The views expressed in our content reflect individual perspectives and do not represent the authoritative views of the Baha'i Faith.
Consider what it is that singles man out from among created beings, and makes of him a creature apart. Is it not his reasoning power, his intelligence? Shall he not make use of these in his study of religion? I say unto you: weigh carefully in the balance of reason and science everything that is presented to you as religion. If it passes this test, then accept it, for it is truth! If, however, it does not so conform, then reject it, for it is ignorance! – Abdu’l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 144.
One particularly egregious type of Straw Man argument attributes a set of ideas, beliefs and actions (usually negative ones) to a loosely defined “They.”
For example: in his historical perspective Jews, God and History, Max Dimont presents the idea that racism is a misbegotten child of the Enlightenment. In the course of arguing a point about the political application of anti-Semitism, he states:
The religious politician in the Middle Ages had asked for the banishment of the Jews… The secular politician of the Modern Age did not ask for the banishment of the Jews, because it would not have served his purpose. …The way the first manipulators of anti-Semitism saw it, the Jews had to be kept around as perpetual scapegoats. What they had not foreseen, or wished for, was the emergence of a new breed of totalitarian politician who would advocate the actual extermination of Jews. They had not foreseen that their own irresponsible propaganda would be seized by neurotics and sadists and shaped into a philosophy of murder.
Does this sound familiar? Around the world, many voices have called for the banishment or extermination of groups that are “Other”—Them, and not Us. Various groups fit that definition and suffer the consequences at various times: Muslims, Baha’is, Jews, Buddhists, even Christians.
Individuals and movements blindly make use of the raw material at their disposal to achieve their goals—in the case of Nazism, the raw material included the dire economic and political situation in Germany after WWI, the faux-Darwinian theories of philosophers like Nietzsche and Gobineau, and the human desire to be able to point to something or someone and say, “That is why I hurt! They have done this.” THEM.
In one of his letters to our small-town newspaper, my Christian apologist friend stated that “The Babis attempted to assassinate the Shah.” He generalized an act committed by two deranged young men seeking revenge for the execution of their prophet, and imputed it to an entire religion. Our environment is awash in such broad-brush statements: “The Jews crucified Christ,” “The Muslims want to govern the world through Shariah law,” “The Haitians made a deal with the devil,” “Atheists are immoral,” or “Religion poisons everything.”
All of these statements are evocative and emotional, but none of them are true—and when you think about it, it takes only a moment of “reverse engineering” to realize it.
Let’s take the alleged Haitian “deal with Satan” expounded by a famed televangelist after the earthquake that leveled Port au Prince. This deal was supposedly struck in the late 1800s when the country was held by the French. The televangelist said, on-air: “Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the Third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘we will serve you if you will get us free from the French.’ True story. And so, the devil said, ‘OK, it’s a deal.’”
Setting aside the question of how the televangelist came by this information in the first place, what does it mean to say “They got together?” What “They?” Who? The entire population? Every man, woman and child? In a land without the Internet, email, television, telephones and possibly even consistent mail service, how did They do this? Who contacted the Devil? How did they get in touch with Satan, anyway? Did They do it as a gestalt? Did They elect someone to do it? How? By popular vote? Secret ballot? And how is it that an infallible God aimed the earthquake, fired, and hit a generation of innocents who had nothing to do with this alleged deal?
If you ask questions about propositions like this and the answers don’t make sense, it’s highly likely the proposition doesn’t either.
Aptly did Abdu’l-Baha ask: “Shall man gifted with the power of reason unthinkingly adhere to dogma which will not bear the analysis of reason?” — Foundations of World Unity, p. 84.
This generic use of the unspecified “They” has real-world consequences. It can determine how we behave toward others as individuals, as members of religious or secular organizations, as nations. It can affect whether we react to the plight of other human beings with empathy, apathy, or contempt.
So the next time you read a book or an article that makes claims about what a certain “They” thinks, believes, or does, simply reverse-engineer the propositions to see if they make sense. Then ask yourself if the writer has drawn a clear distinction between individual beliefs and actions, and institutional or collective ones.
More than that, ask yourself if those institutional or collective beliefs and actions even exist.
Next: The Benefits of Vagueness
Maya Bohnhoff is a Baha’i and a New York Times bestselling author of science fiction, fantasy and alternate history. She has authored over a dozen novels, and her short fiction has appeared in genre magazines, including Analog, Interzone and Amazing Stories, and in anthologies and story collections, including I Loved Thy...
READ MOREYou May Also Like
Comments
Bahá'u'lláh does tell Bahá'ís to eschew fellowship with the ungodly, but I think it is too easy to indulge in the same behavior as we see in society around us and define ungodly with a broad, straw brush.
In the quote about those who disbelieve in God, it is the betrayal that He calls out. And that is what informs whose fellowship I eschew. If I see another person as someone who pushes me to behavior or attitudes that are in opposition to the virtues I want and need to nurture in my own soul, I will eschew that person's fellowship for my own protection.
