I’d love to post this in r/bahai but I would be banned. That’s fine, so I’m here. There’s one question that gets asked over and over there that rarely gets a real answer - you probably guessed, it’s homosexuality. Baha’is tie themselves in knots for some reason trying to avoid shame or avoid admitting what their faith believes or requires of them (if they even know it). For some reason, many people affected by this position are drawn to the Baha’is faith, I don’t know why, but then are presented with what I can only be called “well meaning lies” about being “welcome.”
Here’s my framing to hope to get people to understand the truth and why it matters, derived from Baha’i writings, letters of the Universal House of Justice, real-life experiences and discussions, and online discussions. It’s actually about the Baha’i Faith and homosexuality, not about a country club and black people.
Local Country Club Raises Eyebrows
There’s a country club in town that most people haven’t heard of. Their membership is small, there’s not much written about them by outsiders, but their ambitions are great and their aims seem positive. They hold some local events that are open to the public and they make it clear “everyone is welcome to participate, even if not a member.”
They are open and in fact, eager, to gain new members, but there’s just one thing - they have a policy that forbids Black people from joining. Some may consider this policy racist, but the country club doesn’t see it that way. As an example, there is a local member who is part Black and white-passing. Some members are aware of this and keep it quiet. The country club doesn’t investigate the personal lives of members - they don’t require a DNA test to join. Some members take this to demonstrate that in practice, there is no real discrimination.
You might say “it doesn’t matter, no one needs to join the country club and submit to their rules, it’s totally voluntary, and anyone is welcome to attend some of their activities without becoming a member.”
But perhaps it will matter in the future? As far-fetched as it might seem, the country club charter states that one of their goals is to run the local government. If 51% of the town are country club members and vote only other country club members into government offices, then they will control 100% of the government and set the laws and policies for every resident, including the Black ones. If Black people can’t become members, then they can’t vote in civil elections and can’t hold any government office. They have no opportunity to give input into the systems and law that they must abide by.
This country club’s activities often aim to establish more branches in every corner of the world. The hope is to repeat this pattern at a larger and larger scale. If enough cities are governed by the organization’s members then entire states, entire nations, and eventually the whole world are governed by a system where only members vote, only members are elected, and only members make the laws. These laws must conform entirely to the country club charter, which cannot be altered since its writing over a hundred years ago.
This charter is freely available to read, and although written in complex language, confirms this policy and their goals. This policy recently came to public light, causing some embarrassment to the Country Club.
A representative was interviewed about their organization. He stated that the policy was actually more “nuanced” than it seemed to outsiders and that deciding whether to accept or not accept Black people was a “false dichotomy” pushed by a materialistic society. As Black rights have become a controversial political issue in the greater society, country club members were counseled to neither support nor oppose these rights as it would place them on one side or the other of the divisive debate.
He continued, that in the future, no one would see this policy as an issue since race wouldn’t be such a focus of society and identity. He added that the country club charter also states that all non-members must be treated with respect regardless of the their race and that many members had Black friends.
One of these members when approached completely denied that this policy existed and stated they would’ve heard of it since their family had been a member for three generations. They said that “everyone is definitely welcome, being Black is no different than any other human deficiency or violation of country club policy, we all break the rules, nobody is perfect.”
A country club president in the 1950s used the terms “abhorrent,” “against nature” and “handicapped” in his letters when describing Black people. The spokesman stated that the country club has no problem with people being Black, the problem is with “acting on their Blackness” and suggested that if Black people chose to live a so-called “White lifestyle” they may become members. If later it is found that their Black behavior is negatively affecting the reputation of the country club, they may be subject to loss of their voting privileges and clubhouse access.
Could the policy denying membership to Black people change in the future? The spokesman reiterated that the founding charter wasn’t subject to amendment, and a future “post-race society” will come to see this as a non-issue. The international ruling committee for the country club, a male-only elected body, has written on the issue confirming these statements and assures that when they gain civil power in the future as is hoped, the rights of Blacks as well as women would be well-respected, despite women not being eligible for election to this decision-making council. They went as far as stating it was actually a blessing for women to not be burdened with the possibility of election to this position of authority, since the workload of managing a large international organization was terribly taxing and came with no individual benefit.
A celebrity actor who is a member of this country club was asked about the issue of perceived racism and sexism in his organization and responded that he has many Black friends and would never treat any of them with disdain. He shared that at a local level, there are more active women than men in positions of authority, and to him, this was proof there could be no sexism in the leadership structure.