World Order/Series2/Volume 20/Issue 2/Text

←Issue 1

World Order, Series 2 Volume 20 - Issue 2

Issue 3 & 4→

Return to PDF view Proofread once

[Page -1]

Winter 1985-86

World Order

The Promise of World Peace

The Universal House of Justice

Preventing and Combating

Intolerance of Religion or Belief

Roger S. Clark

Pioneering Race Unity:

The Chicago Bahá’ís, 1919-39

Mark Perry

[Page 0]

World Order

VOLUME 20, NUMBER 2 • PUBLISHED QUARTERLY

WORLD ORDER IS INTENDED TO STIMULATE, INSPIRE AND SERVE THINKING PEOPLE IN THEIR SEARCH TO FIND RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS AND PHILOSOPHY

Editorial Board:

FIRUZ KAZEMZADEH

BETTY J. FISHER

HOWARD GAREY

JAMES D. STOKES

Subscriber Service:

CANDACE MOORE

WORLD ORDER is published quarterly by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091. Second class postage paid at Wilmette, IL 60091. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to WORLD ORDER, 536 Sheridan Road, Wilmette, IL 60091.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher, the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, or of the Editorial Board. Manuscripts can be typewritten or computer generated. They should be double spaced throughout, with the footnotes at the end. The contributor should send three copies—an original and two legible copies—and should keep a copy. Return postage should be included. Send manuscripts and other editorial correspondence to WORLD ORDER, 415 Linden Avenue, Wilmette, IL 60091.

Subscription rates: U.S.A., Canada, Mexico, 1 year, $10.00; 2 years, $18.00; single copies, $3.00. All other countries, 1 year, $15.00; 2 years, $28.00; single copies $3.00. Airmail, 1 year, $20.00; 2 years, $38.00.

WORLD ORDER is protected through trademark registration in the U.S. Patent Office.

Copyright © 1988, National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States, All Rights Reserved. Printed in the U.S.A.
ISSN 0043-8804

IN THIS ISSUE

2 Rethinking War and Peace

Editorial

5 The Promise of World Peace

statement by The Universal House of Justice

19 Preventing and Combating Intolerance

of Religion or Belief

by Roger S. Clark

38 Where the Soul Goes

poem by Marlaina Tanny

41 Pioneering Race Unity:

The Chicago Bahá’ís, 1919-39

by Mark Perry

62 The Prophets

poem by Druzelle Cederquist

62 Other Realms

poem by Druzelle Cederquist

64 Authors & Artists in This Issue

[Page 1]

[Page 2]

Rethinking War and Peace

FROM the beginning of recorded history the world has hoped for peace and lived with war. War and preparation for war have been among the principal activities of organized societies. War has left its marks not only on the mangled bodies of its victims or on a devastated landscape. It has also shaped national economies, distorted educational systems, influenced the arts, and perverted ethics.

Yet until this century humanity somehow has managed to survive, to increase, to improve, and even, on occasion, to turn war itself into an instrument of progress. Until this century . . .

Now war, although possible, is unthinkable. Peace, an ancient and seemingly unattainable dream, has become a necessary condition of survival. Alas, the world knows little about peace.

Since its inception the Bahá’í Faith has proclaimed peace to be an indispensable element of religion. In numerous epistles addressed to nineteenth-century rulers Bahá’u’lláh urged disarmament, collective security, and the establishment of a world order based on the equality of nations and races. Recently the Universal House of Justice, the supreme governing body of the Bahá’í community, broadcast a statement entitled The Promise of World Peace that invites the rulers, as well as all women and men, to rethink issues of war and peace. The Universal House of Justice boldly asserts the inevitability of peace, lists its prerequisites, and invites all to commit themselves to its achievement.

That eloquent document deserves careful study and the serious attention of all who have not lost hope and wish to contribute to the existence of a future.

[Page 3]

[Page 4]

[Page 5]

The Promise of World Peace

A STATEMENT OF THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE

October 1985

To the Peoples of the World:

THE Great Peace towards which people of goodwill throughout the centuries have inclined their hearts, of which seers and poets for countless generations have expressed their vision, and for which from age to age the sacred scriptures of mankind have constantly held the promise, is now at long last within the reach of the nations. For the first time in history it is possible for everyone to view the entire planet, with all its myriad diversified peoples, in one perspective. World peace is not only possible but inevitable. It is the next stage in the evolution of this planet—in the words of one great thinker, “the planetization of mankind.”

Whether peace is to be reached only after unimaginable horrors precipitated by humanity’s stubborn clinging to old patterns of behavior, or is to be embraced now by an act of consultative will, is the choice before all who inhabit the earth. At this critical juncture when the intractable problems confronting nations have been fused into one common concern for the whole world, failure to stem the tide of conflict and disorder would be unconscionably irresponsible.

Among the favorable signs are the steadily growing strength of the steps towards world order taken initially near the beginning of this century in the creation of the League of Nations, succeeded by the more broadly based United Nations Organization; the achievement since the Second World War of independence by the majority of all the nations on earth, indicating the completion of the process of nation building, and the involvement of these fledgling nations with older ones in matters of mutual concern; the consequent vast increase in cooperation among hitherto isolated and antagonistic peoples and groups in international undertakings in the scientific, educational, legal, economic and cultural fields; the rise in recent decades of an unprecedented number of international humanitarian organizations; the spread of women’s and youth movements calling for an end to war; and the spontaneous spawning of widening networks of ordinary people seeking understanding through personal communication.

The scientific and technological advances occurring in this unusually blessed century portend a great surge forward in the social evolution of the planet, and indicate the means by which the practical problems of humanity may be solved. They provide, indeed, the very means for the administration of the complex life of a united world. Yet barriers persist. Doubts, misconceptions, prejudices, suspicions and narrow self-interest beset nations and peoples in their relations one to another.

[Page 6] It is out of a deep sense of spiritual and moral duty that we are impelled at this opportune moment to invite your attention to the penetrating insights first communicated to the rulers of mankind more than a century ago by Bahá’u’lláh, Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, of which we are the Trustees.

“The winds of despair,” Bahá’u’lláh wrote, “are, alas, blowing from every direction, and the strife that divides and afflicts the human race is daily increasing. The signs of impending convulsions and chaos can now be discerned, inasmuch as the prevailing order appears to be lamentably defective.” This prophetic judgment has been amply confirmed by the common experience of humanity. Flaws in the prevailing order are conspicuous in the inability of sovereign states organized as United Nations to exorcise the specter of war, the threatened collapse of the international economic order, the spread of anarchy and terrorism, and the intense suffering which these and other afflictions are causing to increasing millions. Indeed, so much have aggression and conflict come to characterize our social, economic and religious systems, that many have succumbed to the view that such behavior is intrinsic to human nature and therefore ineradicable.

With the entrenchment of this view, a paralyzing contradiction has developed in human affairs. On the one hand, people of all nations proclaim not only their readiness but their longing for peace and harmony, for an end to the harrowing apprehensions tormenting their daily lives. On the other, uncritical assent is given to the proposition that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive and thus incapable of erecting a social system at once progressive and peaceful, dynamic and harmonious, a system giving free play to individual creativity and initiative but based on cooperation and reciprocity.

As the need for peace becomes more urgent, this fundamental contradiction, which hinders its realization, demands a reassessment of the assumptions upon which the commonly held view of mankind’s historical predicament is based. Dispassionately examined, the evidence reveals that such conduct, far from expressing man’s true self, represents a distortion of the human spirit. Satisfaction on this point will enable all people to set in motion constructive social forces which, because they are consistent with human nature, will encourage harmony and cooperation instead of war and conflict.

To choose such a course is not to deny humanity’s past but to understand it. The Bahá’í Faith regards the current world confusion and calamitous condition in human affairs as a natural phase in an organic process leading ultimately and irresistibly to the unification of the human race in a single social order whose boundaries are those of the planet. The human race, as a distinct, organic unit, has passed through evolutionary stages analogous to the stages of infancy and childhood in the lives of its individual members, and is now in the culminating period of its turbulent adolescence approaching its long-awaited coming of age.

A candid acknowledgment that prejudice, war and exploitation have been the expression of immature stages in a vast historical process and that the human race is today experiencing the unavoidable tumult which marks its collective coming of age is not a reason for despair but a prerequisite to undertaking the stupendous enterprise of building a peaceful world. That such an [Page 7] enterprise is possible, that the necessary constructive forces do exist, that unifying social structures can be erected, is the theme we urge you to examine.

Whatever suffering and turmoil the years immediately ahead may hold, however dark the immediate circumstances, the Bahá’í community believes that humanity can confront this supreme trial with confidence in its ultimate outcome. Far from signalizing the end of civilization, the convulsive changes towards which humanity is being ever more rapidly impelled will serve to release the “potentialities inherent in the station of man” and reveal “the full measure of his destiny on earth, the innate excellence of his reality.”

I

THE endowments which distinguish the human race from all other forms of life are summed up in what is known as the human spirit; the mind is its essential quality. These endowments have enabled humanity to build civilizations and to prosper materially. But such accomplishments alone have never satisfied the human spirit, whose mysterious nature inclines it towards transcendence, a reaching towards an invisible realm, towards the ultimate reality, that unknowable essence of essences called God. The religions brought to mankind by a succession of spiritual luminaries have been the primary link between humanity and that ultimate reality, and have galvanized and refined mankind’s capacity to achieve spiritual success together with social progress.

No serious attempt to set human affairs aright, to achieve world peace, can ignore religion. Man’s perception and practice of it are largely the stuff of history. An eminent historian described religion as a “faculty of human nature.” That the perversion of this faculty has contributed to much of the confusion in society and the conflicts in and between individuals can hardly be denied. But neither can any fair-minded observer discount the preponderating influence exerted by religion on the vital expressions of civilization. Furthermore, its indispensability to social order has repeatedly been demonstrated by its direct effect on laws and morality.

Writing of religion as a social force, Bahá’u’lláh said: “Religion is the greatest of all means for the establishment of order in the world and for the peaceful contentment of all that dwell therein.” Referring to the eclipse or corruption of religion, he wrote: “Should the lamp of religion be obscured, chaos and confusion will ensue, and the lights of fairness, of justice, of tranquillity and peace cease to shine.” In an enumeration of such consequences the Bahá’í writings point out that the “perversion of human nature, the degradation of human conduct, the corruption and dissolution of human institutions, reveal themselves, under such circumstances, in their worst and most revolting aspects. Human character is debased, confidence is shaken, the nerves of discipline are relaxed, the voice of human conscience is stilled, the sense of decency and shame is obscured, conceptions of duty, of solidarity, of reciprocity and loyalty are distorted, and the very feeling of peacefulness, of joy and of hope is gradually extinguished.”

If, therefore. humanity has come to a point of paralyzing conflict it must look to itself, to its own negligence, to the siren voices to which it has listened, for the source of the misunderstandings and confusion perpetrated in the name [Page 8] of religion. Those who have held blindly and selfishly to their particular orthodoxies, who have imposed on their votaries erroneous and conflicting interpretations of the pronouncements of the Prophets of God, bear heavy responsibility for this confusion—a confusion compounded by the artificial barriers erected between faith and reason, science and religion. For from a fair-minded examination of the actual utterances of the Founders of the great religions, and of the social milieus in which they were obliged to carry out their missions, there is nothing to support the contentions and prejudices deranging the religious communities of mankind and therefore all human affairs.

The teaching that we should treat others as we ourselves would wish to be treated, an ethic variously repeated in all the great religions, lends force to this latter observation in two particular respects: it sums up the moral attitude, the peace-inducing aspect, extending through these religions irrespective of their place or time of origin; it also signifies an aspect of unity which is their essential virtue, a virtue mankind in its disjointed view of history has failed to appreciate.

Had humanity seen the Educators of its collective childhood in their true character, as agents of one civilizing process, it would no doubt have reaped incalculably greater benefits from the cumulative effects of their successive missions. This, alas, it failed to do.

The resurgence of fanatical religious fervor occurring in many lands cannot be regarded as more than a dying convulsion. The very nature of the violent and disruptive phenomena associated with it testifies to the spiritual bankruptcy it represents. Indeed, one of the strangest and saddest features of the current outbreak of religious fanaticism is the extent to which, in each case, it is undermining not only the spiritual values which are conducive to the unity of mankind but also those unique moral victories won by the particular religion It purports to serve.

However vital a force religion has been in the history of mankind, and however dramatic the current resurgence of militant religious fanaticism, religion and religious institutions have, for many decades, been viewed by increasing numbers of people as irrelevant to the major concerns of the modern world. In its place they have turned either to the hedonistic pursuit of material satisfactions or to the following of man-made ideologies designed to rescue society from the evident evils under which it groans. All too many of these ideologies, alas, instead of embracing the concept of the oneness of mankind and promoting the increase of concord among different peoples, have tended to deify the state, to subordinate the rest of mankind to one nation, race or class, to attempt to suppress all discussion and interchange of ideas, or to callously abandon starving millions to the operations of a market system that all too clearly is aggravating the plight of the majority of mankind, while enabling small sections to live in a condition of affluence scarcely dreamed of by our forebears.

How tragic is the record of the substitute faiths that the worldly-wise of our age have created. In the massive disillusionment of entire populations who have been taught to worship at their altars can be read history’s irreversible verdict on their value. The fruits these doctrines have produced, after decades of an increasingly unrestrained exercise of power by those who owe their ascendancy in human affairs to them, are the social and economic ills that blight every [Page 9] region of our world in the closing years of the twentieth century. Underlying all these outward afflictions is the spiritual damage reflected in the apathy that has gripped the mass of the peoples of all nations and by the extinction of hope in the hearts of deprived and anguished millions.

The time has come when those who preach the dogmas of materialism, whether of the east or the west, whether of capitalism or socialism, must give account of the moral stewardship they have presumed to exercise. Where is the “new world” promised by these ideologies? Where is the international peace to whose ideals they proclaim their devotion? Where are the breakthroughs into new realms of cultural achievement produced by the aggrandizement of this race, of that nation or of a particular class? Why is the vast majority of the world’s peoples sinking ever deeper into hunger and wretchedness when wealth on a scale undreamed of by the Pharaohs, the Caesars, or even the imperialist powers of the nineteenth century is at the disposal of the present arbiters of human affairs?

Most particularly, it is in the glorification of material pursuits, at once the progenitor and common feature of all such ideologies, that we find the roots which nourish the falsehood that human beings are incorrigibly selfish and aggressive. It is here that the ground must be cleared for the building of a new world fit for our descendants.

That materialistic ideals have, in the light of experience, failed to satisfy the needs of mankind calls for an honest acknowledgment that a fresh effort must now be made to find the solutions to the agonizing problems of the planet. The intolerable conditions pervading society bespeak a common failure of all, a circumstance which tends to incite rather than relieve the entrenchment on every side. Clearly, a common remedial effort is urgently required. It is primarily a matter of attitude. Will humanity continue in its waywardness, holding to outworn concepts and unworkable assumptions? Or will its leaders, regardless of ideology, step forth and, with a resolute will, consult together in a united search for appropriate solutions?

Those who care for the future of the human race may well ponder this advice. “If long-cherished ideals and time-honored institutions, if certain social assumptions and religious formulae have ceased to promote the welfare of the generality of mankind, if they no longer minister to the needs of a continually evolving humanity, let them be swept away and relegated to the limbo of obsolescent and forgotten doctrines. Why should these, in a world subject to the immutable law of change and decay, be exempt from the deterioration that must needs overtake every human institution? For legal standards, political and economic theories are solely designed to safeguard the interests of humanity as a whole, and not humanity to be crucified for the preservation of the integrity of any particular law or doctrine.”

II

BANNING nuclear weapons, prohibiting the use of poison gases, or outlawing germ warfare will not remove the root causes of war. However important such practical measures obviously are as elements of the peace process, they are in [Page 10] themselves too superficial to exert enduring influence. Peoples are ingenious enough to invent yet other forms of warfare, and to use food, raw materials, finance, industrial power, ideology, and terrorism to subvert one another in an endless quest for supremacy and dominion. Nor can the present massive dislocation in the affairs of humanity be resolved through the settlement of specific conflicts or disagreements among nations. A genuine universal framework must be adopted.

Certainly, there is no lack of recognition by national leaders of the worldwide character of the problem, which is self-evident in the mounting issues that confront them daily. And there are the accumulating studies and solutions proposed by many concerned and enlightened groups as well as by agencies of the United Nations, to remove any possibility of ignorance as to the challenging requirements to be met. There is, however, a paralysis of will; and it is this that must be carefully examined and resolutely dealt with. This paralysis is rooted, as we have stated, in a deep-seated conviction of the inevitable quarrelsomeness of mankind, which has led to the reluctance to entertain the possibility of subordinating national self-interest to the requirements of world order, and in an unwillingness to face courageously the far-reaching implications of establishing a united world authority. It is also traceable to the incapacity of largely ignorant and subjugated masses to articulate their desire for a new order in which they can live in peace, harmony and prosperity with all humanity.

The tentative steps towards world order, especially since World War II, give hopeful signs. The increasing tendency of groups of nations to formalize relationships which enable them to cooperate in matters of mutual interest suggests that eventually all nations could overcome this paralysis. The Association of South East Asian Nations, the Caribbean Community and Common Market, the Central American Common Market, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, the European Communities, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, the Organization of American States, the South Pacific Forum—all the joint endeavors represented by such organizations prepare the path to world order.

The increasing attention being focused on some of the most deep-rooted problems of the planet is yet another hopeful sign. Despite the obvious shortcomings of the United Nations, the more than two score declarations and conventions adopted by that organization, even where governments have not been enthusiastic in their commitment, have given ordinary people a sense of a new lease on life. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and the similar measures concerned with eliminating all forms of discrimination based on race, sex or religious belief; upholding the rights of the child; protecting all persons against being subjected to torture; eradicating hunger and malnutrition; using scientific and technological progress in the interest of peace and the benefit of mankind—all such measures, if courageously enforced and expanded, will advance the day when the specter of war will have lost its power to dominate international relations. There is no need to stress the significance of the issues addressed by these declarations and conventions. However, a few such issues, [Page 11] because of their immediate relevance to establishing world peace, deserve additional comment.

Racism, one of the most baneful and persistent evils, is a major barrier to peace. Its practice perpetrates too outrageous a violation of the dignity of human beings to be countenanced under any pretext. Racism retards the unfoldment of the boundless potentialities of its victims, corrupts its perpetrators, and blights human progress. Recognition of the oneness of mankind, implemented by appropriate legal measures, must be universally upheld if this problem is to be overcome.

The inordinate disparity between rich and poor, a source of acute suffering, keeps the world in a state of instability, virtually on the brink of war. Few societies have dealt effectively with this situation. The solution calls for the combined application of spiritual, moral and practical approaches. A fresh look at the problem is required, entailing consultation with experts from a wide spectrum of disciplines, devoid of economic and ideological polemics, and involving the people directly affected in the decisions that must urgently be made. It is an issue that is bound up not only with the necessity for eliminating extremes of wealth and poverty but also with those spiritual verities the understanding of which can produce a new universal attitude. Fostering such an attitude is itself a major part of the solution.

Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bahá’u’lláh’s statement is: “The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.” The concept of world citizenship is a direct result of the contraction of the world into a single neighborhood through scientific advances and of the indisputable interdependence of nations. Love of all the world’s peoples does not exclude love of one’s country. The advantage of the part in a world society is best served by promoting the advantage of the whole. Current international activities in various fields which nurture mutual affection and a sense of solidarity among peoples need greatly to be increased.

Religious strife, throughout history, has been the cause of innumerable wars and conflicts, a major blight to progress, and is increasingly abhorrent to the people of all faiths and no faith. Followers of all religions must be willing to face the basic questions which this strife raises, and to arrive at clear answers. How are the differences between them to be resolved, both in theory and in practice? The challenge facing the religious leaders of mankind is to contemplate, with hearts filled with the spirit of compassion and a desire for truth, the plight of humanity, and to ask themselves whether they cannot, in humility before their Almighty Creator, submerge their theological differences in a great spirit of mutual forbearance that will enable them to work together for the advancement of human understanding and peace.

The emancipation of women, the achievement of full equality between the sexes, is one of the most important, though less acknowledged prerequisites of peace. The denial of such equality perpetuates an injustice against one-half of the world’s population and promotes in men harmful attitudes and habits that are carried from the family to the workplace, to political life, and ultimately to international relations. There are no grounds, moral, practical, or biological, [Page 12] upon which such denial can be justified. Only as women are welcomed into full partnership in all fields of human endeavor will the moral and psychological climate be created in which international peace can emerge.

The cause of universal education, which has already enlisted in its service an army of dedicated people from every faith and nation, deserves the utmost support that the governments of the world can lend it. For ignorance is indisputably the principal reason for the decline and fall of peoples and the perpetuation of prejudice. No nation can achieve success unless education is accorded all its citizens. Lack of resources limits the ability of many nations to fulfill this necessity, imposing a certain ordering of priorities. The decision-making agencies involved would do well to consider giving first priority to the education of women and girls, since it is through educated mothers that the benefits of knowledge can be most effectively and rapidly diffused throughout society. In keeping with the requirements of the times, consideration should also be given to teaching the concept of world citizenship as part of the standard education of every Child.

A fundamental lack of communication between peoples seriously undermines efforts towards world peace. Adopting an international auxiliary language would go far to resolving this problem and necessitates the most urgent attention.

Two points bear emphasizing in all these issues. One is that the abolition of war is not simply a matter of signing treaties and protocols; it is a complex task requiring a new level of commitment to resolving issues not customarily associated with the pursuit of peace. Based on political agreements alone, the idea of collective security is a chimera. The other point is that the primary challenge in dealing with issues of peace is to raise the context to the level of principle, as distinct from pure pragmatism. For, in essence, peace stems from an inner state supported by a spiritual or moral attitude, and it is chiefly in evoking this attitude that the possibility of enduring solutions can be found.

There are spiritual principles, or what some call human values, by which solutions can be found for every social problem. Any well-intentioned group can in a general sense devise practical solutions to its problems, but good intentions and practical knowledge are usually not enough. The essential merit of spiritual principle is that it not only presents a perspective which harmonizes with that which is immanent in human nature, it also induces an attitude, a dynamic, a will, an aspiration, which facilitate the discovery and implementation of practical measures. Leaders of governments and all in authority would be well served in their efforts to solve problems if they would first seek to identify the principles involved and then be guided by them.

III

THE primary question to be resolved is how the present world, with its entrenched pattern of conflict, can change to a world in which harmony and cooperation will prevail.

World order can be founded only on an unshakable consciousness of the oneness of mankind, a spiritual truth which all the human sciences confirm. Anthropology, physiology, psychology, recognize only one human species, albeit infinitely varied in the secondary aspects of life. Recognition of this truth requires [Page 13] abandonment of prejudice—prejudice of every kind—race, class, color, creed, nation, sex, degree of material civilization, everything which enables people to consider themselves superior to others.

Acceptance of the oneness of mankind is the first fundamental prerequisite for reorganization and administration of the world as one country, the home of humankind. Universal acceptance of this spiritual principle is essential to any successful attempt to establish world peace. It should therefore be universally proclaimed, taught in schools, and constantly asserted in every nation as preparation for the organic change in the structure of society which it implies.

In the Bahá’í view, recognition of the oneness of mankind “calls for no less than the reconstruction and the demilitarization of the whole civilized world— a world organically unified in all the essential aspects of its life, its political machinery, its spiritual aspiration, its trade and finance, its script and language, and yet infinite in the diversity of the national characteristics of its federated units.”

Elaborating the implications of this pivotal principle, Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, commented in 1931 that: “Far from aiming at the subversion of the existing foundations of society, it seeks to broaden its basis, to remold its institutions in a manner consonant with the needs of an ever-changing world. It can conflict with no legitimate allegiances, nor can it undermine essential loyalties. Its purpose is neither to stifle the flame of a sane and intelligent patriotism in men’s hearts, nor to abolish the system of national autonomy so essential if the evils of excessive centralization are to be avoided. It does not ignore, nor does it attempt to suppress, the diversity of ethnical origins, of climate, of history, of language and tradition, of thought and habit, that differentiate the peoples and nations of the world. It calls for a wider loyalty, for a larger aspiration than any that has animated the human race. It insists upon the subordination of national impulses and interests to the imperative claims of a unified world. It repudiates excessive centralization on one hand, and disclaims all attempts at uniformity on the other. Its watchword is unity in diversity. . . .

The achievement of such ends requires several stages in the adjustment of national political attitudes, which now verge on anarchy in the absence of clearly defined laws or universally accepted and enforceable principles regulating the relationships between nations. The League of Nations, the United Nations, and the many organizations and agreements produced by them have unquestionably been helpful in attenuating some of the negative effects of international conflicts, but they have shown themselves incapable of preventing war. Indeed, there have been scores of wars since the end of the Second World War; many are yet raging.

The predominant aspects of this problem had already emerged in the nineteenth century when Bahá’u’lláh first advanced his proposals for the establishment of world peace. The principle of collective security was propounded by him in statements addressed to the rulers of the world. Shoghi Effendi commented on his meaning: “What else could these weighty words signify,” he wrote, “if they did not point to the inevitable curtailment of unfettered national sovereignty as an indispensable preliminary to the formation of the future Commonwealth [Page 14] of all the nations of the world? Some form of a world superstate must needs be evolved, in whose favor all the nations of the world will have willingly ceded every claim to make war, certain rights to impose taxation and all rights to maintain armaments, except for purposes of maintaining internal order within their respective dominions. Such a state will have to include within its orbit an International Executive adequate to enforce supreme and unchallengeable authority on every recalcitrant member of the commonwealth; a World Parliament whose members shall be elected by the people in their respective countries and whose election shall be confirmed by their respective governments; and a Supreme Tribunal whose judgment will have a binding effect even in such cases where the parties concerned did not voluntarily agree to submit their case to its consideration.

“A world community in which all economic barriers will have been permanently demolished and the interdependence of capital and labor definitely recognized; in which the clamor of religious fanaticism and strife will have been forever stilled; in which the flame of racial animosity will have been finally extinguished; in which a single code of international law—the product of the considered judgment of the world’s federated representatives—shall have as its sanction the instant and coercive intervention of the combined forces of the federated units; and finally a world community in which the fury of a capricious and militant nationalism will have been transmuted into an abiding consciousness of world citizenship—such indeed, appears, in its broadest outline, the Order anticipated by Bahá’u’lláh, an Order that shall come to be regarded as the fairest fruit of a slowly maturing age.”

The implementation of these far-reaching measures was indicated by Bahá’u’lláh: “The time must come when the imperative necessity for the holding of a vast, an all-embracing assemblage of men will be universally realized. The rulers and kings of the earth must needs attend it, and, participating in its deliberations, must consider such ways and means as will lay the foundations of the world’s Great Peace amongst men.”

The courage, the resolution, the pure motive, the selfless love of one people for another—all the spiritual and moral qualities required for effecting this momentous step towards peace are focused on the will to act. And it is towards arousing the necessary volition that earnest consideration must be given to the reality of man, namely, his thought. To understand the relevance of this potent reality is also to appreciate the social necessity of actualizing its unique value through candid, dispassionate and cordial consultation, and of acting upon the results of this process. Bahá’u’lláh insistently drew attention to the virtues and indispensability of consultation for ordering human affairs. He said: “Consultation bestows greater awareness and transmutes conjecture into certitude. It is a shining light which, in a dark world, leads the way and guides. For everything there is and will continue to be a station of perfection and maturity The maturity of the gift of understanding is made manifest through consultation.” The very attempt to achieve peace through the consultative action he proposed can release such a salutary spirit among the peoples of the earth that no power could resist the final, triumphal outcome.

Concerning the proceedings for this world gathering, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, the son [Page 15] of Bahá’u’lláh and authorized interpreter of his teachings, offered these insights: “They must make the Cause of Peace the object of general consultation, and seek by every means in their power to establish a Union of the nations of the world. They must conclude a binding treaty and establish a covenant, the provisions of which shall be sound, inviolable and definite. They must proclaim it to all the world and obtain for it the sanction of all the human race. This supreme and noble undertaking—the real source of the peace and well-being of all the world—should be regarded as sacred by all that dwell on earth. All the forces of humanity must be mobilized to ensure the stability and permanence of this Most Great Covenant. In this all-embracing Pact the limits and frontiers of each and every nation should be clearly fixed, the principles underlying the relations of governments towards one another definitely laid down, and all international agreements and obligations ascertained. In like manner, the size of the armaments of every government should be strictly limited, for if the preparations for war and the military forces of any nation should be allowed to increase, they will arouse the suspicion of others. The fundamental principle underlying this solemn Pact should be so fixed that if any government later violate any one of its provisions, all the governments on earth should arise to reduce it to utter submission, nay the human race as a whole should resolve, with every power at its disposal, to destroy that government. Should this greatest of all remedies be applied to the sick body of the world, it will assuredly recover from its ills and will remain eternally safe and secure.”

The holding of this mighty convocation is long overdue.

With all the ardor of our hearts, we appeal to the leaders of all nations to seize this opportune moment and take irreversible steps to convoke this world meeting. All the forces of history impel the human race towards this act which will mark for all time the dawn of its long-awaited maturity,

Will not the United Nations, with the full support of its membership, rise to the high purposes of such a crowning event?

Let men and women, youth and children everywhere recognize the eternal merit of this imperative action for all peoples and lift up their voices in willing assent. Indeed, let it be this generation that inaugurates this glorious stage in the evolution of social life on the planet.

IV

THE source of the optimism we feel is a vision transcending the cessation of war and the creation of agencies of international cooperation. Permanent peace among nations is an essential stage, but not, Bahá’u’lláh asserts, the ultimate goal of the social development of humanity. Beyond the initial armistice forced upon the world by the fear of nuclear holocaust, beyond the political peace reluctantly entered into by suspicious rival nations, beyond pragmatic arrangements for security and coexistence, beyond even the many experiments in cooperation which these steps will make possible lies the crowning goal: the unification of all the peoples of the world in one universal family.

Disunity is a danger that the nations and peoples of the earth can no longer endure; the consequences are too terrible to contemplate, too obvious to require any demonstration. “The well-being of mankind,” Bahá’u’lláh wrote more than [Page 16] a century ago, “its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until is unity is firmly established.” In observing that “mankind is groaning, is dying to he led to unity, and to terminate its agelong martyrdom,” Shoghi Effendi further commented that: “Unification of the whole of mankind is the hallmark of the stage which human society is now approaching. Unity of family, of tribe, of city-state, and nation have been successively attempted and fully established. World unity is the goal towards which a harassed humanity is striving. Nation-building has come to an end. The anarchy inherent in state sovereignty is moving towards a climax. A world, growing to maturity, must abandon this fetish, recognize the oneness and wholeness of human relationships, and establish once for all the machinery that can best incarnate this fundamental principle of its life.”

All contemporary forces of change validate this view. The proofs can be discerned in the many examples already cited of the favorable signs towards world peace in current international movements and developments. The army of men and women, drawn from virtually every culture, race and nation on earth, who serve the multifarious agencies of the United Nations, represent a planetary “civil service” whose impressive accomplishments are indicative of the degree of cooperation that can be attained even under discouraging conditions. An urge towards unity, like a spiritual springtime, struggles to express itself through countless international congresses that bring together people from a vast array of disciplines. It motivates appeals for international projects involving children and youth. Indeed, it is the real source of the remarkable movement towards ecumenism by which members of historically antagonistic religions and sects seem irresistibly drawn towards one another. Together with the opposing tendency to warfare and self-aggrandizement against which it ceaselessly struggles, the drive towards world unity is one of the dominant, pervasive features of life on the planet during the closing years of the twentieth century.

The experience of the Bahá’í community may be seen as an example of this enlarging unity. It is a community of some three to four million people drawn from many nations, cultures, classes and creeds, engaged in a wide range of activities serving the spiritual, social and economic needs of the peoples of many lands. It is a single social organism, representative of the diversity of the human family, conducting its affairs through a system of commonly accepted consultative principles, and cherishing equally all the great outpourings of divine guidance in human history. Its existence is yet another convincing proof of the practicality of its Founder’s vision of a united world, another evidence that humanity can live as one global society, equal to whatever challenges its coming of age may entail. If the Bahá’í experience can contribute in whatever measure to reinforcing hope in the unity of the human race, we are happy to offer it as a model for study.

In contemplating the supreme importance of the task now challenging the entire world, we bow our heads in humility before the awesome majesty of the divine Creator, Who out of His infinite love has created all humanity from the same stock; exalted the gemlike reality of man; honored it with intellect and wisdom, nobility and immortality; and conferred upon man the “unique distinction and capacity to know Him and to love Him,” a capacity that “must [Page 17] needs be regarded as the generating impulse and the primary purpose underlying the whole of creation.”

We hold firmly the conviction that all human beings have been created “to carry forward an evet-advancing civilization”; that “to act like the beasts of the field is unworthy of man”; that the virtues that befit human dignity are trustworthiness, forbearance, mercy, compassion and loving kindness towards all peoples. We reaffirm the belief that the “potentialities inherent in the station of man, the full measure of his destiny on earth, the innate excellence of his reality, must all be manifested in this promised Day of God.” These are the motivations for our unshakable faith that unity and peace are the attainable goal towards which humanity is striving,

At this writing, the expectant voices of Bahá’ís can be heard despite the persecution they still endure in the land in which their Faith was born. By their example of steadfast hope, they bear witness to the belief that the imminent realization of this age-old dream of peace is now, by virtue of the transforming effects of Bahá’u’lláh’s revelation, invested with the force of divine authority. Thus we convey to you not only a vision in words: we summon the power of deeds of faith and sacrifice; we convey the anxious plea of out coreligionists everywhere for peace and unity. We join with all who are the victims of aggression, all who yearn for an end to conflict and contention, all whose devotion to principles of peace and world order promotes the ennobling purposes for which humanity was called into being by an all-loving Creator.

In the earnestness of our desire to impart to you the fervor of our hope and the depth of our confidence, we cite the emphatic promise of Bahá’u’lláh: “These fruitless strifes, these ruinous wars shall pass away, and the ‘Most Great Peace’ shall come.”

THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE

[Page 18]

[Page 19]

Preventing and Combating
Intolerance of Religion or Belief

BY ROGER S. CLARK

Copyright © 1988 by Roger S. Clark.

This is an edited version of a paper prepared by Professor Clark at the request of the U.N. Secretariat as a background paper for the United Nations Seminar on the Encouragement of Understanding, Tolerance, and Respect in Matters Relating to Religion and Belief, held in Geneva, Switzerland, 3-14 December 1984.

ON 25 November 1981 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (G.A.Res.36/55). That Declaration (referred to hereafter as the 1981 Declaration) did not occur in a vacuum. Rather, it came as part of the continuing efforts of the United Nations since 1945 to give greater concrete content to the Charter promise of “human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” Accordingly, it seems likely that, in the search for models of national or local action to combat intolerance of religion or belief, one ought to find much of value in selected earlier United Nations literature. For such literature deals with national and local institutions for the protection and promotion of human tights in general and with the area of racial discrimination in particular, which itself shares many common characteristics with intolerance of religion and belief.

Of special importance are three documents: the Report of the Seminar on National and Local Institutions far the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights held in Geneva 18-29 September 1987, U.N.Doc.ST/HR/SER.A/2, referred to hereafter as the 1978 Seminar; and two Reports of the Secretary-General on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, U.N.Doc.A/36/44O (1981) and U.N.Doc.A/38/416 (1983).

It must be kept in mind that in dealing with freedom of religion or belief the 1981 Declaration cuts across the whole range of human-rights considerations. Both individual and group rights are involved, including civil and political rights (such as freedom of thought, conscience, and expression); economic, social, and cultural rights (such as those dealing with education, the right to work, and the position of children); and solidarity rights (such as the right to peace and the right to development).

Serious discussion of the question of religious freedom first occurred within the United Nations in the context of the drafting of Article [Page 20] 18 Of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948. The next significant step occurred in 1956 when Mr. Arcot Krishnaswami of India submitted his Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices to the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, hereafter referred to as “the Krishnaswami Study.” Drawing on the information contained in eighty-six unpublished monographs describing the situation concerning religion in eighty-six member states, Mr. Krishnaswami attempts to clarify the concept of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion as set forth in the Universal Declaration. Mr. Krishnaswami was able to reduce his conclusions to a set of rules intended to show how the goals proclaimed in the Universal Declaration may be reached. Even if the rules were not followed to the letter in all cases, he thought that they might, nevertheless, be useful in educating world opinion. Mr. Krishnaswami’s analysis of what he called the “duties of public authorities” provides a useful backdrop for a discussion of governmental influence preventing or combating intolerance of religion or belief. In his view,

Firstly, public authorities must themselves refrain from making any adverse distinction against, or giving undue preference to, individuals or groups of individuals with regard to this right. Secondly, they must prevent any individual, or group of individuals, from making such adverse distinctions or giving such undue preferences. They may discharge these duties through the adoption of appropriate legal provisions of a preventive or remedial character—including, when necessary, penal sanctions—as well as by administrative action. In addition. they should make every effort to educate public opinion to an acceptance of the principle of non-discrimination in respect of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and to create proper leadership for this purpose.

Mr. Krishnaswami undoubtedly hoped that some of the details of his principles and rules would find their way into the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, then being drafted, but this did not always occur. Article 18 of this Covenant, which deals with freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, essentially restates the principles of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration, but in no more detail than that provision does. However, Article 13, paragraph 3, Of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights goes into more detail by obligating parties to the Covenant to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, that conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the state and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

In 1962 the General Assembly called for the preparation of draft instruments (resolutions, treaties, or both) on racial discrimination and on religious intolerance. It proved much easier to obtain consensus concerning racial discrimination than on the religious question. For example, a Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [Page 21] was adopted in 1963, and a Convention (or treaty), now the most widely ratified of the United Nations human-rights treaties, was adopted in 1965. However, it was not until 1981 that the drafting of the Declaration in the field of religion and belief was completed. At present there are no immediate plans to proceed with the drafting of a convention in this area, which remains one of considerable sensitivity. Because consensus has been hard to reach even at the relatively general level of standard setting, it should be no surprise if there should be grave difficulties in reaching agreement about the steps that must next be taken at the national and local level to institutionalize the principles of the Declatation. The search is, however, an important one. The suggestions that follow are not meant to be dogmatic or definitive; rather, they are meant to stimulate vigorous discussion.

However, before it is possible to discuss the process and methods used to promote and to protect the rights contained in the 1981 Declaration, two matters of scope and terminology need to be clarified in order to avoid any confusion. The first matter relates to the kind of beliefs encompassed by the term “religion or belief.” The plain language of the Declaration, which speaks in Article 1 of “freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of his choice,” and the work undertaken during the drafting of the Declaration, make it clear that the Declaration extends to theistic, nontheistic, and atheistic beliefs. Therefore, freedom of religion includes freedom not to have a religion.

The second matter relates to the terms intolerance and discrimination. There does not appear to be a clear distinction between these words in ordinary usage. To the extent that there is a distinction between them it is probably that the term intolerance is used in one of two senses: first, to describe what we often call “prejudices”—irrational attitudes toward other individuals or groups; and, second, to describe outbreaks of hostile behavior toward such persons or groups because of such attitudes. Examples of such hostile behavior might be attacking these persons or groups physically, or by verbal abuse, or by symbolic means such as burning crosses or painting offensive signs. Discrimination, on the contrary, has come to have a more technical meaning describing laws or practices that make invidious distinctions between different people on the basis of such characteristics as their race or religion. Article 2 of the 1981 Declaration defines “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief” as though it meant “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.” Unfortunately, having defined the phrase “intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief,” the Declaration does not use it again. Instead, it talks for the most part of “discrimination” and only occasionally of “intolerance.” It is not necessary to resolve exactly what the drafters meant. It is necessary to state explicitly that this article argues that the Declaration, and the domestic laws and practices that it contemplates in nation-states, should aim to eradicate both legal discrimination in a technical sense and the attitudes that foster it. It is apparent that techniques that solve one aspect of the problem may not solve others. In addition, it is easier to legislate changes in discriminatory patterns of behavior than to change attitudes—as the history of civil rights laws in many countries indicates. While the law has some deterrent or educative effects, it needs to be used in concert with other educational techniques.

[Page 22] Specific Steps for Giving
Immediate Effect to the Declaration

MUCH of the task of protecting and promoting the rights contained in the Declaration requires long-term institution-building. Some immediate steps that might be taken are, however, suggested by the language of the Declaration itself. These include both legislative and administrative steps.

Reexamination of Legislation. Whatever other measures a country takes to combat discrimination or intolerance on the grounds of religion or belief, it must clean its legislative house. Article 4, paragraph 2, of the 1981 Declaration puts it bluntly: “All States shall make all efforts to enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit any such discrimination, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance on the grounds of religion or belief in this matter.” Article 7, moreover, provides that the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration shall be accorded in national legislation in such a manner that all people shall be able to avail themselves of such rights and freedoms in practice. The duty is both to create new laws wherever necessary and to repeal or amend old ones that conflict with the goals of the Declaration. Getting the written law into conformity with the Declaration is not the only step that needs to be taken, but it is a necessary one and a logical first step.

The time is ripe for all countries to be encouraged to review their laws in light of the Declaration. How such a review—a great national debate if you will—might take place will vary from nation to nation. In some localities it might be done under the auspices of a ministry of religion or a ministry of justice. Others have a full- or part-time law revision commission that functions in a nonpolitical manner to study ways in which the law needs to be brought up to date. Yet others have a human rights commission, an antidiscrimination board, an appropriate committee of the legislature, or the like that can be given the necessary resources (including adequate research staff) for such a study. Jurisdictions without such permanent institutions might create an ad hoc committee or commission with the necessary status and resources to carry out its review. Depending upon how a particular country organizes its governmental functions, in particular how matters that affect religion are allocated between national and regional or local authorities, it may be necessary to encourage different levels of government to engage in a review of their own situations.

A very useful example of such a study carried out at the state rather than the federal level is the excellent 1984 Report of the Anti-Discrimination Board of the Australian State of New South Wales, entitled Discrimination and Religious Conviction (hereafter referred to as the New South Wales Report).

The task of carrying out such a study is not an easy one. Many categories of laws touch on questions of religion or belief. The following is a partial list of areas that may need to be examined:

Accommodation and Housing

Broadcasting and Television

Charities

Clubs and other Voluntary Associations

Educational Requirements

Employment

Health

Marriage and the Family

Meat Slaughtering

Medical Treatment

Religious Practices and Organizations

There is also the question of limitations on rights. Article 1 of the 1981 Declaration provides that freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, [Page 23] or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. This is very general language, and care must be taken to ensure that the limitations on freedoms do not swallow up the freedoms themselves. Mr. Krishnaswami has reminded us in his Study that

Primarily, public authorities have to ensure that the freedom of everyone to maintain or change his religion or belief is not impaired. Secondarily, they must ensure as widely as possible the freedom of everyone to manifest his religion or belief, either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private. In this connexion they must see to it that any limitation imposed upon that freedom is exceptional; that it is confined within the narrowest possible bounds; that it is prescribed by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society; and that it is not exercised in a manner contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

The greatest care must be taken during the reconsideration of legislation to ensure that restrictions are drawn as narrowly as possible.

Reexamination of legislation is also a salutary educational experience for all involved in the process. The members of a government department, committee, or commission charged with the task will be forced to confront, perhaps for the first time, standards contained in such sources as the 1981 Declaration, the Krishnaswami Study, and the forthcoming study by Mrs. Odio Benito. Religious and other groups affected by potential change in the law will find it necessary to articulate deeply held feelings in such a way as to try to influence the course of events. Moreover, they will find it necessary to work with others similarly situated or even with groups that appear at first sight to have goals that are diametrically opposed to theirs. Many of them will thus gain a greater understanding and appreciation of the needs of others. Legislators and their constituents can be expected to have their consciousness raised as the fruits of the reexamination are considered by the legislative body. It will not necessarily be a painless process.

Reexamination of Administrative Practices and Staff Training. What the law in the books says does not necessarily represent the law in action, because a wide range of officials, particularly those delivering services to the public, dealing with justice and law enforcement, and providing education or youth services, local government employees, and those in charge of personnel matters engage in activities that wittingly or unwittingly can impinge upon religious sensitivities. Some of the problems at the administrative level can be eradicated only case by case through complaint procedures such as those discussed in later sections of this study or by the gradual results of education. But the prudent administrative supervisor can make an effort to become aware of and to deal with many aspects of the problem—such as shoddy treatment of members of certain religious groups by minor officials, or practical obstacles placed in the way of members of minority religious groups who object to swearing an oath or insist on making a promise to tell the truth in a particular fashion when they appear in court. Such practices can be dealt with by appropriate managerial action. By the same token, reasonable accommodation can be made for religious observances—like the offering of prayer at a particular time of the day or the celebration of holidays and days of rest—if there is a modicum of sensitivity and managerial skill. Managerial action, such as instructions in operating manuals, is one way to approach the subject. Another is by the staff training model. An important feature of the Geneva Conventions is the attempt to institutionalize them by including the Conventions [Page 24] as a subject in military training. The principles of the 1981 Declaration can be institutionalized similarly by inclusion in staff-training materials and on-the-job reference materials.

As in the case of a reexamination of legislation, a reexamination of administrative practices can have a significant educational effect on those involved in the process. Furthermore, it is not only in the public sector that such questions arise; similar techniques of administration and training apply to any enterprise. But the public service is a good place to start to set an example that may be followed in other enterprises.

Institutions for Protection from
Unlawful Governmental Acts

WHILE a reexamination of legislation and of administrative practices and staff training is necessary in eliminating intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, it is also necessary to ensure the existence of institutions to protect and promote the freedom of religion or belief. For analytical purposes a distinction can be drawn between institutions of protection and those of promotion, bearing in mind the admonition of the Secretary-General that

Although they are widely used, the concepts of “promotion” and “protection” of human rights have not been precisely defined in the United Nations debates or resolutions. The Secretary-General has broadly understood “promotional institutions” as those which aim at defining the scope of human rights through normative action as well as all policies and measures intended to increase awareness of human rights and to facilitate their full realization through the provision of a variety of services and benefits. Institutions have been regarded as aiming primarily at the “protection” of human rights whenever they appear to focus upon measures to prevent or sanction violations of human rights. While this distinction has been found useful for the clarity of the study, the Secretariat is aware of the essential interdependence between the two types of institutions. The dual purposes (promotion/protection) of many institutions and the misleading character of excessive categorization have been kept in mind. . . .

This section and the next discuss methods of protection, modes of enforcing positive law against intolerance of religion or belief. Since the most appropriate modes of protection might sometimes differ, depending upon whether the government or a private actor is involved, institutions for protection from unlawful governmental acts are discussed separately from those for protection from unlawful nongovernmental acts.

Legislative, Executive, and Administrative Institutions. Fundamental to the 1981 Declaration is an appreciation that a state that practices religious freedom will, as has been noted earlier, have its legislative and administrative house in order. In some cases this will mean appropriate constitutional provisions; in others ordinary legislation will suffice. In those countries in which ratified treaties become part of domestic law, ratification of the human-rights covenants (such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights) may make the relevant provisions of those documents part of the pertinent legal structure. In addition, administrative practices and instructions need to be brought into line. The whole edifice requires supervisory machinery including legislative oversight committees; individual legislators acting in a watchdog capacity; democratic controls such as regular elections and the right to address petitions to the legislature; informal investigative and dispute-settlement institutions such as interdepartmental monitoring committees, a procurator-general, an [Page 25] ombudsman, or a médiateur; and the control of the ordinary or administrative courts. Since persecuted religious groups are often minorities, special attention needs to be given to the protection of minorities. The system also needs to give protection to courageous officials who criticize governmental failings from within the system and to human-rights monitors who criticize them from outside. But legislative, executive, and administrative institutions are not enough to ensure the absence of discrimination based on religion or belief.

Judicial and Quasijudicial Institutions. Article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that all persons have the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights guaranteed them by the constitution or by law. The ordinary courts, or special constitutional courts, are specially relevant to claims by individuals or other legal persons that their rights have been denied. Often such claims will constitute test cases or class actions that affect the interests of many others than the immediate parties to the litigation. Available judicial remedies will differ in different legal systems. In countries that have followed the French system, review is the responsibility of administrative tribunals that are distinct from the ordinary judiciary. In countries following the Anglo-American common law system, judicial review is based primarily in the ordinary courts, although sometimes in practice judges of those courts are assigned to administrative law cases, thus enabling them to gain expertise in the area.

Whatever the particular legal system, there are some fundamental questions that have to be considered concerning the powers of courts in dealing with breaches of such human rights as religious freedom. Can the courts nullify the actions of the legislature itself by applying constitutional principles to legislative action? Can the courts nullify the actions of the executive or of independent administrative agencies? If they can, can they simply impose their own view, or must the legislature or executive be given another opportunity to act lawfully? Can a court require that the executive take a particular line of action (grant a “mandatory injunction” as it is called in some jurisdictions)? Can a court award damages against the state or its subdivisions? Can it award damages against individual public servants? Are there criminal sanctions that may be imposed or other disciplinary actions that may be taken against public servants responsible for illegal acts in denying freedom of religion or belief?

At the 1978 Seminar on National Institutions Mrs. Erica-Irene Daes of Greece referred to a crucial feature of the effective operation of review by judicial or quasijudicial institutions: Judges and other members of tribunals should be independent. To ensure their independence they should be provided with sufficient remuneration, security of tenure, and an adequate staff.

Independent Mediators, the Ombudsman, the Procurator, Human Rights Commissions, and Similar Institutions. Not all complaints concerning denials of freedom of religion or belief warrant the formality and expense of adjudication in the courts. Some complaints may, moreover, be more susceptible to informal settlement aimed at persuading public servants that they have made a mistake and that they should change their position rather than ordering them to take a particular line of action. Hence it is useful to examine institutions designed in response to such considerations.

The ombudsman system originated in Scandinavia and is now found in several other countries. It has sometimes been regarded as primarily a Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon institution that is not relevant to the civil-law countries with their developed system of [Page 26] administrative law. However, in 1973 France created the office of Médiateur based on the ombudsman model. Similarly, a 1975 statute created the office of Ombudsman in Portugal, which became an institution protected by the fundamental law in the new 1976 Portuguese Constitution. Spain has also created a similar office, the Defender of the People. A few countries, such as Tanzania and Zambia, have collegial bodies that function similarly to a single ombudsman with respect to complaints.

The ombudsman is a public official, usually elected by the legislature for a term of years but eligible for reelection, who receives complaints from citizens about denials of rights by the state or other public authority. Complaints normally come from individual complainants, but in some countries the complaint must be forwarded to the ombudsman by a member of the legislature, who will usually be acting on behalf of a constituent. This is, for example, the normal pattern in France. The ombudsman or médiateur normally has full access to relevant government files. Typically, the ombudsman is not empowered to order the government officials concerned to take particular action. Because of the statute of the office, however, he or she has enormous powers of persuasion backed by the ultimate sanction of the power to publish a report that might prove embarrassing to the officials concerned or to the policy-makers who are responsible for their actions. In practice the vast majority of the ombudsman’s suggestions are followed.

