Why I am No Longer a Baha’i -Timothy Casey

Preamble

This is not an attack on the Baha’i Faith as some might be prone to suggest. This is an exposition of the experiences that initiated, conflagrated, and concluded my crisis of faith with the conviction that the Baha’i Writings are a testament to the profoundly beautiful, albeit imperfect creativity and wisdom of human beings; but that no more credit is due God for these writings than for any other penned expression of love.

Some Core Beliefs in Review

My closest and dearest friend has been a part of my spiritual journey for many years now, leading me back in my darkest hours to my core belief that God is love and reinforcing the ideal to which I hold that judgement is not of God. She has been my inspiration to explore the questions of spirituality and is the sole reason I have any belief in God at all.

My spiritual journey began with the question, “How would you like it if someone did that to you?”. Not even the words of the most holy manifestation of God could match the power and directness of a question uttered by one of many somewhat frustrated fathers albeit the one in question being my own. This was reinforced with the beautiful Christian concept that God is love, but not before I was taught the Old Testament doctrine that all should “fear God”. What is there to fear of one who loves you? Indeed, what is there to fear of love? You see, the evident disparity in religious dialogue always made me keenly aware of the gulf between spirituality and pseudo-spirituality, between practical reciprocation and the devaluation of the human being before such idols as are used to justify the unconscionable. This speaks to the great question I believe divides the “armies of Armageddon”, as to whether religion was given Creation by the Creator to benefit the Creator even at the expense of Creation or religion was given unto Creation by the Creator to benefit Creation even at the expense of the Creator (Who by definition has infinite capacity to endure expense!). One ideology makes God in man’s image to be the ultimate idol, whereas the other sets God beyond human frailties as would befit the Mother of Creation. One ideology is extensively materialistic, manipulative, judgemental, and exoteric; whereas the other ideology is profoundly spiritual, reciprocal, understanding, and prone to be esoteric – even if unnecessarily so.

I believe that any theology that alludes to the Creation being the plaything of the Creator as opposed to something more serious and sophisticated makes a mockery of everything that is purported to be “holy” by reducing the Creator to little more than a neurotic monster of great power. In the absence of any measurable evidence of explicitly divine temper tantrums, such allusions impose redundant and therefore unnecessary complexity on theological models and belief systems. Such impositions are excessively unreasonable in the absence of supporting evidence.

One of the realities to which both sides of “Armageddon” are prone is that interpretation is necessarily fluid in the formation of any consistent theology having philosophical integrity (IE internal congruency). This essentially gives the appearance of “shifting the goalposts”. However, fluidity of interpretation is necessitated by the metaphorical nature of primitive languages that engage the use of allegories when communicating the numerous concepts beyond the native vocabulary. This also leads to the shifting of interpretation when demonstrating divine “infallibility” or prophetic fulfilment. As such, neither are valid proofs of divinity because such shifts whether necessary or not, still “shift the goalposts” without allowing falsifiability. This forces the seeker to dig deeper – in search of that ever elusive philosophical integrity.

Philosophical integrity describes the state in which an induced maxim is the source of deduced axioms and major or first principles from which are derived laws with similarly derived scope. Most often, you need to connect the dots for yourself – and if you can, this provides a good reason to join the troop. However, continued involvement requires continued rationality making the “independent search for truth” a never ending investigation. This becomes problematic if the emphasis of consensus with ever shifting group interpretations and priorities increases.

Why become a Baha’i?

