Letters - 19 May 2017
From affirming young children to criminal activities
Affirming young children (5 May)
Affirming all children, and their parents, and others in loco parentis, is an integral part of being a Quaker Meeting. In my experience the pre-toddler’s ‘vocal ministry’, and the ‘moving about to greet Friends in the stillness’ of a toddler, is usually an absolute joy.
However, I think it was an omission that this article did not acknowledge that for most children – and, indeed, for many adults – about fifteen minutes in the silent worship of a standard Sunday morning Meeting is enough to provide a good experience for all concerned. After that there should be provision for a specific session, especially for the child or children. A Friend who has been checked by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS), together with either a parent or another DBS-checked Friend, facilitate this session – and generally a good time is had by all. Sometimes it is particularly good if parents can remain in the Meeting for Worship while their child or children have their own session: it may be a rare occasion for them to have such spiritual space.
It is also crucial to remember that providing a good experience in Children’s Meeting takes thought and preparation; this is why anyone planning to take a child to a Meeting should make contact in advance, so all the required arrangements can be in place. Then an unreserved welcome can be assured – without hesitation or embarrassment for anyone concerned.
With proper preparation, children coming to Meeting truly lifts the spirits of all those present!
Jane Taylor
Discrimination
The article by Abigail Maxwell (5 May) shows how brave transsexuals and transvestites are and, sadly, that they are still mocked.
I think it’s possibly down to how they dress. Over the years the dress of men and women has become very similar. How many men do you see wearing a suit with a bowler hat and polished leather shoes these days? Round here the majority are wearing jeans and trainers. How many women now wear skirts or dresses? When I was a boy seventy years ago, the female teachers all wore skirts, court shoes, hats and coats. But when I see the present-day female teachers at the primary school up the road, there’s little fashion consciousness. The majority are wearing trousers or jeans, and trainers (and this is probably also true in our Quaker Meetings).
So, if a man wants to demonstrate femininity, then it’s probably natural that he (or she if a transsexual) wants to wear a dress, so setting himself/herself apart from the present-day norm for women. Sometimes I see someone who dresses in 1950s-style wide skirts and people stare at her.
Many people find it difficult when they see something that confronts their ideas of what is the norm. It’s just a variant on racial discrimination. But well done the Quakers for making people like Abigail feel at home and accepted.
Ian Watson
Appealing Area Meeting decisions
Quaker faith & practice gives Friends the right to appeal to Meeting for Sufferings about decisions of an Area Meeting which affect them personally (section 4.25).
Meeting for Sufferings is currently reviewing the process for this, and has appointed a small group. That group has come up with a number of questions to help it consider if the current process works well or how it could be changed. If you would like to assist the group, then please be in touch with me. The group will need responses by the end of June.
Paul Parker
Recording clerk for Britain Yearly Meeting
Friends House, 173 Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ
rc@quaker.org.uk
Anonymity
I become uncomfortable reading contributions attributed to ‘A Friend’. The latest is ‘Reflections on the “Red Book”: Location is everything’ (12 May). There is, I believe, a loss in our commitment to truth-telling and living with integrity.
A century ago young Friends were standing before tribunals defending their objections to war. They took a stand. These Friends faced injury and imprisonment. British Friends today, when in conflict with each other, are more likely to have hurt feelings. With willingness these can be repaired quicker then severe physical injury or psychological trauma.
‘A Friend’ has no intention of humiliating Meeting. They could be speaking of the experiences of others. Naming is not always about shaming. Troubles identified and aired can be part of a Meeting’s renewal process. If we are a family, should we be keeping hidden these dysfunctional secrets? If we are a national and local worshipping community, do we not have a responsibility to seek and offer constructive support?
This contribution may be a kairos moment: an appointed time in which God can act. Action through the action of others or by divine will. Is there then a need (or obligation) for all to stand publicly, however imperfect or fearful, to be accountable and open channels for transformation and creativity?
Steven Walton
Farm animals
Sorry to subject Friends to a nutrition lesson, but if we are going to discuss the vital issue of the impact of meat eating on our planet then we need to get some facts sorted.
The terms ‘first- and second-class protein’ (12 May) are actually misnomers for ‘long- and short-chain proteins’; the chains being of the eight essential amino acids that we can’t manufacture in our bodies.
Meat is towards the long end, but most plant sources of protein contain different amounts of perhaps five or six of the amino acids.
So, as long as we combine, for example, a grain and a bean, we will have protein at least as ‘first class’ as meat. Think of the basic diets that have evolved worldwide – daal and chapattis, tortilla and refried beans, rice and mung beans, even beans on toast! And since the chain has to be broken down for digestion anyway you might even say meat eaters are at a disadvantage.
There are, actually, lots of other, more important, reasons to reduce our meat intake, but vegan athletes, weight-lifters and divers should reassure us that we are not about to fall over!
Helen Porter
Although I have been a vegetarian for many years, I would rather eat local, grass-fed, organic meat than use as my source of protein food products containing soy or palm oil. The production of both of these is a major cause of the destruction of the world’s forests. The other cause is, of course, meat production.
I feel that our food should be local, seasonal and sustainable as far as possible.
Gwyneth Clapham
Conscientious Objectors Day
Conscientious Objectors Day has passed, reminding some of us of renewed moral problems. Were I in the objectors’ position, what would I do? For example, I am in a shopping precinct, when suddenly a terrorist opens fire, killing and wounding women and children. I am a policeman with a gun. What do I do? Do I prevent more killing by shooting? Do I pass the gun on for someone else to use? Do I do nothing and let the mayhem continue? Passing the buck poses further moral problems. Søren Kierkegaard calls Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac the temporary ‘suspension of the ethical’. Is that a solution?
Even with hypothetical cases, I admire those who stand by their principles and choose the ‘ethical’. My cousin in Clacton was a refusee. He was a constant visitor to a nearby internment camp for Germans. A friend and colleague was the daughter of a German banker who was interned during the first world war. His family were treated appallingly, though they had lived in this country for fifteen years. They had no ration cards and lost all privileges.
There are many ways of showing our revulsion of wars and other conflicts apart from being an objector. The casualties of war are many and various.
Peter Boyce
Criminal activities
I find myself with a dilemma, and I wonder if you will help me.
In the news pages (5 May) I read about two protests: Sam Walton and Dan Woodhouse answered bail for alleged criminal damage caused while protesting about BAE Systems warplanes being used by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. On the same day as these two were answering bail another protest took place outside the London offices of Lockheed Martin. These two protests are essentially against the same thing, yet the one in London seemed to pass off without any alleged criminal activity.
As a serving prisoner I have had to work on – and question – my core beliefs that allowed me to commit criminal offences. I now find myself struggling to support Sam Walton and Dan Woodhouse – their actions are at least antisocial, if not criminal. BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin and other such companies might not be acting morally, but they are acting within current legislation.
My dilemma is this: Is it right to use criminal activities to obstruct lawful business?
Mark
