QuakerInfo.com Forum

[anastasia]

I am aware that Quakers are pacifist but is this at any cost? ie liberty or
democracy for example. Would Quakers have let Hitler take over Europe?
Do you think there is ever justification for war?..that is to say in self defense to prevent imminent invasion by an enemy.
This is a heavy subject I know but very important to me.
I would really welcome any comments

[Anthony]

I read that George Fox would have considered that no war was justified, regardless, and invasion was the better option.

I have just read a book called The Reluctant Tommy (Tommy being a name for 1st World War soldiers), the memoirs of Ronald Skirth of his experiences in the war. He witnessed so much horrific violence and bloodshed during is time in the trenches and killing fields that he turned pacifist whilst still a combatant in the war - he shot to miss.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/books/article-1270109/The-Tommy-refused-kill-THE-RELUCTANT-TOMMY-BY-RONALD-SKIRTH.html

[Kiahanie]

Most Quakers are pacifist in one way or another. The "Quaker Peace Testimony" (a good Google search) is understood in many ways. There are even some Friends who conscientiously serve in the military, a few in combat roles, many more as medics. On the level of personal violence, some Friends are totally pacifist, others would defend someone being attacked, others would defend themselves.

Very often the political question is phrased in terms of national self-defense against an attacking enemy. But that is entirely too late to be raising the issue of whether pacifism is an appropriate response to violence on a national scale. Political pacifism has to begin in adopting policies toward the world and other nations that remove the cause for war, create other avenues for grievances to be addressed, meet the needs of all people for a fulfilling life. Waiting until conflict arises and then saying "oops, I can't serve because I'm a pacifist" or "oops I have to fight because those people want to fight us" is really too late to consider the implications of pacifism.

Welcome to the forum, Anastasia. You will find that although Quakers seek to walk in the Light, that Light often takes us along different paths.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[Dan]

Our kingdom is not of this world. War is wrong, from both the "good" and the "bad" side.

In our uncivil war in the US, both sides had men that claimed to be devout christians doing God's will.

The same was in WWII. Need I remind thee that the belt buckles of the Nazi soldiers said: "Gott mit uns" which means God with us.

God has called us to live on a diffn't plain.

I prefer to be "nonresistant" rather than labeled as a pacifist. The term pacifist implies being active in the opposition of war, and I'm not settled myself in the involvement believers should have in the affairs of government. I prefer just to be nonresistant. That is, I pray to be like Christ as the scripture says: "When He was reviled, He reviled not again." He is our example.

Just my two cents worth. Thee may take it as thee wishes.

Thy Friend,
Dan

[Pulpculture]

Spot on Kiahanie & Dan. Well done.
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[Ironrat]

This question is actually the reason I joined this forum. I identify with Quaker principles in many ways and feel it is a beautiful way of life. However, I used to be a soldier and although I’m not the sort to wear it on my sleeve, I would serve again if called to do so. More than this, I would defend my family and friends with the upmost level of violence if I had to and would be unlikely to walk past a stranger in trouble.

I attended a meeting here for a few months, but eventually stopped going because I felt a fraud. Was I right or too hasty? Is it possible for someone like me to be a Quaker?

I know this sounds weird and I’m sorry Anastasia for jumping your topic.

[Kiahanie]

Here is a truly telling tale from the earliest Quakers.

[Anthony]

Friend,

Firstly, you will not be the only Quaker to have such concerns, so, you are not alone. I commend you for your honesty as I believe there are many of us who would fight to save the one's we love and to save a stranger in need. I couldn't trust myself not to resort to such behaviour, even to save an animal in danger from humans.

Many Quakers commit needless violence against animals, yet, violence is violence; that to which you refer would be essential and not needless. We are allowed the discretion to choose for ourselves how we would react in life threatening situations. It is not something that someone else can prescribe for us. Nevertheless, we are advised to consider peaceful means at all times.

Even those of us who say we wouldn't violently defend family and friends don't actually know if this would be under our control until faced with a life threatening situation. I say you are definitely not a fraud, and yes, you would make a very good and honest Quaker. You, and all of us, are vulnerable and human and you have recognised and admitted this.

Having said this I thing it is necessary to aspire towards pacifism and non-violence as an ideal. Please don't look backwards or project into the non-existent future but be in the reality and peace of the moment within, where God may be found and then leave the rest up to Him.

[CelticNorth]

I am often mindful of the experience facing the Quaker community in Pennsylvania when confronted with the coming of the Revolutionary War. There were the Free Quakers, who as a matter of conscience, did fight, with one regiment in the Continental Army being the "Quaker Blues", a regiment of the famous Continental Line out of Philadelphia. Betsy Ross came from this group of Free Quakers, who when faced with the coming War of Independence, did decide to actitvely support the Revolutionary cause. Other Quakers used their farms as hosptials and assisted with foraging for the Continetal Army. Nearly all the Peace Quakers supported Britian, and were often accused of profiteering by attempting to maintain favorable economic ties that had been granted with Britian through the Penn Charter. One of these groups actually assisted with breaking out of prison some British prisoners in Lancaster, Pa. Today, it is easy for us to rest upon the Peace Testimony and claim Quaker life is a hgher calling which excludes one from participating in the affairs of government. But it is a point worth noting that early American Quakers had no problem participating fully in the colonial government of Pennyslvania; it was only when they lost influence and Pennyslvania joined the Revolutionary cause did Quakers retreat from government participation. It was a decision that I am not certain benefited either the
Quakers or the country, and it was a watershed decision that set the tone for todays Quaker shumming of politcal office.

[Anthony]

[CelticNorth]

From Charles Wetherill we are told the argument unfolded and was stated: " The Creator of Man, having bestowed upon individuals greater and less natural abilities, and opportunities of improvement a varitety of sentiments respecting the duties which we owe Him, necessarily arises amoung us, and it becomes essestial to our happiness, that we may perform those duties in a way which we think most acceptable to Him. And therefore, we contemplate the long continued earnest contest which has been maintained , and the torrents of blood which, in other countires, have been shed in defense of this privilage, we cannot but acknowledge it to be a signal instance of the immediate care of divine providence over the people of America, that He has, in the great present great revolution, thus far established among us governments, under which no man, who acknowledgs the being of a God, can be abridged of any civil right on account of his religious sentiments; while other nations sho see and lament their wretehed situation are yet groaning under a greivous bondage. But governments established upon those liberal, just, and truely Christian principles, and wisely confined to the great objects of ascertaining and defending civil rights, in avoiding the possiblity of wounding the conscinece of any, must unavoidadbly leave some cases unprovided for, which come under the care of relgious societies. Hence we ar not only left at liberty to act agreeably to our sentiments ,but that the nessecity and obligation of establishing and supporting religious socities are increased and strenghtened." I think Weehterall was saying that religious freedom is never "free", as we want to suppose, but that individual human choice and civil right to defend it is in itself ordained and sometimes nessecary over the objections of religious societies themselves. Individual conscience, in this case, was in service of relgious freedom, and was therefore not in oppostion to God, nor could be denied by the Society of Friends.

[Anthony]

[Kiahanie]

Friend Anthony, McGuffey was just answering your question about how some Friends justified participation in war:

[CelticNorth]

Friend Kihanie, I think that many of today's Quaker's are not familiar with the Free Quakers, and how the Amercian Revolution shook the foundation of Pennsylvania Quaker society, and particularly the Philadelphia Meeting, through issues such as disowment v individual conscience for those who supported the Continental Congress, ratification of the Articles of Confederation, and the Declaration of Independence. Not only did many Quakers in Philadelphia join the Quaker Blues, but joined other regiments as well. It is worthy to note that in 1952, the Society of Friends rescinded the disownment of the Free Quakers, and found thier participation in the Amercian Revolution "vindicated and approved", something which I think Friend Anthony may have a newly developed interest in reading about. The Society of Free Quakers still exists today, although it is more dedicated to the historical rememberance and preservation of of the Free Quakers, and whose main activities today benefit local charities in Philadelphia. The Free Quaker Meeting House still stands.

[Kiahanie]

I expect you're right, McG. We are often not only uninformed of our own history, but also sometimes whitewash it through selective memory. Anthony, of course, being a British cousin, would not be expected to be as close to our history over here as we should be.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi