Who all is out there?

[Mike3]

Check out "Baha'i religion" if you're interested (or even if you're not, if you're the editor!). I still have a bunch of notes / links to add to the text.  It's looong--are we still bound to the old limits? Wikipedia "solved" the problem by dividing it into about a hundred (really) Baha'i-related articles, few of them good.

Again, I am concerned that the Baha'is will eventually try to get their people in as editors here. I've learned that they now regard their Wikipedia articles as a major PR concern.

But eventually (if it hasn't already, I don't know) the Citizendium will have to write an article on the Baha'i Faith, it's a real religion with millions of followers so it's obviously very notable and encyclopedia-worthy. How would CZ go about approaching this? If the WP article is such a "major PR concern" for them it makes me wonder about the neutrality of it. What problems do you see with those 100+ WP articles on that religion, anyway?

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

In case you haven't seen it, do check out the unapproved CZ article on the Baha'i religion. Then compare with Wikipedia.

You may notice, for example, that Wikipedia makes no mention of internal (to the religion) controversies. Every time someone (often me) tries to introduce allusions to these, it gets deleted. (Since critics are far outnumbered by vigilant believers on Baha'i-related pages, edit-wars favor the believers.) A common rationale is that sources related to dissent or criticism are either not admissible because they come from a website (as if the medium determined the quality of the content) rather than something printed on paper, or because the number of people involved is "not significant." (Ironically, exes account for the bulk of scholarly writing on Babism and the Baha'is.)

Another problem is that Baha'is interpret their history through the lens of books such as Nabil's Narrative (a.k.a. ''The Dawn-Breakers'') and the writings of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. Mainstream historians, however, would contextualize these as sectarian narratives, and especially distrust them to present even-handed accounts of religious conflicts (whether internal or external). An example would be the claim that Subh-i-Azal (="Mirza Yahya") tried to poison Baha'u'llah.

Here's a fairly random sampling of lines of thought which Baha'is would prefer not be raised:

1. Maybe Baha'u'llah didn't really intend to ban homosexuality, or exclude women from the Universal House of Justice. (Baha'is (a.), don't want to advertise these details, lest liberals be offended; and (b.) don't want to call into question the authorized interpretions of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.)

2. The Baha'i governance structure overwhelmingly favors incumbants and their proteges. (Baha'is believe the organizational structure to be divinely inspired, and regard criticism of its leadership as a kind of heresy.)

3. The world Baha'i population may be as low as 1 million, if that, and shrinking. (Their beliefs hold that the faith is destined to grow until the whole world follows its principles, and aren't willing to disavow many decades' worth of overcounting.)

4. As the penalty for arson, the Kitab-i-Aqdas prescribes that the arsonist be burned alive. Adulterers are to be fined, with the fine doubling with each offense. (Makes the faith look retrograde. Baha'is will protest that such provisions have not been put into effect, as the time is not yet ripe.)

5. Baha'i institutions receive generous subsidies from the State of Israel, with which they enjoy an unusually cozy relationship.  (Baha'is say they are apolitical, that funds come only from members, and worry how such talk will be received in Iran and other Muslim countries.)

6. Many people important to Baha'i history were excommunicated. (Baha'is avoid the impression that their religion has suffered from schisms, and fear that neither the controversies nor their resolution would cast them in a good light.)

7. The Baha'i hierarchy censors the writings of followers. (If the issue cannot be avoided, Baha'is insist on softer language--e.g. that writings on the religion be submitted for "review".)

Beyond that, there is the practical problem with quality control over 100 + articles.

[Mike3]

In case you haven't seen it, do check out the unapproved CZ article on the Baha'i religion. Then compare with Wikipedia.

You may notice, for example, that Wikipedia makes no mention of internal (to the religion) controversies. Every time someone (often me) tries to introduce allusions to these, it gets deleted. (Since critics are far outnumbered by vigilant believers on Baha'i-related pages, edit-wars favor the believers.) A common rationale is that sources related to dissent or criticism are either not admissible because they come from a website (as if the medium determined the quality of the content) rather than something printed on paper, or because the number of people involved is "not significant." (Ironically, exes account for the bulk of scholarly writing on Babism and the Baha'is.)

