by Graham Scharf
It seems like a general rule: kids love animals. Of course, there is fear too. But even where there is fear, there is usually fascination. For many parents this means contemplating (sometimes for the first time) whether to get a family pet - and if so, what kind. The folks over at ebay classifieds put together this infographic to help you make the decision:
Source:Pets aren't for everyone. But if they are for you, this may be a helpful way to navigate the decision!
Graham ScharfGraham is a father, the husband of a pediatrician, a former NYC Teaching Fellow, co-founder of Tumblon, and author of
The Apprenticeship of Being Human: Why Early Childhood Parenting Matters to Everyone (). He has worked in team development, taught in an urban public school, and is full-time dad to his two young daughters.
Categories
Other Tumblon Featured Blogs
by Gladys HuntThe imaginative use of literature in family life
by Rebecca HeidkampUnderstanding child nutrition
by Sarah DahlWhat you need, and what you don't
by Karina GlaserCreative Play Ideas for the Resourceful Parent
by Holly ShoreHolistic Nutrition and Lifestyle Guidance for Families
Learn MoreSelect a page Home About Us Donate to Site Disclaimer Contact Us Privacy Policy
A year ago, Malcolm Turnbull downloaded Bruno Mar’s “The Lazy Song” and&The other day Jacqui Lambie suggested that Senator Corey Bernardi's behaviour was&By Steve Laing
A smartly dressed man walks up to an attractive woman&Insecure Work and Family Violence
Family violence (or, depending on the circumstances and&By James Moylan
Nobody likes homelessness. It’s not something anyone would choose to&Tuesday 6 September
1 I’m not sure how long it is since Barry&By Craig Hingston
Sought after “first-of-its-kind” laboratory test equipment used by global manufacturers&When presenting the Derek Fielding Memorial Lecture a few days ago, president&&&
The Tragedy of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran
The Tragedy of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran
Written by:
Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran (image )
The tragedy of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran is nearly at an end. Do they really deserve to die? Damian Smith reports.
I have watched with great interest, and even greater despair, the tragedy of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. It tells us a great deal about the society that we live in and the people we have become.
It has been, if nothing else, an opportunity, to paraphrase one of my Facebook journalist acquaintances, “to prune my feed of cretins”.
Make no mistake, this is a tragedy. For in one singular instance we see both the triumph of the legal system and its catastrophic failing. Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan are paragons of what the penal system aspires to be, of what it should be – a place of rehabilitation and reform. A place of healing, for want of a better term, where those who have wronged society can turn their path and become better people. That their debt to society can be repaid by becoming better members of it.
This lofty aim has been achieved in Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. Both were convicted as young men, bereft of life experience and full of bluster and folly, however in prison both have become men.
Andrew Chan has been described by prison officials as a model inmate. He is a mentor to other inmates, guiding them through one of the most terrifying and soul-crushing experiences one could ever suffer. He holds courses and takes classes, helping other inmates improve themselves. He leads the prison church services for English speakers and offers spiritual succour to the inmates there.
Myuran Sukumaran completed an Associate Degree in Fine Arts from Curtin University while in prison. He has discovered art and spends his free time painting self portraits. This free time, however, is limited as Sukumaran teaches English, computer, graphic design and philosophy classes to inmates. He organised the implementation of a computer and arts room so that prisoners might develop skills that would help them become better members of society once they are released. He has a business, Kingpin Clothing, which sells clothes and artworks of his design.
Both of these men have used their time in durance vile to better themselves. In their penitence they have become what we should all aspire to be – good people. If prison were advertised on late night television, these two men are the after photos – the testimonial that the process works. That people can learn from their mistakes and change their ways.
And in spite of this both men are to be executed. At some point in the next week, having endured the unimaginable torture of knowing that their end is nigh but not knowing when, they will be taken outside and shot.
Let’s not shy away from this fact, it will be important in a moment. These two men will be shot. They will be woken up in the middle of the night and taken to a remote location in the middle of the jungle. They will be blindfolded, spending their last moments alive in darkness. They will have the choice of sitting or standing, the last act of free will they will ever receive.
Twelve soldiers armed with rifles will stand 5 to 10 meters from the condemned. Only three of them will have live rounds in their rifles, the rest will be given blanks – so that those who believe so firmly in the death penalty can fool themselves into thinking they are not actually responsible for carrying it out.
Then, after a count, they will fire at the condemned’s chest. Three balls of lead, travelling at roughly 120 meters per second will tear into the chest of the condemned.
These projectiles will rip through flesh like paper, lacerating organs and severing arteries. They will shatter the bones of the ribs and fragment, splintering off in different directions to continue to flense the torso from the inside. Still hot from the ignition charge and air friction, they will burn enough to cause excruciating pain but not enough to damage the nerves that feel that pain. This will cause severe bleeding and hypovolemic shock. Death will be caused by hypoxia and exsanguination.
This death, however, will not be instant and the condemned will have enough time to feel all of this happening to him. In fact the condenmed in firing squad executions in Indonesia has survived the process often enough that it is written in the codes and practices of Indonesia’s prisons that should the condemned still be alive, the commander is to walk over and deliver one final shot to the head. Why this is not done at the beginning is a matter of conjecture.
Are you horrified yet? You should be.
Two men who have actually made something positive of their lives will have those lives violently and abruptly ended.
And yet I see in the mainstream media, social media, the comments sections of each, a chorus of everyday Australians who seem to delight in what is happening to Chan and Sukumaran. Who seem to find a macabre glee in their fates. A menagerie of hypocrites and ghouls, with their tumescent death erections stiff as towel racks, delighting in the schadenfreude of two foolish young men about to die. Revelling in the blood like antique Romans.
It is endemic of society that the idea of justice has been supplanted by the notion of vengeance. That instead of reform and rehabilitation we should instead seek swift and brutal reprisal. That a moment of folly deserves a lifetime of retribution. Stray from the path once and you are cast aside, permanently if need be, one strike – no second chances.
That is what I’ve seen in reaction to the Bali 9 case. The social justice warriors of Facebook and Tumblr a morbid choir of condemnation.
“They broke the law” they cry “they deserve this”. Do they? Truly?
Yes, they broke the law. Yes they deserve to be punished. I wholeheartedly concur. It is a cornerstone of civilisation. However with that punishment comes the obligation of reform. That those who do break the law deserve the chance to change their ways, to right their wrongs. For without the chance for redemption we are no longer a civilisation.
If the law is no longer about justice then are we are no more than petty butchers.
“But that’s the law over there” they chant “they knew the consequences”. Yes they did, but that doesn’t make those consequences right. You defend Indonesia’s rights to execute drug smugglers, a crime which carries a 20 year sentence in Australia. In Australia the maximum penalty for theft, the crime most responsible for this Nation’s colonisation, is 5 years imprisonment. In Saudi Arabia it is amputation of a hand. Are we to defend Saudi Arabia’s right to this barbaric punishment?
“It’s their country, their laws, who are we to interfere?” they intone.
Humans. That is who we are. The free peoples of civilised society. We who dream of a better world, it is incumbent on us to call out such barbarism when we see it. To not be good men doing nothing. Are we to stand idly by while Indonesia executes two penitent men for attempting to smuggle an arbitrarily decided illicit substance?
Yet we will take to the keyboard in protest of Saudi Arabia (again) publicly lashing blogger Raif Badawi for the crime of criticising his country’s Islamic Clergy. We are not afforded the luxury of cherry picking our outrage.
The irony is not lost on me that the internet is lit up, the comments sections aflame, with the barely coherent apoplexy towards the Bali 9, so eager are they to see “justice” done, yet these same people at the same time will bemoan that charges for the same offence, drug smuggling, brought against players of the Gold Coast Titans are distracting from the launch of the NRL season. Or do Beau Falloon and Dave Taylor also deserve death?
Cherry picking our outrage indeed.
The tragedy of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran is nearly at an end. Their trial over, their appeals exhausted. Our own trial however, of we as people, as a society, is still very much underway. And on the evidence presented in the last few days, the result could well be damning. For in the course of their sentence these two men have found their humanity, but we on the sidelines, in our relentless pursuit of vengeance, have lost ours.
Help Support The AIMN
Please consider making a donation to support The AIMN and independent journalism.
Regular Donation
Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.
One-off Donation
Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.
Share this:Like this:Like Loading...
Featured ArticlesBy: Redcuchulain
On Thursday they lost a vote in the House of Representatives.
Something that the Gillard government never had the misfortune of&"Good morning, we have an interview with Liberal, Mr Whine."
"Good morning, pleased to be here."
"Now about the chaos in the&Subscribe to Blog via Email
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 2,374 other subscribers
Email Address
Send to Email Address
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
%d bloggers like this:From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named George Fox, see .
George Fox (July 1624 – 13 January 1691) was an
and a founder of the , commonly known as the Quakers or Friends.
The son of a
, Fox lived in a time of great social upheaval and war. He rebelled against the
and political authorities by proposing an unusual and uncompromising approach to the . He travelled throughout Britain as a dissenting preacher, for which he was often persecuted by the authorities who disapproved of his beliefs.
Fox married , the widow of one of his
she was a leading Friend. His ministry expanded and he undertook tours of
and the . Between these tours, he was imprisoned for more than a year. He spent the final decade of his life working in London to organize the expanding Quaker movement.
While his movement attracted disdain from some, others such as
viewed Fox with respect.
