A new twist in the Linda Stoltzfoos Kidnapping/Murder Saga

I wrote earlier about Linda Stotzfoos, who was kidnapped and murdered by a fellow member of the Mennonite community where she lived in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. There's a new chapter to the story: her murderer, Justo Smoker (a Costa Rican who had been adopted by a family in the Mennonite community), confessed to the murder, and as a condition of his plea arrangement he promised to show the authorities where he buried her body. This link probably won't be valid forever, but for now you can watch the authors of a new book on the story--Justo's relatives by adoption and marriage--tell how the event impacted them, and how it ties into the Nickel Mines hostage-murder.

Liberals, Conservatives, and Traditionalists

 I've been musing lately on a certain sociological phenomenon, that humanity (at least in the cultures with which I'm familiar) can be divided into three distinct categories. Now, whilst the categories are distinct, it's also a phenomenon that many people, and groups, can be placed into one category for one issue, and into yet another on a completely different issue, and that these positions can change over a generation, and over a lifetime. Now, the distinctions all relate to how people view change. Liberals embrace change, believing it by nature to be good; on the other end of the spectrum, traditionalist reject change, believing it by nature to be bad; and, in between, conservatives are reluctant to change, but do not resist it per se, realizing that it may result in an improvement, just not assuming so without testing it first. A conservative came up with these categories, so those in the other two camps may not agree that they even exist as described; being probably too close to the question to further describe one of the categories objectively, I'll just focus my detached objectivity on the others.

Liberals tend to confuse the other two categories, as the people within both categories will often line up on the opposite sides of an issue, and seem to be the same. But traditionalists will likewise confuse liberals with conservatives, as those two groups will often appear to line up on the opposite side, all depending in either case on whether the change in question has passed the testing and found the approval of the conservatives.

The labels themselves can also be problematic: traditionalists don't call themselves by that title, and even liberals often prefer a label like 'progressive'. So it's one thing to label the categories, and yet another to get people to accept the label that describes them best.

Another interesting thing is the instability seemingly inherent in two of these categories. One would think perhaps that traditionalists, who hold that no improvement is possible over the old ways, would have passed on that belief from ancient times. But it turns out that in many cases, today's traditionalists are less than a handful of generations removed from liberal who got tired of stridently proclaiming that every new thing was by its very nature an improvement over the old, decided to give the pendulum a nudge back toward the other side of the spectrum, and didn't know when or how to stop its momentum. And many liberals are but one or two generations removed from traditionalists who had made a similar decision, just in the other direction. Apparently few can long endure a residence on either edge of the spectrum; excepting those few, and of course the many for whom the pendulum has happily found rest at the bottom of the arc, all are on the move, across any given generation, in one direction or the other.

I have seen this happen over the past generation with the licensing of homosexual relationships, which has become official government policy in the USA, and indeed throughout most of the world, only within the past decade. For a long time before that it was becoming more widely acceptable to liberals, at least in theory, being part of the preference for change which their category demands. But once the public policy debate was over, and it actually began to happen, many liberal Christians found that they didn't really want to be that liberal after all—that here was one issue on which they did align more with the conservatives and traditionalists. Thus a split began between those liberals holding tight to that end of the spectrum, and those liberals (for now) who wanted to nudge things back in the other direction, and that division continues to this day among the large denominations in America. One may be tempted to think by this that some sort of revival is afoot, but it's more likely just revealing a sociological axiom at work.

A Petition from the Church to Donald Trump--or is it?

Here is the stunning transcript of a video available on Youtube. I provide the relevant part:

Hello everybody! Welcome back to another episode of Anabaptist Perspectives. We're here in Boston, Massachusetts at Sattler College. We're with Dean Taylor. You're the president of the college here. We're in your office, and you did a lecture on this earlier this year that really caught our attention, and we wanted to talk to you about that and and see if we can hit some of those high points. So, during that lecture you said—and it was obviously rhetorical just kind of make a point—you read a petition to our president Donald Trump. Can you just read that and then explain kind of what you're getting at there and then how that all ties in with with parts of our Mennonite history.

 Alright. Well excellent. OK. I'll start with a letter, and then I'll explain what I was thinking. Sure. OK. The idea was, it was bringing out that, you know, there's been a lot of, you know, negative things against the president, and, you know, we know we're supposed to pray for our president and pray and the government, and so the idea, you know, that all these attacks on the president that we should say something. But, in that, I wanted to make a point though because I was... what I was feeling was that too many of our people are imbibing—they're taking on this whole way of thinking of the current presidency, and that's very scary. So I wrote this petition. Here it goes.

To the president, Donald Trump:

We, the conference of Anabaptists, assembled today in Shipshewana and the free state

of Indiana, feel deep gratitude for the powerful revival that God has given our

nation's through your energy and promises joyful cooperation and the

upbuilding of our fatherland through the power of the Gospel, faithful to the

motto of our forefathers, "No other foundation can anyone lay than that

which is laid which is Jesus Christ." With greatest excitement, we are following the

events of our beloved country and experienced in spirit the national

revolution of the American people. We are happy that, in America, after a long time,

a government that freely and openly professes God as creator stands at the

head of the nation. With special sympathy, we hear that the

government takes seriously the realization of Christian principles in

social, economic, and cultural life, and especially emphasizes the protection of the family.

And signed the conference that I was with]. 

So, the point that I was

making is that, with just a couple words changed, that was a telegram—

that was sent from the Mennonites of Germany to Adolf Hitler. 

Another One Gone

2020 is turning out to be an annus horribilus in many ways, one of which is the news that yet another kidnapping/rape/murder* has apparently occurred to a Mennonite girl who was supposedly under the protection of her head covering. To add to her indignity, the one photo the police was able to acquire of Amish teen Linda Stoltzfoos was 'rumspringa-progressed' to show her without the church attire she was wearing when she went missing, in 'street clothes' and with her hair down--showing their reluctance to admit to the possibility that she had in fact been kidnapped, rather than just running away on her way home from church to change her clothes--showing their woefully inadequate understanding of Amish culture.
Someone has suggested, tongue in cheek, that the head covering may have a similar magical quality as that found in Sampson's hair--that is, one is powerless to abuse a girl so long as she remains covered, but if he can in any way get the covering off her, she's fair game. I don't think that theory will hold any water in Linda's case. She appears to have come under Justo Smoker's power while still fully dressed in her church outfit.

The magical piece of cloth just isn't working.

UPDATE AUGUST 24: More information has been disclosed in both of these kidnapping cases. It turns out that Sasha Krause was tied up and beaten, then shot in the head--and both her underwear and her head covering removed and kept as trophies--but the autopsy indicates she died a virgin. That must be some comfort to her family--and may even strengthen their belief in the magic piece of cloth. In Linda Stoltzfoos' case, she has not been recovered, but some of her underclothing was found buried in the woods--indicating that she could have been raped; there was no sign of her head covering.

The Magic Piece of Cloth

The abduction and murder of Sasha Marie Krause has raised an issue that comes up every time something like this occurs: What About Her Protection?
Conservative Mennonites (CM) have many beliefs and practices that set them apart from the general population. Shasha's family, for example, doesn't use social media. But unlike most Amish, they are okay with photos--thus we have a good idea of what Sasha looked like and how she dressed. Visible in every photo of her is the headdress that conservative Mennonites refer to as a veiling, also commonly called a head covering. A CM woman would not think of appearing in public without being covered, based on a belief that, when you come right down to it, treats it is a sort of talisman. Young conservative Mennonites reading Sunday School literature are regaled with tracts, tales, and poems about harm that DIDN'T come a Mennonite woman's way because of her Covering.
What isn't talked about so much is that sometimes, even doing everything right isn't enough. Mennonite girls wearing the most modest clothes possible, and a covering that barely even reveals their hair color, still suffer from the occasional rape and murder. If that Covering is a magic piece of cloth, it doesn't appear to be completely effective.
Sasha appears to have been specifically targeted for abduction. Who knows what was going through the mind or minds of the person or persons who made off with her so suddenly? But if they thought anything about her modest attire, it was probably how easy it would be to remove, once they had her in their control. And since CM girls are raised to submit to the authority of men--the covering itself is supposed to serve as testimony of that--they actually make rather easy pickings for predators who get them in their sights.
Will conservative Mennonites continue to  teach their children the doctrine of the Covering as Protection? Or will they bow to the reality that it's not a magic piece of cloth?

UPDATE May 16: It's been commonly reported that Mark Gooch, and now his brother Samuel, have been arrested in connection with her murder, with at least one other family member involved. What isn't so well known is that the Gooch family has past relations with the Conservative Mennonites, and that Mark has a known animosity against them. Thus it's pretty clear that she WAS targeted, at least in part, due to her head covering--which is part of the evidence against Mark: he did indeed rip it off her and it was recovered in his possession.

UPDATE May 20: As reported elswhere, it's apparent that Sasha was only murdered, not raped. Did her head covering perhaps tip the balance in that direction? CM women aren't taking any chances.

Myron on Mennonite Modesty

I've written earlier on the Mennonite Modesty Mishap and Misplaced Mennonite Modesty. Myron Horst (aka Hurst) is writing a book about Mennonite modesty. Yesterday he posted a long comment to a blog, excerpting his book, which I reproduce here as I found it, without comment.
--------------------------------------
    Myron Horst April 16, 2015 

    Thank you for addressing the subject of "modesty". I'm sorry you had to be affected by this wrong teaching. It is something that your parents were deceived about and that I was also deceived about. I am going to share several excerpts on modesty from the book I am writing about the Amish and Mennonites. While it addresses these groups, it applies to ATI, Patriarchy, Vision Forum, and other "dresses only" groups.

    The Bondage of the Term “Modest”
    The modesty doctrine of the Great Amish and Conservative Mennonite Dress Experiment has been a complete failure in protecting girls from sexual abuse. There is not a major difference in the sexual abuse rate between conservative, modestly dressed girls and girls who dress according to what the dress experiment calls the immodest dress of the world. If anything, the dress experiment “modest” dress is actually more “immodest” because the regulation dress and everything that goes with it makes girls more vulnerable to sexual abuse than the “immodestly” dressed girls in the rest of society.

    “Modesty” is not a concrete, clearly defined concept, but is open to a wide range of opinions about what is modest and what is not. Total nudity in public is a God-given shame that a person, Christian or non-Christian, usually tries to avoid. One of the places God tells us about the shame of nudity is in Revelation 3:18: “I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.” But beyond nudity, a person’s conscience of how much of the body must be covered in order to be modest tends to defined by those who one is influenced by. There is a very wide range of opinions among professing Christians about what is modest and appropriate and what is not.

    Jesus has not defined what is modest or what is immodest. Mennonite churches have attempted to regulate modesty, feeling that the Bible alone is inadequate on the subject and that husbands and fathers cannot be trusted to regulate it in their own home. Modesty is a concept that is drilled into conservative Mennonite women. They are made to feel guilty and responsible if a man were to look at them in any way sexually. Jesus on the other hand, puts the responsibility on a man for his lust.

    Part of the failure of the Conservative Dress Experiment is because it is based in part on Old Testament Law. Among the Amish and conservative Mennonites, the women have been required to wear dresses, based upon the church’s interpretation of one command that was handpicked out of the Old Covenant Law (even though Christians are no longer under the Old Covenant Law). “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.” Deuteronomy 22:5...

    What is ironic about Amish and conservative Mennonite “modest” women’s dresses is that in addition to not preventing men from lusting after girls and women, the dresses with their open bottom hem are an open door that allows easy access for perverts and sexual molesters to quickly do their wicked deeds without fully undressing their victim. Is a dress safe? Is a cape dress really modest with its double layer at the top and an open door at the bottom? Can a dress really be labeled as modest for a young girl to wear? Little girls have great difficulty keeping their dresses down and end up showing their underwear at times. It is young girls and teens that are the ones most likely to be sexually abused.

    A friend of ours, who did not grow up in a Mennonite home, told us that she was taught growing up that dresses were immodest. When I first heard it, I was surprised because it was the opposite of what I had been taught growing up. In reality, dresses are actually more “immodest” than pants. On the internet there are a number of testimonies of women who have been sexually abused who feel very uncomfortable wearing dresses. Addressing the question about why women don’t wear dresses anymore, is this answer: “Some women may have had bad experiences with wearing skirts or dresses, since a lot of them may have been sexually assaulted in the past (direct or indirect), a skirt or dress does invite molesters to unlawfully play down there.”
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110913162555AAfIs6J
    Myron Horst April 16, 2015 
    continued:
    ...Trudy Metzger says this about the blame and responsibility that the conservative church puts on the women and girls:
    “Boys wore normal clothes and acted like nothing happened when they violated us. We were stuck in homemade dresses, giving males easy access, and still the bulk of responsibility fell on us. When they violated us, it was because we must have behaved in a sensual manner, dressed inappropriately, or perhaps flirted with them. They couldn’t help their sex drive and if only we would behave right and dress right, we would protect them.

    “How ironic. In a male-dominant culture, where men were portrayed to be the godly leaders, the strong ones, they were not required to be men at all. All they had to do was cry, “she asked for it” and the onus was on us. And even if they didn’t cry it, that was a given. There was nothing of teaching young men and boys to honor, respect, love and protect a woman. Nothing of saying, ‘if you find her naked, be man enough to cover her and protect her’.”
    http://trudymetzger.com/2012/07/11/sexual-abuse-violence-introduction/

    Trudy’s words, “if you find her naked, be man enough to cover her and protect her”, gives new meaning to what Jesus said in Matthew 25:41-46 when you look at it in the context of sexual abuse, “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.”

    It is a Christian man’s responsibility to protect those who are least able to protect themselves – children - from sexual abuse. If a man exposes a child’s nakedness and sexually abuses the child, he saw or felt their nakedness and did not cloth them. He has Jesus to answer to. Jesus views the sexual abuse of a child as the same as an attack on Him – “I was… naked and ye clothed ME not”. Jesus knows what the sexual abuser has done, even if the church doesn’t. This can be a real comfort for anyone who has been sexually abused. Even if no one else has stood up for you (the victim) Jesus has. He has felt your pain and defilement, and the perpetrator WILL suffer the consequences – everlasting punishment unless he/she repents.

