Update: I’ll be adding #qqtalk to tonight’s live Twitter blog of the Presidential debate. If you have a Twitter account you can just follow me at “martin_kelley” and non-Twitter users can see all the qqtalk posts by going to this “qqtalk” page. And definitely check out the fascinating discussions happening in the comments of this post!
Wess of GatheringinLight just emailed me if we might designate a “qqtalk” tag for those
of us QuakerQuaker regulars who are live-blogging tonight’s
presidential debate on Twitter.com. Interesting idea but I’m worried
that it will be too partisan. I, for one, have not been live blogging
the debates as a Friend.
I’ve taken a lot of care to keep QuakerQuaker culturally-neutral
so that we keep the focus on the faith. I want it to be a place where
people from different backgrounds and values will find common ground in
their interest in the role of Quaker tradition in their lives. I’m a leftie East Coast Christian anarco-pacifist – vegan, bike rider, you get the picture, right? – and while I can argue that my values jibe with my
understanding of Quaker faith, I would never want to presume that you
have to adopt them to be a good Quaker.
Part of the problem
with Quakerism in all of its forms is that we’ve mixed up the faith
with the culture and sometimes don’t know where one ends and the other
begins. That’s kind of natural but it’s led to a situation where we’re
sometimes divided against one another over the wrong issues. We also use the words “Quaker” or “Friends” as a shortcut for a range of values and don’t do the work explaining how the faith leads to the values.
So
in the few hours we have till the debate, any ideas about whether to
adopt a qqtalk tag? Drop them in the comments. Also, if you’re a Quaker
who’s going to be live-twittering tonight, leave your twitter name
below so people can see what we’re doing on an individual level if they
want.
I’ll start off:
I’m at http://twitter.com/martin_kelley and have been using #debate08 for my debate coverage.
Don’t you believe though that faith should inform your cultural world-view? I’m sure there’s a lot of gray areas that you an agree to disagree with other Quakers, but it would be a shame to try to dismiss your faith when you talk about your culture.
Definitely right. Yes, of course faith should be involved in shaping one’s culture. I blog about it a lot. It’s just that when I’m sharing with Friends, I try to be extra careful about not making assumptions. I take the time to explain where I’m coming from, and try to weigh the conclusions I draw by how essential they are. This article on Inessential Weirdnesses is really good about talking about how our message can sometimes be drowned out by the insider signs and norms of our sub-cultures.
The trouble is that when I’ve been live twittering the debates I’m not careful. I’m snarky. I’m sometimes rude. The biggest Twitter laugh line at the VP debate was something about Palin not believing in early withdrawl either in Iraq or her children (bada boom!), which is funny but just an awful sentiment really. I know there are Quakers who support McCain and while I disagree as a strong Obama supporter, as a brother in faith I want to understand where they’re coming from. Some of their points are valid, after all.
If you’re concerned about tying it to QQ specifically we could use another designation. I would think of it more as a community in discussion than us speaking for all Quakers — I’d hope there would be a diversity of thought within the group so that it isn’t all one view. Maybe this is a way to help breakup some of those assumptions, shortcuts, etc. I think there’s a place for the church to be discussing this stuff, and maybe what is missing is a robust faith-informed politc instead of a politic that informs our faith.
Another idea would be to open a new twitter username for you to blog from as a Quaker, or to invite any Quaker to blog from with this specific goal in mind.
“Jibe,” Martin, not “jive.” Sorry, this is a leading of mine. Or a neurotic disorder. Along with “tenants” and “tenets.”
Cheers,
David Carl
See, I can’t even talk about my jiving ways without starting a Quaker war 🙂 Sorry David, duly noted and duly changed, I’m now “jibing” in the post.
Martin — Another way to approach this could be a more wide open Christian dialogue. We could have a tag and invite all our Friends of faith to post to it.
I’m with Gandhi: removing faith from politics is fatal– social change is where faith is most needed.
On the other hand, I find the grotesque partisan drama taking place in and around presidential politics distasteful, diversionary, and unedifying.
My politics are focused on the concrete as follows: Mind the Light, exercise austerity, serve others, and celebrate life. How to tread the path between the important historic Quaker witness to make suffrage and self-determination more widely available, and the Master’s model of “my Kingdom is not of this world” is very much an open question to me.
For Quaker peace witness and service, I’m afraid the difference between the candidates seems minute to me– both of them are vying for a position of power based on politico-military dominance that I feel called to utterly reject.
I understand that different Quakers have different ideas about this, and I don’t have a problem with people getting into the partisan drama on Twitter. Twitter, after all, isn’t meeting for worship. 😉
John — I agree and what you said above would be totally worth “twittering” about during the elections. I don’t think using twitter necessitates any kind of “grotesque partisan drama” it can be far more critical than that.
Not at all– I like Twitter a lot. It’s a great communication platform for the rapid exchange of meaningful content. Related: you’re followed.
Thanks — are you on twitter?
@johnstephens
@John: I agree, great points. I’ve gotten sucked into partisanship w/o really
thinking about how it fits into the larger issues of being in or out of the
world. That I’m voting at all is a big change from my past positions!
Martin — that’s why I think this could be potentially good — force ourselves to approach it more from our faith. But if we don’t do it tonight intentionally, that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
Yes, well let’s try it: just put *#qqtalk* into the Tweets. I’ll omit the
tag if I’m posting something particularly snarky/non-christian (little ‘c’).
For those wanting to play along, your tweets should look something like
this:
#debate08 #qqtalk McCain just said something particularly witty!
OK I’ll bite. Follow me on Twitter if you would like @davidinindy . I’m hesitant, but Wess won me over with very good points. I’ll also leave the “#qqtalk” tag off if I get too snarky.
What is the point in twittering the debate if you’re not going to be snarky? Do you think God doesn’t know if you don’t tag it with @qqtalk? Either your snark is part of you or it’s not.
The problem of the Inner Snark? Well, I’m less worried about God, who of
course know me in all sorts of imperfections, than I am with others who
might extrapolate that my behavior is Quaker behavior.
One of the arguments ancient and current for plain dress is that it holds us
responsible for our behavior outside our immediate religious community. I
can say from experience that it’s a little embarrassing to realize you’ve
just given someone the finger when dressed in broadfalls, especially when
you imagine the later reportage (“Honey you’ll never believe this, some
Amish guy flipped me the bird today when I almost ran him down on his
bike!”). The dressing becomes a reminder of what we aspire to. I think
adding #qqtalk made me less likely to Tweet grossly unfair things last
night.
My favorite parts were indeed the quotes from the Discipline. Didn’t see the debate, so can’t imagine the tie-in.
So is it a good thing or not to be less unfair in public?
I think there’s got to be a middle ground that can include a dry sense of humor but not the inflammatory finger…
“I can say from experience that it’s a little embarrassing to realize you’ve
just given someone the finger when dressed in broadfalls…”
Now, see, I might still be a Quaker you had did this to me at FGC, let’s say…
So what, we need a new branch, the “F.U. Quakers” if we want to retain the Joe G’s? Might be worth it. I have thought we might do well by more freely using the word bullshit when the stench of self-deception rises to the olfactory level. Apparently this use of bull was well established by Fox’s time:
“Sais christ to ypocrites … yee ar … all ful with wickednes, tresun and bull.” [“Cursor Mundi,” c.1300]
If this post had been something I’d have read two or three days before the debate – as opposed to one day after it! – I may have checked the whole Twitter thing out. Twitter was VERY useful to me when the RNC was in town, given all the activity in my neck of the woods.
I hope it was a worthwhile experiment, either way.
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up
I’m glad it happened, I hope we can do it again with more people involved.