Salman Rushdie delivers the Leiden Freedom Lecture in the St. Pieters church, Leiden, The Netherlands 18 June 2010

Freedom, he argued is the essence of life and the essence of creativity. So many Baha’is have told me that to be a Bahai and an artist means that you need to be ‘moderate’. Some, artists themselves, have presented all sorts of theories about art being at the service of something else, ranging from the idea of self-censorship in order not to offend to art as a framework for the lowest common denominator: the ubiquitous portrait paintings of ‘Abdul-Baha.

Screenshot of the Art Directory of Baha'i Inspired Artists Facebook Group - 18 June 2010

Not all pages include as many portraits as this page happens to, but this is a good representation of much of what is labeled as art in a Baha’i context. I am not criticizing any of this art nor this forum. Mark Granfar, has created an open forum for artworks to be placed and artists could place other forms of art if they wished. My point is that this forum reflects what you see in the Baha’i community in general.

I’m not knocking portrait painting nor those who choose to paint these types of images of ‘Abdul-Baha, but am asking where is the diversity, a tell-tale sign of freedom. Celebrations of ‘oneness’ wear a little thin, when that’s the only story on offer by a community.

When freedom of conscience, liberty of thought and right of speech prevail — that is to say, when every man according to his own idealization may give expression to his beliefs — development and growth are inevitable.
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 197)

(E)ach elemental atom of the universe has the opportunity of expressing an infinite variety of those individual virtues. No atom is bereft or deprived of this opportunity or right of expression.
(Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 285)

When I was fresh out of art school, I happily made artworks on themes of peace, diversity, portrait-like pieces, and so on, and felt completely free to do so. It was encouraging that various Baha’is in my community appreciated what I was doing and some even bought my work.

Myriam Bargetze performing in Atras de um arbusto um papa - formigas esverdeia de vergonha (An ant eater hiding behind a bush - turns green out of embarrassment), in the Lisbon Botanical gardens, Portugal, 1990

I was aware of work such as Joseph Beuys’ social sculpture projects and liked it, but it wasn’t my world. If a Baha’i had been making such work, I wouldn’t have thought this was ‘immoderate’, but because of the way I was living or perhaps because my Baha’i community was so open, whether art was ‘moderate’ or not, wasn’t a question I had.

That was a few decades ago and in the years I’ve been making art, I’ve never felt I needed to censor what I make. In fact I don’t think I could, and because I don’t show my art in Baha’i contexts I don’t have to think about this either. All good and fine.

However the ‘stale air’ is what I often encounter as art made, shown or discussed in Baha’i contexts. Perhaps this is the only possibility, that religious contexts cannot allow for too much artistic diversity? I’ve been told this and it sounds reasonable, however, how can art function if is not free? Other Baha’is have stated that the time for Baha’i art has not started yet, and I think to myself, ‘oh so we sit around and wait, and like magic, something called Baha’i art will appear out of nothing?’

My view is that it started the second the Baha’i Revelation started and art was free.

In this new century the attainment of science, arts and belles lettres, whether divine or worldly, material or spiritual, is a matter which is acceptable before God and a duty which is incumbent upon us all to accomplish…
(my own emphasis added – Abdu’l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v2, p. 448)

When I look at what is written about the arts and creativity, it seems to me that Baha’i art is not about having the same material form, but about diversity, about difference and freedom of expression. Many artists do as I do, operate outside of Baha’i contexts, partly because there is space outside of the Baha’i community to develop, and there’s nothing wrong with this, and partly because there’s no space for art in the Baha’i community. It is not censored (at least in my case), but it is not made welcome. How can art touch a religious context if it is never shown in one. As much as I love classical music, my heart sinks when I hear it as ‘the music’ at a feast, because there’s no diversity.

In 2006, I called a workshop I gave at an Irish Baha’i summer school, “shocking art” where individuals could bring up the art that shocks them as a starting point for discussion. As it turned out, the individuals were all touched by contemporary art in some way and because of this had already developed their own dialogue. There was no need for me to show that ‘shocking art’ has a place in the world, and so in that context of freedom, I moved the workshop to exercises in expressing the new instead. We had clean air and so didn’t need to protest.