    The guilt that conservatives have placed on women in the area of modesty, and the hypocrisy by which women are judged are paralleled by the conservatives in Jesus’ day. The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman that they claimed they had caught in the very act of adultery. What is conspicuously missing is the man who should also have been caught in the very act of adultery if it really was adultery. The woman was being tried for committing a sin, but not the man. Many sexually abused women in Amish and Mennonite groups can identify with this woman. They feel like they too are the ones that were tried by their Amish or Mennonite church leaders, and the men who sexually abused them are not. “And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, they say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:3-11)

    The conservatives, the Pharisees, treated the woman as if she had committed adultery all by herself. It is similar to the way Amish and Mennonite women are treated in the modesty issue. Modesty is treated as if a woman could commit adultery all by herself by dressing “immodestly”. Women are judged for dressing “immodestly” without proof that a man has looked on them and committed adultery with them in his heart.

    Knowing how the Pharisees made up rules and went to extremes in expanding God’s commands, I have to wonder if the adultery that the conservative Pharisees were accusing the woman of committing was a manmade “sin” that they called adultery and was not sin at all, similar to the Amish and Mennonite manmade sin of “immodesty” that they hang over women’s heads. Several clues that it probably was not the true sin of adultery are that there was no man involved, and Jesus did not condemn or rebuke her for what she had done. Whatever the case, there is a strong parallel between the way the Pharisees judged this woman and the way many Amish and conservative Mennonites judge women in the areas of modesty and sexual abuse.

    (there is much more that could be said but I will stop there)

Indiana Revival Report: Days 29 & 31

In my last post, I mentioned that there wasn't much to report on the Amish Bishops Meeting of Day 29 (2/9). Since then, I've received a bit of secondhand information on what went on--which isn't enough to form a clear picture, but way more that what has been shared so far from up front in the meetings. Since it isn't being reported anywhere else, I guess I'll go ahead, for the sake of my readers, and disclose an outline of what I've heard so far--subject to correction from eyewitnesses.

To begin with, no Amish bishops actually attended--despite every one in the area having received a written invitation. Although some concerned ex-Amish who hadn't been invited showed up, the only actual Amish who came were those already involved in Revive Indiana [CORRECTION: one uninvolved Amish minister came]. The building instead was half-filled with pastors from Revive-associated churches; I don't know what they were thinking, to stack the deck so much that even if 10% of the invited Amish leaders had showed up, they would have been outnumbered by the English.

A Black pastor in attendance publicly rebuked the Time to Revive leadership for the style of music which has characterized the meetings so far--electronic worship music with a heavy beat, right in the style of the sponsoring megachurches, but totally incompatible with the Amish lifestyle and conservative values. There has been no attempt to tone it down over the course of the first 5 weeks, and Day 31 even featured an electronically backed-up "Christian rapper" on the stage.

There's no questioning that the musical component so far appears to be attracting far more than it is repelling--Wednesday night's turnout at Maple City Chapel was over 3000, with another 400 watching from a satellite location in Topeka, usually used to tune in to services of Nappanee Missionary Church. But it's just possible that this was the week that Revive Indiana jumped the shark. Or, the significance of the Monday meeting may turn out to be that it began to change the direction of the revival to the prophesied new level of praise and worship.


This list of prophecies delivered at Maple City Chapel in 2014 was published during Week Two:
1. Many people will ask, "What is going on?"
2. Cities will be stirred up.
3. Churches will be cleansed and realigned with the will of the Father
4. The Holy Spirit will glorify Jesus by His supernatural works, and the gospel will be furthered
5. Some will be offended by the move of God.
6. Praise and worship will go to another level.

A group will be skipping Saturday night's meeting to pray for the revival [UPDATE: Saturday night's meeting was more or less canceled due to a snow emergency].

There's been a lot of interest in this post, and word continues to filter in about what happened. On Day 41, Kyle finally admitted that only 2 ministers had shown up (one of whom, we know, has been involved with REVIVE all along). But it also turns out that 3 people showed up who hadn't been invited: two ex-Amish, and a missionary to the Amish who started a church of Amish who were excommunicated for fellowshipping with him (the very charge for which Dennis Miller, the instigator of the whole Revive INDIANA project, was finally excommunicated). Their presence there seems to be more significant than that of the two Amish, neither of whom spoke; two of the non-invitees, however, spoke at length.

Indiana Revival Report: Day 30

Jackie came Monday night, along with her husband Dean, her mom, and most of her district staff. I didn't realize she was so tall--and Dean is even taller. She rearranged her weekly return to Washington so she could take in at least one night of the Revival. And of course she was given a chance to share. She warned that she may break out in tears, and she did. She focused on her former missionary service in Romania, and the chances she has to pray with--or for--world leaders, especially those in the Middle East. She mentioned that Israel is America's best ally, and that "those who have read Ezekiel, Daniel, and Revelation know how the story ends." Again, several pastors prayed over her. It's interesting that despite the egalitarian flavor of this movement, prayers of a rather different sort went up for "the Walorskis." There was a lot of focus on their marriage being strong despite the weekly separations. I suspect we'll begin to hear from some more local politicians before too long.

Monday was the first night of broadcasting in Spanish over WLDC, so, appropriately enough, a Hispanic pastor spoke. She was also the first female pastor so far to take to the pulpit. A man served as her interrupter, so from an English perspective at least, he delivered the written sermon.

And half the 'worship team' was of color, so the racial barrier is pretty much missing in action at Revive Indiana.

The local NBC affiliate gave detailed coverage on their 11:00 report--run supposedly because it was a slow news day, but of course this was the biggest local news item of the week. They interviewed Kyle, a sponsoring local pastor, and a high schooler who was an early instigator of the Skip for Jesus program. And news came in that yet another high school, not even in Elkhart or LaGrange County, has already approved a skip day for March Forth.

The meeting at 4:30 Monday with an assemblage of Amish bishops, ministers, and deacons (0ver 600 were invited) didn't yield any explosive results so far, but just the fact that even a few did show up to dialog with the Revive team was significant. [NOT QUITE--see next post]

I wrote earlier that Monday mornings aren't all that well attended. Not so yesterday--over 200 showed up.

Things show no sign of winding down, and there's a lot of talk about how we are going to keep this revival going long after the 52 days have come to an end. Next week, Revive Tupelo kicks into high gear--without the Revive team, who are all busy here in Indiana. A major focus there is healing between the races.

One humorous note--Kyle hardly ever lets a day go by without managing to work in a 'shameless plug' for his parents' Ace Hardware store in Middlebury.

Indiana Revival Report Day 27

Well, the 52 Days of Prayer are now half over, but the Revival continues to go strong. WFRN has been carrying all 2 hours of the evening services, pre-empting Adventures in Odyssey. Now the Spanish station is Elkhart will begin carrying the simultaneous translation. More and more people are driving in. Hundreds are still going out every Saturday, with fewer on the weekdays, especially Monday. Dozens of churches have canceled their Wednesday evening programming for the duration, making Wednesday one of the biggest turnouts for the evening service.

Since all the evening services are held in a Mennonite church, it's a bit ironic that they often feature baptisms in a tank of water on the platform (Mennonites don't baptize, they sprinkle).

Congressman Marlin Stutzman was part of the program Saturday night. He first shared his heart that the Revival would spread throughout the country, then had hands laid on him by pastors representative of the community (even an Amish minister!), who fervently prayed that he would be God's man in Washington.

