AGAINST QUAKER NONVIOLENCE, FOR WAR INSTEAD:
"Was...Quakerism the best route to abolition?
In the USA, slavery was abolished by a war - which remains America's bloodiest even in absolute terms despite the subsequent growth in American population.
Quakers were and are pacifists and conscientious objectors, so at least in the USA they did not contribute directly to abolishing slavery as much as the (mostly) men who died to eradicate it.
Also, Quakers initially opposed Darwin, and about half of Quakers today remain creationists according to Wikipedia. So the question is whether the good done by Quakers verbally objecting to slavery (while not shedding any blood for the cause) outweighs the harm done by their science denial.
That's not an easy accounting job so I would hesitate to call the Quakers "good."
And not to mention that Quakers continue to promote the bible, which itself on plain reading promotes slavery or at least conspicuously fails to condemn it. According to the bible, picking up sticks on the Sabbath is a capital offense while slavery is A-OK as long as you follow the directions laid out.
Imagine there were some liberal anti-Nazis who continued to promote Mein Kampf as the source of all truth. They would come with opportunity costs too. There are better ways to oppose the evils of Nazism than by teaching people to take its sacred text seriously.
I don't deny that some theists in some circumstances have done some good things. Hamas for example peforms lots of charity work among its folk while calling for Israel to be eradicated.
Even some secular drug lords provided jobs and support for the impoverished Latin American communities where they operated.
Drugs and religion have many parallels. They are both harmful businesses built on a foundation of lies, often accompanied by a window dressing of conspicuous benevolence."
-
English Quakers on a Barbados plantation. / Image courtesy of New York Public Library
FOR QUAKER WAY OF NONVIOLENCE AGAINST WAR: Yes, the British Quaker movement and their U.S. abolitionism, Underground Railroad, etc. was "the best route to abolition"
NOT the horrendous vast slaughter of the U.S. Civil War, (which wasn't even intended for abolition but for forcing seceding Southerns back into the Union).
HOWEVER, as you point out...
1. Quakers in history and now are a very diverse and contrary group--have been all over the place. Heck, rich Quakers, such as in the Caribbean owned slaves. However, because of their original emphasis upon equality for humans, they finally--many reluctantly--rejected and opposed slavery in the latter part of the 1700's (as I already stated, my original point).
They did lead the movement against slavery in Britain. And in the U.S. by 1776, they totally opposed slaves and eventually helped lead abolitionism, were part of the Underground Railroad, helped lead the political movement for women's rights, etc.
2. However, the central founder of the Society of Friends, George Fox in 1640 strongly supported Cromwell and his slaughter of the English Civil War!
3. The majority of Quakers at present in the U.S. are mostly fundamentalist-Evangelical! Heck, I couldn't have been a member, nor would I want to be.
4. Historically, some Quakers have held horrendous views. In Indiana in the 1920's a very large Quaker meeting was a very strong supporter of the KKK. In one infamous picture, the KKK in their robes are all standing down at the front.
Quaker Yearly Meeting in Southern California in 1980 came out strongly for nuclear weapons.
5. Early Quakers were charged with heresy. Good grief, William Penn was jailed because of his book that cast doubt on orthodox Christian creed.
6. in 2012, a Quaker meeting in South Carolina strongly promoted Calvinism.
ETC.
7. I think you have a serious--though common-- misunderstanding of the U.S. Civil War, one that I, once, held, too. Until I had spent years studying too many tomes on the Civil War era and teaching it in secular public high schools.
While plantation leaders of the South did fight the war to retain slavery--they wrote into their Constitution--most of the millions involved in that horrific conflagration weren't fighting about slavery.
Lincoln specifically stated that he invaded the South, Not to end slavery, but to force the seceding states back into the Union.
Lincoln, even in 1863 wanted all Blacks to leave the U.S. and move to another country. He had specifically emphasized that if they returned they could keep slaves.
Not only that, but when Lincoln declared all slaves in the South freed in 1863, Lincoln continued to enslave Blacks in the Union! The Union's slaves weren't freed until 1865!
Also, keep in mind that as a lawyer, Lincoln had gone to court for a slave owner against a slave!!
And Lincoln and many others in the Union held that Blacks weren't equal to Whites, etc.
ETC.
Contrary to your point in favor of war, the Quaker method of abolition was far superior to a war that slaughtered at least 800,000 individuals, wounded millions, intentionally attacked civilians, etc.
Did you know that according to historians, Grant's wife continued to use slaves (her father owned them) even while Grant was shelling and killing civilians at Vicksburg?!
8. Your comparison of Quakers to HAMAS is very unfair and untrue.
HAMAS is a horrific terrorist organization, who even murders other Palestinians!
In contrast, there are Palestinians who are kind and caring. I've lived and worked in Palestine-Israel; our family has helped 2 impoverished Palestinian families, etc. And I was a guest of a Palestinian family in Nablus (where some of the killing is going on).
I used to teach about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Holocaust, etc.for years
BOTH SIDES of that horrendous conflict for the last 100 years are partly right and partly wrong.
BUT HAMAS and the Jewish settlers who regularly steal Palestinian land, destroy orchards, go into Palestinian towns and torch cars, houses, etc. are doing what is very wrong.
In contrast, the Quakers have had a school in Ramallah for 150 years that teaches reconciliation, peace-making, etc.
Yes, HAMAS and other terrorist organizations do charity work, BUT that is ONLY for other Muslims, NOT for Jews or others.
Instead, they slaughter innocent Jewish civilians intentionally.
Several years ago, Palestinian leaders hailed a Palestinian who snuck into a 13-year-old Jewish girl's bedroom and knifed her to death. He was declared a patriot, a martyr!
Instead, Quakers emphasize helping those outside of their group, even those contrary to their way of life!
9. Let me emphasize again. I already knew all the terrible wrongs that you pointed out about some Quakers' bad actionsin the past. And there are plenty more that I could add to your list. I used to teach Quaker history and views of Reality to our Quaker meeting in the late 1970's.
And, by the way, when I did that, I was an extreme liberal, as I have already emphasized never thought Jesus was God, etc.
Since you don't accept my example of the Quakers leading abolition, here's another one:
Martin Luther King Jr. and other Baptists, etc. led the Civil Rights Movement. And one of his advisors was a Quaker and one was an Atheist.
And yes, I know that he was a gross adulterer, probably cheated on his thesis for PhD. etc.
My point isn't that the Baptists are in general, or MLK, specifically, are paragons of virtue and goodness.
My original point is that sometimes some religions (just like sometimes some atheists) lead the advancement of the good, the true, and the just in human history.
That was my ONLY point.
I know all too well, that all humans including us, have some good and some bad in our actions.
-
Against Quaker: wrote, "Was it their religious proclivities that drove their abolitionist ideals, or was it a sense of what was right?"
For Quaker: BOTH. It was a particular "religious proclivity"--that of equality--which led the Quakers to end their slave-owning and to help lead the abolition movement.
In the LIGHT,
Dan Wilcox
