Breaking: Judge Rules in Favor of Minority Bahá'í Sect
A federal court has ruled the Orthodox Bahá'í Faith can keep its name.
Update, Nov. 24 at 1:37pm.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled Tuesday that an orthodox faction of the Bahá'í faith can still call themselves Bahá'ís.
The federal ruling hits close to home for Wilmette, which houses the North American Bahá'í House of Worship."We are disappointed that the Court still failed to find the respondents in contempt of the injunction," according to a statement from the U.S. Baha'i National Center in Evanston.
The decision states that a 1966 ruling that stopped a sect, referred to as the Hereditary Guardianship, from using names and symbols of the Bahá'í faith does not apply to this case. While the sect disbanded, "over time the former followers of the Hereditary Guardianship established several new religious groups and a publishing firm," according to the court's opinion written by Circuit Judge Diane Sykes.
"The case is complicated not just by the passage of time, but also because it arises in the context of a religious schism, and the individuals and groups against whom contempt sanctions are sought were not parties to the original litigation," Sykes wrote.
There are 50 orthodox Bahá'ís in the United States, with approximately one to two living in the Chicagoland area, according to Jeffrey Goldberg, secretary of the National Orthodox Bahá'í Council. As of 2000, there were 7.1 million followers around the world, according to the World Christian Encyclopedia. Founded in Iran in 1844, the Bahá'í faith came to North America roughly 50 years later. Its Wilmette-based temple opened to the public in 1933*.
"Whether or not we have the right to use the word Bahai, it seems clear to me that it's a generic term that can't be trademarked exclusively," Goldberg told Patch.
For the mainstream Bahá'í faith, the ruling goes against founder Bahá'u'lláh's Covenant which states that: "the Bahá'í community is a single, organically united body, free of schisms or factions."
"Those who do not, or cease to, observe these provisions of the Covenant cannot legitimately claim to be Bahá'ís," according to the Bahá'í International Community website.
The updated version of this article includes an official statement from the U.S. Baha'i National Center. Stay tuned for ongoing coverage of the Chicago court's ruling on wilmette.patch.com.
*Correction: The original article stated 1953 as the date in which the house of worship was opened to the public.
Candace Hill
1:19 pm on Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Hi Andrea,
Just a small correction, the first public tours given of the Baha'i House of Worship construction site were in 1933 for the Chicago's Century of Progress World's Fair. As the building progressed and the gardens were designed and installed, members of the public were always welcome to tour and to attend special programs, either in the downstairs meeting hall or incomplete upstairs auditorium. The 1953 formal dedication marked the completion of construction of the Baha'i House of Worship and the gardens.
Andrea Hart
2:02 pm on Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Candace,
Thanks for your help! I made a correction and noted it at the bottom.
Frederick Glaysher
4:10 pm on Sunday, December 5, 2010
I've read Judge Sykes' Opinion . It goes right to the heart of the matter:
p 14-15: "Considered in light of these First Amendment limitations on the court’s authority, certain aspects of the 1966 injunction are troubling. The decree declares that “there is only one Baha’i Faith,” that Shoghi Effendi was its last Guardian and none has come since, and the National Spiritual Assembly was its representative and “highest authority” in the United States and was “entitled to exclusive use of the marks and symbols of the Faith,” including the exclusive use of the word “Bahá’í.” Declarations of this sort push the boundaries of the court’s authority under Kedroff and Presbyterian Church. In church property disputes (trademark suits obviously qualify), the First Amendment limits the sphere in which civil courts may operate. When a district judge takes sides in a religious schism, purports to decide matters of spiritual succession, and excludes dissenters from using the name, symbols, and marks of the faith (as distinct from the name and marks of a church), the First Amendment line appears to have been crossed."
For the Judges' full Opinion, just google US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals bahai