A True, Blue Fundamentalist

Fundamentalism, Good and Bad

  Prologue for Baha'is

  The present use of the word "fundamentalist" comes from a publishing initiative by a body of protestant clergy that took place right around the time the Master toured North America. A body of scholars who had met in Niagara Falls tried in this way to set up a body of doctrine upon which all of them -- that is, not all people but all protestants -- could all agree upon as truths that are fundamental. This is why technically, it is not correct to say that a Muslim or Hindu is a fundamentalist. Only a certain breed of Protestant has that honour. In this way, an important word that, like the word "gay," had been around for a long time and had a history and many positive associations was suddenly appropriated for a very different agenda. The word "fundamentalist" suddenly meant someone who is more prejudiced than usual, more prejudiced than a group already is renowned for its bigotry. Fundamentalist is now a pejorative and it is far from laudable to claim to know the fundamentals of religion.

  It is interesting that on this very day in 1912, the 5th of October, the Master was in San Francisco and Mahmud made the following report His day:

  "Some clergymen and professors came to visit `Abdu'l-Baha in the morning in His second-floor room. Some of the Master's words to the pastor of the First Congregational Church in Oakland were these: `If a man is not a clergyman and is unprejudiced, it is not a cause for wonder. But if a man is a clergyman and is not prejudiced, he certainly deserves praise and glory.'" (for more insights into this or any day in Baha'i history, see http://jacklbushjr.blogspot.com/)

  A Comenian Cure for Fundamentalism, Part III

  We are used to thinking of fundamentalists as narrow-minded fanatics. Is there such a thing as a good fundamentalist? I think there is. Certainly we all hope that schools will teach our children good fundamentals, truths that will prepare them for success as adults and will stand them in good stead throughout their lives. In this sense, our expectation is that teachers will be good fundamentalists, well versed in what is not inconsequential but rather fundamental to the reality around us.

  In this series we have been studying one such good fundamentalist, John Amos Comenius, a famous educational reformer from Moravia. Comenius lived in the 17th Century and made various proposals for fundamental change in his posthumous work, Universal Reform, or Panorthosia. Comenius had a great deal to say about what true fundamentalism is and how to eliminate its corrupt form, the bad, false, ignorant breed of fundamentalism that since his day has all but eliminated religion as a force for social change.

  We have already examined his suggestion that a series of mottos or slogans be publicized around the world for various purposes, including this one for stamping out false fundamentalism:

  "God and the sun are the same for all."

  This saying implies that enlightenment is the criterion of truth. If an idea does not act like the sun and illuminate the situation for all, it comes not from the sun but darkness and ignorance. Yet it happens that sincere believers take many sides and end up in complete contradiction. In one sense, all sides are wrong when they argue but in another it is perfectly conceivable that each side can be right, or at least has made no mistakes. Comenius explained how this can be with an interesting extension of this astronomical, solar system analogy. Truth cannot contradict itself, but opposing results can and do arise even when no miscalculation has taken place. This is can happen because we live at different locations on the spherical surface of the planet Earth.

  "For just as Heaven truly stretches over one entire world, and moves with one simple movement, although it appears to move in one way at the equator and another in the Tropics and in quite the opposite way at the poles, so the spiritual heaven of the church, holy scripture, is truly one, and fills everything with one sensation, that of Christ, even if he is perceived differently in different places. Furthermore the various contradictory interpretations of the Scriptures can be brought into harmony provided that they are based on reason and fundamental truth, in the same way as dates predicted for the new moon, the full moon, and eclipses, which may differ so widely that one astronomer writes that a total eclipse will occur while others put it down as partial (and still differ about its extent), and one says that an eclipse will occur in the morning, another in the evening, another at noon, and another at midnight." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 8, para 36, p. 124)

  Baha'is will recognize a resemblance to the "dawning points" analogy that the Central Figures, especially Abdu'l-Baha, invoked to explain progressive revelation.

  The difference, of course, is that Comenius speaks of revelation as relative to the single, static, fixed heaven of one religion, Christianity. Abdu'l-Baha's dawning-points metaphor explains how a single truth can be common to all historical religions. In their corrupted state, these various religions erroneously worship the point at which truth arose at one particular time in human development, rather than paying heed to where the sun shines right now.

  Nonetheless, essentially the same astronomical metaphor is being used in both cases. Both point to a highly relativistic, evolutionary understanding of religious truth. Comenius continues.

