5 ms·

> What do you do with people who do not agree with this norm? Are you justified in using force against them? Annoyingly enough, the Quakers -- despite being do

> What do you do with people who do not agree with this norm? Are you justified in using force against them? Annoyingly enough, the Quakers -- despite being doctrinaire pacifists in all other areas -- answered this question with a resounding "yes". Flogging, stocks, and various other brutalities (I don't remember if they used capital punishment, but I think they did) were routine in colonial Pennsylvania...

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Setting aside the question of specific methods (flogging and stocks), I don't see why you consider the idea of force being justified only in cases of retaliating against an attacker to be "annoying". Hard pacifists are extremely rare (Jainists are an exception) and more often than not set up as straw men to promote an agenda. Capital punishment's issues primarily stem from the fact that you're using an exogenous body of collective action (the state) as a proxy to put people to death, with all the problems of public choice that come as a result.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  What annoys me about the Quakers isn't quite what you'd thought; it's that the Quakers preached that no one should be violent (up to and including preaching peaceful resistance against military invaders), and then they turned around and practiced violence. It's like if Martin Luther King had sponsored terrorism. If you're going to preach pacifism to others, you should be pacifist at home. As it is, the Quakers feel like they were using pacifism as a weapon...
  - nebopolis 11y ago
    Do you have any citations to say that Quakers were particularly disposed to capitol punishment during the colonial era? While people of their time what I've been able to find indicates the opposite: [Who Should Die?: The Evolution of Capital Punishment in Pennsylvania, 1681-1794](http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2390&context=etd http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2390&...) The above seems to show that Quakers resisted the use of capitol punishment and its use increased as Quaker control of the colony waned.
    - clock_tower 11y ago
      I don't know if they used capital punishment or not, and it sounds like they didn't; but _Albion's Seed_ talks of the Quakers using flogging, stocks, and the like in early Pennsylvania.
      - nebopolis 11y ago
        This would not surprise me - the colonial penal code was derived as far as I can tell from the English penal code, although less harsh. It is possible to simultaneously be much less harsh than the contemporary norms and still be abhorrent from a modern viewpoint. A more interesting comparison would be to contrast the usage of corporal punishment in early Pennsylvania versus other nearby colonies.
        clock_tower 11y ago
        I'd have to check _Albion's Seed_ for the details, and how their penal code compared to England's and their neighbors' -- but isn't it obvious that there's a contradiction between "preaches mutual love and respect" and "flogs people"? The Quakers were perfectly capable of innovative thought, and of thinking through the consequences of their principles (thus relative sexual equality, concern for animal welfare, and encouragement of vegetarianism); but they were fine with using brutal violence against anyone who didn't accept their doctrine of nonviolence -- especially those from different cultures, and followers of different religions (or different Protestant denominations; they were particularly cruel towards the Presbyterian Scotch-Irish). This is why they get under my skin.
        Umn44 11y ago
        "but they were fine with using brutal violence against anyone who didn't accept their doctrine of nonviolence -- especially those from different cultures, and followers of different religions (or different Protestant denominations; they were particularly cruel towards the Presbyterian Scotch-Irish). This is why they get under my skin." If you don't defend your culture you'll go extinct, the same way you don't want to be contaminated by outside ideas an ways of life that you worked hard to protect. Hypocrisy isn't quite the word I think you'd want to use. People get violent because they passionately want to protect something from what they deem as evil. They can be misguided in that sense but, ultimately they do have a point - those who do not defend themselves find commitments to their principles/ways of life and doctrines waning and their communities will suffer death by mixing and mediocrity. Think of it like cultural entropy, they are trying to resist things that corrode their way of life.
Natsu 11y ago
To be fair, any ideal which is unwilling to do this is likely to die out when those who are not opposed to force use force against them.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  the Anabaptist tradition has lasted about 5 centuries, not by using force, but by being willing to inspire others by facing death courageously (when persecution is targeted and limited), or by fleeing en masse (when persecution is structural and absolute).
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    Good point. The Yazidis have done much the same in the Middle East; and I imagine the Jains must do something similar. Christianity before Constantine is probably also an example.
knughit 11y ago
Do you have citations for your libelous claim?
- clock_tower 11y ago
  _Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America_. The book has a whole chapter on "Quaker Order Ways," complete with stocks and flogging.
foxylad 11y ago
Quaker here. I can't speak for Pennsylvanian quakers two centuries ago, but I'm very surprised to hear about stocks and flogging in a Quaker context. To be clear, Quakers renounce all violence, including against those who perpetrate it. The central tenet of our faith is that there is that of god in every person, so it follows directly that violence against any person is violence against god, and therefore unacceptable. Quakers have put their money and actions where their mouth is - they have always rejected capital punishment, and have been very active in prison reform since the 1800s. They set up the Friend's Ambulance Unit so they could serve during the Second World War. Quakers also recognise that there are many forms of violence, and sponsor the Alternatives to Violence Program (AVP) training for schoolkids. To get back to the original question about dealing with violent people, of course you need to use force against them, to prevent them doing more violence. But that force should be as non-violent as possible, to make it clear that society's norms are intact. Norway's treatment of Anders Breivik is inspirational - it is clear that his incarceration is in no way violent - there is no element of revenge, much to many people's fury. But imagine a Breivik sympathiser - seeing a civilised society treating him in a civilised way leaves very little to spur them on to similar acts. And what about Daesh? They have successfully used resentment against the violence done to muslims to build a society where violence is the norm. This is not sustainable - it won't be long before the flood of recruits reverses, as they discover what arbitrary violence means to them and their loved ones.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  I'd certainly agree that the use of violence should be minimal, and should contain no element of vengefulness; but I'd say that preaching full nonviolence almost necessarily ends in either hypocrisy or persecution. My reference for colonial Pennsylvania is _Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America_, by David Hackett Fisher. Pennsylvania was a remarkable place, with a lot of very impressive accomplishments. Fisher is full of praise for their Old World-quality infrastructure, much of which is still in use today; he also points out their peaceful coexistence with the American Indians, their roughly equal rights for women, and their rehabilitative prisons, concern for animal welfare, and interest in vegetarianism. But there's also how they refused to bear arms and expected the British military to protect them -- and how they enforced sumptuary laws and the like with corporal punishments, and drove off the Scotch-Irish as being just this side of subhuman. Admittedly, one could make a very strong case that the Scotch-Irish really were just this side of subhuman. They were lawless, xenophobic, and economically improvident, as well as scornful of the laws and customs of war; they committed savage atrocities in just about every war they engaged in, and were more or less responsible for the Indian Wars, the Mexican War, and the lawlessness of the Wild West. Andrew Jackson, who ethnically cleansed the Cherokees and the other Five Civilized Tribes, is still regarded as a hero in Appalachia today, and his atrocities are either brushed off or openly celebrated. A large and politically powerful Scotch-Irish population would have poisoned Pennsylvania; the Quakers had the choice between self-destruction and rejection of their principles. They chose to reject their principles -- and then they kept preaching them, completely unmodified, as if they'd never rejected them at all. I'm Catholic, so it's not surprising that I'd say this, but I'd say that Catholic social doctrine -- with its strict criteria for just wars, and various prescriptions for government and suppression of crime -- is a better choice than denying the necessity of violence and then having to improvise a solution when violence turns out necessary anyways.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Setting aside the question of specific methods (flogging and stocks), I don't see why you consider the idea of force being justified only in cases of retaliating against an attacker to be "annoying". Hard pacifists are extremely rare (Jainists are an exception) and more often than not set up as straw men to promote an agenda. Capital punishment's issues primarily stem from the fact that you're using an exogenous body of collective action (the state) as a proxy to put people to death, with all the problems of public choice that come as a result.

