudge:: you better not!" society is not tolerant as the choice is not free. I relate that to the Christian belief that God gave you a choice, but if you choose poorly, you'll be punished. Please note that my previous comment was based on the naive generalization that Buddhism is about abstaining from one's desires. Based on this assumption, sex for pleasure is not allowed. And FYI: I do not advocate homophobia. As I often told a former roommate at college: you don't have to become gay--you don't even have to like them--but you not allowed to force your own beliefs on someone else! There is no debate in my mind. ...not all Buddhists and not all Christians will conform to this general tendency. I know. And I don't hold them all in the same light. And yes, the doctrine that "sex is for reproduction" does apply to heterosexuals as well, and again in a strangely Roman Catholic way. Actually, the pope partially rescinded that. Sex within marriage is now viewed as an expression of love. Yet another sin made acceptable because nobody wanted to abide by it. Such choices should be left to individuals. I do not like to have clergymen or anyone else telling me what kind of sex I should or should not be having. Agreed. Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: Feh.   by kingj02       at Wed 23 Mar 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Your argument is a short-term view. What makes the short-term more moral than the long-term? If it is reality, then it should be easy to prove, yes? We produce enough food to feed everyone, we have sufficient technology to create fresh water from the 75% of our planet covered in the stuff, etc, etc. Actually, I think America alone has a large enough surplus to feed the world. The reasons for not doing it all boils down to economics. If we feed the starving children, a logical conclusion is that they will survive, right? Then they will grown to adulthood. Then they will have their own children. And now we must double the supply of food. Do this for a few generations and suddenly our surplus is gone. The question then becomes "How much do I sacrafice to feed the children (which is far more than original amount)?" So, how much are you willing to give up? We are no where near the carrying capacity of this planet. That is the ugly reality, like it or not. This does not mean we should continue until were at the maximum capacity. If you believe otherwise, please do the rest of us a favor and shoot yourself — it's the only moral thing to do if overpopulation is truly the root cause of all of our present problems. That makes no sense at all. I'm better able to help solve the worlds problems while alive, than dead. And just a suggestion: it would better demonstrate your morality if you actually did something other than scold other people for not doing what haven't done either. Ardente veritate incendite tenebras mundi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Feh.   by Adipic Acid       at Wed 23 Mar 2:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 32     Mr. Malthus wrote this same argument back in Darwin's day, yet the population has doubled several times over since then. The simple fact of the matter is that although there is a maximum sustainable population for the planet, nobody knows what it actually is. To argue that we must aggressively reduce population because we have reached that unknown limit is ridiculous. And I don't believe that the world's problems are caused by overpopulation, so I hardly think I need carry out my advice. I merely was observing that if our problems are due to overpopulation then more than a few people are going to have to die to solve them, and who would you recommend? No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Churchill   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Feh.   by davidpalter       at Wed 23 Mar 4:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     The reduction of an excessive planetary population does not require us to kill anyone, since everybody dies eventually whether we kill them or not; it only requires us to reproduce less. That was the point of my original comment to which you have protested at such length, that homosexuality need not be regarded as a bad thing if we would like to have a lower rate of reproduction in an overpopulated world. Your continually reiterated argument that there is enough food, enough water, and enough of everything for everyone at current population levels IF the resources were evenly distributed, ignores the point that I already made, that the even distribution of resources isn't happening and isn't going to happen, therefore it is not a realistic solution, whereas a reduction in the rate of reproduction would be a more realistic objective that could be accomplished (for example by making family planning education and tools more readily available, by overcoming religious resistance to family planning, etc.) and which would actually make life better in countries that currently experience great economic difficulties. Furthermore, from a purely environmental viewpoint, every human being alive on Earth has some environmental impact, in terms of the various forms of environmental pollution, depletion, and degeneration that are now in progress. Even though you are certain that the population is not excessive, I see the world in a state of environmental decline. Nonetheless, I am not suggesting that anybody should be killed in order to reduce the population, nor do I intend to kill myself at this time, to set a good example (sorry to disappoint you). I merely suggest that less reproduction would be helpful. — dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   36.  