QuakerInfo.com Forum

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

Pacifism, or non-agression, has to be the optimal diplomatic strategy becasue it attempts to ensure a number of things for all parties involved; free trade without the fear of piracy, non military intervention in disputes, recipocal aid and assistance in time of common emergencies, and the exchange of language and ideas that foster new avenues for universal knowledge and human advancement. It may be more meaningful to turn the argument here on its head, by trying to defend and explain the benefits of militarism.

BillSamuel · Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject:

orPowers · Joined: 25 Aug 2006 Posts: 637 Location: Medford, OR

No one has been saying that all war is justifiable either. The point is that the war system has been sufficently succesful for some states which wage it that they will continue to use it until they are brought to a halt by the same sword they wield. If you could get such rogue states to see the benefits of living peacefully without having to beat them at their own game, wonderful. Does it happen? I don't think so. The only justification for the barbaric way is to halt greater barbarism, just as the only justification for deadly police force within a society is to halt greater barbarism by force.
I will answer my own question for myself from a previous post, the rest of you will have to wrestle with it for yourselves. I would like to see some indication of that wrestling. When the alternative is anarchy under the condition of this world, the state absolutely has a police responsibility which includes the option of deadly force when required. Our place in society is and should be to do our best to remove the causes of the use of deadly force by perpetrators and to do our best to insure that the use of such force by the state is justified. If push should come to shove in my own life, I would resort to what force I am capable of to prevent deadly force being used on a victim if I thought no other course of action would answer. I believe that is part of my responsibility within society in the conditions under which we now exist.

In His Love,
orPowers
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

oneputt · Joined: 28 Dec 2002 Posts: 232

Gracie · Joined: 27 Nov 2006 Posts: 170 Location: Iowa

I've followed this discussion with interest, especially as a newer Quaker and child of a WWII/Korea veteran. In reply to the accusation that pacificists are quiet about issues of WWII and using force to defeat evil, I'd like to ask the "force backers" to speak up about the bombing of Hiroshima and, most especially, Nagasaki (sp?)

Gracie
_________________
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

BillSamuel · Posted: Thu Feb 22, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject:

orPowers · Joined: 25 Aug 2006 Posts: 637 Location: Medford, OR

oneputt · Joined: 28 Dec 2002 Posts: 232

oneputt · Joined: 28 Dec 2002 Posts: 232

In rereading Bill's post,I realize now that I may have taken issue with him unfairly.My initial impression was that Bill was blaming the deaths of the Jews on the war.I now see that he may have simply been saying that the war didn't stop the 6 million deaths.If this is the case,then I apologize.I started to edit my other post to remove the rant,but then decided that enough people may have already seen it that leaving it as is and addressing it here would be best.

Having said that,Bill's point is still in error.There is not a shred of proof that the killings would have somehow stopped without a war.I would like to know upon what basis Bill thinks that Hitler would have simply quit exterminating all the undesirables.The number would have certainly,not almost certainly,but certainly,grown much higher without WW2.He might have well succeeded in completely wiping out the Jews in Europe,along with all the others he despised.And God only knows what he would have done to the Russians if he had won there.It is not at all unreasonable to extrapolate deaths totaling 100 million if Hitler had been left unchecked.

Here are a few brief facts on WW2.

September 1939
UK,Aus,NZ,and France declare war on Germany

January 1942
First US forces land in GB

Death camps

Auschwitz est 1940
Buchenwald est 1937
Dachau est 1933
Flossenburg est 1938
Gross-Rosen est 1940
Mauthausen est 1938
Neuengamme est 1938
Ravensbruck est 1939
Sachsenhausen est 1936
Stutthof est 1939
Westerbork est 1939

All of the above,along with the other camps established after 1940,were liberated by armed forces.Not one camp was liberated through nonviolent pacifist means.As far as the war not preventing deaths,how are you supposed to stop the killings done behind enemy lines during the war?The camps were well established and operational well before the war was going.

oneputt · Joined: 28 Dec 2002 Posts: 232

After some reflection,I have decided to quit posting and reading here.While I am sure I will be missed Very Happy

(like a bad headache),I see no reason to continue.In short,I came here to learn about,and hopefully one day join, the Quakers.Ironically,I have lived all my life where there are no Quakers,and now that I and my family are moving where there are 2 Quaker meetings,I no longer feel the desire to join.The Quakers of today are not the Quakers I originally learned about that drew me to them,with their group mysticism and meeting the Spirit of God.You don't have to believe in Christ,even though the core,the center,the very fabric of original,and fading,Quakerism (at least in America) is "there is one,even Christ Jesus,who can speak to thy condition".How can there be true Quakerism without a Christ to guide you?Heck,you can even be an atheist and be a Quaker today. Confused

It has become a stronghold of liberalism and political correctness,instead of a living faith,it seems to me from my participation in this and other forums.I doubt Fox or Woolman would even recognize much of what is called Quakerism today.

I also do not care to be associated with a group that can convince itself that leaving their fellow men to suffer unimaginable horrors at the hands of insane despots (have any Quakers actually sat down and watched film of the 90 lb men caged behind barbed wire,or naked women and children being sent into the gas chambers, in Nazi Germany,not to mention the medical experiments and sexual abuse ?) is a righteous action,and who can convince themselves that their feeble attempts at nonviolent resistance to men like Hitler,Pol Pot,Stalin,and Saddam are a real option and substitute for forceful action that would actually save these people.The concept of allowing others to suffer because ones' religious sentiments precludes helping them in an effective way is appalling,and one that neither Christ nor any biblical writer espoused .