clock_tower 11y ago
What annoys me about the Quakers isn't quite what you'd thought; it's that the Quakers preached that no one should be violent (up to and including preaching peaceful resistance against military invaders), and then they turned around and practiced violence. It's like if Martin Luther King had sponsored terrorism. If you're going to preach pacifism to others, you should be pacifist at home. As it is, the Quakers feel like they were using pacifism as a weapon...
- nebopolis 11y ago
  Do you have any citations to say that Quakers were particularly disposed to capitol punishment during the colonial era? While people of their time what I've been able to find indicates the opposite: [Who Should Die?: The Evolution of Capital Punishment in Pennsylvania, 1681-1794](http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2390&context=etd http://preserve.lehigh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2390&...) The above seems to show that Quakers resisted the use of capitol punishment and its use increased as Quaker control of the colony waned.
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    I don't know if they used capital punishment or not, and it sounds like they didn't; but _Albion's Seed_ talks of the Quakers using flogging, stocks, and the like in early Pennsylvania.
    - nebopolis 11y ago
      This would not surprise me - the colonial penal code was derived as far as I can tell from the English penal code, although less harsh. It is possible to simultaneously be much less harsh than the contemporary norms and still be abhorrent from a modern viewpoint. A more interesting comparison would be to contrast the usage of corporal punishment in early Pennsylvania versus other nearby colonies.
      - clock_tower 11y ago
        I'd have to check _Albion's Seed_ for the details, and how their penal code compared to England's and their neighbors' -- but isn't it obvious that there's a contradiction between "preaches mutual love and respect" and "flogs people"? The Quakers were perfectly capable of innovative thought, and of thinking through the consequences of their principles (thus relative sexual equality, concern for animal welfare, and encouragement of vegetarianism); but they were fine with using brutal violence against anyone who didn't accept their doctrine of nonviolence -- especially those from different cultures, and followers of different religions (or different Protestant denominations; they were particularly cruel towards the Presbyterian Scotch-Irish). This is why they get under my skin.
        Umn44 11y ago
        "but they were fine with using brutal violence against anyone who didn't accept their doctrine of nonviolence -- especially those from different cultures, and followers of different religions (or different Protestant denominations; they were particularly cruel towards the Presbyterian Scotch-Irish). This is why they get under my skin." If you don't defend your culture you'll go extinct, the same way you don't want to be contaminated by outside ideas an ways of life that you worked hard to protect. Hypocrisy isn't quite the word I think you'd want to use. People get violent because they passionately want to protect something from what they deem as evil. They can be misguided in that sense but, ultimately they do have a point - those who do not defend themselves find commitments to their principles/ways of life and doctrines waning and their communities will suffer death by mixing and mediocrity. Think of it like cultural entropy, they are trying to resist things that corrode their way of life.

Natsu 11y ago

To be fair, any ideal which is unwilling to do this is likely to die out when those who are not opposed to force use force against them.

lotharbot 11y ago
the Anabaptist tradition has lasted about 5 centuries, not by using force, but by being willing to inspire others by facing death courageously (when persecution is targeted and limited), or by fleeing en masse (when persecution is structural and absolute).
- clock_tower 11y ago
  Good point. The Yazidis have done much the same in the Middle East; and I imagine the Jains must do something similar. Christianity before Constantine is probably also an example.

knughit 11y ago

Do you have citations for your libelous claim?

clock_tower 11y ago
_Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America_. The book has a whole chapter on "Quaker Order Ways," complete with stocks and flogging.

foxylad 11y ago

Quaker here. I can't speak for Pennsylvanian quakers two centuries ago, but I'm very surprised to hear about stocks and flogging in a Quaker context. To be clear, Quakers renounce all violence, including against those who perpetrate it. The central tenet of our faith is that there is that of god in every person, so it follows directly that violence against any person is violence against god, and therefore unacceptable. Quakers have put their money and actions where their mouth is - they have always rejected capital punishment, and have been very active in prison reform since the 1800s. They set up the Friend's Ambulance Unit so they could serve during the Second World War. Quakers also recognise that there are many forms of violence, and sponsor the Alternatives to Violence Program (AVP) training for schoolkids. To get back to the original question about dealing with violent people, of course you need to use force against them, to prevent them doing more violence. But that force should be as non-violent as possible, to make it clear that society's norms are intact. Norway's treatment of Anders Breivik is inspirational - it is clear that his incarceration is in no way violent - there is no element of revenge, much to many people's fury. But imagine a Breivik sympathiser - seeing a civilised society treating him in a civilised way leaves very little to spur them on to similar acts. And what about Daesh? They have successfully used resentment against the violence done to muslims to build a society where violence is the norm. This is not sustainable - it won't be long before the flood of recruits reverses, as they discover what arbitrary violence means to them and their loved ones.

clock_tower 11y ago
I'd certainly agree that the use of violence should be minimal, and should contain no element of vengefulness; but I'd say that preaching full nonviolence almost necessarily ends in either hypocrisy or persecution. My reference for colonial Pennsylvania is _Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America_, by David Hackett Fisher. Pennsylvania was a remarkable place, with a lot of very impressive accomplishments. Fisher is full of praise for their Old World-quality infrastructure, much of which is still in use today; he also points out their peaceful coexistence with the American Indians, their roughly equal rights for women, and their rehabilitative prisons, concern for animal welfare, and interest in vegetarianism. But there's also how they refused to bear arms and expected the British military to protect them -- and how they enforced sumptuary laws and the like with corporal punishments, and drove off the Scotch-Irish as being just this side of subhuman. Admittedly, one could make a very strong case that the Scotch-Irish really were just this side of subhuman. They were lawless, xenophobic, and economically improvident, as well as scornful of the laws and customs of war; they committed savage atrocities in just about every war they engaged in, and were more or less responsible for the Indian Wars, the Mexican War, and the lawlessness of the Wild West. Andrew Jackson, who ethnically cleansed the Cherokees and the other Five Civilized Tribes, is still regarded as a hero in Appalachia today, and his atrocities are either brushed off or openly celebrated. A large and politically powerful Scotch-Irish population would have poisoned Pennsylvania; the Quakers had the choice between self-destruction and rejection of their principles. They chose to reject their principles -- and then they kept preaching them, completely unmodified, as if they'd never rejected them at all. I'm Catholic, so it's not surprising that I'd say this, but I'd say that Catholic social doctrine -- with its strict criteria for just wars, and various prescriptions for government and suppression of crime -- is a better choice than denying the necessity of violence and then having to improvise a solution when violence turns out necessary anyways.