p22 NORM

A Strong Statement on NORM Politics
2008 Jan 30, 12 Sultan, 164 BE
"Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the lord.'" (Matt 23:39)
He that comes to you in the name of the Lord, be that Lord Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, or Whoever, as long as that believer abides in God and the spirit of his world faith, that person is blessed. Betray that, and, Jesus promises us, His Christ Spirit will not be there. The resurrection will not come till then.
Several years ago I wrote about this saying of Jesus: "This is the the heart of all religions, the choicest ground of every philosophy, it is oneness, Agape." In view of the ground we have covered here in the past few days, I am coming to realize that this wonderful saying of Jesus built the very foundation of inclusivist religion, the faith that we Baha'is consider to be true kind. Glynn cites something Mohandis Gandhi said, no doubt inspired by Jesus' statement: "If a man goes to the heart of his own religion he has reached to the heart of the others too." (quoted in, God: The Evidence, 156) Lest we Baha'is forget, Baha'u'llah laid out the very same principle -- no, he broadens it -- in His last and crowning work, the "Crimson Book," the Kitab-i-Ahd, His Will and Testament:
"We fain would hope that the people of Baha may be guided by the blessed words: 'Say, all things are of God.' This exalted utterance is like unto water for quenching the fire of hate and enmity which smoldereth within the hearts and breasts of men." (Tablets, 222)
The Universal House of Justice, in its document "One Common Faith," says that the great truth that God is one and has only one faith, whatever its outward name and form, is not a fact that can be safely shunted aside. It must be set up as the basic assumption of interfaith discourse. Referring to its early letter to religious leaders, the House says in the Forward to this book,
"It was intimations of this truth that originally inspired the interfaith movement and that have sustained it through the vicissitudes of the past one hundred years. Far from challenging the validity of any of the great revealed faiths, the principle has the capacity to ensure their continuing relevance. In order to exert its influence, however, recognition of this reality must operate at the heart of religious discourse, and it was with this in mind that we felt that our letter should be explicit in articulating it." (OCF, ii)
Now the reason I say all this is that the more I read about modern atheism -- and their dueling partners, exclusivist believers, so-called fundamentalists -- the clearer it becomes that it will be impossible for me to avoid mentioning politics, however hard I may try. These people are heavily, heavily involved, not to say implicated, in politics. What am I to do? Baha'is are admonished not to "breathe a word" of politics.
For a Baha'i writing about this terrible situation -- and if you keep reading this blog in upcoming essays you will see how parlous the world's political crisis really is -- is to enter into a painful, contradictory position. It is not unlike that of Edmund Burke. Burke was regarded as a liberal and progressive statesman all his life, until he encountered an insurrection led by atheists, wolves in sheep's' clothing, who hypocritically robbed, exploited and murdered under a ruse, their noble slogan, "Liberty, fraternity and equality." The list of ten thousand innocent souls who were beheaded by the guillotine was not matched until fifty years later when the grandfathers of the present Islamo-fascists of Iran indulged in a bloodbath of suppression against the new Faith begun by the Bab. In the face of the rise of anti-theism, known at the time as anticlericism, Burke could not remain silent. He wrote a great deal about his contemporary brand of atheists that remains relevant today, and I plan to go into his insights at length in future.
Therefore before I write another word I want as both shield and prophylactic to write:
A Strong Statement on Baha'i Non-Involvement in Politics
Many learned Baha'is approach this issue narrowly, their superficial viewpoint formed by hints in certain statements of the Guardian about how events will play out in the future. They hold that the Universal House of Justice will one day be the world government, and that it will therefore have a political function.
Actually what the Guardian is doing is interpreting predictions in the Writings that as soon as those in power (and unless things change rapidly, that means none other than the unholy alliance of atheists and quasi-fundamentalists currently cowing both the White House and the Islamic world), as soon as they perceive that there is a real prospect that the Universal House of Justice can take political power into their hands, they will assume that they (the UHJ) will take it. Power mongers naturally assume that having the opportunity the UHJ will automatically do exactly what they would, that is, grab as much power as possible at the first opportunity. Hence the holy Writings predict that as soon as there is mass entry on a global level, they will begin shedding Baha'i blood around the world.
But hold on! The reason they will persecute and murder Baha'is is because of a mis-perception made into a cynical lie! Baha'is who go around saying that the UHJ will be the world government are not only wrong, they are inciting the enemies of truth to commit unjust violence against us. I assert in the strongest possible terms that there is _no way_ the Universal House of Justice could or would ever arrogate to itself a political function. Why not? Because the ban is clearly, permanently and unambiguously engraved in its founding document, the Kitab-i-Ahd. They have no authority even should they wish it to go against that, ever. The Book of the covenant starts off by abjuring His possession of any worldly power in the first place, saying,
"Although the Realm of Glory hath none of the vanities of the world, yet within the treasury of trust and resignation We have bequeathed to Our heirs an excellent and priceless heritage. Earthly treasures We have not bequeathed, nor have We added such cares as they entail." (Tablets, 217)
Trust and resignation are what Baha'is get, not political power. Political issues do not figure, the very word does occur.