Memorial to Fox's birthplace, situated on George Fox Lane in , England
George Fox was born in the strongly
village of Drayton-in-the-Clay, Leicestershire, England (now known as ), 15 miles (24 km) west-south-west of . He was the eldest of four children of Christopher Fox, a successful , called "Righteous Christer" by his neighbours, and his wife, Mary
Lago. Christopher Fox was a churchwarden and wa when he died in the late 1650s he left his son a substantial legacy. From childhood Fox was of a serious, religious disposition. There is no record of any formal schooling but he learned to read and write. "When I came to eleven years of age", he said, "I knew purene for, while I was a child, I was taught how to walk to be kept pure. The Lord taught me to be faithful, in all things, and to act viz., inwardly to God, and outwardly to man." Known as an honest person, he also proclaimed, "The Lord taught me to be faithful in all things...and to keep to Yea and Nay in all things."
As he grew up, his relatives "thought to have made me a priest" but he was instead apprenticed to a local
and , George Gee of . This suited his contemplative temperament and he became well known for his diligence among the wool traders who had dealings with his master. A constant obsession for Fox was the pursuit of "simplicity" in life, meaning humility and the abandonment of luxury, and the short time he spent as a
was important to the formation of this view. Toward the end of his life he wrote a letter for general circulation pointing out that , , , ,
were all keepers of sheep or cattle and therefore that a learned education should not be seen as a necessary qualification for ministry.
George Fox knew people who were "professors" (followers of the standard religion), but by the age of 19 he had begun to look down on their behaviour, in particular drinking alcohol. He records that, in prayer one night after leaving two acquaintances at a drinking session, he heard an inner voice saying, "Thou seest how young people go together into vanity, and old p thou must forsake all, young and old, keep out of all, and be as a stranger unto all."
Driven by his "inner voice", Fox left Drayton-in-the-Clay in September 1643, moving toward London in a state of mental torment and confusion. The
had begun and troops were stationed in many towns through which he passed. In , he was torn by depression (perhaps from the temptations of the resort town near London). He alternately shut himself in his room for days at a time or went out alone into the countryside. After almost a year he returned to Drayton, where he engaged , the clergyman of his hometown, in long discussions on religious matters. Stephens considered Fox a gifted young man but the two disagreed on so many issues that he later called Fox mad and spoke against him.
Over the next few years Fox continued to travel around the country as his particular religious beliefs took shape. At times he actively sought the company of clergy but found no comfort from them as they seemed unable to help with the matters troubling him. One, in , advised him to take
(which Fox disliked) another, in , lost his temper when Fox accidentally stood on a
a third suggested . He became fascinated by the , which he studied assiduously. He hoped to find among the "" a spiritual understanding absent from the established church but fell out with one group, for example, because he maintained that women had souls:
as I had forsaken the priests, so I left the separate preachers also, and those esteemed the mos for I saw there was none among them all that could speak to my condition. And when all my hopes in them and in all men were gone, so that I had nothing outwardly to help me, nor could tell what to do, then, oh, then, I heard a voice which said, "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition"; and when I heard it my heart did leap for joy. Then the Lord let me see why there was none upon the earth that could speak to my condition, namely, that I might give H for all are concluded under sin, and shut up in unbelief as I had been, that Jesus Christ might have the pre-eminence who enlightens, and gives grace, and faith, and power. Thus when God doth work, who shall let (i.e. prevent) it? And this I knew experimentally.
A Quaker woman preaches at a meeting in London
He thought intensely about the , which he compared to his own spiritual condition, but drew strength from his conviction that God would support and preserve him. In prayer and meditation he came to a greater understanding of the nature of his faith and what
this process he called "opening". He also came to what he deemed a deep inner understanding of standard Christian beliefs. Among his ideas were:
Rituals can be safely ignored, as long as one experiences a true spiritual conversion.
The qualification for ministry is given by the , not by ecclesiastical study. This implies that anyone has the right to minister, assuming the Spirit guides them, including women and children.
God "dwelleth in the hearts of his obedient people": religious experience is not confined to a . Indeed, Fox refused to apply the word "church" to a building, using instead the name "steeple-house", a usage maintained by many Quakers today. Fox would just as soon worship in fields and orchards, believing that God's presence could be felt anywhere.
Though Fox used the Bible to support his views, Fox reasoned that, because God was within the faithful, believers could follow their own inner guide rather than rely on a strict reading of Scripture or the word of clerics.
Fox also made no clear distinction between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
In 1647 Fox began to preach publicly: in market-places, fields, appointed meetings of various kinds or even sometimes "steeple-houses" after the service. His powerful preaching began to attract a small following. It is not clear at what point the Society of Friends was formed but there was certainly a group of people who often travelled together. At first, they called themselves "Children of the Light" or "Friends of the Truth", and later simply "Friends". Fox seems to have had no desire to found a sect but only to proclaim what he saw as the pure and genuine principles of
in their original simplicity, though he afterward showed great prowess as a religious legislator in the organization he gave to the new society.
There were a great many rival
holding v the atmosphere of dispute and confusion gave Fox an opportunity to put forward his own beliefs through his personal sermons. Fox's preaching was grounded in scripture but was mainly effective because of the intense personal experience he was able to project. He was scathing about immorality, deceit and the exacting of
and urged his listeners to lead lives without sin, avoiding the 's
view that a believer becomes automatically sinless. By 1651 he had gathered other talented preachers around him and continued to roam the country despite a harsh reception from some listeners, who would whip and beat them to drive them away. As his reputation spread, his words were not welcomed by all. As an uncompromising preacher, he hurled disputation and contradiction to the faces of his opponents. The worship of Friends in the form of silent waiting seems to have been well-established by this time, though it is not recorded how this came to be.
Fox complained to judges about decisions he considered morally wrong, as in his letter on the case of a woman due to be
for theft. He campaigned against the paying of tithes, which funded the established church and often went into the pockets of absentee landlords or religious colleges far away from the paying parishioners. In his view, as God was everywhere and anyone could preach, the established church was unnecessary and a university qualification irrelevant for a preacher. Conflict with civil authority was inevitable. Fox was imprisoned several times, the first at
in 1649. At
in 1650 he a judge mocked Fox's exhortation to "tremble at the word of the Lord", calling him and his followers "Quakers". Following his refusal to fight against the return of the monarchy (or to take up arms for any reason), his sentence was doubled. The refusal to swear oaths or take up arms came to be a much more important part of his public statements. Refusal to take oaths meant that Quakers could be prosecuted under laws compelling subjects to , as well as making testifying in court problematic. In a letter of 1652 (That which is set up by the sword), he urged Friends not to use "carnal weapons" but "spiritual weapons", saying "let the waves [the power of nations] break over your heads".
In 1652, Fox preached for several hours under a walnut tree at , where his disciple
was instrumental in setting up the first meeting in the
area. In June that year Fox felt that God led him to ascend
where he had a vision of many souls coming to Christ. From there he travelled to
in , where he had heard a group of
were meeting, and preached to over a thousand people on , convincing many, including , to accept that Christ might speak to people directly. At the end of the month he stayed at , near , the home of Thomas Fell, vice-chancellor of the , and his wife, Margaret. At around this time the ad hoc meetings of Friends began to be formalized and a monthly meeting was set up in . Margaret became a Quaker and, although Thomas did not convert, his familiarity with the Friends proved influential when Fox was arrested for blasphemy in October. Fell was one of three presiding judges, and had the charges dismissed on a technicality.
Fox remained at
until summer 1653 then left for
where he was arrested again for blasphemy. It was even proposed to put him to death but
requested his release rather than have "a young man ... die for religion". Further imprisonments came at
in 1662, Lancaster again and
in 1664–66 and
in 1673–75. Charges usually included causing a disturbance and travelling without a pass. Quakers fell foul of irregularly enforced laws forbidding unauthorized worship while actions motivated by belief in social equality—refusing to use or acknowledge titles, take hats off in court or bow to those who considered themselves socially superior—were seen as disrespectful. While imprisoned at Launceston Fox wrote, "Christ our Lord and master saith 'Swear not at all, but let your communications be yea, yea, and nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.' ... the Apostle James saith, 'My brethren, above all things swear not, neither by heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other oath. Lest ye fall into condemnation.'"
In prison George Fox continued writing and preaching, feeling that imprisonment brought him into contact with people who needed his help—the jailers as well as his fellow prisoners. In his journal, he told his magistrate, "God dwells not in temples made with hands." He also sought to set an example by his actions there, turning the other cheek when being beaten and refusing to show his captors any dejected feelings.
Cromwell was sympathetic to Fox and almost agreed to follow his teaching—but persecution of Quakers continued.
Parliamentarians grew suspicious of monarchist plots and fearful that the group travelling with Fox aimed to overthrow the government: by this time his meetings were regularly attracting crowds of over a thousand. In early 1655 he was arrested at
and taken to London under armed guard. In March he was brought before the , . After affirming that he had no intention of taking up arms Fox was able to speak with Cromwell for most of the morning about the Friends and advised him to listen to God's voice and obey it so that, as Fox left, Cromwell "with tears in his eyes said, 'Co for if thou and I were but an hour of a day together, we should be nearer one to the other'; adding that he wished [Fox] no more ill than he did to his own soul."
This episode was later recalled as an example of "speaking truth to power", a preaching technique by which subsequent Quakers hoped to influence the powerful. Although not used until the 20th century, the phrase is related to the ideas of plain speech and simplicity which Fox practiced, but motivated by the more worldly goal of eradicating war, injustice and oppression.
Fox petitioned Cromwell over the course of 1656, asking him to alleviate the persecution of Quakers. Later that year, they met for a second time at Whitehall. On a personal level, t despite disagreements between the two men, they had a certain rapport. Fox invited Cromwell to "lay down his crown at the feet of Jesus"—which Cromwell declined to do. Fox met Cromwell again twice in March 1657. Their last meeting was in 1658 at , though they could not speak for long or meet again because of the Protector's worsening illness—Fox even wrote that "he looked like a dead man". Cromwell died in September of that year.
One early Quaker convert, the Yorkshireman , arose as a prominent preacher in London around 1655. A breach began to form between Fox's and Nayler's followers. As Fox was held prisoner at Launceston, Nayler moved south-westwards towards Launceston intending to meet Fox and heal any rift. On the way he was arrested himself and held at . After Fox was released from Launceston gaol in 1656, he preached throughout the . Arriving at Exeter late in September, Fox was reunited with Nayler. Nayler and his followers refused to remove their hats while Fox prayed, which Fox took as both a personal slight and a bad example. When Nayler refused to kiss Fox's hand, Fox told Nayler to kiss his foot instead. Nayler was offended and the two parted acrimoniously. Fox wrote, "there was now a wicked spirit risen amongst Friends".
After Nayler's own release later the same year he rode into
triumphantly playing the part of Jesus Christ in a re-enactment of . He was arrested and taken to London, where Parliament defeated a motion to execute him by 96–82. Instead, they ordered that he be pilloried and whipped through both London and Bristol, branded on his forehead with the letter B (for blasphemer), bored through the tongue with a red-hot iron and imprisoned in solitary confinement with hard labour. Nayler was released in 1659, but he was a broken man. On meeting Fox in London, he fell to his knees and begged Fox's forgiveness. Shortly afterward, Nayler was attacked by thieves while travelling home to his family, and died.
19th-century engraving of George Fox, based on a painting of unknown date
The persecutions of these years—with about a thousand Friends in prison by 1657—hardened George Fox's opinions of traditional religious and social practices. In his preaching, he often emphasized the Quaker re this was a useful way of highlighting how the focus of Friends on inward transformation differed from what he saw as the superstition of outward ritual. It was also deliberately provocative to adherents of those practices, providing opportunities for Fox to argue with them on matters of scripture. This pattern was also found in his court appearances: when a judge challenged him to remove his hat, Fox riposted by asking where in the Bible such an injunction could be found.
The Society of Friends became increasingly organized towards the end of the decade. Large meetings were held, including a three-day event in Bedfordshire, the precursor of the present
system. Fox commissioned two Friends to travel around the country collecting the testimonies of imprisoned Quakers, as evidence
this led to the establishment in 1675 of , which has continued to the present day.
The 1650s, when the Friends were most confrontational, was one of the most creative periods of their history. During the Commonwealth, Fox had hoped that the movement would become the major church in England. Disagreements, persecution and increasing social turmoil, however, led Fox to suffer from a severe depression, which left him deeply troubled at , for ten weeks in 1658 or 1659. In 1659, he sent
his most politically radical pamphlet, , but the year was so chaotic that it n the document was not reprinted until the 21st century.
With the , Fox's dreams of establishing the Friends as the dominant religion seemed at an end. He was again accused of conspiracy, this time against , and fanaticism—a charge he resented. He was imprisoned in Lancaster for five months, during which he wrote to the king offering advice on governance: Charles should refrain from war and domestic religious persecution, and discourage oath-taking, , and
games. These last suggestions reveal Fox's
leanings, which continued to influence Quakers for centuries after his death. Once again, Fox was released after demonstrating that he had no military ambitions.
At least on one point, Charles listened to Fox. The seven hundred Quakers who had been imprisoned under
were released, though the government remained uncertain about the group's links with other, more violent, movements. A revolt by the
in January 1661 led to the suppression of that sect and the repression of other , including Quakers. In the aftermath of this attempted coup, Fox and eleven other Quakers issued a broadside proclaiming what became known among Friends in the 20th century as the "peace testimony": they committed themselves to oppose all outward wars and strife as contrary to the will of God. Not all his followers acc , for example, dissented for a time arguing that the state had a duty to protect the innocent from evil, if necessary by using military force. Despite the testimony, persecution against Quakers and other dissenters continued.
Penington and others, such as John Perrot and John Pennyman, were uneasy at Fox's increasing power within the movement. Like Nayler before them, they saw no reason why men should remove their hats for prayer, arguing that men and women should be treated as equals and if, as according to the apostle Paul, women should cover their heads, then so could men. Perrot and Penington lost the argument. Perrot emigrated to the New World, and Fox retained leadership of the movement.
Parliament enacted laws which forbade non-Anglican religious meetings of more than five people, essentially making Quaker meetings illegal. Fox counseled his followers to openly violate laws that attempted to suppress the movement, and many Friends, including women and children, were jailed over the next two and a half decades. Meanwhile, Quakers in
had been banished (and some ), and Charles was advised by his councillors to issue a
condemning this practice and allowing them to return. Fox was able to meet some of the New England Friends when they came to London, stimulating his interest in the . Fox was unable to travel there immediately: he was imprisoned again in 1664 for his refusal to swear the oath of allegiance, and on his release in 1666 was preoccupied with organizational matters—he normalized the system of monthly and quarterly meetings throughout the country, and extended it to Ireland.
Visiting Ireland also gave him the opportunity to preach against what he saw as the excesses of the , in particular the use of ritual. More recent Quaker commentators have noted points of contact between the denominations: both claim the actual presence of God in their meetings, and both allow the collective opinion of the church to augment Biblical teaching. Fox, however, did not perceive this, brought up as he was in a wholly
environment hostile to "Popery".
Fox married
of , a lady of high social position and one of his early converts, on 27 October 1669 at a meeting in Bristol. She was ten years his senior and had eight children (all but one of them Quakers) by her first husband, Thomas Fell, who had died in 1658. She was herself very active in the movement, and had campaigned for equality and the acceptance of women as preachers. As there were no priests at Quaker weddings to perform the ceremony, the union took the form of a civil marriage approved by the principals and the witnesses at a meeting. Ten days after the marriage, Margaret returned to Swarthmoor to continue her work there while George went back to London. Their shared religious work was at the heart of their life together, and they later collaborated on a great deal of the administration the Society required. Shortly after the marriage, Margaret was imprisoned at L George remained in the south-east of England, becoming so ill and depressed that for a time he lost his sight.
has original text related to this article:
This stone in , , located across from the
House commemorates the place where George Fox preached a sermon on 7 June 1672.
By 1671 Fox had recovered and Margaret had been released by order of the King. Fox resolved to visit the English settlements in America and the West Indies, remaining there for two years, possibly to counter any remnants of Perrot's teaching there. After a voyage of seven weeks, during which dolphins were caught and eaten, the party arrived in
on 3 October 1671. From there, Fox sent an
to Friends spelling out the role of women's meetings in the Quaker marriage ceremony, a point of controversy when he returned home. One of his proposals suggested that the prospective couple should be interviewed by an all-female meeting prior to the marriage to determine whether there were any financial or other impediments. Though women's meetings had been held in London for the last ten years, this was an innovation in Bristol and the north-west of England, which many there felt went too far.
Fox wrote a letter to the governor and assembly of the island in which he refuted charges that Quakers were stirring up the slaves to revolt and tried to affirm the orthodoxy of Quaker beliefs. After a stay in , Fox's first landfall on the
was at , where he participated in a four-day meeting of local Quakers. He remained there while various of his English companions travelled to the other colonies, because he wished to meet some
who were interested in Quaker ways—though he relates that they had "a great dispute" among themselves about whether to participate in the meeting. Fox was impressed by their general demeanour, which he said was "courteous and loving". He resented the suggestion (from a man in ) that "the Light and Spirit of God ... was not in the Indians", a proposition which Fox refuted. Fox left no record of encountering slaves on the mainland.
Elsewhere in the colonies, Fox helped to establish organizational systems for the Friends, along the same lines as he had done in Britain. He also preached to many non-Quakers, some but not all of whom were converted.
Fox established a Yearly Meeting in
for Friends in the Netherlands and German states.
Following extensive travels around the various American colonies, George Fox returned to England in June 1673 confident that his movement was firmly established there. Back in England, however, he found his movement sharply divided among provincial Friends (such as William Rogers, John Wilkinson and John Story) who resisted establishment of women's meetings and the power of those who resided in or near London. With
as allies of Fox, the challenge to Fox's leadership was eventually put down. But in the midst of the dispute, Fox was imprisoned again for refusing to swear oaths after being captured at , . His mother died shortly after hearing of his arrest and Fox's health began to suffer. Margaret Fell petitioned the king for his release, which was granted, but Fox felt too weak to take up his travels immediately. Recuperating at Swarthmoor, he began dictating what would be published after his death as his journal and devoted his time to his written output: letters, both public and private, as well as books and essays. Much of his energy was devoted to the topic of oaths, having become convinced of its importance to Quaker ideas. By refusing to swear, he felt that he could bear witness to the value of truth in everyday life, as well as to God, who he associated with truth and the .
For three months in 1677 and a month in 1684, Fox visited the Friends in the , and organized their meetings for discipline. The first trip was the more extensive, taking him into what is now Germany, proceeding along the coast to
and back again over several days. Meanwhile, Fox was participating in a dispute among Friends in Britain over the role of women in meetings, a struggle which took much of his energy and left him exhausted. Returning to England, he stayed in the south in order to try to end the dispute. He followed the foundation of the colony of , where Penn had given him over 1,000 acres (4.0 km2) of land, with interest. Persecution continued, with Fox arrested briefly in October 1683. Fox's health was becoming worse, but he continued his activities—writing to leaders in , , , and elsewhere about his beliefs, and their treatment of Quakers.
