Letters - 20 January 2017
From prison letters to ministry on death
Quakers and Brexit
Thank you Antonia Swinson for your excellent article asking ‘whose side are we on today?’ (6 January). It was clear to me that over the Brexit issue Quakers, being on the whole ‘comfortably off’, were out of touch with the real issues affecting those not comfortably off in this country. It was refreshing to read your article. So many people seem to use Europe and the European Union interchangeably. It is perfectly possible to love European countries and yet reject, as many do, the ‘failing construct’ they perceive is the EU. Now the vote is behind us can we, as Antonia says, however we voted, all pull together for the good of all.
Ruth Hustler
A 51.9 per cent vote by 72.2 per cent of the electorate means that about a third of those eligible voted in favour. This would not change the constitution of most organisations yet it is removing my EU citizenship. Nobody knows what the new arrangements will be and the Brexit planning was, and continues to be, laughably and ignorantly vague. The prime minister’s mantra should be ‘Brexit means another vote’ not ‘Brexit’. The lack of democracy within the EU exists because the national governments want to keep control! The European Parliament, I believe, would love to expand their democratic activities, but the various treaties control what is possible.
For all that, I agree with Antonia Swinson’s critique of the state of the UK. Our ownership of land and other assets and Green Belt policies are homegrown inventions and not EU requirements – but they need to be addressed, post Brexit.
Barry Barber
Prison letters
I write to thank all the Friends who have written to welcome me into membership of Norfolk and Waverney Area Meeting. I have been touched by your warmth, thank you. In prison letters are a vital lifeline; they allow communication with friends and family. As a deaf man these are more important than the telephone. For me, as a writer, I get so much more out of these conversations. I would be glad to hear from Friends at the address below.
Mark Humphries
A6182CE, HMP Wayland, Griston, Thetford, Norfolk IP25 6RC
Israel and Palestine
Some Friends recently have equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. In 1919, the World Zionist Organisation claimed an area of land for a state of Israel whose northern boundary ran from Sidon, across part of Syria just south of Damascus, to al-Ariah (beyond Rafah) across to Aqaba in the south and eastwards of the river Jordan nearly to Amman. Present day Israel is gradually achieving by force the eastern expansion, at least to the River Jordan. Both programmes can be defined as acquiring territory for one ethnic group at the expense of other ethnic groups already occupying such territory. We criticise China for this over Tibet and Russia over Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, but criticism of Israel is labelled anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist.
I would like to know what the Quaker Friends of Israel believe to be the legitimate boundaries of Israel. The Provisional Government of Israel confirmed to president Harry S Truman in May 1948 that Israel’s borders would be within the boundaries proposed in 1947 by the UN. Do the Quaker Friends of Israel agree with the founding fathers of Israel and accept that Israel’s expansion is illegal? If not, I wonder if the term ‘Quaker’ in the title of a group which supports a state that annexes territory for itself at the expense of other ethnic groups is consistent with our testimonies.
Stuart Yates
I’m sure some people think that the World Council of Churches is anti-Semitic. My impression is that our Friend Sarah Lawson (6 January) shares that opinion. I may be wrong, but it’s my impression that Sarah considers anyone who is opposed to the theft by the government of Israel of land that does not belong to them as also anti-Semitic. That would make me anti-Semitic, which I am not.
Back in the 1950s, when living in London, I belonged to the Yellow Star Movement. This sprang up in response to the truly anti-Semitic actions of Oswald Mosley, who took his ‘Union Movement’ to hold provocative meetings in Jewish areas of London such as Ridley Road.
There is a great difference between criticism of the actions of the government of Israel or of its citizens and condemnation of Jews for existing. To class both as the same seems to indicate a person who does not oppose what others consider to be the theft of the occupied territories and the building of settlements on them.
Let me be quite clear, I strongly oppose the violence of bomb attacks and the use of rockets from Gaza. I also oppose the slow encroachment on the lands of Palestinians. This is all violence though of a different order. Violence breeds violence.
Eric Walker
Sarah Lawson, writing in defence of the Israeli government’s decision to refuse admittance to a World Council of Churches’ (WCC) representative, who was hoping to attend consultations on the Ecumenical Accompaniment Programme in Palestine and Israel (EAPPI), does neither herself nor the Israeli goverment any favours thanks to the highly contentious nature of her comments on the WCC, EAPPI and, by implication, Quakers themselves. Our support for EAPPI is, she contends, ‘encouraging the Palestinians to achieve their ends through murder and non-negotiable demands’. Sarah appeals to her fellow Quakers to withdraw our support from EAPPI for this reason.
I cannot track down www.quakerfriendsofisrael.org.uk, but having looked at the Quaker Friends of Israel page on Facebook I note that the information it presents is, in my opinion, far from objective.
It is hard to understand how Sarah reconciles Quaker values of fairness, tolerance and understanding with her denigration directed at EAPPI.
Nigel Engert
Worshipful discussion
Much as I dislike contradicting Diana Lampen (6 January), in the interest of accuracy may I point out that I did not say ‘it is ineffective to talk to “people of bad faith” in a violent conflict’. I said ‘the difficulty comes when people talk in good faith to people of bad faith’ and my message was the same as that of Neil Simmons: ‘We need to give some urgent thought to how to confront powerful aggressive forces’ (6 January). I am shocked at the idea that any Quaker reading my letter might ‘conclude that violence is the only alternative’. My whole aim was to further worshipful discussion about situations where talking has been proved insufficient, and I tried to show this by my examples.
This is a complex matter and talk may be superficial or misguided. Sometimes, silence, with a kindly gesture, has been more effective when speech would have been inflammatory. No, I did not say what we should do instead. Clearly, we are blessed by having Friends of great relevant experience in state affairs whose talk has often been effective, but mine has been mainly amongst the conflicts of private people and I hope to learn how Quaker values translate to more public matters.
Dorothy Woolley
Theism versus nontheism
The review, by Ian Kirk-Smith, of David Boulton’s recent publication Through a glass darkly (16 December 2016) reminds us of the debates on theism versus nontheism amongst British Quakers.
To me these two concepts are far too simplistic. Not only nontheists but also theists have different ideas about ‘God’ – a metaphor for a force and a mystery that cannot be defined in definitive ways in formulas.
I would be classified as a nontheist. I find inspiration from the German-American theologian and philosopher Paul Tillich, understanding God as the profound dimension of human existence, ‘the ground of being itself’. I consider myself as a Christian as I feel inspired by the example of Jesus. I try to react in a positive way to that of God in my fellow beings and answer that of God in myself. I have no problems sharing Meeting for Worship with theists. I try to ‘receive the vocal ministry of others in a tender and creative spirit’ (Advices & queries 12).
Jens Steensberg
Ministry on death
In response to Jeffery Smith’s reflection (6 January), preparing for death has, in my experience, taken years. It started with the realisation that one day someone would need to deal with all my belongings.
So, I gradually started the process of ‘letting go’, physically and spiritually. I have prepared a file containing my will, power of attorney, advance decision to refuse treatment, details of the type of coffin and for my ashes, music for my cremation service and a favourite reading. I have prepared a list of all my contacts: health, financial and personal.
On the day I die all that will be needed will be to put a memory stick into a computer and add the date! What I dread is a living death, being incapacitated and having all my needs dealt with by a stranger. I have no qualms about passing from this life into the Light.
Joan King
Comments
I must affirm what Mark Humphries has written regarding letters in prison. They are a lifeline that is critical to coping inside. Whatever a persons crimes, it can all too often lead to a loss of their support network, leaving them feeling isolated and alone. A regular letter and the joy felt when it is slid under the cell door, can make the difference between a life with hope or a life lost. I would urge anyone with some free time, to contact charities such as the Newbridge Foundation, who can match you with a prisoner and train you on how to correspond safely, as well as supporting you with any issues that arise. To someone alone in the darkness today, you can be a light that illuminates the path towards a more hopeful tomorrow.
By STEVE3967 on 19th January 2017 - 13:56
Please login to add a comment
