The QQ response to the Virus crisis seems anemic!  Why??

Views: 88

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Why do you think so?

Did you have something else in mind? Or were you thinking we should be given more to do? Aside from making better-than-nothing facemasks for local hospitals (which some of us have done)?

Forrest: I am puzzled by the lack of comments!  MennoNet, in contrast, is bursting with discussion of the crisis.  It isn't that I need more to read; it's more a matter of trying to understand what makes Friends tick, an abiding interest and concern of this sociologist.

Consider what makes you tick; and you'll probably be close?

Quakers seem to be split by theological loyalties; but much of the divergence seems to be more in words than attitude. The major split is probably political; and even there I'd say the bulk of "Liberal" Friends are dismayingly "conservative." [I say "conservative", because to really conserve what needs saving, we'd need to change a great deal of what we tend to cling to instead.]

What works to kill off a discussion site? The sort of discussion this site has been dominated by for the last (?) months?

There's a lot of discussion going on in various Meetings' email lists.



Forrest Curo said:

"Consider what makes you tick; and you'll probably be close?" Actually, I am very much on the fringes of the Society of Friends.  The "center of theological gravity" for Friends is quite liberal, and I am conservative, so an analysis of my mindset wouldn't even be close to representative of Friends!

" The major split is probably political"   Could you explicate this for  me?

"What works to kill off a discussion site? The sort of discussion this site has been dominated by for the last (?) months?"  I have only returned to active participation in QQ since January or so, and that because the site didn't seem to generate much dialogue.  So I wonder what "sort of discussion" you are referring to.

I also feel very much on the fringes of the Society of Friends. It's not that theologies can be 'liberal' or otherwise; but there are correlations. There's a tendency to theological vagueness on the political left and to verbal rigidity on the political right; while copping to some direct knowledge of God can offend both the secular and the conventionally pious.

But being on one fringe or another of this bunch of outliers is almost a traditional Quaker role, yes?

----

The tacit common religion of this age is politics. (Even, and particularly so, when people imagine themselves to be neutral or "apolitical.") People don't trust God to give us the government we deserve (as, alas, He does.) They imagine they can somehow figure out the levers of power and work them towards a desired result; but the actual results of such strategies tend to be dreadful or short-lived. People typically "believe" or "don't believe" one theological idea or another; but it's the political issues they seem to find most important.

------

The site hasn't been generating much dialogue because, um -- There's this poem by LoVerne Brown that describes the sort of interaction that I think has set the tone: https://lovernebrown.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/talk-with-that-man/  -- -- Maybe I'm wrong about that. But an awful lot of interesting people have drifted off, for some reason.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Forrest Curo replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"If everyone were continually consciously aware of the presence of God, we wouldn't need…"
15 hours ago
Keith Saylor replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Through the power and presence of the spirit of Jesus Christ in my conscience and consciousness, it…"
yesterday
Forrest Curo posted a discussion

Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?

[This is from my reaction to a discussion re George Keith on facebook. Thoughts?]The core…See More
2nd day (Mon)
Forrest Curo commented on Rainer Möller's blog post 'Quakers unto the Civil War'
"As I understand it, a lot of young men -- being young men -- went off eagerly to join in a battle…"
2nd day (Mon)
Rainer Möller commented on Rainer Möller's blog post 'Quakers unto the Civil War'
"As Wikipedia tells us, Whittier wrote a book "In War Time" 1864. Has anyone here read it?…"
1st day (Sun)
Rainer Möller left a comment for William F Rushby
"Hi William, thanks for the reminder of Wikipedia. They don't tell us much, but I see that…"
1st day (Sun)
William F Rushby left a comment for Rainer Möller
"Rainer |Moller describes himself as "Not literal enough to a good Anabaptist. Not liberal…"
1st day (Sun)
William F Rushby commented on Rainer Möller's blog post 'Quakers unto the Civil War'
""Does someone know how Whittier developed from that point onwards? I cannot think that he…"
1st day (Sun)

© 2020   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service