“Nazareth, your famous son
Should have stayed a great unknown
Like his father carving wood
He’d have made good
Tables, chairs and oaken chests
Would’ve suited Jesus best
He’d have caused nobody harm
No one alarmed!”

My own thoughts are, first, it is focused on communication rather than action. I tend to use the saying in an ironic way, criticizing the tendency to protect ourselves from knowledge of unpleasant realities. I somehow doubt the original intent of the saying was ironic in that way, though–I think it was intended as a dictum to be followed.

Perhaps the thought is that, if you are not exposed to knowledge of evil, you will naturally keep it out of your actions. I’m not sure I agree. In my experience, such an approach is as likely to lead to self-satisfied hypocrisy as to genuine virtue.

james, the monkey

Anyhow, I wanted to add my two cents that the Faith In Action idea is probably the KEY thing that attracts me to Quakers; well that and the fact that the kinds of things that Quakers do generally resonate with my sense of right.

But speaking of monkeys, I’ve always wondered why the three monkeys are “see no evil,” “hear no evil” and “speak no evil.” Is it left out because “DO no evil” is hard to depict in a drawing or sculpture?

I’m not even sure we’re in disagreement at all.

My point was basically that I don’t think it’s “quakerly” to say “suicide is bad” - whereas it would be very quakerly to say “I really would be devastated if you killed yourself, and I’m wondering what we can do to help make sure it doesn’t happen”

Similarly, scowling at someone who watches TV is simply stupid, and I think what Caldwell was talking about. But saying “I find TV to be destructive to my spiritual life, tell me about your experience” might be a very good way of seeing that of God in someone.

I guess part of my problem is a sense that we’re being admonished to ignore “problems” and simply focus on Jesus. When I think Jesus might actually care about styrofoam cup use (if he existed!

I see so much religion that is emplty of concern for life, the world, reality. I fear that for quakerism.

I WORRY that he’s saying it’s not important, though it’s not necessarily what he’s saying.

I also worry about the tendency among Friends to do that silent, passive-aggressive thing about all sorts of issues. I think it’s GOOD to say “hey, let’s stop buying styrofoam cups, because here is what I know about the damage they do…..” while it’s pretty useless to simply stare coldly at someone who uses them (I am, myself, terrible about this with people smoking near me. - I never ask them not to, or to change anything to accomodate my needs, but cough and scowl a lot!) Of course the quakers I know who smoke are really “underground” about it - probably largely because of people like me! *sigh*

I would be pleased if it was easier to discuss disagreements in our meeting as well, and I think it would serve God (good?) better as well.

Perhaps I dont’ disagree with him so much after all…..

What I resonated with in Caldwell’s words around the “styrofoam cup” question was subtler than the question of whether it is important or not. It’s more about moralistic rigidity, a sense I sometimes get that there is one way to understand or respond to a concern, and anyone who understands the concern differently just doesn’t care. A Friend talks about a TV show they like and gets disapproving glances because TV is evil. I’ve seen the same scary looks around all sorts of issues: Israel, mainstream journalism, brands of peanut butter, America’s role in world affairs, Green Party vs. Democratic Party, the lessons of 9/11, etc. Almost every one of these issues is far more complex and nuanced than the conventional left-wing understanding of them, yet anything outside of that understanding is regarded as morally diseased by some Friends. I say this as a dedicated left-winger. We need more critical thinking about our own views, not less.

Once again, I hope you don’t see this as a denigration of your own views as wrong or unimportant. I agree with vast majority of your views, as I understand them. But I would be pleased if it were easier to express disagreement about such views in our meeting.

I guess I hear in the statement a message that basically says that actively making choices that further justice in some way (not using styrofoam cups, not buying sweatshop clothing) is an empty thing, while praying, or something more overtly “religious” would be a worthwhile spiritual activity for a Friend. This is completely counter to my experience. Activities that focus on deepening out religious experience can certainly be valuable, but they can also feel like so much navel gazing to me. Faith in Action is one of the most important aspects of quakerism to me (not that quakers use this term, to my knowledge) - it matters a LOT what we do.

I guess my question is, would we find it “okay” to shame someone about something “serious” - an abusive parent, a racist, etc??? My belief, as with less offensive things like single instances of styrofoam cup usage, is that it is NEVER appropriate to try to address issues with an attempt to shame people into some sort of submission. My belief is that with support and love and an expectation or challenge to live up to the light granted (but not shaming) we can all live more in the light - which includes everything from loving relationships with other people, to finding alternatives to war, to protecting the environment. I had a debate with someone online years ago who was disturbed that quakers didnt’ take a stand against suicide, like most other religions do (and abortion came up in this context as well - both are violence, and we are supposedly committed to nonviolence)

And, I don’t think I said it at the time, but it fits, it’s not that we hate war because it’s fashionable to, it’s that we strive to “live in a fasion that takes away the occasion for all outward wars” (paraphrased, but I think mostly accurate). I think suicide and abortion would both happen a LOT less if more people were recognizing that of God in each other, loving each other, supporting each other. I also think that both sometimes, at least as the world exists today, are the most light-filled choice available in some very sad circumstances. Do I want to live in a society where we tell depressed people that they will go to hell if they kill themselves, or have an abortion? (or use a styrofoam cup!) NO!!!! Do I want to live in a society where we respond to each other’s desperation with help, support, love, deep listening, so that fewer people feel that desperate? YES! To me that’s quaker FAITH, not CULTURE. Maybe that’s all Caldwell was trying to say???

peace
Pam

I avoid styrofoam cups and disposables in general, try to buy food with minimal packaging. I think it’s good to care about those things, no question. But some of the arched eyebrows and guilt-slinging around politically correct consumption strikes me as unhealthy and essentiallly beside the point.

Without really serious political change, strong legislation, a complete and massive shift in societal values around issues of the environment and worker exploitation, our nice little shopping habits are not going to make a dent. It’s symbolic, it makes us feel a little better, but what it really will take is political change at the national and international level. We are a drop in the bucket unless we engage with the society we live in and transform hearts and minds, with the end goal of changing governmental policy in significant ways.

So, given the real situation, the huge challenges we are up against, I do think that shaming each other over shopping habits, coffee cups, etc, is not where we should be putting our energies. I’d rather put our energies into supporting and grounding each other in the work each of us is led to do, without necessarily expecting others to make the same choices we have made.

Sensible shoes are wonderful. I can’t understand why anyone would choose to wear high heels. But we can get in the frame of mind where wearing high heels, or watching television, or not eating healthy, is a shameful thing. I think this is bad for us.