Shunning a Quaker practice? Don't think so
jeb
shunned people. I think this to be quite incorrect. The Amish
and some related sects do shun people. It is both a community
and social sanction. Those shunned are expelled from the
community, and socially ostracized -- even minor contact with
them is forbidden. It is often an economic sanction as well.
It is harsh orchestrated action directed by elders of a
community to punish behaviors the community frowns upon. The
whole thing is a quite repugnant aspect of a religion that in
many ways I find quite likable.
I cannot imagine Friends doing this, though they might expel
someone from meeting who was disruptive, if the disruption
was serious and persistent. But I can't imagine them trying
to impose social or economic ostracism outside the confines
of a meeting in an attempt to enforce their disapprobation or
punish someone. It has none of Chrisitan love in it, nor
would it be in any manner consistent with recognizing that of
God in everyone -- even people you don't like.
In my opinion, this is a good example of where this group
lacks both discernment and Quaker presence. If Quakers and
Friends do shun and condone shunning in the sense of the
Amish, then I lose much respect for them as a collective
religious group. If I am right that Quakers do not shun in
the Amish sense, then the lack of Friends presence has
allowed a very nasty practice to remain as a unchallenged
notion of how Quakers behave and who they are.
Ian Davis
jeb <j...@erehown.us> wrote:
>Somewhere in a recent thread, someone indicated that Quakers
>shunned people. I think this to be quite incorrect. The Amish
>and some related sects do shun people. It is both a community
>and social sanction. Those shunned are expelled from the
>community, and socially ostracized -- even minor contact with
>them is forbidden. It is often an economic sanction as well.
>It is harsh orchestrated action directed by elders of a
>community to punish behaviors the community frowns upon. The
>whole thing is a quite repugnant aspect of a religion that in
>many ways I find quite likable.
I brought it up. Not sure if Quakers still anywhere practice organised
shunning today. But the web says that they did. My understanding was that
Quaker pacifism would encourage them to silence rather than to response
in dire circumstances.. however I don't know if they would employ such
a tactic collectively in an organised way.
http://colonial-america.suite101.com/article.cfm/fighting-quakers-during-the-american-revolution
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Susan_B._Anthony
http://qfp.quakerweb.org.uk/qfp25-09.html
It is a very interesting question whether shunning is still employed by
Quakers anywhere.
Since David uses the term often, perhaps he could clarify?
Ian
jeb
news:hubsc5$122$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:
> In article <Xns9D8DAA3A04...@94.75.214.90>,
> jeb <j...@erehown.us> wrote:
>>Somewhere in a recent thread, someone indicated that
>>Quakers shunned people. I think this to be quite incorrect.
>>The Amish and some related sects do shun people. It is both
>>a community and social sanction. Those shunned are expelled
>>from the community, and socially ostracized -- even minor
>>contact with them is forbidden. It is often an economic
>>sanction as well. It is harsh orchestrated action directed
>>by elders of a community to punish behaviors the community
>>frowns upon. The whole thing is a quite repugnant aspect of
>>a religion that in many ways I find quite likable.
>
> I brought it up. Not sure if Quakers still anywhere
> practice organised shunning today. But the web says that
> they did. My understanding was that Quaker pacifism would
> encourage them to silence rather than to response in dire
> circumstances.. however I don't know if they would employ
> such a tactic collectively in an organised way.
>
I suppose some meetings might have done.do that as part of
their corporate discipline. They were often quite independent.
The Friends I know and respect would never stoop
to that.
Quakerism rings very hollow and shallow if it gives rise to
and quarter to that sort of behavior, despite all its lofty
words. The only light in that practice is the light of
hell and hatred. People follow that on their own. Why would
they need a religion to aid them in their natural evil?
It does not matter functionally anymore. While
shunning could disrupt some familial conact, no one in the
real world would care much at all whether Quakers approved of
them or not. I just don't want to be associated with such a religion.
DC wants shunning for control and punishment. There is
absolutely no light there I would follow. It is ironic that
his call to SRQers for shunning of people he dislikes
includes a request to shun the functional entireity of SRQ,
except for perhaps Jon. That Spock like logic of his.
Yowie
You express my thoughts here. Whether that counts for anything, not
being Quaker, I don't know.
Yowie
simmo...@gmail.com
Jon G.
I shunned the hell out of the pervert, although he probably didn't deserve it. He mysteriously died on New Year's Day, suggesting assisted suicide.
Manslaughter consists of using spiritual tools intended for good but applied to hurt instead.
I was running away from them. When I looked back the punk was wielding and ice pick to stab me. This is some of the BULLSHIT I've been put through, and I'm glad the asshole pervert is fucking GONE.
Henry S. Thompson
necessity in the early days, to protect early Friends from people
claiming to speak in their names or otherwise making Quakers look bad,
sometimes at the time referred to as 'disorderly walking'. But being
disowned did _not_ mean being shunned. It was simply a removal of
membership, the disowned former member was still welcome to attend
Meeting for Worship.
The above is based largely on what I remember of things Larry Kuenning
wrote on the topic on this list and its related email lists 20-odd years
ago. This document [1] by Larry and others has _much_ more detail and
should be consulted by anyone who wants the historical and contemporary
fact of the matter.
Most yearly meetings, including my own, still have a process whereby
someone's membership can be terminated, but that's all it is, no social
exclusion is mandated or intended.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, Central Edinburgh LM, SE Scotland AM, Britain YM
[quaker mail from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]