nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
6,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + +
Talk:Religious Society of Friends (view source)
Revision as of 01:57, September 21, 2007
, 01:57, September 21, 2007no edit summary
On the website of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (referred to above by Dpbsmith) I found a statement saying that the FCNL doesn't lobby for either side on the issue of abortion, because Quakers are divided on the issue. That would have been my guess. Historically, Quakers have been both soldiers and conscientious objectors, hunters and animal-rights proponents, supporters of and activists against conservative causes, so it stands to reason that some Quakers are opposed to abortion and some are not. [[User:Leansleft|Leansleft]] 16:27, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
On the website of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (referred to above by Dpbsmith) I found a statement saying that the FCNL doesn't lobby for either side on the issue of abortion, because Quakers are divided on the issue. That would have been my guess. Historically, Quakers have been both soldiers and conscientious objectors, hunters and animal-rights proponents, supporters of and activists against conservative causes, so it stands to reason that some Quakers are opposed to abortion and some are not. [[User:Leansleft|Leansleft]] 16:27, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
==This is a liberal article==
I just want to say that what is posted here is a very liberal interpretation of the Society of Friends. Most of what is here does not apply to Conservative Friends.[[User:Chronicler|Chronicler]] 21:54, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
I just want to say that what is posted here is a very liberal interpretation of the Society of Friends. Most of what is here does not apply to Conservative Friends.[[User:Chronicler|Chronicler]] 21:54, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
:Can you give specific examples of what in this article you find to be too liberal? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)