Monday, October 16, 2006

Incredible Shrinking Morals

The Incredible Shrinking Morals

By John Taylor; 2006 October 16

My father now subscribes to MacLean’s, Canada's Newsmagazine. The quality and interest of its writing has improved over the past year or two. As a result, I have been reading it regularly. Two articles in particular are worth discussing today. One is "The Incredible Shrinking Dad, An old debate finds a new twist: fathers may not be essential after all," by Lianne George (MacLean’s, Sept. 25, 2006, p. 62) and the second is "The New World Order," by Mark Steyn (Macleans, October 23, 2006, p. 30).

The Shrinking Dad article is a discussion of a documentary film screened at this year's Toronto Film Festival called Shot in the Dark, the story of Mark Grenier's search for his absentee father. This young man was raised by his mother, his father being permanently estranged from her. This of course is increasingly common for as the article notes the number of single parent families (almost always single mothers, not fathers) has gone from ten percent to well over thirty percent of households in the past three decades. In light of Grenier's success in life, the question arises, did he need a father?

In his documentary, Grenier notices his loss of a father growing up and decides to look his up. Eventually he finds this missing but not missed father and befreinds him. In the end he says that he now thinks of him not as a parent but as "just a guy." The writer of the article wonders whether fathers are as necessary as once was thought. Mid-Twentieth Century a male role modeler in the house was thought essential to a boy's growing up sane and well adjusted. Today shrinks are beginning to have doubts about that. Too many boys from these single parent households are growing up just fine thanks without a Dad for such psychological arguments to be taken very seriously anymore.

It seems that parenting manuals of the 17th Century were addressed not to mothers but exclusively to fathers. Raising children was father's responsibility. Today in Western culture child rearing has become a primarily female concern. Men are men, not fathers first. I read that and wonder: perhaps that is so, but what about the slightly longer term? What kind of fathers are these fatherless boys growing up to become? Oh yeah, I forgot, fathers do not matter in the first place, so who cares what kind of fathers they grow up as? Fathers are expendable. Worst comes to worst males can just have fun impregnating females and happily rush back to their sports and video games. Slam dunk, men are happy, mothers have a free hand in raising their children without bothering about those aggressive, abusive males. Everybody wins.

New World Order, our second article, is an antidote to the delusion infused in the first article. It is an excerpt from Mark Steyn's just released book of that title. His thesis is that 9-11 was not an aberration; it was a wake-up call to a future that belongs to Muslims. He has a conservative ax to grind, it is true. He believes that big government is inherently bad because it discourages people from taking responsibility. That may be the case, but the excerpt chosen by McLeans is all about demographics and the rising giant of oppressive, scary Islam. I recommend reading it for yourself, but my perspective here is on how his demographics is all that matters these impacts on fatherhood, as explained away in the Shrinking Father article. The rise to prominence of Muslims in Europe offers the perfect response to the question raised in Shrinking Father: "Who needs fathers?" Answer: any culture that wants to survive needs fathers.

Stayn's thesis is perfectly summed up by a statement he cites at the very end of the excerpt, by a Norwegian Imam, one Mullah Krekar, who speaking for Muslims and addressing the prime movers of the Shrinking Dad society, that is, Europeans, said,

"We are the ones who will change you. Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children. ... Our way of thinking will prove more powerful than yours."

Steyn sees Europe, enlightened as it is in cooperative social policy, as moribund, ripe for takeover, because it is simply failing to reproduce, almost as much as Japan, which is the extreme case. He uses a beautiful illustration. So few babies are being born in Japan that one toy company decided to keep busy by trying to market dolls to childless seniors. Not having had the experience of raising their own children the company reasoned that they might like to pretend that they have a "grandchild" baby to tell the stories of their lives to. As my daughter Silvie always says, "That is just sad." Yes, "that is just sad" is a catch phrase for tweenies now, but really, that is just sad. All the energy, history and hard won experience of a culture wasted by small families, and now corporations cashing in on the death pangs by selling dolls to oldsters. Call it the shrinking grandpa -- and shrinking grandma too. That is really, really sad.

This is happening in every "developed" (read: corrupt) country. Older, less than vigorous cultures everywhere are literally being smothered out by prolific minorities from poor countries, and in almost every case Steyn implies (but does not out and say) the corrupt ones are white and the up and coming ones are brown and Muslim.

Why is this happening?

Islam, like other traditional monotheistic religions, encourages a patriarchal family. Whatever you may say about patriarchy, it is the most efficient baby producer ever invented. Women specialize as mothers, fathers specialize as producers and supporters, and the number of children brought successfully to adulthood is maximized. Patriarchy has fed cannons and war machines, it has been the engine of imperialist nations and empires for millennia. Patriarchy swells armies like nothing else. This is nothing new.

The fact is that patriarchal (or if you happen to be a Baha'i, patrinomial) sexual morality works, it produces, and other systems fall by the wayside. They may be nice, they may be evil, but it does not matter. They are snuffed out anyway. Patriarchal sexual morality is a set of rules and laws designed to support large, growing families. And as Steyn makes clear, demographics is all that matters in the long run, in the reach of history. It is the sole measure, long term, of a culture or religion's ability to reproduce, thrive, go forth and multiply. This is what wins wars and struggles between peoples, violent or otherwise.

The implication? Demographics is the obvious but forgotten factor in ethics. Your Sodoms and your Gommorrahs may thrive for a decade or two, they may seem enlightened and accepting of the broad diversity of forms of human sexual expression, but they snuff themselves out. They do not, they cannot last. Nothing else matters but demographics. In a time when liberal societies like Canada are switching social supports over to same-sex unions, a form of marriage that is sterile by definition, demographics are the last thing on peoples' minds. Are we mad?

The fact is that there is only one consideration in politics that is legitimate and worthy of serious, continuous consideration, demographics. Conversely, in anything but personal, selfish, short term matters, nothing makes a difference but sexual morality, the set of habits, laws and rules that allow for optimum expansion in numbers of children born to a family. Stasis, two children per couple does not cut it. It spells stasis, falling behind growing, vigorous, vital, and to use the operative word here, virile cultures. Virile means putting men to the yoke, putting them at the head of the family, making them take full responsibility for family planning. A culture that puts men out to pasture playing video games and obsessing on sports is not going to survive, it will cut off half of its human potential. Westerners look at the suppression of women in oppressive Muslim countries, the loss of half the population, but here we lose half too, we waste our men. We sell them off to activities that, whatever their merit, do not contribute to the family, to the continuance of society into the future. Sooner or later a society that does not make use of both men and women will be overwhelmed. It is already happening if we but take the trouble to look.

This morality should be taught in primary school, and earlier, if we want our highest ideals, values and principles to continue into the future. But what interests me is where God fits in. I want to end this with an excerpt from Grotius's On Law of War and Peace, section XLV, a seminal work in the history of political ideas. Here Grotius addresses the crux, the place where the basics of monotheistic belief fit into and vivify patrinomial sexual morality,

"But to take a closer view of the subject, we must observe that true religion, which is the same at all periods of time, rests upon four evident and universally acknowledged truths. The first of which is the being and unity of God, -- the second, that God is not any of the things, that can be seen, but of a nature too sublime to be the object of human conception, or of human sight, -the third is, that with the eye of his providence he regards the events of this world, and regulates them with the most equitable and unerring judgments, -- the fourth is, that he is the creator of all things, except himself.

"And these four truths are unfolded and laid down in an equal number of commandments, the first of which plainly declares the unity of God -- the second forbids any representation, by painting or image, to be made of that being, who is invisible to mortal eye. Tacitus bears testimony to the spiritual nature of the Jewish religion: for he says, that "the Jews have nothing but a mental conception of one God, and they look upon every attempt to represent him under the appearance of human form, as a profanation of his heavenly nature."

"From the third commandment we deduce his knowledge of all human transactions, even of our very thoughts; an omniscience upon which the obligation and sanctity of oaths is founded, for God is a witness even of the secret designs of the heart, so that every solemn oath is an appeal to his justice and his power, for the vindication of truth, and the punishment of falsehood.

"The fourth commandment presents us with an account of the creation of the world, to commemorate which God appointed the Sabbath, commanding it to be observed with a degree of reverence above every other sacred institution. For the violation of any other rites, such as those respecting forbidden meats, was left to the discretionary punishment of the law: but offences against the Sabbath were capital; because, considering the nature and design of its origin, such contempt implied a disbelief, that the world was created by God.

"Now the creation of the world by God affords a tacit proof of his goodness, wisdom, eternity and power: and the effect of this contemplative knowledge is the offering of honour, love, worship and obedience to God. So that Aristotle says that the man who denies that God ought to be honoured, or parents loved should be taught to renounce his error, not by reasoning, but by punishment. And, in another place, he observes that some actions are proper on certain occasions, but reverence for the majesty of God is requisite at all times, and in all places."

Saturday, October 14, 2006

Fishy Work

How Fishy is Work As Worship?

By John Taylor; 2006 October 14

Last Tuesday Ron Speer gave a presentation called "A New Way to Look At Work," based upon holy writings and a high priced seminar he attended recently in his capacity as a volunteer for the March of Dimes based upon the "Fish Method" of motivating work groups. It seems that there was a fish market near Seattle that was in deep trouble. The workers and employers got together to try to solve the many problems they were having. Some naive youth suggested, "Let us become world famous!" And they did just that; the workers worked out a method that infuses fun into their workday. Some fishmongers found that it was more fun to throw the fish to one another. Their antics have become a tourist attraction as they catch the fish from one another and then give an observer a chance to catch one. Of course they drop it every time. This fun method was expanded into a four or five point program, which includes a "make somebody's day" goal, has been adopted with great success in several various corporate workplaces. Here is the blurb that Ron had me put on the Haldimand monthly fireside poster:

"Work, whether paid or volunteer, is the key to our happiness, success and well-being, but as we all know it presents tough challenges too. Ron Speer recently attended a leadership conference at Geneva Park. Using materials from that as well as  personal life experience and the spiritual teachings of the Baha'i Faith and other religions, he will lead us in exploring a whole new way to look at work."

Ron told of his own experience as principal of Central Public School, the place where Silvie and Thomas are currently studying. He had great success using this method, along with the Baha'i principles, such as avoiding gossip and backbiting, consultation and, though he had never heard of the Fish program, infusing fun into the routine of daily teaching. For example, he would occasionally make a crazy announcement through the public address system, an in joke that would have the teachers cracking up and the children saying, "What?"

My interest was piqued in this Baha'i teaching of Work as Worship. One quote that Ron cited in his material was a statement by the Master that work is the "highest form of worship." This borders on an extreme statement, as it seems to put more direct forms of worship into second place. Upon further investigation it turned out to be from "Abdu'l-Baha and Divine Philosophy," a not-entirely-reliable, if not totally unauthentic source. The earliest and heaviest pronouncement on this theme that I found is the big one in the Aqdas, which raises work to the level of worship -- but not above.

"O people of Baha! It is incumbent upon each one of you to engage in some occupation -- such as a craft, a trade or the like. We have exalted your engagement in such work to the rank of worship of the one true God. Reflect, O people, on the grace and blessings of your Lord, and yield Him thanks at eventide and dawn. Waste not your hours in idleness and sloth, but occupy yourselves with what will profit you and others. Thus hath it been decreed in this Tablet from whose horizon hath shone the day-star of wisdom and utterance. The most despised of men in the sight of God are they who sit and beg. Hold ye fast unto the cord of means and place your trust in God, the Provider of all means." (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 30)

A year after the revelation of the Aqdas, which is thought to have been in 1873, Baha'u'llah was asked about the means of livelihood. He replied that "the benefit thereof will be gained by yourself as well as other servants of God, both outwardly and inwardly." (Tablets, 267) Judging by the following, later on in this same letter to an unnamed recipient, He applied this law to His followers at this time, one year after writing the Aqdas, simultaneously with the rest of the laws in the Most Holy Book:

"A year ago the Most Holy Book was sent down from the heaven of the bounty of the Lord of Names. God willing, thou mayest be graciously enabled to fulfil that which hath been revealed therein."

"Concerning the means of livelihood, thou shouldst, while placing thy whole trust in God, engage in some occupation. He will assuredly send down upon thee from the heaven of His favour that which is destined for thee. He is in truth the God of might and power." (Tablets, 268)

In His Tablet of Bisharat the twelfth of fifteen Glad Tidings reiterates this law in the Aqdas almost word for word, except that this time he repeats twice the fact that this activity has been elevated to the station of worship, and gives greater emphasis on our need to appreciate this bounty and thank God for it:

"It is enjoined upon every one of you to engage in some form of occupation, such as crafts, trades and the like. We have graciously exalted your engagement in such work to the rank of worship unto God, the True One. Ponder ye in your hearts the grace and the blessings of God and render thanks unto Him at eventide and at dawn. Waste not your time in idleness and sloth. Occupy yourselves with that which profiteth yourselves and others. Thus hath it been decreed in this Tablet from whose horizon the day-star of wisdom and utterance shineth resplendent."

"The most despised of men in the sight of God are those who sit idly and beg. Hold ye fast unto the cord of material means, placing your whole trust in God, the Provider of all means. When anyone occupieth himself in a craft or trade, such occupation itself is regarded in the estimation of God as an act of worship; and this is naught but a token of His infinite and all-pervasive bounty." (Tablets, 26)

Now I ask you, is it not in the spirit of one who has been given this great bounty from God to be exuberant and, once in a while, maybe throw a fish around the room? Or the equivalent, should there be no fish at hand, play some other harmless little prank? I would think so, as long as the nature of the work is boring and repetitive enough for workers to need such an outlet. At the same time, we probably do not realize today how this teaching will burst through the divide between the sacred and the profane. Consider this "permission" to be holy that the Master gave to a typically overworked worker in an age when menial workers slaved from sun to sun, six days a week.

"A workman who had left his bag of tools in the hall was welcomed with smiling kindness by 'Abdu'l-Baha. With a look of sadness the man said: "I don't know much about religious things, as I have no time for anything but my work." "That is well. Very well. A day's work done in the spirit of service is in itself an act of worship. Such work is a prayer unto God." "The man's face cleared from its shadow of doubt and hesitation, and he went out from the Master's presence happy and strengthened, as though a weighty burden had been taken away. (Lady Blomfield, The Chosen Highway, p. 152)

In a Baha'i world a "workaholic" will be a rarer phenomenon, but he or she will be given more respect, perhaps not unlike the reverence formerly given the village idiot. In another Tablet, Baha'u'llah seems to offer a further stipulation for work to qualify as worship. It must be done as a means of instituting a virtue, not unlike the Fish goal of trying to get over your own tests and difficulties by aiming to make somebody's day.

"We have enjoined upon all to become engaged in some trade or profession, and have accounted such occupation to be an act of worship. Before all else, however, thou shouldst receive, as a sign of God's acceptance, the mantle of trustworthiness from the hands of divine favour; for trustworthiness is the chief means of attracting confirmation and prosperity. We entreat God to make of it a radiant and mercifully showering rain-cloud that shall bring success and blessings to thy affairs. He of a truth is the All-Bountiful, the Gracious." (Tablet of Baha'u'llah, in Compilation of Compilations vol II, #2045, p. 335-336)

Today the world of business is regarded as inherently cut-throat, as the reverse of the Golden Rule. But there is nothing in the nature of things saying that this has to be so. In fact, Baha'u'llah states that, from a spiritual point of view, it must be the reverse of that.

"Commerce is as a heaven, whose sun is trustworthiness and whose moon is truthfulness. The most precious of all things in the estimation of Him Who is the Sovereign Truth is trustworthiness: thus hath it been recorded in the sacred Scroll of God. Entreat ye the one true God to enable all mankind to attain to this most noble and lofty station." (Baha'u'llah, in Compilation of Compilations vol. II, #2046, p. 335-336)

The law that everybody works is a big step towards an answer to this prayer for trustworthiness to become universal. Really, the law of God is the answer to all of our prayers, it is the ideal that makes high aspirations real. The BIC, our UN NGO, puts this nicely, "The work done by the individual in trade, craft, art or profession is the core of his life and not merely the source of his living." In fact the Fish philosophy says this too, they say that most of your waking lifetime is going to be spent at work, so why not enjoy it? Why not make it into a fulfilling, expansive experience? That is the key to happiness. From a personal point of view, that is spot on. But that is still not enough, as the Baha'i Declaration of Human Rights and Obligations points out, we still need a world of justice, one that will erase unfair distribution, cheating, in sum everything that makes the workplace unfair and unworshipful.

"Wealth results from the co-ordination of a variety of efforts directed upon the equipment and material. A sound economy deals with the whole process in its variety of human relationships and does not seek to center the process around the point of any group advantage, whether ownership, direction, technical knowledge, manual skill or consumption. Wealth in part is the right of the individual and in part the right of the community. Under conditions of international competition desperate social emergencies arise when no just distinction between private and public wealth can be made. True justice and social philosophy await the formation of world institutions and the predominance of the world view." (Baha'i International Community, 1947 Feb, A Baha'i Declaration of Human Obligations and Rights)

This hints at the fact that there is still a notwithstanding clause to the principle of work as worship. Work is a form of worship but it does not take the place of other forms of worship. Great institutions are being raised at great cost by Baha'is called Mashriqs, which embody the pure form of worship. As the following citation shows, the Mashriq is intended as a morning institution to supplement and condition our all day long workship, a session of communion with the creative word designed to set us into a new perspective that will make the day that follows a different, far more productive endeavor than workplaces of the past.

"Teach your children that which hath been sent down from the heaven of majesty and power that they may recite the Tablets of the Merciful in the halls of the Mashriqu'l-Adhkars in most melodious tones. Verily, he who hath been drawn by the magnet of the love of My Name, the Merciful, will recite the verses of God in such wise as to enrapture the hearts of those who are fast asleep. Well is it with him who hath quaffed the choice wine of immortal life from the utterances of his Lord, the Lord of Mercy, through the power of this exalted Name whereby every high and lofty mountain hath been reduced to dust." (quoted in Adib Taherzadeh, The Revelation of Baha'u'llah v 3, p. 344)

Friday, October 13, 2006

several things

My wife has the strange idea that you can make money by writing. Here are two anecdotes she just submitted to two of Reader's Digest's humor columns.

Tales from school

By Marie Taylor; 2006 October 13

My daughters name is Silvie and occasionally people wonder how it is spelled. At the beginning of a school year her new teacher asked: Are you "Sylvie" with a y? To which she answered: No, I am Silvie with an i.  On hearing this when she got home from school, my husband quipped: You should have told him, you are Silvie with two eyes!

As kids see it

By Marie Taylor; 2006 October 13

"My husband eats homemade gazpacho (a blendered mix of raw veggies) every day and adds a variety of strong spices for flavor. Both, appearance and smell of this food is utterly disgusting to our two children. Recently we went on a short trip to the USA. While rolling through the beautiful scenery of the mottled, wooded hills in Adirondack Park, Silvie exclaimed: Wow, the nature around here looks just like dad’s gazpacho! Yeah, added Tommy, only it is prettier and doesn't stink so much!"

