![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I removed the following text from the Religious Society of Friends article, and it probably makes sense to work this content in here.
-- Ahc 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope that it shall be done. There is a need for the Testimony on Oaths to be stated clearly, together with the right to affirm. At present the WP article Affirmation is a bit of a mess. The WP article Swear not at all is redirected to Expounding of the Law which has a paragraph on Matthew 5: 33-37 saying
"Several important Christian groups do not however accept such re-interpretations, preferring to uphold what the text actually says; most notably the Quakers and Mennonites firmly reject all oaths, a stance that has led to their persecution by governments that insist on oath taking."
=== Vernon White (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The article does not indicate the value placed on Business ethics by Quakers and the consequences of the trusty reputation of Quaker busiesss people. Vernon White . . . Talk 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved from capital 'I'ntegrity over redirect per usage in article, WP:RS, WP:CAPS and WP:CONSISTENCY. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
"Early Friends refused to swear oaths, even in courtrooms, believing that one must speak truth at all times, and the act of swearing to it implied different standards of truth with and without oaths;" implies that early friends differ from current Friends on this practise. Could we have a paragraph on modern practices showing that Friends continue this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.59.17 ( talk) 08:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I removed the following text from the Religious Society of Friends article, and it probably makes sense to work this content in here.
-- Ahc 02:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope that it shall be done. There is a need for the Testimony on Oaths to be stated clearly, together with the right to affirm. At present the WP article Affirmation is a bit of a mess. The WP article Swear not at all is redirected to Expounding of the Law which has a paragraph on Matthew 5: 33-37 saying
"Several important Christian groups do not however accept such re-interpretations, preferring to uphold what the text actually says; most notably the Quakers and Mennonites firmly reject all oaths, a stance that has led to their persecution by governments that insist on oath taking."
=== Vernon White (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The article does not indicate the value placed on Business ethics by Quakers and the consequences of the trusty reputation of Quaker busiesss people. Vernon White . . . Talk 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Moved from capital 'I'ntegrity over redirect per usage in article, WP:RS, WP:CAPS and WP:CONSISTENCY. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
"Early Friends refused to swear oaths, even in courtrooms, believing that one must speak truth at all times, and the act of swearing to it implied different standards of truth with and without oaths;" implies that early friends differ from current Friends on this practise. Could we have a paragraph on modern practices showing that Friends continue this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.59.17 ( talk) 08:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)