A young lady who had been in a wheelchair with Lyme disease since October came from Lansing, MI, hoping to be healed. Kyle wasn't available at the time, but bystanders encouraged her to stand up and offered a prayer of healing. The former cripple got up out of her wheelchair and walked around without pain. This sort of thing is becoming commonplace.

The final day has been entitled March Forth, with details to follow. It will be a grand finale to the 52 days.

Monday will be another crucial day. Details to follow.

The Mennonite Modesty Mishap

I've earlier written about misplaced Mennonite modesty, but here comes a whole book on it, as excerpted in this blog post by a former Conservative Mennonite. I quote:

Biblical Mennonite Alliance (BMA) was the Mennonite conference that our family had been a part of before God told our family to leave the Mennonite church a number of years ago. BMA was started in 1998 because of the liberal drift of Conservative Mennonite Conference and other Mennonite groups. Their goal was to be the most Biblical Mennonite group, hence their name Biblical Mennonite Alliance. BMA’s motto was "The Bible plus nothing, and the Bible minus nothing".

The modest, conservative dress of these young girls did not protect them from the sexual advances of this man. The conservative modest dress did not help this man to control himself as we were taught in the Mennonite church that it would. What is significant is that this man did not fall into adultery with an adult; instead it was perversion with young girls.

It is significant that those who take advantage of girls in such a situation are always those who are the most strident in their demands that they dress modestly.

What can be done to rid conservative churches (whether they be Mennonite, Independent Baptist, or Family Centered) of this curse? There is only one solution: take off the heavy lid and expose the wickedness:

Then a lead cover was lifted, and there was a woman sitting inside the basket. “This is Wickedness,” he said. He shoved her down into the basket and pushed the lead weight over its opening. --Zechariah 5:7-8 HCSB

Hershberger did not have natural affection, but was sexually attracted to these "modestly" dressed young girls. He knew the judgment of God, but he did it anyway. God had given him over to a reprobate mind to do that which was not convenient.

Sadly, BMA did not follow the Bible in publicly rebuking their conference leader for his sin of sexual abuse. They covered it up and quickly scrubbed their website of Art Hershberger’s name and his leadership within the conference. They put other names in its place.  

The biblical model is to first expose the wickedness to the full light of day before deleting it. Who will do it?

The Amish have returned to Nebraska

In earlier posts I wrote about the Nebraskan legislature running resident Amish out of the state--but according to this data, they're moving back:

Map: U.S. counties with extant Amish settlements as of 2010,  Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies.


Amish communities are spreading at the rate of nearly 15 a year. Since they need lots of land to live on, that means emigrating to wherever land is cheap and Amtrak routes (red lines on the map) or bus lines allow them to get back home to visit. Or to return, if things get too hot for them in their new home.

The two Nebraskan counties now recording Amish residents are directly to the East and South of the beleaguered town of Monowi, now only one obituary away from becoming a ghost town.

So, there may be hope for Monowi. Once its last residence dies and the tavern closes down, don't be surprised if an Amish community buys out the whole town and turns the former tavern into a bent-and-dent bulk food store.

First they came for the Amish . . .

In an earlier post on the topic of Amish persecution, I wrote:

Increasing government regulation and a growing tax burden make it virtually impossible to stave off starvation following 19th century farming methods--and totally impossible were one to attempt a reprise of the 18th century.

There are a number of websites that provide a history of just one area in which the Amish have suffered persecution, that of refusing to submit to the Social Security safety net.

This website gives a timeline, showing how the government noose was gradually drawn around the Amish over the course of twenty years:

1937: Payments were directly garnished from paychecks and distributed for the first time. Initially there were no conflicts because it did not include farmers, and almost all Amish are farmers. Originally it was far from all inclusive.

1950: From inception there was debate, but it wasn’t until 1950 that domestic labor (household employees working at least two days a week for the same person) were added. At the same time nonprofit workers and the self-employed began to be included as well.

1954: Hotel workers, laundry workers, all agricultural workers, and state and local government employees were added. Although not all states elected to be included. (Derry Brownfield recalls working for the state of Missouri and not contributing to Social Security because the state had its own program) This is the start of the problem the Amish had with the program. It was unclear with the wording of the act whether it was a tax or an insurance, and was described as both at various points in the bill. The Amish community decided that it would not take part in the benefits (not believing in insurance) and therefore should not have to pay the premiums.
According to Amish beliefs, insurance is not needed and is disrespectful to God. They firmly believe in taking care of themselves, their neighbors, and the fact that God will provide.  When the Social Security Act was extended to include them (as farmers) in the 1950′s they immediately protested and refused to voluntarily pay. As a result of this protest the IRS began directly garnishing their bank accounts.

This website gives more details of the persecution:

As usually happens in these matters, it is one case that tends to catapult the situation into the public eye. That case would be the collection of payments from Valentine Byler, an Amish farmer living near New Wilmington, in western Pennsylvania. 
By 1959, Valentine Byler owed four years of IRS taxes. The IRS added the interest owed and came up with a total of $308.96.
Byler explained that his religion forbid paying insurance. When he was told that this was a mere technicality and that it was indeed a tax, he apparently replied, "Doesn’t the title say Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance?"
The IRS had tried to levy Valentine’s bank account, but he had none. In 1960, after refusing a summons to appear in court, he was cited for contempt and brought to the Pittsburgh U.S. District Court. According to a Reader’s Digest article, the judge "angrily demanded of the IRS agents, ‘Don’t you have anything better to do than to take a peaceful man off his farm and drag him into court?’ " The case was dismissed.
But the IRS was undaunted and, according to its own press release, this is what happened next on April 18, 1961...
Since Mr. Byler had no bank account against which to levy for the tax due, it was decided as a last desperate measure to resort to seizure and sale of personal property.
It was then determined that Mr. Byler had a total of six horses, so it was decided to seize three in order to satisfy the tax indebtedness. The three horses were sold May 1, 1961 at public auction for $460. Of this amount, $308.96 represented the tax due and $113.15 represented the expenses of the auction sale, including feed for the horses, leaving a surplus of $37.89 which was returned to the taxpayer.
The Byler case, like all others in the same category, presents an unpleasant and difficult task for the Internal Revenue Service... We have no other choice under the law.
Valentine was literally in his field with his team of horses doing some work prior to spring plowing when his horses were seized.  
Immediately after the seizure and sale, the Pittsburgh IRS Chief of Collections responded he was unaware of the plowing situation. "Plowing never occurred to me. I live in an apartment." He was furthermore quoted as saying, "We don’t ask people their race or religion when we administer the tax laws. People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes."

Notice that these same words are now being used to draw the noose, already drawn tight around the necks of the Amish, around the necks of every Christian organization with employee benefits, short of an actual congregation:

I was saying that according to CA state law, they have no right to use their religion as an excuse to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (among other things.)

This, in regard to the 'right' of a lesbian couple to 'conceive' a child at the employer's expense.

"That person is not going to get on an airplane," Pistole said in response to a question from Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., on whether the TSA would provide exemptions for passengers whose religious beliefs do not allow them to go through a physically revealing body scan or be touched by screeners.

This, in regard to a person's right to modesty when using public air transportation.

For all intents and purposes, the Catholic Church is trying to claim exemption from a law passed for non-religious reasons with a religious excuse.
This specific line of thinking was actually shot down by the Supreme Court in 1990 . .  when the Supreme Court found that two Native-Americans could be fired from their jobs [with cause] for ingesting peyote, even though they did so for religious purposes. In other words, they could not use religion as an excuse to ingest peyote.

