Talk:Persecution of Bahá'ís/Archive 1

message: For this page everything needs sources and remember that information found only on websites or blogs  explicitly do not meet wikipedia policies & guidelines for reliable sources. The links to personal websites are not an acceptable sources — to wit: "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources". Reliable Source: Personal websites as secondary sources -- Jeff3000 14:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

message: I realize that this is an old discussion, but it reads as if Baha'is are expected to shun ex-members, which is largely not true.  In the limited case of a Baha'i breaking the covenant, Baha'is are required to shun that former member. Even in that case, they are not forbidden from doing business with that person, but are asked to limit their interaction with him to the business at hand, and not become drawn into discussion about Baha'i topics.  Furthermore, if one leaves the Baha'i Faith, or is "disenrolled", so to speak, a form of excommunication which is distinct from being declared a covenant-breaker, then Baha'is are free to associate with the person, though if that person becomes an avowed enemy of the Baha'is, then members may not wish to do so, and they might find a cold shoulder.  However, no Baha'i can be sanctioned for associating with a non-Baha'i - it is only in the very limited case of violations of the covenant that such shunning is obligatory.  
I believe that this is part of why Jeff3000 would regard excommunication as not being a human rights violation, since anyone is free to believe what they want.  Membership in an organization with membership criteria, however, is not a right.  If I show up at an Alliance church and expect to be taken in as a member, and have rights to mininster to the congregation, or sit on administrative committees, it would not be unreasonable to be refused.  In no cases are Baha'is asked to attack, vilify, punish, cause economic damage, slander, libel, or in any way abuse Covenant-breaker, much less a former member.  Membership in a voluntary organization is not a right, per-se.
Lastly, Baha'is are not, to my knowledge, automatically required to divorce a Covenant-breaker.  Granted the shunning provides extremely difficult circumstances for a marriage in the matters of family communication, etc.  However, I do not believe that there are any situations within the existing guidance and scripture that require a mandatory divorce.  The couple will have to work out how to remain a loving couple in the face of this deep deep challenge, but this would be the same if an evangelical christian couple had one member decide to become a Muslim, while the other did not.  Some multi-faith couples simply don't talk about religion if it's too contentious.  If this last comment is untrue, then let's get sources for specific examples of Baha'is being compelled to divorce, because I haven't seen it.  And let's have more than hearsay by people avowedly opposed to the Baha'is, but published divorce court documents that identify cause, or whatever.  --Christian Edward Gruber 12:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of some incorrect assertions that went unchallenged

message: Thanks Dawud for your additions, especially the legal context which I believe adds a lot to the article. -- Jeff3000 17:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: There was a move by Refdoc back in December to move this page to Persecution of Bahá'ís in Iran.  While it seems that this idea has stalled, I'm not sure if it was decisively nixed (I didn't get that impression) or is merely in limbo.  I'd like to add some information about the situation of the Faith in Egypt that is quite relevant to an article simply on Persecution of Bahá'ís, but I'm not sure whether the motion to move is still being considered, in which case, should I perhaps hold off on that?  Keldan 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think any previous suggestions have been orphaned. I suggest adding the part about Egypt on this page. My understanding was that Egypt and Iran are the worst cases of persecution, so that seems to be on point. Cuñado  - Talk 06:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great addition Keldan.  I think its best to have all the countries on one page, rather than many small pages. -- Jeff3000 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but the article is too long (39KB as of now). It is still Iran-centric, for example the need to call a section "Outside Iran" means that the rest of the article is about persecution in Iran.
I would suggest rewriting the "Legal Context" section to be not based on Iran, and then changing "Current Situation" to "Iran" and adding a bit on Iranian legal issues in that section. Then the "outside Iran" section would be changed to just ==Egypt== and use the top level heading for every other country. 203.218.87.44 04:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Good points.  I have some free time next week, and I'll try making those changes then. -- 05:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persecution Outside Iran