Short Review of the Scholarly Biography of George Fox by H. Larry Ingle

First Among Friends by H. Larry Ingle

This is a very important historical study for all Friends and other readers! Probably, First Among Friends is the best book on George Fox and early Friends. (See below for other detailed histories and biographies.)

Unlike so many studies of the religious past, his book isn’t hagiographical but emphasizes verified facts. At some points it even errs to the side of trying to be so objective, that I wondered whether or not Ingle is even a Quaker.

While pointing out many of the outstanding good actions and perspectives of George Fox, Ingle goes into detail showing Fox’s (and other early Quakers) bad characteristics and acts, their major failings, warts and all. Keeping a scholarly tone, Ingle seldom deals with Fox from a spiritual point-of-view.

The volume focuses mostly on outward actions and is more of a cultural biography. And at times, the text comes across almost too academic and skeptical. For instance, the last paragraph of the biography is disconcerting from a transcendental/spiritual perspective.

Still, it seems that this is a must read for all modern Quakers. First Among Friends has given me new awareness of how all moral and spiritual truth is conditioned by culture, time, and other events. Tragically, even the best moral leaders are still weighed down by pettiness and squabbling.

A good companion history to read is Cavaliers and Roundheads. That outstanding history of the England in the 1600's helps readers to understand that though the secular governments of the period persecuted, oppressed, even killed the early Friends, the authorities weren't necessarily evil but often mistook Fox and Quakers for dangerous violent revolutionaries.

It is also strange seeing in Ingle’s account how at times Parliament vs. King varied in their behavior toward the Friends, not always badly.

How very strange it was that James II, a Roman Catholic (who the early Friends opposed) should be the first to really grant Friends and others religions tolerance, while in stark contrast, Parliament in 1683 was so against Friends and other nonconformists that hundreds were sent to prison.

Such intriguing facts show how complicated real history is versus the myths and over simplifications that most people hear about and think is the truth of their movement.

Other powerful histories on Friends:

Primitivism, Radicalism, and the Lamb's War

Quakers in California

Quakers in Conflict


In the LIGHT,
Daniel Wilcox

WHY WE HUMANS NEED to RETURN to BIOLOGICAL FACTS about HUMAN SEXUALITY and DISMISS "social constructs" such as Gender

DISMISS the ideological, fallacious term, “GENDER”—when it conflicts with the actual biology of infants born either girl or boy.
Most, if not all, "social constructs" are immoral, contrary to facts, and often very harmful to humans.
Note that “gender” isn’t an actual fact of human biology, but a “social construct” of various societies.
"the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.
"the singer has opted to keep the names and genders of her twins private"
https://www.google.com/search?q=gender%20definition...
-
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other.
World Heath Organization
https://www.google.com/search?q=gender%20definition...

Trans--Drag Queen--Daytona [2nd part obscene]

-
"Gender can be broadly defined as a multidimensional construct that encompasses gender identity and expression, as well as social and cultural expectations about status, characteristics, and behavior as they are associated with certain sex traits.
National Institute of Health
-
"All humans are born with biological characteristics of sex, either male, female, or intersex. Gender, however, is a social construct and generally based on the norms, behaviors, and societal roles expected of individuals based primarily on their sex.
Psychology Today
-
"Who was the first to define gender?
Sexologist John Money
The term gender had been associated with grammar for most of history and only started to move towards it being a malleable cultural construct in the 1950s and 1960s. Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955.
Enyclopedia.pub
-
"Since the 1990s, Money's work and research has been subject to significant academic and public scrutiny.[7] A 1997 academic study criticized Money's work in many respects, particularly in regard to the involuntary sex-reassignment of the child David Reimer, and Money's sexual abuse of Reimer and his twin brother when they were children.[8][9] Some of Money's sessions involved Money forcing the two children to perform sexual activities with each other, which Money then photographed. David Reimer lived a troubled life, eventually committing suicide at 38; his brother died of an overdose at age 36.[10][11]
Wikipedia


ln the LIGHT of the TRUE, GOOD, AND JUST,

Dan Wilcox

Guest Post by James F. McGrath, "The Freedom to Be Offended and to Offend..."

FROM The Freedom to Be Offended and to Offend: At the Intersection of Academic Freedom, Art History, Respect, and Religion
JANUARY 18, 2023 BY JAMES F. MCGRATH

"A lot of people have written already about the recent case in which Hamline University decided not to continue to employ an adjunct art history professor, Erika López Prater, after a student took offense at her showing (with due warning in advance) of a Medieval Muslim work of art depicting the prophet Muhammad. Prater is now suing Hamline. Below is my effort to articulate my stance on the matter.

"Inclusivity and respect on the one hand, and freedom of expression/academic freedom on the other, are positive values. Sometimes the pursuit of one of our important values is in tension with another. Then we have to choose which to prioritize. If more institutions would indicate up front what they put first when these values conflict, there would be less shock and less public outcry when they apply their clearly-stated prioritization, even from those who might disagree with their stance.

"Ultimately, for me there are two key concerns. One is that history includes things that some people find offensive. Whether one is dealing with individuals who want to believe that the historical Jesus thought of himself as fully God as per the later creeds, or individuals who want to believe that their nation never committed any atrocities, history presents inconvenient data. To hide that information is to put one’s teaching in the service of an ideologies that educators should not be required to subscribe to or promote.

"Of course, that’s not strictly analogous with the case of Islam and the depiction of Muhammad, since there is nothing in conservative Christianity that constitutes a prohibition of
hearing or seeing something you disagree with. In some streams of Islam, however, there is a prohibition against depicting the Prophet, and some would say that depiction of any living thing is prohibited. I think there’s more to be gained by making analogies with Judaism. Most Jews won’t pronounce the divine name, but they don’t expect others to share that scruple. If you are serving food that isn’t kosher you alert Jews and they abstain or you come to some arrangement for an alternative.

"The particular Muslim student who objected to the art being shown was equivalent to saying “you shouldn’t have served pork even though you announced the menu in advance and offered an alternative, because my religion prohibits me from consuming pork.”

"The student was demanding that no one see the image because of her scruples, in essence, wasn’t she? In a pluralist society you should not be obligated to make an image of Muhammad if you find that objectionable, but neither should you be able to prohibit others from seeing such images if they choose. There isn’t a perfect balance that will make everyone happy, but there is a tried and true approach in the United States that, however imperfect, seems to work better than alternatives........

---

"What are your thoughts about this? Please feel free to share them!"
--James F. McGrath

Read the rest of this excellent blog article on Professor McGrath's blog: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/


My comment: Bizarre! What has happened to freedom of speech in the U.S., especially for teachers and professors?! IF a student takes an Art History course, she ought to expect to see some paintings that don't agree with her own life stance. What right does she have to have a professor fired because he showed a painting against her particular view of Islam!?

It's good that I no longer teach! I wouldn't survive in this intolerant, anti-free-speech current time.
This professor is only one of many who have been fired in the last several years because students were "offended" by their professor's instruction.

Dan Wilcox

Brief: Freeze-dried, Non-fat Version of My Worldview

For those who don’t like long philosophical posts,
here’s a freeze-dried, non-fat version of my worldview:-=):

#1 I am a theist in the sense of Webster-Merriam Dictionary's
first definition of God

God--“1 capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality...”

#2 However, I am definitely not a theist in the sense of most organized religion. I don't believe in the creeds, confessions, dogma, and doctrines
of the Christian, Islamic, or Hindu religions and sects.

Don’t believe in the Yahweh/Allah/Brahma of genocides, holy wars, slaughter of civilians and infants, capital punishment, slavery,
inequality, polygamy, oppression and subjugation of women, and so forth. And all
the other immoral actions attributed to Yahweh/Allah/Brahma, recorded in the Bible, the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.

#3 But then I don’t believe in the claims, assertions, tenets, and screeds of modern nonreligious thought either. Don’t agree with materialism, determinism, moral subjectivism, unethical stances, and philosophical claims that existence/reality is “meaningless and purposeless.”

#4 For better or worse, I am devoted to the principles of the central Enlightenment—
reason,
liberty,
equality,
human rights,
freedom of religion, speech, and the press,
progress,
tolerance,
and science, etc.

In other words, I am committed to the outlook of thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, Thomas Paine, and many others.

#5 I think that all ethics including fairness, fidelity, monogamy, compassion, altruism, kindness, peacemaking/non-violence, generosity, empathy, perseverance, creativity, diligence, thankfulness, hope, and courage—are "oughts,"
are transcendent “beyond” nature, are more than atoms and quarks in motion.


These moral actions are true and universal and will be found in any species in the cosmos who is conscious, rational and aware of ethics.

#6 Another way of stating this is:
Math, reason, logic, ethics,
aesthetics, natural regularities
(sometimes called natural law, like gravity), etc. are all inherent in reality.

Finally, beyond our finite primate abilities to understand, use reason, apply math, do scientific studies, study the history of our species, create things of beauty, and puzzle over philosophical conundrums, there is WONDER.

That is the term that various scientists have used to state their original motivation to seek out and understand existence.

And it’s the term scientists often use to describe what is beyond our rational understanding.

In some cases, human questions may be about non-things that are permanently beyond humankind’s mental abilities like our visual inability to see certain spectrums of light or our hearing inability to hear what a dog can.

#7 At some point, we humans move into areas of speculation—educated guessing.

There are plenty of scientific and philosophical hypotheses as to the nature of Ultimate Reality.

And there are various hypotheses as to whether there is only the Universe, or whether there is a Mulitverse, etc.

These cosmological thoughts are intriguing rational speculations. I find such questions fascinating, have had a life-long searching of why questions.

But I don’t live my practical life by guessing, even educated guessing.

#8 My central concern is with the next living moment,
the next ethical decision,
the next future plan
for the flourishing of all human life,
life itself, and the cosmos.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox