Q’m wasn’t exactly a “spin-off” of the Leveller movement, but it “came in the wake of” (that’s a different verbal metaphor) and it picked up on a lot of the same issues, same tactics (including massive petitions gathered up and down the country), and adopted the same legal strategies (habeas corpus, etc.). well, they also included a number of former Leveller activists and sympathizers, and for instance in legal support work they relied on a network that had been formed during that period (late 40’s)

The first place to check is an article about “The Quaker Military Alliance” in the 1650s, examined in detail by David Boulton, a Friend from Kendal, England. His article, originally published in Friends Quarterly (Oct-97), is posted on the web at:

http://www.universalistfriends.org/boulton.html

(It starts about three-fifths of the way down the page. Search for “peace-loving Friends” to get to it.)

I’ve been intrigued by the anomalies in the Quaker “peace testimony” and have posted several times about it in my Street Corner Society blog.

As for the Friend(s) who don’t vote, that’s another curiosity, in my opinion. The Quaker movement emerged in England as a spin-off of one of the boldest first campaigns for broad and deep electoral democracy — the Leveller movement in Britain. I could go on, but suffice it to say if you go back to the roots, and if you think “the roots” are important, two long and twisted roots are pacifism and democratic impulse in Quakerism.

(Sorry I came to this discussion late. I’ve been out of the blogs, pretty much, for a couple of months.)

I’m reminded again of the words of the early Quaker leader Edward Burrough: “…We are not for Names, nor Men, nor Titles of Government, nor are we for this Party, nor against the other … but we are for Justice and Mercy, and Truth and Peace, and true Freedom, that these may be exalted in our Nation; and that Goodness, Righteousness, Meekness, Temperance, Peace and Unity with God, and one with another, that these things may abound….” That, I think, is why Friends have historically focused their political efforts on lobbying for good policies, and on inviting political leaders of every sort to meet with God in their own conscience, rather than on working for this candidate or that one.

Oh, I ran into your mama at the store, and she doesn’t know that you’re blogging. Obviously she knows about the *important* site (you know, the one with pictures of the grandkids): made me laugh.

I’m not sure there’s any good answer to the voting question. We’ll probably never see a viable candidate with authentic and all-round Christian values (like pacifism). Supporting candidates of some evil is still supporting some evil of course. Ultimately voting is Caesar’s realm and not necessarily the in-but-not-of-the-world realm that Christians should be focused on; if so maybe the answer is to not take voting (or not voting) so seriously that it distracts from the task of making ourselves available to the Spirit to be used for God’s Kingdom.

Wess, thanks for the thoughts on Caputo. I am currently in the chapter where he begins to “cop-out” as you rightly notice. I would have loved to be sitting in class with you talking about this. I can’t find anyone around here who is reading it to talk about it with.

Bill, I am glad to finally here something on Obama that is not all rosy. =) The problem I have with voting for a protest candidate is that it seems like I should just not vote at all. There are some who have visited this site who are saying, “AMEN” as they read those words.

Cath, I think the problem for me (a self-professed gray lover) is that I have hard time finding gray in ethical dilemmas. Maybe that is more if a problem than I realize!

Some people make a distinction with Obama on war, but if look at his voting record, his campaign positions and the history of his public statements, you’ll see a strong hostility to the peace position. Whether he’d be better or worse in practice isn’t really all that clear. Even on Iraq, he’s talking about long-term U.S. military involvement. And of course Obama is very extreme on abortion.

For candidates for Federal office, I will usually not vote for anyone who is really bad on militarism and/or abortion. That usually means I vote for a 3rd party candidate, and independent or even a write-in. I will vote for a protest candidate (defined as someone with apparently no chance of being elected, which can include Republicans in my area) who represents a real change in one area even if they’re bad in another, but I won’t normally do that for someone with a real chance of being elected. I don’t want that on my conscience.

A friend of mine with similar views to mine said she might vote for Nader because he represents a real change in direction although he’s generally not been good on abortion, because he is a protest candidate not someone who can be elected. I’ll probably vote for Joe Schriuner - http://www.voteforjoe.com/