"From above I conclude that that the members of this Supreme Tribunal are
from among all nations and their qualifications are very different from the
election of the House of Justice. Non-Baha'is and women can be members of
this world parliment."
Dear Firouz,
That may well be and it would be consistent with what Dr. Ruhe was
suggesting. But I think the Supreme Tribunal is court not a parliament.
Elsewhere in the Writings it is referred to as the International Court of
Arbitration which the Guardian insists is the same thing. I don't think it
is any accident that the Tablet you quoted was addressed to the Hague. It's
function is therefore judicial and not legislative.
"To me Guardian is saying that we cannot foresee the exact nature of its
relationship with the state."
Correct. You will recall he said something similar to this in Baha'i
Administration:
"Touching the point raised in the Secretary's letter regarding the nature
and scope of the Universal Court of Arbitration, this and other similar
matters will have to be explained and elucidated by the Universal House of
Justice, to which, according to the Master's explicit instructions, all
important and fundamental questions must be referred. At present the exact
implication and full significance of the provisions of the Master's Will are
as yet imperfectly understood, and time will serve to reveal the wisdom and
the far-reaching effects of His words." ��
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 47)
It may very well be that the reference to 'merging' in the letter in
question signifies nothing more than the Supreme Tribunal being brought
under the authority of the Universal House of Justice. But two points would
have to be kept in mind in this case; 1) the Universal House of Justice
retains ultimate authority in political affairs given the fact they will one
day determine the nature and scope of the Supreme Tribunal 2) The Tribunal
appears to be a judicial body while the Universal House of Justice is a
legislative body.
"Really speaking I believe that we cannot foresee at this time in history
how the future world government operate and its relationship with the UHJ.
So I would like to suggest we should not advocate one way or the other. But
it seems to me that at present majority of Baha'is do think similar to yours
for a future super state and I would like to down play such a concept that I
consider is not really healthy for the progress of the Faith."
I'm not sure what to make of that last statement, whether you are suggesting
that Baha'is play down their belief in world peace through world governance
or whether we should down play the role Baha'i institutions are eventually
expected to play in this process as we move from the Lesser Peace to the
Most Great Peace? There was a time when I was inclined to your own position
on this issue until I saw that some of those promoting it were deliberately
distorting certain passages of the Writings and leaving out entire sections
of other authoritative texts in order to reach this conclusion. I think what
first alerted me to the fact that something was wrong was when Juan Cole
tried to argue on H-Bahai that the *qanun* in the Will and Testament meant
canon law. Anyone with two years of beginning Arabic knows that qanun
signifies secular or common law as opposed to religious law. Likewise, Sen
McGlinn deliberately ignored the House's letter to him on the subject of the
relation between religion and state in all of his subsequent writings on the
subject. There will be some here who will recall that when I raised the
issue of him ignoring that letter on Baha'i Studies two years ago he
answered with the following comments:
"I don't think the letter shows the House in a very good light, and those
who wish the UHJ well should allow the letter to sink into the archives of
the forgotten."
And also:
"Feel free to bring up any of the arguments and facts in that letter, as
your own, and I will as cheerfully knock them down, but let's leave the UHJ
out."
Now that to me signifies that something is very wrong. The Guardian has very
explicitly stated (in his own words, not through his secretary) that in
order to gain a "clear conception of the exact purpose and methods of this
new world order" "We must trust to time, and the guidance of God's Universal
House of Justice". So clearly their rulings on this matter are well within
the purview of their authority.
While there may well be several possible understandings of the proper
relationship between religion and state envisioned for eventual World Order
of Bah�'u'll�h, anything which claims to represent the Bah�'� Teachings on
this matter must take into account the full breadth of authoritative sources
and these include letters written on behalf of the Guardian and elucidations
made by the Universal House of Justice.
In this context, then, there is one position which the Universal House of
Justice has clearly declared 'out-of-bounds and that is "the assertion that
the modern political concept of "separation of church and state" is somehow
one that Bah�'u'll�h intended as a basic principle of the World Order He has
founded." http://bahai-library.com/?file=compilation_issues_study_bahai.html
warmest, Susan
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
