Slashdot Mirror


The Amish Are Getting Fracked

An anonymous reader writes "Old school meets business school. From the New Republic: 'The Amish interpretation of the Christian bible prohibits the use of the courts: Except in rare circumstances, the Amish do not sue. This has created a unique problem in the region. Home to the largest Amish community in the world, Eastern Ohio sits squarely on top of the Utica and Marcellus Shale formations, which contain billions in oil and gas recoverable through advances in hydraulic fracturing technology, or fracking ... When it comes to the oil and gas industry, this means that any agreement an Amish farmer makes with a company is, for the farmer, practically unenforceable. A rare case in which the plaintiffs were Amish suggests that Ohio's oil and gas companies know this and have been willing to take advantage.'"

367 comments

  1. Religion and ethics vs. money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I know who I'd bet on every time.

    1. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich religious people seem to win rather a lot.

    2. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But usually in combination with money. Heck, money is its own religion nowadays. Most of those winning religious people believe more in the "invisible hand" than in the ten commandments.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    3. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1

      Would you care to define the "invisible hand" they believe in? Hint: Adam Smith only used the phrase once, and not in the context you might think.

    4. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 3, Informative

      A very good discussion of Adam Smith's Invisible Hand and how the atheists Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises were subtly perverting it.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by LoP_XTC · · Score: 2

      Rich religious unethical people seem to win rather a lot.

      FTFY .... The deadly trifecta

      --
      "Curiouser and Curiouser...." -Alice
    6. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      Usually ethics is not on the side of Religion or Money. So it is more like Religion, Ethics, Money.. pick one.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Rich religious people seem to win rather a lot.

      I'm not sure about other religions, but a literal reading of Christ's teachings would suggest that one cannot be both rich and religious.

      In fact, He said so on several occasions, if you believe Scripture:

      Luke 6:30, Matthew 5:40, Luke 3:11, etc.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      Religion and/or money vs. ethics

      FTFY

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich religious people seem to win rather a lot.

      I'm not sure about other religions, but a literal reading of Christ's teachings would suggest that one cannot be both rich and religious.

      True enough, but what does that Jewish heretic have to do with contemporary Xianity? He also said we should love one another, but you don't find that practiced either...

    10. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rich religious people seem to win rather a lot.

      Yep, and all they had to do was discard those troublesome ethics!

    11. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but none of the verses you quoted actually support your argument. I have known people who found it impossible to give their wealth to those in need faster than they were able to earn it. Of course, they put as much effort into making sure that the things they spent their money actually helped people who were in need.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    12. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no ethics involved on either side. It's more like deliberate stupidity vs greed. What can I say? They have found each other...

    13. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by nbauman · · Score: 1

      That's right. When you buy a yacht and throw parties on it, you put a lot of your wealth into the hands of needy shipwrights, carpenters, electricians, caterers, escorts, liquor stores, dress shops, etc.

      Oh and what else was it that I always saw at rich peoples' parties -- that's right, cocaine dealers.

    14. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Not everyone who is rich owns a yacht, or throws lavish parties.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    15. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but none of the verses you quoted actually support your argument.

      Well then, let's go over a couple of those verses, one at a time, shall we?

      Luke 6:30: "Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." Tell me how a person gets rich by giving "to everyone who asks you" and never demanding back what is taken from you? Do you know of any wealthy people who follow that rule?

      Matthew 5:40 "And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Ditto.

      Luke 3:11 "John answered, âoeAnyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.â" Please list the rich people who have given away half their stuff, except in a divorce.

      Finally, let me throw in one more. Remember, these are just the first four I found. There are dozens more:

      1 Corinthians 10:24: "Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth." This is as clear as it gets. Christ is saying DO NOT SEEK WEALTH FOR YOURSELF BUT FOR OTHERS.

      Now, please tell me how you can follow those commands of Christ and be rich?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    16. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      That's true. Some just buy garages with built in elevators for their cars.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Now, please tell me how you can follow those commands of Christ and be rich?

      I don't know, but that does not mean that someone else has not done so. As to the first question, you asked about Luke 6:30, I do know wealthy people who, as far as I know, followed that rule. As to the Luke 3:11 passage, again, I know wealthy persons who give away more than 50% of what they earn. None of the verses you listed said that you cannot be a faithful Christian and be rich. The fact that you believe that it is not possible to follow those commands and be rich does not make it so that someone who DOES follow those commands and is still rich is somehow sinning.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    18. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a proscription against seeking wealth, so I guess if you got your wealth without seeking it then I guess you're technically in the clear. So a lawyerly interpretation would say that someone who inherited money could follow Christ, as long as they gave away half.

      But there's a clear command not to seek wealth.

      If you're trying to get rich, you cannot be a Christian.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    19. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I know a man who never sought wealth, who nevertheless became rather wealthy. He was a farmer who owned a couple hundred acres (my memory may be overstating the size of his farm, it may have only been somewhere around 100 acres). The state put a major highway through the middle of his land making it impractical to continue farming it. Since his land was now on either side of the exit from the new highway, developers showed up offering him multi-million dollars for land which had only been worth a couple hundred thousand, at the most, before the highway went through.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    20. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a perusal of the Jewish king Solomon would refute that, since his downfall was women, not money. Care to argue that you can't be a lesbian or a straight man and still be religious?

