I may write a lot, but one thing I definitely believe is that it is better to write 100 words of logical truth than to write 100,000 words of nonsense and lies. Case in point, some comments I got from a Baha’i on YouTube and Facebook regarding one of my videos:
The reason why women are not allowed to be members of the Universal House of Justice is because women have been spared from suffering the burden of determining the future of the faithj [sic] for precisely the same reason we would insist that no comparable burden should ever be laid on the shoulders of our spouses and wives, or even our children. God has forever put the burden of stewardship and ultimate slavery to the cause on mankind. He has eternally spared women from this most serious burden. Judaism has a similar view of itself. Jews, as the chosen people, are those pre-ordained by blood to be the Slaves of the Most High. The question of why anyone whom God is content to receive them as mere servants would want to convert to Judaism to become Slaves of the Most High when they have been spared the burden of being a Jew and having to observe a host of ungainly, strict and trying laws is beyond them. For Jews, wanting to become a Jew is like claiming, “I want to carry a 30lb boulder which God, as a mercy, insisted I not, for the rest of my life.” The Jewish answer is, “That’s weird. Why? You don’t get extra points from God for wanting to do so. In fact, you’re just insisting on working harder to warrant the salvation that is yours if you merely suffice with the Noahide laws.” SImilarly, the same applies to the Universal House of Justice. Why in God’s name WOULD a woman want such a burden?
Gee, why would God curse women with the burdens of pregnancy, labor, and motherhood in general if they cannot also handle leadership? And many religions have strict rules on their followers, including the Baha’i Faith itself!
Then he sent me a message on Facebook:
I’d like to dialogue with you about God and the Baha’i Faith. In many different instances, you misrepresent our beliefs – mine, especially. This to me seems well-meaning but unintentional. I’m sure you didn’t mean to harm us or our movement based on a misunderstanding. For that reason I’d like to see if it’s possible if we can work together to clear up our misconceptions about one another.
Consider the pettiness of men’s minds. They ask for that which injureth them, and cast away the thing that profiteth them. They are, indeed, of those that are far astray. We find some men desiring liberty, and priding themselves therein. Such men are in the depths of ignorance.
Liberty must, in the end, lead to sedition, whose flames none can quench. Thus warneth you He Who is the Reckoner, the All-Knowing. Know ye that the embodiment of liberty and its symbol is the animal. That which beseemeth man is submission unto such restraints as will protect him from his own ignorance, and guard him against the harm of the mischief maker. Liberty causeth man to overstep the bounds of propriety, and to infringe on the dignity of his station. It debaseth him to the level of extreme depravity and wickedness.
Regard men as a flock of sheep that need a shepherd for their protection. This, verily, is the truth, the certain truth. We approve of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction it in others. We, verily, are the All-Knowing.
Say: True liberty consisteth in man’s submission unto My commandments, little as ye know it. Were men to observe that which We have sent down unto them from the Heaven of Revelation, they would, of a certainty, attain unto perfect liberty. Happy is the man that hath apprehended the Purpose of God in whatever He hath revealed from the Heaven of His Will that pervadeth all created things. Say: The liberty that profiteth you is to be found nowhere except in complete servitude unto God, the Eternal Truth. Whoso hath tasted of its sweetness will refuse to barter it for all the dominion of earth and heaven.
And Corrano kept on going with more crap on Facebook:
I have a story a psychologist once told me.
He told me that in his studies, he noticed that the more timid and fearful a man was of other men, and the more he struggled to achieve alpha status on the dominance hierarchy, the more inclined he was toward atheism.
He believed based on his research that atheism has roots in the psychological need to feel effective and powerful.
He said that by challenging God’s existence, the most dominant force in human psychology, it gives the atheist an exhilerating sense of efficacy and empowerment that allows them to achieve the sense of superiority they could not achieve in open competition against other men in the struggle to climb the primate dominance hierarchy.
He noted that individuals who feel comfortable and empowered have no need to challenge such ideas as “God” because they themselves already feel positioned and solidified in the primate dominance hierarchy.
