2 September 02003

David Kelly and the Baha'i Faith

Interesting to see the attention given to the Baha'i Faith since it has emerged from the Hutton Enquiry that David Kelly joined the religion in 1999.

I nearly became a Baha'i in 1995, intrigued to learn more after attending a Baha'i wedding, and again in 1999. In crude terms, the Faith is non-sexist, pacifist and internationalist, actively encourages co-operation with all other religions, and its organisation is — in management-speak — flat and fairly non-hierarchical. It's also committed to avoiding what might be called evangelical recruitment methods to grow its numbers: no emotional arm-twisting or moral blackmail.

But it's not post-modernist because it is firmly wedded to what po-mo's would call an Enlightenment Narrative: Baha'i's believe that things are getting better; people are getting better; as time's arrow advances, so do our souls, towards salvation. Jesus, Mohammed, Zoroaster and the Buddha were all manifestations of the one God. The reason their teachings were not fully non-sexist etc was that people weren't ready to hear that stuff back then. But by the mid-19th Century, Baha'u'llah — the latest manifestation of God — was able to give us Release 5.0 of the Word of God. (OK, I'm teasing a bit, but I mean no offence to Baha'i's, for whom I have great respect, through my use of language.)

But herein lay my sticking point: what the Baha'i Faith shares with other religions is a rigid adherence to the Word, albeit a kinder, gentler, more cosmopolitan scripture. I asked what Baha'i's thought of homosexuality, and the answers were hedged slightly, but — from what I could gather — it seemed Baha'u'llah didn't think the Victorian era was ready for gay rights. And the bad news is that it is written that there won't be another manifestation of God visiting us with an update on the Word for at least another 2,000 years.

Oh, I should confess to another little problem I had with the Faith: Baha'u'llah says 'no alcohol.' I wasn't sure I was ready to hear that.

I'm no expert on the Baha'i Faith, so if I've got the wrong end of the stick on any points above, please add a comment below. Of course I will correct inaccuracies.

Posted by David Jennings in section(s) Miscellany, Politics on 2 September 02003 | TrackBack
Comments

We tend to think that whatever is in vogue today is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In many ways Baha'is believe that human society as a whole is advancing, however, Baha'u'llah stated that 'belief in God is dying out in every land' and that is a crisis for man of incredible proportions. Baha'is believe that in spite of all the gifts and achievements that have brought us to our present state, we are not the ultimate authority on reality and, in fact, to the degree that we put our whole faith and confidence in our own ability to understand and control our world we are doomed to disaster. The reason that Baha'is have a 'rigid adherence to the Word' is that we believe that man requires God's guidance to progress and that is given through the revelations of the founders of the world's religions. Baha'u'llah's revelation in particular, speaks not only to the 19th century, but to the 29th century as well (no new manifestation for a full 1000 years). It is lays out for us what is required to move to the next stage of our social and spiritual evolution as a species. The next stage is the unification of the whole planet - the Baha'i Revelation stands alone in the world today as giving us the blueprint for that next step.

For us, that is a big deal and if we have trouble with the little stuff like homosexuality, chastity, alcohol, etc. well, we just have to put things in perspective don't we?

Nice talking to you.
Myles

Posted by: Myles on 2 January 02004 at 6:36 AM

Thank you very much, Myles, for taking the time to comment on my posting. Reading what I wrote four months later, it seems a bit mean-spirited — so thanks for responding with generosity.

I think perhaps a lot of people would agree that "we are not the ultimate authority on reality and, in fact, to the degree that we put our whole faith and confidence in our own ability to understand and control our world we are doomed to disaster." But not all of these would say they had a belief in God, even though they would like to believe — if you see what I mean.

The Baha'i Faith seems to me like one of the best ways there is to get out of this fix. But my inability to make the leap of faith leaves me in a different fix, a tautologous one: if we are not the ultimate authority on reality how can we know that Baha'u'llah's revelation is the true one?

It's the homosexuality thing that most undermines my confidence in accepting the revelation. Notwithstanding my earlier jibe about drinking, I accept that chastity and alcohol is 'little stuff.' I can change my behaviour in these areas. But I can't change the fact that I am heterosexual and my friend is homosexual (neither can they).

I am suspicious of an authority that says I should hold my friend to be wrong. Accepting that I have no ultimate way of judging, it just doesn't feel like what I would expect the revelation to say.

