Elias Hicks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Meadow_Waldorf_School#Curriculum
...
Graduates of the school have been noted for their independence, sensitivity and creativity.[4]
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inazo_Nitobe#Legacy
...
Nitobe, however, is perhaps most famous in the west for his work Bushido: The Soul of Japan (1900), which was one of the first major works on samurai ethics and Japanese culture written originally in English for Western readers (The book was subsequently translated into Japanese and many other languages). Although sometimes criticized as portraying the samurai in terms so Western as to take away some of their actual meaning, this book nonetheless was a pioneering work of its kind.
...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Japanese_Quakers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaker#Hicksite-Orthodox_split
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_Hicks#Hicks.27s_reported_views
... Religious Society of Friends ...
... These views were consistent with a Freethought tradition already prevailing in America, particularly among Deists of Quaker heritage such as Thomas Paine. The most original aspect of Hicks's theology was his rejection of Satan as the source of human "passions" or "propensities." Hicks stressed that basic urges, including all sexual passions, were neither implanted by an external Devil nor the product of personal choice, but were aspects of human nature created by God. "He gave us passions—if we may call them passions—in order that we might seek after those things which we need, and which we had a right to experience and know," he claimed in his 1824 sermon, "Let Brotherly Love Continue." Hicks taught that evil and suffering occurred not because human nature harbored these "propensities," but rather resulted from "an excess in the indulgence of propensities."

In 1858, Walt Whitman, one of Hicks's most famous exponents, astutely assessed Hicks as "a wonderful compound of the mystic with the logical reasoner," and explained that Hicks was "destined to make a radical revolution in a numerous and devout Society, and his influence to be largely felt outside of that Society..." The Quaker theology of "God within" (another name for the Inner Light) appeared subsequently in the theory of the Free Love movement, where it was deemed compatible with the religious sociology of Charles Fourier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love
The term free love has been used since at least the nineteenth century^[1] to describe a social movement that rejects marriage, which is seen as a form of social bondage, especially for women. Much of the free-love tradition is an offshoot of anarchism, and reflects a civil libertarian philosophy that seeks freedom from State regulation and Church interference in personal relationships. According to this concept, the free unions of adults are legitimate relations which should be respected by all third parties whether they are emotional or sexual relations. In addition, some free-love writing has argued that both men and women have the right to sexual pleasure. In the Victorian era, this was a radical notion.

While the phrase free love is often associated with promiscuity in the popular imagination, especially in reference to the counterculture of the 1960s and 1970s, historically the free-love movement has not advocated multiple sexual partners or short-term sexual relationships. Rather, it has argued that love relations that are freely entered into should not be regulated by law. Thus, free-love practice may include long-term monogamous relationships or even celibacy, but would not include institutional forms of polygamy, such as a king and his wives and concubines.

Laws of particular concern to free love movements have included those that prevent an unmarried couple from living together, and those that regulate adultery and divorce, as well as age of consent, birth control, homosexuality, abortion, and prostitution; although not all free lovers agree on these issues. The abrogation of individual rights in marriage is also a concern—for example, some jurisdictions do not recognise spousal rape or treat it less seriously than non-spousal rape. Free-love movements since the 19th century have also defended the right to publicly discuss sexuality and have battled obscenity laws.

In the twentieth century, some free-love proponents extended the critique of marriage to argue that marriage as a social institution encourages emotional possessiveness and psychological enslavement.

...