In other words, what he said was simple: in his studies found that for beta males who struggle to compete for love, money, success, fame, and social status against alpha males, they subconsciously compensate by becoming atheists, where they find themselves challenging the belief in God because, by symbolically destroying God, they can do so safely without suffering a real physical loss of facr as they would against stronger, more powerful male, and they also take a shortcut to experiencing the same exhilaration and rush as if they actually did destroy the most powerful being possible so as to reposition themselves at the Apex of the cosmic hierarchy as the ultimate alpha.
This is why most atheists can’t be convinced of the evidence for God. By admitting God exists, it unconsciously moves them further down the cosmic dominance hierarchy, which leads to the experience of a depressive loss of social status and power. In other words, feeling powerful is psychologically more important to atheists than correcting a false belief.
So atheists in general would rather live with a comfortable delusion of their cosmic superiority as the member or the intellectual elite amongst all living things than to admit to the possibility that God might be real because to do so moves them further down the primate dominance hierarchy than they currently are.
If we can be honest about our motivations for why we believe in God, or sbelieve for the matter, we can be honest in our discussion.
If we can be honest about our motivations for why we believe in God, or believe for the matter, we can be honest in our discussion.
I was motivated to seek out information about God because I thought the idea of a godless universe was depressing and meaningless. You sought out evidence against God because the existence of God makes you feel weak and powerless. You fight against because you want to feel supreme, dominant and powerful in a way life doesn’t otherwise allow you. I strive to further the cause of God because it fills my life with value, meaning, and purpose that a secular worldview doesn’t allow me to have.
Considering all the Popes and other religious and cult leaders throughout history that have been on some of the most terrible power trips ever, I find his arguments lacking in understanding about how atheists really think.
When I challenged him about his being Libertarian, he said on YouTube:
The Baha’i Faith permits party membership and political participation in activities such as voting only insofar as it doesn’t degenerate into Partisan Politics -i.e., Republican contra Democrat, etc.
Third party participation is allowed so long as our activity is in keeping with Baha’i spiritual principles, such as obedience to government and answering the government’s request for each of us to participate in the democratic process according to our convictions as both individuals and Baha’i.
Moreover, Baha’i are allowed to vote, and we are allowed to engage in civil service and social activism so long as we present ourselves in a way which conforms to Baha’i principles, which means: we conduct ourselves according to the community building principles of statesmanship rather than politics. There is a world of difference between politics and statesmanship/statecraft.
But your question about why I’m affiliated with the Libertarian Party, even though it is part of my profession and has been since before I came to the faith, is the logical fallacy of the red-herring.
You may not realize it, but you’re evading my answer, which is: why women do not serve on the Universal House of Justice.
Service on the Universal House of Justice isn’t a position of higher authority, prestige and power. It’s a position of servanthood and utmost humility. It’s a position of deep servitude and contentment in abasement, of deep and solemn responsibility, wherein the spiritual needs of all Baha’i, and ultimately all the world, are your kings, queens and rulers while you are to serve.
Leadership, in the Baha’i, is servitude to the needs of all you lead. It is loving your community more than yourself, and loving your nation more than your community, and loving the world more than your nation.
For this reason, in the Baha’i Faith, one cannot campaign for membership on the Universal House of Justice. One is called to duty similar to a democratic draft, except that one has the freedom to not accept the call to duty. However, to deny the call to duty is comparable to denying the cause – so no Baha’i, in good conscience, can deny the call to duty to serve on the Universe House of Justice in Haifa, Israel.
To serve on the Universal House of Justice, one most serve out of Haifa, Israel.
Women have been delivered the burden of having to uplift their lives and relocate to Haifa in order shoulder the responsibility of world spiritual government because women have other burdens laid upon them which men have no part of – foremost of which is, like you’ve said, the burden of pregnancy and motherhood.
Your solution appears to propose a contradiction which is unfair to women.
You state that because women have the burden of motherhood – that is, the burden of ensuring the future survival of our species and the upliftment of mankind – that women must also shoulder the burden that has been laid upon men by being required to serve on the Universal House of Justice when they are called just as men.