Rushdie’s metaphor got me thinking about how often Baha’is tell me off (usually online) for expressing what in their view is whining, when in my view it is critique. From their perspective I’m polluting their clean air (of no dissent) while for me the air is stuffy because my critique is seen as not being acceptable for a Baha’i to make. I promise, I really would complain less if there was more dialogue. :-) Seriously though, when individuals have differences of opinion and it is assumed that each party is sincere, then the differing opinions can be worked on. If one or another writes something like “well you can leave”, what that person is really saying is, your viewpoint does not belong here and mine does.

The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of differing opinions.
(Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 87)

I also think that if we don’t have the freedom to express things that bother us, we can’t process them, learn from them, learn from the differing ideas. I think the fact that one of the Baha’i months is called ‘questions’ indicates that this is part of human nature, part of the development of the spirit and something that is an ongoing aspect of Baha’i community life.

For me making a work of art is more about asking questions, wrestling with some experience, than presenting answers – although art is wonderfully slippery and so is about both and neither.

I do think any artist should have complete freedom of expression. As Rushdie stated, you have to make the effort to open a book to read it, have to walk into a bookshop or a library. No one is forced to encounter art. Likewise with art in a gallery. There’s a lot of art I dislike, but some of it has inspired me to make art in response, and some of it I forget about. I’d be a poorer person if I hadn’t experienced it and yet this is not the same as someone who willingly places themselves or another into a life-threatening situation.

In 2004, at a talk I gave for the Baha’is, I was asked how I would treat Mapplethorpe’s photography in the context of Baha’i art. My answer was that it shouldn’t be censored and that it was focused on the material, and art focused on materiality can be as effective as art focused on spirituality. From another perspective, a detailed realistic painting is as much about materiality as a work by Mapplethorpe.

On the topic of censorship, Salman Rushdie told the story of a Pakistani film (“International Gorillay” (International Guerillas) in which Rushdie, depicted as a Rambo-like figure, is portrayed as plotting to cause the downfall of Pakistan by opening a chain of casinos and discos, tortures with audio recordings of his book, and was finally killed by a bolt of lighting sent from God!

The British Board of Film Classification refused to give it a certificate, meaning it would be banned in the U.K., because they feared they might be sued for the 25 or more instances of libel in the film. Rushdie said he didn’t want to be part to something being censored and so wrote a statement to the board saying he would not sue for libel if the film was released. And so they then released it. A large theater was hired for its first showing in Muslim-dominated Bradford — and no one turned up. However if the movie had been banned, the fact of censorship would have made it popular. As it was, the work was judged according to its quality: a badly made movie not worth the cost of entry.

I’d argue that even if the unbanned film had become popular in the U.K., it would have served as a form of discourse. Having the freedom to express also means having the freedom to judge the work, and learn from it or its mistakes or misrepresentations. If a community doesn’t have freedom, it doesn’t have the mechanisms for diversity.

How do we know if a community has freedom: we look at the diversity of its artforms. There are two responses to this in relation to the Baha’i community. Lots of Baha’is are doing diverse highly creative work and Baha’is are part of the world. Second: if Baha’i communities wish to take advantage of this air of liberty, they have to create a opportunities for it.

A starting point would be to remove ‘review’, so there’s no idea of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ ways of expression. Of course I’m grateful to Baquia for allowing a freedom of expression on this blog. If Baquia hadn’t, I wouldn’t have made the effort to write this to start with.

This is what I mean by creating opportunities. If artists know that their art is welcome -however materialistic or issue-based- then they will start making an artwork in relation to the Baha’i community and when they do, we’ll have the diversity needed for discourse to develop. As it stands at the moment, artists who are Baha’is such as myself, certainly make art inspired by the Baha’i writings and teachings, but what is missing is art and art discourse in relation to the Baha’i community. Perhaps this is a freedom only possible as a form of diaspora -from the point of view of an outsider. At least at the moment with the dominance of the Ruhi culture, this seems to be the case.

Since Google is the king of internet when it comes to search, I was somewhat saddened to see that the number of worldwide searches for the keyword, “Baha’i” is continuing to decline. The chart below is from Google Insight for Search and it shows the incidence of people searching for the word Bahai on Google:

Since 2004 (the farthest Google has data) there has been a consistent decline in the number of Google searches for the term Baha’i. By the way, alternative spellings such as “bahai” provide the same results – Google is smart like that. Since Google loves numbers more than the Count, they crunch the numbers to come up with a short term forecast one year ahead (not visible in the chart above). Based on their forecast, the search index will decline from 39 (May 2010) to 33 in June 2011. You can see the chart including the forecast here.

To get some perspective we can compare this to, say, the term “Islam”. For starters, Islam’s index is flat, indicating a consistent level of online search interest. But I didn’t show the two together because there is so much more interest in the term “Islam” that the two plotted together on one index makes “Baha’i”‘s index basically unreadable.

Searching for other religions is also interesting. For example, the keyword “Judaism” shows a similar decline in popularity but the amount of search is higher than Baha’i. As well, there is an annual peak of interest that centers around Yom Kippur – the holiest of Jewish religious holidays.

So what inferences can we draw from this?

For starters, it is important to realize the importance of the internt. The reality is that the internet is a now an integral part of life in most developed countries. And with time, the integration and usefulness of the internet is only growing. So on the one hand, this trend tells us that within the Western, or wealthy nations, there is a decline in interest.

Considering the significant correlation between religiosity and wealth that isn’t surprising. As well, the Baha’i world center has for some time now targeted the less developed nations and developed programs such as Ruhi specifically to gain inroads within them.

It is, therefore, evident that it is possible to cure by foods, aliments and fruits; but as today the science of medicine is imperfect, this fact is not yet fully grasped. When the science of medicine reaches perfection, treatment will be given by foods, aliments, fragrant fruits and vegetables, and by various waters, hot and cold in temperature.
‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Some Answered Questions

Then I stumbled on this video from TED that illuminates one very real and practical path that is being taken by modern science. It is astonishing when we remind ourselves that Abdu’l-Baha’s words precede this research by more than 100 years:

Dr. William Li’s list of antiangiogenic foods

Can we eat to starve cancer?

The Angiogenesis Foundation

The image and reputation of the Vatican and the Catholic church lies in tatters as evidence has come to light that there was a systematic and methodical process in place to protect the Church and priests instead of protecting the innocent and helpless victims of the heinous crimes being perpetrated.

Many are even pointing out that Ratzinger’s nomination was motivated by the legal trial in the US. Of course, now in his position as the Pope, he claimed immunity from appearing as a witness.

The effect of this has been nothing short of devastating for the Church, especially in the Pope’s home country of Germany.

As Hitchens points out, the Vatican’s claim of statehood hangs on the flimsiest thread, having been originally created out of thin air by the Italian fascist dictator Mussolini to cement his ties with the Catholic church and gain its support.

Hitchens, by the way, participated in a spirited debate as part of the Intelligence Squared forum on the question of whether the Catholic church is a force for good:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

While Hitchens is up to his usual standard of eloquence, I found Fry’s articulate arguments to be completely devastating. And they clearly had the intended effect as the vast majority of the undecided switched to his side as did a great many of those that had initially agreed that the Catholic Church is a force for good.

For those with a pitch black sense of humor, here is Louis CK learning about the Catholic church – WARNING! Video contains harsh language and suggestive imagery. But the solitary tear running down CK’s cheek makes it worthwhile.

Baha’i Catholic blog is surprisingly quiet but then again, there hasn’t been an update since late last year.

What we have here is an institution that has lost its way and rather than existing to serve a higher purpose, it merely exists to prolong its own existence and further its own pomp and grandeur.

This is a danger that can befall any organization. Those which purport to be divinely guide and free from error are especially susceptible because those within the institution believe that theirs is a heavenly task which must be protected at all costs and those outside often dare not question or criticize it.