This, in regard to Congress' ability to restrict the free exercise of an ancient religion when it clashed with federal drug laws.

So, everything now being said about not being allowed to use religion as an excuse to actually practice one's religion in a newly illegal manner was already said about the Amish back in the 1950's. It took fines, confiscations, and even imprisonments before the Amish won back the free exercise of their religion which had been prohibited by Congress and lesser legislatures. It's important to note that these battles were won both legislatively (in the case of the Medicare Act) and judiciously (in the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder). But they were never secured until they were once lost, and those who exercised them nonetheless brutally punished.

In conclusion, therefore, those currently suing the federal government against enforcement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act should learn a lesson from history: only after losing this initial round, and going through the entire process of petitioning for redress of grievances, losing the petition, and suffering for continuing the free exercise of their religion to the point that a public outcry forces either Congress or the Courts to retract, should they expect to be able to reattain the status quo.

But let them be forewarned: even the Amish continue to be drawn further into the Matrix, where the freedom to actually practice their religion becomes more and more of an illusion. To illustrate this, I must needs debunk information offered on this website: http://www.frugalconfessions.com/taxes/do-the-amish-pay-taxes.php

I note here that even the author of "Do the Amish Pay Taxes?" has little clue of just how much has changed just since her information was current. For example:

The most obvious example is the building and maintaining of roads. The cost of this is paid for mainly through gas taxes, revenue from driver’s licenses, and money collected through tolls. While the Amish do not pay these consumption taxes, they do use roads and bridges to drive their horse and buggies on.

Au contraire. The Amish do pay gasoline taxes, not only directly for their generators, but indirectly through the hire of van drivers. Furthermore, they are increasingly saddled, on the state level, with the burden of paying commercial insurance on the vans their drivers use to carry them around. Needless to say, their drivers also pay all related tolls.

The Amish pay income tax just like the rest of us Englishmen (that’s what they call Americans who are not Amish), and they also take any qualifying Child Tax Credits worth up to $1,000 per child.

Ah, but this they are able to do only if they've enrolled their children in the Social Security system--the right to exemption therefrom having essentially lost only three decades after receiving it. And the tax credits were originally applicable only to the first one or two registered children--although that number has tended to increase in recent years as Congress concentrates on 'soaking the rich.'

The Amish do not collect unemployment, social security, or welfare benefits because doing so would be against their religious beliefs.

Yes, but. Amish cannot legally discriminate by religion, so some end up hiring non-Amish employees. They must pay Employment Tax on these, as well as serving as the Tax Man to garnish FICA 'contributions' from their pay. Furthermore, many Amish own stores, which in most cases requires them to collect sales taxes as well.

While some Amish make money from selling tobacco, they do not purchase cigarettes because they are viewed as ‘worldly’. This means that they do not pay taxes on cigarettes. Other ‘sin’ taxes not paid by the Amish are for alcohol. . . .

Well, it turns out that Amish youth--those not yet official members of the church--are in fact heavy users of both alcohol and tobacco. Joining the church doesn't automatically cure them of these addictions, either. So, the Amish community as a whole pays quite a bit into these tax funds.

Amish and cameras

 The prosecution of Vernon Hershberger  has resulted in us being able to see a change in Amish culture happening before our very eyes.

It's often thought that the Amish live like they did 200 years ago, when in actuality most Amish don't even live like they did 20 years ago. Increasing government regulation and a growing tax burden make it virtually impossible to stave off starvation following 19th century farming methods--and totally impossible were one to attempt a reprise of the 18th century. So the Amish continue to adapt to the changes that modern life demands--they just do it carefully, as a congregation, under the guidance and mutual consultation of their bishops.

Thus it is that we now see Vernon Hershberger, a Wisconsin dairy farmer, posting videos of himself and his Amish leaders on the Internet. It's all part of a desperate attempt to keep the government from shutting down his livelihood, and the Amish in general are all for it. If it takes overturning a 150-year-old ban on allowing oneself to be recognizably photographed, so be it--when the only alternative is starvation. It's just one more in a long string of concessions that the Amish have had to make to keep their family farms in the face of an encroaching and increasingly unfriendly government.

UPDATE:
For centuries, Amish dealt with the heavy hand of government by moving away; this trend continued up until 1946, when the Reformed Amish fled Adams County, Indiana to avoid forced public education. But hardly 20 years later, we see the Amish running out of places to run to. The watershed moment seems to have come in 1969, when the Ontario Milk Marketing Board required all dairy farms in the province to sell their milk from bulk tanks cooled by electricity. Some Amish moved back across Ontario's porous southern border to states where Grade B milk could still be sold for cheese; this is a major reason why every sizable Amish community in the US contains a cheese factory. But some were tired of moving, and didn't want the hassle of registering for America's Vietnam-era draft. So they stayed put, and purchased generators to power their new bulk tanks. Had they seen what the future would hold 40 years down the road, they may have taken their stand then, and refused to comply with the new law. 

For now, in addition to using their generators in the milk barn, Amish use them to power washing machines, electric shavers, photocopiers, and even cell-phone battery chargers. Electric lights, powered by car batteries, are even replacing the kerosine lamps of yesteryear. And operating a dairy farm by generator is hardly feasible in today's factory-farm economy. This is why Amish like Vernon Hershberger have turned to the direct-to-consumer market, which craves small-farm raw milk. But alas, though it be economically profitable, it is as illegal as ever. If the Amish in Wisconsin can't get this law overturned, at least some of them are going to move to a state where they will be free to practice their religion. Those who stay will increasingly lose the distinctions that make them Amish.

See this later post for more on the topic.

Revolt of the lesser magistrate: It's happening in Indiana

Brad Rogers, a "stealth candidate" in the 2010 election, won a stunning upset primary victory for the open seat of county sheriff over his boss, the assistant sheriff. His first priority was "changing hearts and minds for inmates and transitioning them back to the community successfully, thereby reducing recidivism" at the Elkhart County Jail where he had been Commander. Time will tell if and when that goal is reached, but in the meantime, Brad Rogers has made a name for himself in patriotic circles as one of the first local government officials in his state to send federal agents packing.

Roger’s Sheriff’s Department told the FDA to back off:

He wrote two letters to the Justice Department warning it not to conduct inspections of Hochstetler’s [Amish dairy] farm without a warrant from a local judge. In the process, he got into a debate over the limits of federal power and the U.S. Constitution with the Justice Department’s Goldstein.

Earlier this month, Rogers emailed Goldstein that there had been “a number of inspections and attempted inspections on (Hochstetler’s) farm…” He warned that “any further attempts to inspect this farm without a warrant signed by a local judge, based on probable cause, will result in Federal inspectors’ removal or arrest for trespassing by my officers or I.”

Imagine that. A federal agent doing business as usual, arrested for trespassing by the local sheriff! It may not play on the state or national level, but in Elkhart County, Indiana, there is now someone who actually takes the Constitution seriously, and has the legal means to back it up.

And Brad Rogers appears to understand the Constitution better than any federal officer taking a vow to "uphold and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

The Goldstein letter prompted Rogers to reply, in a letter just being sent today, “When you assert that federal law trumps state law, it is a distortion of the intent, content and extent of the supreme law of the land–the U.S. Constitution-seen through a myopic and misunderstood view of Article VI, section 2 (The Supremacy Clause).”
He also asserted that “the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could be deemed unconstitutional if and when challenged vis-a-vis the Tenth Amendment juxtaposed with The Commerce Clause.” 
He added that “our form of government was based on the principle that all officials exist to secure ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.’…Your ‘cosmetic’ regulations will never ‘trump’ those principles. The citizen in question is a good man and has committed no crime. He is an upstanding member of this community. He does not have to allow you access to his property for the FDA to conduct random inspections.”

Monowi, Nebraska: Requiem for the small town

Monowi had always been a small town. But it contained, within living memory, a school, a church, and a general store. And a tavern, of course--the only business still operating. Elsie Eiler, the proprietor, is also the town's mayor. This gives her the unique privilege of renewing her own liquor licence every year.

You see, in addition to being Monowi's mayor, she's also the town treasurer and tax collector. As well as being the only resident taxpayer. She is, in short, the sole resident of Monowi, and has been ever since her husband died several years ago.

What happened to the thriving town of Monowi to shutter its store, its church, and its school? Why are all its streets overgrown with grass? Why have all of its houses been left to collapse, many of them still containing the possessions of their last inhabitants? And why is the only business still standing a tavern?

We can trace the demise of this town back to the excessive regulations that have gradually made everything in town unprofitable, except getting people drunk. And oh--by the way--state regulations make it so unprofitable to transfer Elsie's liquor licence that she's stuck with running the tavern herself until the day she dies. So when she dies, so dies the town. The irony is that her tavern has no lack of customers; they just, for one reason or another, don't happen to live in Monowi.

Nebraska can be a hard place to make a living--especially for farmers. The Amish who followed Yost Yoder from Juniata County, Pennsylvania out to Gosper County, Nebraska 130 years ago found that out. The dry plains just didn't yield the kind of harvests they were used to, and within 25 years they had all packed up and moved back to Pennsylvania, where even to this day their hard-working and simple-living descendants are known as "Nebraska Amish."

They were the first Amish to leave Nebraska, but they weren't the last.

More farmers moved into Nebraska in the years leading up to World War One. Railroads crisscrossed the state, making it possible for farmers to sell their harvests to consumers thousands of miles away. Those who could hang in there through the lean years would make it all back, and more, when they harvested a bumper crop with the latest machinery. But the War brought many changes to Nebraska, including the first in a series of regulations that drove hard-working farmers and merchants from the rural areas, and from the state as a whole.

It started with the decree from the Nebraska State Council of Defense that banned teaching foreign languages in all schools in the state. This draconian measure, unthinkable today, was intended to inspire patriotism in the populace. A year later, they even banned the use of foreign languages in churches.

The Amish had the unfortunate distinction of not only using German in their church services, but also teaching it in their schools (so that their children would know how to read their German Bibles). Despite the fact that they had come to America for the very reason of escaping service in the Kaiser's armies, they were now labeled--for purely linguistic reasons--as enemy sympathisers. When the government moved in to shut down their parochial schools, the peace-loving Amish had had enough. To a man, they left the state--and have never returned, except to visit the graves of their ancestors. No one noticed it at the time, but the depopulation of rural Nebraska had already begun.

The War was now over; the State Council of Defense disbanded--but the regulations, as they always do, continued to mount. With the Amish gone, tractors began moving in. Mechanization now made it possible for one man to do the work of dozens. Children were no longer indispensable farm hands, but liabilities. The country schools that the Amish had left the state to avoid attending withered and died for lack of students to fill them. And as the schools closed, it was no longer feasible for families to live in the rural areas. Commutes to school stretched out to fifty, sixty, even seventy miles.

Back in Washington, D.C., legislators were reaching deeper and deeper into the pockets of Americans across the country, but spending that money disproportionately in urban districts. At the same time, legislators in Lincoln continued, year after year, to add to the ever-burdening list of regulations that everyone in the state, urban or rural, had to follow. It just wasn't cost-effective anymore to operate small stores and groceries. Selling raw milk became illegal, putting small dairies and the farms that supplied them out of business. Before long there was hardly anything that could be done profitably in the sparsely settled rural areas, except for getting people drunk. The demand for that never went away--not even in the cities, where the growing populations depended more and more on the largesse of the population at large. Driven from downtown by the rising crime rate, business and employed citizens moved to the suburbs.

Such is the foreseeable end of the overregulated populace: abandoned, decaying small towns and city centers, inhabited by hopeless drunks. EDIT SEPT 2024: Here is a rare YouTube video featuring Elsie, still the only resident of Monowi.

Are the Amish a Cult?

Way back in July 2007, I wrote the following:
Some articles I'm tossing around in my head right now include:
Are the Amish a Cult?
What is a Mixed Language?
Is Linguistic Taxonomy Eurocentric?

I've been asked to publish the first, so here goes.

First of all, let's define our terms:

1) Amish - any one of a number of Christian denominations with the following characteristics:
a) Rooted in the Anabaptist movement and specifically that led by Jacob Amman.
b) Clergy are appointed from among the married men of each congregation, without any prerequisites of vocational training or calling, for the duration of good behavior.
c) Church membership is entered by effusion by the bishop upon agreement with and submission to the denomination's beliefs and standards, after attaining the age of accountability (usually 16 years old).
d) Denominational rules not only set lines of fellowship between congregations, but serve to unify the various members with similar lifestyles, uniforms, and possessions.
e) Church discipline consists of shunning and excommunication, imposed by the bishop.
f) Continued membership is dependent on following the rules of the denomination, which are agreed upon among the bishops and imposed on the various congregations.
g) Even where it is otherwise legal, marriage to a first cousin--or a non-member--is prohibited.

Now, when people say "Amish," they almost always mean "Old-Order Amish." So lets define our terms a bit more narrowly:

2) Old-Order Amish denominations are those that limit the use by their members of modern technology, usually by prohibiting them from having a public utility connected to their residence, and by limiting the kinds of technology they are allowed to own, requiring a certain uniformity in those modern inventions that are permitted. Furthermore, due to the restrictions on Sunday travel, congregations are delineated geographically, with a married male bishop serving each district.

3) Usually when people say "Amish," they further mean what are also referred to as "Fancy Amish" (by outsiders) or "High-Living Amish" (by the Amish themselves). These are Amish congregations that allow their members to mix freely with outsiders for work, school, and shopping purposes. They allow their members to pay Social Security taxes, ride in cars, watch movies, submit insurance claims, have telephone numbers, and advertise their businesses in secular publications. They observe Daylight Savings Time, subscribe to the newspaper, and often hire outsiders to teach their children--even sending them off on the bus to public school every morning. They can own tractors, as long as they are not used to pull farm equipment or passenger vehicles. They can have electricity, as long as it's not hooked up to the grid or their residences. They can have indoor plumbing, as long as it's not hooked up to a municipal sewage system. They can use pneumatic tires and bucket seats on a vehicle, as long as it's neither self-propelled nor enclosed. They can even own computers and manage websites, but only for strictly commercial purposes.

Okay, now that we've defined whom we're talking about, we can briefly list some Amish groups that are now excluded from this discussion.

-Beachy Amish
-New-Order Amish
-Reformed Amish

So, on to our question: Are the Amish a Cult?