How is increasing the burden of women without respect to the fact they already bear burdens which men do not, in all truth, fair?
Your position, it appears, is a contradiction.
Let us be fair: it appears as if your position contradicts itself, and true religion must be consistent not only with science, but also reason.
It’s clear and evident that by adding to the list of women’s already wearisome responsibilities another burden on top of all they have been comissioned with would, in fact, be manifest injustice.
The challenge here is simply this: you’re seeing leadership in a problematic way that is part of the spiritual condition we’re striving to change on this world. You see leadership as a career move similar to who we consider promotions at work – as if moving into a position of leadership and power over others is a good thing. There is no virtue or holiness in wanting to advance yourself before others, to exalt yourself above others, and to achieve power over others – and you thinking that there is? Well, this is part of the problem of spiritual corruption in the hearts of men which Baha’u’llah teaches that we have been called to fix.
Baha’u’llah says, “To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted.”
This is why there women are not allowed to seek to exalt themselves above others on the Universal House of Justice: because no one is allowed to pursue power or leadership at the Universal House of Justice.
In fact, campaigning for in this day and age for such a seat is a violation of Baha’u’llah’s commandment that we are not to exalt ourselves above others, nor are we to exalt others above ourselves.
For this reason, anyone who believes the call to duty to act as a servant to this cause, and as a martyr if necessary, is a career move rather than a solemn responsibility has unfortunately misunderstood not only the role of the Universal House of Justice, but also God’s teaching on leadership.
The desire to exalt Self above others is the Satanic Impulse of the Self seeking to aggrandize itself before all to become an object of public veneration and an idol, and this is not meritorious in the eyes of Baha’u’llah whatsoever, nor is striving to gain power in the Universal House of Justice.
For this reason, no one, neither man nor woman, is permitted in this day and age to seek power over their fellow man as a career move, to exalt themselves above others in order to achieve reverence and social prestine, or to bring glory upon their names and their houses. In fact, to actively do so is an egregious a sin in the sight of God.
This is why both men and women are prohibited from seeking leadership positions in the Universal House of Justice. The mere want of it is a temptation to sin. One must be called to duty. It is not acceptable that he run for the position.
That is why women have been oxonerated [sic] of the burden of having to enter into a position of servitude to the cause: they do not need any further burdens beyond the burden they’re currently bearing.
Men do not have to give birth. Women alone are charged with that burden Men historically have not had to raise children. Of those fathers who do have to raise children, which is the exception to the rule, they will not be called to uproot their families and serve on the Universal House of Justice for the same reason women are oxonerated of the same burden.
Only those men who have no additional conflicting duties to humanity and to the cause of God can be called to serve on the Universal House of Justice.
Women, as a mercy and a grace from God, have been exonerated of this burden – and this is manifest justice, if you only knew it.
Not only does this guy not let women speak for themselves, he engages in the kind of “doublespeak” I’ve been warning about for years. Disgusting!
Then he added one more looooooooong comment when I told him he was contradicting what I was taught as a Baha’i about political partisanship:
It’s the truth. I spoke with the National Spiritual Assembly and got the go-ahead from the National Spiritual Assembly. It’s permissible so long as one doesn’t
1) associate one’s activities to the cause,
2) associate the cause to one’s activities,
3) campaign for a candidate,
4) against a candidate,
5) conduct oneself contrary to Baha’i principles,
6) or publicly identify oneself as a Baha’i.
The Universal House of Justice is nothing except realistic about matters of social policy; the National Spiritual Assembly understands how and why participation in government processes very often cannot be avoided given the climate of a society, and that government itself very often calls Baha’i to duty to participate in its processes. For that reason, the Universal House of Justice has allowed Baha’i to participate in
1) civics (defined as: the science of the rights, privileges and responsibility of citizen) …and in…
2) statecraft (defined as: the art of government and diplomacy) …so long as one’s solutions aren’t…
3) political (defined as: exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality, etc.)