    21. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      As far as I know the Invisible Hand theory is as follows: Each "actor" (people in economics are by no means human) should strive for self interest: if a producer, ask the highest price possible, if a consumer, demand the lowest price possible. This will "magically" tend to an equilibrium of "right" prices, and therefore overall wellbeing is maximized. So if all people (I do believe in humans) are as greedy as possible, they are equally greedy (!) and things cancel out nicely. Mind you, "overall wellbeing" is defined here as "maximum trade". This is off course total nonsense.

      Or, as the fictional character Gordon Gekko stated (shamelessly copied from Wikipedia):

      Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.

      The unbelievable thing is that Adam Smith appeared to be a religious man, and clearly thought that self-interest (greed) was a divine thing, not one of the seven sins.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    22. Re:Religion and ethics vs. money by OptimalCynic · · Score: 1
  2. But, Corporations are People! by cphilo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except they have no ethics or morality. Or shame.

    1. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      they have no ethics or morality. Or shame.

      I'd say this applies to government more than private corporations.

    2. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except they have no ethics or morality. Or shame.

      That can generally be said of any sufficiently large group of individuals whose sole purpose is to make money - not just corporations.

    3. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Who enforces environmental law, consumer rights, and worker safety more in this relationship?

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, Corporations are People!

      It's odd how this became an ironic meme when "Corporations are People" is exactly what a corporation is, an artificial entity to be treated as a person under the law. It's like people are running around saying "The Sky is Blue!" and thinking they're being ironic and exposing an untruth.

      Persons also are divided by the law into either natural persons, or artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as created and devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government, which are called corporations or bodies politic.

      That's from America's first law book, Blackstone's Commentaries, and the concept goes back to Roman times. The word "Corporation" is Latin for a reason.

      It is also silly to see a comment about "corporations" to an article where someone got ripped off by another human being, not a faceless corporation.

    5. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What would ever compel a private corporation to act ethically towards entities that neither own shares in the said corporation, nor are among their customers?

      That's right: Nothing.

      At least the government is elected. Private Corporations with turnovers the size of the BNP of a smaller European country? Not so.

    6. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people do?

    7. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, abusive cult meets abusive corporations. No matter who wins we all lose.

    8. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would ever compel a private corporation to act ethically towards entities that neither own shares in the said corporation, nor are among their customers?

      That's right: Nothing.

      Laws and enforcement thereof.

      Laws is our way of creating common ethics among a lot of people. If everyone had the same ethics laws wouldn't be necessary.
      In an ideal world what is legal and what is ethical should be the same and in the cases where they differ the laws should be updated.

      If a person doesn't behave in a way that is ethical then law enforcement should use force to correct this behavior, it should not matter whether the person does this on behalf of a company or not.

      You'd be surprised how many companies think that it is desirable to avoid a situation where board members end up in jail.

    9. Re:But, Corporations are People! by an00bis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You must work for the government.

    10. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who taps every Verizon Wireless phone.

      Who targets the enemies of the administration via IRS

      Who use tax payer money to fund junkets to Anaheim (Disneyland) (IRS)

      Who claim they need to review rules, regulations and procedures (they violated) in the tapping of Reporter's phones.

      The government and corporations are the same. They are people, without conscience.

      "Is it Legal"

      "I will make it legal"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:But, Corporations are People! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What would ever compel a private corporation to act ethically towards entities that neither own shares in the said corporation, nor are among their customers?

      That's right: Nothing.

      It's actually exactly the same thing. When you disagree with a company, you can stop giving them your money, When you disagree with the government, you can stop giving them your money.

      Oh, wait...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same thing can be said of Government. We have laws the government violates all the time. It is worse, because government is supposed to enforce the laws.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:But, Corporations are People! by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      Corporations have only been treated as entities that have the exact same rights as people in the U.S. over the last 150 years or so. Otherwise in the U.S. they were treated as legal entities with limited rights.

    14. Re:But, Corporations are People! by JDAustin · · Score: 0

      If corporations are not people, then they cannot be greedy.

    15. Re:But, Corporations are People! by P-niiice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can play this game. Who forces farmers to rebuy GMO seed every year? Who overpays CEO's and upper management to the tune of up to 399 times the lowest wage? Who sidesteps billions in taxes that could build american infrastructure or help millions of Americans improve their lives? Who uses American tax breaks and then refuses to hire american despite huge profits? Who vastly overcharges for routine medical supplies like aspirin in hopes that it won't be caught on a bill? "Is it ethical?" "My friends in congress and media will make it ethical."

    16. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are MADE OF people. The people corporations are MADE OF can be greedy. When their greed kills someone, suddenly the corporation is no longer MADE OF people but IS A person, and the people responsible almost always sit comfortably behind the corporate veil while the victim's family gets a few bucks (assuming the corporation doesn't declare bankruptcy and become freed of the obligation to pay them anything).

    17. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down? We do, we do!

      Who keeps Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps? We do, we do!

      Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? We do, we do!

      Who robs cavefish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night? We do, we do, we do!'

    18. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can leave.

      It might not be easy but in many ways it's just as difficult to cut ties to certain corporations, especially if you wish to interact with society and make a living for yourself.

    19. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Who overpays CEO's and upper management to the tune of up to 399 times the lowest wage?

      Only smaller and poorer megacorporations; the big ones tend to compensate their CEOs at 400x or more of their median workers' wages.

    20. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Krojack · · Score: 1

      I'd say it applies to both equally. Most politicians are where they are because they have roots deep in big corporations via their direct blood family or their spouse. They have the money so start off running for government then once voted in they can build up their companies even more.

    21. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Rockoon · · Score: 0, Troll

      I can play this game. Who forces farmers to rebuy GMO seed every year?

      Thats the government that forces that. Perhaps you shouldnt have started with such a bad example?

      Corporations cant force anything.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    22. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is where I thought they were going at first. Thank you for actually posting it. :)

    23. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not the same thing. "You can leave" implies that you don't have a right to live on the land you were born into without appealing to coercive authority. "You can take your money elsewhere" is a true choice (unless government is involved).

      The difference is coercion. Your relationship with government is coercive; your relationship with private business is voluntary. That's all the difference in the world.

    24. Re:But, Corporations are People! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Who overpays CEO's and upper management to the tune of up to 399 times the lowest wage? Who sidesteps billions in taxes that could build american infrastructure or help millions of Americans improve their lives? Who uses American tax breaks and then refuses to hire american despite huge profits?

      Apple?

    25. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Except they have no ethics or morality. Or shame.

      This is part of the legal obligations of a publicly traded corporation. It is interesting to note that it's also pretty much the definition of the "antisocial personality disorder". So let's stop wringing our hands over corporations acting according to their nature. It is what it is. And if the Amish want to foolishly enter into agreements that will allow the energy companies to foul the water supplies of the Amish, one is tempted to say, "Too damn bad, dumbass", but the fouling will almost certainly extend beyond old Eli Lapp's place, so then it becomes a problem for the community. Governments exist, in part, as caretakers of "the commons", and a groundwater supply is certainly that. Therefore it is entirely appropriate that those dirty government regulators step in and see to the welfare of the community that the Amish have chosen to disregard.

    26. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      Yes, in some cases as well. That's why I'm more interested in the power an organization wields in practice, rather than what it's labeled. For example, a homeowners' association is de-facto a kind of municipal government, even though it's officially labeled a private-sector entity. Similarly, a company town is a corporation acting in a governmental role. In the other direction, municipalities that use e.g. speeding tickets on a highway that passes through as a major revenue source are acting in the manner of rent-seeking corporations. The label "government" vs. "corporation" tells you only a very surface-level bit of information about what an organization actually does.

    27. Re:But, Corporations are People! by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'd say this applies to government more than private corporations.

      It applies to both. However, citizens are the nominal shareholder-equivalents of the country, so the government tends to pay at least lip service to serving their interests.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    28. Re:But, Corporations are People! by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Who would know better?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    29. Re:But, Corporations are People! by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Corporations cant force anything.

      Of course they can, and do. Where the government is strong, the corporations wield power through it. Where it is weak, they hire their own private armies a la Pinkerton, because who'll stop them?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dogs get all the food they need for free, but still fight for each other's bowls when fed. I had to move their food bowls apart so they'd get along.

      Greed isn't limited to people.

    31. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the company fracking in my area ship the product across the country? How can I stop purchasing that? Come the fuck on.

    32. Re:But, Corporations are People! by darth_borehd · · Score: 1

      Corporations are people.

      Until that is inconvenient for them. Then they are corporations again.

    33. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nobody forces the farmers to rebuy GMO seed every year.

      The farmers choose to buy GMO seed because it is so much better than the other seed that you can't compete.

      This is why most farmers till their fields with tractors rather than horses.

    34. Re:But, Corporations are People! by darth_borehd · · Score: 1

      Except we can vote for the government.

    35. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations are special entities and subject to government rules. They are not people. Owners of a corporation are shielded from legal issues the corporation has and debts taken in it's name. The owners only stake is capital already invested, nothing more.

    36. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, having the government force me to buy GMO seed is the worst part of being a farmer.

    37. Re:But, Corporations are People! by stenvar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're absolutely right that neither corporations nor government have ethics. The difference is: with corporations, that's what's expected and it shouldn't matter because in a free market, you don't have to buy their crap. When the federal government is unethical, you have no way of escaping from that. And when they mandate monopolies (e.g., media) or purchases (e.g., health care), you can't use the market anymore to stay away from corporations whose products you don't want.

    38. Re:But, Corporations are People! by stenvar · · Score: 2

      No, it's worse because the government can force you do to things and you don't have a choice in the matter. Corporations by themselves can't generally force you to do things, they can only offer you something and you have a choice whether you buy it or not. The only way a corporation can force you to do something if they are aided by government.

    39. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      In both cases, you can choose to vote with your wallet- you can choose to stop using the service that is being offered to you, and stop handing over money in exchange for it. For a corporation, the service is something commercial that you can stop paying for. For a government, that service is a whole country- if you want to stop using that service, you need to leave that country.

