The Amish community of Nickel Mines, Pennsylvania showed an unbelievable level of what can only be described as Christian compassion. Christ-like is more like it. Some asshole shoots ten girls in cold blood in an insane, premeditated act, and the Amish Community prays for him, consoles his family and seeks to forgive him for his act. What some on this forum might consider a weak response to incomprehensible violence is, in my mind, a respose requiring the greatest strength a human can muster. One only has to read the endless reporting on this tragedy to see how this Amish community has set an example that it is affecting people all over the world.

Imagine, therefore, that we had had an Amish president on 9-11. Well, maybe that's a bit of a stretch, since no Amish (by definition) would become involved in the modern world in that way. But there's a movie out imagining Robin Williams as president, so let's go with it and imagine an Amish "leader of the free world". Press PLAY on your what-if machine.

9-11 happens. President Abraham Hassenfeffer appears on national television to appeal for calm and to lead the nation in a prayer for the dead. He specifically talks about the nineteen dead hijackers and our need to pray for them and their families in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Emirates. He asks for representatives from their families to meet with him. He appeals to the American people for two things - not to retaliate in any way against any Muslim or person of Middle Eastern descent, and not to change their way of life in any way, to face this threat with courage and determination. He finishes with a quote from Luke: "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."

This would be the exact opposite of the response the attackers were counting on. It would also put an absolute stop to any further attacks.

Of course, an Amish president would mean a few other things, too. Instead of the White House you'd probably have the Plain Gray House. Motorcades would be replaced by horseandbuggycades. Hail to the Chief would be replaced by Bringing in the Sheafs. And so on.

So, the question for comment is - what would have been the result of such a display of forgiveness and nonretribution in response to the atrocity of 9-11?

This would be the exact opposite of the response the attackers were counting on.

And just how do you know what they were "counting on"?

It would also put an absolute stop to any further attacks.

Yeah, just like bullies, huh? If the little kid bows down and forgives his attackers, all the bullies immediately stop being bullies, don't they? Just like that, there's peace and goodwill on the playgrounds of the world?

You, Te Jen, have your head so far up your ass that you can't even see daylight!

Baron Max

When I was writing the post up, I thought - "well, this is going to get an ugly response from Baron Max, no doubt about it". Thanks for being so utterly predictable!

Thing is, if America had an Amish president, it wouldn't have given the 'terrorists' any reason to attack in the first place. There would never have been a 9/11. By the same token, if America had been totally Amish from the beginning, there wouldn't be an America, in its place there would be a New England or a New Germany and all the Amish would be living on reservations. And there would not be an Amish president.

Thing is, if America had an Amish president, it wouldn't have given the 'terrorists' any reason to attack in the first place. There would never have been a 9/11.

You sure give the president a lot of power and influence, don't you? The president has little or no power over US corporations or over their freedom to do business in other countries. The president has little or no power over the movement of Americans to other nations of the world, so American influences would have remained the same as before, maybe even moreso.

...if America had been totally Amish from the beginning, there wouldn't be an America, in its place there would be a New England or a New Germany...

Do you really think that the Indians would have let the Amish live? Why? As soon as the Amish moved into and stole their land, the Indians would have attacked and killed them. The Indians wouldn't have given one shit for all the forgiveness in the world!

Baron Max

That's wher the English and Germans come in.

That's wher the English and Germans come in.

Yeah, so the vicous, terrible, warlike English and Germans fight to carve out a nation and protect the poor, humble Amish who can't or won't protect themselves? Ahh, I get it now!

And because the Amish are so peaceful and forgiving and nice, then they should be the rulers of the vicious, terrible, warlike English and Germans?! ...LOL!

God, the things people can think of, huh? ...LOL!!