I became a member of the Baha’i Faith on ISO:1993-March-27 when I reached the realisation that God is big enough to embrace all peoples in infinite mercy and understanding and likewise, that God is intelligent enough to know, understand, and accept the reality of individual belief based in uniquely individual experience. I had come to the realisation that the “Divine Judge” was the “Great Deception” in that God is love whereas judgement is original sin and not love, and therefore not of God. This is because judgement can be the only fruit of the tree of knowledge of “good” and “evil”; the forbidden fruit that ruined “Adam” as surely as it ruins any other community (cf. Genesis 5:1). Thus, I joined the Baha’i Faith embracing the beautiful axioms which made so much sense in terms of many modern problems:

1. Unity of humanity
2. Independent investigation of truth
3. The foundation of all religions is one
4. Religion by definition is the cause of love and unity
5. The essential harmony of science and religion
6. The equal rights of men and women
7. Abolition of all forms of prejudice and bigotry
8. The obligation to universal peace
9. The necessity of universal education
10. A spiritual solution to economic problems
11. The necessity of a universal auxiliary language
12. The necessity of an international tribunal and government

These twelve principles or objectives can find origin with the empathic principle included vaguely in the maxim enshrined in the Covenant of Baha’u’llah as “The religion of God is for love and unity; make it not the cause of enmity and dissension.” I didn’t join the Baha’i Faith to have these primary expectations rationalised away for “more important” concepts like “obedience” and “faith”. I certainly didn’t join the Baha’i Faith to shun covenant-breakers or apologise for the numerous logical and contextual errors of key figures such as Shoghi Effendi, `Abdu’l-Baha, and even Baha’u’llah – especially in regard to the defamation of temperament groups simply because they were unanticipated by Baha’u’llah! I joined the Baha’i Faith to take a stand against submission rituals in the guise of irrational faith, which rituals are used to justify practices such as demonisation of inconvenient minorities and attempts to gain financial advantage by deception. I joined to show that social spirituality can and does exist without resort to fallacy and fraud.

Ninth Year Misgivings & Six Years of Spiritual Angst

My ninth year as a Baha’i proved to be one hell of a crisis of religion for me. Firstly it was pointed out that according to the Kitab-i-Aqdas (“The Most Holy Book”), accepting Baha’u’llah and obeying him were more important than any “good” including love and/or unity. This was a disappointing experience as I’d entered the Baha’i Faith on the understanding that “The religion of God is for love and unity” and not for purely solipsistic agendas such as recognition and obedience to the messenger of God for this day. The statement in the opening paragraph of the Kitab-i-Aqdas is quite clear, but I had a lot of trouble accepting this because “Most Holy” or not, the Aqdas is trumped by the Covenant in the scriptural hierarchy, is it not? Furthermore, it constitutes a clear example of the kind of “all or nothing” thinking that typifies cults (Tobias & Lalich, 1994):

The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed.
(Baha’u’llah: The Kitab-i-Aqdas, P. 19)

Moreover, this statement denies the conscientiousness and by induction the conscience of those who find the evidence offered by the Baha’i case insufficient to their experience. This is not the fault of the seeker, but of the Baha’i Faith as an institution, which institution was successively granted by Baha’u’llah and his successors, sufficient administrative authority to be self-correcting. Yet the translation of this passage clearly blames the seeker for not being convinced and furthermore claims the existence of a duty for which there is no experiential evidence. The fact that I cannot remember being given the opportunity to decline my birth in the event that I did not agree to this prenatal contract means that there is no just basis upon which to enforce such a condition.

Baha’u’llah’s “first duty” as it is portrayed in this particular translation, is an insult to the sanity, intelligence, and conscience of the human soul to which I took deep offence. It is the reason why I first found reason to seriously doubt and question the station of Baha’u’llah.

I now observed the Baha’i Faith through the eyes of one who has seen the subject contradict itself, and a troubling pattern of attenuation began to emerge. “Deepenings”, in which the diversity of understanding of Baha’i literature was focal, were replaced by “Ruhi Classes” in which certain points of doctrine became focal – much like the virtues programme. The misdeeds of a few individuals did not help things, but I soldiered on certain that this was just a passing phase. Six years of soldiering on is meagrely a testament to how stubborn I can be!

The Trigger for the “Great Unravelling”

This year, my fifteenth as a Baha’i, I came across something I’d either missed or glossed over in my values based assessment of the Baha’i Faith:

Indeed, there existeth in man a faculty which deterreth him from, and guardeth him against, whatever is unworthy and unseemly, and which is known as his sense of shame.
(Baha’u’llah: “The First Leaf of Paradise”; Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p.63; Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 27)

Shame is a purely social emotion relating exclusively to one’s self-perceived status. Its usage by Baha’u’llah (the author) and/or Shoghi Effendi (the translator) in this sense to the exclusion of empathic concepts such as remorse, guilt, compunction, qualm, or even empathy speaks to a purely materialistic viewpoint at best and may indicate the confusion of shame and remorse in either the author or the translator. Lack of backing for interpretation in the form of translator’s notes makes this question impossible to resolve without Middle-Eastern language fluency and access to the original source texts. This statement, existing as it does in isolation from an analogous reference to remorse anywhere within the Baha’i writings, is truly more damaging to Baha’u’llah’s credibility than just about anything else I can imagine because of the potential implications about the author or a key figure in the administration, his infallibly decreed administration, in whose hands rest the translation of nearly all the Baha’i Writings. Sociopaths (eg. all cult leaders & many abusive partners) replace their moral compass with a social compass that allows them to exploit loopholes in social conventions that allow the perpetration of anti-social behaviour for the “greater” social good. While this makes them very hard to detect, their substitution of remorse with shame dictates that they only feel bad about something when they get caught. This extends itself in the purview of the sociopath to the confusion of shame and remorse such that socially acceptable ends are always believed to justify anti-social means. The significance of “The First Leaf of Paradise” is that it appears to confuse shame and remorse, especially in view of the fact that the author neglects to discuss remorse in what is purportedly literature of a spiritual nature.

To be fair, this proves nothing with respect to mental illness but for the meagre likelihood of such inasmuch as the “First Leaf of Paradise” renders Baha’i literature suspect, in terms of its scriptural authority. However, from the recognition of this particularly obvious spiritual faux pas, I returned to my original study of Baha’i Law as the relevance, equity, and integrity of internal philosophy reflected by rules of membership are the crucial test of any organisation. Not only the passage of Baha’i Authority, but also the decisions of Baha’i authorities are considered legally infallible. Legal infallibility is taken in the Baha’i case as above question and correction as per the implications of the official phrase used in explanation of infallibility as being “freed from all error” (Abbas, Will & Testament). Although this is in itself erroneous in terms of real human beings whose humanity includes the limitations by which they will always err at some stage in their execution of duties, it has legal implications that go beyond logical considerations.

A Re-Visitation of Baha’i Law in Search of Essential Infallibility

While infallibility may well serve it’s purpose in adjudicating affairs that are not ongoing, such as the execution of a will; with laws that must change in response to social evolution, infallibility ultimately renders jurisprudence infallible, making it impossible to mould the law to the current social conditions without “correcting” the “infallible” foresight of previous administrators, thereby calling into question their “infallibility”; legal or otherwise. The end result is that infallibility as a legal characteristic of a legislative system prevents that system from being able to correct itself in view of present injustice to which particular aspects of past legislation and/or jurisprudence are a party.