Thanks for encouraging me to think more about this,
David

Posted by: David Jennings on 2 January 02004 at 3:39 PM

Regarding your second paragraph, it is correct that the Baha'i Faith is non-sexist and internationalist. It is not correct to say that it is "pacifist." This is a commonly made mistake, even one made by declared Baha'is, but a mistake nonetheless.

While Abdu'l Baha did say that when a thought of war arises, we should oppose it with a stronger thought of peace, he also clearly endorsed the use of military force in the cause of collective security. Careful study of the Faith reveals that it places a premium on law and order, and recognizes that, just as police force is necessary to maintain civil order, some military force is necessary to maintain international order, however restrained.

This is a fascinating area that I encourage you to investigate further. All best, Avrel

Posted by: Avrel Seale on 27 April 02004 at 9:59 PM

Dear friends,

I would like to make some comments about the concerns raised by David re: the Faith's teachings about homosexuality.

The Baha'i Faith makes it clear that the world in its present (immature) state places far too much emphasis on sex. As I see it, sex is everywhere - on magazine covers, in music, on the television, in advertising (sex supposedly "sells"), in pornography (including child pornography, which is a multi-billion dollar industry in the States). Our bodies have been reduced to the status of commodities and objects and sex is no longer the sacred, beautiful, mystical and spiritual union of two people in marriage. In the current world, we have debased and degraded sex and ourselves.

Small wonder then, I believe, that we see high rates of sexually deviant and destructive behaviour like rape, date rape, drug rape, rape in marriage, rape in war, violent sexual crime, prostitution, pornography, sexual addiction and child sexual abuse (this includes forcing hundreds of thousands of girls in poor countries into prostitution and pornography).

We live in a sick, profoundly sad and confused world and are desperately in need of healing.

I believe that we have all been created noble. However, so many of us have lost our way.

The Faith tells us:

"O SON OF SPIRIT! Noble have I created thee, yet thou hast abased thyself. Rise then unto that for which thou wast created."

In the past, people who have been identified as "homosexual" have been persecuted and even killed in some parts of the world. Sadly, this still remains the case today. The Baha'i Faith strictly prohibits the mistreatment, oppression and abuse of any human being, as we are all created in the image of God. We should all therefore love our neighbours as ourselves.

However, like past Messengers of God, Baha'u'llah prohibited homosexuality. Moreover, He has explained that it is possible to heal oneself and change one's sexual orientation. This presupposes that heterosexuality is the normal and natural state for human beings. It also presupposes that, in the future, we will understand more about sexual behaviour and orientation, as well as sexual, physical and spiritual healing.

Obviously, in the current state of affairs, this may be contentious to many. However, there are also many Christians who advocate the same teaching and I have come across Christian therapists who treat Christians who wish to alter their sexual orientation, in order to bring it into line with their understanding of Christian teachings. Indeed, there are many Christians who have done just this.

These are just some thoughts to ponder on.

I think that in the current state of affairs, we understand so little. Perhaps in the future, all of these things and more will become clearer. I hope that this helps. I believe that we all need to keep seeking and learning and talking.

Peace and Love

Helen

Posted by: Helen on 24 February 02007 at 9:05 PM

Hi Helen,

I just read your post and I have to say that I am absolutely horrified by what you have to say. I am a former Bahai and I left the Faith because I am gay. Your post is heterosexist and offensive. You somehow manage to lump homosexuality with all of the horrible current day sexual atrocities and abherrations into the most banal of arguments for the spiritualy superior practices of the Faith - you are disgusting. This is pure homophobia and you should be ashamed. You also mention the "reparative" therapy of the Christian right - all mainstream doctors and psychiatrists denounce this form of therapy as dangerous and a total waste of time....but what the heck, it wasn't that long ago that gays and lesbians were lobotomized! Why not? Maybe this is what S. Offendi had in mind when he spoke of medical treatment.

This issue is making the Bahai faith a joke. And this is sad as Baha'u'llah only refers to the practice of Arab/Persian man-boy pederasty and not adult homosexuality in his writings. As well, the Faith prides itself on its embracing of science yet staunchly rejects Western mainstream scientific/medical consensus on homosexuality as being random, genetic and normative for the homosexual. And just to let you know, not all of the past Messangers prohibited homosexuality. I am not an expert but as far as I know neither Buddha nor Christ had anything to say on the subject.

Your posting and opinions are truly pathetic, condescending, dangerously homophobic and sad.

Aaron

Posted by: Aaron on 22 September 02007 at 9:01 PM

Aaron, All,

Being critical and confronting others' opinions is one thing.