Baron Max

No Baron. If you read my posts again you will realise that what I meant was that the Amish would be reduced to living on reservations (a bit like they are now I guess), and, because they are a peaceful and forgiving lot they could never have ruled America or indeed have subdued the Indians and THAT'S where the British or Germans would have come in, to do what the Amish could never do, not to protect them. In a way that's what happened in any case, even though the Amish were never in the running and that this thread is all strictly hypothetical.

If, by some miracle the Amish held government during the second world war, they would never have gone to war with the Germans... England and Europe would have lost it and the Germans would now be running America.

If, by some miracle the Amish held government during the second world war, they would never have gone to war with the Germans... England and Europe would have lost it and the Germans would now be running America.

If America didn't involve with the second world war then the Russians would still have defeated an run over Europe. Then they would have plunderd much of Europe. And make a deal with england. So they could have defeated the Japs who would be poking in their ass.

WWII would have ended differently without the US, but it would have taken more to let the NAZI's win.
(personal opinion offcourse)

Some asshole shoots ten girls in cold blood in an insane, premeditated act, and the Amish Community prays for him, consoles his family and seeks to forgive him for his act.

Well. It was only a bunch of girls.
Better that he kill them than to have sex outside of wedlock with them...


Anyway.
If the president were Amish?
Then Air Force One would have one of those flourescent orange triangle on it's tail fin.

Tell me what would be the difference (from Amish's standpoint) between living on reservations in the US or German run USA? I don't think it would have been so much different. As long as government doesn't go genocidal (and nazi Germany certainly had Amishs considered to be Arians), Amishs couldn't care less who won.

Generally speaking, modern societies consist of significant chunk of people for whom it doesn't really matter (from a practical standpoint) who wins the war. No matter the victor, they are alway going to stay where they are, usually at the bottom. This demands zillions to be spend in state propaganda and brainwashing to get crowd excited each time elites decide to carve the world pie differently (for themselves).

An Amish president is surely an entertaining thought. To respond to statements from the authors post:

An Amish president may not have stopped the event of 9/11. There are plenty of examples, throughout history, of hostile nations attacking docile locations. Also, you would have to consider the fact that since the United States is one of two things:
A. a melting pot society
B. an elected representive democracy
That surely each President would not be Amish. Therefore who knows how the previous position holders would have acted.

To counteract a thought by Baron_Max, there have also been several peaceful overthrows of government's, they are just not as made for T.V popular as the violent bloodbaths.

One has to wonder how responding with peace would have worked. Probably not the best idea in this situation, but definitely something to keep in reserve.

Good post!

If America had an Amish president, he would resign.

if America had Amish president, well be all dead. the terrorists would have blown up America by now.

I can tell how young you all are because you don't realize that we've already been through this. Richard Nixon was a member of the Society of Friends, or, as we call them, the Quakers.

The Quakers manifest Jesus's teachings of love, peace, brotherhood and dignity much like the Amish. Although it hasn't taken them down the same path of asceticism and village life, they have remained equally and remarkably true to it. Throughout the history of America, since its colonial days, they have been outspoken opponents of slavery and racial discrimination, often putting their lives on the line. They are in the forefront of the peace movement, easily earning Conscientious Objector status in wartime, yet once again often putting their lives on the line by serving as medics. They are so honorable in their business dealings as to shame us all.

We Californians remembered Nixon as state governor, and knew him to have strayed a bit far from the fold. His political machinations and his compromises with morality did not brand him as an exceptionally honest politician. Still, he was not an exceptionally dishonest one.

The rest of the country didn't know him as well and many people assumed that as a Quaker he would bring a modicum of dignity to the White House. Instead, Richard Nixon will always be remembered for one thing: Watergate.

The competition of the political arena selects for the dishonorable, for those who have no motivation except to defeat their opponents and rise to the top and who can discard as much morality as necessary to get there. If there is an Amish American who has a weak enough grasp on his principles and a strong enough dream of the Presidency to behave like Richard Nixon the Quaker, it is he who would win the office and we would not notice any significant difference.