The system of the procurator as an independent mediator has been adopted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. The primary function of the procurator is to safeguard and protect the lawful rights of citizens at all levels of administration. Any citizen may lodge a complaint with the procurator concerning a breach of legality or an infringement of his or her rights or interests. As Professor V. Kudryavtsev explained in his unpublished background paper for the 1978 United Nations Seminar on National and Local Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights:

If a procurator finds that a breach of legality has been committed, he is entitled to make a representation or protest to the appropriate body, calling for the annulment of the unlawful act or the cancellation of the breach of law. The law also gives procurators the right to institute disciplinary, administrative, substantive or criminal proceedings against persons guilty of breaches of the law. The type of liability naturally depends upon the nature and gravity of the breach of the law.

Tasks analogous to those of the ombudsman or procurator are performed in various Latin American countries by the Ministerio Publico.

In addition, human-rights commissions and similar bodies may act in much the same way as an ombudsman in dealing with complaints of religious intolerance within the administration. A commission, of course, is a collegial body with collective responsibility as opposed to the ombudsman who normally acts on his own responsibility. For example, the New Zealand Human Rights Commission established under the Human Rights Commission Act in 1977 to “promote the advancement of human rights in New Zealand in general accordance with the United Nations International Covenants on Human Rights” has power to consider complaints relating [Page 27] to discrimination on the basis of religious or ethical belief. The Canadian Human Rights Commissions have similar jurisdiction.

Political Institutions, Parties, and Party Groups. Yet another significant way of ensuring freedom of religion or belief, as well as other human rights, is through an open party system, with freedom of the press and an educated public opinion.

Institutions in the Field of Development. Developing countries in particular find it necessary to create institutions aimed at the removal of inequality and poverty and at the promotion more generally of economic, social, and cultural rights. In the planning of such activities it is necessary to bring into the process all sections of society including minority (especially disadvantaged minority) religious groups. There is both a positive and a negative side to this issue. On the positive side, such groups may be the ones most in need of developmental assistance. On the negative side, their interests may be fundamentally affected in a destructive fashion by such activities. For example, many religious groups have a worldview that accords special status to the land or have burial sites or other places of great spiritual significance in what others might regard as vacant or wilderness areas. Such religious attitudes need to be accommodated in some reasonable way when the further exploitation of national resources is being considered.

Legal and Social Aid Arrangements. A final method for ensuring freedom of religion or belief involves legal and social aid. For judicial and quasijudicial review functions adequately only in a system where citizens involved in disputation with the government concerning freedom of religion are able to have their cases professionally presented by a competent and independent lawyer. In many instances this means that free legal aid must be provided, either by the country itself, or by means of privately subscribed funds, or by lawyers and legal associations that recognize a public duty to engage in a reasonable amount of free, pro bono (for the public good) work. Many countries have special schemes funded from national or local taxes to provide free legal aid in both criminal and civil matters to those who are unable to afford it themselves.

There are other models for the assistance of people who believe that their rights are suffering in a conflict with the government. In Japan, for example, there are two particularly interesting institutions, the Administrative Management Agency and the Civil Liberties Bureau of the Ministry of Justice.

The Administrative Management Agency was created in 1948 as an adjunct of the Prime Minister’s Office to examine the operations of national administrative organs and other agencies that serve as delegates of the national government or are subsidized by it. It was given wide inspection powers with the object not so much of making accusations based on past fault but with improving future efficiency. In practice the agency found that an important source of relevant information came from citizens with complaints, and it developed a very important role in resolving those complaints.

The Civil Liberties Bureau of the Ministry of Justice was also created in 1948, in the words of the Ministry of Justice Establishment Law, Art. 11, to “investigate and collect information concerning cases involving violation of human rights.” In addition to fulltime officials from the Ministry, the work is carried out by several thousand unpaid Civil Liberties Commissioners, local citizens whose task is both to report on violations and to help create a climate in which rights are respected.

The nongovernmental sector also has an important role to play in the process. Voluntary human-rights organizations (including particular religious organizations or coalitions of religious organizations, trade unions, and youth organizations) can advise people of [Page 28] their rights and enable them to use courts or other complaint mechanisms by providing legal and financial assistance. A number of religious groups have legal offices as part of their administrative structure, somewhat akin to legal offices in a government department or corporation counsel’s office in the corporate world. Such offices exist not only to deal with legal issues affecting the organization itself but also to provide support to those of other faiths who have legal difficulties. In legal systems that permit the filing of amicus curiae (friend of the court) materials in court proceedings, such legal offices are often able to make their views and support known in that fashion in cases involving other religions.

In addition to the work of legal offices of religious organizations, there is the work of nonreligious human-rights organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, that are able to finance or assist in the prosecution of suits involving issues affecting religion or belief.

Not all “legal-aid” work need involve a litigation model. Lawyers have professional skills that can be used in drafting proposed legislation, in commenting on legislation drafted by others, in lobbying concerning it, in making formal presentations before legislative committees, and in providing material for press conferences or other modes of public debate.

Institutions for Protection from
Unlawful Nongovernmental Actions

LEGISLATIVE, Executive, and Administrative Institutions. Legislation, including laws of constitutional dimension, may be just as important in dealing with intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief in the private sector as it is in dealing with governmental actions. The role of legislative oversight bodies, of petition procedures, or of individual members of the legislature is likely to be minimal, however, because it is not the executive whose actions are being complained about. There may be some scope for such bodies. Consider the corporation with large government contracts (say to build schools or even bombs) that discriminates against its workers on the basis of religion or belief. Pressure for change might well be brought through legislative committees or individual legislators, who might insist that the executive either require the elimination of such discrimination or refuse further contracts to the corporation concerned. A procurator or ombudsman might be able to bring similar pressures. In extreme cases public prosecutors will need to seek criminal sanctions. But, on the whole, private examples of intolerance will require different modes of control, such as those suggested in later parts of this section.

Judicial and Quasijudicial Institutions. In many societies it is not legislation but the courts—civil, and even penal—that are the main instruments for protecting rights involving religion or belief from nongovernmental abuses. Those claiming abuses may find it necessary to sue for damages or for declaratory and injunctive relief. They may even find it necessary to invoke criminal prosecution in legal systems where it is possible for private parties (as opposed to the state) to do so. States need to consider when they are reexamining their legislation whether such actions should proceed in the ordinary courts or whether a specialized tribunal dealing with human rights issues in general or with matters of religion or belief in particular should be created. A case can be made that a special tribunal would develop superior expertise in dealing with a very difficult area. Others might maintain that the problems involved are just the kind of problems that the regular court system has to face every day in other areas and that there is no need for any specialized jurisdiction to deal with them.

Independent Mediators, Human Rights Conciliators, Human Rights Commissions, and the [Page 29] Like. Another method for protecting rights involving religion or belief involves the use of independent mediators, human rights conciliators, human-rights commissions, and the like. However, none of the existing institutions of ombudsman has been given jurisdiction, as ombudsman, to deal with disputes between private citizens as opposed to those between citizen and state. But in the race relations area and in the general human rights area, the notion of an independent mediator, or group of mediators such as a commission, whose function is to try to negotiate a settlement between the parties has taken hold in some countries. In New Zealand, for example, the Race Relations Act of 1971 provides for the appointment of a Race Relations Conciliator whose principal functions are (a) to investigate, either on complaint made by any person or on his or her own motion, any act or omission or any practice that appears to constitute discrimination by reason of the color, race, or ethnic or national origins of any person and (b) to act as conciliator in relation to any such act, omission, or practice. The conciliator’s investigation takes place in private. If it is concluded that any unlawful discrimination has occurred, he or she is required to attempt to secure a settlement between the parties concerned. If it is appropriate, the conciliator tries to obtain an assurance against the repetition of the proscribed conduct. Should the conciliator’s efforts fail, the law permits proceedings to be taken in the regular courts. Every effort is made to resolve the problem in an informal way; but, if all else fails, there is ultimate resort to the courts. The New Zealand Human Rights Commission Act of 1977, mentioned earlier, made discrimination unlawful in certain areas based on sex, marital status, religion, or ethical belief. In such cases a Commission of not more than seven persons (whose membership includes a Chief Human Rights Commissioner, the Chief Ombudsman or another Ombudsman designated by him, the Race Relations Conciliator, and up to three other Commissioners) functions in much the way the Race Relations Conciliator does under the 1971 Act. If their efforts fail, or if the complainant is dissatisfied with them, civil proceedings lie before a special tribunal called the Equal Opportunities Tribunal; a quasijudicial body that normally holds its hearings in public. There are certain rights of appeal to the Administrative Division of the High Court.

In the New Zealand model there is an interesting range of possibilities—two kinds of informal conciliatory body (one a single commissioner, the other a several-member collegial commission); a special quasijudicial tribunal; and, finally, the regular courts, but in this case a specialized division of the court of general jurisdiction with particular expertise in the administrative law area.

The work of race relations commissions in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States may also prove instructive.

Legal and Social Aid Arrangements. What has been said earlier about legal and social aid arrangements applies as much to religious intolerance in the private sector as it does to such intolerance in the public sector. The roles of the legal profession, including the provision of legal services to those who cannot afford them, and the roles of support by religious groups (by coalitions of such groups or by nondenominational human rights organizations and of trade union and youth groups) are of inestimable importance.

Promotional Institutions

WHILE institutions for protection from unlawful nongovernmental acts operate mainly in a “protective mode” by dealing with allegations of violations, promotional institutions look to the future and to dealing with the totality of a situation in a particular country.

Educational Institutions. A very good summary of the role of educational institutions in the promotion of human rights in general was provided by Ms. Leah Levin of the United Kingdom at the 1978 Seminar on National and Local Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Her summary applies accurately to rights involving freedom of religion or belief:

[Page 30]

Methods, contents and curricula for human rights education must be developed and should be adapted to national and regional realities. Thus human rights education should be part of primary and secondary school curricula and an essential component of teacher training and also of school education. At university level it is conceived as both part of the teaching of separate disciplines as well as a separate course. Non-governmental organizations, trade unions, churches, play an important role in the field of adult education. An alert and educated public opinion and the involvement of the private citizen are basic elements in the promotion of human rights. Human rights education should be provided for special professional groups and particularly in the law enforcement sector. Special courses should be included in police and military training. Military training should also include human rights education. Special attention in this field should also be paid towards protecting and promoting the rights of victims exposed to discrimination. These are areas that require both special national and local institutions. Literacy is an essential basis and the promotion of literacy through national and international institutions is a high priority.

During the discussion of this item at the 1978 Seminar, the point was also made that professional groups have a responsibility for developing codes of ethics for their own professions and for making them widely known, especially as part of the continuing education of the group.

UNESCO material, such as the Recommendation concerning Education for International Understanding, Co-operation and Peace and Education relating to Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms adopted by the UNESCO General Conference in 1974 and the Final Report of the International Congress on the Teaching of Human Rights sponsored by UNESCO and held in Vienna from 12 to 16 September 1978, emphasizes the broad dimensions of the educational issue along the lines also discussed at the 1978 United Nations Seminar. For example, the 1974 Recommendation notes the need for action in various sectors of education—primary, secondary, postsecondary, and technical. Stressing that “fundamental attitudes, such as, for example, attitudes on race [and the same surely applies to religion or belief] are often formed in the pre-school years,” the Recommendation suggests that the preschool level “should be designed and organized as a social environment having its own character and value, in which various situations, including games, will enable children to become aware of their rights, to assert themselves freely while accepting their responsibilities, and to improve and extend through direct experience their sense of belonging to larger and larger communities—the family, the school, then the local, national and world communities.” Teachers should be properly prepared to deal with intolerance of religion and belief, and educational material should be carefully scrutinized to be sure that it does not foster misunderstanding, hatred, or distrust. Furthermore, research and international collaboration on issues of intolerance should be stimulated.

Many kinds of teaching aids need to be produced to deal sensitively with the matter of intolerance based on religion or belief; films, pamphlets, videotaped role plays all have a part to play. Even radio talk-back shows can be used in the necessary educational process.

One important way in which some religious groups in Europe and North America [Page 31] have already stimulated efforts in this area is by self-study of their teaching materials for negative stereotypes or other derogatory attitudes toward people of a different religious persuasion. More of this needs to be done. Careful self-study on a voluntary basis is likely to succeed where confrontational complaints by outsiders might only breed greater defensiveness. Another model of activity that might be helpful is meetings of teachers and above all of students at the institutions of learning that are maintained by the various religions. Joint courses might even be organized among such institutions. Contacts forged in such a setting where a maximum effort is made at understanding could be of considerable value to the future relations of various religious groups.

Human Rights Committees, Commissions, Boards, and the Like. In addition to educational institutions concerned with freedom of religion or belief, many countries already have in place national, state, or local commissions, committees, boards, or similar bodies operating in the human rights area, usually with a great deal of autonomy from the government. In some countries such bodies have a broad mandate to deal with all human rights as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants on Human Rights. In others the mandate is limited to dealing with civil and political rights only. In many countries such bodies have been created to deal solely with questions of race relations and racial discrimination. Among such institutions are the Australian federal Human Rights Commission, the Australian Commissioner for Community Relations, and the state of New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board; the Canadian federal Human Rights Commission and the various commissions existing in each Canadian province; the German Democratic Republic Committee on Human Rights; the National Human Rights Committee of Iraq; the New Zealand Human Rights Commission and Race Relations Conciliator; the Nicaraguan National Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights; the United Kingdom Race Relations Board and the more recently created Commission for Racial Equality; and the United States Civil Rights Commission. The experience of such bodies and the discussion of that experience within the United Nations provides many models for state and local action in the present context of freedom of religion or belief. A particularly stimulating discussion of the Canadian experience is contained in Discrimination and the Law in Canada, by Walter Tarnopolsky, a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

In its Resolution 23 (XXXIV) of 8 March 1978 entitled National Institutions in the Field of Human Rights, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights invited member states, within the framework of their national legislation and policy and according to their available means, to set up national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights. An annex to this resolution suggested some possible functions which could be performed by such institutions:

(a) Act as a source of relevant information for the Government of a Member State and for the people of that country regarding matters connected with human rights;

(b) Assist in the education of public opinion towards an awareness of, and respect for human rights;

(c) Consider, deliberate upon and make recommendations, within their specified terms of reference, regarding any particular state of affairs that may exist nationally that the Government may wish to refer to them;

(d) Advise on any questions regarding human rights referred to them from time to time by their national Government;

(e) Study and keep under review the status of legislation, judicial decisions and administrative arrangements for the promotion [Page 32] of human rights, and prepare and submit, in this connexion, periodic reports at prescribed intervals to the appropriate authorities designated by the Government of the Member State concerned;

(f) Perform any function which the Government of a Member State may wish to assign to them in connexion with its duties under those international conventions in the field of human rights to which it is a party.

Obviously such functions can be useful for combating intolerance based on religion or belief, whether carried out by a general human rights institution or by one having jurisdiction limited to the area of religion or belief.

At the 1978 Seminar a number of very helpful guidelines were suggested specifying in more detail what some of these functions might entail. The following paragraphs, focusing specifically on what might be done in relation to religious intolerance under each of the six categories (a) through (f) indicated in Resolution 23 (XXXIV), were suggested by a consideration of the guidelines directly relevant to religion and belief.

(a) National institutions as a source of information. First, institutions might sponsor national, regional, or local conferences as a part of fact-gathering concerning religious intolerance and as a method of disseminating information to specific audiences.

Second, such bodies might collect, compile, and disseminate information concerning religious freedom, laws, and judicial decisions relating to it and various procedures available for its promotion and protection. The right to know one’s rights is a subject that is becoming increasingly discussed in international forums. One example of the way in which this might be done is by having the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief translated into the local language where that has not already been done. Rights should be made known in clear, intelligible words in the language of the target audience, or in one understood by it.

Third, national institutions should, within the framework of their constitution and competence, receive complaints and information concerning intolerance of religion or belief directly from any source, individual, or group, and there should be no restrictions on submissions to them. Free access to information is absolutely essential to the proper functioning of national institutions.

Fourth, institutions should receive and disseminate information concerning religious intolerance using appropriate and impartial mass communication and press facilities.

Fifth, national institutions should publish and submit periodic reports of their activities, findings, and recommendations in the field of religious intolerance to national authorities, including the results of inquiries and investigations conducted, remedial or other actions secured, and cases and decisions relating to religious intolerance during the relevant period.

(b) Assistance in the education of public opinion. First, national institutions should ensure that persons are made aware of their rights and those of others and should assist them in the matter of protection and enforcement of their rights.

Second, national institutions should mobilize public opinion in their countries against gross and massive violations of human rights, wherever they may occur, and in particular against the practices of apartheid, racism, genocide, and large-scale violations of freedom of religion or belief.

Third, national institutions should play a prominent role in the implementation of educational programs concerning human rights in the spirit of the principles formulated in the Final Document of the International Congress on the Teaching of Human Rights, held by UNESCO in Vienna, 12-16 September [Page 33] 1978. To this end they should make a special effort to provide a wide dissemination of this and other pertinent documents.

Fourth, national institutions should actively promote and assist in advancing education on freedom of religion or belief at all levels, to ensure that such teaching is made part of the curricula of all formal educational institutions and informal out-of-school education. National, regional, and local programs should be sponsored by national institutions to relate religious freedom to everyday life and to provide basic education on the relevant law to citizens. Special courses should be promoted for professional groups, particularly civilian and military law enforcement personnel.

Fifth, systematic programs of education and research by national institutions should include measures to change attitudes detrimental to the protection of human rights including freedom of religion or belief. Elimination of discrimination and prejudice should be among the objects of such programs.

(c) Consideration of any state of affairs referred to them by the government. First, national institutions should include independent fact-finding agencies established by law. They should be authorized, within the framework of their constitution and competence, to investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their basic rights.

Second, national institutions should be authorized, within the framework of their constitution and competence, to apply concrete remedies to individual cases of human rights violations.

Third, competent national institutions, while discharging their functions of fact-finding, conciliation, or redress, should be empowered, in the conduct of their inquiry, with due process of law, into any matter affecting human rights at the national level, to summon witnesses and have access to relevant evidence.

(d) Advising on questions referred to them by the national government. First, national institutions, within the framework of their constitution and competence, should make periodic reviews of legislative and administrative systems in order to suggest appropriate improvements relevant to the promotion of religious freedom.

Second, national institutions should promote improvements in procedures for the protection of human rights in the context of established judicial procedures.

Third, national institutions should be readily accessible and should play a prominent role in a consultative capacity on all matters affecting religious freedom at the national level.

(e) Studying and keeping under review the status of legislation, judicial decisions, and administrative arrangements for the promotion of freedom of religion or belief. First, national institutions should study legal developments and review the laws and policies of the national government with respect to discrimination on grounds of religion or belief.

Second, national institutions should promote the incorporation in national constitutions of provisions concerning freedom of religion or belief.

Third, national institutions should promote legal safeguards against arbitrary derogation from constitutional provisions in a state of emergency.

Fourth, national institutions should promote protection for the rights of persons belonging to vulnerable groups such as indigenous peoples; national, ethnic, or linguistic minorities; or migrant workers and their families. Difficulties with freedom of religion or belief are especially likely to arise in such cases.

(f) Performing functions in respect of international instruments. First, national institutions should assist the national government in the task of preparing reports required by the international community under the reporting systems envisaged by the various international instruments of human rights. This will typically mean examining the situation with regard to the application of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this respect the 1981 Declaration, adopted without dissent in the General Assembly, may be regarded as an authoritative, concrete interpretation by the General Assembly [Page 34] of the obligations contained in the religious freedom provisions of the covenant and should be given considerable weight as national compliance is being examined. The national institution could also assist in ensuring that the national reports made under such treaties as the covenants are published within the country so that appropriate debate on them may be stimulated.

Second, national institutions should facilitate research designed to bring national legislation and practice into conformity with the standards specified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1981 Declaration, and the international covenants, insofar as these affect rights involving religion or belief.

The 1978 Seminar also approved important guidelines concerning the structure of national institutions, designed to ensure broad representation and impartiality, which merit further consideration in the context of religious intolerance:

National institutions should be so designed as to bring all parts of the population into the decision-making process in regard to human rights.

National institutions on human rights should be statutory authorities or bodies created within and subject to the constitutions and laws of respective Member States.

National institutions, within the constitution and laws of Member States, should be established as autonomous, impartial, statutory bodies.

Membership of national institutions should reflect in its composition wide cross-sections of the public.

Appointment of such national institutions should be for a fixed term, and persons so appointed will not be removed arbitrarily or without good cause.

National institutions should be adequately staffed in order to enable effective discharge of their statutory functions.

National institutions should function regularly and should make adequate provision for immediate access to them by any member of the public or public authority.

National institutions should, in appropriate cases, have local or regional advisory organs to assist them in discharging their functions. Whenever practicable, these bodies should issue publicly available reports to the national institutions.

Wherever practicable, national institutions should be established as local or regional organs comprising persons familiar with local problems.

Nongovernmental Organizations. A wide range of nongovernmental organizations has a role to play in promotional efforts involving freedom of religion or belief—religious groups, human rights groups, and educational groups in particular. While much of what may be said in this section overlaps what has been said earlier about educational institutions, many new points can be made.

At the 1978 Seminar on National and Local Institutions the view was expressed that one of the main responsibilities of nongovernmental organizations is to contribute to public consciousness and awareness of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as elaborated in national and international instruments. It was also pointed out that in a number of countries legal aid is provided by nongovernmental groups that, in addition, seek to focus attention on the existence of remedial aid for those who need it.

The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board’s Report, mentioned previously, asserts that

It is a matter of some concern that there is no non-government organization in New South Wales primarily concerned with religious freedom. . . . Many of the minority religious groups that made submissions to the Board have done so on an individual basis, concerned principally with the particular [Page 35] problems that have beset their group.

In the opinion of the authors of the report

There is a need, therefore, for a vocal non-government organization with a wide representation, from both minority and mainstream religious groups and other interested groups and individuals, which would be concerned with the general issue of religious freedom and which would contribute to unbiased and informed public awareness about religious groups and the maintenance of civil liberties.

The hope was expressed that the publication of the report itself would stimulate the formation of such a group within the community. One might hope for a similar impact in some countries from the promulgation of the 1981 Declaration. There is much material in the literature of nongovernmental organizations concerning the importance of “networking” or “coalition building” on issues of common concern. Religious groups and nonsectarian human rights organizations have an enormous stake in the religious freedom of what might appear to them to be fringe groups. One is reminded of the words attributed to Pastor Martin Niemoeller, a victim of the Nazis:

In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.

One of the most important ways in which many religious groups have tried to prevent and to fight intolerance is by engaging with other groups in what is often called “constructive dialogue.” There are many possible models for dialogue that have proved beneficial. A typical model involves an honest exploration of the common ground and the differences between those of different persuasions. The object is to explain, to understand, but not to try to convert others. Diversity is seen by this model as an accepted fact. By engaging in dialogue one reaffirms one’s own identity but seeks a greater unity in diversity. Diversity can be a source of strength; it need not lead to discrimination and intolerance.

One immediately beneficial result of dialogue is that the groups concerned might agree to work on, or make joint statements concerning, social or human rights issues of particular concern to each of them, such as refugees, hunger, peace, or self-determination. While such results may not necessarily occur, should they do so, they may lead to further understanding. It is also possible that some continuing structure of cooperation and discussion may be created—a commission, a committee, a secretariat. Again this is not necessary but may be useful. For example, such a structure could serve both as an early warning system for difficulties that might be arising between various religious communities and as a forum to deal with the difficulties should they come to pass.

Dialogue can and should take place at various levels, involving figures in the organized hierarchy of religious bodies that have a hierarchical structure, or involving laypeople at the lowest grass-roots level of the system. The understanding that emerges is hard won; creation of a favorable climate requires much time and the good faith efforts of many people.

Among the other efforts on which nongovernmental organizations might work are the following: first, the celebration of commemorative days such as 25 November, the date of the adoption of the 1981 Declaration; second, the holding of international, national, and local conferences on intolerance of religion [Page 36] or belief; and third, encouraging professional bodies such as universities and associations of lawyers, anthropologists, social psychologists, and community relations specialists to engage in relevant activities including conferences and research. Universities might be encouraged to create special departments or prestigious professorships devoted to a study of the issues.

The Print and Electronic Media. A final promotional institution of great significance is the print and electronic media. Ignorance, misinformation, and downright prejudice may be generated as a result of the way in which the print, radio, and television media approach those having an unusual religion, or none. Attitudes of intolerance may be created by the choice of what is reported, by the choice of what is not reported, by the way in which the material is presented, by the repetition of stereotypes, whether verbally or through cartoon caricatures, or by the photographs used to accompany a story.

Dealing with the problem may require a mixture of voluntary action and legal sanction. As a model of voluntary action, there are the codes of ethics promulgated by many journalists’ organizations. Such statements of professional principles require the members not to report dishonestly or with improper emphasis. Where such codes do not presently contain language specifically dealing with religious attitudes, attention should perhaps be given to remedying the omission. The precise language that might be added to such codes as a result of careful study is not important. The crucial thing is that journalists and others associated with the media will surely benefit from the self-analysis involved in such an exercise.

Some countries have voluntary bodies, such as press councils, that act somewhat like a private ombudsman. In response to a complaint made about press coverage of a particular issue, the council will examine the situation and issue a reasoned report expressing its views on the propriety of the coverage in question. The report may result in an apology, an effort to present a different side of the story complained abour, a different attitude for the future—or a vindication of the coverage. The efforts of such councils can be quite salutary in the area of religion or belief.

Then there is the question of regulation of radio and television. Because of the limited size of the available broadcast spectrum, it is normal in most countries for some or all radio and television stations to be run by the state or at least for there to be regulation of access to the air waves. Along with such state control or regulation of access comes an opportunity to manage programing in such a way that an adequate opportunity is provided for the presentation of all views, including religious and a-religious views. There are fine balances to be made between freedom of speech concerns and attempts to make all views known—to say nothing of the question of the suppression of the most virulent propaganda directed against particular groups. But a balance has to be struck.

The use of the civil and criminal law lies at the extreme of dealing with manifestations of intolerance by the electronic and print media and by the written and spoken word in general. What utterances concerning other religions than one’s own should be the subject of the criminal law? Just how far does freedom of speech extend? What speech, if any, should be subject to actions for damages or for other relief such as injunctions to prevent it from happening again? In the criminal law the framework for analysis is often the law of sedition, the law dealing with the incitement of hostility between different groups in the community. Should the criminal law intervene only when there is some immediately apparent danger of violence? Should it try to intervene earlier to eliminate any material that is offensive to adherents of a particular religion? Is the criminal law simply too blunt an instrument for such a task? If defaming a religious group does not presently constitute a crime in a particular jurisdiction, and perhaps even if it does, should a member of that group, or perhaps the group as a legal entity or as a class of persons, be permitted to bring suit for damages? Current laws of defamation [Page 37] in many countries make this very difficult. Should the law be changed in those countries?

The New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board’s Report mentioned earlier dismisses the issue of whether the law should give redress through an expansion of the defamation laws to ethnic or religious groups affected by some adverse and false generalization.

Those in favor of an appropriate extension of the law claimed that the very existence of such a law would discourage defamatory generalizations. (One might argue that such a law would work both as a deterrent and as an educational tool—a statement by the legal system about where it stands on the issue.) Those who did not support a change in the law made various practical arguments: the difficulty of determining who was affected by the statements in question; the danger that the courts would become forums for interracial and interreligious feuding; and waste of the courts’ time in lengthy litigation. The New South Wales Report noted that the Australian Law Reform Commission had been divided on its view of the arguments. The majority of that body preferred to leave the defamation laws alone and to concentrate on dealing with the problems that arise by means of conciliation and education under anti-discrimination legislation. Two members of the Law Reform Commission would have preferred, however, legislation that allowed a member of a group to obtain an order for correction, a declaration, or an injunction from the court, but not damages, when defamation of the group occurred.

Which of these positions is the better one is still a much debated question in Australia. Similar debates might properly occur worldwide.

Conclusion

THE 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief constitutes a significant addition to the international legal standards on human rights that have been developed since the creation of the United Nations in 1945. It is being used by civil rights and religious groups to shape claims against states that do not live up to their international obligations. Moves are afoot at the international level to provide some institutional “teeth”—through the appointment of a “special rapporteur” or a committee that would be charged with receiving complaints of violations and endeavoring to provide redress or conciliation in individual cases. Such moves are important, and efforts of such a nature should be continued. What this essay suggests, however, is that there are many ways on the national level, as well as on the local level, in which the Declaration can be used as a catalyst for change—change in national legal rules, change in administrative practices, and change in the whole climate of religious tolerance. There is no magic about the process—it requires hard work and creativity. What may work in one community may fail dismally in another. But discussing possibilities, it is hoped, will stimulate both some discussion of possible techniques that may succeed and an effort by the activists in the field to try some of them.

[Page 38]

Where the Soul Goes

Normally,

I wouldn’t speak about this phenomenon

but it’s been re-occuring at closer intervals.

It feels like a parting of my ribs

followed by a silent explosion

resonating emptiness

as when a doctor

presses back the bones

to get at the protected organ

and then takes the organ out.

At first,

I thought love was a cure . . .

a marriage and three children later

has done nothing to close

this embrace with infinity.

Once a man told me

this feeling is my connection with God.

All I know is that God

has something to do with love.

I don’t think there is any getting around it.

As I’ve gotten older, I’ve gotten worse;

my bones have become more elastic,

opening easily.

Love seems to act like the potter’s hands

entering the centered clay,

creating form by increasing space

allowing what must be

the soul

to go where ever the soul goes

once the walls have been drawn back.

—Marlaina Tanny

Copyright © 1988 by Marlaina Tanny

[Page 39]

[Page 40]

[Page 41]

Pioneering Race Unity:
The Chicago Bahá’ís, 1919-39

BY MARK PERRY

Copyright © 1988 by the National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States.

Introduction

IN the nineteenth century the travelers on the Underground Railroad in North America, and the conductors, black or white, serving those fugitives from slavery, sought the promised land and envisioned a future free from bondage. Little did they know, as they struggled in secrecy, that in Persia the Báb, the Prophet-Herald of the Bahá’í Faith, and His companions were sacrificing their lives for the sake of the unity of all the races and that Bahá’u’lláh, the Prophet-Founder of the Bahá’í Faith, had “consented to be bound with chains that mankind” might “be released from its bondage. . . .”

Though in 1863 the Emancipation Proclamation led to the nullification of the legal basis of American slavery, a social and spiritual bondage endured that has held blacks and whites captives until the present day. In 1912 ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Bahá’u’lláh’s appointed successor and interpreter of His writings, addressed this subtle and persistent racism as He traveled throughout the United States and Canada teaching Bahá’u’lláh’s message of closing one’s “eyes to racial differences” and welcoming “all with the light of oneness.”

In the 1920s and 1930s the Chicago Bahá’ís were among the very first religionists in the United States to implement the principle of racial unity and, as a result, to face manifold tribulations from within and without their community. Most other religions of the same era, including the relatively new Mormon Faith and Christian Science, accepted the tradition of racial segregation. Although the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the followers of Father Divine exhibited some evidence of racial integration, theirs was a limited commitment and one that certainly did not encourage interracial marriage. Indeed, Father Divine, a charismatic and dynamic leader, created by the force of his personality a vibrant social and religious community that harbored hundreds of alienated urbanites and ranked as perhaps the most racially integrated American religious group other than the Bahá’ís. Yet he forbade any of his followers to be married. The Communists of Chicago in the 1930s were the closest rival to the Chicago Bahá’ís in the field of race unity, However, theirs was a hesitant and tentative coalition of blacks and whites that fell victim to political strategies and objectives.

As the Chicago Bahá’ís set out in the 1920s to promote race unity, their position was one of four on the race issue—positions ranging from the demand for absolute separation to the ideal of race unity. Together the four approaches to the reform of race relations in the United States elevated the importance of the issue, stimulated receptivity to new ideas, and fostered social change.

From 1919 to 1926 Marcus Garvey led the extremists within the black community—the black nationalists who sought the solution to [Page 42] racial prejudice in black migration from the United States. Garvey espoused the idea of black liberation through complete separation of the races and used it as a political platform that attracted a large following—some thirty thousand at its height—of New York City blacks, but in Chicago only four thousand in 1920 and nine thousand in 1922. “Even at its peak, however, Garveyism never became as potent a force on the South Side [of Chicago] as it was in Harlem,” primarily due to opposition from the powerful black newspaper publisher Robert Abbott, internal schism among the Garveyites, and the opportunity for significant black political participation in Chicago’s city government. Although Garveyism in Chicago “was limited even during its peak years” and “its decline was rapid,” Garvey’s ideology of Negro self-help and integrity was a fundamental contribution to the creation of a positive black identity and has fostered other black social movements in Chicago and elsewhere throughout the twentieth century.

A related, though less extreme, position appeared in the development of positive expressions of black identity. Long before the 1960s, when the slogan “Black is beautiful!” was proclaimed, the poets, novelists, and philosophers of the Harlem Renaissance gave voice, in an unprecedented wave of literary and artistic creativity throughout the 1920s, to the concept of black identity. One of the pillars of the movement was the philosopher and first black Rhodes scholar Alain Locke, who accepted the Bahá’í Faith around 1920. Like the Garvey movement, however, the Harlem Renaissance never flourished in Chicago in the same way it did in New York City, but it indirectly supported a Chicago black cultural expression, whose primary representative, Richard Wright, would not attain prominence until the next generation.

A significant contribution to the formation of black identity throughout the country in the 1920s was the proliferation of newspapers and periodicals produced by and for the black community—one based in Chicago. Prominent among these publications were the journal of the NAACP, Crisis, founded by W. E. B. DuBois in 1910 and edited by him until 1934; the Pittsburgh Courier, founded in 1910 by Robert L. Vann; and the Chicago Defender, founded in 1905 by Robert S. Abbott, a relentless advocate of the rights of blacks and the paper’s owner and editor for over three decades. Although the Courier reached a higher circulation than the Defender, the Defender was the most influential black newspaper of the period.

The third position on the race issue was seen in joint efforts between black and white scholars studying black society. Not only were blacks becoming conscious of their identity in America, but some whites were also becoming sincerely interested in the black community. This interest was not informed with the condescending attitude that regarded black society as a safe, definitive target for national humor and sarcasm. Rather, it was the first real commitment American whites made to investigate black life as it was, not as it was represented by myth or stereotype.

In the late 1890s W. E. B. DuBois conducted the first scholarly study of black American society. Yet when he attempted to continue his research of Negro life and thereby produce one of the first systematic studies of a human group in modern social science, white scholars opposed him, and gradually the door of academia was closed to him entirely.

