QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Jim Wilson]

Good Friends:

I posted this question at Quaker Quaker, but I am hoping that someone at this Forum might be able to point me in the right direction; the post at Quaker Quaker received one response, which was interesting, but didn't directly respond to my inquiry.

I was reading some Quaker history online and came across a passage where it is stated that during the dispute between the Gurneyites and the Wilburites that Gurney urged his audience to vote. The history further states that most Quakers at that time did not vote.

I am interested in this aspect of past Quaker behavior, if it is true. I am wondering if there is any literature from the period which addresses specifically the issue of voting; perhaps in a Quaker Journal by some Quaker Preacher, or maybe in a Discpline. Was this a custom, like Plain Speech, or was it a leading among some, or perhaps something that is specifically addressed in some work?

The reason I am interested in this is that it contrasts so strongly with the Quaker tradition as I have enountered it, which seems to be so strongly political. Quakers seem to be enthusiastic about taking a position about any and every political issue, both major and minor, that comes up. If it is true that at one time even a significant portion of Quakers did not vote, I am wondering how that changed.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Best wishes,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

[michaeldavidjay]

Allen Jay complains about the 'new method' of voting that was used in the Five years meeting in his journal as being generally inferior to the older method... except in speed... His journal is currently in print by FUM -- so American (gurneyite) Friends experimented with voting at the start of the 20th century.... currently, I believe only EFC-ER votes in the US... but I'm told that Guatemala YM votes too.

--

The normal method of decision making is a cooperate discernment process with outward similarity to consensus.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

[Kiahanie]

Jim, were you referring to civil ballots or decision-making within the Religious Society of Friends?
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[Jim Wilson]

[kevin roberts]

i don't vote, but i don't look down on people who do.

i seem to recall that my yearly meeting's discipline had something to say about it in 1867. i'll look next time i have a chance. that was a few years after the gurneyites and wilburites parted company around here, so you'll get the wilburite take if there was one.

[Jim Wilson]

Thanks Kevin. Is that the Ohio Yearly Meeting? I might have that in a collection of early Disciplines.

Thanks,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

[kevin roberts]

[Chip]

Hi Kevin, would you be willing to talk a little about your own thoughts on voting and not voting? I've skipped the last couple of local votes and I think I'm altogether done with voting but am still a little unclear. I'd have a lot of respect for your input.
_________________
Take what is given
Give what is taken

[Jim Wilson]

Good Friends:

I was reading the Journal of Joseph Hoag and came across a passage regarding civil elections. It reads as follows:

"When the accounts were presented to the Yearly Meeting from the different Quarters, there appeared much disorder and weakness among them; I found my mind arrested to labor much, plain and clear; among the rest, my mind was arrested with weight, for a length of time, which I sat under, until I was not able to attend to their business sufficiently to know how it was going on. I then informed them there was a subject on my mind, and continued with me so heavy that I saw no other way but leave it where I found it. The subject is this -- it is not good for Minsters and Elders to mount their horses and ride round the country to electioneer to get a slaveholder for an assembly-man -- it is not consistent with our principles. I was led to show that while we were bearing a testimony against slavery, to ride round and endeavor to get in an assembly-man who was determined to support slavery, was not consistent, and was led to treat the subject very plain and clear, to show the encouragement it gave for other Friends to do so likewise; that it was not good; Friends had better keep out of the mixture. I sat down, feeling great peace of mind, and had but little more service through the meeting."

(Page 199)

This is a thoughtful passage. It is not clear to me when I read it if Hoag is only arguing against supporting a candidate whose principles are inconsistent with those of Friends, which in this case means supporting someone who is a slaveholder, or if Hoag has a broader point to make. The broader point may be hinted at in his remark "Friends had better keep out of the mixture." On reading this I could interpret it as saying that Friends would be better off not getting involved in elections at all, that is to say they should stay out of the "mixture" and not involve themselves in the electoral process. But I'm not sure, that may be overreading what is written. From just this passage it could also mean that Friends should take more care in whom they advocate for when it comes to electoral office. Still, the passage is interesting and it is the first one I have come across which specifically addresses civil elections.

Best wishes,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

[kevin roberts]

[Chip]

Thanks Kevin. People generally think I'm crazy too. But it's okay, I'm used to it. And folks always see to it that crazy people are happy, well fed and comfortable at any sort of gathering. It's all they know to do with you

What you say about voting makes a lot of sense to me. It's very much the way I seem to be heading. Or I guess I'm already there and just still settling in. My wife doesn't agree with me either! But like the folks at gatherings, she humors me.

I really liked what you said about actually trying to become the future. There's an awful lot in that little sentence. So thanks very much for sharing with me. Your words are without fail, some of the most sensible and solid on this and other forums I lurk around on.
_________________
Take what is given
Give what is taken

[michaeldavidjay]

@Kevin to quote a late Friend (Richard W. Mullins) from Indiana: "Democracy is not bad politics, its just bad math." I believe he was suggesting that the masses are no less corrupt than a dictator... I also believe he was trying to make a joke.
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

[james]

I think democracy is mostly alright, but like Kevin I'm not terribly religious about it. 90 percent of the people dominating 10 percent is a lousy solution to anything important, 60/40 is even lousier. Plus we don't vote on most policy, we mostly just vote on who gets to vote on policy. But I vote, because when brutal or intolerant or just plain stupid people take office, great suffering results.

I am a fan of liberal Western democracy as a package deal, but mostly because of things like a Bill of Rights to protect the rights of individuals and minority groups, and things like an independent judiciary dedicated to upholding that Bill of Rights. Freedom of the press, for instance, is no small thing.

I'm not religious about religion, either, though, so on a national scale I prefer liberal democracy to any theocracy I've ever heard of.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org

[michaeldavidjay]

James, in this you speak my mind. I regret I may not get to vote in the only election that matters this year (The republican primary). [I live in such a deep red section of a red state that often the democrats don't even field a congressional candidate] This year, there is a lot of stupidity and anger going around... I want to vote for the candidate not calling for 2 minutes of hate... I know, that's putting the standards pretty low -- but, what choice is there?
_________________
Do Friends speak to today's condition, or are we only a historical footnote?

[pilgrim]

Friend Kevin,

I'm interested in learning more about Theocracy in the Pennsylvania colony. Can you point me in the right direction?