5 ms·

It's always weird to see Quakerism be mentioned somewhere else. I grew up Quaker and still sometimes attend Quaker meeting, and I related to his ceiling-tile co

It's always weird to see Quakerism be mentioned somewhere else. I grew up Quaker and still sometimes attend Quaker meeting, and I related to his ceiling-tile counting; I used to count the wooden boards that formed the ceiling of our meetinghouse. The best part about Quakerism, in my opinion, is that it teaches a very hearty disrespect of un-earned authority without teaching disrespect for the concept of authority itself. One of my favorite anecdotes is a group of Quakers who refused to doff their hats for the King, as they only doff their hats for God. There's another old practice of refusing to swear on the Bible before telling the truth, as that would imply that they weren't telling the truth before they were sworn in. I find the inclusion of Zen in this article is interesting, as you won't find the word "Holy" or "God", used, and "Spirit" is only used twice, once to comment on how he felt pressured to receive a message from it. The original purpose of Quaker silent worship was to remove the church-imposed barrier between man and God (the "Holy Spirit") so that anyone could be a mouthpiece for the wishes and desires of the Spirit. Modern American Quakers, especially the ones who write in Friends Journal, tend to be pretty secular.

whatshisface 1y ago
The bible does actually say not to swear.
- neaden 1y ago
  "Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one." Mathew 5:37 NRSV
yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
> There's another old practice of refusing to swear on the Bible before telling the truth, as that would imply that they weren't telling the truth before they were sworn in. I've always found it extremely odd that anyone swears on the Bible, since it pretty plainly says not to do that: Matthew 5:33-37 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. https://www.esv.org/Matthew+5/ https://www.esv.org/Matthew+5/
- n4r9 1y ago
  There's a great John Stuart Mill quotation from On Liberty related to this. In the UK it used to be the case that you were barred from testifying in court if you declared yourself an atheist. > Under pretence that atheists must be liars, it admits the testimony of all atheists who are willing to lie, and rejects only those who brave the obloquy of publicly confessing a detested creed rather than affirm a falsehood.
  - treetalker 1y ago
    In law school we were taught that swearing on the Bible (and/or belief in God or some higher power) had been thought necessary to give competent testimony because that belief ensured truthfulness (or made it more likely) on the premise that, even if a falsehood were not detected and punished in court, the higher power would surely punish it later or in the afterlife. (In other words, fear-based testimony.) And we were taught that the need to swear or affirm truthfulness nowadays simply evinces the requisite understanding of the seriousness of testimony in court / under oath — and, by extension, that the testimony must therefore be truthful in order to duly perform the judicial function of arriving at an accurate understanding of past events and realities.
    - n4r9 1y ago
      Yeah, it makes sense from the Christian perspective. But it falls flat when the person giving testimony doesn't believe in the afterlife. It's as if they think atheists are just being performative.
- UncleSlacky 1y ago
  That's also why you can't be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_E... "In the 1930s, the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, began objecting to state laws requiring school students to salute the flag as a means of instilling patriotism, and in 1936 he declared that baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who saluted the flag were breaking their covenant with God and were committing idolatry."
JKCalhoun 1y ago
Attended Quaker meeting as a kid growing up as well. I appreciated the non-heirarchical aspect of it. No priest or anyone "leading" the "worship". No crosses or statuary of any kind. A simple room with half the seats in the room facing the other half. Occasionally someone broke the silence and said something short ... meditative? When I was told Quakers did not kill, would not take up a gun and point it at a fellow human, I was surprised. "What if they are trying to kill you?" little kid me asked with incredulity. "You cannot even kill in self-defense," I was told. Even then I could appreciate the seriousness of their conviction.
- teaearlgraycold 1y ago
  I was raised Quaker myself. As I’ve gotten older I’ve gotten a more nuanced opinion on this. I think we should have humility in a “kill or be killed” scenario. Is it so much more important that you live? But also in a theoretical scenario that tests my utilitarian side - should I kill to save the lives of many people? If so I think it’s important to acknowledge the wrongness in the killing even if it’s the lesser of two evils. Far too often people discuss lethal self defense or war with pride. If it’s something you absolutely must do you should not anticipate happiness from the action. Some Quakers actually joined the American civil war because they felt fighting slavery was more important than not killing others. So there’s a wide range of feelings on pacifism within Quakerism.
  - DFHippie 1y ago
    I was raised Quaker as well and still consider myself culturally Quaker, though I'm atheist and attend Meeting mostly only at weddings or funerals at this point. What I value most about Quakerism is the emphasis on absolute honesty. My father took time off college to protest the war -- which war, I'm not certain. He found himself questioning whether pacifism was truly his belief or something he was brought up with. So he enlisted to try out the other side. He didn't actually fight, but was trained as an artillery surveyor. When his superiors suggested he go to officer training school he asked for some time off to think about it, then came back three days later having decided he wanted to finish college and become a psychiatrist. He met my mom at his Quaker college, went back to Meeting, and some years later became a psychiatrist (and died shortly thereafter, not from the psychiatry). I've always thought it was cool that he tested his beliefs like that. His wider family was a bit uneasy with his choices but respected his process.
timewizard 1y ago
> is that it teaches a very hearty disrespect of un-earned authority without teaching disrespect for the concept of authority itself Which is probably why the CIA loves recruiting them so much.
- wolfgang42 1y ago
  You might be thinking of Mormons? I’ve never heard of the CIA recruiting Quakers and I don’t think it would go particularly well if they did.
  - timewizard 1y ago
    No. I mean Quakers. Their global humanitarian work and connections to communists and socialists the world over made them particularly interesting to the CIA. The CIA has directly used and manipulated Quakers for these purposes. This was especially true during the Cold War. The majority of people "recruited" by the CIA are used for information or for their specific field of expertise. A forgotten history I guess.
throwaway422432 1y ago
I learnt Quaker silent worship about 30 years ago and the practice of centering down which I still practice despite turning atheist many years ago. More recently did a mindfulness session, and was quietly surprised that I already knew the forms, just without emphasis on the self (breathing, body position and all the muscle aches, itches, etc).
castillar76 1y ago
That Friend speaks my mind. :) In seriousness, I agree — it's always odd to see Quakerism discussed in other contexts, as well as running into other Quakers in other contexts outside of things like /r/quakerism or such. I do wish it were a more widespread practice, as I feel like it's such a good anodyne to the modern "I got mine, forget you" approach endorsed by so many megachurches.
felipeerias 1y ago
It can be enlightening to look at well-known Biblical stories from a different point of view. For example, you might be familiar with the Book of Job: the story of a good man who loses everything—his wealth, children, and health—despite doing nothing wrong. At the same time, a koan is a paradoxical question or story used in Zen Buddhism to break logical thinking and provoke a deeper understanding beyond words and concepts. Even though both are separated by an immense span of time and distance, the story of Job functions surprisingly well like a koan because it presents an apparently impossible paradox: if God is just, why do bad things happen to a good person? This question has no logical answer, and when God finally speaks to Job, He doesn't explain the suffering but instead shows Job the overwhelming mystery of creation. Job's response isn't intellectual understanding but a transformative experience. Just like a koan, Job's story seeks to break through logical thinking to produce spiritual enlightenment.

