 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
punkrainbow
Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 301
Location: Leeds
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 5, 2008 8:41 am Post subject: Are my Attitudes Quaker? |
 |
|
Over the past few days, I've been thinking about how to set out coherently my political attitudes in a concise way and whether they relate to Quaker Testimonies. I'm pro-choice on abortion, sex before marriage, open relationships and contraception. These attitudes are seemingly quite secular, but I think they're rooted in a Quaker understanding of equality. Historically, Friends have championed Gender Equality and since many traditional taboos of our society surrounding sex were really about men controlling the female body. If we are serious about equality, I think we need to question 'old ways of doing things' and accommodate different lifestyles.
I am in favour of the legalization of various recreational drugs, provided they are labelled with their concentration to help avoid overdose, government agencies monitor their quality and distribution and divert revenues from drug-sales to fund drug-rehabilitation on the NHS. I'm very much in agreement with Richard Holloway who noted that if it hadn't been for Britain's drug-laws
| Quote: |
| '...five young women from Ipswich would be alive today. Forcing addicts to sell their bodies to feed their addiction, when we could prescribe them heroin and help them manage their lives better, is to accord higher value to an arbitrary law than to the sacredness of human life itself'. |
Our leaders should listen to this man of monstrous ideas http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/dec/24/comment.religion
For non-British readers, here is the context of the 'young women from Ipswich' referred to by Holloway, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/6189409.stm
As Holloway hints, reforming drug-laws is not about enshrining irresponsible pleasure in our society, something Friends have historically been very worried about. Rather relaxation of the law would be a loving response to harm that punitive measures do e.g. forcing people into crime and dangerous situations to feed their addiction. Surely recognizing that 'everyone is a precious child of God'. means we have to take some radical steps to protect the principle?
Something which is more akin to the traditional attitude held by Friends is my attitude towards gambling. I'm in favour of the criminalization of all commercial gambling outlets and tight regulation for internet gambling. Also, in line with a generally negative Quaker stance on pornography, I also would like to see big tax hikes on the sex industry to make it more difficult for companies to set up business and use the revenue to combat sexually transmitted diseases.
One final attitude of mine concerns economics. I am generally disinclined towards adopting simplistic free-market solutions to problems and instead believe that a strong and publicly accountable government is required to ensure that the flaws of our economic system, (the perpetuation of social inequality and exploitation) are kept to a minimum and the state takes pre-emptive steps to combat poverty, under-education, poor housing and healthcare. I'm not sure whether there has ever been a distinctive Quaker model of economics but at the heart of such a model should probably be 'fair shares for all'.
For me this can only be achieved if we have a tax system which helps people on modest and low incomes and taxes the most those who have more than sufficient to have a good life. Having said this, I don't think Quakerism is against enterprise or entrepreneurship, after all many Quakers have been successful in business, but have also been socially responsible. In the 19th century many Quaker philanthropists channelled their efforts towards improving conditions for workers. I suppose Friends would say that economic activity is all about intention and in this respect, I think I agree with the historically tendency of Friends to focus on the economically disadvantaged.
_________________
I saw the infinite love of God. I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death; but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BillSamuel
Joined: 06 Aug 2002
Posts: 772
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 5, 2008 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Today Quakers vary widely in their views on most of the matters you raise.
Traditionally Quakers were very strong on sexual morality, and did not hold genital sex before marriage to be acceptable. Today that remains the norm in many parts of Quakerism, but other parts of Quakerism have a very different view.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kevin roberts
Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 768
Location: more or less anywhere in america
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 5, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BillSamuel wrote: |
| Traditionally Quakers were very strong on sexual morality, and did not hold genital sex before marriage to be acceptable. |
Well, Bill, I'm afraid I have to ask.
Is there some other kind of sex, aside from "genital sex?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gracie
Joined: 27 Nov 2006
Posts: 170
Location: Iowa
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 6, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know if this is what Bill was thinking of, but in the 1600s and 1700s, people did not have the same moral aversions to sex, including premarital sex, that the later Victorians did. Getting married because of pregnancy was practical and done, but not particularly shameful. Couples also practiced bundling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition)
I imagine Quaker ideas of sex would have been consistent with their time.
_________________
http://sowingmildoats.wordpress.com
When will our consciences grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than avenge it?
Eleanore Roosevelt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 6, 2008 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kevin roberts wrote: |
Is there some other kind of sex, aside from "genital sex?" |
Oooooh Kevin!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BillSamuel
Joined: 06 Aug 2002
Posts: 772
Location: Silver Spring, MD, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 6, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Some people would consider simple kissing to be a sexual activity. I was trying not to include such activities.
There was a former Miss America who refused to kiss until marriage. I don't think Quakers ever went to that extreme.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA
Co-Coordinator, Friends in Christ
Last edited by BillSamuel on Mon Apr 7, 2008 6:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pulpculture
Joined: 28 Apr 2003
Posts: 564
Location: England
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 7, 2008 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess this demonstrates we have to draw own lines. I kiss my relatives when I see them but I don't class it as sexual activity. Personally I feel there is a lot to do for the cause of 'good' in this world so I'm not going to get hung up on Bible scripture as I could be making better use of my time.
_________________
.
I said don't forget Burma! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 7, 2008 4:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well - Mmmmm...hummm...err...who started this? How far can we take it?  Is it a 'wind-up?'  There's a naughty comment I'm dying to make, but I know better.  Perhaps a bit of encouragement....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
