Executive Summary
The Religious Society of Friends, commonly known as Quakers, has for centuries stood as a public witness to peace and nonviolence. The historic Peace Testimony, first articulated in 1660, rejects all war and outward violence. Yet in contemporary political contexts, particularly in the United States, some self-identified Quaker activists have found themselves participating in acts of physical aggression. This paper examines the contradiction between professed pacifism and violent political activism, focusing on the hypothetical case of a Quaker who, despite claiming allegiance to the Peace Testimony, commits aggravated battery against a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer.
The analysis explores the theological, psychological, and sociopolitical dimensions of such a contradiction. It argues that the tension between faith-based pacifism and political militancy reveals the limits of personal and communal commitments to nonviolence under conditions of ideological hostility, radical activism, and deep polarization. Ultimately, the paper suggests that without disciplined reflection, the Peace Testimony risks becoming a hollow identity marker rather than a lived moral code.
1. Introduction
Pacifism is most credible when lived consistently. The Religious Society of Friends has historically distinguished itself from other Christian traditions through its absolute rejection of war and violence. Yet political engagement, especially in moments of social and moral crisis, can create conditions in which those claiming pacifist convictions act violently.
This white paper examines such a contradiction in light of contemporary political activism, using as a focal case the act of a self-professed pacifist Quaker committing aggravated battery on an ICE officer. The goal is not merely to highlight hypocrisy, but to analyze the pressures—spiritual, political, and psychological—that can drive individuals to act in ways fundamentally opposed to their stated beliefs.
2. The Quaker Peace Testimony: Principles and History
The Quaker Peace Testimony, articulated in the 1660 Declaration to King Charles II, affirms that Friends “utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fighting with outward weapons, for any end or under any pretence whatsoever.” Rooted in the belief that every person possesses the Inner Light of God, Friends see violence as incompatible with divine love.
For centuries, Quakers have put this testimony into practice: refusing military service, engaging in conscientious objection, conducting relief work in war zones, and engaging in civil disobedience that disrupts injustice without resorting to physical harm. In its ideal form, the Peace Testimony is not simply a political stance but a theological imperative—an embodiment of obedience to the Spirit.
3. The Modern Quaker and Political Activism
Contemporary Quaker activism often overlaps with progressive political causes: climate justice, racial equity, antiwar organizing, and immigration advocacy. Many Friends work in coalition with secular and interfaith activist networks, including some that do not share the Quaker commitment to principled nonviolence.
Participation in such coalitions can place Friends in ethically ambiguous positions. While Quaker practice emphasizes “speaking truth to power” through peaceful protest, allies may view physical resistance—ranging from property damage to direct confrontation with law enforcement—as legitimate, even necessary. In such environments, the practical boundaries of nonviolence can erode under the influence of group solidarity and shared outrage.
4. Political Radicalization and the Erosion of Nonviolence
The transition from principled nonviolence to physical aggression is rarely abrupt. Social psychology offers insight into the mechanisms that enable this shift:
Moral Disengagement: Individuals reinterpret harmful actions as morally justified when they believe they are defending the oppressed. Identity Fusion: When political identity overrides religious identity, political imperatives can take precedence over spiritual commitments. The “Greater Good” Justification: Violence is reframed as a lesser evil in pursuit of a higher moral outcome. Polarized Hostility: In a climate where opponents are portrayed as existential threats, violent acts can be seen as defensive or protective rather than aggressive.
The modern political landscape—especially in the United States—reinforces these mechanisms. For some activists, ICE officers symbolize systemic oppression, transforming them into dehumanized targets. In such an atmosphere, the commitment to universal nonviolence becomes vulnerable to situational override.
5. Case Analysis: Aggravated Battery on an ICE Officer
Consider the case in which a Quaker activist, participating in a protest against an immigration raid, physically assaults an ICE officer, resulting in charges of aggravated battery. This act contradicts the Peace Testimony on several levels:
It rejects the foundational principle that violence toward another person is incompatible with faithfulness to God’s light in them. It undermines the Quaker witness to moral consistency, which relies heavily on public trust in the alignment of word and deed. It risks discrediting both the activist’s personal cause and the broader Quaker tradition in the eyes of observers.
Possible motivations include righteous anger at perceived injustice, solidarity with vulnerable immigrants, and a belief that direct force was necessary to prevent harm. While these motivations may resonate emotionally, they do not align with the principled pacifism Quakers have historically claimed.
6. The Limits of the Peace Testimony
The Peace Testimony has never been immune to compromise. Historical research reveals moments when Friends participated in defensive violence, supported armed revolutionary movements, or passively benefited from systems sustained by force. This demonstrates that even deeply held convictions can falter under certain pressures.
