Re: Women and the Universal House of Justice
maeissin@capnet.ucla.edu
Sun, Feb 19 1995 17:36:52 GMT
The term "prohibition" is a very strong word and poses part of the
problem. No where in the Writings does it say that women are
"prohibited" from serving on the House of Justice. It comes from
Baha'u'llah addressing the "Men of the House of Justice", indicating
that the membership of this body is limited to men. I don't understand
it any more than the rest of you. However, I'm not going to create a
false explanation or justification with which to placate anyone posing
the question.
There are limitations, qualifications and exemptions for membership
on every elected body, in and out of the Faith. For example. there
are residency requirements, age requirements, requirements of
administrative standing.
These are limitations, not prohibitions. The use of alcohol or
recreational drugs are prohibitions.
We don't know the reason for this exemption -- one day we will. For
the time being, there is no answer. Every answer that we, as
individuals, try to put forward can be torn apart by someone's logic
because these answers come from _human_ minds. I've always found that
the best way to answer this question is to avoid rationalizing,
apologizing, or making excuses or conjecture. To simply explain that,
for the time being, this is a seeming paradox, which one day will be
clear is about the best answer we can give. Somehow this is not in
contradiction with the principle of the equality of the sexes. If the
seeker doesn't accept that answer, fine, if he/she can get past it
(whether or not he/she understands or agrees with it), better still.
We have to be very careful when using our "logic" and limited
understandings when trying to explain something that isn't already
crystal clear.
The two issues which keep coming up, month after month, are this one
and the teachings prohibiting homosexual activity. Everytime we go
off, half-baked, using scientific "evidence", or our opinions, or
anything outside of the Writings, we do nothing more than muddy the
waters. Science and Religion do agree. However, we need to be careful
that we're not spouting some unproven theory as fact. The jury is
still out on many of the recent findings in genetics and medicine,
psychology, sociology and other related fields. If you go through the
journals you can find a theory and a study to prove just about
anything.
Often an explanation or example can make a point more clear. In other
instances -- especially when we try to use theories or conjecture as
proofs -- it clouds the real issue. The explanation needs to be based
on the Writings.
I'm not trying to suggest that we not discuss these issues. I'm not
saying that we can't each explain what personally makes sense of
those paradoxes, or mysteries. However, we have to remember that the
answers to these questions start and end with the Writings. Anything
else is going to tend to be flawed and based on the individual's
particular world-view.
Michael Eissinger
Los Angeles
______________________________ Reply Separator ____________________________
Subject: Re: Women and the Universal House of Justice
Date: Tue, AM 10:33 GMT GMT
I find it rather disturbing that Baha'is would arbitrarily associate
certain attributes with certain groups of people. Although
statistically there may be differences between men and women, the
prohibition of female membership on our supreme ruling body is not
statistical, but absolute. So the statistical differences between men
and women cannot be the true reason for the exlusion of women.
I think Lora's remarks in a previous post are very appropriate. Indeed
the Baha'i scriptures indicate that there is no difference between teh
soul of a female and the soul of a male. I even suspect that in the
next world, we will be androgynous. So it is very dangerous to think of
women as fundamentally different form men.
Please let me not be understood as saying that there are no differences
between different groups of people. Persians, Koreans, Indians and
Germans, are all very different. Similarly men and women are different.
Likewise African Americans are different from American Jews. But all
these differences are statistical, not absolute.
And statistical differences can _NEVER_ be the cause of an absolute
exclusion of women from the Universal House of Justice.
ALL IMHO.
Humble and lowly
Gandhi