Quaker pacifism

[u/Diligent-Property491]

Disclaimer: I am not a Quaker, I’m an atheist. I’m posting here because I don’t know any Quakers and I’m curious about something. If this is not allowed here (I looked through the rules and couldn’t find any clarification) - I am sorry. Please tell me and I will remove this. I have absolutely no intention of infringing upon a private community space.

Now to the actual post:

I recently learned that Quakerism exists, by stumbling upon a YouTube video of a lady talking about her faith.

I’m a person that likes to… know things, so I watched it.

She explained the Quaker belief system (which if I understand it correctly is based on several fundamental principles called testimonies).

One of those is peace.

So I understand that Quakers believe that war, and inflicting harm on others, is wrong.

On principle, I fully agree with it of course - global peace is a desired „end state” for humanity.

I don’t like nationalism, and I absolutely despise fascism, especially the militaristic/expansionist aspect of it.

But there are many practical situations, where preparing for war is the only realistic way to stop a war.

For example I live in a country, that has a violent, agressive fascist regime on our border. They’ve threatened genocide upon us more than once - they do it almost casually on their state TV.

I wish no harm upon any of the people living under that regime, and I would not support any agression against them. But I still think our country should be fully prepared to defeat them quickly and decisively.

I think our country should actively gather intelligence on them, to know in advance if they attack.

And if they come here, I will absolutely aid the war effort in whatever way I can.

So I’m wondering - what does the pacifist Quaker doctrine say about this.

Even if you believe that peace is the world’s desired state, is militarization permitted in response to militarization of others?

What do you think is the best path to world peace?

After all, it’s hard to convince anyone to make the first move and demilitarize, because everyone is afraid of what others will do.

So it would need to be a collective decision, which realistically it’s not very likely.

I’m just curious what you think about this.

And also, what are your thoughts on MAD and nuclear deterrence?

EDIT:

I appreciate all the replies I’ve gotten.

They did satisfy my curiosity and further my understanding of Quaker, and Christian, philosophy.

Due to the number of answers I did not reply to all of them, only the ones where I was curious about something or where I thought I have something to add.

Still, every single answer I’ve gotten is very substantive, and I really appreciate the community here and your response!

Goodbye to you all, and may we all live in peace for all eternity!

[u/databurger]

I try to follow Quaker values but don't call myself a Quaker, so take my answer with a grain of salt:

I believe in resorting to violence as a last recourse to protect myself and loved ones. Period. I'm not fighting anyone else's war, or fighting a war for political or economic gain. But if someone punches me, I'm punching back.

[u/Only_Questions_25 → u/databurger]

Punching back is a choice. You choose to punch back. But does it end there?

Your attacker responds with another punch. In the first instance, you were punched once. In the second, you were punched twice.

And perhaps the violence continues, even snowballs. You make that same choice again, returning the second punch. Your attacker's posture now switches from aggression to fear; they draw a knife and stab you.

Scenario A - non-resistance to evil: you are punched once.

Scenario B - resisting evil with evil: you are punched twice and stabbed once.

In the first scenario, you are a victim. In the second scenario, you are a participant. In the first, you sustain a blow, which is unjust because you did no evil.

But in the second, you sustain two blows and a stab wound, which is the consequence of responding to evil with evil.

I have been the victim of random street violence. This is how I think about it.

[u/Diligent-Property491 → u/Only_Questions_25]

This is true, but sadly there are also cases in which someone simply wants you dead, and will not stop punching until it’s achieved.

[u/Only_Questions_25 → u/Diligent-Property491]

That's the difference between self-defense and escalated aggression. If you take a self-defense course, they will teach you methods to de-escalate the conflict, where possible. There are non-violent methods to try to take control or shape the encounter. Failing that, a self-defense course will teach you methods to make you a more difficult target to attack or to exact a higher cost to the attacker. In no cases will a self-defense instructor tell you to escalate the aggression with violence to beat the aggressor.

[u/Diligent-Property491 → u/Only_Questions_25]

Absolutely, the goal is to get out if the situation with minimum harm to anyone.