Modern activist culture intensifies these pressures. Prolonged engagement in confrontational politics fosters emotional burnout, which can weaken moral discipline. In addition, when nonviolence is treated primarily as a personal identity label rather than as a rigorous spiritual discipline, it becomes easier to suspend it temporarily “for the cause.”
7. Implications for Quaker Witness and Activist Ethics
The contradiction between professed pacifism and violent action carries serious consequences:
Integrity Loss: Friends’ credibility depends on alignment between belief and practice. Inconsistency erodes that integrity. Coalition Trust: Violent acts can strain relationships within activist coalitions that depend on agreed-upon tactics. Public Perception: Such incidents provide ammunition for critics who portray progressive movements as hypocritical or extremist. Faith Community Accountability: Meetings must decide how to address members who breach core testimonies without alienating them or excusing the behavior.
8. Recommendations
To address these tensions, this paper offers the following recommendations:
For Quaker Communities: Reaffirm the theological grounding of the Peace Testimony and develop practical guidelines for activism that resist escalation into violence. For Activist Movements: Establish clear expectations regarding the use or rejection of force, ensuring that coalitions respect the nonviolent commitments of their members. For Individual Activists: Engage in regular spiritual reflection to guard against the erosion of moral commitments under the strain of political conflict. For the Public: Recognize that pacifist identity does not automatically ensure pacifist behavior; assess actions, not labels.
9. Conclusion
The act of a self-identified pacifist Quaker committing aggravated battery on an ICE officer is not merely a personal lapse; it exposes a deeper truth about the fragility of nonviolence when tested by political hostility and radical activism. The Peace Testimony remains a powerful moral and spiritual witness only when it is practiced consistently, even—and especially—under provocation. Without this discipline, pacifism risks degenerating into a symbolic identity, easily set aside when political passions flare.
To preserve the credibility of their witness, Friends must continually recommit themselves to peace as a lived reality, resisting the temptation to let righteous anger override the divine imperative to love even those they oppose.
Edge Induced Cohesion 
Armstrong was reared a Quaker, yet he claimed to have attempted to enlist in WWI in 1917. He wanted to be clear that he had tried to do his duty. But he said some recruiter talked him out of it, because he had just gotten married or just had a kid or something. Possible, I suppose, but… Oh well.
A curious recurring action in Armstrongism that I found annoying back in my Armstrongist days, and much more so today, is the championing of military valor while denying members the chance at such. Indeed, even condemning it. Armstrong forbade his followers from Civic Duty, but bragged about his attempt at such in his autobiography. GTA said on the radio after MLK got plugged that’s the answer to the problems was “ballots, not bullets,” yet he represented a religion which taught against his alternative. Meredith was said to have been a Golden Gloves boxing champion to challenge perceptions of his effeminacy, though obviously boxing it’s hard to be a very sinful sport. (And records don’t seem to pack up the claim.) Tkach’s war record was touted, although research has brought some of that into question, despite WCG doctrine. And more recently, LCG put up a YouTube short countering the “toxic masculinity” narrative by championing the WWII “greatest generation” for their military service. Yet, LCG says that such was sin.
(The vid has since been taken down, probably less because of me pointing out the contradiction, than because in a discussion of Riley Gaines having to share a locker room with that guy Lia Thompson they included a screenshot from an interview she did with Bill Maher, with headlines talking about his… manhood, and how she couldn’t take her eyes off of it. They were trying to make the point that she was subjected to the scene, but the statement in the visual graphic was… lol graphic in another way. But don’t feel heady — the very first issue of UCG’s GN had a similar issue.)
It goes to not only hypocrisy and inconsistency in perception, but also the same double messaging between external and internal. Generally (though not always) tell the public that Civic Duty is just fine and great so as to get them to do the hard work of Genesis 9, as well as to hold their attention, then put on them heavy once they are sucked in that it’s forbidden. Tell the public to listen to and read material from a wide variety of sources, but tell members it’s different for them (1960 article, “Should we listen to others?”). Tell the public, “Don’t believe me; believe your Bible,” but tell members that in fact that message was not for them (April 1979 GN Personal).
But as for the specific topic of the article: Liberals are hypocrites. And the American Friends Service Committee was basically a communist front organization.
LikeLike
There are very specific reasons why I commented about it relating to the news in Portland yesterday, but the last part is the gist of it.
LikeLike
And with that, you ignore the hypocrisy and dishonesty of your own religious tradition.
But it’s still on the record!
LikeLike
My general philosophy when it comes to writing such things is to put something generally or widely applicable and let people apply it as they will if the shoe fits. You don’t have to beat others over the head with it, just let the record speak for itself and apply it as it fits.
LikeLike
The church is a religious function. All religious functions do is metaphorically hit people over the head with things. It’s their job.
As for the record, Armstrongism has an obvious and indefensible one — bait-and-switch deception.
LikeLike
I’m a lay member without any such offices. It’s not my job. In general, I’m happy to be able to notice patterns and reflect on insights without having to deliver the beatings. Many others enjoy giving them far more.
LikeLike
First, you’re on the speaking schedule. That lifts you a peg.
Second, 1Pet3:15 doesn’t limit itself to ministry.
Third, you failed hunter safety by shooting yourself in the foot. You have made a number of points about how Armstrongist ministry takes so much on itself, and then turn around and use that to escape your own responsibility.
——
“It’s not my job.” — Yeah, it really is. And you put yourself out there to do it.
LikeLike
I don’t have to do any accusing. You come here to do it on the daily.
LikeLike
And probably eight times out of 10, you agree with me.
LikeLike
Pretty much everyone can give sermonettes. Youth even do so. One can be an observer of the so despised behavior, noting the human foibles within church administration and authorities while fully understanding and acknowledging Christ as its Head. Your mind is so poisoned with hate toward Armstrongism that you fail to remember that he never thought of it as his church. You think of it as his and have a multiplicity of arguments regarding succession, but none of that really matters. Those who look for faults will inevitably find them. God recognizes His church as the Body of Christ, those people who have His spirit within them. They are not contained within any one physical organization, but they do obey God and follow the doctrinal tenets as outlined by scripture.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Tou label Armstrong your “founder,” you describe “his gospel,” and he was so intertwined as an entity with the church, that he could hide behind privacy laws for churches in going through his divorce.
I don’t believe Christ ever headed of that church, any more than you believe Christ, headed the Catholic Church. You are presuming the “true church” status. The Ezra/Nehemiah precedent, and attendant facts give me all the basis I need to reject your presumption.
LikeLike
Actually, Christ founded the church, not Herbert Armstrong. You are confusing the physical entity with the spiritual one. He plays a very important part in church history, but not as founder of it.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Ma’am, your son is the one who used the term “founder” to refer to Armstrong, as I said. As for confusing physical and spiritual entities, honestly, it is the two of you doing that, not me.
Given all the discussion your son and I have had here and through emails about this whole matter, if you are having trouble understanding, I believe it best at this point to defer explaining it to you to him, per the principle of 1Cor14 and 1Tim2.
LikeLike
Your whole conversation on this topic is laughable. I know exactly what my son writes, says and means, whereas you, on the other hand, use all types of fallacious reasoning to try to prove your points.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
LikeLike
Ma’am, he uses a term to refer to Armstrong, I point out he used that term to refer to Armstrong, and you accuse me for using that term to refer to Armstrong — and being wrong to do so. If I am wrong, then he is even more wrong.
It’s interesting that aside from the two of you, I have only seen two other people respond to this blog since I discovered it. (Show me if I missed some.) The first one was a UCG member going by “mossrocks” or such, who took exception to Nathan’s Heritage Day for Herbert Armstrong idea. The second one, and forgive me for forgetting his name and the exact topic, simply posted to agree with me. If I am so fallacious, in my reasoning, then PLEASE, bring forward others to show me the error of my thinking. Bring in people from your congregations. Overwhelm me with the same scripted…, ur, I mean, with their individually-determined assessments of my contentions. After all, if what I say is “laughable,” according to you, you can bill it as comedy relief. It’s not like what I have to say is going to point people to some factors in Armstrongism (a term your son used without me prompting him) and “True Church” history which people like Hoeh had concealed. Or that criticisms I have offered — which Nathan has often agreed with — are going to get them thinking that they had been deceived or in error for decades. No, what I have to say is fallacious, right? Nonsensical, devoid of substance that might contribute to them seeing what is really going on in their current and my former religion.
Do iiit!!! I want you to do it. I want to get inundated. I want every person in every ACOG to know exactly what I have said here on this blog, on my own world-renounCed blog: “Cats, Guns, and National Security”; and elsewhere regarding the matters discussed here. I look forward to the conversation.
You might whet their appetite with this: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=1 I assure the sensitive ones, all language there is clean.
I confess, I was at first tempted to make a snide remark, and leave you with this link here. But I won’t belittle your thinking, as has happened to me here. However, so as not to deny (coming pun intended) you of the entertaining Country song… “Cleopatra, Queen of Denial” (lyric video): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xN3u1a3EzzA&pp=ygUaUGFtIFRpbGxpcyBRdWVlbiBvZiBkZW5pYWw%3D
PS: PLEASE, INVITE YOUR CHURCH FRIENDS HERE!!! And the more ministers, the better. I’m so glad UCG is so much more open than Armstrong WCG.
LikeLike