Another problem is that Baha'is interpret their history through the lens of books such as Nabil's Narrative (a.k.a. ''The Dawn-Breakers'') and the writings of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi. Mainstream historians, however, would contextualize these as sectarian narratives, and especially distrust them to present even-handed accounts of religious conflicts (whether internal or external). An example would be the claim that Subh-i-Azal (="Mirza Yahya") tried to poison Baha'u'llah.

Here's a fairly random sampling of lines of thought which Baha'is would prefer not be raised:

1. Maybe Baha'u'llah didn't really intend to ban homosexuality, or exclude women from the Universal House of Justice. (Baha'is (a.), don't want to advertise these details, lest liberals be offended; and (b.) don't want to call into question the authorized interpretions of Abdul-Baha and Shoghi Effendi.)

2. The Baha'i governance structure overwhelmingly favors incumbants and their proteges. (Baha'is believe the organizational structure to be divinely inspired, and regard criticism of its leadership as a kind of heresy.)

3. The world Baha'i population may be as low as 1 million, if that, and shrinking. (Their beliefs hold that the faith is destined to grow until the whole world follows its principles, and aren't willing to disavow many decades' worth of overcounting.)

4. As the penalty for arson, the Kitab-i-Aqdas prescribes that the arsonist be burned alive. Adulterers are to be fined, with the fine doubling with each offense. (Makes the faith look retrograde. Baha'is will protest that such provisions have not been put into effect, as the time is not yet ripe.)

5. Baha'i institutions receive generous subsidies from the State of Israel, with which they enjoy an unusually cozy relationship.  (Baha'is say they are apolitical, that funds come only from members, and worry how such talk will be received in Iran and other Muslim countries.)

6. Many people important to Baha'i history were excommunicated. (Baha'is avoid the impression that their religion has suffered from schisms, and fear that neither the controversies nor their resolution would cast them in a good light.)

7. The Baha'i hierarchy censors the writings of followers. (If the issue cannot be avoided, Baha'is insist on softer language--e.g. that writings on the religion be submitted for "review".)

Beyond that, there is the practical problem with quality control over 100 + articles.

I'm curious, do you endorse any of these views, or do you just think they should belong in the encyclopedia for a true neutral article? A neutral presentation cannot endorse but cannot also stifle these views. Also, I'm not on the Wiki, since I do not want to give out my real name to the public, and thus I can't read the article. Perhaps you could send me a copy somehow?

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

I could cut-and-paste and send it to you that way, if you want. Let me try.

I have opinions on everything, but have tried to be even-handed in the text. As to specifics:

1. I am persuaded by the arguments of experts to that effect. However, I am sure that Baha'u'llah believed and did other things which I would not approve of (such as announcing his divinity).

2. Again, I believe the dissidents are correct. But then, it's none of my business whether they have a democracy or not. (The Catholic Church isn't a democracy either.)

3.  I suspect (but can't know) that even the "minimum" figure would be too high, based on several lines of reasoning which are too complicated to go into here.

4. The existence of these provisions is not in dispute.

5. I wonder about the financial aspect, and don't really know. Some "subsidies" could be regarded as the sort of thing any Israel-based entity might apply for, others seem to be favors. It's all pretty murky. But as for why relations are so good, that's easy--it's because the Baha'is don't cause any trouble, and their interests and goals don't conflict with those of the Jews. (Unlike, say, Catholic-Israeli relations.)

6. This is a matter of historical record. The debatable point is whether excommunication / shunning is good or justified. Not really my business as an outsider, but I have to admit it looks bad.

7. Censorship is indeed practiced, and in my opinion is a major reason why "mainstream" Baha'is have been eclipsed by exes in terms of their respective contribitions to scholarship.

[Mike3]

I could cut-and-paste and send it to you that way, if you want. Let me try.

I have opinions on everything, but have tried to be even-handed in the text. As to specifics:

1. I am persuaded by the arguments of experts to that effect. However, I am sure that Baha'u'llah believed and did other things which I would not approve of (such as announcing his divinity).

2. Again, I believe the dissidents are correct. But then, it's none of my business whether they have a democracy or not. (The Catholic Church isn't a democracy either.)

