←back to thread

The Zen of Quakerism (2016)

(www.friendsjournal.org)
124 points surprisetalk | 1 comments | 29 Jun 25 13:40 UTC | HN request time: 0.215s | source
Show context
quacked ◴[02 Jul 25 18:23 UTC] No.44447143[source]▶
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.

replies(7): >>44447205 #>>44447278 #>>44447323 #>>44449740 #>>44450151 #>>44450473 #>>44450910 #
JKCalhoun ◴[02 Jul 25 18:40 UTC] No.44447323[source]▶
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.

replies(3): >>44447513 #>>44447887 #>>44450051 #
laurent_du ◴[02 Jul 25 19:33 UTC] No.44447887[source]▶
What if they are going to kill your child? I have zero respect for this kind of conviction.
replies(4): >>44447955 #>>44448310 #>>44450123 #>>44450243 #
1. lurk2 ◴[02 Jul 25 20:15 UTC] No.44448310[source]▶
The line of reasoning really only works if you are talking about yourself. If we assume all lives are of equal value (which is a big assumption but not without precedent), then killing your would-be murderer is a wash, but it does raise the question; why should you be the one to live? And the justification seems like it must be based on either 1) a belief that the transgression of attempted murder justifies self-defence, or 2) that the Self is simply more important than the Other.

When a third party becomes involved you only need to rely on option 1. You are still probably acting out of “selfish” reasons in this case, however; I’d rather save my child than preserve the life of a murderer, but that is simply because my child’s life is more important to me than that of a murderer, regardless of moral justification.

The questions about self-centeredness get more interesting in life boat scenarios, where you have to choose between equally innocent parties.