Then they came for the Amish ...

[Josh]

What I really mean was not about how Amish or Ex Amish people support survivors, but about people on this forum accusing others of having an agenda. Is there an idealogical purity test that one must pass on this forum in order to be allowed to speak up about survivors?

No, but if you disguise pushing your agenda as “helping survivors”, expect criticism for it.

[Josh]

This ad is in a current issue of Plain Communities Business Exchange, a magazine primarily dedicated to Plain communities. Old Orders in particular. I assume that Amish are among the groups that typically attend the Anabaptist Symposium on Sexual Abuse. For a long time there has been growing awareness of the problems and solutions of sexual abuse among Amish and other groups, and probably in society generally as well. It's a real problem and it needs to be dealt with. There is a strong need for the church to deal with it properly, practice good prevention, promptly involve law enforcement for all crimes, and utilize the best resources to help victims and offenders. And the fact is that many Amish are very ignorant in these areas. Many of them are working on it, and it's getting better, but there is still significant need for change in my opinion.

Is that the project Steve Stutzman is involved with?

Yes, it is the one he started.

One of the guest speakers for the last few years (I don’t see him on that list) was one who treated me quite poorly for asking him to hold an abuser accountable, alleging that the abuser’s wife was the one with the problem and the abused person wasn’t to be believed. (This was someone who has literally hundreds of accusations, most of them credible.)

The board did take removing Stutzman seriously but it took considerable effort to get them to do so.

[Sliceitup]

What I really mean was not about how Amish or Ex Amish people support survivors, but about people on this forum accusing others of having an agenda. Is there an idealogical purity test that one must pass on this forum in order to be allowed to speak up about survivors?

No, but if you disguise pushing your agenda as “helping survivors”, expect criticism for it.

What agenda was I pushing in this thread?

[MaxPC]

This ad is in a current issue of Plain Communities Business Exchange, a magazine primarily dedicated to Plain communities. Old Orders in particular. I assume that Amish are among the groups that typically attend the Anabaptist Symposium on Sexual Abuse. For a long time there has been growing awareness of the problems and solutions of sexual abuse among Amish and other groups, and probably in society generally as well. It's a real problem and it needs to be dealt with. There is a strong need for the church to deal with it properly, practice good prevention, promptly involve law enforcement for all crimes, and utilize the best resources to help victims and offenders. And the fact is that many Amish are very ignorant in these areas. Many of them are working on it, and it's getting better, but there is still significant need for change in my opinion.

I am glad for the sake of all victims as well as the health of any group or denomination. Catholic World began addressing these issues in the 70s but there was a drastic improvement in decreasing incidents when the Bishops decided in 2001 to turn all accusations over to law enforcement for independent investigation.

A multi-discipline and diversified audience approach seems to work most effectively. Awareness, education, and law enforcement has been helpful in Catholic World. The screening and selection of seminarians; background checks; and training in awareness provided by the seminaries and dioceses has been effective as well.

No procedure will be perfect but this multi-pronged protocol has been working for Catholic World. I pray for all faith groups to become vigilant and to implement interventions to mitigate these abusive behaviors.

[RZehr]

Before: Anabaptist World
After: Anabaptist Worldly

[steve-in-kville]

I am tempted to post random train video clips in the threads that go off the rails. There is thread drift... and then there is total derailment

[MaxPC]

I am tempted to post random train video clips in the threads that go off the rails. There is thread drift... and then there is total derailment

[PetrChelcicky]

Well, I see that I went into the hornet's nest. But ...
I read Krehbiel's text thoroughly and I ask you to do the same:
""Yes, the lesson is that if you idealize a high-control sect of conservative and incestuous white Christians with violent disciplinary systems and promote them as moral exemplars with near-magical tools for self-governance in isolation from all the perceived ills of modernity, you can convince the Supreme Court, police departments, social workers and a sizable number of Americans that “freedom of religion” means denying children education and medical care and denying survivors of sexual and domestic violence access to life-saving services and safety nets."

"High control" and "disciplinary systems" are inevitable parts of every sect. "Incestuous" instead of endogamous is simply insolent. "White" should have nothing to do with all that, but in that kind of attack - and for the average MCUSA reader - it seems to be helpful. As for "violent", I don't exactly know what she hints at. Self-governance is imho a good thing, in spite of the negative undertone here. "Freedom of religion" has to be defended, not attacked. "Denying children education and medical care" means here "denying them the kind of education and medical care I, Stephanie Krehbiel, prefer" - but if it's a question between Krehbiel and the parents I'd leave the choice rather to the parents. About "denying access to life-saving services and safety nets" I can't judge and she doesn't try to explain what she's writing about (obviously she is miffed by a SCOTUS decision, but what exactly?)
As for "survivors" - I concede that someone can be called a survivor if he/she has been at the brink of suicide. But no more. As for missing "life-saving services" it would be interesting to study the frequency of suicides in Amish settlements.