      Your relationship with companies is only voluntary some of the time; frequently there is a monopoly or cartel that you cannot avoid doing business with. Where I live, I have a choice of exactly one private water company; I can only choose not to do business with them if I choose not to have running water or sewerage. Although I do have a "choice" of electricity and gas suppliers where I live, I only have the "choice" of a single electric and a single gas network, all of which is supplied by the same sources. I cannot choose, for example, not to do business with a gas fracking company- unless I want to choose not to have a supply of heat.

      Of course with governments, you can also exercise your democratic rights and vote for someone who will do things "your way", or even (god forbid) run for an elected position yourself. That's an added bonus that you don't get with companies.

    40. Re:But, Corporations are People! by gutnor · · Score: 1

      You can vote, do you remember ? Unlike companies you do not need to either be a shareholder or a client to be listened. "not voting" is a direct message, unlike "not buying" or "not investing" in you.

    41. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Archangel - you are right on.

    42. Re:But, Corporations are People! by LordLimecat · · Score: 1, Funny

      Who controls the British crown, Who keeps the metric system down,

      We do, we do.

    43. Re:But, Corporations are People! by publiclurker · · Score: 2

      Or just a grownup.

    44. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      "We Do! We Do!"

      This is the theme to the Stonecutter's Union, right?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    45. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Corporations have one ethic- to be profitable for the shareholders. Anything that works towards that goal is good. Blame the Dodge Brothers for wanting to take profit from their investment in Ford Motor Company to form a competing company (or maybe Ford for not letting them).

      Governments have a duty to the citizens, but they're not much better given how they shirk that duty most of the time.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    46. Re:But, Corporations are People! by rockout · · Score: 3, Insightful

      At least, with government (in theory, in a democracy), you can vote out the guys who force you to do things. You have no such choice when corporations get big enough to force things on you and have swallowed up and/or wiped out all their competitors.

      --
      I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
    47. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actually they're required to be greedy by law (not kidding)

    48. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure they can. Greed is written into their charters and enforced by corporate law.

    49. Re:But, Corporations are People! by nobodyknowsimageek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you think that you can evade the bad behavior of Corporations simply by "not buying from them" then you are incredibly naive.

    50. Re:But, Corporations are People! by nbauman · · Score: 1

      When the federal government is unethical, you have no way of escaping from that.

      I assume you don't vote.

      And you don't believe in organizing with other people who feel as you do to change the political system.

    51. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But greed is good. Just ask the native americans!

    52. Re:But, Corporations are People! by andymadigan · · Score: 2

      Leaving the United States does not exempt you from taxation. If you are born with U.S. citizenship (or are naturalized) then you are required to pay taxes until ten years *after* you renounce your citizenship.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    53. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fuckin' hate the damned Stonecutters.

    54. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who voted on Obama. Most of you. You are the problem.

    55. Re:But, Corporations are People! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "they hire their own private armies a la Pinkerton, because who'll stop them?"

      There was a time when American workers had balls, and they shot and killed Pinkertons. When people are beyond the reach of the law they may still not be out of range...

      Our country and it's freedoms were born of righeous Revolutionary violence, the eager willingness to send bayonet and musket ball crashing into the bodies of British soldiers and their Hessian mercs.

      If the Founders had been pacifists they wouldn't have Founded anything.

      Things aren't bad enough for violence so long as we are kept comfortable and fed by our Masters. Woe betide them if they forget that people don't revolt over freedom, they revolt over food and shelter.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    56. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all you see in "corporations are people" is a reiteration that corporations consist of people, then you'd be right. But you also have to look at it in terms of "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". Or in this case, "corporations are people, and all people are equal, but some (the corporations) are more equal than others".

      Personally, I have no problems with corporations being people. Though if someone can come up with an argument against corporations as people that cannot also be used to strip me of my first amendment right to "peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", I could change my mind.

    57. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Jockle · · Score: 1

      There are ways to escape it... if you're lucky, and being lucky means that you have many, many people on your side. Even if you do vote, that doesn't mean you're going to win. Have you seen how the two most evil parties (republicans and democrats) when again and again thanks to the fact that most people are imbeciles? I can say for certain that we're not lucky at the moment.

    58. Re:But, Corporations are People! by stenvar · · Score: 0

      I can evade the bad behavior of corporations in a free market. I can evade it less and less these days because our market becomes less and less free. Attempts to regulate corporations are the cause of these problems, not the solution.

    59. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is: with corporations, that's what's expected and it shouldn't matter because in a free market, you don't have to buy their crap. When the federal government is unethical, you have no way of escaping from that.

      The flip side of that is that when a corporation acts badly, all you can do is choose not to buy from them unless you are personally injured. With the government, you can vote. In either case, if enough people disagree with you or are apathetic, your actions may not matter, but government takes a far larger threshold of approval or apathy than a company does.

      (Also, the lack of ethics in a corporation being "expected" is no excuse for allowing it or worse giving it tacit approval than it is in other sociopaths.)

    60. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to the Supreme Court that ruled corporations have the rights of independent citizens.

    61. Re:But, Corporations are People! by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Who use tax payer money to fund junkets to Anaheim (Disneyland) (IRS)

      I've been to a lot of corporate conferences. When I saw that story about the IRS, my first thought was that they were emulating private corporations. Which I think is bad idea.

      I once went to a conference of managed care insurance companies at the Helmsley Hilton, with more luxury and fine wines than I needed. I was thinking of how my insurance premium was going to pay for this conference.

