No hate
Thank you Richard Seebohm, for your thoughtful article in the Friend of 27 September. Can I commend your personal contribution to the peace debate of ‘No hate’?
I have great admiration for all those working to reduce conflict from the classroom to the borders of countries. The patience and commitment to do this is overwhelming.
However I would agree with Richard, it has limitations. This is when certain personalities rise from the crowds and take people and their countries into conflict, which many would not have chosen. The power of these individuals is remarkable. They can be very persuasive and know all the tricks of the ‘trade’ to sway public opinion.
One of these is to create a common enemy. We saw it in Nazi Germany with the Jews. The hatred that can be nurtured is quite unbelievable. It creates a view that one is of better worth than another; that the ‘other’ is but dirt on the shoe, or even worse. And it continues to be used today, and continues to be a very successful way of gaining power.
So the slogan ’No hate’ may hit a chord. If your hate is so great you consider the ‘other’ as worse than a dog and definitely without the consideration of being just the same as any human, with all the same emotions, hopes and pain levels, maybe you should be asking yourself ‘what is happening?’’
Barbara Mark
Members and attenders
Kim Hope’s letter of 27 September points to yet another case where the formal distinction between members and attenders obstructs the smooth functioning of the Society.
The supposed requirement of the Charities Commission [in fact a mandate in Quaker faith & practice] that trustees be in membership could probably be avoided by amending our governing document, but the problem is more general.
As our numbers dwindle, we must find a way around the prescription of Quaker faith & practice making membership a requirement for certain roles – being obliged to appoint as treasurer a scatty and innumerate member rather than a former accountant who merely attends is foolish.
I propose that where Quaker discernment sees that an attender who wishes to remain such is willing and able to fill a particular position, then the Area Meeting may confer upon that person the title of adjunct member, without the business of visitation, for as long as they remain in post. I do not believe that the Charities Commission would object to this entirely reasonable stratagem in the case of Quaker trustees.
Martin Drummond