  "For it is possible that they are all writing the truth, but differing according to their points of view in different climates and regions of the world. Therefore although to an inexperienced eye these appear to be real contradictions and therefore irreconcilable, the expert reconciles them without any difficulty. So in our present situation it is to be hoped that the same Scripture is open to a different interpretation depending on a different standpoint, without detriment to the truth." (Id.)

  In the next paragraph, Comenius compares the common sun of truth to the Biblical story of the manna from heaven that fed Moses's liberated slaves, lost in the wilderness. The same manna is cooked in various styles and dishes, but it is basically the same food, "able to content every man's delight.'

  "Therefore, just as it would have been shameful if the Israelites had chosen to quarrel because no two men prepared the manna for food in the same way, so it would be disgraceful for us to be intolerant if different people have different ways of preparing their soul's delights in accordance with the words of God, since God bears with this wherever he sees that they do not lose faith in his Oracles but behave with due reverence and prompt obedience towards Him." (para 37, pp. 124-125)

  We now know that in spite of the apparently vast variation in food preparation through the centuries and across many cultures, most humans still live on a small number of nutrients coming from an even smaller number of plants and animals that were domesticated about 10,000 years ago. Anthropologists point out that in spite of our vaunted agriculture and food processing technology, no new staples have entered the human diet since that long forgotten point in pre-history.

  The same thing applies for the seemingly fundamental truths that we all live by. However different and contradictory they seem, from a properly long perspective the similarities are greater than the differences. Failure to realize the common basis of all food is prejudice. Prejudice is at the root of all sorts of bad fundamentalisms, religious, political and philosophical. As Comenius points out, often it is not the prejudice itself that does harm but the reactions and defence mechanisms that are set up in order to perpetuate them. The two greatest of these are obstinacy and complacency.

  "The third hindrance to Reform is the obstinacy which arises from prejudice, and causes us not only to scorn truer and better things but also to turn away from them and to rebel against them whenever they confront us. For this is the source of the most heated arguments in philosophy, the most bloody wars in the world of politics, the bitterest hatreds in religion, and the outrageous persecutions inflicted by some and endured by others; and while everyone thinks that he is fighting or suffering in the cause of truth, or peace, or God, even in that gross anarchy there emerges the complacency which Paul the Apostle calls 'a zeal but not according to knowledge' (Romans X, 2). But unless we truly set aside such zeal and teach others to do likewise, it will serve no useful purpose, and our affairs will remain as they are, distracted, disorganized, and marred forever by disagreement." (Comenius, Panorthosia II, Ch. 6, para 6, pp. 101)

  Comenius takes this statement of Paul as a definition of bad fundamentalism. A fundamentalist has a "zeal not according to knowledge." A muddled atmosphere of stubborn complacency gives rise to ignorance rather than knowledge. Even when the zealot has a true vision of truth, the end is harm rather than enlightenment.

  However, the fact that this unfortunate tendency is so common is no reason to give up on the quest of determining truths upon which all human beings can agree. If we are to hope in a future for humanity, we must believe that there are good fundamentals that, like manna from heaven, all can live by. We can do this, Comenius says, if we all adhere to the middle path of moderation.

  "If we are willing to take our stand on these fundamentals, we should confidently expect disputes to disappear; or, if any survive, they will be few in number and harmless, provided that we remove from them the risk of public hatred. But this will be removed in any event, since there will be no disagreement without some underlying reason, and no obvious parting of the ways that does not lead out to level ground. And this cannot possibly happen except in certain matters of detail, and we shall have no reason to fear that they will bring us to dangerous byways, since our Lord's way to salvation and truth always takes an uninterrupted course through the middle and brings us all in safety to the best possible ends. Therefore men should show mutual toleration in such matters, if it appears that some prefer one answer and others another, so long as truth has not become so obvious that all men see it clearly as one and the same." (Ch. 8, para 40, pp. 126-127)

  As we shall see next time, Panorthosia offers a set of hoops through which any proposition must jump fore it to be accepted as reasonable and worthy to be considered a fundamental truth for all to accept.

::

“Same God, Same Sun” for Combating Fundamentalism

A Suggestion from the 17th Century for Combating Fundamentalism

By John Taylor; 2009 Oct 01, Mashiyyat 05, 166 BE

The Comenian Cure to Fundamentalism, Part II

The narrow, blinkered view of prejudice holds back all progress, Comenius believed. This is especially true of those who profess to be religious. A sort of "pagan philosophy" beguiles Christians, first of all, making them arrogant fanatics rather than wise benefactors. This "paganism" keeps us all from thinking universally and blocks any hope we may have for a better world.