Well, clearly the Amish do share certain cultish characteristics. For example, they believe that they are The Only True Church, and that to leave the church is to forfeit salvation. This is clearly a mark of a cult. Also, they shun anyone who leaves the Church--another typical characteristic of a cult. But these alone are not in and of themselves proof that the Amish are a cult.

Let's look at Biblical Discernment Ministries' Marks of a cult and see how the Amish measure up:

1. Extrabiblical Authority: Not officially. Many Amish use extracononical books, like the 6th and 7th Books of Moses, but these are part of their folk religion, not part of their Christianity.

2. Works Salvation/Legalism: Apparently. Amish believe that there is no salvation outside the Church. This boils down to claiming that if you don't follow their rules, you can't be saved.

3. No Assurance of Salvation: Absolutely. This is an oft-stated Amish doctrine.

4. Guru-Type Leader/Modern Prophet: Not usually, but some have arisen from time to time. And Amish seem as susceptible as anyone to following them; more so if they appear from within the Amish (Acts 20:29).

5. Vacillating, Ambiguous Doctrines/Spiritual Deception: Absolutely not. Seekers know pretty much exactly what they are getting into.

6. Exclusivity from/Denunciation of Other Groups (leaving the group is, in the minds of the cult member, tantamount to leaving God): Yes; see above.

7. Claims of Special Discoveries/Additional Revelation: This is essentially the same as #1, but we should note here that unlike Protestants, the Amish use the Apocrypha as Scripture. The Book of Tobit is part of their marriage liturgy.

8. Defective Christology: No.

9. Defective "Nature of Man": No.

10. Out-Of-Context Scripture Use as Proof-Texts/Segmented Biblical Attention: Not so much.

11. Erroneous Doctrines Concerning Life After Death and Retribution: No.

12. Entangling Organization Structure: Absolutely not. The various denominations are completely separate.

13. Financial Exploitation: Absolutely not. There's no central fund.

14. Pseudomystical/Spiritistic/Occultic Influence: Yes. Occultism is not a part of official Amish doctrine, but pow-wowing is an intrinsic part of their culture that is never preached against and often excused.

So, how do they rate on a scale of 1 to 13? Four. I would have to say that the Amish are not a cult, but do share a few characteristics with classic cults. The strongest correlation is in the great difficulty that it is for Amish to become converted and start following the Bible. They will, in most congregations, be shunned for it and cut off from their own family members--even their spouses and children. In that sense only, Amish are extremely similar to a classic cult.

April 7, 2014
Well, blogspot doesn't appear to be letting me post comments, which makes it hard to  join the conversation below. But I will address the anonymous comments of 7/30/2012 and 4/05/2014.
Here goes:
Q: "Where did you get your information from?"
 A: A combination of the MennoHof museum, newspaper reports, emails from Anabaptist organization, and personal knowledge of Amish and ex-Amish people. I'm very familiar with the Beachy Amish and realize that they are very different from Old Order Amish Mennonites.
Q: "NO Amish would ever allow a member to watch movies."
 A: Sorry, I have it on the word of Howard Schmucker, who told me as he was watching an R-rated movie about Amish that his OOAM church was okay with it. And of course the wild Amish youth watch worse stuff than that.
Q: "The Amish are nothing more than a church of Lutheranism mixed with fashion."
 A: This is a genetic fallacy. The Amish have nothing in common with Lutheranism, other than both being a splitoff from the German Catholic Church of the 16th century. The Amish do retain some of their Catholic heritage, such as following the Julian calendar for Christmas, Easter, and Ascension Day. But they don't share any Lutheran distinctives. Luther was a bitter enemy of the early Anabaptists.
Q: "Only Christ can save. No Amish principle or way of living can. And because they still wrap themselves in laws, they are not saved. It is that simple."
 A: No, not quite that simple. Some Amish are saved through Christ, but keep the law out of respect for their countrymen--just as the Apostle Paul did.

Unintended Consequences and the Marriage Amendment--2004 and 2008

In 2004, as we recall, the Presidential Election was a close one. In the end, it came down to Ohio's 20 electoral votes, which George W. Bush won by a margin of 118,775 popular votes out of over 5.6 million cast. According to the New York Times, this is how it happened:

"Proposed state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage increased the turnout of socially conservative voters in many of the 11 states where the measures appeared on the ballot on Tuesday, political analysts say, providing crucial assistance to Republican candidates including President Bush in Ohio and Senator Jim Bunning in Kentucky.

"The amendments, which define marriage as between only a man and a woman, passed overwhelmingly in all 11 states, clearly receiving support from Democrats and independents as well as Republicans. Only in Oregon and Michigan did the amendment receive less than 60 percent of the vote.

"But the ballot measures also appear to have acted like magnets for thousands of socially conservative voters in rural and suburban communities who might not otherwise have voted, even in this heated campaign, political analysts said. And in tight races, those voters - who historically have leaned heavily Republican - may have tipped the balance.

"In Ohio, for instance, political analysts credit the ballot measure with increasing turnout in Republican bastions in the south and west, while also pushing swing voters in the Appalachian region of the southeast toward Mr. Bush. The president's extra-strong showing in those areas compensated for an extraordinarily large Democratic turnout in Cleveland and in Columbus, propelling him to a 136,000-vote victory." --Nov. 4, 2004

I might add that Ohio's 60,000 Amish voters, who aren't even supposed to vote in state or national elections, were given special dispensation by their bishops to go to the polls in support of the 2004 marriage amendment. Once they got in the curtained-off voting booths, though, who knows what may have happened. Certain it is that Bush campaigned pretty hard in predominately Amish areas of the South and West, and there was plenty of parking for buggies at his rallies.

Fast forward to 2008. Again voter turnout was significant, but this time the effect worked in reverse. There were 'marriage initiatives' on the ballot in only three states this time. In Arizona, Florida and California various forms of constitutional amendments were voted on where marriage was defined as 'between a man and a woman'.

In each case, the amendments passed. In California and Florida these measures got about 52% of the vote--the same margin by which Barack Hussein Obama carried the popular vote nationwide.

In Arizona, the amendment needed 60% of the vote to pass--and it got it.

When pollsters analyzed the data they found something very interesting.

On average, whites voted AGAINST the measures 51% to 49%. This margin is significant because Whites make up the overwhelming majority both of the voting base and of actual voters. No Democratic candidate since 1964 has carried a majority of the White vote, but the pro-homosexual marriage lobby carried it this time.

Here is where it gets interesting. Blacks voted FOR the amendments 79% to 21%. There were record turnouts in the Black community, due to Senator Obama running for President--and they voted for him 96% to 4%. Pollsters agree the Black vote was THE factor in the victories, both of Obama and the marriage amendments. Without the large Black turnout voting overwhelmingly for the amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman, these amendments would have failed.

Let that sink in for a moment.

It was Black voters who put Obama in the White House, against the wishes of the White majority. But those same Black Voters passed the marriage amendments in their states, against the wishes of the White majority. The Democrats took the White House because they fielded a Black candidate, but the pro-marriage amendment supporters also won because there was a Black candidate on the same ballot.

Black voters overwhelmingly chose Obama the person, but overwhelmingly rejected his liberal platform. Unfortunately for them, they won't be able to choose one over the other once he gets a chance to nominate Supreme Court Justices who will make the amendment by referendum process obsolete.