My thanks to the readers who submitted their best wishes for my fiftieth birthday last Tuesday. Silvie made up a very original and unusual birthday card using humor based upon the fact that I am a vegetarian (she is too), which I will try to remember to include with this mailout. I came across on some small town newspaper's website the following article about a one man show by a fellow who discovered the Baha'i Faith. If any of my readers can give some more background on this, please share it with us all.

Theater: Jesus walks ... and you, too, can live in his basement!

by Pete Freedman

Jesus in Montana

Manitou Art Theater, 515 Manitou Ave., Manitou Springs

Thursday, Oct. 19, through Saturday, Oct. 21, 8 p.m.

Tickets: $15, all ages; call 685-4729.  http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2006-10-12/theater.html

As a confused twenty-something, when Barry Smith had nowhere else to turn, he, like many before him, turned to Jesus.

In fact, Smith will tell you he "found" Jesus. But there's just one small difference between Smith and the thousands of Colorado Springs residents who, at this point in his story, feel a strong similarity: When Smith speaks of finding Jesus, he means it quite literally.

Smith had learned that the second coming of the messiah was in, of all places, Montana. And Jesus was perfectly OK with Smith, a devotee, but otherwise a complete stranger, crashing in his basement for a little while. Three years, actually. Now that's divine.

Fast-forward 10 years or so. Smith's hindsight is 20/20. He says he's not crazy, and believes he never was. But he feels his story is worth sharing  if not for his own sake, then for the amusement of others.

His one-man show, Jesus in Montana, which he developed from his spiritual odyssey, won the Outstanding Solo Show award at the 2005 New York International Fringe Festival. It has also taken home similar accolades at festivals in Montreal and, just last month, in Vancouver.

This weekend, though, Smith could face his toughest crowd yet. He'll be performing a three-day run of Jesus in Manitou. And, he admits, the more he learns about the conservative religious nature of the greater Springs region, the more pause he has about performing here.

He hopes, however, that people "get" where he's coming from with his story.

"It's an explanation of my rationalization," says Smith, a spoken word poet and humor columnist for the Aspen Times. "My show is not anti-religion. But it's also not pro-religion. A sense of humor is a must, despite your religious beliefs.

"It's really not worth picketing."

The show, Smith says, is just an attempt at rationalizing why a small sub-sect of the eastern religion Baha'i, comprising of no more than about 150 people, is so convinced that it has found Jesus. And it's an attempt for him to explain his own belief.

"I was just curious," he says. "I've always been willing to follow my intuition, no matter how weird a place it would lead me."

It's easy to understand Smith's naivety. He grew up in a religious home in Mississippi, but as a teenager, swore off religion and moved to California. By the time he moved to Colorado, he says he honestly didn't know what to believe. When he caught wind of Baha'i being taught around Aspen, he was intrigued and signed up for the teachings.

It all seemed normal enough  enlightening, in fact. So when his instructor, on the last day of class, dropped one last bombshell, he listened with excited ears: Oh, by the way, that Jesus we've been talking about? He's back, and in Montana. How 'bout that?!?!

"This is potentially apocalyptic," Smith recalls thinking at the time.

When the end never came, Smith concluded that the man he once felt sure was Jesus, probably isn't.

No hard feelings, though. Smith's done OK for himself. And oddly enough, he's pretty sure this path has led him to his higher calling: humorous-self-deprecating-one-man-PowerPoint-slideshow performances.

"People will ask, "Wow, you actually want people to know that about you?'" he says. "Apparently, I'm marching to the beat of a different drummer. It just seemed like the next obvious step."


Friday Essay on the Days of the Badi' Week
By John Taylor; 2006 October 13

"Each day He is upon some task." (Qu'ran 55:29)

Today is Friday the 13th, an unlucky day according to old superstitions. This day motorcycle clubs, in their contrarian, outlaw spirit, have taken for their own. They regularly congregate at this time at Port Dover, several dozen clicks down the road from Dunnville. In summer months whenever a Friday falls on the thirteenth of the month, the roaring of motorcycles travelling in packs towards Port Dover is heard all day long. So Friday the 13th is the day of periodic roaring around here.

Friday, the thirteenth or otherwise, we are told will someday be the day of rest for Baha'is, as it already is for Muslims. In preparation for that, I have taken on the project on Fridays (Fridays when I remember and have leisure to do so) of discussing the Badi' calendar virtues assigned to each of the days of the week.

The first question that springs to mind is, why is Friday our day of rest? Most often the explanation is that given in Genesis, where God created the world in six days and took a break on the seventh. Less often do we hear this explication, given in Exodus:

"And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud." (Ex 24:16)

Thus the first day of our Badi' week is just that, Baha, Glory, which like a cloud covers over the mount where the Law of God, the Ten Commandments, are about to to be revealed. Clouds behave strangely over mountains, forming wierd and beautiful plumes that have been photographed by cloud fanciers clubs. Their shots of these unusual formations have been given broad media attention lately. Thus veiled by mist on the mountain top, Moses waits six days until before on the seventh day the cloud of Glory passes and the revelation of the Law, the meeting with Yahweh unveiled, takes place -- from this brief meeting with the unveiled Godhead, Moses seated, Yahweh walking away, we get the expression "God Passes By."

Parallels and allusions to this primal revelatory event are common in the Writings of Baha'u'llah. For example the Tablet "Tajalliyat," translated "Effulgences," uses a root, Tajalli, which means "self-disclosure," or "God's unveiling Himself to His creatures." The allusion seems to be to the traditional Jewish marriage ceremony, where the bride after the ancient ceremony used to hand over her veil (in the Muslim version she is completely veiled beforehand, even to the husband-to-be), symbolizing their entry into a new household.

The revelation of the law of God, then, is no ordinary lifting of the fog, it is a marriage ceremony entailing a complete change of lifestyle for the creature, who must show eternal love, a lifelong commitment extending through this life and all the worlds of God. This may be why in the fourth and last Tajalli, about "Divinity, Godhead and the like," Baha'u'llah promises that turning to the Lote tree there would so enrich the "man of insight" as to make him "independent of aught else and to acknowledge his belief in that which the Speaker on Sinai hath uttered from the throne of Revelation." Hence the last day's virtue, Istiqlal, Independence. One is the condition of being totally married to the Law and instituting a new household independent of the ideas, culture, family and history that engendered that creature.

This outlines some of the meaning of the first and last days of the Badi week, but what about the days in between? How do their virtues fit in between Glory and Independence? Are they completely veiled? We could try using the Seven Valleys as crib notes, in which case Friday, Independence Day, would fit with valley seven, that of true poverty and absolute nothingness. This certainly underlines the fact that marriage with God is not anything like the equal arrangement that is marriage between a man and a woman. God is everything and the soul nothing, absolutely nothing.

This combination of the Seven Valleys with the image of Moses veiled in clouds awaiting a revelation of the Law on Mount Sinai above can fit with each day and its virtue. Each day is a descent into the valley of conscious life, rounded by sleep in the unknowable mists above. Here is how such a virtue week would look, combined with its corresponding valley:

1. Jalal - Glory (Saturday); search
2. Jamal - Beauty (Sunday); love
3. Kamal - Perfection (Monday); knowledge
4. Fidal - Grace (Tuesday); unity
5. 'Idal - Justice (Wednesday); contentment
6. Istijlal - Majesty (Thursday); wonderment
7. Istiqlal - Independence (Friday); true poverty and absolute nothingness

As the Qu'ran notes at the beginning, God reveals something new each day, and each week. A week is seven days of new revelation, sitting in a valley looking up to see what the Law reveals from its mystic cloud. Each day is a virtue, and each virtue has an opposite, a vice to avoid. Consider the seven virtues and seven deadly sins, as laid out by Cameron:

"Man can acquire the `seven virtues' of faith, hope, charity, justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance or he can fall into the grip of the "seven deadly" or "capital sins" of pride, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony, avarice and sloth." (Cameron - Disconnected Letters of the Qur'an, p. 40)

Accordingly, with minor changes in order could you chart these virtues and vices together, and juxtapose them with the days of the week and the seven valleys mentioned above? Here is the best I can do with that idea. Let me know if it makes any sense.

1. Glory (Saturday); valley of search, faith vs. pride
2. Jamal - Beauty (Sunday); valley of love, charity vs. wrath
3. Kamal - Perfection (Monday); valley of knowledge, prudence vs. lust
4. Fidal - Grace (Tuesday); valley of unity, fortitude vs. sloth
5. 'Idal - Justice (Wednesday); valley of contentment, justice vs. avarice
6. Istijlal - Majesty (Thursday); valley of wonderment, hope vs. envy
7. Istiqlal - Independence (Friday); valley of true poverty and absolute nothingness, temperance vs. gluttony

 

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Justice and Oneness, II

Justice and the Oneness of God, II

By John Taylor; 2006 October 12

Let us review our main principle, the Oneness of God. What, exactly, is this principle all about? What do we mean when we say that God is one, or when we capitalize it and say the same words, that He is One?

On Sunday morning at the ARE conference I found that I was on the program, slated an hour later to give a talk about the Baha'i Faith in Esperanto. I had never done that before. I translated and listed the principles in the order I have memorized, which places Power of the Holy Spirit and Oneness of God as numbers ten and eleven in a list of twelve. I found myself drawing a line around them, separating these two principles from the others, not only because they are purely spiritual principles but because unlike the other principles which are new and unique among world religions, these two are shared with the older faiths. In fact if a movement qualifies as a faith rather than a science or philosophy, it must say something about these two. It must discuss God's ability to act, the power of the Holy Spirit, and His primal quality, the Oneness of God.