It is all too easy to overlook the fact that the Church has been protected by the law. For many decades when victims went to the police and to the public prosecutor, no action was taken simply because the perpetrator was the Church and it was considered sacrosanct.

The Baha’i Faith has its own, albeit small, share of these sort of public scandals. In the 1990′s Dr. Hossein Danesh, a member of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of Canada (and a long time secretary of the body – from 1985 to 1989) lost the right to practice psychiatry as a result of charges of sexual abuse brought forward by a handful of his former patients.

Far from being sanctioned and sent away in shameful seclusion he was soon given a plum job at the new Baha’i Landegg university in Switzerland. He then proceeded to run that institution into the ground. The university closed its doors in 2005.

Recently Danesh’s “old boy” network connections at the NSA got him a heavily promoted gig in Canada. With the full backing of the national Baha’i institution, he conducted a $50/person seminar on “Healthy Marriage and Family Life”. Here is a promotional flyer for one of the many planned seminars:

They key element in this is to ask whether Danesh would be able to slink back to Canada and receive such a warm welcome had he not been a long-standing member of the NSA. Would the NSA have gone out of its way to promote the workshop of a regular Baha’i who had a checkered past?

The other question is why other Baha’is who are infinitely more qualified in this field and have a stainless reputation are not being given the same platform? The only distinction is the personal connections that Danesh made through his many years of membership on the NSA. This is what leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Rather than being loyal to virtues and principles, the NSA has betrayed itself as being loyal to personal connections.

There was another scandal a few years ago involving a young Baha’i in the developing world who alleged that she was being sexually abused by her father. It turned out that her father was a member of the country’s NSA (and its chairperson). Instead of considering her physical and mental health as the highest priority, the institutions instead focused on how to mitigate any fallout this might have on the Baha’i administration and the image and reputation of the same.

Obviously we cannot expect such institutions to police themselves. There is no reason whatsoever why similar allegations which involve the Catholic church or the Baha’i administration must be submitted to them for internal deliberation. Refreshingly enough, from what I’ve read of guidance from Baha’i institutions, they are in agreement with this and encourage victims to approach the proper authorities and seek legal recourse through appropriate channels. The best panacea for such tragic crimes remains transparency and public scrutiny.

Here is a short video of the Emmy award winning and Oscar Nominated actress, Shohreh Aghdashloo, speaking via video from Los Angeles to the gathering in DC:

Ms. Aghdashloo is featured in the upcoming film, Mona’s Dream, about the life and martyrdom of Mona Mahmudnizhad. She will be playing the role of Mona’s mother. The film is set to (hopefully) go into production this year.

Here is a quick recap of the evening:

More recently, the Universal House of Justice released a short statement asking Baha’i communities around the world to observe a special day of prayer on May 14th in honor of the unjustly persecuted Iranian Baha’is:

It grieves our hearts to contemplate the passing of yet another year in which the seven former members of the Yaran remain imprisoned on baseless charges for which the authorities have no evidence whatsoever. The approach of the second anniversary of their incarceration calls to mind the multifarious forms of oppression being visited upon the members of the Baha’i community in Iran of all ages and walks of life, including interrogations, summary arrests and imprisonment, deprivation of the means to a livelihood, wanton destruction of property, and the denial of education to Baha’i students. The heroic steadfastness of the friends in Iran in the face of such relentless persecution inspires their fellow believers around the globe to redouble their efforts to serve humanity and contribute to its material and spiritual progress. It has also led to the gradual, but undeniable, awakening of the conscience of fair- minded Iranians, who have been moved to express their concern at the violation of the human rights of their Baha’i compatriots.

We call upon the Baha’is of the world to organize special meetings of prayer around 14 May for the indomitable followers of Baha’u'llah in Iran, indeed, for all the people in that blessed land who are similarly subject to oppression, that the Hand of Divine Providence may grant them relief from their long ordeal. To this end we too offer our fervent supplications at the Sacred Threshold.

Jacqueline Left Hand Bull, Chair (standing at the podium), David F. Young (Vice-Chair), Juana C. Conrad (Deputy Secretary-General), Kenneth E. Bowers (Secretary-General), Erica Toussaint, Muin Afnani, Valerie Dana (Deputy Secretary-General), Robert C. Henderson, William L.H. Roberts (Treasurer).

Last year two members of the US NSA retired, allowing for two new members to enter the institution. I’m looking for historical data for the US NSA to verify how far this trend has been in effect but today it seems that the only way for a new member to enter the NSA is for an existing member to retire. Otherwise, forget about a chance to vote in any one new. This bias towards incumbency is not difficult to explain since it is baked into the very process of Baha’i elections and is not characteristic of just the US community.

You can clearly see this pattern in Canada as well. This year, the members of the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of Canada are: Deloria Bighorn, Judy Filson, Karen McKye (Secretary), Gordon Naylor, Borna Noureddin, Enayat Rawhani (Treasurer), Todd Smith ( Vice-Chair), Susanne Tamas and Élizabeth Wright (Chair).

All 9 members were re-elected. In fact, the average consecutive years in office for the current Canadian NSA is 9 years. Think about that. This means that a member has been in office for an average of 9 years! Of course, since we had two retirements recently, there are also members who have only been on the institution for a short time. The relatively new member, Wright, is this year’s chairperson.

But there are also those who have been serving for much longer than the average. For example, Judy Filson and Enayat Rawhani tie for the longest duration of concurrent membership at 15 years.

There are many reasons why having zero or minimal change in membership is detrimental to the functioning of the institution and therefore the community at large. I’ll just briefly touch on a few negative consequences.

When you have the same people year after year elected to the NSA everyone gets to know everyone else very well. Being merely human, what happens is that cliques are formed and made more and more rigid after each year. Everyone’s views on different issues becomes well known to the point that even before you consult, you know exactly who will take what position and who will support whom.

As well, when the same people work with each other for a long time a natural air of casualness and collegiality develops. This informality removes the barrier that is there in a formal relationship where individuals are merely acquaintances. The consequence is that people are more and more likely to take things personally and for challenging issues to deteriorate into personality conflicts.

Finally, as a consequence of having zero or very few new members, the institution forgoes the benefit of a fresh new perspective and new mindsets. Since almost most, if not all, incumbents are re-elected, membership changes at a glacial pace. That is we have one, or at the most, two new members who join the majority who are incumbents. This majority as a consequence of multiple years of consecutive membership are already seeped in the culture that I outlined above. Quickly the new member(s) fall in line and join a clique and adopt the same paradigm as that held by the majority.

This means that it is basically impossible to change the direction, tenor and culture of the institution as it becomes more and more hardened. Actually this reminds me of the fable of the 5 monkeys:

You begin with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hangs a banana on a string and a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, an automatic spray will soak all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result, and all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon the monkeys will try to prevent any of them from approaching the banana.

Next, unbeknownst to the monkeys, the valve to the cold water is shut off. And then, one monkey is taken out of the cage and replaced with a new one. The new monkey of course sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted.

Next, another of the original five monkeys is removed and replace with a new one monkey. The newcomer goes to the stair and is attacked. The previous newcomer even takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm! Likewise, a third monkey is replaced, then a fourth, then finally the fifth and last.

Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of their peer. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

And that is how organizational cultures are born.

On the off chance that an NSA does actually break out and try something new, they are quickly swatted down from a higher institution which has itself also fallen prey to the very same organizational illness. The clearest and most recent example is the fiasco surrounding the 2007 annual report from the US NSA.

Here is the trailer:

They have also started a contest for the “funniest” religion. Here is Omid starting things off with a joke about Palestine:

Let’s hear your funniest joke about religion!

Only time will tell if that is a wise decision. I haven’t seen any data that suggests that it is. For example, in the case of Columbia which is ground zero for Ruhi, after more than 40 years there has been no discernible growth in the Baha’i community. But for now, expect to see an even more intensification of Ruhi activities at the expense of anything and everything else.

A few things jumped out at me. One, they attempt to remove the stigma of “door to door” teaching, which obviously bothers many Baha’is for obvious reasons:

To assign to their teaching efforts such labels as “door-to-door”, even though the first contact may involve calling upon the residents of a home without prior notice, would not do justice to a process that seeks to raise capacity within a population to take charge of its own spiritual, social and intellectual development.

This is rather humorous because simply removing a label or attaching a label to something doesn’t change the nature of it. If you are going and knocking on a door to invite the people to an event, then it is what it is. The intention may not be exactly as direct as teaching them the Baha’i Faith but instead inviting them to take part in a process of “spiritual, social and intellectual development” – that doesn’t really make any difference to those who have to answer the door with a stranger standing there or to the poor Baha’is who are being pressured to go door to door.

The other is this rather refreshing caution:

…we feel compelled to raise a warning: It will be important for all to recognize that the value of engaging in social action and public discourse is not to be judged by the ability to bring enrolments. Though endeavours in these two areas of activity may well effect an increase in the size of the Baha’i community, they are not undertaken for this purpose. Sincerity in this respect is imperative. Moreover, care should be exercise to avoid overstating the Baha’i experience or drawing undue attention to fledgling efforts, such as the junior youth spiritual empowerment programme, which are best left to mature at their own pace. The watchword in all cases is humility. While conveying enthusiasm about their beliefs, the friends should guard against projecting an air of triumphalism, hardly appropriate among themselves, much less in other circumstances.

This characteristic has already been pointed out by many – including as early as 30 years ago. For more see Denis MacEoin’s letter to the LA Study Class. Let me know if anything of interest stands out for you. The previous years Ridvan messages are here:

• 2009 Ridvan message
• 2008 Ridvan message

Since their arrest, they have been in legal limbo. The Iranian authorities are pressured on one side to present and argue a case so that they can be found guilty but on the other hand the international community and NGOs like Amnesty International are demanding a fair and open trial.

The result has been a bureaucratic gridlock that has produced and ignored countless trial dates. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was the strategy adopted by the Iranian regime. After all, if the IRI can basically detain prisoners indefinitely without really bringing any charges or afford them the opportunity to defend themselves in a transparent court of law, they’ve more or less accomplished their goal.

Now it seems the strategy has shifted after almost two years. On April 12th the IRI finally went ahead with a trial. Here is an official update from the Baha’i International Community:

Two members of the legal team, Mrs. Mahnaz Parakand and Mr. Hadi Ismailzadeh, were able to be present at the session. Their two other colleagues, Mrs. Shirin Ebadi and Mr. Abolfattah Soltani, were unable to attend.

The hearing was scheduled to begin at 9:30 AM, yet notwithstanding that the lawyers were present at precisely the specified time, the session commenced only two and a half hours later. The families of the defendants were not permitted entry to the proceedings, which clearly signaled that the session was to be closed. However, numerous officials and interrogators from the Ministry of Intelligence were present, including a film crew whose cameras were positioned in the courtroom, which understandably gave rise to questions and concerns about the intentions behind the presence of such individuals in a closed hearing.

In view of the foregoing circumstances, the prisoners, with the full agreement of their attorneys, indicated to the judge that they declined to be party to the proceedings. The judge then adjourned the session. No date was announced for the next hearing.

So the gridlock continues. But the IRI can now claim a victory on the grounds that they were ready to move forward but their attempt was rejected by the Baha’is.

I’m not sure why exactly the Baha’is decided to not to proceed. Having government officials (interrogators, intelligence, etc.) included in the proceedings is part and parcel for the IRI’s case so it is natural that they would be included.

As well, what is wrong with having a camera record the proceedings? It is actually a step in the right direction, isn’t it? And how else would you be able to record the proceedings unless you have staff manning the audio/visuals? And why do they believe that this was a closed hearing if there was no actual ruling on this?

I’m not an Iranian or international legal expert but simply excluding family members (who are unrelated to the case) isn’t necessarily out of order nor unheard of. As long as the defendants have proper representation and are able to call witnesses, present evidence, etc. why would having their families there and not being filmed be so crucial that they would “walk out”?

Maybe I’m missing something but the strategy of the Baha’is and their lawyers is baffling and ultimately may end up hurting them.