Re: Women and the Universal House of Justice
Alexander Renwick (renwick@owlnet.rice.edu)
Fri, Feb 17 1995 05:23:37 GMT
I'm afraid my previous post on this issue was written hastily and came
across with a belittling tone. I'll try to present my thoughts more
clearly, with greater consciousness of the limitations of my own
position.
In article <1995Feb12.032615.16490@cs.cornell.edu>, Charles Martin
<martin3156@delphi.com> writes:
|> > Nor can justice rightly be divorced from compassion.
|>
|> Yes, at the final level of appeal, compassion must be divorced from
|> justice. It is not just to wronged to be compassionate to the
|> wrongdoer. This is at the heart of the Universal House of Justice,
|> ultimate justice. Justice and compassion are not intertwined, nor
|> should they be.
I have tried to understand what you mean by "justice", and I have
failed. You previously described it as "sometimes harsh, ugly and
terrible." How can upholding the law of God ever be "ugly" or
"terrible"? As I see it, the one who judges is neither the "wronged"
nor the "wrongdoer", and a "just" ruling cannot occur without a
compassionate understanding of all sides of the issue.
|> I think the Baha'is have a track record that speaks for itself where
|> the equality of men and women are concerned. I also believe that
|> science and religion must agree and science says that men and women
|> are wired differently for some reason. I also believe that fact makes
|> men more suited for some things and it makes women more suited for
|> some things. To ignore this difference is to hide one's head in the
|> sand because the science does not seem to toe the politically correct
|> line. This is foolishness.
While science might say "that men and women are wired differently", it
is human beings who claim that it is "for some reason". This is the
point where I become suspicious of those who would use science to
justify a particular social order.
To go back to an earilier example, these observations were apparent
about women in the 19th century: their brains were smaller than those of
men; they bore the burden of childbirth; they were not as skilled in
intellectual pursuits as men. Many people, including many scientists,
went on to conclude that these physical conditions were the cause of
women's lack of intelligence and that it would be fruitless to offer
them the same educational opportunities that were offered men. This
position was supported by women as well as men (though not all women,
and not all men).
Today we observe biological and tempermental differences between men and
women, and we look to the one to explain the other. I do not think this
is unreasonable. I think it is unwise, though, to focus on the
biological to the exclusion of the cultural determinants of temperment.
This leads to poor understanding; in particular it may lead us to
believe that some things are permanent (i.e., biological) when in fact
they may change over time (i.e., they are culturally determined).
I do not claim that there is no difference between men and women--just
because something comes from culture rather than biology does not make
it any less real. But I do claim that the differences that operate in
our society are far greater, in both magnitude and number, than those
that would be dictated by biology.
The particular difference we discuss here is that women are more
compassionate than men. I agree that this is the case. But I do not
agree that this must always be so. And, given that belief, I cannot
accept this difference as a justification for an institution that will
last for some fifty generations.
While I agree that Baha'is "are among the most equality conscious"
(Wendy's words), I think they're being held against a poor standard. If
prejudice is truly to be eradicated, there must be equality in fact as
well as in words. I do not see how this can be if women are excluded
from the Universal House of Justice. I do not see how the Universal
House of Justice can help but be looked upon as a seat of power if it is
the final arbiter of "ultimate justice".
|> > The second reason is that I see many people trying to
|> >rationalize this troubling issue that strikes me as irreconcialable.
|> >I would much rather hear people saying that this law is indeed
|> >strange but our nunderstanding is limited and so we accept it on
|> >faith. I would rather that the Faith not be defended by weak
|> >arguments when what matters is strong faith.
|>
|> I don't see this as irreconcilable at all. The spark of truth shall
|> shine forth from the clash of differing opinions. I clearly stated
|> that the message was my opinion, after much thought to why this
|> "aberration" should appear in the body of the Baha'i
|> writings. Baha'u'llah specifically enjoined his followers not to
|> accept anything on faith. This leads to laziness in thought. He told
|> us to question everything, to meditate on these things and to seek
|> the wisdom of God. I have done the above. I expressed clearly the
|> points of view that quelled the question for me. I offered my
|> opinion. I have done my duty. Arguments matter and faith matters. To
|> quell one in favor of the other is in violation of the express orders
|> of the Founder of our Faith.
The source of my unhappiness that I tried to express above is something
that I have seen in academia: that, when confronted with a question
whose answer one does not know, one grasps for any immediately plausible
explanation, regardless of whether it is helpful. That happens for the
sake of saving face, and can be detrimental to the greater process of
exchanging ideas. I was afraid I had seen that here, but I am much too
poorly acquainted with any contributors to this group to judge the
sincerity of their words.
Certainly I encourage questioning and discourse.
Let me thank you again for offering your opinions. My life is richer
for the words you and others have given me in response to my post.
--Alex
renwick@owlnet.rice.edu