A meaningful discussion on The Religious Society of Friends (AKA Quakerism)

[Koolblue13]

http://www.newtownfriendsmeeting.org/aboutus

That's the meeting I grew up attending after getting the boot from the Catholics. I'd imagine it would be helpful and informative for you SS.

[SnyderShrugged]

Thanks KB!

[alexey]

Ran into an interesting tidbit of history while reading up on the Quakers. Looks like 3 Quakers were hanged for their religious beliefs in Massachusetts. I did not realize that people were ever killed by government in American colonies for their religious beliefs. Looks like Massachusetts tried to run a theocracy before adopting secular enlightenment values

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs

The Boston martyrs is the name given in Quaker tradition to the three English members of the Society of Friends, Marmaduke Stephenson, William Robinson and Mary Dyer, and to the Friend William Leddra of Barbados, who were condemned to death and executed by public hanging for their religious beliefs under the legislature of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1659, 1660 and 1661.

"The hanging of Mary Dyer on the Boston gallows in 1660 marked the beginning of the end of the Puritan theocracy and New England independence from English rule. In 1661 King Charles II explicitly forbade Massachusetts from executing anyone for professing Quakerism. In 1684 England revoked the Massachusetts charter, sent over a royal governor to enforce English laws in 1686, and in 1689 passed a broad Toleration act."

[SnyderShrugged]

Ran into an interesting tidbit of history while reading up on the Quakers. Looks like 3 Quakers were hanged for their religious beliefs in Massachusetts. I did not realize that people were ever killed by government in American colonies for their religious beliefs. Looks like Massachusetts tried to run a theocracy before adopting secular enlightenment values

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs

Alexey, you did notice the dates I assume? I'm not sure 1600's Colonies can be wrapped in with whats known as American Government. On that note, I am pretty certain that lots of theocrtic executions and punishments occurred during those times. Its not surprising at all.

[alexey]

Alexey, you did notice the dates I assume? I'm not sure 1600's Colonies can be wrapped in with whats known as American Government. On that note, I am pretty certain that lots of theocrtic executions and punishments occurred during those times. Its not surprising at all.

It was surprising to me because I did not know history of that time very well, and ended up making some incorrect assumptions. I thought that values of religious freedom and tolerance was more or less universal in American colonies from the beginning.

Maybe this happened because I formed my impression mainly based on a couple of excellent books by David McCullough (1776 and John Adams). Religious tolerance seemed like a common and largely universal principle by then. I did not realize that those events took place after a widespread transformation to enlightenment values, and that there were attempts to run Christian theocracies just a few decades earlier.

[Jumbo]

And honestly, if I were you, I'd spend more time wondering about why I took a post that didn't quote me or refer to me (by name or pronoun) as a statement on my post, and then why I further thought it was worth taking the time to comment in such a manner.

But hey, that's just me..

(Iwas trying to draw a conclusion about the state of Quakerism today based on something over 100 years ago. The comment regarded the stupidity and non-usefulness of me trying to draw any conclusions about Quakerism based on the source, given the qualifications that I had to include.)

Well, "honestly", I did do that, and such is a norm for me. I considered you may have meant other than the logical inference of the comment being applicable to me since I posted the link. I'm also quite familiar with understanding human behavior, and even posters and this forum (for many years now), and I know how you get on this topic at times. So it's not like I was "way out there."

The thing is, at the very beginning of that first post with the link, I indicated that it wasn't posted as some definitive source of "official Catholicism's" current views. I have gone on to explain (more than once obviously) why I did think it was at least "interesting"---that it was the first page you get on a major Catholic site when you search for Quaker, and that it was, well, an interesting piece no matter when it was written, and that it likely still was representative of attitude for many Christians, and that it had some actual (verified) historical facts that folks may never have read before.

Let me physically quote my first paragraph here in a hopefully final attempt to end this nutty looping--

The gold highlights are statements that stood out to me (keep in mind possible distinctions between various other Christian denominations, Catholic and "official Catholic" perspectives):

In my next post, in reply to JMS, I re-stated this:

Also note I made a point of distinctions to be made between that site's material and an "official Catholic position."

Yet here I am again.

I simply thought (as did the OP and some other readers) that it was a very interesting perspective and was also quite surprised to find it being the information that comes up for a search on that site (a very lage and well-supported site by Catholics that I have used for other non-ES Catholic-related matters).

So from the beginning in this exchange, you decided to regard/address it as "a reference" when, while relevant to the topic, it was clearly stated it was not used that way. Then, you continue to talk about it's merit as "a reference." I honestly wonder why would you try to use it or regard it as something it was stated (and in more clear terms than "as a reference") it wasn't from the get-go?

I am honestly hoping this re-occurring head-butting isn't anything like you being somewhat "posterior-smarting" :pfft: over your feelings (which are very clear) about alexy's threads and your annoyance (which was very clear) with related matters on my end, along with your more-than-typical (occasional) emotional reactivity in some of the religious threads.

Now, for all readers, to make this drawn out "reference" banter over relative minutia more topically relevant, this is a site I also used in that past thread where the topic of Quakerism arose. It had seemed and still seems to be fairly useful and solid in describing their belief system and operational characteristics, though as has been noted any one internet source of information on such a diverse and relatively low-social-impact group is not likely to be totally definitive.

http://quakerinfo.org/quakerism/beliefs

I'll close with a repeat of noting how much I enjoyed my multiple contacts (including attending a meeting) with the Quakers of the meeting group I used to live nearby in Olympia WA. I was impressed on several levels.

SS, I have enjoyed the exchanges with you, and am hoping you find fulfillment in your journey on these matters.

[SnyderShrugged]

I've enjoyed them too Jumbo and thanks!

[Corcaigh]

It was surprising to me because I did not know history of that time very well, and ended up making some incorrect assumptions. I thought that values of religious freedom and tolerance was more or less universal in American colonies from the beginning.

Hell no. Certain colonists wanted the freedom to practice their own theocracy which was not tolerated elsewhere.

[SnyderShrugged]

On a side note, I really did appreciate the "interesting" stuff from the Catholic site too. (as a former Catholic myself) It is an important part of the conversation because as fellow Christians, the views of them and others are part of my individual equation that I am going through to make a decision if "Friends" meetings would be something to explore. I've read all kinds of interesting opinions from way back in our pre-revolutionary times that all add pieces to my puzzle.

I guess I really just wanted to say that I value the opinions of everyone that participated in this thread and humbly request that they keep coming too! Its ok to challenge me and each other on this! It actually adds a lot to the conversation!

[Predicto]

I send my children to a Quaker school, and although I am an agnostic myself, I have learned a lot about Quaker beliefs (and frankly, those people impress the heck out of me). They were the first widespread group to openly oppose slavery, to openly call for (and practice) complete equality of women, the first to stand up against war in general.

They definitely consider themselves Christian, although some other Christian sects do not accept them as true Christians. At least 90 percent of Quakers belong to branches that openly rely on the Bible, express belief in the divinity of Christ, etc. However, the Quakers also generally don't believe in kicking anyone out or telling anyone else that their understanding of God is false, so there are some subgroups that have deemphasized the divinity of Christ and still call themselves Quakers.

First off since their are no set doctrine or creeds for Quakerism discussing their beliefs becomes subject to generalities.

• The only teaching all Quakers have in common is George Fox’s “Inner Light” teaching. God can be found in each and every one of us.
  
• Some charismatics believe in handling snakes or talking in tongues, Quakers believe in shaking as they are overcome by God. Hence the name.
  
• Quakers are not really (exclusively?) Christians. Since they look for God in each of us, many Quakers feel belief in virgin birth, Mary, or even Jesus is not necessary towards their salvation.
  
• Quakers are associated with Pacifism.
  
• Quakers obviously do not believe in the Nician Creed which is the oldest, and the most standard definition for Christianity.
  
• Quakers don't really differentiate between doctrines either, thus any document becomes valid for there purposes, i.e. Tao Te Ching, Koran, etc.
  
• Some, but not all Quakers are Unitarian Universalists (by their own description) (i.e. all religions and beliefs are correct and of equal value.
  
• Central in Quaker teachings is tollerance.
  

A couple of these items are a little overstated, and one is entirely incorrect. You said: "[*]Some charismatics believe in handling snakes or talking in tongues, Quakers believe in shaking as they are overcome by God. Hence the name."

This is not accurate. I have been to several Quaker Meetings for Worship and have never seen anyone shaking or claiming that they were "overcome by God." People are quiet and thoughtful, except when someone feels compelled to speak for a moment. Then everyone is quiet while they think about what that person just said. I suspect that the person who wrote your list was confusing Quakers with the unrelated charismatic movement of the Shakers, who do shake (and rattle and roll and make really nice furniture). This is a common misconception, as is the misconception that the Quakers are similar to the Amish.

The name "Quaker" came from the blasphemy trial of George Fox.

In 1650, Fox was brought before magistrates Gervase Bennet and Nathaniel Barton on a charge of blasphemy. According to his autobiography, Bennet "was the first that called us Quakers, because I bade them tremble at the word of the Lord".[15] It is thought that Fox was referring to Isaiah 66:2[16] or Ezra 9:4[17]. Thus, the name Quaker began as a way of ridiculing Fox's admonition, but became widely accepted and used by some Quakers.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

[SnyderShrugged]

Great stuff Predicto! Thanks for posting your personal experiences with the kids schooling etc! Thats exactly what I've been seeking! What you described was similar to how a local member described their approach too.

[Predicto]

Great stuff Predicto! Thanks for posting your personal experiences with the kids schooling etc! Thats exactly what I've been seeking! What you described was similar to how a local member described their approach too.

The kids' schooling has been fantastic. The values the Friends schools inculcate are tremendous, (you can read them here: http://www.sffriendsschool.org/about-us/quaker-values ) and the school runs on those principles. It's not just lip service.

[SnyderShrugged]

The kids' schooling has been fantastic. The values the Friends schools inculcate are tremendous, (you can read them here: http://www.sffriendsschool.org/about-us/quaker-values ) and the school runs on those principles. It's not just lip service.

I can see why you chose there for your little ones!

[Predicto]

I can see why you chose there for your little ones!

Yeah - except for the "paying for it part."

[SnyderShrugged]

Yeah - except for the "paying for it part."

No doubt!

[Jumbo]

The kids' schooling has been fantastic. The values the Friends schools inculcate are tremendous, (you can read them here: http://www.sffriendsschool.org/about-us/quaker-values ) and the school runs on those principles. It's not just lip service.

Given the nature of some of the contact I've had in this new location with a few churches, I have found myself recently (before the thread) reflecting on all my positive experiences with the Quakers and the Mormons I knew in Southern Oregon and how they expressed their faith in their behaviors. I wonder if before I die I'll meet some Scientologists who strike me the same way. Nah. :pfft:

[SnyderShrugged]

Given the nature of some of the contact I've had in this new location with a few churches, I have found myself recently (before the thread) reflecting on all my positive experiences with the Quakers and the Mormons I knew in Southern Oregon and how they expressed their faith in their behaviors. I wonder if before I die I'll meet some Scientologists who strike me the same way. Nah. :pfft:

Scientologists is one group that I havent had any interaction with yet, actually the Mormons and the Amish (and Menonites ) are the ones whom I have had the most exposure to

[mjah]

I have been to several Quaker Meetings for Worship and have never seen anyone shaking or claiming that they were "overcome by God." People are quiet and thoughtful, except when someone feels compelled to speak for a moment. Then everyone is quiet while they think about what that person just said. I suspect that the person who wrote your list was confusing Quakers with the unrelated charismatic movement of the Shakers, who do shake (and rattle and roll and make really nice furniture). This is a common misconception, as is the misconception that the Quakers are similar to the Amish.

I would like to second essentially everything Predicto has said, in the above passage and elsewhere in this thread. It has been exactly my experience as well.

After doing a ton of research we sent our daughter to a Quaker school one year ago, and the entire experience so far has been much more rewarding than we could possibly have expected from a "mere" choice between schooling options. In addition to the immense value they place on solid education and a family oriented, community oriented environment, the school truly believes in teaching cooperation- and achievement-based values without cabling them to a preferred overt religious belief. The values they teach at the school are considered sufficiently important to stand on their own regardless of one's own theological beliefs, and are taught as such.

Any student, teacher, administrator or staffer may choose to personally root those values in their own religious views if they so choose -- or not to -- but the school expressly forbids prosthelytizing to students in any form. I was floored when I met with school administration and learned this. Reservations erased... the place truly embodies the adage of a village raising a child, with mutual respect for all villagers' constructive views.

About once per week, the students' experience actually does involve some activity which may be loosely identified as spiritual, but it is mostly couched in terms of inner calm and reflection. "Meeting for worship" does indeed involve extended silence, even among the youngest students, and occasional sharing with the group if the mood strikes -- much like a full Quaker meeting. They make it work very well in coordination with the internal mandate against prosthelytizing. It's very impressive overall.

Having said all that, it ain't cheap, and I'm not ready to argue that from a strict financial point of view I'm maximizing my rate of return by paying for private elementary school. But I do see the emerging difference between what she learns, internalizes, and slowly becomes there vs. what her age-equivalent friends in other schools are doing. It could just be a PA thing... I dunno. But it's like my kid's perception of her world is just a teeny bit rocket-fueled, vs. what it might be elsewhere (an impossible experiment except by proxy). If it sounds like bragging, then truth be told, I wish I could have attended a Quaker school as a kid. I could have used some of that fuel myself early on.

Our younger daughter will be going too... once she is old enough. I can't say enough good things about the whole Quaker school experience -- as if I haven't said too much already.

[SnyderShrugged]

Wow Mjah! Your post makes me almost a bit jealous that we never looked into Quaker schools ourselves! (Though Im sure we never could have afforded it). Thanks for taking the time to explain your experiences to me!

[Koolblue13]

I wanted to go to the Quaker schools really bad, but it was expensive and I was a **** as a kid and ****ed it up pretty good. There was also some politics between families that kept me out and I've always regretted that.

That said, going to meeting and Quaker sleep away camps, has definitely shaped me in the same way those guys are describing the schooling.

Seems like the best kept secret in school and religion, eh?

[SnyderShrugged]

I wanted to go to the Quaker schools really bad, but it was expensive and I was a **** as a kid and ****ed it up pretty good. There was also some politics between families that kept me out and I've always regretted that.

That said, going to meeting and Quaker sleep away camps, has definitely shaped me in the same way those guys are describing the schooling.

Seems like the best kept secret in school and religion, eh?

I do wonder why its little known. I think there may be some sort of fundamentalist associated stigma attached to them but Im not sure why

[Koolblue13]

I do wonder why its little known. I think there may be some sort of fundamentalist associated stigma attached to them but Im not sure why

Well, you saw just in this thread a poster compare then to snake handlers and the Amish and other posters mention how they don't love the Jesus.

People either don't know, don't care to know or think they know too much. It's like most things I reckon.

[JMS]

Ran into an interesting tidbit of history while reading up on the Quakers. Looks like 3 Quakers were hanged for their religious beliefs in Massachusetts. I did not realize that people were ever killed by government in American colonies for their religious beliefs. Looks like Massachusetts tried to run a theocracy before adopting secular enlightenment values

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_martyrs

Actually several colonies were founded because of, and along the lines of religious intolerance. Early America was a place where different persecuted religions could come to practice their religions freely and in isolation from one another, many of these groups practiced the same persecutions to other religions which they had experienced and fled in Europe.

Of the 13 original colonies all except 3 had state religions well into the 19th century ( Penn, Georgia, Del; did away with their state religions in the 1790's) . Some even had voter requirements associated with membership in churches written right into their founding charters.

http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69

The Puritans were a group of English Protestants who were founded around the time the Queen Elizabeth I was crowned. They were from a time in Europe where religious persecution was common; and they had both been persecuted under Queen Marry, and persecutors.... I think Amerca's belief in separation of church from state derives itself from both the history of religious war in Europe, and the Puritans who were so severe they motivated folks to move away and found their own states... Rhode Island for example was founded by a former Massachusetts resident a theologian named Roger Williams, who founded Baptists; or Puritan lite. He rejected the puritan's use of government to enforce religious doctrine, and became one of the early proponents for religious freedom in this county.

Pennsylvania was founded by the Quaker William Penn, who founded it as a place where Quakers could practice their religion without the fear of prosecution.

---------- Post added August-30th-2012 at 12:04 PM ----------

The name "Quaker" came from the blasphemy trial of George Fox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers

I found this origin story too..

Quakers are officially called "The Society of Friends". The word "quaker" was originally a derogatory term used by King George (I think) to William Penn, who would not take his hat off in deference to his majesty. Penn told the King that instead of worrying about silly thing like hats, he should be "Quaking before the Lord." The King then responded "Get this quaker out of here!" So at first, "Quaker" was actually a slur. Now, although we still are called "Friends," we are also called "Quakers" by many people, including ourselves

http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~quakers/quakhist.htm

[mjah]

I do wonder why its little known. I think there may be some sort of fundamentalist associated stigma attached to them but Im not sure why

I definitely was guilty of suspecting some kind of directional religious push within the Quaker school atmosphere, or... something. I didn't think about it very hard, opting to just lump Quaker schools in with "religious schools" in general and go about my life as if I knew what was up.

There is a Quaker school within 2 miles of my childhood home, hilariously enough. Everyone I knew just thought of it as "that weird religious school." The fact that we knew nobody who actually went there didn't help much with the stereotype; we felt free to fill in the blanks with whatever odd things we could imagine.

Stupid.

I wish / that / I knew what I know now / when I was younger...

[SnyderShrugged]

I definitely was guilty of suspecting some kind of directional religious push within the Quaker school atmosphere, or... something. I didn't think about it very hard, opting to just lump Quaker schools in with "religious schools" in general and go about my life as if I knew what was up.

There is a Quaker school within 2 miles of my childhood home, hilariously enough. Everyone I knew just thought of it as "that weird religious school." The fact that we knew nobody who actually went there didn't help much with the stereotype; we felt free to fill in the blanks with whatever odd things we could imagine.

Stupid.

http://mercurybaroque.org/img/music_note1.jpg I wish / that / I knew what I know now / when I was younger... http://mercurybaroque.org/img/music_note1.jpg

I've definitely learned in my old(ish) age to try to have a more open mind about things, people and ideas that i didnt fully understand. Even if I end up adamantly opposed in the end, I think all deserve a fair shake.

That said, I sure have a long way to go still getting over biases and pre-judgements.