"Indeed, the world will fail in its onerous task of reforming schools, churches, and politics unless it first eliminates this ferment of human devising and begins again to dig the first wells of wisdom which our Heavenly Father had digged for us but the ungodly Philistines had stopped through their envy (Genesis XXVI, 15, 18)." (Panorthosia II, Ch. 9, para 13, p. 147)

Only by digging the wells of divine wisdom can we make progress against the evils of fundamentalism. But how do you dig them? One way is to direct everybody's attention to what is most of benefit. As a teacher, Comenius had a very specific suggestion.

Long before advertising gained the pervasive influence that it has today, Comenius suggested that slogans be used for education, not for propaganda. Throughout the Panorthosia he proposes various slogans to be placed in prominent locations in order to promote the goals and ideals of a united world. In the 10th chapter of Panorthosia he proposes a slogan designed to condition the religious life of all human beings:

"God and the sun are the same for all."

This nine-word saying takes in not only those with a claim to being religious, the pious and the zealot, but everybody else, people of all faiths and no faith. Even those who for whatever reason remain averse to the word "God" can relate by recalling that all life on earth depends on the sun for sustenance and that in this sense some high ideals and truths must be "the same for all." Here is how Comenius introduces the slogan at the end of the tenth chapter,

"For we may be sure that there will be no improvement in human affairs until we recognise that we are all fellow-pupils in the same School of God, and brethren in the same House of God, and fellow-citizens in the same city of God, and begin to compare opinions on our common interest, safety, and security for the benefit of all, so that everyone without exception is invited, admitted and heard, and enjoys the common goods of light, peace, and life. This would therefore eradicate the curse of sectional differences now and forever. Let us adopt as our common motto the idea expressed by our Common Master (Matthew V, 45) GOD AND THE SUN ARE THE SAME FOR ALL." (Comenius, Panorthosia II, Ch. 10, para 13, p. 157)

The reference here is to the teaching that a truly religious person or group has an obligation to love one's enemies, "... that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust." (Matt 5:45, WEB) It goes on to point out that there is no particular merit in loving one's friends, all human groups love their friends. This insipid, particular love is in no way a distinction to be proud of, since even criminals and bloodthirsty carnivores love their friends.

What does make us distinctive is effort to become a reflection of God, or, if you prefer, imitating the life-giving sun by shedding invigorating, energy filled rays upon all, be they friend or enemy. This universal love also implies that a scientist, say, who makes a new discovery is far more godly than a religious fanatic, since her inventions are universal, they benefit all, friend or foe, pagan or believer; a fundamentalist's work benefits only those who share in the same opinions.

It seems to me that it would not be difficult to set up statistical measures of a religious group's love for its enemies. Such metrics are commonly taken to rate charities by the percentage of funds going to administrative expenses. Nations too are carefully rated by freedom and corruption indices. However, in spite of an increased awareness of the damage of fundamentalism, there remains no common standard or measure of faith groups.

A similar merit system could be set up using standard measures, a sort of "love thine enemies" index, to give everybody a basis of comparison among faith groups. Believers could assist this by posting their own progress and rating how loving they are to their enemies, that is, the universality of their services together. In Panorthosia Comenius suggested that this self-assessment be done not only for the religious, but in science, politics and every other human endeavour. He even suggested that this be done on the family level; households should set up what might be called "self-diagnostics" to be posted in prominent places in the home, and when they indicate progress, that a similar slogan be posted above the family doorway.

If the ratings of contributions to the broader community indicate that a church, synagogue, temple, mosque or other faith group are sufficiently disinterested and beneficial to all, they would earn the right to post an official sign saying, "God and the sun are the same for all," over their doorway. The decision as to which criteria to use for this index would be a task for the world Parliament of Religions, a body that Comenius suggested be called the "Ecumenical Consistory."

In the following, also from the tenth chapter of Panorthosia, Comenius points to the rewards that such positive, scientific efforts to remove the blight of fundamentalism would bring to believers and non-believers alike.

"If it were possible to prevail upon all men to share and copy this example, we would in effect release the human race (1) from particular prisons into the open freedom of Heaven, (2) from labyrinths of multiplicity into level pathways, (3) from the thorns of violence into the fragrance of lilies. The result would be that all men would escape from the distractions of endless preoccupations and concentrate on the true necessities of Life; they would also know how to rely only on certain knowledge instead of endless obscurities, and to lead a pleasant life instead of engaging in a welter of compulsion and conflict, and this would be a boon to all mankind. (Panorthosia II, p. 171)

::

Propaganda, Fundamentalism and Sports

Master Talk in Paris on Fundamentalism

By John Taylor; 2008 Oct 08, 11 Mashiyyat 165 BE


In our daily study session the kids and I have been going through Paris Talks, perhaps my most beloved Baha'i book. When several other books seemed inadequate for our purposes (we have gone over the lives of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha so often that I fear it will soon bore them -- I certainly have had enough for now) I suddenly realized that the simple, direct words in this book make it perfect for reading with children.


The Master seems to have visited Paris, the center of Western culture, with little in mind other than to convey a very simple, almost sparse message. Paris was unusual among the places the Master visited in the West. Unlike in English speaking lands, there seems to have been little attempt at widespread publicity in France, either because the Baha'is were small in number, being mostly expatriate Americans and other foreigners, or because of a lack of receptivity among Parisians, who were either secular materialists or strongly Roman Catholic. In any case, most of His talks were given in His own apartments to a small number of interested individuals. In these domestic rather than public surroundings the Master drew a broad sketch of what He was to say in greater detail six months later in America.


I have always thought of the text of this book as a sort of literary minefield. You walk down the garden path and look around to find these lovely sounding sentiments about niceness and light, then you look down at where you are walking. As soon as you think about what you are standing on Kaboom! -- an astonishing, mind blowing explosion of meaning. Take the most recent talk we read, called "Religious Prejudices." He starts off, taking us right down the center of the garden path.


"The basis of the teaching of Baha'u'llah is the Unity of Mankind, and his greatest desire was that love and goodwill should live in the heart of men." (Paris Talks, October 27th, 1911, 45-46)


Sure, so does just about everybody else. Who is not for peace and goodwill amongst men? Nice sentiments. But take a look down at the ground.


"As He exhorted the people to do away with strife and discord, so I wish to explain to you the principal reason of the unrest among nations."


The first time we tried to read this talk there was extreme unrest among my students, never mind among nations. They were bickering with one another insatiably and could not sit still for a second, so I broke off the class at this point and instead we watched some Baha'i internet videos that I had collected together for just such an emergency using an aggregator program called Miro. Even this did not help much but at least we got through the class. The next night we tried again. I find that by taking turns reading we can often go through much heavier material than this. All during the next day I was in suspense, though, wondering what could possibly be the reason for the unrest among nations. The next evening the kids were much more subdued and I got the chance to find out what causes the world's unrest.


"The chief cause is the misrepresentation of religion by the religious leaders and teachers."


Ahh. The mine goes off. Kaboom! Here is the original lie, a misrepresentation born like original sin out of all varieties of professional religious leadership. This Big Lie was in place long before Hitler and Goebbels appropriated it. But what did the religious leaders misrepresent? The Master goes on to explain,


"They teach their followers to believe that their own form of religion is the only one pleasing to God, and that followers of any other persuasion are condemned by the All-Loving Father and deprived of His Mercy and Grace. Hence arise among the peoples, disapproval, contempt, disputes and hatred. If these religious prejudices could be swept away, the nations would soon enjoy peace and concord."


Here is the discovery that Tolstoy laid out at length in his Confessions, the book that detailed here last spring. Tolstoy's discovery of the Great Lie prompted me to write an essay series on fundamentalism, of which this essay is yet another instalment.


In the talk, Abdu'l-Baha goes on to describe in detail a remarkable peroration that a Rabbi gave his flock when He attended a synagogue in Tiberius. I will not go into more detail, but the substance of the Master's observation is that religious leaders flatter their listeners, raise self esteem in them by telling them that God offers his great prophets to them as rewards of merit. The Jews were the chosen people because they were the best people in the world. Before there were Nobel Prizes, there were prophets of God. If a nation is worthy enough, God will reward it with a divine Visitor. Their only moral duty, then, is to hate those who were thus not honoured with God's approbation.


