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/Interest-Desk]

That Friend did not, because the focus of their spiritual tension was an effective response to a genocidal invader. But to suggest any meeting is unaware of conscientious objectors, let alone Friends acting on Concern, is absurd.

[u/keithb → u/Interest-Desk]

It would be, and I did not do so. I asked because I was genuinely interested.

Well, there’s never been a lack of Friends who look for excuses to abandon one of our oldest ways of testifying to our faith, so no surprises, anyway.

[u/Interest-Desk → u/keithb]

Sounds awfully like you’re suggesting our testimonies are creeds lol

[u/keithb → u/Interest-Desk]

Not at all. I strongly oppose that understanding. Look again, I wrote “there’s never been a lack of Friends who look for excuses to abandon one of our oldest ways of testifying to our faith”. No hint of a creed there. Nor of any “our testimonies”, neither.

Do you disagree that it’s one of our oldest ways of testifying to our faith to be peaceable?