Comment by James C Schultz on 1st mo. 21, 2013 at 7:53pm

This is a recently approved minute by The Manhasset Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends:

The recent elementary school shooting at Sandy Hook, CT has triggered another wave

of anti-gun rhetoric, especially among the Country’s politicians who are quick to

promote any topic that will present them with a soapbox. While members of our

meeting might have different views on the need for the public’s need for access to

guns and the wisdom of including what is thought by many to be such a right in our

country’s constitution, there is no such division amongst us on our opposition to the

cult of violence spawned by the proliferation of violent Movies and video games.

While the Media is quick to rightly highlight the ease of the mentally disturbed’s

ability to acquire lethal weapons, they shunt aside the equally valid arguments that

the violence depicted in movies and video games depicting the “misunderstood”

outcast as a hero by violently attacking his enemies is playing an important role in our

society’s rapid descent into one marred by ever more frequent outbursts of

unexpected deadly violence in previously “safe” quarters such as schools and

theaters.

Understanding that the Media is reluctant to criticize the depiction of violence

because of the reasonable fear of jeopardizing the right of freedom of speech so

intrinsic to their own existence, it is evident that those most affected by this

unacceptable violence have to take matters into their own hands by boycotting all

violent movies and video games until the purveyors of such no longer find it

financially expedient to operate in that business.

With liberty comes responsibility and rather than complain about what others should

do to solve the problem of unacceptable violence in our society we should recognize

our own role, passive or otherwise, in the creation of the present commercialization

of violence and take the necessary actions available to us to cut off the economic

blood stream of this burgeoning industry. We therefore urge all those who find the

current depiction of violence objectionable to refuse to spend any money on or invest

in any company that produces violent films and/or video games and to take whatever

action they deem necessary in good conscience to make known their objection to the

acceptance of the current cult of violence and to raise awareness of such objections

in their communities.

Comment by Syd Salsman on 1st mo. 22, 2013 at 12:07am

This is wonderful! I found the part about early Christian pacifism and pacifist Christians throughout history particularly interesting.

I could not agree more with this.

Comment by Randy Oftedahl on 1st mo. 22, 2013 at 8:12am

Friend James;

So...your Meeting "has different views on the public’s need for access to guns" but is unified in its objection to fictionalized accounts of the access to guns....ok, I won’t even go there.

My question to Friends, however, is whether "secularized" arguments or positions that advocate a political stand, whether collectively or individually, present a real witness to the world about who we are as Friends - and why we are? When Friends make any kind of corporate statement, is it only for internal consumption, a way for us to feel in agreement about some small thing, perhaps to feel good or righteous about ourselves? Or are we trying to say something about where Truth has led us in order to call the world to look toward that same Truth? And if we believe that Truth has been revealed to us by God, why don’t we say so? Why would we cloak this revelation in the vernacular of political debate and "rational argument"?

To put it another way, the value of the Queries to Quakers, IMHO, has never been in what it tells the outside world about what to do or what is right. The Queries are questions we ask ourselves (and/or our Meetings) about whether we are living up to the Light we claim has been given us. How faithful are we? What do WE need to change in ourselves? And if we have been faithful to that Witness does not our lives speak our witness sufficiently and make our need to take "positions" on "issues" unnecessary? Forgive me, Friends, these are questions I am asking myself and I’m taking this opportunity to share the struggle I’m having with collective political statements with Friends here.

Comment by James C Schultz on 1st mo. 23, 2013 at 5:53pm

Friend Randy:  I think you missed the point of the minute or it's possible that the point got lost in the verbiage.  The minute isn't suggesting or recommending political action but asking those individuals who feel repulsed by violence to do something in their own life to reject it.  It is raising the question of individual responsibility on an individual basis, it is not calling for political action.  I agree wholeheartedly with you that Friends should be on a journey of individual transformation but as the letter of James points out (Faith without Works is dead) such transformation, if and when it occurs, should lead to an outward expression for good.

Comment by Randy Oftedahl on 1st mo. 24, 2013 at 7:43am

Friend James,

Thank you and of course what you say is true. I wasn’t really responding specifically to your Meeting’s Minute, though I realize upon re-reading my post, it sounds like it. Forgive me. My intent was to raise a more general question - one which I’ve been wrestling with for some time - about the Quaker practice of Minuting concerns. How do these concerns arise among us? Are they in response to the stirrings of the Spirit or are they reactions to the events of the world? Why do they often have such a feeling of “timeliness”, and is this a good thing or not such a good thing?

But I realize this was also not in response to Friend Ryan’s post, so perhaps this is not the appropriate place to raise this. So let me sit with this a while and perhaps I will ask some of these questions in a separate post. I would like to know if other Friends are struggling with these questions as I am.

Peace,
Randy O

Comment by James C Schultz on 1st mo. 24, 2013 at 9:31am

I think your questions about minutes is well worth expounding on.  I think it's very easy to prepare a minute on a topic based solely on one's political viewpoint on a "hot" topic.  I hope that isn't what has happened at Manhasset.  We have had two minutes in the two plus years I have been there.  Both concern political issues in some way.  However, the minutes themselves arose from the spirit rather than the newspaper or in this day and age the internet.  At least to the extent that I can determine.  As with the exercise of vocal ministry the subjects were wilfully put aside when they first arose but kept coming back and when put to pen flowed fairly easily.  Plus there was quick unanimity when put before the meeting.  "Fracking" on the other hand is brought up once in a while but there is no sense of the meeting to act on it.  Like many things it's a "sense" reading of the spirit and not an intellectual decision but it does take an acute awareness that there is a difference.  So your point is one that we must continuously be made aware of by yourself and others.  Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Comment by Jay Thatcher on 1st mo. 27, 2013 at 11:19am

Randy, I have shared your questions and doubts on the practice of writing minutes of concern.  I'll be interested in what you're led to as you sit with it. 

My questions about the practice have included yours, as well as, "Does it matter to anyone else what we can say together about an issue?  Would it matter to others if we did something practical?"

Thank you for your faithfulness in addressing this.

Comment