Is Quakerism a "Passive" Cult?

Being scared of Quakers is like being scared of puppies and kittens. They are the most absurdly innocuous and unobjectionable religious group out there. They don’t seek converts and they don’t follow leaders. They don’t believe in violence and they don’t expect others to agree with them, except by finding their example worthy. Half the time they don’t say anything at all.

OP, I can understand not sharing their views, but if you actually feel threatened (LOL!) with their position on non-violence, or the fact that they truly attempt to love their enemy, or that they advocate for human rights, it really says something about you and not the Quakers.

They haven’t managed to destroy Pennsylvania with their zany ideas, much less all of Western Civillization (again, the thought inspires major lolz).

This quote makes me wish we had a like button! And it makes me wonder what has made Jinx so full of suspicion that non-violent people who believe in social justice are a cult.

I suspect they might be pro-pothole, given the condition of the roads here.

I don’t think that’s a good example. :wink:

Well, with their ideas about “inclusion” and “treating everyone as equals,” Pennsylvania did get over-run with anabaptists and other unsavory sorts.

I was going to make a joke about how the one who wasn’t Nixon wasn’t that bad, but then I realized it was Herbert Hoover.

I thought Nixon was too.
I think the OP needs to give us definitions that make clear the difference between a religion and a cult to make the question meaningful. Cult often is used to mean a religion one doesn’t like.

I’m calling you on this one. There’s no reason associated with the SOF that would involve selling military assets to Saudi Arabia. But yes, there are a few Quakers who can only make it into the Puritan schools. They’re not all brilliant.

Well, I think what the OP was getting at is that if everyone in the US were a Quaker, wed be in a world of shit. But given their non-proselytizing nature and fairly moon-bat ideas (eg, pacifism to the point of
suicide), there’s not much chance of their ideas taking hold in a wide-spread way.

He was.

Personally I think the OP and your post show a lack of knowledge about the Quakers and what they believe. The doctrine of pacifism is left to personal interpretation by Quakers, like most everything else.

How about doing some googling and perhaps asking some questions before painting all Quakers as having “moon-bat” ideas.

Here is another forum where you could do this.

Would you mind telling us where you got that particular idea?

Yeah, pacifism to the point of sucicide…like that Jesus guy did.

“Puritan” schools? I’m curious about this–do you mean schools like Bob Jones U., which represent a Biblical fundamentalist interpretation of Protestantism?

Moving from IMHO to Great Debates

Not practicing, though.

He was making a joke. Harvard was founded by Massachusetts Puritans.


twicks, birthright Quaker with a PhD in sociology of religion, expertise in American cults

No. The Quakers established schools in the Philadelphia area, while Puritans were establishing schools in the Boston area. The real Puritans are long gone, most merging into the Episcopalian movement I think. But the Puritans in Massachusetts were hanging Quakers who tried to reside there, so besides the general religious rivalries, Puritan was an epithet to some Quakers.

The Puritans merged into the Congregationalists – Episcopalian is from Church of England, the group from which the Puritans were trying to purify the church.

And chocolate. Don’t forget the chocolate! OK, a few others got in on the game too, but Cadbury’s, Rowntree, Terry’s and Fry’s were all instrumental in creating the chocolate we know today. Hershey’s idea for a town based around his business, treating the employees well, was feasible because Cadbury had already done the same.