Why Are Quakers Pacifists?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 апр 2014
- Swarthmore College professor George Lakey in this week's Quaker Speak on why Quakers are nonviolent, pacifism and nonviolence (also known as nonviolent action). We talked with George Lakey about Quakers' call to struggle, the myth that violence works, and how that's all changing.
quakerspeak.com/subscribe
Directed by Jon Watts
www.jonwatts.com
Discussion Questions:
www.quakerspeak.com/the-end-of...
George Lakey's article "On the Value of Conflict," from Friends Journal:
www.friendsjournal.org/2010089/
A Review of "Why Civil Resistance Works":
www.friendsjournal.org/review-...
Find a Quaker Meeting Near You:
www.friendsjournal.org/meeting...
www.fgcquaker.org/connect/quak...
Opportunities for personal transformation through community and service work:
www.quakervoluntaryservice.org/
Fox said that we do not war with outward weapons. Our understanding of Jesus is he will not ask us to do outward weapons. We don't understand a holy Spirit that one minute says "be peaceful" and the next minute, "Go out and kill a lot of people."
We don't understand that kind of Spirit. The Spirit we experience is one that is consistent and wants us to not war with outward weapons.
I'm George Lakey, Philadelphia Quaker.
We're going through a paradigm change right now. It's something that I didn't know if I would ever live to see because the paradigm that says, "when push comes to shove, you have to use violence," is so tough and it's been around for tens of thousands of years. It seems as obvious as the paradigm once was that the Earth was flat. Everybody knows the Earth is flat, right? Well, not any longer.
But that's how toughly in-built the paradigm is that violence is what needs to be used when we're going to really exert power and do humanitarian interventions or anything we want to do. "When it's tough we have to use violence." But that's shifting now.
Quakers understood it 350 years ago because it was what they felt naturally you do when the spirit is in you saying, "love people and do what's right. Set up the conditions under which it is easier to do right and stop oppressing each other." The practical dimension of Quakers was expressed through nonviolent struggle.
Struggle, mind you. Not everyone responds in that way. Some people say "spirituality means I should avoid struggle." But for Early Quakers, the Spirit wanted us to go out and do struggle. And so Quakers would pick fights.
Quakers would go into churches for example, and after a preacher had preached something that they felt like was really wrong, they would stand up and contradict the preacher even though that meant that it was pretty likely that they would be grabbed by the parishioners nearby and dragged out of the church and beaten up just outside the church. But they would do that, that's an example of nonviolent struggle.
It's because, "yes we make war with inward weapons", and they even called themselves people who were struggling for the Lamb's war. They were fighting the Lamb's war. So this was a warrior outfit, these 17th century Quakers, who were fighting with nonviolent means.
There's a new scholarly book ["Why Civil Resistance Works" by Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan] that the hardboiled political scientists who wrote it are getting enormous credit for. It describes in ways that political scientists and hardboiled realists, governance people, are taking deeply seriously because the book describes over 300 struggles in which regime change has been the issue: overthrowing governments or getting out from under an empire or stopping an occupation -- big stuff. In this book, they prove that the movements that chose nonviolent means were twice as effective as the movements that chose violent means.
To anyone who is pragmatic of mind, this is news. This is extremely important. So it's not only seeing the Egyptians overthrow Mubarak, or seeing the Tunisians overthrow their dictator or the other kinds of recent experiences that we've seen, but it's also the scholarship-which is important in terms of idea formation-is beginning to catch up with this idea of nonviolent struggle.
It's just believing that the Earth was flat. You can't really hold it against people for believing that the Earth was flat. At a certain time in history, everybody knows that the Earth was flat. And at this time in history, most people just know that violence is the only way to do things when it's tough. However, the excitement for me is there have been sufficient breakthroughs so that now an opening may exist. And maybe some adventurous person watching this will decide to open themselves to new possibilities.
quaker, quakers, silence, religious society of friends, friends journal, jon watts, quaker worship, why quakers worship in silence, quakerspeak, george lakey, pacifist, pacifism, nonviolence, nonviolent protest
SUBSCRIBE for a new video every week! fdsj.nl/QS-Subscribe
WATCH all our videos: fdsj.nl/qs-all-videos
FILMED & EDITED by Jon Watts: jonwatts.com
Pacifism is opposition to war, militarism, or violence.
The word pacifism was coined by the French peace campaigner Émile Arnaud (1864-1921) and adopted by other peace activists at the tenth Universal Peace Congress in Glasgow in 1901.
A related term is ahimsa (to do no harm), which is a core philosophy in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.
While modern connotations are recent, having been explicated since the 19th century, ancient references abound.
In modern times, interest was revived by Leo Tolstoy in his late works, particularly in The Kingdom of God Is Within You.
Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) propounded the practice of steadfast nonviolent opposition which he called "satyagraha", instrumental in its role in the Indian Independence Movement.
Its effectiveness served as inspiration to Martin Luther King Jr., James Lawson, James Bevel, Thich Nhat Hanh and many others in the civil rights movement.
Spiritually we can evolve. This primal instinct of utilizing violence is the hardest in my opinion to change. I'm working on my peace testimony. It's not easy, but I am making progress.
Thank you for posting this!
I am new to non-violent resistance and conscientious objection, and so far it has seemed like a rather terrifying endeavor. There are deeply rooted impulses within me to retaliate or at the very least "defend myself," but I can also perceive the ways in which these impulses are linked with ego rather than with the spirit that gives life to all things
Very Helpful in Understanding Pacifism from a Quaker Perspective.
What would Quakers think of Undertale?
Where you get punished for killing, and praised for sparing.
I was a Christian growing up and left the religion when I realised I was bisexual. I didn't feel welcome, so I left. Over the years since then, I've done my research and I am now solid in my atheism. I genuinely believe there is no God.
But Quakerism really interests me and I think if I were to ever become religious again, I would probably be a Quaker. I have a few questions though, and some of them pertain to pacifism.
I have always believed that war is wrong and I have never truly supported the idea of armies. Growing up in 2000s Britain, I witnessed what happened with Tony Blair and war in general has just never sat right with me. I don't feel we should involve ourselves in other countries' affairs. We've created these wars that are going on right now. It's so unfair to the countries that have to live through being in a warzone. However, I wouldn't say I'm a full pacifist because I believe there are situations where violence is necessary. If someone is pummeling you to death and the only way you can get them to stop is to hit them back, I completely believe that you should hit them back. There's just no other choice in situations like those. Say some cops are in a standoff with a serial killer and if they don't shoot, then he/she will shoot them first. They are absolutely within their rights to fire those guns, I believe. Violence isn't always the answer but I don't agree that it's never the answer either. Do Quakers believe that in those situations, you shouldn't defend yourself or act for the greater good of the world (i.e killing a serial killer)? Because I'm not sure I can get behind that. Feels like it would cause all kinds of problems.
And another question I have is: what is the Quaker consensus on violent video games, movies, etc? I love things like GTA and imo, they don't affect the real world at all. If someone's gonna be violent, they're gonna be violent and no amount of virtual shooting will make a stable person turn into a cold-blooded killer. So I don't personally agree with the censorship of such content. I believe that any content can be as nasty and violent as the creators want it to be and it says nothing about the creators or consumers because it's fictional and that's the most important thing to remember. I don't ever want to live in a world where we police free speech in fiction.
But other than that, I really like the ideals and beliefs of Quakerism. Wish your religion had become the bigger one and not traditional Christianity. 🙄
As long as we live in a world that has sin the use of force will sometimes be necessary.
Simple, clear, direct Very useful presentation
Not a Quaker but I do subscribe to pacifism. Through unadulterated knowledge, education, resource sharing, equality, empathy there can be some form of stable peace. Will that stop crime no, terrorist or radicals idk. But different government can come to condemn any violent groups. While giving opportunity, aid, and love and people will always side with you. You have to change the hearts of the people. You can only confuse and misinform people for so long. To be as prejudice as to believe that somewhere on planet earth there's a group of people who want perpetually war, woe, sorrow and destruction is absurd. They'll always be a few who attempt to undermine world stability with their wickedness, but love and empathy and mutual understanding would help people discern the spiritual and the geniality of those individuals.
