29th Feb 2008
“This Post Has No Title”
My husband is a Quaker at heart. His family roots in Quakerism extend back many centuries. While we do not attend Quaker services, we both know that when (or if) we have children, they will be raised in the Quaker faith. That is why this article caught my eye.
One of the tenets of Quakerism is that they do not swear oaths. They believe that the truth should be told at all times, thus swearing an oath implies a different standard under that oath. They are also non-violent; many conscientious objectors are from The Society of Friends, and they won the Nobel Prize in 1947.
Given that, I am actually kind of amused that a teacher at CSU East Bay was fired for altering a state-mandated oath to state her non-violent beliefs, and for circling that she “affirmed” rather than “swore” this oath (affirming is allowed in Quaker beliefs.)
Modifying oaths is open to different legal interpretations. Without commenting on the specific situation, a spokesman for state Attorney General Jerry Brown said that “as a general matter, oaths may be modified to conform with individual values.” For example, court oaths may be modified so that atheists don’t have to refer to a deity, said spokesman Gareth Lacy.
This woman had made similar alterations to two previous oaths she had signed. Yet, the CSU declared her changes “unacceptable.” Well, I personally find religious discrimination “unacceptable.”
This post has no title.
Oh, I wanted to ask someone who is a Quaker (or is familiar with Quakers): are Quakers a non evangelical religion?
“This post has no title.” So very Zen. I couldn’t come up with a title at first and then I just forgot. Hmmm…
As far as evangelical religion is concerned, no, they are not evangelical. In fact, quite the opposite. They are not allowed to proselytize. But, they will try to persuade to peace and their other beliefs. Just not their faith. This might be an interesting post to read:
http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2007/12/evangelism-vs-proselytizing.html
So it’s the CSU system that has the problem? Because the state attorney doesn’t….
Thanks, GG. I was wondering about that. My mom had asked a question after seeing a movie about quaker and the abolitionist movement. She wondered why more African Americans hadn’t become Quakers, and why Quakers didn’t seem to have churches in AA communities given their involvement with abolitionism. I suggested that the Quakers weren’t evangelical. I didn’t realize they weren’t allowed to proselytize.
Some Quakers ARE Evangelical. Some are very Conservative, in fact. Some ARE allowed to proselytize.
Unprogrammed Friends (of which I am one) and Congregational Friends, the most liberal Quakers, often are not unable to convert, but are uncomfortable and reluctant to do so. I daresay this might sound rather familiar to a UU audience.
As small as UUism is, Quakers are even smaller. This is partially due to the fact that for around 100 years we decided we were so misunderstood and so persecuted that we simply didn’t allow converts at all. Then at the beginning of the 20th century, we eased up, but by that point, the damage was done. We are still reaping the consequences of the Quiet Period.
And rest assured, we have just as hard a time as UUs as nailing down some standard of uniformity. The Peace Testimony, which once was no less than a commandment in Quaker Theology is not observed nearly as strictly as it once was. Though most of us are pacifistic, some of us have served in wars in non-combat roles: clerks, nurses, and tasks given to conscientious objectors in times of war.
Refusing to swear oaths goes way back to the beginning, when George Fox founded the faith in the 1600s. Swearing an oath was seen as being indicative of abiding by true fairness and truthfulness, for which swearing was unnecessary and indicative of pride. We recognize the truth of Jesus’s teaching (Matthew 5:34-37) that swearing is often a way to avoid telling the truth while appearing to do so. Quaker, by the way, is actually a pejorative term reclaimed as a symbol of pride. It was an insult leveled by a British judge, that we would all Quake and tremble at the presence of the Lord in some sort of mad fit of misguided zeal.
As for why we do not have many African-American members, despite a historical and early support for Abolition, well, I think you could well ask the same question of Unitarians and Universalists both and get more or less the same response. Though we have encouraged the membership of African-Americans, particularly after 1800, we are a historically white denomination with a few notable African-Americans whose significant accomplishments are mostly the stuff of footnotes and esoteria.
Encouraging people of color to join is not as simple as opening the doors and opening the hearts. Nor is it as easy as pointing to accomplishments. The meeting I attend have ten regular attenders, one of which is a African-American female.
I think we all feel more comfortable around people whose skin color most closely resembles ours, particularly in a Congregation setting.
As for why we don’t have AA meetings, that’s a good question, and one I will look into. My knee-jerk response is that probably some meetings do and some don’t.