The Oneness of God especially seems to act as a sort of litmus test for the purity of a religious creed. The more a teaching allows God a voice in defining Himself, the closer it is to a divine gift, rather than a set of human opinions. This is the essential that we not say Who He is, that God does. That is the one in oneness. God Himself attests his uniqueness, articulates his singularity and explains how that differs from multiplicity. Baha'u'llah states the kernel of this mother of all principles succinctly in a prayer:

"God testifieth to the unity of His Godhood and to the singleness of His own Being. On the throne of eternity, from the inaccessible heights of His station, His tongue proclaimeth that there is none other God but Him." (Baha'u'llah, Prayers and Meditations, 86-87)

Okay, God has said it. So what? By stating His primacy the implication is that His word is not just any word, it is law. Here is where justice comes in. The very idea of justice arises from the concept of one God, and one God only. Consider the first of the Ten Commandments.

"I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other gods before me." (Deut 5:6-7)

The law of God comes with a promise and a warning. The promise is freedom, not only liberation from slavery, as had already happened when the Law was revealed on Sinai, but survival in the wilderness of separation, and attainment eventually of the inheritance of divine law, the promised land. The warning is never to become attached to anything but God. Detachment is the only way to freedom, long term.

In this sense, justice is law applied over generations, it is history, manifest destiny, it is our place in a huge, unfolding, "How the West Was Won" spectacular. Justice is the plan of God, and it has a place for each and all. The justice of an individual is his or her ability to connect with this big story and do his or her part to carry it along, to hand everything back to God, including money and power, for "the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us." (II Cor 4:7) Without One God, there would not be one plan, there would be many, and confusion and chaos would result.

"Consider this comparison. There are two men: the one has many masters who are ever at odds among themselves; the other has one master, to whom he is devoted. Are these two to be held alike? Allah forbid! But most of them have no knowledge." (Q39:30)

Justice is unified knowledge of this special genre. It sifts out those groups and nations who succeed in addressing our first duty, seeing, hearing and obeying the One ruling over the many. Thus Oneness forms justice for us, if only we can live up to it by constantly referring back to the all-merciful divine nature, rather than the arbitrary, brutal laws of physical reality. Montesquieu expresses the problem before us very nicely in his Spirit of the Laws,

"Man, as a physical being, is like other bodies governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being, he incessantly transgresses the laws established by God, and changes those of his own instituting. He is left to his private direction, though a limited being, and subject, like all finite intelligences, to ignorance and error: even his imperfect knowledge he loses; and as a sensible creature, he is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion. Such a being is liable every moment to forget himself; philosophy has provided against this by the laws of morality. Formed to live in society, he might forget his fellow-creatures; legislators have therefore by political and civil laws confined him to his duty."

I learned lately that ethicists do not categorize the three or four beginning commandments of the Decalogue as ethical dicta. They consider only the latter commandments to be ethical, those against murder, stealing, adultery, and so forth, but not those devoted to the Oneness and Power of God. These I suppose they consider to be matters of opinion or conviction.

This I think is to miss the whole point of monotheism.

It is true that it would be impossible to do perfect, absolute justice to these spiritual commandments. "...how can man be just with God?" (Job 9:2) But it is also true that those who can come to terms with these super-ethical laws of Oneness -- those who, like the former slaves in the wilderness of Paran, find their way out of bondage through relationship with God and His Middleman, build a history with the One, they can say that He and I go way back. This apparent diversion from the letter of ethics is the only way to make rules and laws into ways that lead to peace, as the following citations from scripture attest.

"A just weight and balance are the Lord's: all the weights of the bag are his work." (Prov 16:11, KJV)

"Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on Thee: because he trusteth in Thee." (Isa 26:3, KJV)

"Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel: for the Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land." (Hos 4:1, KJV)

"Or let him take hold of my strength, that he may make peace with me; and he shall make peace with me." (Isa 27:5)

"...guide our feet into the way of peace." (Luke 1:79)

"Ye (Jerusalem) shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, 'Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the lord.'" (Matt 23:39, KJV)

"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God and Jesus our Lord." (II Peter 1:2, KJV)

"To those who believe in God and His apostles and make no distinction between any of the apostles, we shall soon give their (due) rewards: for God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful." (Qur'an 4:152, Yusuf Ali)

"There is no peace for thee save by renouncing thyself and turning unto Me; for it behooveth thee to glory in My name, not in thine own; to put thy trust in Me and not in thyself, since I desire to be loved alone and above all that is." (AHW #8)

"Let us pray for eyes to see and ears to hear, and for hearts that long for peace." (Paris Talks, 57)

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Reader Feedback

Reader Feedback

By John Taylor; 11 October, 2006

One reader kindly wrote in appreciation of recent discussions of the life of William Osler. From my point of view he is a kindred spirit, in spite of his lack of outward religious allegiance. Consider this, from the Bliss biography, on the time around the turn of the Twentieth Century when Osler was teaching at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore:

"The Oslers were well-to-do, not rich. Dr Osler did not own a carriage, but always took the streetcar out to Hopkins. Nor would he permit a telephone in his house. When the phone company told him people were complaining about not being able to get through to him and cited their low rates, Osler is said to have replied that he would take a phone when the phone company paid him that much for the trouble he would have to tolerate." (pp. 240-241)

Myself, I have bowed to the passage of a century and reluctantly shell out my 30 bucks a month (or, as we should think of it, 360 dollars a year) to have a telephone, because I have to, I have no choice; but I feel just like Osler about cable or satellite television, I will accept that the day they pay me the fifty bucks, or six hundred dollars a year, to pipe their commercial garbage stream into my home. As for the electric streetcars that Osler took to get to work, making a carriage, much less an automobile unnecessary, the commercial Mafiosi at General Motors a few decades afterwards made sure that those sensible vehicles were destroyed, the tracks pulled up and polluting diesel buses took their place. Such is progress.

Osler was a great fan of the great early doctor-philosopher Thomas Browne, to such an extent that he had large passages of his writings memorized. Osler all but made Browne his religion; many of Browne's thoughts were on faith, life and death and other religious concepts. Here is a passage from Browne quoted in the Bliss biography that impressed me as being very close to Baha'u'llah's condemnation of words that begin and end in words.

"There are a bundle of curiosities, not only in Philosophy but in Divinity, proposed and discussed by men of most supposed abilities, which indeed are not worthy our vacant hours, much less our serious Studies." (Bliss, 46)

How often do I wander the bookshelves of library and bookstore with that thought in mind! I see shelf after shelf full of books published for one reason only, people will shell out money to buy them. Other than that, they are without merit. They should never have seen the light of day; they wasted the time of the writer, much less the time of those who would read them. Among the worst are the shelves devoted to tome after tome on health, diet and exercise. Entire series of books dedicated to walking... what is the point of taking the time to read a book about walking when that time could be better spent, well, walking? Why learn an elaborate fitness regime when all that is necessary is to find something active you enjoy, and do it?

But I suppose Brown is right, the worst offender is philosophy, and especially "divinity," which I suppose is what is now called theology. (Another reason for Baha'is to treat the word "theology" as a dirty word; it is arrogant to presuppose that the Unknowable can be studied) Once, in a passage that I documented several months ago, Baha'u'llah commented something to the effect that all of the hundreds and thousands of volumes of Sufi' mystical literature are not worth a few pages out of a geometry book. Cautions such as this are good for book lovers like myself to bear in mind; all that rests between the covers does not deserve a place there.

Another reader of this Badi' mailing list wrote the following thoughtful response to the increasingly bad blood between Christians and Muslims that is evidenced in news headlines over the past few months. He consented that it be shared here but since he expressed concern that the letter is not in finished form, I will not name his name.

Is anyone ready for relevant dialogue?

Hi John!

I've enjoyed all the articles you've written and shared about 'Abdul-Baha's encounters with the western world. My thoughts today after reading the latest news article (below) taken from http://www.worldnews.com/ are: "Listening" is so important right now.

We seem to be approaching a period where polarization between the two world's major religious peoples is growing deeper every day. Instead of welcoming good critical thinking and real honest dialogue, relevant communication is damningly condemned and violently rejected. So let's allow for some honesty.

For example, no matter what you're background, you could say, (historically speaking) "You know, your people really hurt me back then, and you know it seems like you still want to go on hurting me, and also it really seems like you don't want to listen to me." And if we can get that far, then move on to: "You know, we've done some terrible things to one another, so maybe we could try to forgive each other and learn to respect each other's good points, because we do have to get along now or be destined to start a new round of stupid fighting."

But the world is seriously running out of "divine love" because it is way beyond the reach of the major mob mentality amassing out there everywhere in the world. We're reaching the climax of an "us or them" thinking. It sure gives one an idea of what it was like to live in 1913 when the nations were like a powder keg. Only this time it's shaping up to be a much wider conflict. Huge populations grasping on to the remnants of the world's two major religious beliefs (... both ) want to take the other out, and I don't mean on a date.

When Douglas Martin was speaking in Victoria, BC, a few months ago, he said something along the lines that the major religions don't exist anymore and that you can't find them out there anywhere. Apparently he's right... The life of the major religions has been completely sucked out of them. Atheists I'm sure believe that they are going to win the world by default. They are pretty good at pretending that they have life, but they are just a fancy-dancy corpse. Relevant honest dialogue, understanding, forgiveness, getting along today. All are hard steps and they all need some good will behind them. We could be in for a rough ride. May God give us all new life.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Autumn Leaves

Fallen Autumn Leaves Blowing in the Wind

By John Taylor; 10 October, 2006

Today is my fiftieth birthday, and I am spending it doing the one thing I love most, getting on topic and then getting off it. First off, for those in the area, Ron Speer is giving a talk on the nature of work this evening at the Dunnville Library. That will be me, the guy putting the DVD into the machine.

We just got back from a Thanksgiving weekend stay at Silver Bay on Silver Lake, a YMCA resort situated in upper New York State's Adirondack Park. There we attended this year's ARE, Autuna Renkontigxo de Esperantistoj, or Fall Get-together of Esperantists, most of whom hailed from Montreal and New England, but some arrived from as far away as California and France.

On Friday we pulled the kids out of school at lunchtime and hit the road early. First we drove to Rochester, New York, where we stayed overnight with our family Esperantist friends, the Alexanders. It is thanks to the prompting of Tomaso Alexander that I was persuaded to go. I am very reluctant to travel. We got going early Saturday morning and we followed their mini-van, which set what is for me a breakneck pace. I could barely keep up, and it was obvious that he was slowing down so I could catch him. We drove at speeds I had never taken this car to, upwards of a hundred and twenty clicks, and that, combined with the raucous behavior of the children in the back seat, meant that I was well into a migraine by the time we arrived. Normally I drink bottle after bottle of water to counteract this, but my bathroom stops were too frequent as it was. Still, once we arrived the symptoms faded without the trauma of a major attack.

I had volunteered to give a presentation on the Master's visit to America, including an illustrated reading of his talks to the Esperantists in Edinburgh, Scotland, but I had not heard back from them and assumed there was no time or interest. I had had my usual technical difficulties putting it together anyway. When we awoke on Sunday morning I read the schedule found my and Silvie's name there first, slated for a 9 AM talk on "La Baha'a Religio." So with no notice or preparation, I wrote the principles on a whiteboard (had to get help translating "Economic Readjustment," which I learned is "ekonomia gxustigo") and I handed Silvie the mic to read each of them off, while I explained salient features of them, of the Faith and the Master's ideas about an international language.

Afterwards I answered questions, which were about the relations of Baha'is with the Esperanto movement. This experience, one of the few teaching experiences I have had in years, persuaded me that I should do more to till this fertile and neglected ground between Baha'i and Esperanto. During the talk I promised to finish the illustrated talk of the Master narrated by Silvie that I had originally conceived and to come back and present it at next year's ARE.

In the afternoon we hiked up a mountain, stopping periodically for Normando, who along with his wife Zdratka Fleury is the chief organizer of everything to do with ARE, to explain facts, names and details about the trees surrounding us. As a botanist at Montreal's botanical gardens, he was eminently qualified. His perorations included the names of each type of tree in French, Esperanto and English, as well as the nature of its ecological niche. The names of trees are oil covered in my brain and slip out as fast as they slip in, even when the name is in English. One tree, a member of the maple family, had a very broad leaf. Shown only the leaf alone you would imagine that it grew on a huge giant of a tree, but as he showed, the tree barely goes over most peoples' knees. It has such very large leaves in order to catch as much sunlight in the darkened mid-forest locations that it lives. In the rain forest, he went on, certain shaded plants grow huge leaves in order to catch the even tinier amount of light that penetrates the canopy of larger trees.

Another leaf Normando pointed out was from the hemlock tree. Somebody suggested that these leaves can be made into a tea. Normando is very French and gave his characteristic Pierre Trudeau shrug of the shoulders and "I do not know" movement of the hands. I objected, "Hey, didn't ingesting hemlock kill Socrates?" No, no, that is an herb of an entirely different species that has the same name. The tree is not poisonous. As the incline got steeper I found myself coming up with more botanical questions for Normando as an excuse to stop and catch my breath.

We made the summit with panorama, and looked down at the YMCA camp with Silver lake in the background. Then on the way down I was spontaneously interviewed by Zdratka about the details of my life. She explained that one should take a serpentine path down a steep slope in order to save the knees from too much stress. I found out later that she was raised in a mountainous area of Croatia and this was nothing for her. I was puffing to keep up and talk at the same time. It turned out that she uses an interesting literary form called a "protokolo" that I had never heard of. Instead of writing an essay or third-person biography, she interviews her subject, then writes a first-person narrative as if she were the person telling his or her life story. She then sends a draft to that person to check for accuracy and publishes a volume of several short life stories. This is similar to what I used to do in my youth, except that I left out the approval step and therefore have to leave my first person narratives until that person dies, along with all their family members. I never thought of getting permission.

At one point there was an oratory contest, a two to three minute speech, all of which were judged and the three best speakers given a prize. Silvie started it off with an explanation of her favorite thing in the whole world, the Silverwing series of novels. She was the only speaker who did not even reach the two minute warning. The winner was a tall, professorly-looking, bearded fellow called Francesco, who spoke of his love of learning a new language. For him learning a language is like entering a world, like being introduced to a new universe complete in itself. He spoke with the fervor that I imagine a sex addict might describe seducing a new lover. For him a new languages gives an authentic, incomparable taste of the history and collective experience of an entire culture. Fortunately Silvie was not present for the award presentation; she was off playing with Tomaso, her little brother, in one of the many play structures available on this campus. She never takes losing with anything like equanimity. But they did offer her a beginner's prize, three small booklets.

That evening we had a "kultura vespero" with presentations, music, games and other spontaneous activities contributed by those present. For that evening Silvie had a theatrical premier to offer. She wrote during the day just for that occasion a brief scene from a dramatic incident that takes place early in her Silverwing novel. She drafted Mom, Dad and little brother to play roles in it. All the family is a stage and all the people merely players. I played the only role I excel at, the bad guy, in this case an owl who wanted to kill Shade, the bat hero of the story, who had violated an ancient treaty agreement by staying outside long enough to glimpse the sun. The skit was actually about the filming of a live action version of the story and had two parts, the first of a scene where the actors mess up, the second part being when they get it right. It featured her usual sense of humor and might, with good actors, have had impact. But our messing up of the mess-up was not without inadvertent humor too.

At one point I got into an argument with an all-American fellow, call him Righty, who opined that the US government should boot out the UN and use the land in New York for something useful. I asked, did not the ending of the recent conflict in Lebanon by the UN not justify its existence even a little? No, they stopped that war too soon anyway, Israel should never have let Hezbollah win. Now things will be much worse. He then launched into a truly impressive explication of the complexities of the situation there and in Darfour. A political scientist could not have done better. The disquisition in detail was admirably accurate, but in conclusions and presuppositions preposterously bigoted. It reminded me of what you find in the propaganda sheet Time Magazine, which buries a situation in detailed commentary and only afterwards does the reader realize that the "news" article has been nothing but coaching in what and how to think. Think American. Power makes facts. Power makes truth. Do not even think of disagreeing.

For him, all Muslims are evil, hell-bent on erasing Israel and America, and it is the duty of every American to fight back against them. Islam is inherently warlike, always was and always will be. I found myself in the strange position of defending Muslims, all the while realizing that it is they, or at least certain fanatical leaders, who are hell bent-on erasing Baha'is from the map too. But you cannot throw out thousands of years of history and expect me to quietly consent.

I was amazed that any intelligent person could dress up bigotry in indisputable facts the way Righty did. I had read that such people are common in the US but had never witnessed it. Then the course of the evening seemed to underline the steel trap-like intelligence of this guy. He is a scrabble fan and clearly razor sharp with words; he suggested at the end of the evening a game he called Vortaro, or dictionary. You take the dictionary, in this case the PIV, Plena Ilustrita Vortaro, which plays a role in Esperanto much like the OED, Oxford English Dictionary, does for English, and you read a random definition and the group has to guess what word is being defined.

I mentioned Noam Chomsky and learned that he is a traitor. I asked if Righty was a Republican and everybody was shocked. A Republican would never come near Esperanto. Which, I suppose, would place Righty towards the leftward end of the American political spectrum, if you can call such a monochrome display a "spectrum." The only way to get peace in the world, according to Righty, would be for the three hundred million Americans to kill every one of the billion Muslims in the world. A three to one disadvantage, but remember who is carrying the big stick.

I have the type of brain that has to see the whole before I make a judgment. When I hear a song or poem I never understand a word or a note the first time around, only the second time do I begin to grasp and enjoy it. Sometimes it takes more than that to sink in. But Righty in almost every case guessed the word being defined when Normando had got only two or three words into reading it. Righty clearly had played vortaro many times before. Once, only once did I guess the word, one of only a few times that they managed to get through an entire definition with nobody guessing. My word was something about a Japanese stove used for cooking or heating a room. I guessed "hibacxo." I had not realized that a hibachi was used for heating too. Righty's prowess was impressive, but he had suggested the game. Later I realized that I could have gotten a similar victory rush if I had challenged everybody to a game of chess. I could have blown all comers off the board just like Righty had with his Vortaro. But what would that prove?

On the long, boring trip home I thought a great deal about Righty and our little verbal skirmish. I have to say that I came to see George Bush in a new light. In a land where people think so belligerently and ahistorically, Bush truly is a moderate. He is the closest thing you get to an enlightened leader. Lesser leaders, leaders closer to the pulse of public opinion, might have made subsequent events into a huge bloodbath rather than the slow bloodletting that it turned out to be.

But the real question is, how do such stale, borrowed opinions proliferate? Then I thought of that broad-leaved, stunted, forest floor dwelling tree. Trees dwelling in direct sunlight need only small leaves. In fact, I had asked Normando this, what happens if that broad leafed maple-relative is exposed to direct sunlight? The leaves burn up, I was told. That is what has happened to both Americans and Muslims, they have become so isolated, so insular in their separate worlds that very little light gets through to them.

Minds in a non-diverse ecosystem respond by entering into fervent competition for a small amount of truth, a filtered, weak smidgeon that must suffice to keep them alive. It is a life and death struggle for them to become sensitive to dark, dank lighting conditions; their only survival measure is to grow very big opinions, as broad and universal as possible, opinions that cover everything. Make your point of view, your politics, your circumstantial beliefs into something that keeps you alive. They are your whole life, your religion; so, inflate yourself, make it so that you win every argument, every game. Scott Adams called one of his books, "Since when did ignorance become a point of view?" I would add, "Since when did arrogance become a lifestyle?" But that is just what happens. When supercharged, oversized opinions burn up we get what is called war. Violence of some kind or other is the only possible result.

I took about 600 megs of photos on this trip but did I take a picture of that ridiculous knee-high maple with its huge leaves? I do not think so. I will have to get a shot of one next time we plunge into a deep forest.

Anyway, look at what happened in Europe. Two world wars, two turns at total destruction finally convinced their elites that unification is safer, more stable and profitable than pandering to the hatreds of the ignorant. Look at the Muslim World and its mirror opposite, America. They escaped such suffering and still abide in a protected, shady environment. They are never wrong, and if there is a chance that they might lose, they refuse to play. Arrogance breeds unchecked. The only thing that will persuade them to reduce the size of their opinions is getting burned.

To give an example of the denial that thrives in insularity, a recent survey of Mullahs in Canada found that every man jack of them firmly believes that the events of 9-11 were the result of a conspiracy by, well, you fill in the name of the conspirators, as long as it is not Muslims. Same thing with Nazis after the exposure of the concentration camps. Deniers say, do not confuse me with the facts. Same as big leafed plant might say, do not burn me up with the sunlight. Same way, the 12 September speech of the pope given in Germany quoting a medieval Christian emperor as saying that the Islamic concept of jihad was evil and inhuman, that could only have been said by someone ignorant of the meaning of the word Jihad. The medieval emperor perhaps had an excuse, but this modern pope? No. The darkness is not ignorance but denial. The tree refuses to leave its forest shade.

Indeed, what is humility, I ask you? It is the ability to sustain your ego without ego stroking; the ability to mold what is yours into what is in others too, like the rustling of an aspen tree.

The process of Baha'i consultation is such rustling leaves. It avoids solitude, competition, violence, strife and conflict by moving everybody out into the light. That is what it does intellectually, but spiritually? That is the essential part, the prayer and reflection that precede opening our mouth or even forming our opinions. That inner reformation allows a new, fresh leaf of opinion to spring out, not a dead, borrowed, pre-made point of view. The spiritual step conditions the tree of the heart, takes it out of the dark and adapts it to the light, puts us into a fuller state. Then we know that we can afford to carry tiny, un-obstructive opinions, compact, efficient viewpoints limited within the bounds of divine law, leaves that sustain elegantly. These little leaves do not burn up.

The Baha'i spirit is leaves of one tree, but not just any tree. It is a tree adapted to a bright, direct light, the tree of One God. If I had to pick a part of the Writings that illustrates this, it would be the Tarazat, or Ornaments, especially the opening section of Tarazat number two, which starts off:

"The second Taraz is to consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship, to proclaim that which the Speaker on Sinai hath set forth and to observe fairness in all matters. They that are endued with sincerity and faithfulness should associate with all the peoples and kindreds of the earth with joy and radiance, inasmuch as consorting with people hath promoted and will continue to promote unity and concord, which in turn are conducive to the maintenance of order in the world and to the regeneration of nations. Blessed are such as hold fast to the cord of kindliness and tender mercy and are free from animosity and hatred. This Wronged One exhorteth the peoples of the world to observe tolerance and righteousness, which are two lights amidst the darkness of the world and two educators for the edification of mankind. Happy are they who have attained thereto and woe betide the heedless." (Tablets, 35-36)

That word "ornament," so common in Baha'u'llah's Writing, has always puzzled me. Does not ornament mean something that can be disposed of, something not necessary? Yes, a big, small leafed tree can well dispense of many of its leaves, and in the present autumn season it dispenses with them all. That is why we all die, every man jack of us. But if we grow as tiny leaves on the Big Tree of Oneness we know we were created for this and we go with joy.

For me the highlight of the Kultura Vespero was a brilliant young Montreal cellist who could do things with that big, clumsy instrument that you would not think possible. He played an impressionistic composition about birds in a bush and I could have sworn I heard the flitting of their wings and the twittering of their birdsong. For his encore he asked the audience to suggest a theme. Someone suggested fallen autumn leaves blowing in the wind. Again, a unique sound that will never be repeated, just like what we do in His service. When I remember his music I think of the Tarazat and the effect it must eventually, have even in the darkest reaches of the human forest.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Justice and Oneness

Justice and the Oneness of God

By John Taylor; 2006 Oct 05


My health is better than I remember it ever being. My single-minded efforts at more exercise and better diet are at last starting to pay off. I have had to punch a few new holes in my belt. But that brightening puts my career or lack of it in a starker light. Writing these essays every day starts to seem more futile and pointless every day. What do I get out of it? What does anybody, other than about three dozen readers, get out of it? So yesterday in foul weather I sat before the keyboard moping, writing nothing. Then after supper my sister-in-law Jitka called from Hamilton and we arranged to go visit in Hamilton. I picked her up and dropped her, Marie and Thomas off at a Burger King with a play place. Meanwhile Silvie and I went on to attend Mrs. Javid's fireside.

Thus Marie and Jitka got their chance for a few hours to jawbone in rapid-fire Czech while Thomas climbed the indoor slides and other play structures nearby. Jitka has been here longer than many naturalized citizens but because of her means of entry she is most often called an illegal worker, or just an illegal. Lately I heard for the first time the politically correct word for these non-persons: an "undocumented worker." Well, if she is an undocumented worker then I am an undocumented writer, in spades. Anyway, after the meeting the fireside speaker, Charles F., introduced me very kindly to the group, announcing that I had set out to write an essay a day. I sat shamefaced, thinking how sorely I have fallen short of that goal lately. I fail even to do what digs the hole of failure even deeper. But I took that as a goad, a good thing; so thank Charles for the existence of the following shovel full.


Let us go back to our ongoing project over the better part of a year, our examination of the Uber-principle, the Oneness of God. In the arbitrary order of the principles that I have adopted as a convention, we just finished ethics and are about to step into universal peace.

I must say that lately I feel like a vaudeville master of ceremonies who, every time he goes over to unveil the principle of universal peace, a hook comes out from offstage, encircles his neck and pulls him back; I constantly return to ethics and oneness of God. Rather than trying to avoid the hook, let me just admit there is an intermediate principle between personal and social, between ethics and peace: justice. Justice is the confluence, the straddling of the line between God within and a God that loves us all as a species, as well as all the rest of His creation. So today let us discuss how justice applies to the principle of One God.

Recently we were diverted, as it turns out fortunately, by an Internet discussion of a tangled postmodernist tissue of lies called moral relativism. This is the idea that personal morals, like the kind of cell phones we use, are subject to constant change, revamping and improvement. We learned from our region's learned Auxiliary Board Member for protection, Shakar Arjomand, that the opening paragraphs of the Kitab-i-Iqan are designed to rule out from the very start this unfortunate perversion of relativity theory. From what little I understand of events leading up to this discussion, a young man in Toronto area attended Ruhi sessions and proposed to join the Baha'i Faith in order to reform it. By "reform" he meant changing moral tenets that we regard as unchanging aspects of godliness.

It is a strange thing that although the spirit of our age, and indeed the Kitab-i-Iqan itself, are utterly seeping in relativity and contextual knowledge, at the same time the very idea of one God demands that there be large pastures of life and morals that are untouchable, that will never alter or change. Their nature is defined by their being the right way, the shortest distance between two points. Plato in the Cratylus demonstrates why moral relativism is untenable. An absolute is required for relativity; this is of the very nature of whatever is right, true and natural.

Soc. Nor will you be disposed to say with Euthydemus, that all things equally belong to all men at the same moment and always; for neither on his view can there be some good and other bad, if virtue and vice are always equally to be attributed to all.

Her. There cannot.

Soc. But if neither is right, and things are not relative to individuals, and all things do not equally belong to all at the same moment and always, they must be supposed to have their own proper and permanent essence: they are not in relation to us, or influenced by us, fluctuating according to our fancy, but they are independent, and maintain to their own essence the relation prescribed by nature.

Her. I think, Socrates, that you have said the truth.

Soc. Does what I am saying apply only to the things themselves, or equally to the actions which proceed from them? Are not actions also a class of being?

Her. Yes, the actions are real as well as the things.

Soc. Then the actions also are done according to their proper nature, and not according to our opinion of them? In cutting, for example, we do not cut as we please, and with any chance instrument; but we cut with the proper instrument only, and according to the natural process of cutting; and the natural process is right and will succeed, but any other will fail and be of no use at all.

Her. I should say that the natural way is the right way.

Soc. Again, in burning, not every way is the right way; but the right way is the natural way, and the right instrument the natural instrument.


The existence of a moral absolute, the true and the good, is implied by the very word "God." Conversely, the necessity of a God is shown by persistent commonalities in nature. These are necessary for us to understand anything. One of the founders of modern law and government, the Baron de Montesquieu, dealt with this at the beginning of his masterwork, the Spirit of the Laws, in a section called, "Of the Relation of Laws to different Beings."