By the 1920s, however, an inexorable wave of black progress following the Civil War transformed the rejection of serious studies of black society into acceptance. Black illiteracy was reduced from 90 percent in 1863 to 30 percent in 1913, the number of graduating black American college students rose from 7 [Page 43] in the 1840s to 1,613 between 1900 and 1909, blacks gained a voice to advocate their labor rights, and a black cultural expression of such refinement as to be termed a “renaissance” arose.

While the Garvey movement and the Harlem Renaissance failed to influence Chicago directly, the new social-scientific scholarship of the urban black community grew most quickly and strongly in that city. At the University of Chicago a number of black graduate students came under the tutelage of the famed Chicago School of Sociology; as a result, social scholarship by and about American blacks was finally recognized as legitimate. Among the first works black Chicago sociologists produced were studies of Chicago’s black community: The Negro in Chicago (1922), an analysis of the 1919 Chicago race riot conducted by a team of researchers led by Charles S. Johnson; The Negro Family in Chicago (1932) and The Negro Family in the United States (1939) by E. Franklin Frazier; and Black Metropolis (1945) by Horace Cayton and St. Clair Drake.

Although the Chicago School of Sociology advanced the study of blacks in America, Franz Boas, a preeminent anthropologist, made an earlier and perhaps more fundamental contribution to the elimination of the prejudice against blacks within and without American academia. His 1911 treatise The Mind of Primitive Man broke the ground for an enlightened view of humanity as a single race differentiated by culture and not by supposed factors of genetic inferiority and superiority.

The fourth position on race relations, at the opposite pole from separatism and segregation, was the belief in integration and unity. Its influence did not spread over the entire nation but reached limited subgroups of society, particularly in urban areas where progressive ideas were freely exchanged among citizens of diverse cultural, economic, and political backgrounds. Despite the strong and often violent demands for complete separation of the races put forth by white and black minority factions, a sobering influence resulting from the creativity of the Harlem Renaissance and the new black scholarship in the social sciences provided both a positive image of black identity and a basis of cooperation between blacks and whites in their efforts to solve the race question. The Chicago Bahá’ís in the 1920s and 1930s were able to take advantage of this favorable, if fitful, new atmosphere in race relations and to promote, cautiously and gradually, their belief in the unity of the races.

The challenge the Bahá’ís of Chicago faced was not one of absolute segregation. Indeed, contact across the color bar existed and at times even flourished in the city. Moreover, following World War I, Illinois was one of a very few states in which both a large black population resided and in which legal restrictions against interracial marriage had never existed. But what prevailed was an interracial activity restricted to the back reaches of society and covered in the shame of the pariah and the perverse. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s mere socializing of blacks and whites, not to mention interracial marriage, was considered acceptable only in the urban underworld, tucked away in the vice-ridden corners of the city. Interracial contact in Chicago, as in other American cities, was identified with illicit sexual activity. It flouted national mores [Page 44] and, like any other vice, was permissible only insofar as it evaded the ire of the authorities and enjoyed the tolerance of the citizenry. The popular culture of Chicago, and of the entire United States, knew of interracial marriage primarily through the sensationalized, and at times tragic, marriages of the world champion boxer Jack Johnson, who operated an interracial cabaret, the Cafe de Champion, in the city in 1911 and 1912.

In contrast to the negative popular image of interracial contact in society at large, the Bahá’ís of Chicago were upheld in their quest for Bahá’u’lláh’s “light of oneness” by the Bahá’í writings and by the example of Bahá’í life. The talks of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in America, which repeatedly address the issue of race unity, were first published in 1921-22 and 1925 in two volumes under the title The Promulgation of Universal Peace. Louis G. Gregory, a Bahá’í teacher and promoter of race unity; Horace Holley, a Bahá’í administrator; and Stanwood Cobb, a Bahá’í educator, devoted special attention to the race issue in their writings. In 1938 Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, defined in The Advent of Divine Justice the responsibilities of the American Bahá’ís with regard to racism —the “most vital and challenging issue.” Moreover, the way was made clearer by the trailblazing examples of the 1912 interracial marriage of Louis Gregory and Louisa Matthews, which was encouraged by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, and of the interracial Bahá’í teaching efforts of such outstanding workers in race unity as Louis Gregory; Agnes Parsons, a wealthy Bahá’í whom ‘Abdu’l-Bahá asked to promote race unity; Roy Williams, Louis Gregory’s partner in race unity work; and Zia Bagdadi, a leader of race unity work in Chicago.

Just six years after ‘Abdu’l-Bahá visited their city, the Chicago Bahá’í community, foremost among Bahá’í localities of the time, welcomed its first black believer, Georgia M. DeBaptiste Faulkner, who in “1918 had weekly meetings” in her home in Chicago “and very impressive lessons and talks from Bahai members and also noted visiting Bahai friends.” Thus began a difficult and storied career in race unity that by 1939 began to bear the fruits of the spiritual promised land so eagerly sought by the builders and riders of the Underground Railroad.

The Early Efforts

IN JULY 1919 the city of Chicago became embroiled in the worst race riot the nation had ever known. Racial tension that had been mounting across the nation since the end of World War I turned into violence during an altercation at a segregated South Chicago beach between Twenty-Seventh and Twenty-Ninth streets. The conflict escalated to stone throwing between blacks and whites, and indirectly caused the drowning of a seventeen-year-old black youth who had drifted into the white swimming area and was too frightened to swim toward the shore. News of his death spread quickly and fueled a riot that took 537 lives in fourteen days. Several Chicago Bahá’ís, black and white, were directly involved in the turmoil:

One Bahá’í home was bombed, and two members of a Bahá’í family were jailed briefly before the charges against them were dropped. Dr. Zia Bagdadi, a Persian physician in Chicago, was, as a fellow Bahá’í recalled, the one white man who went into the black sections during the riot and brought food to the hungry.

The bombed home at 4404 and 4406 Grand Boulevard (now Martin Luther King [Page 45] Jr. Drive) had been the site of many Bahá’í meetings. It was one of two belonging to Mrs. Mary Byron Clarke and her husband (he is not named in the reports and the telephone directories), both of whom were black. Mr. and Mrs. Clarke themselves were the two people arrested at the instigation of the mob attacking them. After the Clarkes were mobbed during the July 1919 riot, their houses were bombed three times—on 5 January, 12 February, and 13 April 1920—by attackers wishing to push them out of what was a mostly white neighborhood. The assailants may have been particularly aggravated because Mrs. Clarke was a real estate agent. It is not known whether the bombers knew of the Clarkes’ Bahá’í affiliation, although it is doubtful (considering the inconspicuousness of the Bahá’í community) that the Bahá’í principle advocating race unity was public knowledge at that time.

In April 1920 Zia Bagdadi, while on pilgrimage in Haifa, discussed the bombing incidents with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá:

I told him of a letter which I had received from Chicago . . . stating that two houses belonging to colored Bahais had been bombed with dynamite. Abdul-Baha said: “I foretell things before they happen and I write about them before thy occur. The destruction of two or three houses is of no importance, but the importance lies in what is coming, which is the destruction of America. The Arabs have many proverbs. For instance, ‘Heavy rains begin with drops before it pours,’ and ‘The dancer starts with shaking the shoulder, then the whole body.’ Now is the time for the Americans to take up this matter and unite both the white and colored races. Otherwise, hasten ye towards destruction! Hasten ye toward devastation!”

In March, after the first two Clarke bombings, the Chicago House of Spirituality, the local elected governing body of the Chicago Bahá’ís, decided the Clarke home should no longer be used for Bahá’í meetings. Three months later, however, conditions must have improved significantly, for Jináb-i-Fáḍil, an eminent Bahá’í teacher sent by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá to foster the American Bahá’í community’s spiritual education, “spoke to the colored people in two of the leading colored homes, that of Mr. and Mrs. Clark [sic] and Mr. and Mrs. Barnett.”

Mr. and Mrs. Barnett were probably Ferdinand L. Barnett and his wife, Ida, better known as Ida B. Wells. They were nationally prominent advocates of social reform in race relations and were active in Chicago politics. Although the Barnetts were considered affiliated with the Bahá’í community in 1919, it appears they never actually joined the Bahá’í Faith—probably due to their preference for political action—and in 1920 Wells joined the Metropolitan Community Church.

In March 1920, following the second Clarke bombing, the Chicago House of Spirituality [Page 46] appointed a committee to find ways to introduce the Bahá’í Faith to blacks. Its members were Miss Kokab McCutcheon, Mrs. Rachel North, and Mr. Albert Vall. In November the committee decided that Mrs. North should hold a feast (a regular gathering of the Bahá’í community held every nineteen days for devotions, consultation, and socializing) in her home for the black Bahá’ís and that the committee should decide which white Bahá’ís would be best suited to attend. This was the first recorded integrated Bahá’í feast in Chicago. The black and white Bahá’ís were partially segregated from each other, as evidenced by the fact that in April 1919 the House of Spirituality had advised against the uniting of the separate black and white Bahá’í children’s classes:

Since there seems to be still a question in the minds of people regarding the advisability of combining the activities of the two childrens’ classes, that is the white and colored, it is thought best that no attempt be made to do so at this time. We are sure that all Bahais will understand that this matter cannot be forced, and it would certainly be unwise to give the slightest offence to any person who does not understand the Bahai attitude regarding the unity of the races.

A 1919 tablet, or letter, from ‘Abdu’l-Bahá written before the race riots further confirms the absence of integration of black and white Bahá’ís in Chicago, for ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, referring to the Chicago Bahá’í community, wrote that “The organization of joint assemblies for white and colored people shall manifest the oneness of the world of humanity; shall dissipate totally and eradicate ignorant racial fanaticism, and shall satisfy all from the fountain of the water of Life.”

In July 1920 a matter of loans to blacks interested in the Bahá’í Faith was brought before the House of Spirituality:

one of the newly interested colored people was [sic] or did borrow money from some or one of the friends, and that since it had been the recent experience of some of the believers to practically lose moneys loaned in this way he [the House of Spirituality secretary] felt that it was well that the members of the H[ouse]. of S[pirituality]. be informed.

The House of Spirituality warned the Chicago Bahá’ís against loaning money and informed them that they were solely responsible in making such loans. The situation could have easily sparked a negative reaction among the white Bahá’ís by providing fuel for stereotypes. However, there does not appear to have been any animosity among the white Bahá’ís over this issue, and the House’s decision seems to have resolved the problem without controversy.

By January 1921 Carl Scheffler, a member of the House of Spirituality, had made contact with a Mr. Barnett, who had “shown a little interest in the Cause” and was willing to place in black newspapers Bahá’í articles about the Race Amity Convention to be held in Washington, D.C., in May. “Mr. Barnett,” unrelated to Ferdinand and Ida Barnett, was almost certainly Claude A. Barnett, who in 1919 founded the Chicago-based news syndicate, the Associated Negro Press. Mr. Barnett apparently sympathized with the Bahá’í Faith and later corresponded with Elsie Austin, a black woman who from 1946 to 1953 was a member of the National Spiritual Assembly [Page 47] (the elected governing body of the national Bahá’í community). Barnett also corresponded with other members of the National Assembly, but he never joined the Bahá’í Faith.

During the remainder of 1921 the Chicago Bahá’ís met with increasing success in presenting their Faith to blacks in the city. In March the Bahá’ís made a rare contact with the labor unions in Chicago, an interracial meeting being the outcome: “After the big meeting at [the] Coliseum of the Labor Unions when Janabe Fazel [Jináb-i-Fáḍil] spoke there was a right intelligent colored woman [who] traced us up and as a result there was a meeting in one of the West-side churches—colored and white attended. . . .” In September Louis Gregory spoke at a black church in Chicago before an audience of two thousand, and Albert Vail noted that the last three months had seen an unprecedented number of black enrollees in the Faith.

In October 1921 a visiting Bahá’í teacher, Ruhi Afnan, spoke at a black YMCA on Chicago’s South Side. This, together with Jináb-i-Fáḍil’s visits to the homes of black Bahá’ís in 1920 and the teaching activities of 1921, clearly indicates that a consistent effort was being made by the ablest speakers to pierce the barriers that separated the races in Chicago and to present the Bahá’í Faith to the black community.

The Chicago Bahá’í community hoped to hold during the fall of 1921 a race amity convention similar to the one held in Washington in May. However, circumstances apparently did not permit its execution, and race amity work among the Chicago Bahá’ís waned for the next six years.

By mid-decade the Chicago Bahá’í community contained 160 people, 14 of whom were “colored.” The number of blacks included Moss and Helen Roach, who joined the Bahá’í Faith in 1925 but were not on the membership list. Considering that the first black had joined the Faith in 1918, 12 blacks was an encouraging sign of growth.

Race Amity Activities
in the Late 1920s

IN THE late 1920s the Chicago Bahá’í community, encouraged by its slowly acquired black membership, began to lay the groundwork for an increase in the number of black Bahá’ís in the 1930s. The impetus was a February 1927 message from the newly formed National Committee on Inter-Racial Amity to all local spiritual assemblies. The Chicago Bahá’ís joined and eventually led Bahá’í communities across the country in what would prove to be a decade-long wave of activity.

Beginning with the arrival of the February letter, the Chicago Spiritual Assembly established a systematic and long-term series of race amity meetings sustained by the local race amity committee. A September 1927 letter from the Chicago Bahá’ís to the National Spiritual Assembly reflected the hope, and pride, the Bahá’ís took in their activities:

[Page 48]

we are having some splendid meetings in Chicago. Last week three were held in the Bahá’í Library [the local Bahá’í center]. One was the Amity Meeting at which was read a very fine compilation on the removal of race prejudice. . . .

. . . In the Bahá’í Library and later in the colored Y.M.C.A. [the same at which Ruhi Afnan had spoken in 1921] Mr. Vail gave some very beautiful talks. The Amity Committee are doing splendid work and the movement is taking on the aspect of an increasing bond of fellowship and love between the colored and white friends here.

A highlight of the 1927 meetings was the January World Unity Conference held by the Chicago Bahá’ís at the Morrison Hotel, which was at that time “the only centrally located hotel free from racial exclusiveness.” Although the Bahá’í-affiliated event did not specifically address the issue of racism in America, the Chicago Bahá’ís proudly reported in Bahá’í News, a national Bahá’í periodical, that

the speakers on the World Unity Conference represented the most varied and brilliant group of public men and women ever brought together on one program. The speakers were: Mr. Lorado Taft, sculptor; Mrs. Charles S. Clark, President, Presidents’ Conference of Women’s clubs; Dr. Shailer Mathews, Dean, Divinity School of the University of Chicago; Mr. Horace Bridges, Leader, Society for Ethical Culture; Mr. J. C. Chatterji, Cambridge University; Dr. Eustace Haydon, University of Chicago; Dr. Jacob Pister, St. Luke’s Lutheran Church; Rev. Fred Merrifield, All Souls Church; Dr. Max Mason, President, University of Chicago; Rabbi Louis L. Mann, Sinai Congregation; Rev. Preston Bradley, The People’s Church; and Dr. John Herman Randall, Community Church of New York.

In January 1928 the Chicago community held its first Race Amity Conference, which Fannie Lesch termed “a marvelous success.” Previous Bahá’í race amity conferences had been held between 1921 and 1924 in Washington, D.C.; Springfield, Massachusetts; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and New York City, where Franz Boas, the author of The Mind of Primitive Man, delivered an address. However, National Spiritual Assembly secretary Horace Holley found the report of the Chicago conference so impressive that he recommended sending it to Shoghi Effendi, saying that it was the best such report the National Spiritual Assembly had seen so far.

Zia Bagdadi, a leader of race amity work in Chicago and the Midwest, wrote in June 1928 to Louis Gregory, secretary of the National Committee on Inter-Racial Amity, giving details of what he felt was the best strategy for a successful upcoming race amity conference:

1. It is necessary to have four or at least two of our best Bahá’í teachers and speakers to address the public. They should be from all races, if possible, or at least from the colored and white races. You, Mr. Louis Gregory, should be one of the four or of the two.

2. It will be very good to have the three men you mentioned on the program as speakers, namely, Bishop G. Barrow, Rev. W. S. Jones and Mr. A. P[hilip]. Randolph. I endorse them because you know them well.

3. I hope the arrangement committee will be of those who use good judgement [sic] in preparing lodging places or place for all out-of-town guests. The best place is where the white and colored are welcomed without a particle of difference. [Page 49] If this point is overlooked, the best of results can never be expected.

4. As a chairman, I would suggest Mrs. [Agnes] Parsons, or another noble if she cannot attend, [such] as Mrs. May Maxwell. Of course the chairman of the N.S.A. should be invited and perhaps he would be one of those four or two strong Bahá’ís that I mentioned already.

The Chicago Bahá’ís probably themselves followed Bagdadi’s points in making arrangements for their first race amity conference of the preceding January.

In a September 1928 circular letter Zia Bagdadi also wrote a moving description of teaching activity among blacks. He noted with characteristic wit that, although “only a few souls” were involved in the race amity work, the confirmations and blessings were surely reaching those “who believe that results come from backbones, not from wish-bones.” He then went on to say:

We are glad to report, that in these days, more than fifty of the noble colored people of Chicago have become attracted to the Baha’i Cause, through Miss Kaukab MacCatcheon [sic]. They meet as a class, on every Monday night, and Miss MacCatcheon is their teacher.