George Fox's marker in , next to the Meeting House
In the last years of his life, Fox continued to participate in the London Meetings, and still made representations to Parliament about the sufferings of Friends. The new King, , pardoned religious dissenters jailed for failure to attend the established church, leading to the release of about 1500 Friends. Though the Quakers lost influence after the , which deposed James II, the
put an end to the uniformity laws under which Quakers had been persecuted, permitting them to assemble freely.
Two days after preaching, as usual, at the
Meeting House in London, George Fox died between 9 and 10 p.m. on 13 January 1691. He was interred in the , Bunhill Fields, three days later in the presence of thousands of mourners.
Fox's journal was first published in 1694, after editing by —a friend and associate of —with a preface by . Like most similar works of its time the journal was not written contemporaneously to the events it describes, but rather compiled many years later, much of it dictated. Parts of the journal were not in fact by Fox at all but are constructed by its editors from diverse sources and written as if by him. The dissent within the movement and the contributions of others to the development of Quakerism are largely excluded from the narrative. Fox portrays himself as always in the right and always vindicated by God's interventions on his behalf. As a religious autobiography,
compared it to such works as
and 's . It is, though, an intensely personal work with little dramatic power that only succeeds in appealing to readers after substantial editing. Historians have used it as a primary source because of its wealth of detail on ordinary life in the 17th century, and the many towns and villages which Fox visited.
Hundreds of Fox's letters—mostly intended for wide circulation, along with a few private communications—were also published. Written from the 1650s onwards, with such titles as Friends, seek the peace of all men or To Friends, to know one another in the light, they give enormous insight into the detail of Fox's beliefs, and show his determination to spread them. These writings, in the words of , Professor of Divinity at
and a leading Quaker, "contain a few fresh phrases of his own, [but] are generally characterized by an excess of scriptural language and today they seem dull and repetitious". Others point out that "Fox's sermons, rich in biblical metaphor and common speech, brought hope in a dark time." Fox's aphorisms have found an audience beyond Quakers, with many other church groups using them to illustrate principles of Christianity.
Fox is described by Ellwood as "graceful in countenance, manly in personage, grave in gesture, courteous in conversation". Penn says he was "civil beyond all forms of breeding". We are told that he was "plain and powerful in preaching, fervent in prayer", "a discerner of other men's spirits, and very much master of his own", skilful to "speak a word in due season to the conditions and capacities of most, especially to them that were weary, and wanted soul's rest"; "valiant in asserting the truth, bold in defending it, patient in suffering for it, immovable as a rock".
Fox's influence on the Society of Friends was tremendous, and his beliefs have largely been carried forward by that group. Perhaps his most significant achievement, other than his predominant influence in the early movement, was his leadership in overcoming the twin challenges of government prosecution after the Restoration and internal disputes that threatened its stability during the same period. Not all of his beliefs were welcome to all Quakers: his Puritan-like opposition to the arts and rejection of
study, forestalled development of these practices among Quakers for some time.
The name of George Fox is often invoked by traditionalist Friends who dislike modern liberal attitudes to the Society's Christian origins. At the same time, Quakers and others can relate to Fox's religious experience, and even those who disagree with many of his ideas regard him as a pioneer.
, who was raised by parents inspired by Quaker thought, later wrote: "George Fox stands for something too—a thought—the thought that wakes in silent hours—perhaps the deepest, most eternal thought latent in the human soul. This is the thought of God, merged in the thoughts of moral right and the immortality of identity. Great, great is this thought—aye, greater than all else."
in , founded as Pacific College in 1891, was renamed for him in 1949. He also has a building named after him at .
played Fox in the 1941 film . Fox's relationship with Margaret Fell is
, Dublin Quaker and merchant
This picture, reputedly by , is in the collection of . Its authenticity is questioned (see for example, Fenn, W. W. (April 1926). The American Historical Review, Vol.31 No.3 pp.513-515), together with all other supposed portraits of George Fox.
Fox in Nickalls, p.1: "I was born in the month called July in the year 1624...."
Fox in Nickalls, p.1
Ingle (2004)
Fox in Nickalls, p.1–2 and Jones, chapter 1
The Quakers, Money & Morals, James Walvin, Pg. 8
Nickalls, p.2 and Ingle (2004)
Marsh 1847, p.364
Fox in Nickalls, p.3 and Jones, chapter 1
Fox in Nickalls, p.5
Fox in Nickalls, p.48
Fox in Nickalls, pp.5–6
Fox in e.g. Nickalls, p.9
Fox in Nickalls, pp.8–9, 11
Quaker Faith and Practice §19.02
Fox in Nickalls, p.11
Fox in Nickalls, p.12
Fox in e.g. Nickalls, pp.8, 24, 40, 85, 126
See e.g. Fox in Nickalls, pp.145, 159
Fox in Nickalls, pp.18–19
Fox in e.g. Nickalls, p.91
See e.g. Fox in Nickalls, pp.44, 48, 97–98, 120, 127–131
The Quakers, Money & Morals, James Walvin, Pg. 11
Fox in Nickalls, p.79
Fox in Nickalls, p.66
Fox in Nickalls, pp.40–43
Fox in Nickalls, pp.52–58 and Jones, chapter 4
Fox in Nickalls, pp.64–65
Doncaster Friends site:
Nickalls, pp.103–108
Fox in Nickalls, pp.159–164 and Jones, chapter 7
Fox in e.g. Nickalls, pp.36–37, 243–244
Fox in e.g. Nickalls, pp.244–245
Journal of George Fox (1694), Chapter 4
Ingle (2004) says 9 M Nickalls, p.199 says 6 March.