Re: Feh.   by davidpalter       at Wed 23 Mar 4:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     I think that you are evading my point. You're telling me that competition for resources has always existed and will always exist, so it doesn't matter how many people there are living on planet Earth. Whether it's a milliion, a billion, a trillion, or a quadrillion, it's all the same, right? But the world has finite resources, that is a mathematical fact. The higher the human population, the less potential resources there are (in terms of land, food, water, energy, etc.) per capita. There does come a point when there really are too many people, and I think we have reached that point. — dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: Feh.   by davidpalter       at Wed 23 Mar 4:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Well, you haven't actually stated an ugly reality, but at least you have posted an ugly comment. — dp   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: Feh.   by davidpalter       at Wed 23 Mar 4:50pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Yes, it could be that all cultures around the world instinctively find the idea of two men having sex revolting. The reason for that is that in all cultures (except for the planet Athos*) the majority of the population is heterosexual, and since human beings tend toward xenophobia, they are instinctively intolerant of anyone different from themselves. If the human race should ever become more mature, it will get over this kind of instinct and recognize that we are all human beings, after all, and intolerance will get us nowhere. — dp * (see "Ethan of Athos" by Lois McMaster Bujold)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: Feh.   by Leamur67       at Wed 23 Mar 7:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     David, I think your misunderstanding of what the Dalai Lama really said when he responded to the question about homosexuality with "sex is for reproduction" is understandable given our cultural context, but quite ethnocentric, and therefore intolerant on your own part. (sorry) Here's the thing, David: let's say that in that imaginary planet we've stepped off into, reproduction occurs through homosexual rather than heterosexual means, so it's me who's got a fetish about the means of my sexual gratification. That would be awkward for me, yes, since I like sexual gratification as much as anyone. The part you seem to fail to grasp is that desire for sexual gratification is itself a fetish. The Dalai Lama isn't telling you what kind of sex you should or should not be having for sexual gratification, he's saying that the purpose of sex is reproduction, not sexual gratification. Now, most people don't like that very much either, but in the context of Buddhism and its goals and the goals of dharma-practice, the statement that sex is for reproduction is logical and correct. It is not a moral judgment; it's a statement about existence. The Dalai Lama doesn't expect people to suddenly not have a desire for sexual gratification just because he and his tradition identify it as a fetish. It's not even expected that most people will do the work on themselves necessary to recognize their desire for sexual gratification as a fetish and overcome it. He's not saying "don't have homosexual sex, because sex is for reproduction," more like "sex is for reproduction, but we perceive and experience it as being about gratification and this limits us and if we can develop our perception to separate the thing itself from our experience of it we can free ourselves of the pain and bondage associated with it and be of more use to each other." He may have only said the first four words, but the rest is the Buddhist context you appear from your comments to be ignorant of. It's unfortunate that you are so sensitized to hearing certain value judgments that you hear them when completely other value judgments were at issue. If you are interested, this lecture might help you understand how differently what is good and correct is perceived in Tibetan Buddhism from our own culture's ideals of "rights" (to have sex the way we want to, etc.) Or not. I don't mean you're not entitled to your ethnocentrism and beliefs, but what you've said here is really nonsense stemming from your misunderstanding what someone from another cultural perspective has said.   (Luv you anyway, but c'mon, get a grip.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tell the truth. (Then run.