Re: Extent of the House's Infallibility

"Jeffrey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I disagree that the House's infallibility can be compared to the U.S.
> Supreme Court's infallibility in the sense that its decision regarding
> constitutional law is final.
>
> First, the UHJ is a legislative body.  It does not interpret the Text.
That
> function belongs to the Guardian.  The Will and Testament says that both
> (the Guardian and the UHJ - with the UHJ being defined as one that has a
> Guardian as its appointed member and head) are guided by Baha'u'llah.
> Either you believe that or not.  If you don't believe that, then you are
not
> truly a Baha'i.

But you fail to define what you mean by "guided by Baha'u'llah."  Isn't it
valid to say that anyone who believes in the unity of mankind is guided by
Baha'u'llah?  Now non-Baha'is may not believe that but many Baha'is do.  In
other words, if you are truly a Baha'i then you either know or feel that
Baha'u'llah's basic proclamation influences all.

> As a legislative body, the UHJ is infallible.  Its laws can be changed by
> itself when conditions change.  But God guides that Institution.  God does
> NOT guide the US Supreme Court-- that is pretty obvious!  They are wrong
> about alot of things, including constitutional law.  There may be no
remedy
> for their wrong, but that does NOT make them right.

First you have to understand what the word "infallible" means in the Baha'i
context.  It has a political conotation, like the theory of the social
contract.  Just as Baha'is contract with the UHJ, so also Americans contract
with the Supreme Court.  Of course, you don't have to like what the Supreme
Court decides, but you do have to like what the UHJ decides!

The important thing to remember is that both the UHJ and the Supreme Court
can be asked to reconsider.

Cheers, Randy