Here is a brief story about that. A Baha'i messenger named Salman during the lifetime of Baha'u'llah was captured, along with a large pile of Tablets of Baha'u'llah. While in jail he overheard the suspicious captor complain that he had combed the letters carefully but found only prayers and supplications, not a word of politics in the whole lot. After a hundred years, such a thing still cannot be found, anywhere. For example, do a word search in Ocean of Baha'u'llah's Writings translated into English for the word "politics." It does not turn up.
So, in the Ahd, Baha'u'llah says quite truthfully that He owns no "vanities of this world." Not even power. Recall that God, speaking in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, had already taken power from kings and put it in the hands of the people. So it is hardly to be expected that He would bequeath what was already given away.
Lest there be any further doubt, Baha'u'llah a couple of paragraphs later in the Kitab-i-Ahd says,
"O ye the loved ones and the trustees of God! Kings are the manifestations of the power, and the daysprings of the might and riches, of God. Pray ye on their behalf. He hath invested them with the rulership of the earth and hath singled out the hearts of men as His Own domain." (Tablets, 220-221)
Re-affirming what He had written at the beginning of His mission in the Hidden Words, and later told world leaders directly in the Proclamation to the Kings, it is unambiguous: kings rule outwardly and God gets the lion's share, our heart. This is not exactly separation of church and state but, reflecting a preexistent gap between inner conscience and outer action, between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, this certainly draws a clear and permanent line between God's rule and the outer power of political leaders.
There is this line, and Baha'is are to accept the gift of trust and resignation, but that does not mean that Baha'u'llah forbids either goodwill or spiritual involvement in common ends. He orders believers to pray for as well as actively aid our kings and rulers.
"It is incumbent upon everyone to aid those daysprings of authority and sources of command who are adorned with the ornament of equity and justice."
Then in the following sentence He charges the entire leadership of the Baha'is, both rulers and learned, with a mission not of enforcing the authority or command that kings have, but of trusteeship of His command (and that command, just stated, is not to become embroiled in politics).
"Blessed are the rulers and the learned among the people of Baha. They are My trustees among My servants and the manifestations of My commandments amidst My people." (Tablets, 220)
Can it be any stronger than that? Let us try a mind experiment to test it out. Imagine the entire planet save one soul have become Baha'i. This goes against the principle of diversity, but for argument's sake let us assume such a thing happening. Imagine that everyone in the world begs the UHJ on bended knee to take over our outer political affairs, including the one non-Baha'i in the world. Would the House do it? Would the House be authorized to do it?
Absolutely not.
Baha'u'llah is very clear that they never do so, they have divine sanction never to do so. Such is the trusteeship handed down to both learned and rulers directly from Baha'u'llah in His Will and Testament.
That said, I agree that it is not precisely true to say that Baha'is sanction what is presently termed the separation of church and state. This, in the American context at least, is not so much a separation of powers as it is a permanent divorce causing ensconced secularism in the public realm. Secularism is a compromise, a truce upon among warring religious leaders and supported by non-religious leaders, many of whom were atheists. In the past decade the number of atheists has increased, as well as the stridency of their calls to expunge not only the truce but also end the consensus that support of religion, for example through tax exemptions, benefits society as a whole.
Anti-theists with their inherently bifurcating world view are very skilled at describing whatever involves divorce or separation. This is their element. I found that a term that they are using, "Non-overlapping Magisteria" (abbreviated, for some reason, to "NORM") describes the American divorce between religion and politics beautifully. The anti-theists, use NORM in a different context, to describe a complete divorce between science and religion -- magisteria describes the totality of scientific knowledge, which is deemed "non-overlapping," that is, to have absolutely nothing to do with the sum total of religious knowledge. This is their degraded, exclusivistic version of the Baha'i principle of harmony between science and religion.
NORM is the kind of superficial harmony that a married couple adopts when they agree to an "amicable" divorce.
I very much doubt that Baha'u'llah, by keeping even the word "politics" out of His Writings, intended NORM, for such would be an insane, artificial, arbitrary division. After all, during His lifetime He did commission Abdu'l-Baha to write both The Secret of Divine Civilization and, later, another statement clarifying the Baha'i position on politics. These were printed and widely distributed among the non-Baha'i leadership of Persia.