"Since we observe that the world, though formed by the motion of matter, and void of understanding, subsists through so long a succession of ages, its motions must certainly be directed by invariable laws; and could we imagine another world, it must also have constant rules, or it would inevitably perish. Thus the creation, which seems an arbitrary act, supposes laws as invariable as those of the fatality of the Atheists. It would be absurd to say that the Creator might govern the world without those rules, since without them it could not subsist. These rules are a fixed and invariable relation. In bodies moved, the motion is received, increased, diminished, or lost, according to the relations of the quantity of matter and velocity; each diversity is uniformity, each change is constancy."

The creative lawmaking of God brings unity in diversity and diversity out of unity, like a wheel going around. After this, Montesquieu recognizes that things get much more complicated when constants are applied to the world of intelligent but flawed human beings. But even here there are elements that never change. It will never be a good thing to murder or steal or commit violations of love. God is love, and love is not to be affronted. The fact that there are rare exceptions, for example when authorities exercise capitol punishment or expropriate private property, does not alter these sacred and universal moral truths.

In the end Montesquieu discerns one constant always canalizing and regulating human nature. Human nature, according to the direction it chooses, can be the best of the best or the worst of the worst, but in either direction it still strives after what it perceives as good and avoids what seems bad. This is a constant: the universal desire to seek the pleasant and avoid the unpleasant. In other words, both good and bad people seek their own kind of reward and punishment and are malleable and susceptible of influence. Any authority that wishes to nurture the good and reform the bad must alter the rules forming their rewards and punishments. Upon this simple premise Montesquieu builds his entire Spirit of the Laws. Nor does Baha'u'llah, in His great instauration, cast it aside. In this Great Being statement He states:

"The Great Being saith: The structure of world stability and order hath been reared upon, and will continue to be sustained by, the twin pillars of reward and punishment." (Tablets, Lawh-i-Maqsud, 163)

It is true that He does not explicitly say that justice depends upon reward and punishment, only that order and stability are held up by those pillars. But since Baha'u'llah elsewhere defines justice as turning aside from imitation and idle fancy, as discerning with the eye of oneness God's holy handiwork and as looking into all things with a searching eye it is clear that none of these activities could thrive in an unordered, unstable edifice. Law and order go together like a horse and carriage.

From here divine law and human law part ways. In divine law "each change is constancy," which is to say that love, forgiveness and justice are not separated. Human law bifurcates, dichotomizes, lobotomizes. For example, recently Canadian courts have half-heartedly attempted to introduce restorative justice rather than the usual brute punishment alone, which is being recognized in many cases as counterproductive. Tossing a young offender into prison only offers him more training in gang culture and improves his crime committing skills. But the law is a blunt instrument; what is the alternative? Judges are very much in the position of a doctor who can only counsel patients to adopt a better lifestyle. The judge is sentencing a youth raised in a brutal, abusive home and neighborhood that flouts the basics of love, mercy and justice at every turn. The constants of daily lifestyle are too subtle. Warring and disordering are infused into people's thinking, as evidenced by the ubiquity of profanity. Most of what makes us healthy and fair rest beyond the power and expertise of doctors and judges. Indeed there is an uncertainty principle that limits our understanding of what is good for us. In a passage we looked at recently, `Abdu'l-Baha explained why it is that wild animals know what their bodies need by natural cravings and people usually do not.

"Since man's attention is not confined to one interest, his negligence is greater; while his comprehension is greater than that of all other creatures when it is focused and fixed on one subject." (Mahmud, 84)

The law of God, is aware of this fundamental blind spot of beings blessed and cursed with the faculty of reason. His law leaves nothing outside its field of expertise. The law of God is Logos, reason itself, and it is more than reason. It is knowledge itself, and recognizing it infuses an attitude of due humility in all who learn it. In this way it takes in even the unknowns, the hidden bounds of knowledge. In this way it expunges in matters great or small any possibility of abuse, violence or injustice.

"For of all kinds of knowledge the knowledge of good laws has the greatest power of improving the learner; otherwise there would be no meaning the divine and admirable law possessing a name akin to mind (Nous is Greek for mind, Nomos for law)." (Plato, Laws)

Choosing this divine law to rule over our heart is, spiritually if not materially, a matter of life and death. Note the close identity in the following passage, the original formulation of the covenant of Moses, among reward and punishment, life and death, love and justice and obedience and prosperity.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: that thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them." (Deut 30:19-20, KJV)

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Praising Precaution

Praising Precaution

By John Taylor; 2006 October 03

"All praise be to God!" What does that mean? Does it imply that we should not praise things that are not God? Seven-year-old Thomas last night broke open a new checkers game and I let him win his first few games. He was proud and enthusiastic and when he woke first thing this morning before going to school he wanted to play more games with me and his mother. Was my lavish praise misplaced? Was I doing wrong? Or does this mean that whatever we praise, we are really praising the God part within? If so, my praise would have been of God, the divine part in Thomas that longs to solve problems and participate in divine "winter" virtues like honor (Sharaf), dominion (Mulk), and so forth? In that case all my praise would still be of God, the Majestic, the Winner, and so would his praise for the game of checkers.

Lately a nagging sense of situational desperation has pushed me, after a long layoff, to start back again starting every day off with an ardent recital of the Tablet of Ahmad. Then, acting as if my prayers had already been answered, I started again my search for a domain on which to lay the foundation of a home on the Net for these essays. I wondered hard and long about what domain name would be appropriate. Ideally it would be "badi'," Arabic for innovation, the name of the Bab's calendar and the focus of my first couple of years writing completely on the net, that is, between 1999 and 2001. I wanted to take badi.com but last I checked some female vocalist named Badi' had already taken it. Then it hit me that "instauration" would be ideal, since it means the "act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new." This is a very close rendering of the meaning of Badi,' though the Arabic seems to have religious overtones, recognizing that since all praise goes to God, all innovation ultimately originates in Him. What is more, one of my heroes from way back, Frances Bacon, called his masterwork, "The Great Instauration," which helped begin modern science. I would like nothing more than to follow in his footsteps.

Unfortunately it was a "good news -- bad news" situation when I Googled "instauration." The good news was that the domain name was not taken. The bad news was that it had been for decades the name of a now-defunct White Power magazine. Which meant that if I did take that name I might end up with a gang of racist skinheads, or as they call themselves, "racialists," on my doorstep demanding their name back. One racialist told an amusing (for me, anyway, no doubt tragic for them) story of how the publication snuffed itself out. Its main contributor was evidently a member of the Southern landed gentry. He was a skilled writer and wrote most of the articles for Instauration. But then another racialist wrote in and heaped blame on that class of greedy, slave-driving plantation owners for importing black slaves in the first place. They are the root cause of Roots, they started the American race situation in the first place. The writer took this personal-like and refused to support the magazine. So for me it is back to the drawing board.

I just finished reading "Introducing Science," by Ziauddin Sardar. It is one of the worst in the series, poorly illustrated and as a critic of science I wish that this historian of medieval Islamic science had brushed up on his modern science. He beats a thousand straw men to death but leaves the core of science untouched. It would have been better if he had called it what the book really is, "Introducing Science Studies;" Science Studies it seems is a new interdisciplinary discipline. I must say that although I am an avid science fan I had never heard of it. Such a change of title alone would have improved the book. But the parts that are good in it are very good indeed.

Here is what I learned. In the Fifties and Sixties science was mostly funded by government and the military. Since then its funding has radically shifted. Now the lion's share of the money for research comes from corporate sources. Before physics was the star, now biology is. Biology and genetics offer industry very bright prospects for patents and potentially huge future profits. This changes everything. Science has become greedier, more ruthless, and insatiable; all-in-all science has grown into a form of cancer without concern for anything but transient profit for a tiny minority of the human race.

But these changes are not all for the bad. There is a growing response to the crowding dangers that crop up in every edition of your morning newspaper. In 1992 the Climate Change Convention adopted the "precautionary principle," defined as "measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize adverse effects" of scientific progress "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage." At the heart of this is the increasingly hard to ignore uncertainty principle, the Socratic ignorance that started philosophy, what science studies students are now calling "ignorance squared." Ignorance squared is disconcerting fact that we not only do not know, we also do not know how much we do not know. We do not even know how much we do not know. In such darkness, who dares take a step forward? To that the corporate sponsors of science say, We do not know so why not go ahead and give it a try? Their opponents say, We do not know so why do anything new at all? What the new precautionary principle offers is a sort of "notwithstanding clause" to the uncertainty at the heart of science, progress and everything else we try or do not try. It says that "lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing ... (the above precautionary) measures." Sardar writes:

"The definition even suggests that precautionary measures should be `cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost.' The European Union's science policy is now guided by the spirit of the precautionary principle. It is being used increasingly in policy making in which there is risk to the environment or to the health of humans, animals or plants. The onus is now on the manufacturer to prove that a product or process is safe." (Introducing Science, p. 162)

How telling it is, a century after the ascension of Baha'u'llah, that the precautionary principle should have been instituted as a way to direct and discipline scientific progress, for a very similar principle beats at the heart of the principles laid out in His Writings. Consider this, among the greatest of the Great Being statements:

"The Great Being saith: The heaven of statesmanship is made luminous and resplendent by the brightness of the light of these blessed words which hath dawned from the dayspring of the Will of God: It behoveth every ruler to weigh his own being every day in the balance of equity and justice and then to judge between men and counsel them to do that which would direct their steps unto the path of wisdom and understanding. This is the cornerstone of statesmanship and the essence thereof. ... The secrets of statesmanship and that of which the people are in need lie enfolded within these words." (Tablets, 166-167)

Those in positions of leadership are to do just what the European Union does, counsel experts and scientists to "direct their steps unto the path of wisdom and understanding." Wisdom is, at the very least, a kind of precautionary principle.

Not that the EEC is living up to the rules it declared for itself. In the news over the past few days is one of the worst cases of toxic waste dumping in modern history. Horrible caustic tar straight from a refractory in Holland was dumped into the poorest sector of the poorest city in the poorest country of Africa. Still, their old kings were directly addressed by Baha'u'llah, and it would be appropriate if they were among the first places to actually adopt wisdom rather than precipitate greed as their operating principle. All praise be to God, and to those beings weighed in His presence.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Moral Relativism and Baha’i

Moral Relativism and the Baha’i Message

By John Taylor; 2006 October 01

I have been several days switching computers, having bought a new one.
This is a much longer and more complex job than I had anticipated.
Meanwhile, how to keep the Badi’ list going? How’s about this: our
community had a thought-provoking deepening last Thursday night about
attacks against the Baha’i Faith led by Joseph Woods. In passing, Joe
mentioned the following article which is to be found on a Baha’i
discussion forum, written by our Auxiliary Board Member:

http://www.groupsrv.com/religion/post-956604.html
A RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE ON MORAL RELATIVISM by Shahkar Arjomand

This URL includes as well a response by the author being responded to,
one Brendan Cook, who evidently is bound and determined to “reform” the
Baha’i Faith even before he enters it. Their arguments are detailed and
inter-windingly complex. You can read it all for yourself at that web
locale. To oversimplify, Arjomand says that spiritual law is like
physical laws, unchanging; a cobra bite would kill the human body a
thousand years ago, today, and a thousand years from now. Cook responds,
rather subtly, that nothing is all that simple, that cobra venom in
minute quantities is used in medicine, and that spiritual laws cannot be
treated as simple, monolithic, unchanging entities either. This Cook
fellow should consult a thesaurus, because his objection against
simplicity that simple is too simple cannot stand unless his objection
to Arjomand’s simplicity is that it is reductionist.

Surely the whole idea of a law, physical or spiritual, is that it
simplifies a complex reality. A formula compresses the behavior of
materials anywhere in the universe under the same conditions. A
spiritual law like love is never abrogated, never changes. It may have
exceptions once in a while, but there will never be a religion that
teaches hatred. The fact that Jesus knocked over a few kiosks in the
Temple or that Muhammad was forced to defend Medina militarily does not
change or abrogate the universal law of love. Both were greater teachers
of love than you or I will ever be.

The same simplification is true of words. The whole idea of a word is
that it compresses and simplifies meaning. For example, you and I both
understand what the word “life” means even though I have not lived your
life nor have you lived my life. The word “life” compresses huge
variances between your life and mine. The word describes something that
we share with every other human, with animals, plants and, by some
lights, even rocks and minerals. I would be using the word “life”
reductionistically if I said, though, “That’s life,” and expected it to
mean anything at all. That is a reductionist use of the word. But even
that has its uses. You can say, “That’s life,” when you cannot think of
anything else to say and leave it up to the listener to paint in
whatever meaning they please. So, even reductionism, defined as “bad
simplicity,” can be a good thing at the right time and place.

Interestingly, I just read that a biological scientist a few years back
came up with a new definition of life and actually began the long legal
process of patenting it. There is a gold rush among biologists for codes
and simplifications, especially on the genome, the simple code that
writes our bodies, which are potentially very lucrative to Big Pharma.
Then somebody pointed out that God had already beat him to it, and he
stopped the patent process. This is very telling because “God” is a word
for a good kind of simplification, the kind of simple that does not
change, that was simple a million years ago and will be a million years
from now. Sure, God is that and much more, but for political purposes
God is our word for “long term considerations” and “things we cannot and
will never understand.” God, and the word “God,” constitute the ultimate
formula, the great simplifier, even the Most Great Reducer. That in fact
is what qualifies Him to make laws that no human or group of humans can
or will ever be qualified to fathom, much less make pronouncements
about. Humans may form opinions “fer” or “agin” homosexuality or
abortion or a thousand other unfathomables, but only one Being ever
knows, the Being that created us all for a purpose, a purpose known only
to Him and only explainable, insofar as it can be explained, by Him and
Him alone.

I have at this juncture two names to drop, Plato and Karl Popper.

Plato came up with a brilliant and much misunderstood idea called the
“true lie.” Law making, simplifying, reducing, call it what you will, is
a process of generating true lies. Any law about something that we
cannot understand is bound to start off as a sort of lie. Should I abort
that baby in my belly? Should I indulge that passion or desire? Who can
say whether any action or non-action will turn out for good or bad? Who
knows whether a law, which is far more complex, involving as it does
many lives rather than just one, will stifle more flames than it
intensifies? Thus any law at the moment it is passed is an unknown, an
almost random shot in the dark. It is a lie, based upon the false
assumption that you know something when nobody does or can know. ‘Cept’n
God. Any law is reductionist and, we can be sure, will have good and bad
effects. All we can say is that one law may be better than another if it
has fewer bad effects than it has bad ones. In that case the lie becomes
“true.” Or perhaps it will have more good effects in areas that matter
in the long term. That would make it even more “true.”

But the problem is that every assumption every step of the way can be
challenged by a clever fellow like Mr. Cook. But cleverness is not the
same as wisdom. Plato refused even to call the discipline he founded
“wisdom,” he called it only “love of wisdom,” or philosophy. All we can
do is love what comes down from a greater Mind than our own. All we can
do is what Plato and his teacher Socrates both did: Throw up our hands
and admit our own ignorance, just admit from the start that we are
talking about lies and true lies, not about right and wrong, truth and
falsehood.

Karl Popper in his youth was the most ardent and prominent critic of
Plato because he considered Plato’s ideal Republic to be the root of
tyranny and autocracy. The very idea of a philosopher king is a standing
excuse for your Hitler or Stalin or Mao to take over and do the
atrocities they did. But after a lifetime of wrestling with the greatest
philosopher in history Popper came up with what I think is nothing but
an elaboration of the true lie, albeit a crucial one for understanding
the merits and bounds of modern science. This was his concept of science
and “non-science” –- a scientific theory is a proposition that not only
simplifies, but it is one that can be tested and proven wrong.
Non-science is any theory that cannot be proven wrong. Non-science is
not a synonym for “nonsense.” This simple delimitation is why many
consider Popper to be the greatest philosopher of science of the last
century.

This raises the question, can a law be proven wrong? Before the fact,
no. It is a lie, a shot in the dark. Only after the fact can you examine
its effects and assess it, and even then only according to the values
and criteria that engendered the law in the first place. Only then can
you start the great weeding out process that we call science. Science
aims to eliminate the fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc,” that is,
“It happened after, therefore it was caused by it.” About what happened
before, it has nothing to say.

Religion, on the other hand, is technically a kind of “non-science” but
nonetheless it is very much concerned with testing, not the kind of
testing that decides which particular belief is right or wrong (that
would be mere arrogant nonsense) but the inner, invisible testing of the
heart that results in attitudes and virtues. It asks, “Is this heart
worthy of recognizing its ignorance?” Look up high enough and you have
to say: I have seen the enemy and it is us. In this sense religion most
emphatically does have something to say about what happens before the
fact, before and above what we understand. Not that it asks us to
understand what we cannot understand. It only asks us to be ready by
adopting a worthy attitude, by recognizing, like both Socrates and the
drunk in any 12 step program, our own ignorance and powerlessness.

I think Mr. Arjomand correctly points to the opening page of the
Kitab-i-Iqan here. The Iqan’s main contribution to the history of ideas
is to introduce relativity to religion (the idea of progressive
revelation) but at its very start it rules out the ethical form of
relativism, moral relativism. If you cannot, like Mr. Cook, get past the
pronouncements on the first page of Baha’u’llah’s greatest work of
ethics, then you can hardly enter into dialogue with Baha’is about
morality. As the spiritual continuation of the Bab’s greatest work, the
Iqan starts out with a headpiece citation from the Writings of the Bab:

“No man shall attain to the shores of the ocean of true understanding
except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth. Sanctify
your souls, O ye peoples of the world, that haply ye may attain that
station which God hath destined for you and enter thus the tabernacle
which, according to the dispensations of Providence, hath been raised in
the firmament of the Bayan.” (Iqan, 3)

Here is the essence of the Bab’s message. Purify, detach yourself. This
passage acts as it were as the gate (Bab) that, opening up, lets you
into the tabernacle of the Baha’i Faith. There is no other way in. As
Jesus said, “Strait is the gate and narrow the way that leadeth unto the
Kingdom…” Then Baha’u’llah says,

“The essence of these words is this: they that tread the path of faith,
they that thirst for the wine of certitude, must cleanse themselves of
all that is earthly -- their ears from idle talk, their minds from vain
imaginings, their hearts from worldly affections, their eyes from that
which perisheth. They should put their trust in God, and, holding fast
unto Him, follow in His way. Then will they be made worthy of the
effulgent glories of the sun of divine knowledge and understanding, and
become the recipients of a grace that is infinite and unseen, inasmuch
as man can never hope to attain unto the knowledge of the All-Glorious,
can never quaff from the stream of divine knowledge and wisdom, can
never enter the abode of immortality, nor partake of the cup of divine
nearness and favour, unless and until he ceases to regard the words and
deeds of mortal men as a standard for the true understanding and
recognition of God and His Prophets.” (Iqan, 3)