On Monday night, the 27th of last month, more than half of all these new friends came to Wilmette, where they found, here, in the neighborhood of the Mashriqu’l-Adhkar, the doors of our humble homes open for them, and where they were served with spiritual food and material refreshments.

In the same circular letter Bagdadi also described the visit to the Temple and the Wilmette Bahá’í community of two carloads of black business students from Memphis, Tennessee, led by their Bahá’í professor, George W. Henderson, who had learned of the Bahá’í Faith from Louis Gregory. He said that the group was very lovingly received by the Wilmette Bahá’ís, who deepened the students’ understanding of the Faith during their stay.

The substantial successes of the late 1920s in teaching the Faith to blacks and in presenting for the first time the Bahá’í principle of racial unity to the public through small, regular meetings and large conferences were the seeds of quickly ripening triumphs and tests to come in the 1930s.

Race Amity Activities
during the Early 1930s

FOR the Chicago Bahá’í community the 1930s was a twofold climactic process of severe turbulence ultimately leading to stability and maturity. In this process the great advances in race unity work that gave the Chicago community the reputation of national leader were of particular significance. Toward the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s the Chicago Bahá’í community gained at least ten new black believers, bringing the total to approximately twenty-two, roughly 10 percent of the entire community. Gayle Morrison, author of a biography of Louis G. Gregory, has written that

The records indicate that Chicago experienced a significant growth in black membership beginning in 1932. . . . Chicago’s amity committee was one of the most active in the nation at that time. The figures do not reveal, however, whether successful expansion efforts among blacks caused amity activities to flourish or whether the demonstration of principle led to increased enrollments. In either case Chicago rapidly became well-known as an interracial community.

[Page 50] Further research suggests that the main source of the growth can be attributed to expansion efforts. The Chicago Bahá’ís tended to ignore their limitations and faults and to press on in spite of setbacks.

By the beginning of Chicago’s Century of Progress Exposition in 1933 the Chicago Bahá’ís had fully established a series of race amity meetings and through them had compiled an impressive record of success in attracting people to the Bahá’í Faith. During the mid—1930s the quality and level of this activity increased even more dramatically.

Just before the opening of the Exposition, however, a potentially dangerous racial difficulty developed. The National Temple Program Committee decided in January or February 1933 “that no colored believers should serve as usher at public meetings at Foundation Hall.” Many Exposition visitors were expected to be attracted to the newly completed superstructure of the Bahá’í House of Worship, and this may have been a factor in the Temple Program Committee’s decision, which the Chicago Spiritual Assembly approved. In February, however, the Chicago Assembly informed the National Spiritual Assembly that the Bahá’ís were disturbed about the issue. In April the National Assembly asked the Temple Program Committee to explain the reasons for its decision and informed the Chicago Assembly that the matter had been referred to the Temple Program Committee and was being handled with care because of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s dire warnings regarding the race issue in the United States. In May the National Assembly informed the Chicago Assembly that the Temple Program Committee had “withdrawn their ruling concerning colored ushers. . . .” For the time being the matter of ushers was resolved.

Despite the controversy, race amity activities and presentation of the Bahá’í Faith to blacks continued unhindered. In August or September 1933 a black Methodist minister, Lewis Caldwell, Jr., attended a Bahá’í lecture by Ali-Kuli Khan at the Century of Progress Exposition and then a second lecture at the Chicago Bahá’í headquarters. He was so attracted to the Bahá’í teachings that he invited Khan to speak at the West Side Community Forum, a church group of which he was president. On 22 October Khan gave a lecture on the Bahá’í Temple to one hundred blacks at the forum. In a letter of appreciation to the Chicago Assembly Caldwell wrote:

I take this opportunity to thank you for your wonderful co-operation in making our October 22nd meeting one of the best in the history of the West Side Community Forum.

Dr. Khan’s simple and enlightening address is still being commented on by those present for its timeliness and sheer brilliance.

Throughout 1933 and 1934 the Chicagoans placed Bahá’í magazines in the headquarters of black social clubs in the city. In June 1954 a visiting Bahá’í teacher, Shahnaz Waite, and Chicago Bahá’í Mrs. Walrath gave a lecture to an audience of about one hundred at the National Colored Student Club. This reaching out to the black community was part of the Chicago Race Amity Committee’s determination “not only to hold Amity meetings, but also to attend meetings of other groups working for the unity of races.” The Race Amity Committee reported that

members of the committee and other Baha’is of this community attended many of these gatherings in homes, at which different races were represented, such as meetings at the Metropolitan Community [Page 51] Church [which Ida B. Wells had joined in 1920], the Young Men’s Christian Association [which had hosted several Bahá’í speakers in preceding years] and the Young Women’s Christian Association. A Baha’i speaker was asked to participate and gave the Baha’i message. This very effectively placed the name Baha’i before the public through the press in four different publications, one of them the noted Chicago Defender [published by Robert S. Abbott, a new Bahá’í at the time].

Four public meetings were held with attendance ranging from 120 to 160 people. Baha’is and non Baha’is cooperated in their statements of ideals and principles. A social hour was an added attraction [considering that integrated socializing was not the norm at that time]. Testimony that the spirit of such gatherings under Baha’i association exceeded that of others was freely given. Other meetings were arranged in colored churches where the Baha’i teachings were freely and impressively given.

Whereas the race unity work of the late 1920s was characterized primarily by general presentations of the unity principle to groups at public meetings and conferences, in the early 1930s it began to exhibit an increase in the number and diversity of contacts with individuals and institutions within Chicago’s black community. Concurrently, the Bahá’ís began to experience the first stirrings of controversy and conflict within their own ranks as a result of this greater teaching activity beyond the bounds of white society. Such expansion followed by conflict within the Bahá’í community were signs of a typical cycle of growth and reaction in which, history shows, the Bahá’í community matures in stages.

Teaching Efforts Rewarded
in the Mid-1930s

IN 1934 the two most prominent blacks to enroll in the Chicago Bahá’í community between the first and second world wars accepted the Bahá’í Faith. The first was Robert S. Abbott, the millionaire founder, editor, and owner of the most influential and successful black American newspaper, and one of the most lucrative black-owned businesses, the Chicago Defender. On enrolling in the community on 12 June, Mr. Abbott “stated he had been interested in the Cause many years and met ‘Abdu’l-Baha in 1912. He further stated he had read many of the Baha’i books.” In his biography of Abbott, Roi Ottley wrote:

The man’s endless search for racial peace led him finally to the Bahai faith. This is not as sensational as it sounds. As with everything else, Abbott judged a religion by the degree to which racial equality was practiced; moreover, like the Chinese, Negroes care little for religious stratifications. Abbott had been brought up in the Congregational church in which his stepfather, Rev. Sengstacke, was a missionary. When the publisher reached manhood, he turned to the Episcopal church and then the Presbyterian church. In both he was a victim of color discrimination by mulattoes. He retreated to the teachings of Christian Science, but withdrew when this group established separate places of worship for whites and Negroes. Before he died in 1940, he embraced Bahaism.

Although Abbott did not formally enroll in the Faith until 1934, it appears that his prior association with the Bahá’í community had been consistent and enduring. The 1924-25 Chicago Bahá’í membership list included him and his wife, probably as affiliated seekers interested in the Faith and well-known to members of the community. Abbott was a member of the Chicago Commission on Race [Page 52] Relations, which investigated the causes of the 1919 Chicago race riot and published the exhaustive report, The Negro in Chicago, which details the bombings of the homes of Bahá’ís Mr. and Mrs. Clarke.

In the 1930s Abbott wrote or reprinted a number of articles in the Defender that vigorously championed the Bahá’í Faith and provided perhaps its best publicity in the nation at the time. In the 5 March 1932 issue of the Defender he ran an article on the Bahá’í Race Amity Banquet in New York City, which honored and united the feuding Urban League and NAACP. In the 15 November 1934 issue he wrote an article audaciously advocating the Bahá’í Faith, and on 23 February 1935 he published an editorial including several passages from the writings of Shoghi Effendi. An essay entitled “The World Issue of Race,” written by Horace Holley for World Order, was reprinted in the Defender in January 1936 and in Crisis, the NAACP journal, in July of that year.

The second prominent black to become a Bahá’í was Ellsworth Blackwell, who enrolled in November 1934 after having studied the Faith in the regular meeting given by Elizabeth and Edgar Edwards. He would become the fourth black elected to the National Spiritual Assembly and would serve on that body four times between 1954 and 1960. During the 1930s, however, his most important role was in raising the question of racial equality within the Bahá’í community itself, an issue sparked by the rejection of his offer to guide at the Bahá’í Temple in 1937.

The Chicago Bahá’ís did not stop to admire their victories in attracting to the Faith two individuals of distinction. They were idealists, but pragmatic. Race unity was an ongoing process that was inescapably painstaking and prolonged, and though they believed that its success was inevitable, the difficulties they had encountered dispelled any hopes that the goal was close at hand.

Race Amity Developments
in tbe Late 1930s

AFTER the early 1930s race amity efforts became broader, bolder, and more systematic, involving a wider range of Bahá’ís and ethnic groups in the city, and facing greater challenges inside and outside the Bahá’í community.

But segregation continued to be a stumbling block even in informal activities. In August 1935 Dr. Edris Rice-Wray, a very active Bahá’í in the Chicago area, asked the National Spiritual Assembly for permission to use the Lake Michigan beach behind the Bourgeois studio in Wilmette for an interracial youth outing over Labor Day weekend. She explained that all other North Shore beaches were closed to blacks. Seventy-five to one hundred youths from different cities were expected to attend, and Wilfrid Barton had offered his house in Winnetka to accommodate them. Horace Holley, the Secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly, replied that the National Assembly had so far restricted the Temple property to administrative, teaching, and devotional activities; recreational activities had been discouraged. He said he would, however, present the request to the National Assembly for consultation. The outcome of the deliberations is not known, but it is most likely that the Assembly, while regretting the circumstances, necessarily maintained its policy.

In April 1938 Carl Scheffler informed Horace Holley that due to racial restrictions a race amity banquet could not be held in the North Shore Hotel. The management would accommodate blacks only if they were part of a reserved group, but an interracial banquet was out of the question, and the manager was sorry anyone had been under the impression it was possible. All the hotels in Evanston and the northern part of Chicago had the same [Page 53] policy, Scheffler explained, and he suggested that the Chicago Bahá’í headquarters in the downtown Loop area would be the most suitable place for the event. In November 1939 the Chicago Spiritual Assembly, in preparation for a public meeting on Latin America to be held in January 1940, notified Holley that three halls in Chicago’s Loop were free of racial restrictions: the Masonic Temple, the building longest associated with the Chicago Bahá’í community; Kimball Hall; and a hall in the Lake View Building, which was eventually chosen for its convenient location directly above the rooms of the Chicago Bahá’í center. Even ten years later, according to historian Gayle Morrison, the problem still existed on the North Shore:

Racist attitudes were so deeply entrenched that even in 1930 the National Spiritual Assembly was still working, with support from liberal leaders in the area, to ensure that the delegates and visitors to the [annual Bahá’í] convention were able to obtain hotel accommodations without being subjected to racial discrimination.

Despite such social obstacles, the Chicago Bahá’ís forged on, eager to surpass their earlier accomplishments. The Chicago Bahá’í News of September 1936 announced that a new Amity Committee, chaired by Mrs. Fred Mortensen, would begin a series of lectures on national and ethnic groups in Chicago. The series, demonstrating a heightened commitment to race amity work in the city, began with talks on the Filipino and Jewish peoples. In November Japan was the topic in a very successful meeting at which 60 percent of the audience was not Bahá’í. In December Chicago Urban League director Albon L. Foster spoke on “The Negro in Chicago.” In Jannary 1937 the speaker was Charles Goode, director of Chicago Recreational Tours for Adult Education, whose tours included the Bahá’í House of Worship. In February the vice consul of China presented a lecture on “Contemporary China.” In March the speaker was Mrs. Kenneth F. Rich, “successor to Miss Jane Addams as the Head-Resident of Hull House.” In April Mrs. Wendell Green, chairman of the Cook County League of Women Voters, spoke on the literature, art, and music of blacks. In May Dr. Charles W. Gilkey of the University of Chicago talked about “The Gospel of Universal Peace.” In February 1938 amity talks were given on “Greek Philosophers” and on “Irish Memories”; both meetings included musical performances. In December the Amity meeting topic was “The American Indian,” presented by Dr. D. S. Weeks, president of Becone College for Indians. In February 1939 the meeting’s topic was Denmark. In March Dr. Lester Sprenger, President of the Christian Ministers Association of Chicago, was the guest speaker.

The Chicago Bahá’í youth made similar contributions to the race unity effort. One of their meetings, held in March 1937, was particularly outstanding. Miss Tanda Ntsiko of the Zulu tribe spoke to the Chicago Bahá’í youth on African culture. The Chicago Bahá’í News reported that “the audience resembled in size those appearing at the [regular] Amity meetings! There were about sixty people present, with two chairmen of north side fireside meetings cancelling their classes to attend.”

Bahá’í communities of the 1980s would find it challenging to match the striking diversity and distinction of the speakers at the [Page 54] amity meetings. The fact that the Chicago Bahá’ís arranged the meetings before World War II makes the accomplishments and high standard of the Chicago community in its race amity work all the more impressive.

In order to provide opportunities for the Bahá’ís to meet in an atmosphere of interracial harmony the Amity Committee also held regular evening meetings with no particular topic. Such meetings might include readings, singing, Persian chanting, brief addresses, and refreshments, all presided over by a host.

A non-Bahá’í observer, visiting the Chicago Bahá’í Center’s regular Wednesday noon meeting in September 1940 to gather research material for University of Chicago sociology professor Ernest W. Burgess, indicated by her simple remarks the significance of such unsegregated socializing as the Bahá’ís normally displayed: “Two smartly dressed young colored women and a well dressed young colored man are believers and attend regularly[;] they sit in groups with their white friends and enjoy the tea and coffee cake that is served after each noonday meeting.” In the traditional society of that time such fellowship flew in the face of the rules that governed the strict separation of the races and that were regarded by virtually all secular and religious institutions as the standard of moral behavior. The uniqueness of the meetings is reinforced by the situation of Helen Roach, a Bahá’í of Scottish descent. In order to keep her job she had to hide not the fact that she and her husband, Moss, were Bahá’ís but that he was black: “She did not tell any of the office people about her marriage, and was constantly in fear of being discovered.”

By the late 1930s the Chicago Bahá’í community had experienced both setbacks and successes in the race unity work; yet despite this ambiguity greater numbers of the community members were becoming dedicated to the work. Of all the Chicago community’s local committees, the Race Unity Committee was by far the most active and organized; its work was not only the foundation of the race unity effort but of the community’s teaching plan as a whole, and it set the example for all other Bahá’í communities.

The challenge of race unity, involving a confrontation with the entire national culture, required not only the unity of the Bahá’ís but also a social practice as persevering as it was innovative. The forces of society and the example of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá led the Chicago Bahá’ís to a method for promoting race unity that was, if not perfect, sufficiently diplomatic to avoid criticism and yet attractive. By using the method of regular and warmly cordial interracial meetings, they demonstrated that race unity, once considered a social impossibility, was now a practical and realistic ideal.

Ellsworth Blackwell and
Discrimination at the Temple

WHILE Chicagoans were presenting their wide-ranging and successful series of race amity meetings, a second controversy over black guides at the Bahá’í House of Worship developed. In August 1937 Ellsworth Blackwell was barred from serving as a guide at the Temple because of his race, as he explained in a letter to Shoghi Effendi:

On Sunday, August 15th, at the Temple in Wilmette, they were expecting an Educational Tour group [probably led by Charles Good, a speaker at one of the Chicago Bahá’ís’ race amity meetings] of about four hundred persons. I am one of the official and listed guides and had been urged repeatedly to attend this particular Sunday. When I arrived prepared to help guide this group, I was prevented from doing so. A few days later this impression was confirmed, most unexpectedly. The Chairman of the Temple Guide Committee felt called upon to explain to me the reason why I [Page 55] was not permitted to guide. He stated that it is the policy of the Temple Committee to prevent Colored Believers from guiding in the Temple.

From my knowledge of the [Bahá’í] Teachings it appears to me that the Principles of Bahaullah are being violated within His Temple by the Believers. The only apparent excuse for their policy is that the presence of Colored guides would offend people of the White race. As you no doubt realize the aforementioned large touring groups are composed of all nationalities and races.

Are we supposed to alter the Principles to accom[m]odate the prejudices of the people outside the Cause, particularly within our own institutions? And, may I ask, when are we to begin to live the Teachings of Bahaullah?

At the time of this letter to Shoghi Effendi, Blackwell had been assured by the Chicago Assembly and the National Program Committee of the Bahá’í House of Worship “that the incident occurred through a ‘misapprehension and error.’” The National Program Committee explained that the chairman of the guides

did not know that Mr[.] Blackwell had been asked to serve as a guide. . . . Furthermore, it developed in our conversation with . . . [the chairman] that he was of the opinion that it was the policy of the Temple Program Committee not to use the colored friends as guides. However, carefully searching the minutes of past meetings of the committee, we fail to find that such a policy did exist. . . .

Blackwell responded, “It is not surprising to me that you would be unable to find a record of such a policy. This subtle prejudice naturally could not be found recorded in the minutes of any religious group—much less a Bahai group.”

Blackwell made a second appeal a year later in September 1938, stating that his previous complaint went unheeded and that the problem continued. In fact, he felt the situation had worsened, for whereas in 1937 the policy of excluding blacks from the Temple guiding service was, he believed, only an unofficial “understanding” between the chairman of the guides and the Temple Program Committee, in 1938 “the Temple Program Committee has voted upon and gone on record against the use of Colored guides” and this “is now common knowledge throughout the Bahá’í communities in this area.”

Horace Holley, the Secretary of the National Spiritual Assembly, instructed Blackwell to meet with the Temple Program Committee and consult on the matter. This Blackwell did, writing that his wish was to obey the committee and support the National Spiritual Assembly. Later he expressed his satisfaction with the committee’s explanation of the issue: he “surmised” from consultation with the committee that the “whole difficulty was the result of the conduct of a single individual.” However, Blackwell was impressed mainly by an action taken by the Committee before their consultation: “for my part the problem had already been solved a week or two before [the consultation], at which time a colored believer had been asked to guide. That act was at once sufficient for me.”

Out of Ellsworth Blackwell’s disturbing [Page 56] conflict came one of the Chicago Bahá’í community’s most notable successes. In November 1937, just three months after he sent his first letter concerning the Temple discrimination to Shoghi Effendi, the Chicago community, recognizing his outstanding work on several local committees and his abilities as a Bahá’í speaker, elected him to the Chicago Spiritual Assembly to replace his ailing friend and Bahá’í teacher, Elizabeth Edwards. He was the first black elected to the Chicago Assembly and was reelected at least through April 1939. The services he rendered ultimately earned him national recognition and membership on the National Spiritual Assembly in 1954-56 and 1958-60.

Thus the Chicago community, in the face of what appeared to be a self-condemning defeat of the Bahá’í principle of racial unity and the oneness of mankind, drew from this potential disaster a victory of importance to the entire national Bahá’í community. It must be noted that Blackwell’s career as a national Bahá’í administrator was born in his magnanimous tolerance of the limitations of individuals and in his resolve to concentrate on practicing racial unity in Bahá’í institutions and in the community as a whole, rather than on the behavior of individuals.

The conflicts over black Temple guides in 1933 and 1937-38 have two important features: First, they indicate that the level of black participation in the Chicago Bahá’í community had risen dramatically since the early 1920s when, as records indicate, black and white Bahá’ís were segregated. Second, the resolution of the issue of blacks representing the Bahá’í Faith to the public at its most holy Temple proved to be a watershed that helped establish the inviolable right of blacks to engage in all local and national affairs of the Faith. It was a catalyst that helped push the Bahá’í ideal of race unity from the realm of principle to that of practice. It does not appear that these conflicts caused any of the black Bahá’ís to leave the community. The race amity meetings and banquets continued, and 1939 closed with the Chicago Assembly’s laboring over plans for a large race amity conference on Latin America to be held in January 1940 before a meeting of the National Spiritual Assembly, some of whose members were to participate in the conference. Moreover, racial harmony within private lives showed signs of great promise, particularly in the area of interracial marriage.

Interracial Marriage in the Chicago
Bahá’í Community

THE BAHÁ’ÍS were not the first group to promote interracial marriage in Chicago. The Manasseh Club, established near the turn of the twentieth century, was a “fraternal benefit society” for interracial couples who were legally married. Social activities and mutual aid were the club’s primary functions, and its success was rapid and remarkable. By 1908 its annual ball attracted fifteen hundred Chicagoans. Its heyday dated from 1910, but by the late 1920s it had all but disappeared. The Manasseh Club’s success proved the social possibility of complete interracial life, and its demise testified to the need for a more profound and enduring basis than that provided by a fraternal society. The Chicago Bahá’í community was built on such a basis. It grew more slowly, yet more securely, than the Manasseh Club, forming an interracial fellowship that surpassed all others in the city.

Although the Manasseh Club was probably the first social group to promote interracial marriage in Chicago, the Bahá’í community was the first religious group to do so. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá had promoted interracial marriage during His travels in the United States. He encouraged the Bahá’ís to marry across traditional racial barriers as a means of guaranteeing racial unity, saying, “If it be possible, gather together these two races, black and white, into one assembly and put such love into their hearts that they shall not only [Page 57] unite but even intermarry. Be sure that the results of this will abolish differences and disputes between black and white. . . . This is a great service to the world of humanity.” There is no indication that individual Chicago Bahá’ís opposed the principle in the 1920s and 1930s. Indeed, interracial marriage, at the best, was successfully incorporated as a feature of the Chicago Bahá’í community and, at the least, was tolerated by the community’s more recalcitrant members.

In Evanston, however, one woman resigned from the Faith in 1934 because “she could not support a movement that definitely advocated interracial marriages.” Near the time of her withdrawal a letter from the National Spiritual Assembly arrived counseling the Evanston Bahá’ís that the Bahá’í law requiring parental consent for marriage should allay all anxieties regarding Bahá’í interracial marriage. Hence those Bahá’ís who were opposed to their children’s entering into a marriage that they sincerely felt was morally and socially unwise—be it interracial or otherwise —were free to withhold consent to the marriage, thus making a legal Bahá’í marriage impossible.

Apparently, the withdrawal of the Evanston woman who objected to interracial marriage was an isolated case. Furthermore, its occurrence is not surprising, considering the racial discrimination that prevailed on the North Side of Chicago and in Evanston and the occasional incidents of discrimination within the Bahá’í community itself in those areas. North Side and north suburban hotels maintained strict rules limiting or barring black patronage even as late as 1950; and, as we have seen, on at least two occasions in the 1930s blacks encountered difficulties in serving as Temple guides because of their race.

Moreover, the Evanston Bahá’í community had a particularly troubled history of racial relations. In 1932 a widely respected Evanston Bahá’í proposed at the first meeting of the newly elected Evanston Spiritual Assembly that no blacks be permitted to serve on the Assembly or its committees. Although the Assembly rejected the proposal, its effect was such that, as late as 1934 Carl Scheffler, a leading Evanston Bahá’í, referring specifically to that proposal, found that “work in our assembly is weakened because of lack of full confidence in them by some of the members of our colored community particularly.”

While the North Side Bahá’ís earnestly worked to improve racial amity, the South Side Bahá’ís were able to make great strides, perhaps primarily because the settlement of large numbers of blacks in that part of the city, unlike the white North Side, had been grudgingly accepted by the majority population. The South Side around Washington and Jackson parks had been conceded to the blacks, who, as property-holders and renters, were thereafter more free to arrange their social lives without the constraints of moral opposition from white outsiders. Interracial marriages on the South Side, although still facing negative opinions from blacks and whites, escaped the more powerful opposing reaction of whites who possessed the land itself. Blacks were, to a limited but significant [Page 58] degree, gaining control of their own lives; the riot of 1919 and the numerous other racial hostilities, far from stifling this development, were a bitter, futile expression against its reality.

During the 1920s and 1930s the Chicago Bahá’í community included six interracial marriages. Edgar and Elizabeth Edwards were married in 1917 and joined the Bahá’í Faith in 1921. Moss and Helen Roach were married in 1921 and accepted the Faith in 1925. Ellsworth and Ruth Blackwell were married in January 1937 after they had both been Bahá’ís for several years. In the late 1930s all three couples, together with at least three other Bahá’í families, lived very near each other on the South Side in an eight square block, middle-class area directly west of the neighborhood known as Woodlawn. The area was in transition from a white majority to a black majority and was, therefore, more amenable to interracial families than the predominantly white North Side.

Another possible cause of this clustering of Bahá’í residences was the attractiveness and popularity of Elizabeth and Edgar Edwards. They had lived there for many years, conducting and hosting perhaps the most effective and enduring Bahá’í teaching activities in the city. From all appearances the Edwards were the major link between the Bahá’í community and the South Side black community during the 1920s and 1930s.

Ellsworth Blackwell learned about and accepted the Bahá’í Faith at the home of the Edwards. The civil ceremony of his marriage to Ruth Browne was performed there. Two weeks later, in February 1937, the Bahá’í ceremony was conducted at the home of Adrienne and Rich Richardson, another interracial Bahá’í couple living just a few blocks from the Edwards. “Nearly a hundred people, two-thirds non-Baha’is, attended the Baha’i wedding ceremony,” reported the Chicago Baha’i News. “The uniqueness of the ceremony provoked many pertinent questions from the visitors. After the ceremony, the Message of the New Day was given by Mr. [Allah K.] Kalantar.” This was the second interracial marriage of declared Bahá’ís in the American Bahá’í community, the first having been that of Louise and Louis G. Gregory twenty-five years earlier. In 1938 the third interracial marriage took place, uniting another Chicago Bahá’í couple, Bill and Ann Foster.

The Edwards, Roaches, and Richardsons had no children. The Blackwells had a premature infant son, Philip Ellsworth Blackwell, who died after a week of life. The Fosters had a daughter, Tahirih. The sixth interracial couple of this period, Sherman and Lillie Rosenberg, adopted a boy and a girl.

An account of Helen and Moss Roach is recorded in research of the late 1930s conducted by Horace Cayton and St. Clair Drake and published in their well-known sociological study Black Metropolis. The authors found the Bahá’í Faith to be one of only two social groups in Chicago that promoted interracial marriage at the time:

There are . . . two groups in the general society which not only tolerate but, by their social philosophies, tend to encourage intermarriage. One is the Bahai movement, a religious group, while the other is made up of “left-wingers”—various groups of Communists, Socialists and other political radicals.

[Page 59]

In recent years there has been a greater tolerance of interracial association among intellectuals, artists, and professional persons in the field of civil service, both Negro and white. Intermarried couples can find a circle of friends among these tolerant groups. Within recent years, too, the Bahai and Communist movements, advocating complete racial equality, including intermarriage, have attained some slight, though appreciable, influence.

Cayton and Drake stated that such groups provided a “raison d’être and a philosophic justification for” interracial marriage, but they noted that the Bahá’í Faith was more dedicated to interracial marriage than the Communists:

Mixed couples still find a congenial atmosphere within left-wing circles, but there is a definite feeling that prominent Communists would do well for political reasons to avoid intermarriage, since it might reduce their influence among both those Negroes and those whites whose confidence has yet to be won. The Bahai religious movement, however, not only sanctions but encourages intermarriage, to the end that amalgamation may occur, and, in time, a “cosmic race” emerge.

A “cosmic race” probably referred to the Bahá’í ideal of the ultimate unity of mankind, described by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá as the stage when “All men will adhere to one religion, will have one common faith, will be blended into one race and become a single people.”

The Bahá’í activities of Mr. and Mrs. “Brown”—the pseudonym for the Roaches— are briefly described by Cayton and Drake in an interview with Helen Roach:

The majority of the Browns’ friends are white and are connected with the Bahai group. It is with these people that they spend most of their leisure time:

“We go to the Bahai meetings as often as we can. I’d say we go three or four times a month. We drive to the temple in Winnetka [sic] every Sunday in the summer and go to the downtown meeting twice a month. We go to their homes and they come to ours. We have white and colored friends here together.”

Their membership in the Bahai church seems to be the great stabilizing force in the lives of the Browns. It gives them a circle of associates which allows them to defy the mores of the general society and helps them to circumvent some of the difficulties of their marriage.

Cayton and Drake interpreted certain statements of Mrs. Roach to mean that her membership in the Bahá’í Faith was primarily a crutch to sustain her marriage in a hostile society. Her own statements, however, indicate that she firmly believed ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s teachings regarding interracial marriage to be the key to resolving racial problems in the United States:

Mrs. Brown’s religion has not only acted as a means of justifying her behavior, but has fired her with a sort of crusading zeal to think of intermarriage as the solution to the problem of color. “I think interracial marriage will do a lot to break down prejudice,” she said. “I can truthfully say we’ve been very happy. Other interracial couples that I know have also.”

The most important point Cayton and Drake made is that even the Communist community in Chicago was unable to sustain a firm commitment to interracial marriage. The Bahá’ís were unequaled in this field.

At the end of 1939 the Chicago Bahá’í community had weathered its most difficult tests in unifying the races and had successfully established the systematic means of cultivating interracial fellowship within and without the community of believers. Thereafter it continued this work, and, in the assessment [Page 60] of one historian, thereby “remained in the vanguard of interracial activity, as it had for so many years.”

Conclusion

THE Jim Crow laws separating blacks from the white world—much like the veil separating the woman’s face from the Islamic world—are symbols that have caused extreme consternation when nullified and that survive here and there as pathetic remnants of dying traditions. Little wonder that race amity work was of so delicate a nature in the Chicago of the 1920s and 1930s and was, when successful, so great an achievement.

The efforts to aid the victims of the 1919 Chicago race riot; the crescendo of interracial meetings and fellowships held between 1920 and 1940; the numerous annual conferences and banquets proclaiming to the Bahá’í world and the public alike the adherence of the Chicago Bahá’ís to the principle of racial unity; the championing of the Bahá’í Faith by Robert S. Abbott, who, having experienced the harshness of racism throughout his unique and distinguished career, had long scrutinized the words and deeds of the followers of Bahá’u’lláh in his city before finally accepting their Faith; the transformation of a conflict that threatened to defeat the Chicagoans’ efforts to raise the standard of unity into a triumph revealing Ellsworth Blackwell’s magnanimous and noble character, and eventually leading to his recognition as a national leader —these achievements may well lead one to conclude that the Bahá’ís of Chicago had begun to follow the principles that Shoghi Effendi so clearly expressed in 1938 when he wrote that “every organized community enlisted under the banner of Bahá’u’lláh should feel it to be its first and inescapable obligation to nurture, encourage, and safeguard every minority belonging to any faith, race, class, or nation within it.”

The black Bahá’ís, in their turn, appreciated and took advantage of the meetings for interracial fellowship, overlooked their own injuries from the tests inevitable in a pioneering social situation, remained firm and staunch through sporadic waves of racial antagonism within the community, served the Bahá’í Faith in many ways, and fully accepted, by their own actions, the privileges and duties in the life of the community to which the white members had called them. Such efforts are admirable steps in following the counsels of Shoghi Effendi that “the Negroes, through a corresponding effort on their part, show by every means in their power the warmth of their response, their readiness to forget the past, and their ability to wipe out every trace of suspicion that may still linger in their hearts and minds.”

The succession of interracial marriages, in the face of a fanatical society bent on maintaining a desperate hold on superstitious and poisonous traditions, shone brightly as examples of the reality of unity and as harbingers of a new social order.

Such, then, were the first fruits of a new life for a nation so recently reunited after a bloody conflict over slavery, fruits that had never before been seen except in the margins of society at the limits of toleration, and that now had been planted by the hand of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in firm, fertile soil to grow and multiply in the city that He referred to as the heart of America. How fitting, that, just as the Underground Railroad was not material, neither was its ultimate destination. Both were spiritual endeavors uniting blacks and whites.

[Page 61]

[Page 62]

The Prophets

Your words are caught in my heart like pebbles

That stir the water’s skin and disturb

The darting, silver fish

With silent, rippling nets.

—Druzelle Cederquist

Copyright © 1988 by National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States

Other Realms

An insistent sound of cicada wings hovers

above the scents of rose and jasmine,

Shimmering in transparent cadences

from tree to tree, just beyond the edge

Of comprehension, like voices locked in wires.

Like veins rich with uncut thought, the electric hum

Penetrates the hot grip of day. It could be

a noisy reception of messages from a galaxy

Beyond our ken—a language cast

from light years away with armfuls of images

Screaming desparately for rescue from the white noise;

or it could be the sheer ache of longing in a whorl

Of ripe thought and dreams drawn taut

over the quick, silver pulse of our own souls.

—Druzelle Cederquist

Copyright © 1988 by National Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of the United States

[Page 63]

[Page 64]

Authors & Artists

THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE is the supreme governing and legislative body of the Bahá’í Faith. Elected quinquennially at an international convention, the Universal House of Justice gives spiritual guidance to and directs the administrative activities of the wordwide Bahá’í community that numbers between three and four million members.

DRUZELLE CEDERQUIST, a writer, a teacher, and a mother, holds a B.A. degree in bicultural and bilingual studies with a concentration in teaching English as a second language from the University of Texas at San Antonio.

ROGER S. CLARK, a Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law, has for a number of years been a consultant to the United Nations in the areas of crime prevention and control, victims of crime and of abuse of power, and intolerance of religion or belief. Dr. Clark has an Andrei Sakharov Fellowship from the Jacob Blaustein Institute for Human Rights to continue his work relating to the international law of religious freedom.

MARK PERRY is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Connecticut.

MARLAINA TANNY, a poet who is now living in the Boston area, makes a first appearance in World Order.

ART CREDITS: Cover Design by John Solarz; photograph by Joan Miller; p. 1, photograph by Grace Nielsen; p. 3, photograph by Steve Garrigues; p. 4, photograph by Steve Garrigues; p.18, photograph by Mark Sadan; p. 19, photograph by Mark Sadan; p. 40, photograph by Harry Taylor, Sr.; p. 61, photograph by Delton J. Baerwolf; p. 63, photograph by Steve Garrigues.

[Page 65]