Althouse: The Amish hair- and beard-cutting trial: Is it a hate crime...

August 29, 2012

The Amish hair- and beard-cutting trial: Is it a hate crime...

... if they felt compassion and wanted to bring strayed Amish "back into the fold"?

43 comments:

The Crack Emcee said...: Fuck a hate crime:

They shouldn't have done it and should face the consequences.

Trying to keep somebody in that shit?

Give me a break,...; 8/29/12, 6:00 PM
Aridog said...: Damn...I knew Crack would beat me to it! :-0

This particular group of Amish under Mr Mullet is a cult, period, without exception. And that is by testimony of other Amish, to boot. The "sexual investigating" of other wives by Mssr Mullet should be a major clue, eh. A mini-Warren Jeffs if there ever was one.; 8/29/12, 6:11 PM
chickelit said...: Wouldn't the ruling/outcome have a bearing on those trying to paint Mitt Romney's teenage prank as a hate crime?; 8/29/12, 6:11 PM
Aridog said...: chickelit ... not necessarily. No more than Choom's history of breaking the law. Hell, or mine, for that matter.

Amish have a long history of perverse behavior in the USA, most of it kept to themselves. The idyllic image of happy old style agrarian farmers isn't terribly accurate. The communal value systems trump any family values.; 8/29/12, 6:21 PM
Aridog said...: The communal value systems trump any family values.

Let me re-state that...the strict Amish communal value system selfishly trumps family values and community values in the areas they inhabit. They are tolerated only because generally they only abuse their own kind.; 8/29/12, 6:24 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: The whole concept of "hate crime" is bogus. It presumes to know the criminal's emotional state during the commission of a crime. Could you prove the SS guards at Auschwitz hated Jews, or is it just possible they felt compassion while also feeling duty-bound to perform a inhuman task? They were guilty of multiple murders. It is not necessary to judge their level of hate.; 8/29/12, 6:28 PM
Michael K said...: It sounds like a religious freedom issue to me. Now if the victims wanted out of the Amish, that might be different.; 8/29/12, 6:35 PM
edutcher said...: It may be assault, but there's no such thing as a hate crime - or there shouldn't be.

It's the act that concerns the law, not the motivation, at least when the Lefties aren't running things.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

The whole concept of "hate crime" is bogus. It presumes to know the criminal's emotional state during the commission of a crime. Could you prove the SS guards at Auschwitz hated Jews, or is it just possible they felt compassion while also feeling duty-bound to perform a inhuman task? They were guilty of multiple murders. It is not necessary to judge their level of hate.

One of the great ironies of history is that the SS had the highest suicide, substance abuse, and mental crack-up rates of any military or paramilitary unit of the War.

There were those that got off on it, but many others couldn't live with the realization of what they were doing.; 8/29/12, 6:35 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: If hate crimes legislation exists, then it should be enforced. Equally.; 8/29/12, 6:46 PM
Aridog said...: Look, Amish want to be left alone...until they don't...like in this case. The pacifist front they portray is a fraud. Here you have some Amish who want federal assistance in justice within their own community...and the defendants who will assert it is all religious, not criminal behavior.

In the end, neither wish to adopt the values & responsibilities of ordinary citizenship...just those that suit a temporal purpose.; 8/29/12, 6:53 PM
Darrell said...: There is more to the story than you know.

It's about a girl being raped and and some people protecting the rapist, keeping him from being turned over to the legal authorities. The people that got their hair cut, voted against turning the creep over to the law, and against kicking the rapist out of the community. None of this is being told to cops/prosecutors.; 8/29/12, 7:02 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Then how do you know?; 8/29/12, 7:14 PM
Aridog said...: Darrell said...

It's about a girl being raped and and some people protecting the rapist...

Tip of the iceberg, as if rape and other violence is unusual in Anabaptist communities. There is violence against members, sanctioned, and "blessed", with silence enforced by shunning threat or worse.

In this group's case, it is out of hand, even by their perverse standards, so they want "Der English" to intervene.; 8/29/12, 7:17 PM
Darrell said...: The rapist was a member of a prominent family in the community. The people trying to do the right thing thought they had the vote to do so based on talking among themselves. Some people switched their vote and later, seemed to have new found friends in that family--jobs in their business, water rights/access long denied, and similar new benefits. They were the ones targeted first.; 8/29/12, 7:19 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Again, how do you know this?; 8/29/12, 7:21 PM
jr565 said...: IF what Darrell said is true, then would it still be a hate crime?; 8/29/12, 7:37 PM
Darrell said...: The second or third time Drudge covered this story, I clicked the link because the whole thing seemed silly, didn't make any sense. There were lots of comments on the story--pages. Almost all were snark directed at the Amish. One was from an eighteen year old that just left that community to live with a relative of her mother while she decided whether to come back and be a part. Her comment had names, dates, places not mentioned in the article on that page--details I Googled and they seemed to fit. More than that, it made sense--provided an explanation for what was happening.

No, I don't believe everything I read on the internet--in fact very little. But this was believable and saying that there is more to the story than has been told is not far-fetched in the least. But if you want to believe it's about a hair-cutting fetish, please do so. And if it makes sense for other Amish to cut someone else's hair when they follow the practices of the community themselves, go ahead.; 8/29/12, 7:45 PM
James Pawlak said...: The number of Blacks who select Whites as the victims of their crimes is many, many, times the reverse. Blacks as victims of White rapists are so few as to be statistically meaning less, which is most certainly not the reverse. (I have not been exposed to the same information as to Latinos and Whites, but suspect from local crime reports that the same holds true.)

It is obvious that the number of Gays and Bi-Sexual persons who infect others (And kill them) with AIDS/HIV is infinitely greater that the opposite.

In fact, most deadly and other serous assaults are within the same groups: Black on Black, Latino on Latino, Gay on Gay and White on White.

Hate crimes laws do two, very unfortunate, things:
1.Provide an irrational (ie Not based on facts) unequal protection of the law; And,
2. Cover up the failure of each group to change its own cultures towards civilized, law-abiding and life-respecting behavior---Rather than hiding under another "excuse" for bad behavior chiefly within, but also without, each such "minority group"; 8/29/12, 7:53 PM
Aridog said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/29/12, 8:07 PM
Aridog said...: Within the details of this hair cutting case are the allegations that Bishop Mullet "sexually counseled" the wives of his groups' men. Is that "Rape?" Is it "rape" if these women consented because not to consent would mean shunning at a minimum, and possibly beatings by other members...features also alleged for this group as an exercise of "religious" freedom.

Bullshit ... these people are cultists. Some have asked for intervention, so intervene and shut them all frigging down. Period. The "pacifist" image they cultivate is a fraud.; 8/29/12, 8:10 PM
Methadras said...: Why are you looking at it as a hate crime and when are you going to start categorizing crime as hatred incarnate to begin with. He could have cut my beard or hair (not that I have a beard) and that would be assault regardless of its intent.; 8/29/12, 8:18 PM
Methadras said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8/29/12, 8:21 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: The real danger of "hate" crimes is a phenomenon that is already happening to a frightening degree, especially on university campuses. That is the criminalization of speech. Speech that is considered offensive to a protected group is classified as criminal hate speech. It is a matter of law in Germany, where no one may express support for Naziism. No one should express support for Naziism, you say. Just beware that political tables turn, and today's perception of hate speech may not be tomorrow's. It may be yours.; 8/29/12, 8:51 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Aridog,

These people are cultists. Some have asked for intervention, so intervene and shut them all frigging down. Period. The "pacifist" image they cultivate is a fraud.

The dog said it! The dog said it!

I LOVE THAT FUCKING DOG!; 8/29/12, 8:55 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: Aridog,

These people are cultists. Some have asked for intervention, so intervene and shut them all frigging down. Period. The "pacifist" image they cultivate is a fraud.

Hey - Dog,

Pick another cult - Mormonism, Scientology, anyone you like - AND THEN SAY IT AGAIN!

Man's best fucking friend, I tell ya, Man's best fucking friend,...; 8/29/12, 9:01 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: "Is it a hate crime?"

More importantly, to paraphrase Oprah, is it HATE-hate?

Call in the Thought Police.; 8/29/12, 9:05 PM
jr565 said...: Aridog wrote:
Bullshit ... these people are cultists. Some have asked for intervention, so intervene and shut them all frigging down. Period. The "pacifist" image they cultivate is a fraud.

What is their crime? Riding their horse drawn carriages too fast? Guilty of being Amish?
Even if they are a cult, what did that cult ever do to you but not bother you.; 8/29/12, 9:17 PM
jr565 said...: By the way, the Amish are an offshot of Christianity and have been in existense for longer than this country has been in existense.; 8/29/12, 9:20 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: jr565,

Even if they are a cult, what did that cult ever do to you but not bother you.

That's what's wrong with you, right there:

They could kill an entire town and you'd still be standing there asking, "But what did they do to YOU?"

You're a callous, idiotic loser, jr,...; 8/29/12, 9:25 PM
BarryD said...: My wife considered my shaving off my goatee to be a hate crime. I only tried it once, then grew it back post haste.

Born an Xer, and will die an Xer, I guess.; 8/29/12, 10:00 PM
jr565 said...: Crack Emcee wrote:
They could kill an entire town and you'd still be standing there asking, "But what did they do to YOU?"

You're a callous, idiotic loser, jr,...

Right, because what we have to fear are the Amish going on rampages and killing people at movie theaters or killing entire towns.

Maybe during rumspringah..... (I kid).

And how are they now either a cult or new age?; 8/29/12, 10:00 PM
jr565 said...: Your use of the word cult is starting to get offensive frankly. It seems to mean, any religion or viewpoint which you don't like or understand. There is nothing remotely sinister about the Amish, unless you find complete pacifists who wear suspenders sinister. Yes they're different, but no more so than orthodox Jews, but a cult?
Ludicrous.; 8/29/12, 10:10 PM
BarryD said...: The dictionary is always a good thing to consult, before spouting off...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult; 8/29/12, 10:17 PM
jr565 said...: BarryD wrote:
The dictionary is always a good thing to consult, before spouting off...

Was that directed at me or Crack?
That's not the way Crack has been using cult. If you want to say use that definition, then please have Crack explain how Christianity, Judaism and Islam are not in fact cults. Because that is in fact what we have been asking him for the longest.
Crack has been arguing cults as something separate from the big three religions.Something sinister.
in other words, Romney is guilty of something becuase HE'S IN A CULT. If the argument is Romney is guilty of something because HE'S IN A RELIGION, then is the argument that all religions are sinister?; 8/29/12, 10:29 PM
jr565 said...: I think we need to get on the same page as to what definition we are using for what comprises a cult. Iyour definition, while accurate is not in fact what we are discussing when we are discussing cults. When many people (certainly Crack) argue against cults they are implying something sinsiter. The Mansons or the Scientologists would be a cult, but a muslim, jew or chrsitian would not.

Would you say that all religions from christianity to mormonism and scientiology and raelism are all cults?
Would Crack?; 8/29/12, 10:36 PM
jr565 said...: And if so then why would he have voted for Santorum, who has been described as too catholic for catholics. Is he not part of the biggest cult in this country (since all religions are in fact cults).; 8/29/12, 10:37 PM
jr565 said...: And if we use that definition then what does aridog mean when he says:
Bullshit ... these people are cultists. Some have asked for intervention, so intervene and shut them all frigging down. Period. The "pacifist" image they cultivate is a fraud.

Since all religions would be cults, then wouldn't be the argument that we should shut them all religion down (including christians, jews and muslims). Again, there seems to be a distinction made between a religion and a cult.; 8/29/12, 10:41 PM
Carnifex said...: To atheist all religion should be considered a cult. If by definition a cult exhibits abnormal behavior, and what could be more abnormal to an atheist the the belief in a supreme being.

Whether our resident expert on new ageism considers the main stream religions cults is for him to say not me.

As far as "hate" crimes, since it depends on one's ability to read minds, I think they need to be striken from the books. If you murder someone because they are a different color than you are they anymore dead than someone you murder for monetary gain? "Oh! You're a racist? Then the victim is twice as dead!"

I know it's asking a lot but can we have some modicum of logic in our laws? Just a smidgen? I'm not asking for a lot.; 8/29/12, 11:32 PM
The Crack Emcee said...: jr565,

Right, because what we have to fear are the Amish going on rampages and killing people at movie theaters or killing entire towns.

Leave it to you to limit my statement when you've defended every cult that's ever been mentioned - you never focus on those who are hurt, it's always "what have they done to YOU?"

I put up a bunch of cases last night when you made light of babies being killed - remember? Here, let me remind you:

The children are not safe! They are after your kids! No one is safe! It should be a horror movie.