Here is the sad reality: none of the handful of people I have distanced myself from because they attempted to undermine my spiritual development were other people who claimed belief in God. My atheist husband never once tried to keep me from going to feast, or spending time with my Bahá'í friends. He rather encouraged me to go to Bahá'í events and attended them himself because my friends became his friends and because he saw my faith as something that contributed to the person he loved.
Conversely, ...I know people who call themselves believers in God whose behavior and attitudes caused me to rethink what Bahá'u'lláh meant when He used the word "ungodly". If I read the scriptures in context, I see godliness as a function of how well one's outer and inner character show forth godly virtues regardless of what they proclaim themselves to be.
A person can say they do not believe in God, yet harbor spiritual susceptibilities. Another can lay claim to belief and truly be one who disbelieves in God." As Lord Jesus has said, "You shall know them by their fruits."
Or, as Muhammad put it in the Qur'an, Hast thou observed him who belieth religion? That is he who repelleth the orphan, and urgeth not the feeding of the needy. Ah, woe unto worshippers who are heedless of their prayer; who would be seen (at worship) yet refuse small kindnesses! — Qur’an, Surih 107
So, ultimately, only God knows the state of a person's soul, we know it only from their attitudes and behaviors. So, I do not think that when Bahá'u'lláh says "ungodly" he means merely someone who claims not to believe in God. Indeed, a religious person who breaks the core principles of faith, who is unloving, unkind, false or vengeful is more ungodly than a loving, kind, truthful or compassionate person who has no religious persuasion. For that religious person behaves as he does in spite of a standard of behavior he claims to believe is divine. The atheist who behaves as Bahá'u'lláh describes has no standard to uphold.
Bahá'u'lláh's warning does not suggest to me that Bahai's should not befriend atheists or work with them on shared goals—especially in the realm of social change. Were that the case, no Bahá'í would be able to follow the House of Justice's exhortation to become engaged in the public discourse for many engaged in that discourse are people who are not believers.
Conversely, ...I know people who call themselves believers in God whose behavior and attitudes caused me to rethink what Bahá'u'lláh meant when He used the word "ungodly". If I read the scriptures in context, I see godliness as a function of how well one's outer and inner character show forth godly virtues regardless of what they proclaim themselves to be.
A person can say they do not believe in God, yet harbor spiritual susceptibilities. Another can lay claim to belief and truly be one who disbelieves in God." As Lord Jesus has said, "You shall know them by their fruits."
Or, as Muhammad put it in the Qur'an, Hast thou observed him who belieth religion? That is he who repelleth the orphan, and urgeth not the feeding of the needy. Ah, woe unto worshippers who are heedless of their prayer; who would be seen (at worship) yet refuse small kindnesses! — Qur’an, Surih 107
So, ultimately, only God knows the state of a person's soul, we know it only from their attitudes and behaviors. So, I do not think that when Bahá'u'lláh says "ungodly" he means merely someone who claims not to believe in God. Indeed, a religious person who breaks the core principles of faith, who is unloving, unkind, false or vengeful is more ungodly than a loving, kind, truthful or compassionate person who has no religious persuasion. For that religious person behaves as he does in spite of a standard of behavior he claims to believe is divine. The atheist who behaves as Bahá'u'lláh describes has no standard to uphold.
Bahá'u'lláh's warning does not suggest to me that Bahai's should not befriend atheists or work with them on shared goals—especially in the realm of social change. Were that the case, no Bahá'í would be able to follow the House of Justice's exhortation to become engaged in the public discourse for many engaged in that discourse are people who are not believers.
this "atheist" discussion. The
Baha'i scriptures say to avoid ungodly people, and they also say
to mingle lovingly with those of different beliefs. Some folks were
horrified that Jesus had contact with
supposedly unworthy people. Aside
from any specific cautions from the
Baha'i Institutions, I believe we should weigh the potential good and
bad effects of any social contacts we
have, and use wisdom. I haven't
gotten near the point of seeing my
enemy as a friend, as Abdu'l-Baha
urged. ...Therefore, for the time being,
it might be wisest for me to limit some contacts in order to avoid
descending into sadness, bitterness,
and hatred. Somebody else may have put himself in a better spiritual
place, and have a different pragmatism. We do know that love
takes risk, so we won't get anywhere
being unduly self-protective, either.
There is also the consideration of
perceptions, as Mr. Desailly mentioned: we have to weigh the
risk of sending the wrong message
about Baha'i values with the benefit
of serving people's needs. It really
shouldn't be too hard to address
both issues at the same time!
to limit our mental stress is natural;
everybody wants to feel mental ease
and peace. However, our aversion to
daunting complexity can lead us astray, especially when combined with our desire to feel in the right
(itself partly to serve that internal
peace) and our also natural aversion
to perceived external threat. I think over-simplification, generalization, polarization, and on through scape-
goating to persecution are all just the tactical offshoots of our "inner child's" desire for tranquility and
safety.
This acceptance, blind imitation as the Master calls it, is the bane of humanity, our worst flaw.