      Take a look at the schedule of events for the same facilities the IRS used. I can predict they're all private corporations.

    62. Re:But, Corporations are People! by tragedy · · Score: 1

      There was a time when American workers had balls, and they shot and killed Pinkertons. When people are beyond the reach of the law they may still not be out of range...

      Then the Pinkertons (ok, the specific case I'm thinking of was Baldwin-Felts rather than Pinkerton) would murder them on the courthouse steps and weren't prosecuted for it. People who murder for a living and have powerful backing tend to have an advantage over people who have to do other work for a living.

    63. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Corporations have only been treated as entities that have the exact same rights as people in the U.S. over the last 150 years or so. Otherwise in the U.S. they were treated as legal entities with limited rights.

      So, for most of the history of the U.S. they have been treated as entities that have the exact same rights as people (hint, the U.S. is less than 250 years old).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    64. Re:But, Corporations are People! by tragedy · · Score: 2

      Plus, if they don't buy it, they might be sued.

    65. Re:But, Corporations are People! by riondluz · · Score: 1

      the only thing standing between you and the forceful intent of a corporation is society and its governence (.gov)
      Also note the origins of the word 'company' lies rooted in unpaid soldiers turned mercenary.
      And remember that the black-clad, armed and badge-less forces in NOLA could at any time come to a street corner near you in a most unaccountable fashion. I suppose to you they would be offering 'safety' but I don't believe its one you can refuse.

      --
      resist propaganda
    66. Re:But, Corporations are People! by stenvar · · Score: 1

      the only thing standing between you and the forceful intent of a corporation is society and its governence

      That's a tautology. What we are talking about is not whether we need laws, but what form those laws take. Liberals want more and more regulation of corporations and regulatory enforcement, but that just doesn't work, it is in fact the source of the problems we have with corporations.

      The problem is that, on the one hand, society largely exempts corporations and its officers from financial and criminal liability and creates endless room for corporate rent seeking and political corruption, but then on the other hand people like you whine and complain about the resulting mess and try to reign it in through more and more regulation which only provides even more opportunities for rent seeking and corruption. Worse yet, the exemptions to liability for corporations don't just apply to the parties of a contract, they apply to harm they cause to third parties.

      The real solution is to (1) hold corporations and the individuals they are comprised of responsible the same way you hold any group of people responsible for their actions (i.e., increase corporate liability) so that illegal behavior results in serious consequences, (2) stop bailouts and government-created monopolies so making bad products results in serious consequences, and (3) at the same time decrease regulation so that rent-seeking gets reduced. That's the only combination of approaches that has a prayer of working.

    67. Re:But, Corporations are People! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, Corporations are People!
      Except they have no ethics or morality. Or shame.

      OR ACCOUNTABILITY

    68. Re:But, Corporations are People! by aestrivex · · Score: 1

      Your argument assumes the market is sufficiently competitive to be free.

    69. Re:But, Corporations are People! by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Not at all. I agree that markets are not sufficiently competitive for market mechanisms to work; the reason that they are not sufficiently competitive is usually government interference. Advocates of regulation have taken a few cases where regulation is genuinely warranted and then extended those valid arguments to numerous domains where they simply don't apply.

    70. Re:But, Corporations are People! by riondluz · · Score: 1

      It's not a tautology, as there are other means, though less effective, of dealing with force and intimidation. But you are correct regarding the form laws take and who they serve.

      The degree of regulation aside, there has been no significant regulatory enforcement of existing laws, watered down as they have become since Regan.

      The money and power of special interests have eroded the checks and balances society needs to survive.

      So if you advocate accountability, do you support Dodd-Frank?, a Consumer Protection Agency?, the EPA/FDA?

      Not particularly as they are now, with the foxes in charge of the henhouse(s), but as they were designed to be; holding that which is private accountable to the public.

      If you proscribe less regulation, then at least make it enforceable. Awarding exemptions and succumbing to 'rent-seeking' are not the product of over-regulation, but the power of influence and money over lawmakers. Society does not exempt corporation, the elites in government do; there is a difference.

      Also, "... people like you whine and complain..."

      I don't believe that I'm whining about anything,
      just offering an opinion, which is that the interest of corporations is not the same as that of society writ large and that the unbridled power of conglomerates can only be kept in check by the citizenry and the gov they (hopefully) control.

      Does anything I am saying make me sound to you as a liberal? Or that I'm advocating more laws or more regulations? There is nothing in my earlier comment to suggest that. Maybe your internal bias is showing because my orientation happens to bethat of a dyed-in-wool emma-goldman, gene-sharp, anarchist; insurrectionist AOT institutionalist, skeptic and questioner of Authority.
      And frankly, at this point in the clusterfuck, I just don't give a shit how it all shakes out.

      I am neither 'right' nor 'left' because the real issues hinge between 'top' and 'bottom' (or up and down). This is the world both OWS and TP live, the shared common denominator of failed institutions and broken systems.

      The fact happens to be that those at the top have gamed the system and left it for broke.

      And I happen to completely agree with 1-3 of your last paragraph because it speaks to the exemptions (and entitlements) that our current elites enjoy.

      But make no mistake, even in a society that eschews leaders and the distance it creates from its constituency,, there needs to be protection from corporations no different than from the Mafia .

