badquaker.com is a web site owned and managed by the friends, family, and supporters of Ben Stone.
Ben Stone, by his own admission, is a bad Quaker. We at badquaker.com believe anyone can be a bad Quaker, if you try hard enough.
Below, you will find an explanation of Bad Quaker written by Ben Stone.
What’s a Bad Quaker?
To answer that, lets look at what a good Quaker is.
The people traditionally known as Quakers are actually called the Religious Society of Friends, and we at Bad Quaker have nothing but respect for them, their beliefs, and the hard work they have done during their 360 years of consistently seeking ways to improve the human condition.
Quakers vary widely in their beliefs and practices, but are perhaps best known for their unshakable position on individuality. Quakers hold fast to their belief that no one person should be honored above or below another. As a logical outworking of this position, Quakers formed the first true anti-slavery movement and almost single handedly shifted the established Christian doctrine away from the acceptance of slavery. Recognizing women on equal footing with men in the early 1600’s and consistently holding to that position through physical oppression and even torturous death, Quakers were the origin of the Women’s Rights movements.
Some other interesting tidbits about Quakers:
Titles of honor;
Quakers refuse to use or acknowledge titles of honor. That is to say, titles given to men or women for the purpose of distinguishing them apart or above other men or women. Titles like “Judge So-and-so”, “Officer So-and-so”, “President So-and-so”, “Father So-and-so”, “Your Honor”, “Your Highness”, “Your Eminence” or any other title used to honor an individual above the rest of humanity.
Likewise, standing, sitting, bowing, kneeling, saluting, or adjusting one’s attire upon command or for the purpose of bestowing honor are not practiced by Quakers.
To acknowledge authority or bestow honor by ceremoniously removing one’s hat or bowing or any other activity is to agree with the notion that some humans are better or somehow more important than others. This concept, we reject.
Swearing of oaths;
Quakers do not swear oaths of any kind. In addition to the practice being clearly forbidden in Scripture, the act itself is illogical and to some extent, insulting.
For example, lets say Bill wants to sell Jack a boat.
Jack asks, “Bill, does this boat float?”
Bill answers, “Yes, to my knowledge, it has no leaks and it floats.”
If Jack asks Bill to swear the boat floats, does he not infer that Bill may be lying?
If Bill is the type of person who would lie about the boat’s buoyancy, how would adding the words “I swear” magically change Bill into an honest boat salesman?
So again, the oath is illogical and insulting.
If Bill is giving a statement in a court of law and Jack asks Bill if he swears to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is Jack not inferring that Bill may be lying when he speaks without this magic oath? If so, and if Bill is in fact the type to lie, how is it that these magic words suddenly convert Bill the liar into Bill the honest man?
What about oaths of allegiance and of office?
Again, they are both illogical and insultive.
If Jack tells Bill, “Join our cause!” and Bill responds, “I will join your cause.” are we then to assume Bill has not really joined and his honor is not really at stake unless he says the magic words? Are we to assume that Bill walks around on a day to day basis utilizing a loophole in honesty and if he fails to say the magic words he is never obliged to his statements?
What if the community gets together and decides Bill should be the final decision maker for the town. Are we to assume Bill will rob the town treasury unless he repeats some magic words swearing to follow edicts written on some paper?
Quakers understand that when one speaks one is either telling the truth to the best of one’s knowledge or they are telling a lie. There is no third choice in the category of truth labeled, “Oath Truth”. If one is honest but mistaken, adding magic words do not change the outcome. If one is lying, adding magic words can’t change the lie. And if one has honor one will tell the truth with or without the added burden of magic words. If one lacks honor, it cannot be conjured using magic words.
Where Bad Quakers part with good Quakers is in the area of self defense. Quakers tend to be pacifists. And while Bad Quakers appreciate and respect that position, and even agree that was certainly the position Jesus took while on Earth, Bad Quakers are not pacifists. Bad Quakers tend to be armed at all times, and are willing to defend not only themselves but their friends, loved ones, property, and at times even strangers.
More on Bad Quakers:
Bad Quakers embrace the Zero Aggression Principle or ZAP.
Bad Quakers recognize the State as an entity that exists by the use of aggression, lies, and theft. Therefore the Bad Quaker rejects the State as a legitimate form of government. Bad Quakers do not reject government. Bad Quakers realize that government, when entered into and maintained by peaceful voluntary means, can be legitimate. But when government adopts the State as its method of existence, it is no longer legitimate. The Bad Quaker understands that every act of the State, no mater the short term result, will produce evil.
While embracing the ZAP and acknowledging the State as the vehicle of evil on Earth, the Bad Quaker must embrace peaceful methods of resisting the State. The Bad Quaker understands that the State is economically and morally unstable, and therefore doomed to fail. But the Bad Quaker also understands that if the State falls at any stage prior to its maturity, it will simply grow back. Therefore, while individually working to separate ourselves from the State, and remaining dedicated to educating the masses as to the evil nature of the State, the Bad Quaker must not actively assist the collapse of the State.
Now, as to what Bad Quakers are not:
We are neither organized nor are we an organization.
We have no membership and we certainly follow no leader.
We have no manifesto and we neither have nor hold to any constitution written by the hand of a human.
We are free in our thoughts and we seek to be free in our day to day lives.
We ask no one to be our servant, and we refuse to serve others by any means other than our own choice.
We are enemies of the State, but we are not combatants of the State.