And by the way--even with Obama carrying Ohio this time, he got fewer votes there than John Kerry got in 2004. Despite record turnout nationwide, almost half a million FEWER people voted in Ohio this election. The NY Times was right--people voted AGAINST Kerry because they were already there to vote FOR a definition of marriage. If the marriage amendment hadn't been on the Ohio ballot in 2004, no one would have had the option of voting for a Black President in 2008.

Changing a light bulb, according to the latest principles of textual criticism

The White Man rarely changes a light bulb anymore, unless the compact fluorescent came loose from its housing. And that isn't actually changing a bulb, but replacing it.

Yet the concept of changing a light bulb is forever enshrined in the humor element of the White Man's culture, and that is never likely to change. Some day a child may look blankly at his father and ask, "Daddy, what's a light bulb?" But until that day, the joke will remain funny.

Typing in "How many turkey vultures does it take to change a light bulb" at ask.com resulted in no answers, but over a thousand hits. Removing 'turkey vultures' from the equation led to a hundred times that many. Here are just two exemplars of the logion, 'How many __________ (members of a particular Christian denomination) does it take to change a light bulb?'

**********************************

Cyberscript A:


Charismatic: Only one. Hands already in the air.

Pentecostals: Ten. One to change the bulb, and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Presbyterians: None. Lights will go on and off at predestined times.

Roman Catholic: None. Candles only.

Baptists: At least 15. One to change the light bulb, and three committees to approve the change and decide who brings the potato salad.

Episcopalians: Three. One to call the electrician, one to mix the drinks and one to talk about how much better the old bulb was.

Mormons: Five. One man to change the bulb, and four wives to tell him how to do it.

Unitarians: We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that light bulbs work for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your light bulb for the next Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life and tinted, all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence.

Methodists: Undetermined. Whether your light is bright, dull, or completely out, you are loved. You can be a light bulb, turnip bulb, or tulip bulb. Church-wide lighting service is planned for Sunday. Bring bulb of your choice and a covered dish.

Nazarene: Six. One woman to replace the bulb while five men review church lighting policy.

Lutherans: None. Lutherans don't believe in change.

Amish: What's a light bulb?



**************************

Cyberscript B:


Q:
How many charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One, since his/her hands are in the air anyway.

Q:
How many Calvinists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A:
None. God has predestined when the lights will be on. (Calvinists do not change light bulbs. They simply read the instructions and pray the light bulb will be one that has been chosen to be changed.)

Q:
How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
At least ten, as they need to hold a debate into whether or not the light bulb exists. Even if they can agree upon the existence of the light bulb, they may not go ahead and change it for fear of alienating those who use fluorescent tubes.

Q:
How many Charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One to change the bulb and nine to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Q:
How many neo-orthodox does it take to change a bulb?
A:
No one knows. They can't tell the difference between light and darkness.

Q:
How many independent fundamentalists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Only one, because any more might result in too much cooperation.

Q:
How many Amish does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
"What's a light bulb?"

Q:
How many youth pastors does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Youth pastors aren't around long enough for a light bulb to burn out.


Q:
How many members of an established Bible teaching church that is over 20 years old does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One to actually change the bulb, and nine to say how much they liked the old one.

Q:
How many Anglo-Catholics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
None. They always use candles instead.

Q:
How many Evangelicals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Evangelicals do not change light bulbs. They simply read out the instructions and hope the light bulb will decide to change itself.

Q:
How many Atheists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One. But they are still in darkness.

Q:
How many Brethren does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Change?????

Q:
How many Pentecostals does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
10, one to change it and 9 others to pray against the spirit of darkness.

Q:
How many TV evangelists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One. But for the message of hope to continue to go forth, send in your donation today.

Q:
How many campfire worship leaders does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
One. But soon all those around can warm up to its glowing.

Q:
How many baptist's does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
The whole congregation needs to vote on it!

Q:
How many charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Three, one to cast it out and two to catch it when it falls!

Q:
How many charismatics does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Twenty one, one to change it, and twenty to share the experience!

Q:
How many conservative Anglicans does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
Three. One to change it and two to storm out in protest if the person changing it is a woman!

Q:
How many Calvinists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
None. If God wants the light bulb changed He will do it Himself!

Q:
How many missionaries does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
10. Five to determine how many can be changed by the year 2000, four to raise the necessary funds, one to go find a national to do the job!

Q:
How many United Methodists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
This statement was issued: "We choose not to make a statement either in favor of or against the need for a light bulb. However, if in your own journey you have found that a light bulb works for you, that is fine. You are invited to write a poem or compose a modern dance about your personal relationship with your light bulb (or light source, or non-dark resource), and present it next month at our annual light bulb Sunday service, in which we will explore a number of light bulb traditions, including incandescent, fluorescent, three-way, long-life, and tinted--all of which are equally valid paths to luminescence."

Q:
How many Southern Baptists does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
109. Seven on the Light Bulb Task Force Sub-committee, who report to the 12 on the Light Bulb Task Force, appointed by the 15 on the Trustee Board. Their recommendation is reviewed by the Finance Executive Committee of 5, who place it on the agenda of the 18 member Finance Committee. If they approve, they bring a motion to the 27 Member church Board, who appoint another 12 member review committee. If they recommend that the Church Board proceed, a resolution is brought to the Congregational Business Meeting. They appoint another 8 member review committee. If their report to the next Congregational Business Meeting supports the changing of a light bulb, and the Congregation votes in favor, the responsibility to carry out the light bulb change is passed on to the Trustee Board, who in turn appoint a 7-member committee to find the best price in new light bulbs. Their recommendation of which hardware is the best buy must then be reviewed by the 23 member Ethics Committee to make certain that this hardware store has no connection to Disneyland. They report back to the Trustee Board who then commissions the Trustee in charge of the Janitor to ask him to make the change. By then the janitor discovers that one more light bulb has burned out.

Q:
How many Nazarenes does it take to change a light bulb?
A:
4 ladies. One to carefully unscrew the bulb. One to wrap it carefully and another to package it. The fourth to mail it to the mission field.

******************************

Without constructing a detailed critical apparatus, we can quickly realize the Webex B has undergone correction by scribes of several different denominations. We would therefore date it rather late in the stream. Note the dittographs in relation to Baptists, Evangelicals, and Charismatics. We would expect this script to undergo subsequent editing by a redactor seeking to minimize harmonizations, but this is a good example of a wild transitional text.

Webex A, on the other hand, is concise and well organized. The question is whether it should be considered earlier than B (in which the numerous scribes who corrected the exemplars of B corrupted its text), or a later orthodox correction of B.

Is there really any way of telling? And does it matter? Whether earlier or later than B, A is just simply a better Webex to use. B is too sloppily compiled to lend any credence to the originality of ANY of its readings. I wouldn't use B to correct anything in A. And to get back to the question, I'd need to collate a whole lot more cyberscripts before I could answer it. Right now, that hardly seems worth my bother. Let those who argue for the originality of B do the work, and prove their point.

I'm listening.


By the way, how many textual critics does it take to change a light bulb?

The answer, according to the latest principles of textual criticism:

"Phrasing the question this way shows your ignorance of how textual criticism works. Textual critics are to be weighed, not counted."

This is especially important, I suppose, when the ladder being used only holds 200 pounds.