QUAKER-ROOTS-L ArchivesArchiver > QUAKER-ROOTS > 1998-03 > 0889206948
From: HAYDENCOX <>
Subject: Re: Quakers and Portraits
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 12:55:48 EST
In a message dated 98-03-06 12:19:58 EST, you write:
<< It should be remembered that the expense of portraits prior to photography
was part of the Quaker objection...the indulgence of spending a large sum for
a vain or shallow reason. Quakers take issue with any "display" be it a grave
maker, personal image or anything that comes close to the "me" generation of
today putting self before anything.
Okay, I think I'm understanding some of the "Quaker ways" now. The grave
markers, images of themselves were considered "self-important" and a no-no.
This I assume also applies to the dress code. From what I'm reading of why my
ggggrandfather was dis., was because he wore bright colors. So, the wearing
of plain, black/brown clothes was a symbol of ?????? (will someone please fill
in this blank)
Gambling was a no. Profanity was a no. Premarital sex was a no. Lying was a
Were the Quakers more rigid in their beliefs or did they just take them more
seriously than other religions?
Still trying to understand it all
|Re: Quakers and Portraits by HAYDENCOX <>|