whatshisface 1y ago

The bible does actually say not to swear.

neaden 1y ago
"Let your word be ‘Yes, Yes’ or ‘No, No’; anything more than this comes from the evil one." Mathew 5:37 NRSV

yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago

> There's another old practice of refusing to swear on the Bible before telling the truth, as that would imply that they weren't telling the truth before they were sworn in. I've always found it extremely odd that anyone swears on the Bible, since it pretty plainly says not to do that: Matthew 5:33-37 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. https://www.esv.org/Matthew+5/ https://www.esv.org/Matthew+5/

n4r9 1y ago
There's a great John Stuart Mill quotation from On Liberty related to this. In the UK it used to be the case that you were barred from testifying in court if you declared yourself an atheist. > Under pretence that atheists must be liars, it admits the testimony of all atheists who are willing to lie, and rejects only those who brave the obloquy of publicly confessing a detested creed rather than affirm a falsehood.
- treetalker 1y ago
  In law school we were taught that swearing on the Bible (and/or belief in God or some higher power) had been thought necessary to give competent testimony because that belief ensured truthfulness (or made it more likely) on the premise that, even if a falsehood were not detected and punished in court, the higher power would surely punish it later or in the afterlife. (In other words, fear-based testimony.) And we were taught that the need to swear or affirm truthfulness nowadays simply evinces the requisite understanding of the seriousness of testimony in court / under oath — and, by extension, that the testimony must therefore be truthful in order to duly perform the judicial function of arriving at an accurate understanding of past events and realities.
  - n4r9 1y ago
    Yeah, it makes sense from the Christian perspective. But it falls flat when the person giving testimony doesn't believe in the afterlife. It's as if they think atheists are just being performative.
UncleSlacky 1y ago
That's also why you can't be forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_E... "In the 1930s, the president of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Joseph Franklin Rutherford, began objecting to state laws requiring school students to salute the flag as a means of instilling patriotism, and in 1936 he declared that baptized Jehovah's Witnesses who saluted the flag were breaking their covenant with God and were committing idolatry."

JKCalhoun 1y ago

Attended Quaker meeting as a kid growing up as well. I appreciated the non-heirarchical aspect of it. No priest or anyone "leading" the "worship". No crosses or statuary of any kind. A simple room with half the seats in the room facing the other half. Occasionally someone broke the silence and said something short ... meditative? When I was told Quakers did not kill, would not take up a gun and point it at a fellow human, I was surprised. "What if they are trying to kill you?" little kid me asked with incredulity. "You cannot even kill in self-defense," I was told. Even then I could appreciate the seriousness of their conviction.

teaearlgraycold 1y ago
I was raised Quaker myself. As I’ve gotten older I’ve gotten a more nuanced opinion on this. I think we should have humility in a “kill or be killed” scenario. Is it so much more important that you live? But also in a theoretical scenario that tests my utilitarian side - should I kill to save the lives of many people? If so I think it’s important to acknowledge the wrongness in the killing even if it’s the lesser of two evils. Far too often people discuss lethal self defense or war with pride. If it’s something you absolutely must do you should not anticipate happiness from the action. Some Quakers actually joined the American civil war because they felt fighting slavery was more important than not killing others. So there’s a wide range of feelings on pacifism within Quakerism.
- DFHippie 1y ago
  I was raised Quaker as well and still consider myself culturally Quaker, though I'm atheist and attend Meeting mostly only at weddings or funerals at this point. What I value most about Quakerism is the emphasis on absolute honesty. My father took time off college to protest the war -- which war, I'm not certain. He found himself questioning whether pacifism was truly his belief or something he was brought up with. So he enlisted to try out the other side. He didn't actually fight, but was trained as an artillery surveyor. When his superiors suggested he go to officer training school he asked for some time off to think about it, then came back three days later having decided he wanted to finish college and become a psychiatrist. He met my mom at his Quaker college, went back to Meeting, and some years later became a psychiatrist (and died shortly thereafter, not from the psychiatry). I've always thought it was cool that he tested his beliefs like that. His wider family was a bit uneasy with his choices but respected his process.

timewizard 1y ago

> is that it teaches a very hearty disrespect of un-earned authority without teaching disrespect for the concept of authority itself Which is probably why the CIA loves recruiting them so much.

wolfgang42 1y ago
You might be thinking of Mormons? I’ve never heard of the CIA recruiting Quakers and I don’t think it would go particularly well if they did.
- timewizard 1y ago
  No. I mean Quakers. Their global humanitarian work and connections to communists and socialists the world over made them particularly interesting to the CIA. The CIA has directly used and manipulated Quakers for these purposes. This was especially true during the Cold War. The majority of people "recruited" by the CIA are used for information or for their specific field of expertise. A forgotten history I guess.

throwaway422432 1y ago

I learnt Quaker silent worship about 30 years ago and the practice of centering down which I still practice despite turning atheist many years ago. More recently did a mindfulness session, and was quietly surprised that I already knew the forms, just without emphasis on the self (breathing, body position and all the muscle aches, itches, etc).

castillar76 1y ago

That Friend speaks my mind. :) In seriousness, I agree — it's always odd to see Quakerism discussed in other contexts, as well as running into other Quakers in other contexts outside of things like /r/quakerism or such. I do wish it were a more widespread practice, as I feel like it's such a good anodyne to the modern "I got mine, forget you" approach endorsed by so many megachurches.

felipeerias 1y ago

It can be enlightening to look at well-known Biblical stories from a different point of view. For example, you might be familiar with the Book of Job: the story of a good man who loses everything—his wealth, children, and health—despite doing nothing wrong. At the same time, a koan is a paradoxical question or story used in Zen Buddhism to break logical thinking and provoke a deeper understanding beyond words and concepts. Even though both are separated by an immense span of time and distance, the story of Job functions surprisingly well like a koan because it presents an apparently impossible paradox: if God is just, why do bad things happen to a good person? This question has no logical answer, and when God finally speaks to Job, He doesn't explain the suffering but instead shows Job the overwhelming mystery of creation. Job's response isn't intellectual understanding but a transformative experience. Just like a koan, Job's story seeks to break through logical thinking to produce spiritual enlightenment.