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Feh.   by arromdee       at Thu 24 Mar 10:07am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 42     He's not saying "don't have homosexual sex, because sex is for reproduction," more like "sex is for reproduction, but we perceive and experience it as being about gratification and this limits us... Doesn't this amount to pretty much the same thing? If sex is for reproduction and people who perceive it otherwise are not enlightened, then he's claiming that practicing homosexuals (who by definition, perceive it otherwise) are not enlightened. It's still morally judging gays. Saying "there's nothing wrong with doing that, but there's something wrong with anyone who would do that" is not an improvement.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Feh.   by MisterMetternich       at Thu 24 Mar 10:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 22     For Buddhists (though to my mind the Dalai Lama only barely counts as a Buddhist anyway) sex is a result of craving, leads to more craving, and is a direct road away from Nirvana. I don't see why they should tolerate anyone having sex at all, spiritually speaking. Perhaps the Lamas view reproductive sex as a vaguely tolerable thing for the wholly unenlightened plebeians to do to themselves, but not something that should really be encouraged.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: Feh.   by Leamur67       at Thu 24 Mar 8:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Again, you are applying your own context where it does not apply. This is not about judging people as enlightened or not. It is not a moral judgment to say that human potential has not been reached. If I use the example of dogs vs. wolves, wherein the domestication of dogs has resulted in their being kept in an immature state, unlike alphas among wolves, am I morally judging dogs? (Of course not.) Frankly, I'm really disappointed and embarrassed by this thread. You'd think if we were going to discuss another religion, at least a fair number of us would be able to do so respectfully and with awareness that we are discussing this because other people do not think the way we do, so that applying the way we think to the little we know about them is foolish. And then David comes out and starts saying that the Dalai Lama's position is something ridiculous, and as someone who considers the Dalai Lama a great and significant spiritual leader, I find this quite offensive. And here you go and just reiterate David's mistake in reply to my attempt to explain his error. The Dalai Lama did not say anything like "there's nothing wrong with doing that, but there's something wrong with anyone who would do that" ! Not with regard to homosexuality or anything else. He is not that kind of authority, and if you are incapable of grasping what he represents and the nature of the guidance he provides without imposing your own "mommy and daddy oppress me by frowning when I ______ instead of delighting in every aspect of my unique specialness" neuroses on the reality of what was said and in what context, kindly refrain from quoting the Dalai Lama for self-serving purposes and/or thoughtlessly defending those who do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tell the truth. (Then run.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: Feh.   by Norman108       at Fri 25 Mar 3:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     I'm not Buddhist, but I admire the Dalai Lama. So I was bothered when I first heard about his views on homosexuality. Here's relevant portion of his interview with Douglas Todd in The Vancouver Sun, I believe last year: DT: I have two questions. The most controversial one. I do not know what you think about homosexuality, it is big issue in Canada and with the Bishop, you are meeting Bishop Michael Ingham, he approves of blessing same sex relationships, homosexual relationships, and I do not know what you think about that? DL: I have two letters, one letter is as a religious believer, I think that we should follow according to one's holy teachings. For a Buddhist, the same sex, that is sexual misconduct. DT: For Buddhists? DL: Yes. And also marriage, even in the heterosexual cult of marriage, they use the mouth and the anus, this is sexual misconduct in Buddhism. DT: In Buddhism? DL: Yes, even as a heterosexual context. Even if one uses one's own hand this is sexual misconduct. So if you are a genuine believer, then you must avoid this. If you are a non-believer, then two persons male or female, they get maximum joy through this technique, they do not create violence, (laughs). One thing I would like to express, sometimes due to that kind of behaviour there is discrimination in jobs, or within the family this creates some problem purely based on that sexual reason, — if people discriminate based on sexual orientation, that is extreme and it is wrong. Whether same sex marriage is OK or not is dependent upon each country's law. DT: It is not a big thing for you? DL: Even the whole concept of marriage is particular to a particular society and their unity, so whether or not homosexual couples should be accorded a marriage status, should really be dealt within that particular community and country. I've discussed this with a number of people, some Buddhists (including gay Buddhists) and some not. Most have agreed on three points: First, this is a fairly liberal position, politically. He's leaving the secular questions of gay marriage to the states, and opposing discrimination based on sexual orientation. Second, he is speaking, in terms of "sexual misconduct," strictly for Buddhists who have taken vows. He's not giving some general position on homosexuality, but clarifying the Buddhist tradition regarding same for Buddhists. Finally, his personal view, as I've heard, is even more socially liberal, but in his role of clarifying doctrine, he feels he must take a more conservative tack. People, especially gay Buddhists would prefer he take an even stronger stand on gay rights, but generally don't feel his stance is particularly limiting. There will likely be room for Tibetan Buddhism to accept sexually active gay folk as full practitioners eventually. Practically speaking, this is in many senses already taking place informally anyway. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Feh.   by arromdee       at Fri 25 Mar 2:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 57     If I use the example of dogs vs. wolves, wherein the domestication of dogs has resulted in their being kept in an immature state, unlike alphas among wolves, am I morally judging dogs? Nobody says that dogs should strive to overcome their immaturity, or that dogs can be better people if they're not immature. On the other hand, your own summary that "this limits us and if we can develop our perception to separate the thing itself from our experience of it we can free ourselves of the pain and bondage associated with it and be of more use to each other" clearly implies that overcoming homosexual desires is a good thing, that it's good for people, and it helps build a better society. Just because the Dalai Lama is not directly saying it doesn't keep it from logically following from what he does say. According to him, practicing homosexuals cannot "free (them)selves from the pain and bondage... and be of more use to each other". That's a condemnation, no matter how you dress it up.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: Feh.   by Leamur67       at Fri 25 Mar 3:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     Thank you, Norman. Perhaps this will end the misrepresentation of the Dalai Lama's position here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tell the truth. (Then run.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Feh.   by Leamur67       at Fri 25 Mar 3:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 65     It's not being "dressed up" and it doesn't only apply to homosexuals. Please read Norman108's comment. This is not about overcoming homosexual desires, it's about overcoming sexual desires. How can you continue to claim that this is anti-homosexual, when it applies to heterosexuality, too?! Nobody says that dogs should strive to overcome their immaturity, or that dogs can be better people if they're not immature. And there you go with your shoulds again. You really seem to not grasp that the Dalai Lama is not saying how you should be, or what you should do. You will be and do as you see fit. If the guidance of the Dalai Lama and that tradition seems meaningful and correct to you, then you will modify yourself and your behavior accordingly. The Dalai Lama is not telling you that you should. This is not "dressing up" or semantics, it is a crucial point. Please try to understand it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tell the truth. (Then run.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Feh.   by arromdee       at Fri 25 Mar 10:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 67     How can you continue to claim that this is anti-homosexual, when it applies to heterosexuality, too?! The same way that the Catholic doctrine that sex is for procreation is anti-homosexual. It's phrased even-handedly, but it limits gays more than straights. It's like the joke about the law keeping both poor and rich people from sleeping under bridges. You really seem to not grasp that the Dalai Lama is not saying how you should be, or what you should do. You will be and do as you see fit. By that reasoning, a strict Calvinist who believes in predestination could claim that all Jews are shifty bankers who drink Christian babies' blood and are going to Hell, and there would be nothing wrong. He doesn't believe that people can choose, so he's not claiming that the Jews are responsible for anything. People who believe in predestination usually think and act like other people and just use different labels to describe what happens. Saying "of course nobody can really decide to do ___, but the world would be a better place if they did" is just a predestination-based translation of "you should".   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Feh.   by Leamur67       at Sat 26 Mar 12:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     That Calvinism/predestination is not relevant to what I said. It's not the same reasoning at all. Did the Presbyterian Church let you down? I'm sorry.   I'm mostly sorry for you that you will not understand this. Really. You must be very unhappy and truly believe that it is because of others and not something you can change in yourself. (I'm not talking about homosexuality, I'm talking about your world-view.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tell the truth. (Then run.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  One Global Society   by squeaktoy2000       at Wed 23 Mar 10:40am score of 1     You're talking about worldwide A-Team re-runs, right? "I pity the fool!" + "I love it when a plan comes together" + gun fights where nobody gets shot + the holy quadruplicity of archetypical: brains, brawn, smooth operater & crazy guy = worldwide peace & harmony. -Despite it all, I'll pity them the day they realize.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Every religion is equal...ly inferior to ours   by Leomoregi       at Wed 23 Mar 10:44am score of 1.5 astute     My impression of Baha'is from having dated one in high school and having considered joining their faith (because of my infatuation with the young lady) is that the prevailing message of Baha'is is this: "All religions are equal, imperfect paths to God. Except us. We're better." It's this hypocritical attitude that they're superior because they recognize that everyone is equal (except the queers, of course).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Load of crap   by landonair       at Wed 23 Mar 1:35pm score of 1     This sounds like sublimation of Secular Humanism. With "progressive" liberals abandoning Christianity, the dilemma of how to reconcile the idea that humans are somehow special and worthy of our compassion when we 'know' we live in a Godless universe arises. Either we are created by God and ordered by Him to show compassion to our fellow man, or we live in a meaningless universe where somehow we thrived with our logical brains, but we are really no different then animals, nothing special. Modern man cannot accept the "hypocrisies" of religion (or give up his pride in considering himself an "independent thinker"), yet cannot face the reality that he's shagging the decaying corpse of a God he killed. ergo, the sham of secular humanism. Filling the gaping hole of spirituality comes the trendy, flowery acceptable language of sublimated secular humanism. Baathism will probably be incredibly popular for about five years, after which its product cycle will have worn out. "It's so easy to say things that are so idealistic without reasoning and thinking them out in the big picture"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Secular Humanism?   by uncarved block       at Wed 23 Mar 1:55pm score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 29     Sounds more like Hinduism to this amateur observer. Or Gnosticism, with its assertion that there's a conciliatory God "behind" all the divisive gods of this world. In fact, the last thing I thought about reading the Baha'i website was secular humanism. Clearly, you disagree . . . Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Secular Humanism died a long time ago, pal.   by squeaktoy2000       at Wed 23 Mar 3:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     What is our relationship to god then, if not to manipulate our state of consciousness? Looking at the basic tenant of Semiotics, that the relationship between sign and the signifier are arbitrary and unrelated, how can a man say that he is an "independent thinker?" Or, for that matter, "independent" of his own language (which he inherited)? Or even a "thinker", since rationality is cheap and plentiful, but the core assumptions are based on an arbitrary set of classifications? Even worse, how much of man is a "thinker" in light of the subconscious, of rogue neurophysiology, of the faint control many of us have over our impulses & drives? And how can you say man is a thinker when he is so often trapped by his own vocabulary, for example — how certain religious sects rally against a no-longer extant "secular humanism?" -Despite it all, I'll pity them the day they realize.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Load of crap   by blister262       at Wed 23 Mar 7:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Baathism will probably be incredibly popular for about five years Well, it was popular for much longer than that in Iraq. (You meant Baha'i.) Civilization exists by geological consent; subject to change without notice.--- Will Durant   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Shagging the Decaying Corpse of a God He Killed   by Graldar       at Wed 23 Mar 7:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Thanks. That image is definitely more spiritually moving than Cannibalistically Feasting on a God He Killed. But, just so I can understand your point, you're suggesting that Humans have "an instinctual desire or impulse" to worship God, but feel that it is socially unacceptable, so sublimate that desire by joining Secular Humanism? And, that's what you mean by "sublimated secular humanism"? Or, do you mean that they have a primal desire to be Secular Humanists, but feel that not having religion is socially unacceptable, and therefore they sublimate their secular humanism into Baha'i? Because the way you wrote it seems like the second option, but everything I've read of you suggests you believe the first. (As for the rest of your points, calling Baha'i trendy and likely to wear out in the next 5 years seems to ignore A) it's not terribly trendy, and B) it's not new. So, I think, more likely, it will continue it's obscure ways, never getting terribly popular, until 300 years from now, it's all dead, but scholars say "That was a neat religions