I am also disappointed that no one has had the_______________ ( call it whatever you want) to have answered myself or orpowers on the very specific questions we each have asked more than once.I would have thought that most Quakers would have had at least the ability to face a little self reflection on their beliefs.The continuing silence tells me I am wrong on that.

So,good bye.I have learned a lot here,and while it wasn't what I wanted to learn,it has made me satisfied with the Christians I currently worship with.The grass isn't always greener on the other side.

orPowers · Joined: 25 Aug 2006 Posts: 637 Location: Medford, OR

fastmail98 · Joined: 15 Oct 2005 Posts: 39 Location: CT

I sincerely regret your leaving this board on such terms...I view the silence that you refer to not as a lack of willingness to respond or avoidance of dialogue, but as an indication of the stop-and-start nature of discussions on website boards in general. I also regret your seeking being limited to answers, or lack of them, on this website. Many people, myself included, check in here once or twice a week and do not always keep up with the daily discussions.

I do not agree with the conclusions drawn from the responses or lack of them concerning the Holocaust or the Quaker concept of Christ. I would certainly encourage Seekers to read foundational books on Quaker beliefs as well as attend Meetings at a local Meetinghouse, and to engage in deeper conversations with Quakers on that level. It is impossible to convery the wisdom, faith, and practices of 350 years of Quaker history in just bits and clips on a website discussion board....Quakerism is much too deep to be discussed in any meanigfull way through just a few questions and answers. Quakerism is the Quaker experience in its historical entirety including all of its variations and internal disagreements.

To begin with, I suggest that seekers read free introductory pamphlets available at Meetinghouses or for nominal purchase prices through www.quakerbooks.org. For deeper historical understanding and discussions, I recommend historical texts such as 'Friends for 350 Years' or 'Portrait in Grey'...both present a historical overview of the founding and development of Quaker faith and practices.

The Nazi war machine was not met with silence and 'business as usual' by Quakers...such an assertion is based on a lack of knowlege of the period and activities by Quakers in both the United States and Europe. In the book, 'Quakers and Nazis', by Hans Schmidt, the author explains the challenge to and activities of the German Yearly Meeting that existed in Nazi Germany. Also, because Quakers followed their own conscience at this time, there were a number of 'Fighting Quakers', Friends who went to war against the Axis powers, involved in combat duty at this time.

I think the best way to reply to questions concerning the place of Christ in Quaker Faith is to quote Wilmer Cooper from his book, 'A Living Faith: An Historical and Comparative Study of Quaker Beliefs':

"Since the time of (George) Fox, Friends have held differing views of Jesus and Christ, resulting from their lack of clarity about the Christ of faith to the Jesus of history, not from any lack of belief in Jesus Christ. That uncertainty and lack of agreement continues to this day, althought the over-riding tradition has been to emphasize the Christ Within at the expense of the historical Jesus...Friends have never been precise about the meaning of the Christ Within and have often used the Spirit of God, Holy Spirit, Light Within, Christ Within, and similar terms interchangeably. Their chief concern has been to emphasize the importance of obedience to this inward spiritual guide rather than an emphasis on following Jesus of Nazareth."

In other words, instead of being believers in Jesus as written about in The Gospels, Friends are followers and believers of Jesus Christ as being a Living Truth that is within each and every one of us. This is very different from the Jesus Christ that is presented to us as being part of a story handed down through the centuries and talked about by preachers in church services and sermons.

The type of insight into Quaker faith and practices that you seek cannot be encapsulated into a few posts on this website and requires true Seeking via books, attendance at Meetings, and through conversatations with Quakers. Gaining an understanding of Friends in any other or through an abbreviated way would be similar to making decisions concerning life-long nutrition by simply glancing at a dinner menu.

crynwr cymraeg · Joined: 08 Jan 2006 Posts: 19

Oneputt - sorry to see you go, especially with such a bitter tenor in your message. fastmail98 says most of what I would have said. Also, bear in mind that of the 4,000 or so members of this forum, only about 20 or less contibute, which is les than 0.5%. Not much of a sample from which to judge the whole of Quakerism!

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

Oneputt, you confuse me a little. Yes, I understand that you sense some tyranny because the Holocaust went on without Quakers raising arms and becomming militant in order to stop the death camps from continuing. But where are you now on Israel, basing its existance in the name of the 6 million Jews killed, and the rascist Zionist policies against Muslims; Jewish "settlements" on the West Bank; the "Isreali Occupation"; Israeli nuclear weapons; the right to perform "exudicial political assination"; the right for "preempitve military attack", the right to detain without hapeas corpus; the right to deny the Geneva conventions on the return of Palistiians displaced during the 1956,1973 Wars? Yes, the Jewish population of Europe suffered unspeakable horrors. Does that justify the modern State of Israel and the intentional displacement of Arabs for a "Jewish" State? History and conflict are locked in a continuim. Do you support military action against Isreal to rectify the Arab compliant?