Being directly abusive (as in "you are disgusting") is another. Even if you feel that you have been on the receiving end of implied abuse yourself, I believe it's best not to raise the temperature further by this kind of approach.

I didn't want to block Aaron's comment, because it adds a perspective that hasn't been heard yet on this page. But I would like to be clear in my discouragement of personal abuse.

Posted by: David Jennings on 23 September 02007 at 1:14 AM

Well said Aaron, couldn't agree more. With regards to your post David, I think that Helen's ideas are far more dangerous and upsetting than Aaron's, in my opinion quite justified, use of the word 'disgusting'.

Ralph

Posted by: Ralph on 6 March 02008 at 5:44 PM

I know that this is quite a while after this discussion originally took place, but I had to add my piece. Unfortunately, in this day and age of the organised Baha'i Faith, I even feel I may be putting myself at risk with what I am about to say - but I feel it must be said! I am a Baha'i and have considered myself one since early in my childhood. Technically, Baha'is are told that practicing homosexuality is against Baha'i law. In other words, you are allowed to be such, but you must remain chaste unless you marry (which apparently is prescribed as a male/female institution). Marriage is said to be for the spiritual growth of the couple and for procreation.

Now, all that said... Baha'is have a book of laws where it is laid out that homosexuality is forbidden. However, when given a closer look from the direct writings of the laws, it reads: "It is forbidden you to wed your fathers' wives. We shrink, for very shame, from treating of the subject of boys. ... Commit not that which is forbidden you in Our Holy Tablet, and be not of those who rove distractedly in the wilderness of their desires."

There are notes to help us understand a lot of the laws and the note for this particular section is as follows: "the subject of boys (title) The word translated here as "boys" has, in this context, in the Arabic original, the implication of paederasty. Shoghi Effendi has interpreted this reference as a prohibition on all homosexual relations." Now there's plenty more to help with understanding this particular passage. First of all, Shoghi Effendi was Baha'u'llah's great-grandson and someone that Baha'is are strongly encouraged (perhaps even required) to trust fully and wholly in his translating and interpreting abilities. (in case one does not know the term paederasty, it is defined as a sexual relationship between a full grown man and a boy less than the age of maturation) Here's where I fall short on doing as I am supposed to.

My PERSONAL belief is that sometimes humans are wrong. And I honestly see how Shoghi Effendi would be the best expert at the time to interpret his great-grandfather's words. However, I still see him as human with the capability to have made what could be seen as minor mistakes.

How can I be so bold as to think this way? Well, I believe Baha'u'llah was sent with God's message for this time. And honestly, I cannot see how forbidding homosexuality would be more important than forbidding pedophilia. Yet, there is no other mention of pederasty. I understand other religions have made such prohibitions, but in the majority I have seen (and I am not educated well enough on this), it almost always seems to refer to extra-marital homosexuality or homosexuality between one superior and one inferior partner (such as adult and child or master and servant). I have yet to be convinced that God's intention is to alienate people who identify themselves as homosexual.

Maybe some day I will find that I am wrong, and that will be a great lesson to me in my post-death era. But as for now, I don't buy it yet. One thing I know for certain. We, as Baha'is, are not allowed to make judgment upon anyone for any reason. And that any "shortcomings" a person may have is between them and God (minus a few fineable offenses). I can guarantee, as with any religion, there is not one Baha'i who has followed every letter of every Baha'i law. But isn't that the point of religion? To help us be better humans and try to overcome a lot of our human flaws.

As a Baha'i, I would like to apologize for anyone who was made to feel less than honorable and worthy in the presence of a Baha'i. I am sorry.

Posted by: Beck on 10 March 02009 at 6:28 PM

Beck,
Thank you for your beautiful post. I loved everything I read about the Baha'i faith until I read the view on Homosexuality. I am not homosexual however, I cannot follow a God who feels that love can only be defined between male/female. I believe love knows no bounds and I believe that God made everyone different, not to mention the science behind it. Why would God create so many people to live in shame? I cannot agree to that. Your point on humans being able to make mistakes are true. It could also be that Shoghi Effendi applied his personal opinion as well.
At this point I will leave behind the Baha'i Faith. It breaks my heart to think of all the people feeling turned away by a faith that is supposed to be so open and all encompassing and loving. Maybe I'll be around to see the nest update. Thank you for your post Beck.

