Project Conversion

Project Conversion


Project Conversion Q & A Thursday (5/31)

posted by

A few weeks ago, I asked members of the Project Conversion Facebook page to ask questions about, well, anything. There was such a good turnout that I believe we’ll make this a weekly date. Each Monday, I’ll make a call for questions and answer them (to the best of my ability) the following Thursday. Anything goes on the inquiries, so set your curiosity free. You may also send in your questions via email at contact@andrewbowen.info.

Let’s get started!

Katheryn asks:

“…it seems to me that the words and actions of leaders, prophets, and gurus are what psychopaths would say or do, which has completely disillusioned me about everything I thought I believed. I have been messed up with this for days! What can you tell me?

Wow. First off, what is the definition of a psychopath? Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for the feelings of others and often the rules of society. I completely understand Ms. Katheryn’s distress. History is filled with personalities twisted by ego and corruption and bent on gaining power. The difference here, however is that if one is to take their religion or spirituality seriously, there must be a degree of divorce between the faith of the believer in the divine, and the institution. For example, if the Catholic Church is part of a organizational scandal, does that mean one should doubt their relationship and faith in Jesus? I don’t think so. Katheryn, the Buddha once advised (to paraphrase) us not to believe or conform to anything that did not match up with our reason. I wouldn’t confuse your loyalty to the divine with an earthly institution or its mouthpieces, especially when they conflict.

—–

Julie asks:

In your year of experience, did you get any clue as to why we are so exclusive in our religion? Why we can’t accept that there are different paths to Truth?

First of all, there are many “believers” who are quite universal in their faith. The exclusivity we express is a component of humanity that pervades much of our lives. This is my house, that is your house. This is my country, that is yours. Our government runs better than theirs. My religion teaches truth, not yours. Ad nauseum. Many of us think this way because humans have a knack for compartmentalizing everything, from our religion to the shelves of food in our refrigerator. There is safety with walls, even walls around ideas. We feel cozy and valued when we belong to an exclusive club. That’s just human nature. As for the second part of your question, try the reverse. Why can’t you accept that there may in fact only be one valid path to Truth, while all others are convincing diversions? Of course, my question is rhetorical, however such universalism is just as hard to swallow for some as its opposite. I find that the solution for peace despite these differences isn’t in degrading someone beliefs in spite of your own or making a point of conversion, but in asking others to bring the best qualities of their faith/philosophy to the table of humanity in a spirit of service.

—–

Susan writes:

I am concerned about so much hate today- and misunderstandings about other’s beliefs. I am especially concerned about how politics and religion have become dangerously close.

Me too. You know, I suffered with hatred for so long before last year, and I can tell you that that only solution is honest communication. The Qur’an offers great insight here. Allah states in surah 49: 13 “We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know one another.” Why is it that God made us in diversity if the intention was that we are to know one another? Wouldn’t it have been easier for us to look, act, speak, dress, and express ourselves the same? Of course, but just look at nature as our example. All the colors, the sounds of the animals, so vibrant and yet each compliments the other. That is humanity. Our diversity compliments one another and thus manifests a far richer existence.

—–

M’Lou asks:

I would love to know which of the religious paths you feel is most accepting of/welcoming to the gay and lesbian community? And which would be the least?

This is a tough one, because it often comes down to the individual’s interpretation of scripture. For example, there are Christians and Muslims who believe homosexuality is a grave, Hell-deserving sin, while others believe that if God created us in the womb and homosexuality isn’t a choice, how can he “pre-damn” his own creation? There are some faiths that, as far as I know, seldom mention or pass judgment on the issue at all, namely Buddhism, Jainism, most forms of Paganism, perhaps Sikhi, and  Hinduism (depending on the school) to name a few. Abrahamic faiths, including the Baha’is, traditionally view homosexuality in less than favorable terms, including opposition to “gay marriage,” however these views are currently experiencing a revival of sorts in their translations.

—–

I appreciate all of your questions. Please remember that the answers here are my opinion and may not represent the official stance of these faiths.

What are you curious about? Is there anything about the Project Conversion journey or faith in general that you’d like me to tackle? Feel free to ask during the call for questions on the Facebook page or email me at contact@andrewbowen.info

 



Advertisement
Comments read comments(13)
post a comment
abowen

posted June 3, 2012 at 1:13 am


Nick,

Thank you for that. And to be clear, I will edit my entries as much as is needed in order to convey the most accurate information possible.

Peace,

Andrew



report abuse
 

Nick

posted June 1, 2012 at 11:15 pm


I’m glad you two sorted out the misunderstandings going on at both ends. Andrew, I think the recent edit is satisfactory. However, it does still _seem_ to lump Baha’is into the groups that oppose gay marriage. Perhaps parts of Sam’s explanation (of his understanding of this issue as it pertains to choices on how to live his own life) may have reinforced this opinion. I’m not asking for you to edit the post again; I just thought I’d add something in the comment section about it.

Baha’i marriage, as you know, is a monogamous heterosexual union, but Baha’is in general do not support or oppose various societal definitions of marriage (whether it be polygamous or homosexual). Of course, all that I say is just my opinion and understanding. Fortunately, I found a recent letter from the Universal House of Justice making this very point. Below is a pertinent excerpt from that letter:

The purpose of the Faith of Bahá’u’lláh is the realization of the organic unity of the entire human race, and Bahá’ís are enjoined to eliminate from their lives all forms of prejudice and to manifest respect towards all. Therefore, to regard those with a homosexual orientation with prejudice or disdain would be against the spirit of the Faith. Furthermore, a Bahá’í is exhorted to be “an upholder and defender of the victim of oppression”, and it would be entirely appropriate for a believer to come to the defense of those whose fundamental rights are being denied or violated.
At the same time, you are no doubt aware of the relevant teachings of the Faith that govern the personal conduct of Bahá’ís. The Bahá’í Writings state that marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that sexual relations are restricted to a couple who are married to each other. Other passages from the Writings state that the practice of homosexuality is not permitted. The teachings of Bahá’u’lláh on personal morality are binding on Bahá’ís, who strive, as best they can, to live up to the high standards He has established.
In attempting to reconcile what may appear to be conflicting obligations, it is important to understand that the Bahá’í community does not seek to impose its values on others, nor does it pass judgment on others on the basis of its own moral standards….
(From a letter dated October 27, 2010, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice)



report abuse
 

Sam Karvonen

posted June 1, 2012 at 8:04 pm


Much better, thanks!

Cheek kiss, okay? The heterosexual macho bulls*** Hulks that we are.

G’nite from Finland,

Sam



report abuse
 

abowen

posted June 1, 2012 at 7:40 pm


Sam,

Glad we could kiss and make up. I made the edit. Let me know if this works.

Peace,

Andrew



report abuse
 

Sam Karvonen

posted June 1, 2012 at 6:53 pm


Andrew, :)

I appreciate your efforts to settle the issue. I don’t think we have much of an issue here to begin with. Maybe some misunderstandings both ways which have been by and large clarified.

Perhaps the impasse you felt is due to this simple fact: What for you is “complicating” matters is for me treating the matter truthfully. All simplistic one-word alternatives would be misleading and simplifying the matter. But I’m happy if you settle with the link, although my happiness is not my object here. Only truth. Which is something we totally agree on.

“Marriage isn’t necessary, in my opinion, and yet heteros do it all the time.”

Yes. Heteros marry all the time for all the wrong reasons that result in either unhappiness or divorce (in my opinion). And the homosexuals have borrowed these “wrong” reasons. Marriage simply does not mean “having a life partner”. It’s not about “getting a person into my life”, but I agree that this is the *popular* view these days. But to call that marriage is erroneous in my terminology. Perhaps it’s okay with you and I can totally accept that. But let me put it this way to make my point easier to understand: *IF* marriage indeed unequivocally means “getting a life partner”, *THEN* it would indeed by unfair to allow it to only heterosexuals and not to homosexuals. The problem is: I don’t believe that is what marriage is to begin with. Nor do I think it is a human right (even for the heterosexuals).

For the Bahá’ís, as it is for many other faith traditions, marriage is above all a *moral responsibility* and not merely a personal right. The Bahá’í marriage can be defined as a lifelong companionship for raising a new race of men. What makes the Bahá’í stance perhaps unique as compared to say the Jewish, Christian or Muslim notions, is that marriage is viewed as a logical expression of two broader principles enunciated by Bahá’u’lláh: (1) the moral responsibility of all humans “to carry forward and ever-advancing civilization” (i.e. not just procreation children and rearing decent citizens, but raising a *more* ethical, *more* intelligent, *more* reasonable and a *more* world-embracing generation than its predecessors), and (2) unity in diversity. No. 1 highlights the Bahá’í stress on global advancement as well as on raising a more civilized generation than our own. No. 2. highlights the Bahá’í belief in the importance of diversity in all human organizations and institutions. Marriage is no exception and therefore gender-complementarity in child-rearing is viewed as imperative — even sacred. Children’s right to a father and a mother, I feel, is much more defensible as an inalienable human right than a person’s right to have a sexually pleasing life partner.

Yet it is not my intention to start an academic debate here on the benefits of gender-complementarity (as much as I would have to share and cite on the subject) but rather to state the spiritual rationale of the Bahá’í concept of marriage. Like you may see from the above, there are both similarities as well as differences with other faith traditions and hence the religious arguments for “traditional” marriage cannot be all lumped into the same basket. And I know that you haven’t done so.

I have all along been absolutely fine with differing opinions and I have no problem if you choose to think differently. I will respect that fully. In fact, even if this discussion doesn’t change anything, I consider it to have been a very interesting and useful exchange.

I’m a fast typist so perhaps my extensive commentaries to your posts sometimes come across as obsessive and strange! As if I’m pouring out my heart or something. But nothing could be further from the truth. Let me assure you: I love to explore issues from different viewpoints and I do not shy away from expressing my opinion. Or from rambling ;) . I’m sorry if I do not always express myself concisely and in simpler terms. It’s a chronic problem with yours truly, but I’m learning. Yet I am always willing to learn from others, even when I appear adamant and opinionated.

The fact that I’m supporting your blog and loyally hanging around should be telling enough. I believe in your cause and want you to receive support. I don’t know if there are any other “Abrahamics” around here any more than the Bahá’ís who continue to support your noble purpose of healing religious divisions. For some reason, some people have started judging you rather than understanding you. I may have had my moments of doubt too, but I’ve been taught to see the intentions and purity of all people I come across, and to view them fairly and lovingly. And indeed my doubts proved wrong. Let me just express once more how happy I am for the work you are doing here. And please do not shy away from posting things about the Bahá’ís too. In the future, I’ll just let you know if I feel there are some factual errors. Opinions of course should always remain your personal property to which I have no right to infringe.

Let us celebrate that and meanwhile acknowledge that good friends are bound to disagree at whiles!

Kind regards,

LilWabbit



report abuse
 

abowen

posted June 1, 2012 at 6:10 pm


Sam,

“X” can imply anything. It’s interesting that I am trying to actually do right by your request and yet you insist on complicating the issue. I’m not entirely sure on what we even disagree of at this point. Instead of helping me fix the problem of wording, we keep coming back to why it was wrong (apparently) in the first place. Where’s the progress in that?