Fox in Jones, chapter 8 and Nickalls, p.199
Tolles, Frederick Barnes (1956).
Quaker Pamphlets.
Fox in Nickalls, pp.220–221, 254
Fox in Nickalls, p.274 and Jones, chapter 10
Fox in Nickalls, p.289
Fox in Jones, chapter 12 and Nickalls, p.350
Ingle (2004) and Fox in Nickalls, p.268
Jones, footnote 125, chapter 10
Fox in Nickalls, p.339
Quaker Faith and Practice §7
Nickalls, pp.353–355 and Ingle (2004)
Fox in Nickalls, pp.394–395 and Jones, chapter 14
Fox in Nickalls, pp.411–414
Margaret wrote in her testimony, published in Ellwood's 1694 edition of Fox's journal, "we were very willing, both of us, to live apart for some years upon God's account and his Truth's service, and to deny ourselves of that comfort which we might have had in being together, for the sake and service of the Lord and his Truth. And if any took occasion, or judged hard of us because of that, the L for we were innocent."
Fox in Nickalls, p.557
Fox in Nickalls, pp.569–571
Diary of John Hull, quoted in Nickalls, pp.580–592
Fox in Nickalls, p.618; Jones, chapter 18, using alternate sources, has "a great debate" and "carried themselves very courteously and lovingly".
Fox in Jones, chapter 18; Nickalls, p.642, has more complicated wording but the same meaning.
Fox in Nickalls, p.621
Though now in , until the re-arrangement of county boundaries in the twentieth century Armscote was in an outlying part of Worcestershire.
Fox in Nickalls, pp.666–676
Fox in Nickalls, p.701
Fox in Nickalls, p.705
(1952) "George Fox's Later Years" in Nickalls, pp.713–756
"Eleventh month 1690" is "January 1691" in modern reckoning. In the
calendar used at the time, the new year started on 25 March, and Quakers numbered the months to avoid using "heathen" names.
Robert Barrow's account quoted in Nickalls, p.760 est Ellwood says "a very great number"; Ingle (2004) says "thousands"
See for example, Nickalls, pp.536, 580, 594
(1908) "Preface" in Jones's version of Fox's journal
Cadbury, Henry J. (1967). "Fox, George". Collier's Encyclopedia. Crowell Collier and Macmillan, Inc. Vol.10 p.243
George Fox University (19 March 2008). . Retrieved 12 May 2008.
1694 Journal front matter
Fox in e.g. Nickalls, pp.37–38
(1892). . Prose Works. Philadelphia: David McKay
Primary sources
Various editions of Fox's journal have been published from time to time since the first printing in 1694:
Jones, Rufus M. (editor). 1908. George Fox – An Autobiography, an annotated and slightly abridged text, is also available in print (e.g. Friends United Press, 2006; ) and online (
Nickalls, John L. (editor). 1952. The Journal of George Fox. Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted by the Philadelphia Yearly M )
(editor). 2008. . Cathair na Mart: Evertype.
Secondary sources
(1678). An Apology for the True Christian Divinity. A systematic treatment of Quaker theology at the end of the .
Emerson Wildes, Harry (1965). Voice of the Lord: A Biography of George Fox (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
Ingle, H. Larry (1994; repr. 1996). First Among Friends: George Fox and the Creation of Quakerism (Oxford University P ). First scholarly biography, showing how Fox used his influence within the Society of Friends to ensure conformity to his views and the survival of the group.
Ingle, H. Larry (2004). . Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press). Retrieved 13 May 2008. : (Subscription required)
Marsh, Josiah (1847). A Popular Life of George Fox (London: ). Somewhat biased but thorough biography of Fox.
, Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain. ( [1999 revision]). Shows a modern Quaker view of Fox, and a great deal of historical information about Friends and their institutions.
Wikiquote has quotations related to:
has original works written by or about:
Media related to
at Wikimedia Commons
. The Journal and the Epistles, edited and with commentary by Hall Worthington and Joan Worthington
, 21 May 1660, see entry under Geo. Fox, &c., Order by the House that George Fox & Rob. Gressingham who "made a great Disturbance at " and are to be handed over to the .
: Hidden categories:}