Custodians of their own morals
I usually disagree with Cristina Odone, but she makes a reasonable point here.
In our romantic vision, these bearded men and apron-clad women offer the possibility of etching out a distinct path, removed from the ugly materialist world of big business and commercialism. The families’ tragedies is unbearably moving, yet the way this community is dealing with a gunman killing five young schoolgirls (and then himself) is disturbing…It’s not just TV and iPods they reject: it is schooling beyond 14, the emancipation of women and scholarship that questions a single interpretation of the sacred texts…Given their uncompromising ways, the Amish live in an apartheid of their own choosing. This can be dangerous, as we have seen with Catholic paedophile priests: when community leaders become the custodians of their own morals and are not subject to scrutiny, all kinds of wrongs can take place and all manner of fundamentalist tendencies thrive.
It’s interesting to note that pretty much all the comments on this piece indignantly reject her criticism – which is unfortunate, because she’s right. Amish isolation does protect for instance domestic abuse. There was a long article about just that in Legal Affairs in January 2005. I commented on it at the time. Odone for once absolutely nails it: when community leaders become the custodians of their own morals and are not subject to scrutiny, all kinds of wrongs can take place. Indeed they can, which is why isolated patriarchal groups should not be given an automatic free pass and exemption from scrutiny. Not Jonestown, not David Koresh’s setup, and not the Amish.
Unless they are too young to leave, or their husbands, etc. won’t let them…until the dentist pulls out all their teeth, or they have endured years of rape, or… Please. I thought *my* childhood sucked… Top-down groups, just like egalitarian ones, should not get a free pass from scrutiny, just like OB just said. But who does the scrutinizing? The gov’t of this supposedly free country, I don’t trust so much. So it’s a darn good thing some folks out here are thinking for ourselves, or at least trying to. Me, I find myself wishing I could catch that dentist alone… unethical, that’s what it was, isn’t there some sort of code for them, that you don’t just take out all a kid’s teeth just like that?
Unethical – I would think that would be closer to an actual crime. In fact I would think it would be a crime. Assault. Doctors aren’t allowed to break patients’ bones for disciplinary purposes, even at the behest of the patients’ mothers, and I don’t think dentists are allowed to pull all their teeth out in the same circs.
Even if one doesn’t trust the federal government in all respects, it does seem that various more local government bodies charged with child protection or domestic abuse prevention or public safety are a desperately needed defense in these situations. They have to “meddle”, they have to “interfere”.
Jeremy and I are going to write a book about all this kind of thing. Something to look forward to.
How much free will had those little girls who were molested, and whose teeth were pulled out when they spoke up? (All right, I forgot how many it happened to, I hadn’t the stomach to reread.) How much choice had they on who to associate with?
Who is to judge what is wrong? Well, folks here on this site who are actually putting some brains into it, have a good start, don’t they?
You gotta stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.
“The provisos being of course, that people have entered into these associations of their own free will and can leave of their own free will; and that they are not harming others.”
Well this is precisely the issue – harm, and free entry and free departure.
Pete,
Did you follow the links?
‘who is to judge what is wrong ?’ Well, when it comes to covering up and condoning child molestation I’m quite happy to get judgemental.
OB, *do* write that book…
We are.
Odone’s views will be inspired by her Roman Catholicism and I have yet to read an intelligent thoughtful piece by her on the subject of child abuse by priests. In other words, it’s fish in a barrel time as usual for Christine. Mind you, those comments are pretty nasty.
I know. The sectarian aspect was apparent – but she was right all the same. And most people have no idea there is abuse among the Amish, so it is worth bringing it up again.