In her commentary on Momen's "Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha’i Community," Baquia wrote:
". . . by using the social science model and vocabulary he has chosen, it is Momen who is implying that the Baha’i Faith is a cult!"
After reading a preview of The Politics of Religious Apostasy, I agree. I would say that in the context of David Bromley's terminology, which Momen uses in his paper, calling some former members of the Baha'i Community "apostates," and their mutual encouragement and support an "oppositional coalition," puts the Baha'i Community in the category of "subversive organizations," along with "some of the more controversial alternative religious movements, radical rightist and leftist political movements, and various forms of underground economies."
I don't see the Baha'i Community that way, and I don't want to encourage others to do so, so I won't use the word "apostates" any more for any members or former members of the Baha'i Community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jim,
To be fair, this was an insight gained from Karen Bacquet. It was repeated because it was too good to not point out. Just wanted credit to be placed where it is due :-)
Funny how this one fact not only nullifies Momen's whole thesis but more than that, it points to the glaring fact that he was in such a breathless rush to do a hatchet-job that he didn't bother with even a semblance of actual research.
Thanks, Baquia.
I don't see anything in Karen's article about Bromley's classifications, or the implications of associating "apostates" and an "oppositional coalition" with the Baha'i Faith in that context.
I searched the Web to see if anyone else has brought this up, and I see that Momen himself touched on it in the paper. I'll discuss that in my next post.
I'm not sure now that Momen was trying to do a hatchet job, at least not consciously. He might have just been doing a paper on a topic that interests him, without realizing how much it was distorted by prejudice and antagonism. As Karen said, we've all found some way to explain the situation to ourselves. Momen has his way, and it came out in his paper. That doesn't necessarily mean that he wrote it especially for that purpose.
Jim,
this was from a private conversation with Karen.
Unlike Momen who is so ready to attach labels to people and to judge their intentions, I am loathe to speculate why he did what he did. However, *what* he did is clear for every discerning person to see.
The shallowness of his premise, the shoddiness of his research and the emptiness of his conclusions are all for display in this sorry excuse of an 'academic paper'.
It isn't only Momen's paper. I'm appalled by most of what passes for scholarship and scientific research these days, everywhere I look.
Post a Comment