QuakerInfo.com Forum

james · Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Posts: 1108 Location: Minneapolis

One more thing: to judge, to form an opinion, even a strong opinion, on various matters, is not the same is being judgmental. To believe anything is to make a judgment. Being judgmental, on the other hand, is passing judgment on a person's worthiness--as a Quaker or as a human being. The latter is what I am uneasy with. That doesn't mean that I am never judgmental, but I try not to be.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

Kiahanie · Joined: 25 Mar 2008 Posts: 464 Location: Oregon

james · Joined: 11 Jun 2004 Posts: 1108 Location: Minneapolis

I spent four years in the Army, enlisting more than ten years before I attended my first Friends Meeting, though when I joined I already thought of myself as something like a pacifist. I spent most of my last year applying for conscientious objector status. If it sounds somewhat contradictory, it was.

I posted the following on this forum some years ago not because I thought I was any sort of model--I absolutely wasn't and still am not--but to put these kinds of moral struggles in human terms.

If it's a testament of anything it's a testament against purity, or against the illusion that purity is possible where humans are concerned. All our motivations are mixed, and we just have to struggle to be the best people we know how to be.

http://www.quakerinfo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7190&highlight=#7190
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

CelticNorth · Joined: 22 Sep 2005 Posts: 755 Location: East of Eden

Pacifism and non-violence, it seems to me, are at the edge of the envelope when confronted with the social and civil need of maintaining justice. Justice, being the vindication of right by assigning reward or punishment, requires law, which in return requires individuals to submit to powers which supercede the individual, as well as competing civil and national interests. Human Rights are tenable only when freedom from violence and cohercion are present, which seems to nessitate the rule of law and consequent abilility of enforecement giving rewards and punishment. Is it permissable to set aside pacifism and non-violence for the sake of justice in those cases in which there is a moral imperitive to do so? What is justice then, and what does it require from us ?

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdSleLgpOwwIAc_VXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1ZWJmMWZlBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA0FDQlkwMl8xMzk-/SIG=122jr65j3/EXP=1309311678/**http%3a//www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/13852.html

Kiahanie · Joined: 25 Mar 2008 Posts: 464 Location: Oregon

Jim Wilson · Joined: 13 Sep 2009 Posts: 99 Location: Northern California

A few comments:

Regarding the vegetarian analogy; I often find it helpful when dealing with difficult issues to draw a comparison, analogy, to more mundane, less charged, examples. All analogies have their weaknesses, but I stand by this analogy in the sense that I think it is a good example of someone wanting to have their cake and eat it too and that is what, I think, applies to the case of those Quakers who also want to engage in war.

Regarding the revolutionary war in particular; what was really gained by it? Were the colonies actually better off for being independent? I think it is instructive to note that a large portion of the population did not support the revolution. Some fled to Canada after the colonies won independence. Historians dispute the percentage, but 1/3 is a fairly common estimate.

What I find missing from this discussion is the biblical dimension out of which the non-participation in war arose. This forum is dominated by non-biblical (perhaps 'anti' is closer) participants and so there is a natural inclination to not bring in a biblical dimension. Yet it is on the basis of a reading of scripture that the non-participation in war was founded. It may not be possible to generate such a commitment outside of that context. For example, Jesus' teaching to not resist evil, and to love one's enemies, is central to the commitments we are discussing (this is true for all 'peace churches', not just Quakers). I mention this because the commitment to non-participation in war wasn't based on a theory of justice; rather it was seen as a primarily religious duty to follow in the footsteps of Jesus and to follow his teaching. It emerges from the view that as followers of Jesus we should not follow the ways of the world for the kingdom of heaven is not of this world.

This kind of approach makes little sense to a secular orientation. I am aware that there are secular pacifists, but my point is that in order to comprehend why the early Quakers advocated for non-participation in war one has to enter into their views and understanding and secular discussions based on theories of justice won't take you there.

Best wishes,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

Kiahanie · Joined: 25 Mar 2008 Posts: 464 Location: Oregon

As a "non-biblical pacifist," I want to thank you, Friend Jim, for your continuing testimony of the Christian roots of Quaker faith and practice. While many of us who came to the Society by other routes may not share the Christian view of Jesus' centrality, we are all enriched by understanding how the Divine moved in his life and that of his followers, both in ancient times and in modern times. Thank you for providing those consistent reminders.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

Anthony · Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 1542

Anthony · Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 1542

Anthony · Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 1542

Kiahanie · Joined: 25 Mar 2008 Posts: 464 Location: Oregon

Anthony · Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 1542

Anthony · Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 1542

Kiahanie · Joined: 25 Mar 2008 Posts: 464 Location: Oregon

When I translate, I find that I am still unable to agree with absolute statements of where the Light within another may or may not lead that person. I seek no debate, only to make clear how I believe in this matter, as you have made yourself clear.

We are not all in possession of the same measure of Light, and that Light we do have speaks to the condition of each, shining differently for different people. I respect all who conscientiously seek that Light and are guided by it. While another's path may not be for my feet, I do respect a discerned choice even as I respect That of God Within the person who sought out that Source to illumine the way. I respect your discerned leading to do no violence to animals for the same reason I respect another Friend's discerned leading to make a commitment to the military, although my own measure of Light does not lead in those directions.

Now, joining up for reasons of patriotism or nationalism is an entirely different matter.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

Shay · Joined: 01 Jun 2005 Posts: 885

I am sad there is a war of words on this topic.

Not because of the participants, but because there seems to be no common language available to all.

I understand, I do, that everyone does not think words mean the same thing, or even that ideas or ideals mean the same thing, but I wish there were as many easily understood words for peace as there are for fighting.

One can fight against injustice as well as fight for, one can sue for peace as well as sue for money, etc...

I'm sorry this is but an acerbic aside, but it's against the language, not y'all. I really do wish we could explain ourselves easier... I know the pro-war-at-all-costs folks can, and that is not fair to their gentle counterparts. Le sigh.