←back to thread

The Zen of Quakerism (2016)

(www.friendsjournal.org)
124 points surprisetalk | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.822s | source
Show context
quacked ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
specproc ◴[] No.44447955[source]
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.

replies(4): >>44448335 #>>44450157 #>>44450919 #>>44451195 #
roarcher ◴[] No.44450919[source]
> One can defend oneself and others in a myriad of ways that do not involve murder.

As we used to say in the military, "the enemy gets a vote, too". You may find that your non-lethal methods of self defense come up short when the enemy is equipped with a knife or gun. Or at the state level, perhaps a ballistic missile. There have been plenty of victims of those in the media recently. What non-lethal methods would you recommend they use to protect themselves?

If you want your society (and by extension your belief system) to survive, there must be a segment of that society that is at least willing to engage in lethal violence, if only as a last resort. You do not get to hide behind others who are willing to do your moral dirty work and declare yourself morally superior to them. That's like a meat eater looking down on slaughterhouse workers because he bought his meat at the store (I say this as a meat eater myself).

replies(1): >>44451904 #
1. specproc ◴[] No.44451904[source]
My society neither shares my belief system, nor uses violence as a last resort.
replies(2): >>44452202 #>>44459927 #
2. akoboldfrying ◴[] No.44452202[source]
Is it violence to imprison a person against their will?
replies(1): >>44452646 #
3. specproc ◴[] No.44452646[source]
Sorry, for clarity. Nor does it use violence _only_ as a last resort. It is an aggressive, violent state and this is a huge problem I have with my government.
4. ◴[] No.44459927[source]