My point was not so much to suggest that we could have an Amish president, or that a doctrine of absolute forgiveness and nonviolence is the way to go. I think that the Amish responded to the deaths of their children, an event that was completely irretrievable by its very nature, in a way that excited admiration and public support from all over the world. Had the United States used a similar reponse while seeking the apprehension and lawful prosecution of those responsible, we would be in a radically different place today.

The attacks of 9-11 and the Amish school massacre were similarly shocking - of a magnitude where the ratio of 3000 dead to 300 million Americans is remarkably similar to the six dead in the school shooting to the 600000 or so Amish, Mennonite and related sects. Shocking, and similarly irretrievable. The planes went down and that was it - there were no hijackers to capture and prosecute, no victims to save after the first few hours.

In hindsight our military and intelligence machine has been remarkably ineffective at redressing this atrocity. We captured or killed a lot of people, only a tiny fraction of whom had anything to do with 9-11 while presumably many others who were involved remain at large (specifically thinking of the Saudis here). We finished off two countries that were already against the ropes, generated an awful lot more hatred against us than existed before 9-11, and pretty much threw away all of the remarkable sympathy the world had for us. Oh, and wrecked a century's worth of diplomatic relations.

Let me acknowledge that the attacks of 9-11 are different from a mad-dog suicide attack on a schoolroom full of children. A school shooting is not a conspiracy nor does it stem from any discernable political or religious campiagn. Yet. In all cases so far it has been a nutjob who kills a bunch of kids and then himself. Case closed, except inasmuch as the saturation media coverage might give the next guy ideas. In contrast, terrorist attacks require conspiracy, support and an ideological driving force. But I am arguing that terrorism might be susceptible to a different mode of response than the one we have used so far.

It starts with the big question - Why? What were the goals of the 9-11 conspirators? Various sources (Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Khalid Shiekh Mohammed and others) have gone on the record as seeking the withdrawal of the U.S. military from Saudi soil, wishing to punish the U.S. for its continued support of Israeli policies and actions and for its direct and indirect aggression against Arab Muslims. They also were clear in their hope that a sufficiently "spectacular" attack would provoke a military backlash that would in turn stir up a popular mobilization of support in the Arab world. These are the "Whys" that are public knowledge but which have garnered practically no attention in the United States.

Everyone knows that in dealing with people who are giving you trouble, the very first rule is not to give them exactly what they want, and certainly not to do anything that will increase their power to irritate. So, what did the United States do? Withdrew forces from Saudi soil (Saudis demanded this in January 2002 - a token force was pulled out and the remainder in April 2003). Continued and greatly amplified support for Israel (culminating in the Lebanon war of 2006, echoing the 1982 war that bin Laden specifically cited as one of his motives for jihad against the U.S.). Aggression against Arab Muslims? Well, that goes without saying - even the most charitable view of the bloodletting, the torture and the humilationover the last five years would have to acknowledge its power to enrage the survivors. I can't think of one single thing the U.S. has done in the Middle East and South Asia that hasn't played right into the hands of the perpetrators of 9-11. We built some schools, improved a few roads, handed out some humanitarian aid. But the balance is tilted sharply toward pain and death.

What I was suggesting with the Amish analogy was that perhaps it would be best not to react in precisely the way that the attackers counted on. We absolutely had to carry out operations to identify and capture the people who financed, planned and supported the attacks. But the seeds for success were there - no country would have resisted a call for cooperation in a good old-fashioned police investigation. Make it clear that the crime of 9-11 was an international one, victimising people of every nationality. Capture the perpetrators and have them stand in the dock at The Hague for their crimes. Actively use the language of the Koran and the Bible to frame the debate over the wrongness of the attacks and the best response to it. In short, do all the things that would disarm and deflect the stated purpose of jihad.