3.  I suspect (but can't know) that even the "minimum" figure would be too high, based on several lines of reasoning which are too complicated to go into here.

4. The existence of these provisions is not in dispute.

5. I wonder about the financial aspect, and don't really know. Some "subsidies" could be regarded as the sort of thing any Israel-based entity might apply for, others seem to be favors. It's all pretty murky. But as for why relations are so good, that's easy--it's because the Baha'is don't cause any trouble, and their interests and goals don't conflict with those of the Jews. (Unlike, say, Catholic-Israeli relations.)

6. This is a matter of historical record. The debatable point is whether excommunication / shunning is good or justified. Not really my business as an outsider, but I have to admit it looks bad.

7. Censorship is indeed practiced, and in my opinion is a major reason why "mainstream" Baha'is have been eclipsed by exes in terms of their respective contribitions to scholarship.

Ie. you do endorse these views. This can make it harder to stay neutral. I'm really curious to see the Citizendium article, now. Please send me a copy.

I'm wondering, just for curiosity's sake: do you believe in _any_ sort of religious system at all, whatever it is?

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

Your "i.e." doesn't follow. By my count I count one endorsement of a controversial point, two "technical endorsements" (which I think are right, but miss some larger point), three points uncontested (the question is whether they should be made known, not whether they are true),  and one "undecided."

I sent you a copy. Please let me know what you think of it.

I'm afraid my religious beliefs and identities are not so easy to summarize. I have been deeply influenced by Orthodox Christianity, Tibetan Buddhism, and the so-called "extremist" (ghulat) Shi'ism. And my wife follows the Chinese folk religion, so I guess that makes me a Taoist-in-law. I am a skeptic by temperament and tend to appreciate socio-biological and historico-critical perspectives, yet wonder about the nature of consciousness (I guess this is the Buddhist heritage speaking) and conceive of "God" in terms of that.

I also believe in this religion: http://www.subgenius.com (Salvation guaranteed, or triple your money back!)

[Royalist0007]

Deleted gratuitously inflammatory post from Aidan.  Aidan, if we have to delete many more such gratuitously inflammatory posts, you'll be banned from the project.  You've been warned.  --Larry Sanger

[Mike3]

Your "i.e." doesn't follow. By my count I count one endorsement of a controversial point, two "technical endorsements" (which I think are right, but miss some larger point), three points uncontested (the question is whether they should be made known, not whether they are true),  and one "undecided."

I sent you a copy. Please let me know what you think of it.

I'm afraid my religious beliefs and identities are not so easy to summarize. I have been deeply influenced by Orthodox Christianity, Tibetan Buddhism, and the so-called "extremist" (ghulat) Shi'ism. And my wife follows the Chinese folk religion, so I guess that makes me a Taoist-in-law. I am a skeptic by temperament and tend to appreciate socio-biological and historico-critical perspectives, yet wonder about the nature of consciousness (I guess this is the Buddhist heritage speaking) and conceive of "God" in terms of that.

I also believe in this religion: http://www.subgenius.com (Salvation guaranteed, or triple your money back!)

So in other words you "religious beliefs" are actually a mixed bag of stuff. Hmm...

Which views, exactly, fall into your "endorsement categories" given above? Also I'm curious as to what are your opinions on some of the Baha'i teachings, specifically human unity, that there is only one human species?

Oh, and the correct title of the religion is the "Baha'i Faith", not "Baha'i religion". Why isn't the CZ article titled that? Hmm. Overall, the article seems good. It's more integrated than the WP version, I've noticed, which cuts things up into a bunch of different articles. The neutrality is what I'm after, and to me it seems mostly neutral. I thought I might have spotted a couple of biases, but I forgot where they were -- maybe they weren't too severe and will get smoothed out eventually. After all, it's still not yet an "approved" or "finalized" article.

Whoops! Addendum! I just found one of these suspected biases, specifically about the "homosexuality" teachings vs. the "scientific" viewpoint on the subject. The article says the teachings fly in the face of "mainstream" psychiatry (which they do), however there is a Baha'i response to these claims, namely that the "scientific" studies may be biased somehow, possibly through politics, etc. Should this be mentioned? (Whether or not you think it is true, of course, is not relevant to whether or not it should be mentioned.)

[Bei Dawei (Dawud)]

Oh all right. 1 and 2 are "technical endorsements", 3 an outright endorsement, 5 an undecided, and 4,6, and 7 are factually undisputed.

What you refer to as the "correct name" is discussed under the "nomenclature" section. I suppose you also go around talking about "the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity" (oh wait--they have a new name now) instead of "the Unification Church" (let alone "the Moonies"),  and the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" instead of "the Mormons"...? And God only knows what we're supposed to call Prince these days...

On human unity, I think it is human nature to form competing identity groups (as the sociobiologists suggest). A politically-united world might be possible, at least temporarily, but would not be a utopia by any means--people would still compete for power and resources. In the long term, I suspect world unity will be rendered impossible due to ecological collapse (think Daniel Quinn). But I hope the Baha'is are right, and that the future looks something like the one which they expect. Whatever their flaws, they seem to be basically a good influence on the world.

On the gay issue, I think the Shoghster might be getting some unexpected support pretty soon. If I understand what I read in the newspapers, apparently the propensity of a boy to grow up to be gay has a hormonal basis which can be controlled to some extent. In other words, there might be a "cure" for some forms of gay-ness. (Of course, none of this has any bearing on whether homosexuality is "good" or not. )

For purposes of the article, I did link to a Baha'i compilation on homosexuality (which presumably expresses their opinion the way they want it expressed), and expect that readers have some basic awareness of public debates over homosexuality (or else can go look up the CZ article on it). 

For Royalist 0007:  Here's a website you might appreciate, with lots of hard-hitting exposes of those darned Mary-worshippers: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/subjectarchive/catholics.html

[Royalist0007]

Deleted gratuitously inflammatory post from Aidan.  Aidan, if we have to delete many more such gratuitously inflammatory posts, you'll be banned from the project.  You've been warned.  --Larry Sanger

[Nat Krause]

Aidan,

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions and all that. However, it probably goes without saying that you should be very careful to avoid injecting your personal opinions into Citizendium articles. This being the case, I don't see the relevance of this conversation to this forum; I suggest you take it elsewhere.

[Nancy Sculerati]

Please modify your post immediately, Aidan. That hateful language is not allowed here, it breaks our fundamental policies. Please remove it now. 

[Zachary Pruckowski]

If people want to fight about religion, can you do it somewhere else?  I really don't care what you think about homosexuals or Catholics, but it's got nothing to do with this thread, and it's not really appropriate here, or anywhere on CZ.

[Royalist0007]

Deleted gratuitously inflammatory post from Aidan.  Aidan, if we have to delete many more such gratuitously inflammatory posts, you'll be banned from the project.  You've been warned.  --Larry Sanger

Larry,I had posted what is common knowledge about the Anglican Communion in reply to Dawud's posting,as I am kept informed about why the Anglican Communion is in the process of splitting apart all because of a number of issues that have irrevocably factionalised the Communion.

I see nothing wrong with that. I am a conservative who feels very strongly on many issues.What is wrong with backing up your statements with evidence,even if it is from an external source?

Aidan.

[Larry Sanger]

Deleted gratuitously inflammatory post from Aidan.  Aidan, if we have to delete many more such gratuitously inflammatory posts, you'll be banned from the project.  You've been warned.  --Larry Sanger

Larry,I had posted what is common knowledge about the Anglican Communion in reply to Dawud's posting,as I am kept informed about why the Anglican Communion is in the process of splitting apart all because of a number of issues that have irrevocably factionalised the Communion.

I see nothing wrong with that. I am a conservative who feels very strongly on many issues.What is wrong with backing up your statements with evidence,even if it is from an external source?

Aidan.

There is nothing wrong with being a conservative who feels very strongly on many issues.  Obviously, I am not referring to your "backing up your statements with evidence."  There is most certainly something wrong, as you must know, with the forthright statement of your prejudices when you know that such statements will result in a flame fest.  That's why I call it "gratuitously inflammatory."

Again, you've been warned.  I will not hesitate to remove you from the project entirely if you post anything as inflammatory as you did earlier.  We would appreciate an apology to the Forum, as well, Aidan.