Posted by: Cherie on 16 March 02009 at 3:56 PM

"Baha'u'llah has drawn a circle of unity
He has made a design for the uniting of all the people and for gathering of them all under the shelter of the tent of universal unity, this is the work of the divine bounty, and we must all strive with heart and soul until we have the reality of unity in our midst, and as we work, so will be strength given unto us"

are your actions, talents, energy, passion, prayers, meditation, motion, vision, stillness, family, loves, and relationships building enduring bonds which will not disintegrate like every other thing in this world?

our well trained minds know how to divisively dissect to the minutest detail any movement or belief, how to divest any person, group, community, or institution of its force by our critical analysis. But what can we build? Have you built unity today?

Is this thread building unity?
Baha'u'llah said if religion was not building unity, it was worthless.

He also said,
"the betterment of the world can be accomplished through pure and goodly deeds, through commendable and seemly conduct".
do you agree? do most people?
What are the core issues at stake in the world today? Which of my talents am I putting to service to the world of humanity, irrespective of my sexuality/sexual identity? Is my sexual identity ALL that I am?
What if I joined in the service of the world of humanity, and through me, ten kids were able to see themselves as servants of the unity of the human race? and what if these kids (of whatever sexuality, race, religion)saw themselves as a thread in a pattern of switching humanity on? As a cell, curing the sick patient of the human race? What if these ten spread their faith and belief in integration and unity to ten others?
Wouldnt we solve every problem on the planet? What are we waiting for?

Posted by: Jeff on 6 April 02009 at 8:09 AM

Cat Stevens was too, I believe, then he became a Muslim. Now *there's* an interesting journey.

Baha'i teaches that we ought to be able to make a rational decision on these matters. For me, it gets into trouble the moment you have this "royal" line. Abdul-Baha, then Shoghi Effendi. So SE was Baha'u'llah's grandson. How does that make it right that he should extend the writings? And if you want to argue some sort of special person, what happened to other members of that family? Why weren't they all special? To me, that isn't rational.

What about monogamy? Was Baha'u'llah a monogamist? Does it matter? What's marriage, anyway, if divorce is allowed? What's the difference between parallel polygamy (i.e. a man having more than one wife at the same time), parallel polyandry (i.e. a woman having more than one husband at the same time), a married man or woman splashing out and having affairs, and serial polygamy or polyandry (i.e. a man or woman using divorce to end one marriage before starting out with a new partner).

And then there's the question of homosexuality, between men AND between women.

In respect of non-sexism, there is the question about the international assembly being composed only of men. It's sad to see otherwise very intelligent and good people tying themselves into knots to explain that one.

I admire and support a huge amount of what Baha'i is about but consider Baha'is generally over-state the uniqueness of what Baha'u'llah said and did, and I am not particularly keen to see how they would run a world government.

I would be interested to know what Baha'is are saying we ought to do about climate change and overwhelming population growth -- the most horrifying results of both of which are becoming evident already.

Apart from pray, thank you.

Posted by: Jon on 23 July 02009 at 1:29 PM

Well, Baha'u'llah came in the 19th.century. For his time, his thoughts were the most advanced particularly in the Muslim world from which he rose. I do not expect this great and spiritual man to be aware of the issues and problems of today. In his Most holy Book, he has many laws which are quite backward for our time. Examples are, allowing bigamy, capitol punishment, live burning of the arsons, a man taking a second wife when his first can’t bear a child, banning drinking of alcohol even moderately, the man being the breadwinner of the family, dowry for marriage etc. etc.

Baha’u’llah was the best prophet for the 19th. Century but for now, I think we need a new one – jus a joke of course.

Posted by: Sheela Baxter on 16 September 02009 at 7:11 AM

Dear Friends on the Planet Earth !

First and foremost I would like to appreciate the dilemma faced by many across the globe who still have trouble understanding the new school of thought and spiritual garment unveiled by Baha'u'llah The manifestation of God for this dispensation. Through His earthly mouthpiece on earth Today God has given Baha'u'llah the latest prescription for Humanity to take for all its ailments. The choice is ours ! God has the overall authority over his creatures ! This is why that Authority is unquestionable. So for the friend who was not ready to hear that God says "NO" to alcohol You have a choice over that ie to follow instruction or choose what please thee, the good thing is we suffer or enjoy the consequences of the choice you make. I have been a Bahai since 1982 and still enjoying the teachings of this Great Religion. Its true that humanity is still in its infancy and evolving towards perfection and as it does so it discovers new realities and verities through the education brought to it by these Great Luminaries from God. The wisdom of prophets of God cannot be measured by human standards because they are infallible. To begin to question their wisdom and inscrutable judgement is not only unwise but inclines more towards blasphemy and disregard of their Master who has bestowed upon them the responsibility to teach them His word and instruction. God is The All Perceiving and has imposed limitations upon our intellect- in brief whatever we can imagine is limited due to the imposition of limitations on our mind.God's divine will therefore will be done without the need of humanity's assistance.
Greetings -Ken from Harare Zimbabwe Africa

Posted by: Kenneth Chivizhe on 7 November 02009 at 8:52 AM

Bahai faith is copy of islam and persian culture. it is not uniting at all unless you accept dominancy of Baha'i faith. I never understood how prophet hood can be paased from father to son and grand-son. Bahaullah married 3 times himself I thouth he was a choosen one from birth , he knew right from wrong. how it is explains taking dominant oppressing role of middle eastern man and having 3 women same time. I don't care man following this religioun but women who accepth to be oppressed by a religoun , thats what I don't understand. equality between women and men is clear in Baha'i fait. universal 9 are men as far as I know wome you need to wake up and reject all oppression. God is loving loves his/her daugthers as much as son's 4 inch diffrence not mena we need to wait behind men. WAKE UP .

Posted by: tayra on 10 November 02009 at 1:56 AM

The Baha’i’ faith accepts Mohammad, Christ and Moses as manifestations of God. In my search I have found no logical/human/scientific basis to accept these historical figures other than clever – and at times tricky - leaders of their time. To me, it is strange to see that a God that stones an adulteress to death allows unlimited number of concubines – Islam - and the prophet himself benefits from this law and even declares himself above it and exempt from its limitations. If one of the prophet’s concubines got frustrated and committed a mistake, though she would be subject to stoning to death – which is a very harsh and inhumane type of punishment. This law seems quite unjust and unfair to me. Mohammad copied many of his laws from the Jewish and Christian religions. He had no idea that there were other prophets too (Zoroaster, Buda Krishna etc.). We know enough about Christianity, Judaism and other religions. Let’s forget about them all and love GOD and humanity.

Posted by: Sheela Baxter on 17 November 02009 at 11:26 PM

I have a couple of good friends who are Baha'i. To be frank, I find their devotion to it very sad, as they are clearly capable of making up their own minds about more or less everything and really don't need to follow a religion.

What everyone has to understand is this crucial point - that all religions were right for the people that they were introduced to...at the time. Which means that they have all had their part to play. The trouble is that religions invite control, invite someone or some people at the top to say "This is it, this is how it is and that's that!"

There are so many people who feel the need to be told what to believe, rather than to work it out for themselves. Like my two friends.

And so with the Baha'i faith we have a situation where Baha'u'llah introduced the Baha'i belief systems to an audience which was predominantly Moslem; to a grouping which was great at condemning others. Now the big thing as I see it (probably one of them, I'm sure!) about the Baha'i faith is its insistence on not condemning others. So the Baha'i faith was a major advance...at the time.

The trouble is that the Baha'i faith was introduced 150 years ago into a society that was very different to present-day society. So, for example, homosexuality wasn't given much consideration at all.

Clearly the Baha'i faith is shown to be way behind the times by its attitude towards homosexuality. And in my opinion, that is great. Because for anyone with the intelligence to do some research of their own into the faith before they get too close and too drawn in to it, it gives them ample opportunity to realise that, let's face it, they can do better.

Better? Yes, no religion. Belief? Absolutely. Thankfully, religions are fading away and in the next few years, that will become obvious to all. Do I believe in the events that took place around the life of Jesus Christ? Absolutely. Am I Church of England, Roman Catholic, or any other Christian religion? No way.

Posted by: R-bo on 23 November 02009 at 11:18 AM

Now I would like to be fair. There are many mysteries in religions including the Baha’i’ Faith which keeps the believers to these religions going on. For instance in the case of the Baha’i’ Faith’s the number of mysterious phenomena is quite a bit.

Baha’u’llah could not see the social developments of our society but he could see the Nuclear Power well before it was discovered. Baha’u’llah could see the Great Peace coming for humanity. Many of the Baha’u’llah’s teaching including the necessity for a “COMMON AUXILIARY LANGUAGE” for all mankind are still beyond our prejudiced MODERN minds. Baha’u’llah introduced – for the first time ever – the concept of infinite MULTIVERSE. Scientist now predict that there could be 10**500 other universes. Baha’u’llah said that there is actually no limit.

This man spent two years in the mountains of Kurdistan meditating. I think he got something out of it which kept him going to suffer for the next 40 years under the tyranny of the Turkish and Iranian dynasties. Let’s be fair to Baha’i’s. It’s not all non-scientific and illogical. There are many things there which keep us thinking about it.

Posted by: Sheela Baxter on 27 November 02009 at 4:41 AM

Baha'u'llah was channelling. He was given snippets of things which could occur in the future (nuclear) and of those which might be desirable (one language).

But Sheela, be sensible, please. Was it that he married three times or that he had several concubines? And anyone who wishes to follow the Baha'i faith must only have sex within marriage and that marriage should be for life?

Get real! Aside from the hypocrisy, this doctrine fits well with those who have had really bad experiences in relationships, but it does not mean that it fits well with everyone or with everyday life.

And now the homosexuality angle. I had a discussion with two Baha'is about this. One of them likened my homosexuality, which is fundamental to me, to a situation where someone loves smoking marijuana. A drug can be given up. As if I could give up my sexual attraction to those of the same sex. Sheela, this suggestion is deeply offensive and demonstrates not only a total lack of understanding of human nature, but a slavish following of the prejudices which Baha’u’llah did not do enough to stamp out and which were very much alive and well then.

There are those who have been drawn into the Baha'i faith by those who should know better (often their parents, for goodness' sake!) who are in agony over that fundamental part of them, their homosexuality, and its incongruence with the anachronistic Baha'i faith.

We are now living in the 21st Century. Society has developed since the mid-1800's, thank God. Understandings are much greater. Life is more complex, and as we rise in consciousness we should all be to handle more.

Posted by: R-bo on 8 December 02009 at 3:33 AM

I want to ask the supporters of homosexuality one question. You say you feel you attraction towards a person of same sex is natural, and because of that you have to indulge it. Does that mean everyone has to indulge every natural feeling that they have? Almost every man has a natural feeling of getting aroused when he sees a young woman: does that mean he has to go ahead and have sex with every young woman he sees? We as a society have a natural tendency to have it all( I mean to say, we want to be the richest, the most famous,....). does that mean we have the right to go after everything we want with no limitations? I think that's where religion(or faith, or belief in God) comes. As of me, religion is what lets us know how to control our urges, and show us the ways that are acceptable to God. We have 2 natures, one of animalistic and another of spiritual. Gods messengers teach us that we have to strive towards reaching our full spiritual qualities, and subduing our animalistic nature. It's true that we can't fully control it, especially our sexual needs(it is also necessary for the continuiation of our species). So, God gave us marriage. With marriage, we can fulfill the necessities of our sexual needs and guarantee our species will continue. We can love a person of the same gender as much as we want, but the line is drawn at sex. If the urge is there, I think God wants us to fight it as any of the other urges we have which we should not indulge, and find a way of prevailing over it. By the way, this is my own opinion. I think if God planned for a man to have sex with another man, or a woman with another woman, He would have provided us organs to be used for that purpose. As it stands, what we are given shows that He didn't intend that to happen. so, what homosexuals are doing is against God's or the natural laws.

Posted by: ashenafi on 26 December 02009 at 7:45 PM

I do not wish to be one side of a dual debate on this website and hence I stayed quiet for a while so that others could comment too. In the meantime, I tried to enter a couple of paragraphs in the Wikipedia pages on the Baha’i’ faith. The Wikipedia rejected my comments on the basis that they were “non-constructive”. I wonder who is in control of the Wikipedia? Wasn’t it supposed to be a free platform open to all? Is it yet another plot by those who want to control your minds? Please help me. I’m lost

Posted by: Sheela Baxter on 29 January 02010 at 6:31 AM

It's amazing to see how this discussion has evolved over the last six years. I haven't played any part in it, until now, other than approving the comments that were submitted. I have approved them all -- as they all seemed to have genuine and sound intent. However, I had a long pause before ahenafi's comment made in December, as, for the first time, I felt there was something objectionable about the way it was expressed. I've approved it now, as I thought it better to let everyone judge the comments for what they are than to reserve that right for myself.

I don't want to get drawn into the details of the exchanges -- I don't know much about the Baha'i faith beyond what I wrote at the top of this page -- and I wonder if the time is coming to draw this to a close (sorry, Sheela, to say this at the point where you're feeling lost, but the protocols of Wikipedia are quite a long way from where this discussion started). But I'll leave it open for a few weeks yet, and if enough people disagree I'll reconsider.

Posted by: David Jennings on 29 January 02010 at 10:07 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?