Then, after I showed you it IS a horror movie - even parents killing their kids - what do you do? The same thing you did here, and go for the specific to the point of absurdity. Your "point" is always DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. Well, jr, as someone who had to suffer through not only a divorce and three deaths over this shit but also sick attitudes like yours, I DO WORRY ABOUT IT because you're ensuring people die alone, in isolation, with justice never being done many times. All you want to do is allow death, allow fraud, allow pain and destruction, like I haven't made it clear as bell every time you ask "WHAT'S THE HARM?" in a billion different ways.

Watch - you'll be back tomorrow, defending the indefensible and not caring that's what you're doing no matter what.

You're scum.; 8/29/12, 11:51 PM
Penny said...: :|

Don't make me spike your water with drugs, Crack!; 8/30/12, 12:15 AM
jr565 said...: Crack wrote:
Leave it to you to limit my statement when you've defended every cult that's ever been mentioned - you never focus on those who are hurt, it's always "what have they done to YOU?"

You made the point "They could kill an entire town and you'd still be standing there asking, "But what did they do to YOU?"

Except they wouldn't kill the whole town now would they. That would never happen. And what makes you think I would defend a cult killing an entire town? The point is though that you are attributing the crime of kiling an entire town to a bunch of pacifists who probably wouldn't even kill a mouse, and attributing cultism to them as if they exhibited that trait.
Is there no degree of cultism for you. Like a scale from "misguided but largely harmless" to "will kill the entire town dead" or are are the cults you mention the same?
Now the AMish are part of your cult fixation? Give me a break.

I put up a bunch of cases last night when you made light of babies being killed - remember? Here, let me remind you:
Except you make blanket statemetns about cults killing their kids in the abstract. What exactly am I supposed to be defending or not defenidng here? Wast hat point about faith healers? or homeopath? What kids? And for your info, there are many christians who similarly will assume that god will magically heal them so they don't have to go to a doctor. Is it stupid? Of course it is? But how is that specific to cults, and not crackpots in various religions? It's not a defense in either case, but simply pointing out your inconsistency.

I DO WORRY ABOUT IT because you're ensuring people die alone, in isolation, with justice never being done many times. All you want to do is allow death, allow fraud, allow pain and destruction, like I haven't made it clear as bell every time you ask "WHAT'S THE HARM?" in a billion different ways.
What are you Travis Bickle? YOu have to save the prostitute from the bad drug dealers and pimps? How am I ENSURING people die alone? I dont know these people? What do YOU propose to do? Force people to cease being Amish? What the hell are you talking about?
How about in the cases where (What you define as) cultish behavior (i.e. Amish people simply being Amish) DOESN"T result in the death of children? (Which is in fact the norm) and cults/religions simply exist. Must I accuse them of crimes that they haven't even committed simply because they are cults?
Again, we have Amish who drive buggies. CULTS who kill kids. And we have Manson family who carvce sharon Tate open and remove her baby. Insofar as most Amish people aren't sociopathic murderers, they shouldnt' have to answer for the crimes of Charles Manson, now should they.
But for you there is no degree of difference between ANY cult. They're all killers and brainwashers. Is it possible for you to contemplate that maybe an Amish person (not one killing kids mind you) might be happy being Amish, doens't feel he/she is brainwashed and doesn't need rescuing?
Who are you to tell others that they MUST escape?
For those that want to stop being Amish there should be no compulsion. Apostasy should not equal death (like in Islam which you define as a religion and not a cult) I'm not standing here telling people what they HAVE to believe. That's you.

I'm simply arguing that not all cults are the manson family. And not all cults are even cults as you define them.; 8/30/12, 12:22 AM
jr565 said...: Ok, so you link to the website "What's the harm?" and I'm trying to figure out what that really even has to do necessarily with cults per se. It's mixing a bunch of stuff together that really is unrelated.
For example, What does "Vampires" have to do with "Ayurvedic medicine" or "Astral Projection". Those believing in ayurvedic medicine probalby do not believe in Vampires. Very few people in fact do. Certainly the Amish and Scientoligist and probably The Manson family even, don't believe in vampires.

And some of that is pretty flimsy. For example, "Detoxification". Now, there are as many forms of detoxification formulas as there are diets. is every one of them going to give you kidney failure like the example of the lady who drank a ton of water? Most Detox programs don't in fact make you drink that much water, and much of what they say is the fault of detoxification is in fact negligence on the part of the doctor. But saying that somoene died while on a Narconon treatment doesn't mean that all detox programs are bad. It doesn't even necessarily mean that Narconon detoxification is bad, only that in this particular case, perhaps due to negligence someone died. (Note, I am not therefore saying that the treatment IS legitimate. Im just saying that it's not disproving what you think it is disproving".
Then there are the examples that have very little to do with th actual issue that its supposed to be debunking.

For example under the Heading "Metal Toxicity Fear" (what does that have to do with cultism?) there's the sad case of Jack piper:
Jack was subjected to a needless colonoscopy that perforated his bowel and left him gravely ill. This was alleged to be a treatment for his autism. The hospital publicly apologized and the doctors involved were investigated.
Was it the metal toxicity fear that killed him or the colonoscopy? Aren't colonscopies performed by actual doctors? Isn't that the REAL cause of his death? Maybe colonscopies should be added to this list.

If you ask me personally do I believe in things on that list, I would say probalby 90% is bunk. But even in the cases where I think it's bunk (like say astral projection) the idea that someone is hurt by it happens extremely rarely. Most astral projection doesn't take place in a sweat lodge and usually the worst that will happen to you is you will close your eyes and think you can do astral projection and your friends will laugh at you.

Finally, GPS navigation systems are on that page? Granted GPS isn't perfect, but I should be skeptical of GPS? Because I can walk around with my iphone and it tells me where I am most of the time. It's usuall not saying Im in Tibet. Why is that even on there linked with Vampires and Cults and Astral Projection?; 8/30/12, 1:03 AM
Aridog said...: jr565 ... But how is that specific to cults, and not crackpots in various religions?

I'll try to answer that for you. Simplest terms to me: "Crackpots in various religions" = Cults.

I commented on "all" of the group of 120 +/- renegade "Amish" under Mr Mullet in this case...but I'd apply it to any group expecting privilege not accorded everyone. The Amish tend to do that regularly, just less egregiously than this Bergholz group. Pretending it isn't so doesn't make it less egregious.

The minute the conduct within a purportedly "religious" group fails to comport with conventional conduct within the population as a whole, and in fact violates said conventional laws, then it is a cult. Period. When the non-conformity includes physical assault, as penance or observance, it is not a protected religious freedom. It is assault. Period.

Now when adherents to the non-conforming "religious" group expects, or demands, protection under the laws and codes of conduct of the general population, then they are demanding privilege versus rights. The "privilege" to behave abnormally while in the expectation of acceptance by the general population and actual protection thereby.

I'll take a temporary "pass" on "pacifists" per se...just for the moment, because I've never met any true western civilization pacifists. One is not a "pacifist" just because one refuses to go to war, but deigns to beat their wives and relatives, or sexually abuse same. No, that is a cult of cowardice, not religion. I'll take the pass, as I said, because in the far east I have met some true pacifists. Until I can reconcile the why of the differences, I'll be less antagonistic toward pacifism....but not much, because they still expect/demand protections by others like me for their conduct while being unwilling to share in the sacrifice.

BTW...I live in a 90% Muslim neighborhood and I've had this conversation vis a vis "religious freedom" with neighbors frequently. The fanatics, of course, disagree, but the large majority agree that in America they should conform to American standards of conduct and not expect privileges, including those involving physical abuse, not accorded everyone else. The large majority of them fled someplace where persecution was de rigueur. They understand "freedom" perhaps better than we native born? That said, there are few I'd trust with my back due to the cultism inherent in their religion per se...under peer pressure they'd likely cave to the cult.

The "freedom fighters" in Syria these days seem to feel the need to murder Christians, for example. Same thing in Egypt. Violence in the name of faith alone, compulsory adherences or face death, sexual abuses, are earmarks of a cult.

Skip the straw man arguments that infrequent screwballs are the exception. No they are not, they are motivated by a desire for acceptance within the cult peerage....and soon enough motivated by a desire for power within said peerage.

My own mother's "religion" had members who believed that black Africans became white as they became educated and enlightened. A fanatical member of that faith sits on the supreme Court of my state.

In summary, jr656, don't come at me with the Kumbaya of the 60's....I am from the 60's, my teenage and college years were to 60's....then in '68 I went off to fight the allies of my "progressive" peers back home, as they put it, met interesting people and killed some of them while they tried hard to kill me. Hare Krishna dancers in the airports didn't help a bit.; 8/30/12, 11:22 AM