So remember: while politics (the practice/profession of conducting political affairs) is avoided by the Baha’i…
…participation in civics (the science of the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizens)…
…and statecraft (the art of government and diplomacy)…
…are permissable as are Baha’i statesmen (defined as: a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues.) In fact, the primary goal of Baha’i is to promote a world where we can escape the deadly cycle of politics and political rhetoric by promoting the science of civics, the art of statecraft and the education of non-partisan, non-partisan statesmen and women who can direct the affairs of government in ways consistent with the science of civics through the art of statecraft rather than through the conventional partisan machinations which typify political discussion in this day and age. To do this the Universal House of Justice has made it perfectly clear. The proper way to conduct ourselves as statesmen and stateswomen in our participation in the democratic processes of our society starts begin by vowing to never criticize persons in office or by supporting persons – which is the hallmark of politics.
Abdul Baha himself said, “Speak thou no word of politics; thy task concerneth the life of the soul, for this verily leadeth to man’s joy in the world of God. Except to speak well of them, make thou no mention of the earth’s kings, and the worldly governments thereof.” In other words, if we cannot speak well of a politician or a government, we must not speak of that person.
However, according to the Baha’i World Center “There is, however, one case in which one can criticize the present social and political order without being necessarily forced to side with or oppose any existing regime. And this is the method adopted by the Guardian in his ‘Goal of a New World Order’. His criticisms of the world conditions beside being very general in character are abstract; that is, instead of condemning existing institutional organizations it goes deeper and analyzes the basic ideas and conceptions which have been responsible for their establishment.” -From a Letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance #1469
In other words, if we are to properly engage in Civics and Statecraft as Statesmen, then we must analyze, discuss and critique the underlying abstract principles, concepts and mechanics of the social theories themselves -i.e., capitalism, communism, fascism, socialism, etc. Moreover, when we do so, we should only mention existing politicians and specific instances of the systems we’re discussing only to speak well of them.
Beyond this, the Universal House of Justice has informed us: “We should not only take sides with no political party, group or system actually in use, but we should also refuse to commit ourselves to any statement which may be interpreted as being sympathetic or antagonistic to any existing political organization or philosophy.” -Amuensis of Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, #1468
In other words, any statement we make a about the merits or demerits of a political philosophy or organization, we must qualify our statements to make it clear that the science of civics requires that remain neutral and impartial in our analyses, and that we are not to take sides, since true statesmanship means using logic, philosophy, spirituality and science to publicly examime and critique the ideas in general rather than any particular institution or politician. No the reason my enlisted with the Libertarian party isn’t a contradiction to said principles is simple: “”We should not only take sides with no political party, group or system actually in use”. Since the Libertarian Party does not hold power and is not a group system which is actually in use, then my involvement is permissible so long as I keep to all the aforementioned principles we’ve just discussed.
Holy brainwashing, Batman! At that point I blocked him on YouTube and never answered his lunacy on Facebook. But others made comments of their own when I posted about this matter on reddit.
The Mormons say that women don’t need priestly ordinances, because they’re already pure enough for jazz.
LOL. No one will buy it except some brainwashed Baha’is.
Hey, this explains everything! (a) it’s really more of a burden than an opportunity for selfish power-seeking, and (b) women are needed for birthin’ babies, and can’t be running off to Haifa all the time.
In US Protestant Christianity the view that men and women have fundamentally different natures and roles would be known as “complementarianism.” Unlike the Baha’is, this principle is used mainly to demonstrate that wives have a duty to obey and submit to their husbands. (I brought this up with my wife, but she reacted wickedly.)
I just love it when men tell women what they are supposed to want
I put the ultimate nail in the coffin of Corrano’s credibility with:
Imagine if followers of a racist religion would say:
Only those whites who have no additional conflicting duties to humanity and to the cause of God can be called to serve on the High Council of Apostles.
Blacks, as a mercy and a grace from God, have been exonerated of this burden – and this is manifest justice, if you only knew it.
Baha’is wouldn’t accept that claim for a moment!