From: harasty@nyquist.bellcore.com (Dan Harasty)
Subject: Ghandian and Baha'i approach to Unjust Laws
Keywords: non-violent civil disobedience
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 16:11:36 GMT

Brian T. Schellenberger (bts@unx.sas.com) wrote:

> Ghandi was a wonderful man, and his non-violent civil disobedience was
> surely much better than violent revolution, but the Baha'i Faith does
> not allow civil disobedience, and makes no exceptions for colonials.

I'd like to add this thought: Ghandi's and the Baha'i approach to
governmental injustices are OPPOSITE, and yet HAVE THE VERY SAME GOAL
by appealing to the INNATE HUMANITY of the government and its peoples.

My understanding of the civil disobedience as espoused by Ghandi,
Emerson, and Thoreau is roughly this:

        Pick an Unjust law.  Conscientiously decide to BREAK IT, in 
        full view of the authorities.  Subject yourself to the 
        consequences of your action, no matter how brutal or Unjust.  

        By doing this, you confront the government, and graphically
        demonstrate the utter Injustice of the law.  The Injustice will
        eventually be recognized and the government will change the
        law and become more Just.

The teachings of Baha'u'llah (the Founder of the Baha'i Faith)
maintain that strict obedience to government, even in spite of
injustices, is the most conducive to change of the unjust laws.
Therefore, the Baha'i view is roughly:

        Pick an Unjust law.  Conscientiously decide to FOLLOW IT to the 
        letter, despite its Injustice.  Subject yourself to the 
        consequences of your action, no matter how brutal or Unjust.  

        By doing this, you confront the government, and graphically
        demonstrate the utter Injustice of the law.  The Injustice will
        eventually be recognized and the government will change the
        law and become more Just.

Interesting, no?  See the similarity?  Both methods mean to confront
the "oppressors" with their own Injustice.  The goal of both is to
change the world for the better.  The only exception to the Baha'i
view (as clarified by Shoghi Effendi) is that if there were a law
requiring Baha'is to recant their faith in Baha'u'llah, they could not
follow that law.

Contrast this with vigilantism, (which some times is QUITE INCORRECTLY
called "civil disobedience"):
       
        Pick a law which you don't like.  Break it.  Try to either a) 
        get away with it, or b) when you're caught, belly ache that the 
        law is unjust and your actions should not be penalized.  

The goal of vigilantism is NOT trying to change the law; it merely
attempts to justify breaking it.  It also often advocates violence.

As a brief historical note, Baha'u'llah Himself was a prisoner of the
Persian and Ottoman Empires during His entire ministry.  Despite His
station, He willing submitted to their cruel treatment.

Also, today, Iranian Baha'is are prohibited from holding most jobs,
from getting higher education, from leaving the country, and even from
gathering together.  The Iranian Baha'i community is obedient to their
government, not trying to over throw it, etc., etc.

This whole attitude is a STRONG example of the fact that Baha'is
believe that the way to make the world better is to build up new,
better forms of behavior.  Baha'is in NO WAY participate in tearing
down of the old world order.  It is crumbling of its own weight.
Baha'is (and everyone) must build the new, not spend effort tearing
down the old.

Please note that I'm in no position to give an authoritative
representation of any of these doctrines.  I'm merely posing this as
an interesting similarity from my point of view.

Dan Harasty
harasty@nyquist.bellcore.com
troy!harasty
NVC 1A-466

Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai