5 ms·

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

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.
  - teaearlgraycold 1y ago
    Yeah I’d be borderline disowned by my family if I joined anything even military adjacent. The honesty is really the most onerous aspect. I absolutely need to be honest with myself or I end up miserable. For example, if I work a job that requires me to shoulder the burden of my employers cognitive dissonance I’ll become depressed and force myself to quit.
laurent_du 1y ago
What if they are going to kill your child? I have zero respect for this kind of conviction.
- specproc 1y ago
  I have to say I'm fortunate enough never to have found myself in that situation. Is this something that happens regularly in America? I would comfortably say I completely share this conviction. I would not like to find myself in a position where that conviction was tested -- such as that you describe -- but not killing is almost universally understood to be a fundamental law of civilised society. One can defend oneself and others in a myriad of ways that do not involve murder.
  - lurk2 1y ago
    > One can defend oneself and others in a myriad of ways What methods are you referring to? Pepper spray? Aiming for the leg? > that do not involve murder. By definition if one is defending oneself, one is not committing murder.
    - qualeed 1y ago
      >By definition if one is defending oneself, one is not committing murder. Despite the fact that I think you understood what they were saying perfectly fine, you can substitute "killing someone" (or "taking another life", etc.) for "murder" in their above sentence if it helps you.
      - Den_VR 1y ago
        There’s a long standing theological distinction between murder and killing in the Bible. One I’m learning Quakers possibly disagree with.
      - SailorJerry 1y ago
        I think I see your point. However, if the original poster didn't intend to substitute the defense motive with assault, then they could have made the substitution for us.
ultimafan 1y ago
The interesting (to me) part about such a philosophy is that it seems like it can only really survive and prosper within a society where someone else is willing to pick up the burden of doing the killing for you. It seems like in nature or on its own such a mindset would be akin to being in a death cult- you're just going to get rolled over by someone else and your "tribe" won't be around long enough to have this belief "reproduce" and be passed on. But if you live in the midst of a society full of other people who are willing to kill or be killed to protect those in it beliefs like that can grow and gain followers without any risk of external challenge putting their faith to the test. Reading my comment I realize it may sound a little bit inflammatory or perhaps bloodthirsty- that's not my intention, I don't know how to word it better. Just a passing thought on this topic
- krapp 1y ago
  >The interesting (to me) part about such a philosophy is that it seems like it can only really survive and prosper within a society where someone else is willing to pick up the burden of doing the killing for you. This seems to assume the "the burden of killing" is not only necessary but unavoidable, as if violence were a constant which should be equitably distributed amongst everyone. If so, I would presume the Quakers would disagree, and would be perfectly satisfied if no one bothered killing at all. And historically speaking not a lot of people have been willing to kill to protect pacifists like the Quakers who have little capital, social clout or political power. So it isn't much of a burden to begin with.
  - ultimafan 1y ago
    It's not a condemnation of the morals within their belief system, and not a demand that everyone should participate equally in (potential) violence that comes along with protecting a community/country. Just an observation that at any given point in human history such a philosophy could only survive long enough to be passed generation to generation if its members offloaded the burden of having to make that moral choice onto someone else ie police or military. I don't think such a belief could have ever developed and survived in a vacuum. Every group of humans with surviving beliefs in known history have had some subgroup of (or been a subgroup of) other humans willing to resort to violence to protect the whole.

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.
- teaearlgraycold 1y ago
  Yeah I’d be borderline disowned by my family if I joined anything even military adjacent. The honesty is really the most onerous aspect. I absolutely need to be honest with myself or I end up miserable. For example, if I work a job that requires me to shoulder the burden of my employers cognitive dissonance I’ll become depressed and force myself to quit.

laurent_du 1y ago

What if they are going to kill your child? I have zero respect for this kind of conviction.

specproc 1y ago
I have to say I'm fortunate enough never to have found myself in that situation. Is this something that happens regularly in America? I would comfortably say I completely share this conviction. I would not like to find myself in a position where that conviction was tested -- such as that you describe -- but not killing is almost universally understood to be a fundamental law of civilised society. One can defend oneself and others in a myriad of ways that do not involve murder.
- lurk2 1y ago
  > One can defend oneself and others in a myriad of ways What methods are you referring to? Pepper spray? Aiming for the leg? > that do not involve murder. By definition if one is defending oneself, one is not committing murder.
  - qualeed 1y ago
    >By definition if one is defending oneself, one is not committing murder. Despite the fact that I think you understood what they were saying perfectly fine, you can substitute "killing someone" (or "taking another life", etc.) for "murder" in their above sentence if it helps you.
    - Den_VR 1y ago
      There’s a long standing theological distinction between murder and killing in the Bible. One I’m learning Quakers possibly disagree with.
    - SailorJerry 1y ago
      I think I see your point. However, if the original poster didn't intend to substitute the defense motive with assault, then they could have made the substitution for us.

ultimafan 1y ago

The interesting (to me) part about such a philosophy is that it seems like it can only really survive and prosper within a society where someone else is willing to pick up the burden of doing the killing for you. It seems like in nature or on its own such a mindset would be akin to being in a death cult- you're just going to get rolled over by someone else and your "tribe" won't be around long enough to have this belief "reproduce" and be passed on. But if you live in the midst of a society full of other people who are willing to kill or be killed to protect those in it beliefs like that can grow and gain followers without any risk of external challenge putting their faith to the test. Reading my comment I realize it may sound a little bit inflammatory or perhaps bloodthirsty- that's not my intention, I don't know how to word it better. Just a passing thought on this topic

krapp 1y ago
>The interesting (to me) part about such a philosophy is that it seems like it can only really survive and prosper within a society where someone else is willing to pick up the burden of doing the killing for you. This seems to assume the "the burden of killing" is not only necessary but unavoidable, as if violence were a constant which should be equitably distributed amongst everyone. If so, I would presume the Quakers would disagree, and would be perfectly satisfied if no one bothered killing at all. And historically speaking not a lot of people have been willing to kill to protect pacifists like the Quakers who have little capital, social clout or political power. So it isn't much of a burden to begin with.
- ultimafan 1y ago
  It's not a condemnation of the morals within their belief system, and not a demand that everyone should participate equally in (potential) violence that comes along with protecting a community/country. Just an observation that at any given point in human history such a philosophy could only survive long enough to be passed generation to generation if its members offloaded the burden of having to make that moral choice onto someone else ie police or military. I don't think such a belief could have ever developed and survived in a vacuum. Every group of humans with surviving beliefs in known history have had some subgroup of (or been a subgroup of) other humans willing to resort to violence to protect the whole.