One particular example is the emergence just last century of the recognition of temperament diversity by Western academics. This was by no means an original discovery. According Gurdjieff, the Sufis discovered temperament diversity several hundred years earlier. The system, now known as the “Enneagram”, actually constrains the characteristics of study to products of dominant neural recursion and excludes purely genetic biases such as extraversion/introversion and intuition/sense used in both the Myer-Briggs Type Index (MBTI), and Socionics. Although the Enneagram was not directly compatible with modern psychoendocrinology in spite of being based on dominant emotional response, Gurdjieff documented it as an example of a Middle Eastern study of temperament diversity whose extent must have been at least in part contemporary with both the Bab and Baha’u’llah. The entry of Middle Eastern understanding of temperament diversity into Western society is contemporary with Shoghi Effendi’s education and ministry while the development and widespread acceptance of the Myer/Briggs scale, the Western study of temperament diversity, is contemporary with the emergence of the Universal House of Justice. However, in spite of the widely available evidence for temperament diversity, issues such as the tailoring of marital conditions (Eg. closed vs. open marriages) to temperament are simply not discussed and when raised are not addressed without attempting to label a given temperament (eg. Enneagram type 7 & to a lesser extent type 2) as “psychologically aberrant”, “deviant”, or “immoral”. It is noteworthy that the same studies by Palmer, Myer & Briggs, Kiersey & Bates, Gulenko, & Novichkov & Varabyova, have also determined by repeatable empirical study that no temperament is abnormal, and thus the needs of all temperament groups are equally important. This fact is neither acknowledged nor addressed by the likes of the Bab or Baha’u’llah despite their claim to essential infallibility and their access to a broad spectrum of Middle East literature; and neither has it been addressed by their successors, `Abdu’l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, nor the Universal House of Justice in respect of equitable execution of Baha’i Law (IE without undue advantage or disadvantage to any given temperament demographic).

Another example of legislative inflexibility lies with the emergence of experimental data showing that moderate consumption of red wine with a meal is good for digestion, boosts anti-oxidant levels, and correlates with above average life expectancy. Official interpretation (Aqdas Notes 2, 144, & 170) of the relevant Kitab-i-Aqdas Sections (119 & 155) effectively places all alcoholic beverages, irrespective of the amount consumed, in a class of substances that “stealeth away reason” and/or damage the body (Aqdas, Section 119 cf 155). Yet a scientific study has shown otherwise for moderate consumption of red wine. As anti-oxidants improve circulation which in turn reduces heart disease and improves brain function, such absolute generalisation is demonstrably false. This speaks directly to the “infallible” decisions of Baha’u’llah’s successors and the fact that their abject lack of infallibility extends back to a lack of infallibility on the part of Baha’u’llah. Furthermore, neither Baha’u’llah nor `Abdu’l-Baha demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever that due to the more frequently fatal nature of the harm cigarette smoking causes the body, tobacco belongs to the category described by Kitab-i-Aqdas Section 155 to a far greater degree than alcoholic beverages. This speaks far more directly to the question of Baha’u’llah’s essential infallibility, an attribute essential to the manifestation of God.

However, this point highlights another area of legislative deficiency. Namely the question of whether Baha’u’llah demonstrated adequate qualification to put forward such laws and due diligence in doing so. Attached to the Kitab-i-Aqdas, there is no mathematical proof of temperament equity, as one would expect from a truly Godly legislator. Of itself, the prohibition of alcohol consumption is not explicitly  in the parts of the Aqdas attributed to Baha’u’llah, but is nonetheless attributed implicitly to those parts by `Abdu’l-Baha. Did Baha’u’llah actually outlaw alcohol consumption in his own writings? Neither alcohol nor wine appear in this context in any other authenticated translations of Baha’u’llah’s writings other than a mysteriously and strangely unspecified tablet attributed to Baha’u’llah mentioned by Aqdas Note 144. If we assume no error in Aqdas Note 144…

The proscription of alcohol consumption is particularly conspicuous in this regard, because Baha’u’llah fails to demonstrate any understanding of the many reasons why people consume alcoholic beverages other than to get drunk. In London, contemporary to the Bab and Baha’u’llah, mead and beer were the only safe sources of fluid available to the working class. Outbreaks of disease due to the contamination of local water supply were not uncommon. In Europe, red wine is consumed in small quantities during a meal as a source of anti-oxidants that actually improve digestion, circulation and by extension intellectual capability – contrary to Baha’i doctrine. Digestives such as Amaro, and France’s answer to Calabria’s Amaro del Capo in the form of Grand Marnier are consumed in even smaller quantities after the meal to further aid digestion. Nowhere in association with the prohibition of alcohol are mentioned any viable alternatives such as clean drinking water for the nineteenth century Londoners; Gingko Biloba, Brahmi, or Gin Seng for anti-oxidants and better brain function; nor any non-alcoholic digestives such as Ranitidine {(E)-N-(2-((5-((dimethylaminomethyl)furan-2-yl)methylthio)ethyl)-N’-methyl-2-nitroethene-1,1-diamine}, Esomeprazole {(S)-5-methoxy-2-[(4-methoxy-3,5-dimethylpyridin-2-yl)methylsulfinyl]-3H-benzoimidazole}, Nizatidine {N-[2-(2-dimethylaminomethylthiazol-4-ylmethylthio)ethyl]-N’-methyl-2-nitrovinylidenediamine} or even a humble espresso! One would expect a Godly legislator to take some responsibility when banning practices that are beneficial for so many. The act of denying such benefits even by generalisation, is deceptive in putatively holy literature given the apparently divine access to the sum of all knowledge that is claimed of such literature. If Aqdas Note 144 is correct, Baha’u’llah legislated negligently by not providing advice on the necessary dietary alternatives, disproving his own essential infallibility. If not, the apparent collapse of the Administrative Order is indicated by interpretive error and moreover disproves the essential infallibility of its founder, Baha’u’llah.

Another area of legislative authenticity in terms of divine origin is the absence of proof of equity in divine law. If the Law is God’s, surely God can provide the mathematical proof that the law is indeed equitable across a broad range of customs and temperament demographics. Nowhere in litigious religions of any stripe is this proof furnished. Even in the laws of the Baha’i Faith whose founders had to know something of temperament diversity studies, one of which according to Gurdjieff began in the Middle East, and so had to be available to those founders at the time of “revelation”. While the Baha’i Writings acknowledge the uniqueness of the individual, there is no acknowledgement of temperament diversity and the fact that a law favouring one temperament group will in all probability disadvantage another temperament group. The success of Alfred Kinsey’s (and others’) open marriage(s) raises questions about the advantages of legislating all marriages as closed affairs. In fact, too common is the experience of the anecdote, “too many of the people I know personally are better suited to open marriage arrangements” to simply discard open marriages with no better explanation than the entirely unsupported application of the label, “immoral”. It remains a fact that the closed marriage has an 80% failure rate in the first two years.

Returning to the opening statement of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, that attributes no good to any but whosoever recognises Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws; it is clear to me that this is a denial of the conscientious derivation of belief from unique human experience. On this point, the experiential and necessarily subjective nature of belief is sufficient to totally refute the authorised rendition of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and by extension the “prophethood” of its author.

A Re-Examination of Baha’i Maxim

As if this is not enough, neither is there any attempt to derive Baha’i Law from first principles, in turn deduced from a maxim, itself the product of inductive proof. Once again, this is not a big ask of any school of philosophical thought, especially if the author really is God! After reconsideration of the preceding points, the apparent double-maxim that follows is what creates an intolerable level of cognitive dissonance for me. The next paragraph describes an apparent contradiction at the highest level of Baha’i Literature that ultimately denied any possibility in my eyes that Baha’u’llah could have “essential infallibility” much less be a “Manifestation of God”…

Although generally it is fairly common for an author to contradict him/herself in seeking the specific expression of two lines of belief, contradictory maxims only coexist in works whose authors are

1. Insane (A high degree of fallibility here)
2. Abnormally prone to exaggerate or otherwise overstate their case
3. Evolving (something that speaks not to infallibility)
4. Multiple in person (IE the works are not by the same author – one or more are incorrectly attributed to their credited author)

Baha’u’llah asserts as Holy Law, the institutionally solipsistic maxim that recognition and obedience defines all good in the opening paragraph of the Aqdas (Section 1), IE:

The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Dayspring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth everyone who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.
(Baha’u’llah: The Kitab-i-Aqdas, Section 1, Page: 19)

This statement contradicts the maxim stated in the Covenant that

The religion of God is for love and unity; make it not the cause of enmity or dissension.
(Baha’u’llah: Kitab-i-Ahd, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, Page: 220)

And is confirmed by the Ninth Ishraq:

The purpose of religion as revealed from the heaven of God’s holy Will is to establish unity and concord amongst the peoples of the world; make it not the cause of dissension and strife.
(Baha’u’llah: Ninth Ishraq, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, Page: 129)

And confirmed again in the third of the Persian Hidden Words with explicit reference to the inner compass of conscience via the symbol of the [compass] rose:

O FRIEND! In the garden of thy heart plant naught but the rose of love, and from the nightingale of affection and desire loosen not thy hold.
(Baha’u’llah: Persian Hidden Words, Page: 3)

In theology and maxim of the Baha’i Faith, God is love; but it seems that in Baha’i Law, God is meagrely recognition and obedience. The fact that maxim and theology are used to attract seekers who are only later to be indoctrinated in law, is known in this context by some as the “Apple-Cucumber” and by others as “Bait & Switch”.

What speaks to intolerance however, is that the Kitab-i-Aqdas neglects to consider the outcome of an isolated human being who never having heard of Baha’u’llah nonetheless makes choices consistent with Baha’i Law simply because the sum of her/his experience has lead to these choices. On the other hand, s/he whose experience contradicts the claims of Baha’u’llah surely cannot be blamed for failing to recognise he who has failed to prove himself? Yet this recognition alone, according to the explicit translation of Section 1 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, is said to define all good and this definition is confirmed with the complimentary statement that no amount of righteousness counts for anything in lieu of this condition.

Perhaps it can be argued that the Kitab-i-Aqdas is a parody of the claimed “divinity” of unalterable religious law. However, were this the case, Baha’u’llah could not confirm the direct literal meaning of passages within the Kitab-i-Aqdas (eg. Aqdas Section 37 cf. Gleanings CLXVI) without mentioning it lest his own pen should lead some astray. Never mind the fact that because fixed laws cannot evolve with society, they ultimately hold back the process of social evolution; something the Baha’i Dispensation is claimed to accelerate. Eg:

We have forbidden you dissension and conflict in My Books, and My Scriptures, and My Scrolls, and My Tablets, and have wished thereby naught else save your exaltation and advancement.
(Baha’u’llah: “Ishraqat”, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, Page: 120)

Seen here, the Baha’i literature is said to be intended for naught else but exultation and advancement contradicting the historically verifiable outcome of such laws as Kitab-i-Aqdas Section 37 and the consequent Opening Paragraph of “Other Sections” in the Kitab-i-Aqdas described therein as:

[…]the Book in which He sets forth the Laws of God for a Dispensation destined to endure for no less than a thousand years.
(Baha’u’llah: “Other Sections”, Kitab-i-Aqdas, Page: 1)

On this evidence however, it is clear that no parody whatsoever is putatively intended by the Kitab-i-Aqdas nor can this book be alternatively authored given explicit repetition of key errors in other works of Baha’u’llah. This renders the internal confirmation by complimentary statement in and of Section 1 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas, in irreconcilable conflict with the maxim of love as stated in the third of the Persian Hidden Words, the Ninth Ishraq, and the Covenant of Baha’u’llah. An irreconcilable contradiction at such a high level in the literary hierarchy excludes any possibility of essential infallibility nor for that matter any more divine intervention than was necessary to write this exposition of my spiritual birth and death in Baha.

On ISO: 2008-May-16 I recanted my belief in Baha’u’llah as essentially infallible “Manifestation of God”, in the presence of my dearest and closest friend, and I did so on this day, being the 36th anniversary of my late brother Patrick’s birthday, in commemoration of Pat’s courageous insistence on the strict individuality of faith. My faith in Baha’u’llah is described at http://fieldcraft.biz/topics/bahai/index.shtml however, my renewed faith in Love as She speaks to all human beings via their cognitive sense of empathy; is told here at http://timothycasey.info