because...". Sort of like the shakers)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Shagging the Decaying Corpse of a God He   by landonair       at Thu 24 Mar 2:24am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     Cannibalistically Feasting on a God He Killed Is that an actual quote? Because I never heard that before. Just a coincidence. My point was A. I don't think people consciously join secular humanism. It's so ingrained in us that we move towards it in the name of 'being a good person', leaving behind 'primitive' christianity (because that would mean we can't think for ourselves), without grasping the contradiction that almost our entire moral compass is derived from christianity. And what do you mean "most everything I've read from you would indicate A?" I haven't posted on Plastic in, I don't know, a year? I don't even consider myself the same person really. And I don't recall ever writing about religious stuff. Just curious. "It's so easy to say things that are so idealistic without reasoning and thinking them out in the big picture"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Shagging the Decaying Corpse of a God He   by squeaktoy2000       at Thu 24 Mar 6:50am score of 1   in reply to comment 46     "Cannibalistically Feasting on a God He Killed." It's a reference to taking communion in Christianity. You know, that whole eating the body and drinking the blood of the God you just murdered? Smacks of vampire-ism. -Despite it all, I'll pity them the day they realize.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Ingraned Secular Humanism   by squeaktoy2000       at Thu 24 Mar 7:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 46     "I don't think people consciously join secular humanism. It's so ingrained in us..." Yeah, all that evil secular humanism, which the left had dropped at least a couple decades ago, is everywhere. It's in your tap water, your cereal, the air you breathe. It's all part of the gay agenda. I've got you pegged man. Truth be told, there's no secular humanist church that everyone "joins." There are no membership cards, no weekly meetings where we sing songs and pass the plate. There's no organized effort to push our views into government so that we can remove references to creationism in the school textbooks. But yeah, I'm sure you think there's some major conspiracy that's trying to cram "secular humanism" — whatever you think that is, down everyone's throat. Maybe there's some psychological projection going on here. Or, maybe you're a victim of the mindguard memes of your current worldview. Quit anthropomorphizing god. That's your first mistake. God's not in charge, man's not in charge — maybe nature's in charge. And I don't mean we should all have equinox/solstice celebrations to worship "mother earth." Nature is not a person. Try getting past needing someone in charge who is represented in your mind as a person. -Despite it all, I'll pity them the day they realize.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   54.  Re: Ingraned Secular Humanism   by landonair       at Thu 24 Mar 12:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     You're the one who's projecting some kind of paranoid worldview on to me. But if it makes you feel smug and satisfied to think you "have me pegged" as some kind of bible-thumper then I'm not going to stop you. I guess you need some kind of bogey-man to have a knee-jerk reaction against. My original post was formulated in my mind from post-modern art theory. Sounds pretentious but it's the truth. And I still stand by my view that it's a contradiction that is very ingrained in us. "It's so easy to say things that are so idealistic without reasoning and thinking them out in the big picture"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: Ingraned Secular Humanism   by gaspacho       at Fri 25 Mar 8:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Quit anthropomorphizing god. If god exists, he's a Deist. socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   71.  Re: Shagging the Decaying Corpse of a God He   by nuntius       at Sat 26 Mar 11:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 48     > Smacks of vampire-ism. That quip smacks of ignorance or childish mockery. Seriously, if your master said "break this bread and drink this wine in remembrance of my body and blood", you wouldn't actually reach across the table and bite his arm, would you? As the records tell it, the disciples were rather confused by this whole thing, and didn't even know why they needed to "remember" him until later when the authorities had him crucified. The idea of a religious event to remember things like Passover wasn't exactly new to the Jewish tradition; such a ceremony as a communion would probably have been seen in a similar context. Or are you still stuck up that medieval European Catholics made claims of transubstantiation?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: Load of crap   by tinycog       at Fri 25 Mar 7:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     Either we are created by God and ordered by Him to show compassion to our fellow man, or we live in a meaningless universe where somehow we thrived with our logical brains, but we are really no different then animals, nothing special. False dichotomy. These are two extremely narrow choices with which I don't agree. I suggest this is entirely too narrow a viewpoint, nicely deconstructed by Alan Watts Furthermore, almost our entire moral compass is derived from christianity. Who is this "our" to which you refer? I most emphatically do not include myself in that group. Morality and compassion existed long before Christ. Our capacity for compassion and moral thinking is what makes us human, not what makes us followers of one religion or spiritual path or philosophy. carry on "We're so happy we can hardly count." -p.f.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

55.  Where are you?   by wandie       at Thu 24 Mar 12:53pm score of 1     Are there no Baha'is on Plastic? Or are you all still feasting the New Year away? There have been quite a lot of curious enquiries about the faith in the subqueue that are still unanswered. Questions about censorship, about funding, about all the beautiful gardens they seem to like building. I know there are websites full of information about it all but I really do wish someone could share their own personal experience here.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

56.  Re: Where are you?   by bitekman       at Thu 24 Mar 2:42pm score of 3.5 informative   in reply to comment 55     I was brought up Baha'i, though I left the faith early in college. I was drifting away for some time before that, having broken most of the prohibitions (alcohol, etc) in the previous year. But that summer I took the final leap and stopped believing in God (see? I still capitalize it), which pretty much made everything else moot. I know a lot of people on Plastic were either brought up athiest/agnostic, or have a lot of anger towards their religious upbringing, so I didn't bother posting in this thread. I figured people wanted to make their jokes and stock criticisms and have their fun. But I have to say, despite my strong atheism, that growing up Baha'i was great. I had a stable family and strong community. I got to grow up in Africa, and interact with Africans in a manner different than many expat Americans, who would just cloister themselves away and bide their time until their tour was up. I certainly can't address the censorship issue. My family was of the liberal Baha'i bent, and I was brought up to rigorously question things. There were things in the faith that bothered me even then — the supposed infallibility of the Universal House of Justice, the concept of "covenant breakers", the wrongness of homosexuality, and such — but, like most people, at the time I just accepted them and pushed them to the back of my head. Really, the most noticeable division was between the Persian (they liked that term, hated Iranian) Baha'is, the "pioneer" Baha'is, and the local Baha'is. Because of its history, most of the pioneer Baha'is were Americans (and commonwealth folk) who were more often than not, ex-60's hippy types. The kind that liked the peace and love, but weren't into the pot and sex. They stressed the unity and community parts of the religion. The Persians, on the other hand, came at it from a much more ritualistic perspective, with a focus on obedience, respect, and so on. Of course, you had to give the Persians a lot of credit, because most of them had relatives who were in jail or had been executed for being Baha'i, back in Iran. The local African Baha'is — well, I can't pretend to generalize their motives. In my later studies in anthropology I realized that Africans tended not to see religion in quite as binary a way as Westerners — you could be a baha'i and still go to church, Reading some of the linked articles, in particular one by Juan Cole, I learned that the religion seems to be moving in a more strict direction. I suppose that doesn't surprise me — when I was a Baha'i the focus was on conversion, and I imagine as the speed of conversion drops off (as the convertible are, well, converted), you need to turn inwards. Being religious can be a wonderful thing, especially as a child. The world makes sense to you. You have a purpose. You have a community. You have a deity protecting you. And there was nothing I saw in the Baha'i growing up that I saw as particularly negative. I just don't believe in anymore God, and thus I don't believe in any of it. I don't begrudge anyone their religion, so long as they don't try to bother me with it. I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

63.  Hollywood   by publius72       at Fri 25 Mar 11:42am score of 1     I hear that Bahai is getting trendy among Hollywood celebrities. I say better that than Scientology or Kabballah.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

64.  Yes, but...   by chasing       at Fri 25 Mar 12:20pm score of 1     Last I checked, they were fine with prejudice based on sexual orientation, however. The majority of American Baha'i members I've known, however, were considerably more liberal than their faith, however. Whether that's a comment on American Baha'i, or just on the people I tend to know, I don't know.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

70.  Pfffft.   by James A V Joyce       at Sat 26 Mar 12:19pm score of 1     Bahai'ism is sooooo 2004.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]