This is a deliberate lie about what religion is, and what it aims at. Religion is not an Academy Awards ceremony. In this sense, Baha'is and anti-theists agree completely, religion has been made into a cause of unrest for nefarious, corrupt and selfish reasons by a small professional elite. But then the Master goes on to tell of what one of the actual prophets taught. Muhammad did not flatter His flock, instead He berated the people saying, "Why do you not believe in the prophets of Israel, and especially Jesus?"


Later on, in America, the Master spoke more at length about the several other forms of prejudice deranging the world. But He never gave up on the religious strain of the disease, the one that in Paris He had labeled as the most virulent of all. On one occasion He said,


"One of the forms of prejudice which afflict the world of mankind is religious bigotry and fanaticism. When this hatred burns in human hearts, it becomes the cause of revolution, destruction, abasement of humankind and deprivation of the mercy of God. For the holy Manifestations and divine Founders of religion Themselves were completely unified in love and agreement, whereas Their followers are characterized by bitter antagonism and attitudes of hostility toward each other." (Promulgation, 337-338)


I think the reason that Abdu'l-Baha called religious prejudice the "chief cause" of unrest is that it served as a model for the many forms of propaganda -- systematic flattery and manipulation for selfish ends -- that now batter the mind at every turn today. The word "propaganda" was coined to describe the way the Catholic Church manipulated the public agenda, but now every element of society is heavily involved in some kind of lie or "spin" to make it look good and its opponents bad. In its article on Propaganda, the Encyclopaedia Britannica says,


"In many times and places in the past, the propagandist could profit handsomely by ignoring the welfare of a nation or the world and appealing to extremes of religious, racial, political, or economic fanaticism. This paid off very well, in the short run at least, within many subsystems. Today, however, this kind of propaganda can prove to be useless and even dangerous. The prudent propagandist has therefore to decide what mix of universalistic and particularistic symbolism will best serve his purposes at given times in given places. The choice is never an easy one: parochial or class-conscious or national groups may be aroused to the highest passions; and they are numerous and diverse and often highly incompatible with one another and with the imperatives of the nation or the world."


The fact is that religious leaders no longer have a monopoly on the Big Lie. Many groups are flattering their own and inciting hatred in out-groups, and many Big Lies cancel one another out. That does not help the cause of truth, though, because we become inured to lies and cease to seek truth or expect peace at all, ever.


Two examples. One, lately in Toronto two vandals expressed their election fever too boisterously by cutting the brake lines on the cars outside a meeting of one political party. Thus partisan fervour flares out into attempted mass murder. My question, why does not such an incident cause widespread soul searching about partisanship, propaganda and rabble rousing? Answer, because the media thrive on conflict. It sells more papers. And we expect it. We are used to the flattery and the bickering. It all seems natural and inevitable.


Another example. I just watched for the first time "The Bad News Bears." This I missed when it came out; the DVD cover assures us that was a low budget sleeper that turned into the most popular film of 1976. I thought it was a kid's film, a comedy, but I was shocked when I saw it. If there were such a thing as backbiting porn, this would be it. Words are used as weapons of mass spiritual destruction throughout. Future historians will look at that this story of a bunch of misfits who, led by a viciously verbally abusive drunk, make it to the little league championships and wonder, "Why did it not cause a sensation when in came out? Why was baseball not banned? Indeed, why were competitive sports not banned?" If I had seen this film when my kids were small I would never have let Silvie near a baseball diamond. As it was, she stuck it out one year and -- although the team won the championship -- she has not considered sports of any kind ever since. Baseball, seen through this film, is a training ground for conflict, contention all that is wrong with the world today. I know that is not true, that other sports have more influence, and that it is not all bad. Still, it seems to me that cooperative sports, where everybody wins and there is no zero sum outcome, (is there such a sport?) would seem like a better training ground for a world at peace.


Our ingrained habits and attitudes of false fundamentalism, the habit of telling Big Lies, flattery followed by incitement, do spring from religion, as the Master says. True religion forbids it, as Abdu'l-Baha emphatically did in His Will,


"O ye beloved of the Lord! In this sacred Dispensation, conflict and contention are in no wise permitted. Every aggressor deprives himself of God's grace." AB will and testament, 13


But I am starting to think that if we are ever going to get rid of propaganda -- systematized prejudice -- reformers and peace activists will need to quit picketing (or vandalizing) political functions and start protesting sports and games, for it is there the next generation are being systematically trained to accept flattery and to hate others without qualm or question. And it is there that the young must learn to take firm hold on God’s grace and learn never to be an aggressor.