2020/08/21

Religious Society of Friends Please reconsider responding to divisive comments.

 https://www.facebook.com/groups/2204496464

Eric Tankel

tSponsor5htehdg
 
Friends, I fear our group has become the target of people whose intention is to agitate and cause distress. Please reconsider responding to divisive comments.
60
48 comments
Like
Comment

Comments

  • Cian Horrobin
    It’s worth considering and sitting with the question of “does god need me to respond to this”. I’m sure sometimes there’s a yes, but most often a no.
    4
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 5 h
  • Deborah Yost VanDervort
    Please stop political conversations and you will get rid of the trolls. There are plenty of other forums for political expression.
    4
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 4 h
    • Chad Gilmartin
      Friends' history is full of political action as Ministry. Separating the two in the US right now is not possible for many Friends.
      9
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Deborah Yost VanDervort
      Chad Gilmartin
       it happens to be the law. Besides that, politics will divide meetings. My meeting has both liberal and conservative members/attenders and is quite small. Politics would destroy our meeting. No one wants that to happen.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Deborah Yost VanDervort
      Chad Gilmartin
       I will leave this page if political arguments continue.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Chad Gilmartin
      Deborah Yost VanDervort
       the majority of Ministry I am experiencing (both my own and Friends with whom I worship) is focused on climate action and anti-racism. In the US, these are highly entwined with politics. I'm not clear how I could possibly share that Ministry without discussing legislation, judicial actions, and/or government institutions such as the EPA, FDA, police, etc.
      My goal is never an argument. I'm sure it's possible to discuss politics without arguments occurring, but as you've experienced, that's not common on Facebook. Do you see a way forward that allows sharing politically entwined ministry without getting into politics? If so I would love to improve my practice.
      7
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Deborah Yost VanDervort
      Chad Gilmartin
       we discuss those topics in our meeting. That is nonpartisan and noncandidate. I am talking about arguments over Political candidates/parties.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Chad Gilmartin
      Deborah Yost VanDervort those issues are definitely partisan issues for me. Gutting the EPA makes a politician inherently in the way of climate action, for example.
      2
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Rachel Hennessy
      If you are focused more on not dividing a meeting as opposed to the right actions under the tenets of Quakerism, I would spend a lot of time sitting with that.
      And everything is partisan, especially in this current climate.
      6
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
      • Edited
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 h
  • Stephen Spencer
    If someone is spreading hate and divisiveness, I suggest simply blocking the person. Then you will not see any of their posts, and they won’t see yours. Everyone has a right to share opinions, but we have the right to not listen to them.
    3
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 4 h
  • Georgia Delaney
    Political views do not belong here. LEAVE IT.
    1
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 3 h
    • Deborah Yost VanDervort
      Georgia Delaney
       why thanks, Georgia. I will. You who just joined this group a couple of days ago.
      2
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
      • Edited
    • Rachel Hennessy
      Of course political comments belong here. Politics is personal, and Quakers have always been political.
      4
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • B'lair Milholland
      what is quakerism if not political???
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Georgia Delaney
      We do not discuss at our Meeting. Causes anger and negativity. I come to this site to share caring. love and peace. Why does just being here recently come into it? I hear negativity already.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
    • Rachel Hennessy
      Georgia Delaney
       You know what causes anger and negativity?
      Having people who pretend they share my faith, when one of the core tenants is Equality, and then vote for politicians and policies that directly harm my family because my husband is transgender and we are a queer family.
      That is negativity. That is anger. And that is a personal and political issue that is directly tied to the tenants of Quakerism.
      2
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 1 h
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 59 m
    • Rachel Hennessy
      Georgia Delaney
       It is really, really easy for people who aren't regularly marginalized by the political systems in real ways to discard politics as being some outwardly and impersonal thing, and therefore divorce that from their faith.
      Many of us do not have that privilege, and until we do, Meetings and Quakerism are directly political and personal and that should be discussed.
      What is negative is skirting around these issues under the pretense that we should all just get along, when those actions and that type of silence is a form of violence towards oppressed people. Your vote is a direct action, and if your direct action is to harm my family, then you should own that, that should be reconciled with your faith and those you share a faith community with, and should not be silenced because others don't want to 'deal with the negative'.
      Silence in the face of these things allows these things to continue and is a form of violence.
      You cannot share love an peace when violence is actively used to achieve that love and peace.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 58 m
      • Edited
  • Kevin Camp
    I am always cautious of sharing overtly political vocal ministry during Meeting for Worship, for fear that we might lose our non-profit status. Perhaps the same tenet should apply here.
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 3 h
    • Edited
    • Deborah Yost VanDervort
      Kevin Camp
       I am being told to leave so I will.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Annie Storr
      Kevin Camp
       —501-c-rule is 5% of expenditure. Intermittent comments are safe, though advocating for an increase in your school board’s busing budget counts as much as extolling a candidate—a recommendation of specific political action.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 3 h
    • Kevin Camp
      Annie Storr
       Thank you for filling me in.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
    • Heather Brutz
      Kevin Camp
       This group is not run by any specific meeting so there is not an associated tax ID that is at risk. I'm not a lawyer but I don't think we need to worry about anyone losing their tax exempt status. The relevant question is what kinds of discussion we want to allow or not and how to moderate it.
      4
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
    • Kevin Camp
      Heather Brutz
       Oh, I agree with you. I was just making a comparison. To me, discussions of politics often very quickly veer off the rails, be they in Worship or on a board like this one.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
  • Heather Brutz
    Admins should agressively remove the posts.
    3
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 3 h
  • Rebecca White Bordonado
    Quakers are welcoming, kind, listeners, who try not to judge. No?
    4
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 3 h
    • Kevin Camp
      Kathy Kamp
      , I often wonder if there is a historical precedent for the way Quakers in the past handled the politics/religion intersection. It is true, as we are well-aware, that we were among the first to champion abolition of slavery and women's suffra… 
      See more
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
      • Edited
    • Anthony Leslie Dawson
      Kevin Camp
       Not necessarily. Whilst Quakers in theory after 1774 wer to denounce and dissown slave owners, some of them such as the Barclays still held slaves and were paid compensation in 1833. It's not clear cut. In Britain, Thomas Paine whilst a Quaker was a politcal radical and if you can define his religion, he's a deist really. If that. But in terms of women's suffrage the Quakers were behind the Unitarians in that regard - see for example Mary Wolstonecraft in her famous reply to Paine's "Rights of Man". Then again British radical politics in the late 1780s and 1790s were amongst some of the most progressive. There were even calls to decrminalise homosexuality amongst other things.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
    • Kevin Camp
      Anthony Leslie Dawson
       Yes, I'm certainly aware that we weren't the first to disown slave owners, and many Friends dragged their heels until the bitter end. That's why I said "among the first." That statement may have gotten lost in translation--proof that electronic-only communication has limits. Thanks for the greater historical context.
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
      • Edited
    • Anthony Leslie Dawson
      Certainly during the 1790s and the Napoleonic wars in Britain Quakers pretty much kept themselves to themselves. As a result of the 1794 Treason Trials where prominent Radicals were put on trial for sedition, blasphemy etc, and in the light of the Priestley Riots in Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham and elsewhere, Quakers kept their heads down and hoped it would all wash over them. During the Chartist Demonstrations for Democracy which led up to the Peterloo Massacre 201 years ago last week, the Manchester Quakers locked up and boarded their Meeting House, closed their shops and boarded them and hid away. Unlike other radical groups including the Unitarians who were "in the front line" as it were. They also appear to have been quiet during the push for the Reformed Parliament of 1832. They became much noisier from the 1844s - being anti-military sometimes demonstrating outside of recruiting offices. Sometimes making peaceful protest against imperialism and famously making national peaceful protests against the Crimean War (1854-1856) and Joseph Sturge and other Quakers from the Peace Society went to Russia to speak with the Tsar to avoid war. Sadly, war was declared and the Quakers as pacifists were denounced as the "enemy within"; prominent Quakers such as John Bright were burned in effigy and Quakers were assualted int he street and had their hats and bonnets knocked off!
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
  • Pawel Broom
    Some Meetings are political, because they are so cause oriented,on a micro political level,IMO, it is so easy for a religious group to carry on as a political entity (non religious).IMO it's really important for serious introspection on this ,rather than a cheerleading cause oriented dismissal
    1
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 2 h
  • Edis Bevan
    The discussion on his matter seems to assume US charity laws, which is fair enough for Friends in the USA. There may be other perspectives for Friends in other jurisdictions..It might be helpful to explore this wider experience and share insights.
    3
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 2 h
    • Kevin Camp
      Edis Bevan
       How would you propose such?
      1
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
    • Mary Wilson
      Kevin Camp
       I'm not a Quaker, but I follow this group just for the pleasure of hearing civil, quiet discussion of how we can make things better. Keep it up. You're setting a good example.
      • Like
      • Reply
      • 2 h
    View 1 more reply
  • Katherine Koch
    My impression is that Friends have stood up against injustice all over the world, often in surprising and extraordinarily thoughtful ways. I can’t imagine Quakers without a political and social conscience, vide the American Friends Service Committee for just one example. No Underground Railroad? The Meeting I grew up in was deeply involved in Civil Rights and the anti war movement among other causes.
    4
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 h
  • Geoff Knowlton
    I was wondering the same thing. It appears that at least one such person is posting from a faked account.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 h
  • Lee Sisson
    Friends Committee on National Legislation is one such intertwining of church and state that I find to be very important.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 h
  • Kenn Orphan
    I will admit it, this group used to be a safe space for me to express both my spirituality and my political writing. The latter is as important as the former, since my spirituality informs my political worldview. But now I am seeing a creeping fundamentalism (a disease of American religion in my opinion) and I am finding my self less comfortable. Now, don't get me wrong. Some measure of discomfort is necessary for growth. But much of the discomfort I feel is a regressive impulse for dogma and literal biblical beliefs.
    1
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 1 h
  • Annie Carlile
    Please remove and block agitators. Many of them are fake accounts.
    1
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 51 m
  • Lorcan Otway
    Friends. I am powerfully reminded of my childhood in First Day School, ( with 
    Katherine Koch
    ) when our First Day School teacher was the granddaughter of conductors on the Underground Railroad. Our Meeting was in the process of joining with a Wilburite Meeting, as part of the healing of the Hicksite|Orthodox schism. It was powerfully challenging times, as one of the few Black members of our meeting brought members of the Black Panther Party to our Meeting to discuss issues of social importance, and the reaction was similar to the reaction of earlier friends to the Anti Slavery movement, of which we are all now very proud. Most friends wished to be left in peace. However, some of us reminded others that Yeshua called Jesus did not come into the world to create a world of peace based in neglect of vital issues of justice and fair treatment. As here, there were folks who sought to silence the discussion leading to the remarkable document, "A View From the Back Benches" a pamphlet I urge young Friends to read. In brief, we may consider taking down posts to be similar to the exclusion of the voice of the one Friend in Meetings for Worship with an intent to business, often that one voice which calls us to look inward at our comfort as opposed to our calling. I would hope we might stop negating voices, and if a voice so offends our personal peace, simply not read the post. But allow Friends to follow lines of inspiration which may, some day, be seen as inspired as were the few who first spoke out against slavery.
    5
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 49 m
  • Patrick Easterling
    All he has is thee.
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 6 m
  • Heather Brutz
    There is no need to waste time engaging in good faith on the Internet with someone who is not also engaging in good faith. If the whole point of their post is to waste your time and start fights, there is no need to waste time and energy trying to show them the error of their ways. It is pretty obvious when someone has not been a member of this group for a while and joins only for the purpose of asking obviously incendiary questions that they don't care about our religion or our opinions. They just want a fight. Don't give it to them but also don't allow them to take up space and energy in the group.
    2
    • Like
    • Reply
    • 4 m
Posted by at