tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3210933998341353221.post5174441363039529976..comments2023-04-04T04:33:26.719-07:00Comments on Crossing the Bridge: Are all adjectives simplistic and outdated?Nicholas19http://www.blogger.com/profile/13037747564955702542noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3210933998341353221.post-82505367917603867752010-05-19T16:35:14.254-07:002010-05-19T16:35:14.254-07:00Hi. Thanks for your comment. Your post on monarchy...Hi. Thanks for your comment. Your post on monarchy was interesting. <br /><br />With regards to morality, I believe that the Baha'i moral teachings are the same as those of previous religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but also Buddhism, Hinduism and other faiths. The moral element of the Baha'i Faith is, I believe, part of the religion that doesn't change. It is, therefore, conservative by its very nature, as it does not change. Individual laws may change. For instance, (I have read your post regarding homosexuality btw, but I do believe it is an uncontroversial and unambiguous issue) homosexuality is punishable by death in Jewish law but by other means in Baha'i law (which have not yet been defined). While the punishment is different, the moral issue is the same. Homosexuality is not something that will ever be acceptable within the Baha'i Faith or any future revelation. <br /><br />Sexuality outside of marriage is also immoral. The laws have change. Polygamy has been removed. Laws of divorce differ, etc. But the principle remains. Murder, hatred for others, stealing, covetousness, etc. These are all eternal things that do not change. Individual laws may change, but we can be certain that the next Revelation will still forbid stealing, murder, homosexuality, etc. These things cannot change. <br /><br />Veiling or other restrictions are moral issues, if they are related to specific religious laws. It is always an accepted principle that one must follow the divine law. So if there were a law that women must veil themselves, to deliberately disobey that would be immoral. In that case, it would be a specific ordinance related to a moral principle, i.e. the principle of modesty. The ordinances have changed, but the principle of modesty exists in the Baha'i Faith as much as in Islam. It would be immoral for a Baha'i woman to show off her body inappropriately, though there is no specific law regarding veiling. This idea of the supremacy of religious law is upheld in the Kitab-i-Aqdas where Baha'u'llah criticises unbounded liberty.<br /><br />I agree with what you are saying about many Baha'i teachings appearing liberal though. Certainly, compared to 19th century Britain or Persia, they are very liberal. The moral core of the teachings, however, is identical to the moral core of Christianity or Islam. This is what I mean my moral conservativism.Nicholas19https://www.blogger.com/profile/13037747564955702542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3210933998341353221.post-984399321112773982010-05-16T01:46:44.348-07:002010-05-16T01:46:44.348-07:00As regards monarchy, I agree entirely. I posted so...As regards monarchy, I agree entirely. I posted something similar to what you say here, as a comment on <br />The naked sting of exegesis: Christopher Schwartz's blog. He has not approved it.<br /><br />http://schwartztronica.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/the-naked-sting-of-exegesis/<br /><br />He has however publicly apologised for his heated words. <br /><br />There's a posting on my blog about the "practicalities of monarchy" that argues that constitutional monarchy is the "best practice" technique of democracy, for perfectly pragmatic reasons (not that I think Baha'u'llah's teachings are unimportant). <br />http://tinyurl.com/practical-monarchy<br /><br />As regards moral conservatism, it depends where you come from. The Bahai Faith was born in the Victorian era, and not in merry old England either. It allows women to go unveiled, to be educated, to initiate a divorce, to participate in all branches of public life, at the highest level. It bars parents from arranging marriages, it doesn't advocate stoning people to death for adultery. To turn away from the Middle East, the Bahai Faith encourages interracial marriages, which were seen as immoral in the US of A into the 50's. Seen in the historical context, the Bahai Faith is way way out on the moral liberal end of the spectrum. You might say that veiling, for example, is not a moral issue. But that's just what moral liberalism **does:** it defines things as not moral issues: they become health issues, or lifestyle choices, or self-expression. <br /><br />There are other liberal Bahai teachings which have moral aspects: democracy for example. It's not just a political system, it rests on the dignity and value of the individual. The individual search after truth, ditto. <br /><br />Because I'm looking at a wider scene, I'm quite confident in calling the Bahai teachings morally liberal. I would also say that, as regards some contemporary moral issues especially in the West, the Bahai teachings are not as liberal as some advocated positions.Sen McGlinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08925196753866099527noreply@blogger.com