Krehbiel's text might be the spontaneous rapture of a good person seething with momentaneous rage. But some of the invectives are too carefully calculated, like the formula "sect of conservative and incestuous white Christians" which tries to play the triggers of the MCUSA readers. Also the attack on SCOTUS and "freedom of religion" is out of context. We have to wait and see, but I expect that further attacks from other authors will follow. Then every reader here will have to decide, not about the Amish, but about "freedom of religion", "self-governance", the value of school education compared with family/work education etc.

[MaxPC]

Well, I see that I went into the hornet's nest. But ...
I read Krehbiel's text thoroughly and I ask you to do the same:
""Yes, the lesson is that if you idealize a high-control sect of conservative and incestuous white Christians with violent disciplinary systems and promote them as moral exemplars with near-magical tools for self-governance in isolation from all the perceived ills of modernity, you can convince the Supreme Court, police departments, social workers and a sizable number of Americans that “freedom of religion” means denying children education and medical care and denying survivors of sexual and domestic violence access to life-saving services and safety nets."

"High control" and "disciplinary systems" are inevitable parts of every sect. "Incestuous" instead of endogamous is simply insolent. "White" should have nothing to do with all that, but in that kind of attack - and for the average MCUSA reader - it seems to be helpful. As for "violent", I don't exactly know what she hints at. Self-governance is imho a good thing, in spite of the negative undertone here. "Freedom of religion" has to be defended, not attacked. "Denying children education and medical care" means here "denying them the kind of education and medical care I, Stephanie Krehbiel, prefer" - but if it's a question between Krehbiel and the parents I'd leave the choice rather to the parents. About "denying access to life-saving services and safety nets" I can't judge and she doesn't try to explain what she's writing about (obviously she is miffed by a SCOTUS decision, but what exactly?)
As for "survivors" - I concede that someone can be called a survivor if he/she has been at the brink of suicide. But no more. As for missing "life-saving services" it would be interesting to study the frequency of suicides in Amish settlements.

Krehbiel's text might be the spontaneous rapture of a good person seething with momentaneous rage. But some of the invectives are too carefully calculated, like the formula "sect of conservative and incestuous white Christians" which tries to play the triggers of the MCUSA readers. Also the attack on SCOTUS and "freedom of religion" is out of context. We have to wait and see, but I expect that further attacks from other authors will follow. Then every reader here will have to decide, not about the Amish, but about "freedom of religion", "self-governance", the value of school education compared with family/work education etc.

Petr, as always I find your thoughts a pleasure to read. On occasion I do not always understand your cultural perspective but in all, this was well elucidated. Spot on.

Likewise, I find the use of incestuous as a calculated effort to trigger emotional biases. Reading it again, it appears that the writing of Krehbiel mirrors most of the secular articles in msm which seem to promote bias instead of seeking truth. I do not know her personally, but it does seem to be indicative of a person who defaults to a popular secular view held by the Left. It seems, but hopefully she will see her error.

As an aside: There have been some interesting developments regarding public schools and their curricula. It seems that school districts are renewing efforts to offer a vocational curricular track. Some are quite similar to the curricula followed by various Anabaptist groups. Perhaps that aspect deserves a thread of its own so that Steve is not tempted to post a train video.

[PetrChelcicky]

One short answer to Sliceitup:
I have just read your linked article:
https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2005/02/ ... eople.aspx
From that I suppose that Krehbiel was miffed about the SCOTUS decision from 1972:
"In 1972, noting their "excellent record as law-abiding and generally self-sufficient members of society," the Supreme Court allowed the Amish to take their children out of school after eighth grade."
Krehbiel seeing school education as an adjustment to standard American values and complaining that Amish were allowed to stay unadjusted.
My interest in the matter is that people in general ought to keep the right to deviate from standard values and to form their own "subculture" or "parallel society". This is, for me, not a particular matter of the Amish, but a general matter.

I think that we can distinguish between two kinds of problems. Some problems are inherent in the idea of a subculture or a parallel society. In such cases leaving the community will inevitably be hard for both sides (the staying and the leaving), psychologically and often financially. But I think that is a price to be paid. (In fact, 10-15 % of each generation leave the Amish community; that's why I deny a general "coercion".)

The second kind of problems is not inherent in the idea of a subculture or parallel society. For example this type of incestuous rape is described often for isolated farmer homesteads here in Germany without a religious background. But it could not as easily happen with the Hutterites where families don't live that isolated, even if the Hutterites are ideologically not that much different from the Amish.
I am open to all proposals for solutions of those problems of the second kind. My personal impression is that the Amish (as described in this article) were too self-assured, believing that living in a next-to-holy community is a kind of shelter against sinful addictions. So there ought to more open speech about sins, addictions and what can be done about them, as a normal part of the human condition. (Women should not be left alone with some herbal medicine for to diminish their partner's sex drive.)