Quakers were/are notoriously against war. How did the quakers feel after the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941? Were they still against the US going to war? Would they have preferred that the US surrender to the Japanese or to negotiate some kind of agreement with them?
I had a Quaker professor who was a conscientious objector during World War II. I never asked him what he wanted the U.S. to do instead.
Did the Japanese issue any declaration to us (“Surrender Dorothy!”), or just bomb the heck out of Pearl Harbor and then set about taking lots of other countries’ land? If they didn’t specifically say they’d be coming back for Hawaii (or California…) and moved on to invading other countries, would it have been feasible for the US to say “Ow, quit it…” and not join the war?
Standard disclaimer: IANAQ. However, I’ve had a long-standing, if casual, association with the Friends to include graduating from a quaker high school and being a semi-regular attender at a quaker meeting for several years.
That said, the Friends’ “peace testimony” is probably one of the most commonly misunderstood tenets in Christiandom. It is not accurate to say “Quakers are notoriously against war”. It is true that the Quaker “church”, as an organization formally embraces pacifism and, to some extent, non-violence. Individual Quakers, however, are absolutely free to make up their own minds in regard to military service and engaging in combat. Check out Gen. Nathanael Greene (Revolutionary war), Gen. Smedley Butler(WW1 and others, known as “the fighting Quaker”), or Gen. William Jackson Palmer of Civil War and frontier fame. All Quakers of long standing, and all highly regarded soldiers.
This apparent paradox between peace testimony and military service was explained to me thusly by a Quaker pastor: “The Friends church, as a body, takes a principled stand on non-violence and remains formally pacifist, primarily to offer support and service to those who, as individuals, have made the decision to practice pacifism (for example, to aid those who wish to register as conciencious objectors, where membership in an “officially” pacifist organization is almost a requirement) and because, as a group, we feel simply that peace is generally preferable to conflict. However, the church also holds the basic precept that all matters of conscience must ultimately be the province of the individual. Quakers do not engage in dogma nor set absolute standards of behavior for members. Hence, the decision to engage in pacifism, or to perform military service and fight in a just war is left to each individual quaker, and those who choose to serve in the military or fight in self-defense are free to do so and do not face any censure from the church”.
This always seemed to me to be a completely compassionate and practical solution to the matter.
SS
While I understand the practicality of this position, it seem hypocritical since they want it both ways. We are pacifists who are generally against war, but if as a member you feel that fighting a war is justified then you should follow your conscious. So we are against war, except when we’re not. Seems contradictory to me. Either the church approves fighting in wars or it doesn’t. Do whatever you think is right is hardly a doctrine.
Well there’s this thing. Plus the Japanese government tried to issue a statement to the American government that war was imminent before the bombing started (they couldn’t do it in time) and anyway American codebreakers already knew of Japanese intentions. Even if none if this was true, do you seriously think the US wouldn’t fight a country that had killed hundreds of its soldiers in a sneak attack?
Apparently there was no contradiction in one Quaker’s mind between his religion and bombing North Vietnam, mining the harbours, and sending more troops to South Vietnam, as Commander in Chief.
There’s an interesting story I read once, about an old English sailing ship under attack by the French during one of those recurrent 1700’s wars. Everyone was doing their best to man the guns and otherwise defend the ship, except one passenger, a Quaker, who was walking up and down the deck ignoring the bullets and praying. The first French sailor in the boarding party swung over and landed on the deck right in front of him. The Quaker, despite his pacifist beliefs, was a big, burley man. He wrapped the Frenchman in a bear hug, walked him over to railing, said “Friend, thou hast no business here” and dropped him over the side.
It’s not a doctrinaire sort of church.
Okay. Fair enough.
The other perspective is one I saw in a (prescient) pacifist statement from WWI. It basically says that the signers don’t deny the validity of fighting in self-defense, or even necessarily deny the possibility of a morally just offensive war. But, given that every country going to war claims it is a just war, and the incredible resources of a modern state and its ability to control information, it’s very, very, hard for a citizen to tell at the time whether a war is indeed just. Therefore, the signers decided the moral thing to do was to, in advance, tell the state that they could not be counted on to fight in any foreign war, regardless of whether it was claimed to be a ‘good’ war or not.
Personally I’m kind of impressed at the foresight, given that this was written before the examples of Nazi Germany staging ‘Polish’ attacks on Germany, North Korea’s propaganda regime, or Saddam’s claimed WMDs.
There’s an old story about a Conscientious Objector who was accosted by some young uber-patriotic men during a war (WW2)? The Conscientious Objector happened to have been a boxer or some other martial artist and proceeded to beat the kids up, leaving them in pain on the floor, and then asked them if they still believed that violence would change the enemy’s viewpoint toward their country. The kids said of course yes. The conscientious objector remarked that was his point.
I like it. Possibly apocryphal, but it illustrates the Quaker position pretty well. As one English Quaker noted; “Quakers are peaceful, but they’re not balmy. We do what needs to be done”.*
*From an interview with Tony Horwitz, biographer of Capt. James Cook (who is said to have been heavily influenced by a Quaker upbringing).
I had a friend in high school (1960’s) who was Quaker. We were at an assembly of some sort, and we, or someone, was singing the fine anti-war song “Where Have All The Flowers Gone”. He said that his parents wouldn’t let him sing the song. And I’m all - But aren’t the Quakers anti-war? I don’t remember getting a proper answer out of him.