ABS ACTIVITIES AROUND THE WORLD
Baha'i Studies in Ireland
The first weekend of 1997 witnessed an event which could be a milestone in the development of Baha'i Studies in Ireland. Building on the accomplishment's of Seena Fazel’s two Study Skills Seminars in Ireland, Rob Weinberg guided the valiant group of 15 participants through the difficult terrain of Baha'i Heroes/Heroines and History. Historical figures and events were located in the context of the Covenant and the qualities of heroism applied to the concept of entry-by-troops. Seven of the participants gave papers which covered topics such as the martyrdom of Quddus, the visits of the Hands of the Cause to Ireland, ethnicity, consultation, and the process of religious conversion. Participants gave the seminar rave reviews with statements such as "A Jack of pretentiousness" and "Comprehensive yet comprehensible substance". However, most importantly, one participant exclaimed "This to Baha'i Studies was like pouring oil on the flame. But will this flame produce any light?".
Reported by Iarfhlaith Watson
ADS Japan: Spiritual Education in the Family and Society
Fifth Annual Conference of ABS - Japan, Nov. 22-24, 1996.
Nearly 70 people from different countries attended the conference which was held during three beautiful autumn days at Seinen no Ie, a national hostel known for its scenic location halfway up the central peaks of Kyushu's renowned Aso volcanic caldera.
The theme of the conference was education. How can we best educate our children? How can we carry out adult learning and deepen our knowledge of Faith? How does the Baha'i Institute Process work? These were just a few of the questions that were addressed during the conference.
The keynote speech by Stephen Hall from Australia brought these issues into focus. "We are spiritual beings," he told us. "It is the very core of our life." Recognition of our fundamentally spiritual nature pushes us towards a new "paradigm" of education. The old emphasis on "independence" (in the West) or "dependence" (in the East) is not good enough anymore. The new way is sometimes called "interdependency", an integrated, holistic picture of education that recognizes the need for both dependence and independence. Still, we are only starting on the path of learning about this new paradigm. To progress further we need to focus not just on "events" but on the "process" of education. In doing this we can draw on the spiritual principles enshrined in our Writings and also on the new methods of learning and teaching (for example, the "metacognitive" approach) being developed outside the Faith.
Other conference sessions addressed specific educational issues. The conference introduction by Chairman Hiroshi Tsunoi discussed how Baha'i scholarship should promote a new type of education. Auxiliary Board member Mr. Toshifumi Higashi, a primary school teacher in Fukuoka, explained how he was able to use Baha'i educational principles in his teaching activities. Daystar International School staff member Mr. Seishi Hirahara explained how Baha'i educational methods were being developed and used at the school. Dr. Sandra Fotos presented the educational theory and pedagogy supporting the Institute process. Moral education was the focus of three conference sessions: The staff of Daystar International School presented their Baha'i-inspired curriculum and introduced the school mission statement. Ms. Ruha Haendel explained how she taught moral education at the kindergarten level, and Drs. Judith Johnson and Michael Higgins discussed their experiences in creating a curriculum for moral education in the former Soviet territory of Sakhalin.
There was a special session on how ABS-Japan could better serve its membership and assist in the growth of the Japanese Baha'i community. Suggestions included having more topics of specific interest to Japanese members and that the ABS should become a "resource base" for information and deepening. For example, the The Turning Point for All Nations is difficult to understand. ABS-Japan could help the mends to deepen on it. Another suggestion was that the ABS should broaden its image from that of a "Kenkyukai" only for scholars to something more general and "user friendly." We are all Baha'i scholars!
The conference ended Sunday afternoon with the popular Internet workshop presented by Dr. Marion Finley (a pioneering researcher into the computer networks that became the Internet) and Bruce Haendel, our own Internet expert. For an Internet conference overview prepared by Bruce, turn your network browser to http://oneworld.wa.com/jbn/announce.html.
ABS Australia
ABS-Australia has launched its Own e-mail discussion group called Baha'i-Dialogue. The objectives of the list are (1) to promote the study of the history, teachings, and philosophy of the Faith and the application of Baha'i principles to the concerns of society; and (2) to facilitate communication between persons interested in Baha'i scholarship. For further information, contact Peter Trueman at: Peter.Trueman@its.utas.edu.au.
The 16th National ABS Conference "Global Governance: A Promise for Collective Security and Human Prosperity" is to be held in Perth. Australia, 10-13 July 1997. For further information please contact: Soheila Mokhtari, PO Box 355, Kwinana, WA 6167, tel: 6l-9-439 1 190 or bye-mail: Mokhtari@uniwa.uwa.edu.au.
ABS Francophone Europe
In the interests of involving youth more in its activities, the ABS (Francophone Europe) wrote to students in the four' Francophone countries of Europe inviting them to prepare essays to be presented at the November 1995 conference in Geneva. Three papers were submitted: one of these papers, "Tolerance or how to perceive the Self', has been translated below.
Tolerance or how to perceive the Self[1]
by Navid Daghighi
Tolerance: its raison d'etre is the existence of an "other" person who says "I" like me, but is not me; who thinks, but does not think like me. He has a point of view, his own, which may well lead to a difference of opinion between him and me. Or rather, the existence of an opinion that is different from my own: the "other" exists relative to my "self', this absolute "self' which accompanies me constantly, as if stuck to . . . myself. I harbour an opinion, perhaps because I think it is the correct one, perhaps I haven't even asked myself the question, wondered whether it is correct; indeed, I don't even claim that it is. But I have an opinion. On the kind of music worth listening to, or the efficiency of a colleague at work, or the way to cook chicken. The difference of opinion can manifest itself at any time. It is evident in the "other's" personal conduct (his concrete actions) and in his hidden side (his thoughts, which he expresses to a greater or lesser degree of completeness).
Thus at every moment, I am faced with the question: how should I react to this difference? Should I be tolerant? What does being tolerant mean? The term is ambiguous,~as it is remarkably close to "toleration", i.e. considering the other's opinion as only just bearable (yet still on the right side of the divide: the bond is not broken). Furthermore, what is on either side of this dividing-line, on this axis of tolerance? What is its scale, its unit of measurement? Its origin, the zero point[2], is "toleration". On the negative side is intolerance: I deny the other person their freedom to form an opinion, practice it and live according to it. In fact it constitutes a loss of self-control; I can no longer hold my tongue, I blow up when certain topics are broached to which I am sensitive. To see the positive axis, we can simply observe symmetry: if I am tolerant, then I grant the other person their right to freedom of opinion, or even condone them fighting to defend this right. At infinity lies the extreme of tolerance; difference of opinion still exists, but it is no longer a case of two different "selves" (the same self has two different opinions!). Each continues to use the first person singular, but the union between the two persons is complete.[3] Maybe these are two "drops of one ocean".
So what does it mean to "grant the other person their right to freedom of opinion"? We can only give that which belongs to us. The other person does not belong to me, let alone their freedom. But I can't stop myself thinking. or thinking about this divergence of opinion, which may fascinate me, challenge me or unsettle me. My tolerance, which is expressed outwardly in my deeds and words, exists principally within me, in my thoughts, i.e. the opinion I form about this divergence of opinion. How do I perceive this difference? To evaluate the distance between two points X and Y, I have to know the position of the two points, and define a function, an operator to find the difference (Y-X).
I have only a partial awareness of the other person, of his position. This "~other" who has depth as I
do.
I have only a partial awareness of the other person, of his position. This "other" who has depth as I do, yet of whom I only have a flat, two-dimensional picture, without depth, and whose third dimension appears only through his motion in space and the echo of his thoughts. How can our awareness of the position of the other be made less uncertain? By means of curiosity, the will and desire to know the other. Openness to the outside world.
What awareness do I have of my own position? What does it mean to have an opinion? What does "I think that. . . " mean? It all comes down to how one considers the ego, i.e how one perceives oneself. My tolerance is bound to relate to the position I attribute to myself, the opinion I have of myself, the importance with which I invest my person and the strength of my convictions. Does tolerance prevent us from holding an opinion, and from being sure of it? Yes, if "being sure of it" means "being sure that the opinion is true, imbued with a truth that is absolute in time and space." This is what would make me blow up when I encounter an opinion in opposition to my own. Moreover, if I am intolerant, I believe that the other person is wrong, and therefore assume a degree of superiority. Thus,[4] to renounce all superiority allows one to attain the means of tolerance (for example, renouncing superiority by having a clear vision of the purpose of one's life, or at times it would be enough simply to think about the existence of God). On the other hand, if "being sure" means "being sure that this opinion is the right one for me", then, by definition, I create diversity, in other words difference of opinion. The germ of tolerance is latent in conviction.
How can we calculate the difference between the two positions X and Y? How can the distance between the self and the other be evaluated? Between their opinion and my own? How confident can I be of my measuring device?[5] I evaluate this distance within my own frame of reference, i.e. with my own convictions, my reasoning. my background, my experience, my sensitivity and my . . . tolerance[6]. Thus my tolerance depends less on the material with which I fill the space between the other and myself, than on the material with which I fill my own self.
Yet are there not sources of practically absolute truths? (even if they can be made to evolve). Suppose that I believe I have access to this truth. Or rather, that I have access to one of these truths expressed in a human language. For example, "the oneness of God and the unity of religions". What do I understand of this truth? To be intolerant would imply being unaware of the value of this truth, i.e. failing to understand it.
From "Missive de l'AEB", April1996, No.1 (Newsletter of the ABS - French-speaking Europe). Translated by Greg Massiah
Baha'i Chair for World Peace
The American Baha'i has recently reported that the Baha'i Chair for World Peace at the University of Maryland, USA, has completed raising its 1.5 million US dollar endowment from the Baha'i community. The University has expressed its appreciation to the Baha'i Chair for completing the fund-raising. The Chair has announced a conference on 10-12 October on "Kahlil Gibran and the Immigrant Tradition".
Reported b~y Stephen Friberg, ABS-Japan Executive Committee
North America: Baha'is Attend American Academy of Religion
The Institute for Baha'i Studies co-ordinated the largest and most complex representation of the Faith ever made to an annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion and Society for Biblical Literature. A meeting of the Religious Education Association was held at the same time and the first systematic effort to bring the Faith to that gathering was also made. The three conferences, held in New Orleans from November 22 through 26, 1996, brought nearly 9000 professors of biblical and religious studies together to hear about 1000 professional talks and to attend scores of receptions~
Sunday evening the first gathering of the Baha'i Studies Colloquy was held. Mikhail Yu Sergeev, a graduate student at Temple University in Philadelphia. spoke about "The Sophiology of Nicholas Berdyaev and the Baha'i Teachings," a talk that noted parallels between the thinking of a late nineteenth and early twentieth-century Russian mystic philosopher and the Baha'i Faith. His talk was followed by "Baha'i Worship as Remembering and Forgetting" by Christopher White, a doctoral student at Harvard Divinity School.
On Monday, November 25, Saba Nolley and Barbara Johnson gave a presentation to the Religious Education Association on spiritual education from a Baha'i perspective, based on the core curriculum program developed by the National Education Task Force of which both are members. The program was attended by fifteen to twenty people, many of whom were not Baha'is; their program received much better attendance by non-Baha'i academics than either of the Baha'i Studies Colloquy programs. At 4 p.m. Dr. Robert Stockman presented on "MiI1ennialism in the Baha'i Faith: Progressive and Catastrophic Themes," a paper delivered in the Millennialism Studies Colloquium to an audience of twenty-five. The paper presented a case study on Baha'i millennialism that reinforced a theory presented in an earlier paper about millennial ideas outside Christian movements.
Dr. Paula A. Drewek, a professor of religious studies at Macomb Community College in Michigan spoke on "Exploring a New Religious Landscape: Indian Women Breaking Boundaries." The paper noted that Baha'i women in India face unique challenges because of the Baha'i values they hold regarding the equality of the sexes. Then Dr~ Michael McMullen, a sociologist at the University of Houston-Clear Lake spoke about "Teaching the 'Cause of God': Empirical Evidence of Evangelism from the Baha'i Faith," a presentation of the results of a survey of Atlanta Baha'is that showed a high commitment to teaching the Faith.
In addition to the presentations, the Institute for Baha'i Studies staffed an exhibit in the American Academy of Religion's book display area. Most of the 9000 people attending the AAR/SBL came through the display area to view its 100-200 exhibits. The Institute distributed about fifty copies of The Baha'is magazine, gave out various other free publications, and sold $250 of literature. There was also an exhibit by One World Publications.
Next year's AAR/SBL annual meeting will be in San Francisco and will coincide with the annual meeting of the Middle East Studies Association. Those interested in speaking at the Baha'i Studies Colloquy or simply attending the programs should contact the Institute for Baha'i Studies at the Baha'i National Centre (1-847-733-3425; research@usbnc.org).
Reported by Robert Stockman
- Two comments are required here. Each sentence of this paper should be prefaced with the words “In my view...” I leave it up to the reader to supply the second point: I do not consider myself a tolerant person.
- Positive zero (0+) to be precise.
- The point of intersection between my own axis of tolerance and the other person’s is projected to infinity.
- (A»B)«»(not B»not A) [i.e. (A»B)«»(B»A)].
- My ruler shrinks as my velocity increases.
- The set of parameters which define the origin of my own frame of reference.
The Associate is the newsletter of the
Association for Bahá’í Studies (English-Speaking Europe),
27 Rutland Gate, London SW7 1PD, UK.