Monday, January 12, 2009

It might be better to practice and promote serving the interests of my House of Justice

I'm imagining that some of my critical writers would object to practicing and promoting serving the interests of my House of Justice, for a variety of reasons, including:
- what they see as harmful consequences of Baha'is following the House of Justice.
- what they see as wrongdoings, misguided interests, malicious motives and harmful intentions of the House of Justice.

As a reminder, by "my critical writers" I mean some people I'm personally interested in who continually write about defects in the Baha'i community and its institutions.

It might help to give some examples of what I mean by serving the interests of my House of Justice, and I've already given a few in some of my posts. I might give some more. I have some new ideas after reading Haleh Arbab's paper.

It might also help to consider the issues of wrongdoings of the House of Justice, and signs of malicious motives and harmful intentions, in relation to what I'm proposing:

Here are some examples of what some people have seen as wrongdoings of the House of Justice, and signs of malicious motives and harmful intentions:
- Refusal to discontinue the review policy
- Responses to "A Modest Proposal"
- Responses to the Service of Women paper
- Messages to some people in the dialogue/Talisman movement, finding fault with their behavior
- Responses to the Majnun post
- Messages about a campaign of internal opposition
- Removal of some people from the membership
- Various messages about the study of the Baha'i Faith

I would like to invite my critical writers to experiment with encouraging Baha'is to serve the interests of my House of Justice. I'm suggesting that doing so might:
- Improve their own lives
- Improve their own efforts for human progress
- help remedy the defects in the Baha'i community that I've seen my critical writers discussing.
- help improve what the Baha'i community is doing for human progress

I would like to invite my critical writers to consider these questions:
1. If they are right in their views about wrongdoings, malicious motives and harmful intentions of the House of Justice, does it follow necessarily that I'm wrong about the good it might do to encourage Baha'is to serve the interests explicitly stated in messages from the House of Justice, without regard for the interests of its members, as I have been doing?
2. If I'm right about the good it might do, would their views about wrongdoings, malicious motives and harmful intentions of the House of Justice argue necessarily against doing it?

No comments: