Can Quakers Be Members of Political Parties?

I have been thinking lately about Quakerism and political parties. Some religions explicitly forbid members to affiliate themselves with political parties. Does the Quaker faith? Not explicitly.

In contrast, Baha'is are expressly prohibited from engaging in partisan politics and are not allowed to join political parties or campaign for candidates. Importantly, Baha'is are still allowed to be involved in the hot-button issues of the day such as "eliminating racism and promoting the equality of men and women, economic justice, moral education and peace among nations" and are encouraged to exercise their civic duty to vote. They just aren't allowed to self-identify as "Democrats" or "Republicans."

Sometimes a person's faith can implicitly require her to reject politcal parties. For example, as a Catholic growing up, I always believed that I could not truly belong to either the Democratic or the Republican party. The Democrats are "pro-choice" (or as some Catholics would say, "pro-abortion") and the Republicans are "pro-death penalty." Both stances go against the Catholic Church's explicit teachings.

Are Quakers implicitly called to reject partisan politics?

I think the concern for Quakers is slightly different than the concern for Catholics. Political parties have set views on various issues -- from abortion, to government spending, to healthcare, to war. As Quakers, we are called to listen to -- and follow -- the Light of God within. Does adopting a pre-set list of "views" on various issues mean that we are surrendering our duty to listen to God, or does it at least make it a bit more difficult? Further, does it, as the Baha'is believe, lead us to divisiveness instead of unity?

UPDATE: I just learned that on Wikipedia it says: "At first Quakers were barred by law and their own convictions from being involved in the arena of law and politics." I hadn't heard it, though I don't doubt it's true.

Murder Accusations Against the Guatemalan President

President Álvaro Colom of Guatemala has been accused of murder. And the accusation has come -- not from a ranting man in the street -- but from an esteemed Guatemalan lawyer, who has now been killed, too.

Not only that, but the lawyer, Rodrigo Rosenberg Marzano, makes the accusation in a posthumously released video, in which Mr. Marzano gives the chilling proclamation normally seen only on fictional television dramas: "If you are watching this message, it is because I was assassinated by President Álvaro Colom, with the help of Gustavo Alejos."

The video has now been widely viewed in Guatemala and has led to protests against government corruption. Indeed, if the accusations against President Colom are true, it would be corruption of the highest and most unforgivable kind. The story has also hit American news, but it's not getting the kind of coverage one might expect from this type of scandal. Perhaps that will come when (and if) the accusations are either confirmed or rejected.

Here is the first part of the video:



Of course, these are all just accusations now. Hopefully, time will bring the truth to light. If these accusations are true, however, they will surely lend more instability to an already-struggling, post-civil-war Guatemala. The Guatemalan people clearly need -- and deserve -- a government they can rely on, not a government they must fear.

Prop 8

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court announced its decision, upholding Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution to limit the term "marriage" to describe only a union between a man and a woman. However, in doing so, the Court kept intact the estimated 18,000 marriages that occurred before Proposition 8 passed. The overall result was disappointing, though expected.

Many people might not know this, but the Pacific Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) -- like many other religious groups -- filed a brief as amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioners who were challenging Proposition 8's validity. In the brief, the Pacific Yearly Meeting expressed that it was "gravely concerned about Proposition 8 because it would impede them and their member meetings from conducting ceremonies of marriage without discrimination."

What is the Pacific Yearly Meeting's history on marriage equality? It was at the 1996 Pacific Yearly Meeting in Chico, California that the Pacific Yearly Meeting reached unity on the issue of marriage equality. The official minute, adopted as part of our Faith and Practice, explains that "a commitment to equality requires that same-gender couples have the same rights and privileges [as opposite-gender couples]." Further, "we believe that the State should permit gay and lesbian couples to marry and share fully and equally in the rights and responsibilities of marriage."

By no means do all Quakers agree on this issue. While it seems to me that most so-called "liberal", "unprogrammed" Friends support marriage equality, there are certainly Quakers -- indeed, probably a majority worldwide -- who vehemently oppose same-sex marriage.

"I was always a Friend and just didn't know it yet."

Over at Quaker Quaker, Hystery commented that the Quaker testimonies were a major reason for Hystery's becoming a Quaker. Hystery also noted that reading the testimonies and seeing how important they were to Quakers (aka "Friends"), Hystery got the sense that Hystery "was always a Friend and just didn't know it yet."

This got me thinking about my own pre-Quaker life. It is amazing when you read about Quakerism and realize that so many of the beliefs are things you've always believed and didn't know there was a group like you out there. It sounds crazy, but it's true. It feels, to borrow Hystery's words, "like a homecoming," and indeed, like you were "always a Friend and just didn't know it yet."

Some of my pre-Quaker Quaker beliefs include:

• Belief against gambling.
• Belief against alcohol/smoking/drugs as part of one's regular life (may be okay in moderation, but was never for me).
• Belief against taking oaths. Years before I was a Quaker I would refuse to take oaths for the very same reasons. Let your "Yes" mean "Yes" and your "No" mean "No," I would always say, even though this wasn't emphasized in my church growing up.
• Belief in pure equality. For example, belief that no legitimate reason existed to justify forbidding women to hold certain religious offices (i.e., priesthood).
• Belief in fair treatment of animals (i.e., I'm a vegetarian).

Interestingly, none of these are related to the number one reason most people "come to Quakerism," which is the Quaker stance on Peace, or least it seems to be.

Quaker Testimonies

I thought about the Quaker testimonies this weekend and never really arrived at a good answer. I did share some thoughts -- and to my great pleasure so did some others -- on the role of the testimonies in a discussion I started over at Quaker Quaker. It's pretty interesting and (hopefully) will grow to be more and more interesting as people add their thoughts and comments.

Which Is the Hardest Testimony to Live?

Quaker testimonies form a huge part of Quaker faith and practice. I won't go into too much detail about them here except to explain generally what they are, in essence, embodiments of Quaker core beliefs. These core beliefs -- I personally believe (as there is no consensus on this) -- flow directly from our collective understanding of the basic principles we need to live in order to follow God.

The main testimonies are often summarized by the acronym "SPICE," which stands for Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, and Equality. Of course, these words all have secular meanings and are great secular principles. It was, indeed, the Peace Testimony that helped earn the Quakers a Nobel Peace Prize in 1947.

But what do these mean to me? As a Quaker and person of faith? I'll give brief, gut reactions on each here, but I plan to contemplate them more over the weekend:

Simplicity: Living plainly and simply, so as to focus our attention on God and those around us. Avoiding material things as a source of joy.

Peace: Opposition to war and violence as destructive of humanity and damaging to our relationship with God.

Integrity: Truthfulness and straightforwardness in all you do.

Community: Care, stewardship, and concern for others, regardless of artificial national boundaries or differences of beliefs.

Equality: We are all equal. Period.

This weekend, I plan to reflect on which of these testimonies is the most difficult for me to actually live and why. I'll report back soon. I'd also appreciate any comments with others' thoughts.

Taking God From the Gays

No person, group, or religion has a monopoly on God. What I see happening -- and it's been happening for years -- is that certain religious groups (mainly identifying themselves as "Christian") have determined that they are the be all and end all of God's message. By monopolizing "God" in this way, they convince lesbian and gay people -- among others -- that they are "wrong" or "unrepentant sinners" unworthy of God.

The result is saddening. Lesbians and gays who have been injured by messages of nonacceptance quite predictably feel pained by their experience with religion. So, instead of rejecting this position or the groups offering it, some lesbian and gay people reject God entirely. But it's important to understand that it's not God who is rejecting lesbians and gays. Knowing that to be true, why then shoud lesbians and gays feel compelled to reject God? Better yet, why should you be deprived of spiritual richness simply because others want to deprive you of that richness? You shouldn't.

As Maya Angelou says in her heart-wrenching poem "Our Grandmothers," documenting the plight of Black women in America:

"She stood in midocean, seeking dry land.
She searched God's face.
Assured,
She placed her fire of service
on the altar, and though
clothed in the finery of faith,
when she appeared at the temple door,
no sign welcomed
Black Grandmother. Enter here.

Into the crashing sound,
into wickedness, she cried,
No one, no, nor no one million Ones dare deny me God. I go forth
alone, and stand as ten thousand.
The Divine upon my right
impels me to pull forever
at the latch on Freedom's gate.

The Holy Spirit upon my left leads my
feet without ceasing into the camp of the
righteous and into the tents of the free."

Let's not let others define our relationship with God.