Good presentation George!
My family has been Quakers for centuries. A great uncle was actually president of Swarthmore. I have a great interest in following the Quaker belief system; which permits the study of many philosophies without condemnation.
Pacifism in its childish form is an unanswered question. There is in fact, pro social violence. Peaceful solutions are the best option. There are people who act in violent ways in which violence against them is the only option. Dialogue and other means can be inneffective,
Forget Hitler. How does one address the deranged, who is shooting children in a school? Rapid and overwhelming violence to stop immediate threat is the realistic solution.
Surely pacifists aren't so close minded to ignore this fact.
Also, after viewing a few videos by Quakers- Do any of you get into sunlight? Do Quakers ever rock a good tan?
Lolllllll you are too funny brother! Loved this comment ! Thanks for that!
Outstanding and educational.
Love the nonviolence message, but some of those nonviolent struggles had murders and other sinful acts that weren't so publicized.
I will always stand by the fact that you should learn how to fight, how to be violent, trained in combat...
But only to use it when absolutely necessary because defending yourself, your loved ones, innocent people, your home, etc isn't bad.
And it helps people and saves you getting hurt or worse.
Never sell your sword, never leave it behind. And always keep it sharp.
But don't draw it until you have absolutely no choice.
Your earth is clearly flat.
I’m with you on that. If I have to defend myself, I will no matter what. If I’m told I’m going to Hell after I die, so be it. I do agree violence is the last resort. In self defense, there’s no choice but violence. Anybody that says violence is always wrong live in a fairy world. Fairy worlds don’t exist ever.
So true,the injustice of one,to commit evil shall be stopped. Repent to God and he may forgive
@@ohana8535 no, you just outsource your violence
@@caseyjonas86 No, I don't advocate or support any violence.
Erica Chenoweth is the greatest political scientist of this century.
brilliant!
💚💚💚Love people and do right
"Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight,
But Roaring Bill, who killed him, thought it right."
Hillaire Belloc
how about resisting hitler? how would that have worked?
+soandso53 There's a great book by Robert Brimlow called "What about Hitler?: Wrestling with Jesus's Call to Nonviolence in an Evil World." I suggest you check it out.
soandso53 Id say self defense is okay as long as you do not initiate the violence. Some people see punching authoritarians like nazis as self defense but to be initiating the violence is not self defense because defense requires an aggressor.
💎🤝👋
If you love people, you must be prepared to defend them, and if you have to lay down your life as Christ did for us. Remember he overturned the tables of the merchants in the temple, and fashioned a whip :)
thats only because Gods people were being taken advantage of by the rich .......he didn't go to war just to take another countries goods
But note that he never committed violence against another person. He taught turning the other cheek and not resisting an evildoer. That's why he didn't fight back when he was being tortured, why he didn't ask his disciples to avenge his death, why he asked God to forgive his killers. You can't love your enemy if you're trying to kill him.
wow, pacifism really would have helped in WW2 against Hitler...oh wait, it wouldn't have at all
There are different types of pacifism
@@catherineward9996 none would have helped
@@domstangy5249 Not true, some pacifists do agree with violence that they consider consequentially necessary. The type of pacifism I think being discussed in the video is deontological pacifism which comes from a type of ethics that theorises the morality of the action should be based on whether that action is right or wrong according to rules. Which makes sense if you are religious and following certain moral codes
@@catherineward9996 I just think a better response is one of proportionality, to ensure fairness and predictability
@Kicapu yes but they weren't pacifists were they? In reality there will always be people that will use violence to meet their needs. If you believe that global peace is possible with pacifism then grow up.
No it’s because there are stronger men willing to do violence on your behalf. Jesus said turn the other cheek when you suffer for me, for the battle is mine. He didn’t say allow yourselves to be slaughtered by evil men who are evil just to be evil.
This guy is right the Earth is flat!