Did I say that the acquisition of a life partner was essential to happiness? Again, you’re over-complicating the issue and projecting. Marriage isn’t necessary, in my opinion, and yet heteros do it all the time. Why is it defensible for us to marry but not for others? And to be clear, I’m not “somewhat angry or displeased” with anyone. Don’t confuse the object (the issue) with its subject (the position holder). I simply believe homosexuals should have the freedom to marry whom they wish, just as heteros do. I don’t think gays should have to justify their reasons to straight people. I didn’t have to justify my desire to marry my wife to a legislative body, so they shouldn’t either. I’m not trying to convince you of that point, just stating my belief. I’ve proven that I’m okay with conflicting points of view, after all, I just spent a year observing and practicing many of them.

Just because someone disagrees with you Sam, doesn’t make them an adversary. Take it easy. My wife and I disagree all the time, but we don’t get angry and consider ourselves adversarial.

I’ve been cool with agreeing to disagree on this issue all along, Sam. The problem is that I’ve asked repeatedly how to remedy my choice of wording and yet you won’t allow that. I have not made any implication that I think those who disagree with gay marriage are irrational or homophobic. Again, that’s reaching, by a lot. Please don’t extend your assumptions when I’ve used plain language in my position. This is how misunderstandings are born.

If it satisfies you, I will post the link provided instead of the word “sin.” If there’s anything else I can do for you, please let me know.

Peace,

Andrew



report abuse
 

Sam Karvonen

posted June 1, 2012 at 5:04 pm


Andrew,

“So this was merely a matter of editing. Why couldn’t that have been pointed out in the beginning? Why not say, “Hey Andrew, replace the word ‘sin’ with X.”?”

Firstly, in the context of this blog post it’s a rather significant “edit” that the Bahá’ís do not regard homosexuality as a sin. I’d rather kindly request that you do not insist for a simple one-word position when we feel the matter is more subtle. Sometimes single words are misleading. Why do you need to have a one-word alternative? Does it have to be so simply definable?

The Bahá’í position is better articulated in this Wikipedia site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_the_Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith

Perhaps a link there could have sufficed. All other faiths have similar Wikipedia sites on their respective views on homosexuality.

“I only care that they have the right to do so.”

But you would first have to convince your legislators that it is a human right in the first place. Human rights concern the protection of essential human interests without which survival, progress or happiness is impossible. Not anything that people would like to do qualifies as a de jure human right. Now you’re only claiming that a “life partner” is essential to happiness without any objective evidence to support your claim, and being somewhat angry and displeased with those who disagree and feel they have rational reasons to do so.

“Finally, I’m not sure where you got the impression that I treated Baha’is as an enemy.”

Only because your earlier posts about those who disagreed with your position on gay rights painted a rather adversarial impression of them. And also because you appeared to single the Bahá’ís in this post as being somehow morally more questionable than the other Abrahamics that are “reforming”. But I’m happy to know if I’ve totally misunderstood you.

The best way out of this is to peacefully acknowledge if we have a genuine disagreement and go on. And to be open to the possibility that not all those who disagree with the gay marriage rights position are irrational or homophobic. It’s just that only one anti-gay rights position has been clamorously presented in the media and that’s the evangelical Christian position.

Kind regards,

Sam



report abuse
 

abowen

posted June 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm


Sam,

So this was merely a matter of editing. Why couldn’t that have been pointed out in the beginning? Why not say, “Hey Andrew, replace the word ‘sin’ with X.”? I’ve edited my posts in the past for wrong usage, so I’m not sure why it would have been difficult this time around.

My position on the so-called “gay marriage” issue has nothing to do with the why. I frankly don’t care why gays might choose to marry, I only care that they have the right to do so.

Finally, I’m not sure where you got the impression that I treated Baha’is as an enemy. Was it simply because I mentioned something unpopular? Remember that I did not in fact single out Baha’is in a vacuum, but included them in a list of other positions held by other faiths.

So, now that that’s out of the way, let’s make this simple and what it should have been all along: word replacement. What should I substitute for “sin”?

Peace,

Andrew



report abuse
 

Sam Karvonen

posted June 1, 2012 at 4:30 pm


Andrew,

You wrote: “I stated facts about the Faith, not my opinions.”

No you didn’t – with all due respect my friend. Homosexuality is not a sin in the Bahá’í Faith. Full stop. Sins are choices. Extra-marital affairs are considered immoral, yes, but it doesn’t specifically concern gays. Your misstatement warranted for clarification on the part of the Bahá’ís. Hence my reaction. Nothing more to it, really. My reaction is based on Bahá’í Faith being singled out and misrepresented (perhaps unintentionally). There’s no other “stress” or “frustration” on our part.

You wrote: “Further, I do not believe that gays have any more right to marry than I do heterosexuals. What I do believe in is the right to pursue happiness so long as said happiness does not infringe upon the rights of another. Therefore my argument doesn’t occupy the specificity of so-called “gay marriage,” it occupies the realm of one’s right and freedom to choose their life partner among other things.”

Nobody disagrees with the freedom to choose a life partner. The disagreement concerns why.

Andrew Buddy, I’ve never considered you an “enemy” of our Faith for crying out loud. :) I was rather asking that you do not treat us as your enemy simply because your position is different and you clearly are a political advocate on the issue. We’re not. I was merely clarifying the Bahá’í position because from the highly polarized battle positions out there things start to look way too black and white, and our position is more subtle.

Your friend,

Sam



report abuse
 

abowen

posted June 1, 2012 at 3:29 pm


Sam,

I have nothing for or against Baha’is or any other faith. That’s the nice part of my position…I’m completely neutral. My observation was simply a objective statement of fact on the Baha’i position regarding homosexuals (among those of other faiths). You feel compelled to defend the merits of your faith. Go for it, but you aren’t defending it against an enemy of the faith. I don’t think it wise to cast me as a straw man bearing the logos of your perceived theological or social enemies. I stated facts about the Faith, not my opinions. This is obviously a subject of great frustration to members of your faith. You have my condolences for the stress this apparently causes.

Further, I do not believe that gays have any more right to marry than I do heterosexuals. What I do believe in is the right to pursue happiness so long as said happiness does not infringe upon the rights of another. Therefore my argument doesn’t occupy the specificity of so-called “gay marriage,” it occupies the realm of one’s right and freedom to choose their life partner among other things.

Peace,

Andrew



report abuse
 

Sam Karvonen

posted June 1, 2012 at 2:53 pm


Hi Andrew,

You wrote: “Apparently the pursuit of happiness, which in this case pertains to the right of one human to marry another of his or her choice, is listed among the rights of this country.”

It is clear that we disagree, and I am not here to try to change your view. I’m sure you have found good reasons for your position. For me, marriage is a responsibility, not a right. Having a sexually compatible life-partner is one of many job-requirement for marital responsibility. But it is not a human right.

Most human right lawyers the world over do not regard “gay rights” as human rights in any known legal sense. It remains a contentious issue. No doubt there’s growing political pressure in many countries to adopt the liberal Western view, but it has nothing to do with reason or objective science. It’s politics and hence the loud lobby groups on both sides. According to the interest theory of human rights, rights must protect an essential human interest, say survival, education or employment, that have over time proven necessary for human existence or development. I’ve yet to see any objective demonstration that having a sexually pleasing life partner is in any way essential to personal happiness and growth. Even the Jain monks would agree.

We have had some Bahá’í gays that eventually have come to prefer the Western liberalist stance (obviously it grants them joys that they wouldn’t enjoy otherwise). They have had the perfect freedom to leave the Faith. They should be free to do so and Bahá’ís are not known to harrass them in any way. There is no established Bahá’í tendency of harrassment. But we have also other gays (I know a few personally) that have come to accept the dual-gender notion of marriage and wish to remain devout Bahá’ís. An outsider is not in a position to offer us reliable statistics as to which group is larger and what is the overall trend. Let alone to judge who is the better gay. I even know a gay Bahá’í who decided to pursue a gay lifestyle and left the Faith, got himself an HIV infection (no, I’m not saying that the latter is an inevitable part of gay lifestyle), stopped his gay lifestyle and returned to the Faith. He died a few years ago as a Bahá’í. Ours is a gentle religion, even if some of our beliefs run contrary to your understanding of equality. And we don’t engage in political rallies. We are not your enemy or the enemy of your lobby group. In fact, we can understand much of your anger. I would therefore kindly ask you not to bring us into your political campaigns, whether as an enemy or as an ally.

The Bahá’í standards of chastity are no doubt rather challenging for the post-modern Western man and woman. Yet they are indiscriminate in that they also advise unmarried heterosexual men and women not to engage in sexual relations. Many of them have to be equally satisfied with lifelong celibacy. That’s the closest thing to monasticism you’ll find in the Bahá’í Faith. These men and women, particularly if we include the standard pimple-faced Star Trek geeks that are, more often than not, turned down by most prospective wives, seem to form a statistically comparative, if not bigger, group than the homosexuals.

We simply do not subscribe to the hedonistic notion that every physical impulse, including the sexual impulse, must needs an expression at some point in our lives in order to preserve our physical health and psychological sanity. This is not the case even in the animal kingdom.

With kind regards to you and your dear family,

Sam



report abuse
 

abowen

posted June 1, 2012 at 1:47 pm


Sam,

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Apparently the pursuit of happiness, which in this case pertains to the right of one human to marry another of his or her choice, is listed among the rights of this country.

Andrew



report abuse
 

Sam Karvonen

posted June 1, 2012 at 5:02 am


The Bahá’í stance is critically different from the traditional views of the older Abrahamic faiths in that we do *not* regard gays to be somehow *lesser* beings or *more sinful* people by default than non-gays. To state otherwise is simply not true. The Bahá’ís do *not* claim that “homosexuality is a choice” and begrudge the gays for making such a choice. Slogans like “God hates gays” sound just as abhorrent and outrageous to the Bahá’ís as they may sound to a gay rights activist. It may very well be that in God’s sight the bulk of the world’s heteros are the greater sinners.

“He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be.” (Bahá’u’lláh, Kitáb-i-Iqán, p. 266)

But our stance also critically differs from that of the gay lobby in that we do not see the presence of a sexually attractive human being in one’s life, whether they be hetero or gay, as a human right. Rather, we see such a non-negotiable criterion as a somewhat self-centric and shaky foundation for any relationship, whether hetero or gay. Marriage means something altogether different to us. “Marriages” that are founded upon “getting a partner”, and where sexuality is a defining element of that partnership (even if not the only one), have proven not to last very long. The statistically high rate of breakdowns of such relationships applies just as much to heterosexuals as it applies to homosexuals. In fact, due to sheer numbers and the involvement of children, the heterosexual laxity in marital standards is a far bigger problem globally. The perennial counter-argument that “gay relationships aren’t just about sex” is misdirected since the Bahá’ís don’t even claim that tey’re all about sex. What is claimed is that sexuality remains a key aspect of gay relationships since otherwise gays need not seek lifelong partnerships with other gays. This misguided sexuality-based notion of a lasting relationship is *not* the fault of gays at all, but rather the example for such relationships is firmly set by the Western heterosexual world where marriage is increasingly more about “getting something from the world” rather than “giving something to the world”. Many homosexuals have simply borrowed such individualistic notions of “marriage” from the heterosexuals without question. My personal bone to pick is actually more with the whole egocentric notion of “marriage” adopted by the heterosexuals, rather than blaming the gays for something that the heterosexuals practice in far greater numbers.

As far as universal human rights are concerned (as per the Declaration), we’re on the same page as to the essential need to protect the gays from abuses, hate speech and other crimes prompted by prejudice and hateful attitudes. Human rights lawyers and professors of law have not reached any consensus that having a sexually pleasing life partner is a universal human right. Where you may think Bahá’u’lláh is behind modern developments, we find his position resting rationally and morally on a far more solid ground than the alternative one. The Bahá’í viewpoint, indiscriminately, sees “life partner” not as a human right, whether it concerns the heterosexuals or homosexuals. Marriage is simply not about having a partner and reducing another human being into a therapeutic teddy bear to assuage the sense of loneliness and abnormality that single persons quite understandably feel. Another human being deserves much greater respect, no matter how snuggly and warm they may feel, and no matter how mutually consentual such a therapeutic arrangement may be. Mutual therapy is still therapy. Marriage is not. I blame the heterosexuals for this distortion.

As I said before, the whole issue of whether same-sex unions are a human rights issue depends wholly on whether or not a right to a sexually compatible life partner (heterosexual or otherwise), is understood as an *essential human interest* comparable to say the ‘right to shelter’, the ‘right to employment’ or the ‘right to education’. The latter rights are critical to human survival and progress. Nobody in their right mind seriously disputes their essentiality. But anyone who confidently claims an inalienable right to a sexually compatible life partner, which is as yet universally unrecognized as a human right, has the burden of proof to demonstrate how formalizing a lifelong companionship with a sexually attractive partner is in fact essential to human survival and progress. For me this is clearly not the case. In the case of the other human rights their essentiality is so universally obvious that very few proofs are in fact needed to highlight their significance. Hence, to me, it is evident there is no discrimination, not even moral discrimination, perpetrated by the Bahá’í Faith. To slap a homophobic sticker on the Bahá’í Faith, and to single it out from other “reforming” Abrahamics, is both ill-informed and, frankly, a little hostile, in my opinion. It is only too clear to the Bahá’ís that the whole issue is highly politicized. We are not to participate in politics and hence we are not to campaign for or against “gay rights”. You will never see us in the streets shouting any slogans towards any group. Ultimately most of the vitriolic demands on both sides of the argument are more political and personal rather than rational, scientific and legal-philosophical.

Failing to provide solid reasoning to reject essential human interest as the basis of human rights, there’s no basis to consider that the Bahá’í view is discriminatory in the least. Appeals to dodgy and methodologically flawed studies on sexuality carried out by researchers with a known a bias simply won’t do as scientific evidence. Just because it is increasingly “fashionable” to view same-sex union as a human right, and just because many have bought the clamorous “human rights” and “tolerance” rhetoric, it still does not make it a human right which is in any significant way comparable to the known human rights formulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There’s just too much propaganda (on both sides of the political aisle) surrounding the issue, too few facts and too few thoroughly thought-out arguments.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Project Conversion. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Religion 101 Happy Reading!

posted 2:34:58pm Aug. 02, 2012 | read full post »

Is God an Immersionist?
In the world of faith, folks often point out the obvious fact that God does not belong to a particular creed, religion, race, or school of philosophy. This sentiment establishes the divine as one which transcends divisive terms of affiliation. But I am here to announce that a brief exploration of

posted 7:00:59am Jul. 12, 2012 | read full post »

Immersion in Relationships: Five Ways to Bring your Relationships to Life
I did something last night with my wife that we haven't done in a very long time... Okay, not from that far back, but it certainly feels that way. Last night, we had a date night. N

posted 10:58:33am Jul. 10, 2012 | read full post »

The Path of Immersion: An Introduction and How Entering the Path Leads to a Deeper Sense of Self
Today marks my official declaration of fidelity and discipleship to the Path of Immersion. Along with that declaration, I also invite you to join me in whatever capacity feels the most suitable. The Path of Immersion is not one which demands conversion, evangelism, worship, or exclusivity. Along th

posted 6:00:19am Jul. 09, 2012 | read full post »

Farewell, Project Conversion: The End of an Adventure
When I converted to Christianity at the age of 15, I assumed the faith with a passionate resolve. Despite the positive instruction from my pastor and others, I (for reasons I cannot explain) transformed into a fiery evangelist, launching Christianity at friends and strangers like salvos of religious

posted 12:49:25pm Jul. 05, 2012 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.