The main problem with all this, as I now see it, is that such a course would open up lots of cans of worms. Perhaps "letting the genie out the bottle" would be a more apt expression. A public examination of the whys of 9-11 and a lawful prosecution of those responsible would, I believe, reveal a lot about the current state of affairs in the world than certain people would like aired in public. 9-11 also provided an opportunity that those same people just couldn't pass up - a chance to reaffirm American military might and to extend economic and cultural influence in a time of waning power. No rational person could conclude that it was gone well, or has been worth the cost.

The time has come for the United States to take a more proportionate place among the nations of the planet. It has dominated affairs for almost a century, but it is becoming more and more difficult to do so. The way forward is a choice between an increasingly marginalized, dangerous and unstable country and one that is prepared to acknowledge its mistakes and move forward into a cooperative future. Given the lessons of history, though, I suspect that a transition from one to the other will not occur without another few decades of agony.

I support Te Jen's ideas, and am disapointed by some of the sort-sighted replies so far.

If we had an Amish president, we certainly would not have signing statements, we would not have torture, we would not have tax cuts primarily benifitting the rich in a sad attempt at re-engineering trickle-down theory.

Then again, we would have a drastic amount of sexism, low levels of education, and creationism would be pushed on every public school.

I was considering becoming Amish for a number of years, but could not stomach the oppression of women in thier culture, and the suppression of logic over religious idealism.

That said, I'd like to add that not only is the Nickle Mines Amish praying for the person who killed their children, THEY ARE COOKING FOOD FOR HIS FAMILY, AND SETTING ASIDE SOME OF THE MONEY THEY'VE RECEIVED IN DONATIONS SO THAT HIS CHILDREN CAN GO TO COLLEGE.

If we had a president with those values, then tablariddim is right, the terrorists wouldn't have a reason to attack us. Terrorists may claim religious justification, but thier behavior does not follow that logic. They are retaliating against wealthy, oppresive, and often, occupying forces. They call them infidels to rally others to thier cause.

You sure give the president a lot of power and influence, don't you? The president has little or no power over US corporations or over their freedom to do business in other countries. The president has little or no power over the movement of Americans to other nations of the world, so American influences would have remained the same as before, maybe even moreso.

You have not been paying attention to the power that the Executive has both been granted and has usurped over the past 6 years.

I would not want an Amish president, they wouldn't wage any war (even a justified one), and they feel that God's laws are above man's laws.

I still think the point is being missed - the point is not what an Amish president would or would not do - the point is the utter contrast in the message that could come from the very top as opposed to the one that does. In a way it does not even require the President to be Amish. And it certainly does not require that the President show weakness or endorse total pacifism. The point is to look at the statements of President Bush and recognise how much they resemble a slighted madman screaming REVEEEEEENGE! REVEEEEEENGE!

It depends on what the goal is. Are you interested in destabilizing the supply of oil to create the opportunity for control and profit, generating problems in the geographic intersection of Europe, Russia and Asia, throwing sand in the gears of the burgeoning economies of China and India, and generally keeping the U.S. in the game by making life difficult for everybody else? Then Bush is doing exactly what is required.

See, we just assume that our leaders want peace, security, democracy, and a healthy standard of living for everyone on earth. And then for some reason we are confused and dismayed when they don't follow through.

What is so great about the Amish? They don't believe in science. That alone should be grounds for disqualification.

It's not that they don't believe in science; they just feel that close family connections are more important than most modern conveniences. Cars, tvs, etc are not beneficial in their eyes, so they are not allowed. Diesel engines are allowed in certain situations, cell phone are allowed (but cannot be in the home, so that it does not disrupt family time). Even roller blades are cool, as long as there is a good reason for them that doesn’t hamper the cohesion of the family unit.

Trust me, they don't believe in science.

Anyway.
If the president were Amish?
Then Air Force One would have one of those flourescent orange triangle on it's tail fin.


The amish president wouldn't fly in aeroplanes.

No, but airforce one *would* have one of those flourescent orange triangle on it's tail fin, as it was pulled down US highway 1 by a team of horses.