When I referred in the title of an earlier post to the possibility that the Bahá’í Faith could “eat itself”, I had lifted the phrase sans context from a post I’d been working on much earlier, and had never been able to complete, so I never fleshed that remark out. What I’d meant is that from what I’m learning, it would appear that the Bahá’í Faith’s central administration is authorized to act in such a way that certain dealings in the personal lives of the believers are subject to vetting by local or national institutional authorities, and further, that there are serious limits on the kind of political behaviour and activism that can be engaged in. The worries I have about this are twofold: number one, I feel that the integrity of religion is undermined if it exerts too strong an influence over the free mental lives of its adherents; and number two, the prerequisite to work toward a unity of perspectives among people, while it could presumably have marvelous beneficent effects in a strife-torn environment where people could be brought to discuss issues civilly and recognize their common humanity, would create morally problematic conditions in a circumstance where speaking out with a potentially partisan voice on contentious issues would be a moral prerequisite for the advancement of human wellbeing in a given issue. A Quaker activist friend of mine who has worked as an irrigation specialist and elections monitor in nations like Rwanda, and who is closely involved with the work of the Christian Peacemaker Teams, has commented on his work with Bahá’ís by saying they’re “very good at taping over corners”, or something to that effect—what he meant was that Bahá’ís are never in a position to take a meaningful stand on serious political issues of the day, because fears of appearing “partisan” and thus being barrier to human unity are too strong. That attitude also leads, or so I’ve heard, to a kind of micromanaging of the activities of the intellectual class, and a vetting of the opinions they’re allowed to publish in the common arena, so as to avoid bringing shame on the community’s reputation or putting persecuted Bahá’ís in danger by dint of some risqué opinion being advanced by some Bahá’í thinker in some magazine somewhere. Simply put—there are severe limitations on freedom of speech. And also, I’ve heard, of thought. And that’s disquieting. And in addition to that, the political quietism advanced by the religion’s institutions means there are only certain approved channels through which a Bahá’í can direct her activism, which might lead to missed opportunities to make meaningful contributions to human betterment that can only be made by wading into contentious political waters.
Sure, Administration-approved Bahá’í activism has sometimes led to great things. Yes, there’s a certain integrity and a great deal of bravery involved in the fruits of the non-confrontational Bahá’í approach to problem-solving. And yes, my anxiety over these issues—un-assuaged even after hopeful discussions I’ve had with some of my Bahá’í faith-teachers and friends—is partly owing to self-interest, in that I’d like to one day become a global opinion leader, member of the political-journalist class, influence the global conversation on political issues, say it how you will. I’d like to become a political editorialist, engage with other intellectuals on the issues of the day, and be free to speak my mind however I like about what’s going on, even to the point of critiquing individuals, policies, governments, decrying human-rights scandals, standing up for personal beliefs and causes dear to my heart, and so on. Some of this may be able to happen if I become a devoted Bahá’í, but most of it probably can’t. And either way, I’d have to wait ‘til I’m officially an adult, and I’m in such a milieu, before I deal with those issues, and that’s going to bother me until then. So I have major concerns, and I’m not sure if it’s possible to deal with them.
