Now that I've got your attention, I suppose I should elaborate. I'm Eastern Orthodox and about as anti-Protestant as one can get. I do my best to refrain from leveling unwarranted dismissal on the bibliolotrous thumpers but it's a frailty that I think I'll struggle with forever. I just can't seem to avoid viewing the sola scripturist Protestant as nothing less than an idolater. Even then, however, Protestantism is offensive only to my concept of Christianity and the State.
As an anarchist, I find the State to be anathema. Protestant churches, by and large, emphasize submission to the nation-state and God whereas the Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox Churches all emphasize submission to God through the Church and then to secular authority. According to Christianity, only the Church is universal. Protestantism tends to lend one to believe the Church is spiritually universal, and that the State is, therefore, the machination to be used to secure the Church's role in the world. That being said, Protestantism does not violate my ethics and merely perverts my concept of Christianity despite it's elevation of the State.
In fact, all other faiths, to a greater or lesser degree, are merely unsatisfactory to me. Satanism and Taoism are wonderfully individualistic where Islam and Empiricism tend to be monolithic and unbending. All in all, they are all simply not favorable to me. They don't repulse me entirely. My entire personality is built around my social/economic/political hermeneutic, my cultural (that includes religion) hermeneutic, and my ethical hermeneutic. Each are interrelated and not wholly separable. I do my best, however, to approach a particular concern (taxation, GSM rights, religion, etc) with a clear mind and an attempt to best identify precisely what about the concern offends me. As I said, few things violate every one of my values.
The Bahá'í Faith, however, does. Everything about this faith, that I've read so far, offends all of my values. I can find common ground with Jews, Muslims, and even Protestants; my housekeeper is Taoist and a lady friend is Zen Buddhist; I have Empiricist friends as well as Satanist friends and I can relate to everyone in some way. I'm friends with Statists and leftists, pedophiles and zealots, each of whom I differ with on some fundamental basis but can, in the grand scheme of things, rest assured that I love them all and do not dismiss them out of hand.
Bahá'í is foreign to me. It elevates the exact opposite of everything I value.
Shoghi Effendi wrote:The independent search after truth, unfettered by superstition or tradition; the oneness of the entire human race, the pivotal principle and fundamental doctrine of the Faith; the basic unity of all religions; the condemnation of all forms of prejudice, whether religious, racial, class or national; the harmony which must exist between religion and science; the equality of men and women, the two wings on which the bird of humankind is able to soar; the introduction of compulsory education; the adoption of a universal auxiliary language; the abolition of the extremes of wealth and poverty; the institution of a world tribunal for the adjudication of disputes between nations; the exaltation of work, performed in the spirit of service, to the rank of worship; the glorification of justice as the ruling principle in human society, and of religion as a bulwark for the protection of all peoples and nations; and the establishment of a permanent and universal peace as the supreme goal of all mankind—these stand out as the essential elements [which Bahá'u'lláh proclaimed].
Bahá'u'lláh and his followers advocate a perverted cultural appropriation that seeks to lay claim to all the world religions and all aspects of those cultures as though they had common heritage with them.
Wiki wrote:The Bahá'í teachings state that there is but one religion which is progressively revealed by God, through prophets/messengers, to mankind as humanity matures and its capacity to understand also grows. The outward differences in the religions, the Bahá'í writings state, are due to the exigencies of the time and place the religion was revealed.
They emphatically claim that this is not syncretism, and I believe them, which is why I believe it is cultural appropriation (not assimilation). They aren't trying to unite all the faiths, per se. They say all the faiths are already one faith b/c they say so.
Further, they advocate that God is inaccessible, which is a direct repudiation of the Christian faith.
Wiki wrote:The Bahá'í teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence.
Christ is God and His Church is His body on Earth. The Bahá'í are denying the Trinity and the concept of grace and salvation so central to historical Christianity.
Finally, and most offensively, Bahá'í is a religion that advocates a unity of humanity.
Wiki wrote:The Bahá'í teaching of the unity of humanity (also known as the oneness of humanity) stems from the teaching that all humans have been created equal in the image of God, and that God does not make any distinction between people
We are all one organic being and, as the logic extends, require one world gov't and State to manage us (naturally, with Bahá'í as the official religion). I trust you can imagine my grimace at this point. I'm not an egalitarian. No one is equal to anyone save before the grace of God. We are all created equally humble before Him but none of us are loved in the same way by Him. He is especially fond of each of us in our own unique way, God is greater than an arbitrary attempt to quantify his love.
This last offense is the final nail in the coffin for me and Bahá'u'lláh, the incarnation of God for them. Not just because it violates my religious conception, or my political conception, but b/c it violates my ethics, from which my religion and political ideal are derived. To say that I am equal to another is to deny my complete self-sovereignty. To say that I am equally entitled to an equal amount of love another person is entitled to from God is to deny not only my complete self-sovereignty, but His as well.
The following is a list of principles that the faithful uphold. I am diametrically opposed to each and every one in its entirety, and I am quite serious about that statement.
Wiki wrote:Unity of God
Unity of religion
Unity of humankind
Equality between men and women
Elimination of all forms of prejudice
World peace
Harmony of religion and science
Independent investigation of truth
Principle of Ever-Advancing Civilization
Universal compulsory education
Universal auxiliary language
Obedience to government and non-involvement in partisan politics unless submission to law amounts to a denial of Faith.
Elimination of extremes of wealth and poverty
Now, I know that the equality between men and women is the real kicker, especially for other libertarians. Generally speaking, most folks are okay with the idea that a woman is every bit as valuable as a man is. But I said above that, " I am diametrically opposed to each and every one in its entirety, and I am quite serious about that statement," remember? Why? How can I oppose equality between the genders? B/c the statement excludes GSM's. I find nothing in their faith allowing for recognition of gender/sexuality minorities (GSM's) whatsoever. I know that's curious to find a very conservative Christian saying but it's true. I'm libertarian, not authoritarian. The historical Christian faiths each say that GSM's are NOT sinners but engage in sinful activity when they marry outside the Church or engage in sexual relations outside marriage. Therefore, the GSM who is active and unrepentant finds themself outside the Church but not outside God's grace or love. No GSM will go to hell for having sex or for being what they are, they'll just be outside the Church until they repent - that is libertarian and it is the historical Christian faith perspective. Bahá'í is, however, a faith that declares all are equal and then Bahá'í denies recognition of a significant portion of humanity and it, therefore, cries authoritarianism to me - especially when Bahá'í attempts to appropriate all other faiths as part of itself.
To summarize, the Bahá'í Faith is the most repulsive faith I've ever come across.
I will confess that I find myself lamentably and dangerously unconcerned with discriminatory practices against the Bahá'í, and that is a flaw. It is a flaw I must grow past, but it is there. Similar in fashion to my sympathies with the Objectivist perspective on collectivists denying individuality and, therefore, not really deserving recognition as sovereign in their own way. I find myself at risk of favoring a reactionary position against those whom I find utterly repulsive. Now I know that it is wrong and, in accepting aggression against the Bahá'í and the collectivist, I violate my own hermeneutic, so I work to avoid accepting it. But it's there. I know its there. I simply have to be on guard against it.
So, NSG, I wonder - what is your perspective on the Bahá'í Faith?