      --
      resist propaganda
    71. Re:But, Corporations are People! by stenvar · · Score: 1

      If you proscribe less regulation, then at least make it enforceable. Awarding exemptions and succumbing to 'rent-seeking' are not the product of over-regulation, but the power of influence and money over lawmakers. Society does not exempt corporation, the elites in government do; there is a difference.

      Money always has influence over lawmakers; that's as fundamental as F=ma. And that means that if you give lawmakers the power to regulate and control everything, they are going to use that power inevitably for their own gain and benefit, as well as that of their friends.

      You can't solve our problems by hoping that somehow you make "elites in government" behave better. The only thing you can do is limit the damage they can do by limiting their functions to the absolute essentials. Furthermore, we need to hand over much more of the enforcement to the courts and juries, because imperfect as they are, they are a lot less influenced by money and power than elected representatives.

      But make no mistake, even in a society that eschews leaders and the distance it creates from its constituency,, there needs to be protection from corporations no different than from the Mafia .

      The only protection from corporations we need is to hold them accountable for specific, identifiable harm they cause, and to ensure that they operate in a free market so that you can vote with your feet. You need fairly little in terms of legal mechanisms to ensure that.

  3. lawsuit by proxy? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 5, Funny

    Can't they just give someone else the authority to sue on their behalf? There must be a loophole somewhere in the Bible...

    1. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Picass0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They probably could but if the property owner is not a party on the lawsuit there's nothing to compel a third party to share any restitution from the court.

    2. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're used to the kind of Easter/Christmas (or at most Sunday) Christians that you meet every day on the street. The Amish aren't like that. They live every day of their lives neck deep in their interpretation of the bible. They pray a dozen times a day, not because it's mandated, but just because that's what they do. They do not go out looking for loopholes to that interpretation, even something as simple as allowing bright colors on their children's clothes takes endless meetings and councils.

      You have to say this, at least they are consistent in their belief system, unlike most self proclaimed religious people. And generally speaking they are happy with their lot and comfortable in their lives, but sometimes it leaves them wide open for exploitation.

    3. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by t1oracle · · Score: 2

      What they need are some non-Amish cousins. Keep your friends close, but keep the heathens closer because one day you might need them to go to court for you to file lawsuits...

    4. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      They're not Jewish. The Jewish love loopholes.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    5. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's about not casting doubt on the morals of others and passing judgement (only God should do that). With all due respect, finding a "loophole" in the Bible is sacrilegious and immoral.

    6. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Somewhat. There are Amish who will 'not use electricity', but will use a diesel generator at the barn to run the dairy equipment.

      Is that a loophole or a nuanced interpretation?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    7. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True; they are mostly harmless. They bring their children up to be non-competitive in the real world. Actually most theists do that, but as you say many theists are "theists in theory and not in practice" and so they are mostly able to compete with normal, non-brainwashed people (even though they may have a few less hours per week in which they can be productive).

    8. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is just you not understanding.
      They have no problem with electricity, the problem is being tied to the grid. Some take this so far as to only use air powered equipment. To remove any temptation for grid tie.

    9. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Somewhat. There are Amish who will 'not use electricity', but will use a diesel generator at the barn to run the dairy equipment.

      Is that a loophole or a nuanced interpretation?

      There is also supposedly a "Black Bumper" flavor, who will use automobiles, so long as they don't have decorative chromed components.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    10. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh get over it. The entire Bible is a mass of conflicting rules and loopholes. People spout leviticus at gays while having tattoos and wearing mixed fabrics.

    11. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by julesh · · Score: 1

      Can't they just give someone else the authority to sue on their behalf?

      Generally speaking, no. The legal concept of privity of contract means that except in unusual circumstances it is impossible for somebody to sue for breach of contract who was not a signatory to the contract. There are exceptions, but they're rare and usually have to be made explicit in the contract itself.

      IANAL; the above does not consitute legal advice.

    12. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I don't know where they get their logic to avoid courts, but the bible does speak out directly against banking which they utilize quite readily. There is always moral or religious justification until you get to cold hard cash. The Amish are not any more moralistic, no matter their community practices, than a corporation. I have lived in a community with them most of my life, I don't have any reverence for them. They are just people, just as a corporation is people. Any altruism they exhibit is derived from an extreme amount of brain washing that starts young and is persisted throughout their life by a lack of integration with society. But they will take your money.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    13. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Tyler+Durden · · Score: 3, Informative

      This article discusses in what situations they might use electricity, and the reasoning behind it. Using a generator to acquire electricity is viewed as being less reliant on the outside world than, say, getting it from the power grid.

      --
      Happy people make bad consumers.
    14. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they just give someone else the authority to sue on their behalf? There must be a loophole somewhere in the Bible...

      But they are still suing.

      That's like if I have some moral problem with committing murder, so instead of me doing it I have someone else do it. By my hand or indirectly I am still committing murder.

      And the amish don't do loopholes because they try to be better and more honorable people than us.

    15. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, the bible speaks out against usury. The Koran forbids this as well. So they don't accept it. Instead they take the same loans that devout Muslims take. These are loans without interest, but instead other forms of fees. So for instance I might lend you $10,000 with $1000 down for 5 years, and you just pay the $10,000 back over that term. The $1000 down does not go against the principle but instead is my fee for this loan.

    16. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they just give someone else the authority to sue on their behalf? There must be a loophole somewhere in the Bible...

      Sorry, no loopholes. It is against the Amish belief to sue evil people.
      Evil people are in liaison with the Devil and must be either burned or stoned to death.

    17. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Neither, actually. This stems from the Ordnung (governing covenant, basically) used by the Amish, Anabaptist, Mennonites, etc. which outlines behavior and rules that each community has agreed to follow, which may (and likely is) be different from another nearby community. Many view that their communities are separate state-like entities -- thus the fact that Ordnungs differ between communities only miles apart -- and thus, must be disconnected from the larger society as a whole. If they pay for electricity, rather than generate it themselves via generator, they are connecting with a society that does not conform to their ideals of what society is or should be and thus, should not be interacted with as much as possible. If they allowed the power company to come onto their land and build power lines and poles, it would invite outside forces to their community which do not conform to Ordnung and thus, could disrupt their social mores or displace their traditional values.

      It sounds weird because, to us, it is but is entirely normal for Old World Anabaptists.

    18. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think you are confusing the Amish with Mennonites. They do not wear anything that is overly decorative, as that is vanity. This modesty extends to their vehicles.

    19. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is a wonderful piece done by NPR which explains this. A summary paraphrase is something like this. They only do something if it brings them closer to their god. Anything that could be a distraction from that is removed from their lives. So using a diesel generator that gives them more time and money to spend in their community and with God is a good thing for them, television that takes time from their family and their focus on god is a bad thing. I may not believe as they do, but exploitation of any people gets me kind of riled. As an atheist, no one deserves to be abused just for how they choose to live or believe, especially if it does not infringe upon others. The law needs to come down supremely hard on these people abusing the Amish.

    20. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Well, technically a diesel doesn't require electricity for its nonexistent spark plugs, so that might work out for them. But to be a hundred percent legit it should be mechanically connected to the pumps to avoid using a generator.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    21. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , even something as simple as allowing bright colors on their children's clothes takes endless meetings and councils.

      Ah. Perfect enterprise architect material.

    22. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those are Mennonites, not Amish.

      Back in the eighties, I was talking to a Mennonite, and the black bumpers came up. He had a good chuckle when I told him that blacking out bumpers was in style at the time for the hot rodders.

    23. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Not at all, if they use it it is necessary to the survival of their family's way of life, which is the primary reason that modern machinery is allowed. FDA and USDA guidelines don't allow for hand milking and require refrigeration for obvious reasons. Families that had been dairy farmers for generations were left with a choice, abandon their family's traditions or modernize to the minimum extent necessary to continue.

      But even if they chose to bring the necessary equipment they reduce the intrusion to the maximum extent possible; they don't wire up the home as well, most of them don't even wire up lights in the barn. They don't wire their equipment to the mains because that would make them reliant on the outside world. Using a generator and fuel moves that reliance one tiny step further away; a generator can be repaired, fuel can, in theory, be found from any number of sources, there are no power lines installed by 3rd parties and a tree coming down 50 miles away won't knock out their power.

    24. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by PRMan · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's because in Acts, the church told the Gentiles to ignore all the rules in the OT except for the sexual ones and eating blood. So it's actually very consistent with the text. Tattoos and mixed fabrics: rules to make Israel appear different. Gays: rule for everyone.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    25. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Can't they just give someone else the authority to sue on their behalf? There must be a loophole somewhere in the Bible...

      How to do you say "shabbath goy" in Pennsylvania German?

    26. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And generally speaking they are happy with their lot and comfortable in their lives

      I can't help it, being a sceptic, but I wonder - how common is it for people living in strong, patriarchal, authoritarian societies to claim that they are happy when they actually aren't, relative to other societies?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    27. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So then blood sausage is not ok?
      You had better go inform the world.

      Either way, interesting but very silly. I like to study religion, as one would study any mythology.

    28. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      I also saw a documentary film that stated that certain sects have no problem with the internal combustion motor, but that they have problems with vehicles that move under their own power. This particular sect was using a motor driven bailing machine that was being pulled by horses.

    29. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by PRMan · · Score: 2

      “Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” (1 Corinthians 6:7).

      The meaning is that you shouldn't take other believers (church-goers) to court. If two Christians can't work something out between themselves in a dispute that's fair for both sides, then one or both of them a) aren't very good Christians (selfish, love money) or b) aren't very forgiving.

      As a Christian, I would never sue another church member from any church. But there should be no issue with suing non-Christians.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    30. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Saethan · · Score: 1

      You and I clearly hang around different kinds of Mennonites. (I attended a Mennonite college for a year, vanity was not lacking :P )

    31. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a loophole or nuanced interpretation.

      Basically they won't be part of "the grid" as it does not foster community. Generating their own electricity is allowed because it sponsor interactions with others.
      Someone has to supply the solar panels, diesel generators and micro-hydro equipment. That said there are some orders that still view electricity even when generated on-site as being destructive toward/not fostering the community.

    32. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2, Informative

      See? Religion doesn't have a monopoly on the market for close-minded, condescending, arrogant, pretentious assholes.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    33. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Guru80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most will use electricity, even cell phones and the internet and all this other newfangled technology, for work but it ends there at the farmers market (or wherever else they conduct business) and doesn't follow them into their home lives for the vast majority of them.

    34. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      shabbathgoy?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    35. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by wren337 · · Score: 1

      They need to set up a trust that can negotiate and sue on their behalf, that would be required by law to act in their best interests. They could grant the oil rights to the trust for 5-20 years and get periodic payments back out.

    36. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the antiquated world-view that virtually obliges the Amish to ignore environmental impact is quite at odds with what even they would agree is their responsibility to their neighbors.

    37. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by dwpro · · Score: 1

      It's too bad Romans chapter 14 doesn't get to be a superseding rule the like you claim Acts is, it would fix pretty much all the problems with the church.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    38. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aclu?

    39. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      close-minded, condescending, arrogant, pretentious assholes

      OK, for the sake of argument, let's assume that he actually is all those things. Does that also mean that he's factually wrong on what he's talking about?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    40. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC, too lazy to login. I lived in an area with a lot of Amish. i find them quite respectable. I could be incorrect on this, but my understanding was they use diesels because they do not require electricity to run whatsoever. It's compression ignition (no spark plug, therefore no spark), and mechanical fuel injection.

    41. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      That's one interpretation, but it's not universally accepted that the passage in Acts is intended to mean that all the OT rules on sexuality should be kept.

      The passage in question, Acts 15:19-21,

      “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”

      The passage seems to imply that the retained rules will be much simpler, something you can summarize concisely in a few phrases without people having to read the entire OT. The only explicit part of the OT mentioned is the "law of Moses" that is "read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" and therefore assumed to already be very widely known. That's usually taken to mean just the Ten Commandments. If the phrase "tell them to abstain ... from sexual immorality" really means following to the letter every verse in the OT that mentions sexuality, that seems out of keeping with the spirit of this chapter.

    42. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      I think a good antibiotic might help you out.

    43. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Can't they just give someone else the authority to sue on their behalf? There must be a loophole somewhere in the Bible

      Yeah, but only in the old testament. (Check out recent definitions of "eruv" , or the proliferation of "shabbat timers" on kitchen appliances). The Amish, not being of that faith, don't know how to work the system...errrr... faithbook.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    44. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume they aren't as happy, relative to others? You seem to be judging a culture based on your own culture, which doesn't always work so well (to say the least). I mean no snark, but because people from your culture wouldn't like it doesn't mean others wouldn't.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    45. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amish always struck me as down to earth; honest and consistent people. That is why I always had the utmost respect for them. They also seem quite content and happy with their lives; in contrast with many others.

      As for corporations a British Judge said it long time ago: Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like.

      Pity.

    46. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Hatta · · Score: 0

      They have no problem with electricity

      You're right, their problem is with logic and applying it to the real world.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    47. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Why do you assume they aren't as happy, relative to others?

      I'm not sure what you mean by "culture". Even in a single community, conditions change over time. We've recently had a few decades of socialism, which is as close to actual religion as you can get, and any sort of complaining was "politically incorrect". But as the year 1989 has amply demonstrated, the repressed feelings had been there all the time.

      You seem to be judging a culture based on your own culture, which doesn't always work so well (to say the least).

      My culture is just fine, thanks for your concern. I really don't see how weighing various cultures should make any sense, as long as people aren't getting hurt in them, either physically or mentally. The pattern I see is pervasive: no matter where you look, when things get tightened, people start shutting up, but so far it never changed their minds. Why should some societes be immune to this?

      I mean no snark, but because people from your culture wouldn't like it doesn't mean others wouldn't.

      Well, I assume that the ontogenesis of human psyche leaves some room for people growing up in rigid social structures to end up with modest expectations, but there will always be some discontented individuals (and not always in the ungrateful sense).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    48. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Antibiotic? If I'm sneezing right now, it's not because of a bacterial infection.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    49. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by InsectOverlord · · Score: 1

      Do they extract/produce their own (bio)diesel fuel, or is it somehow OK to be connected to the oil industry (or to biodiesel farms, which also have serious environmental issues)?

    50. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I would love to see their theological exegesis for not using courts, considering that courts are used throughout the Bible (at one time, they were even the PRIMARY government of Israel, before they had a king).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    51. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      If you wanted to have a serious discussion on this, you could google to find the huge number of (fairly simple) explanations for why that is.

      Here, Ill even do the difficult work for you:
      https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&q=why+do+christians+follow+parts+of+the+old+testament+laws
      http://carm.org/why-do-christians-not-obey-old-testaments-commands-to-kill-homosexuals

      If you really wish for further clarification please let me know.

    52. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They, or their ancestors, chose a different value system from you, nothing more or less, and I personally can understand their decision (even if it's not the one I would take). Ignore the fact that it's rooted in religion and look at the actual motivation for the things Amish do. Their proscriptions aren't based on scripture, at least not directly, they are based on keeping the family as strong as possible, keeping friends and relatives close, not relying on others, not being lazy or vain.

    53. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was the very center of Catholicism. Of course, you won't know it by the secular press, which seems to think that Catholicism is about opposing abortion and gay marriage while raping children, but that is as fictional as most of the "news" is today.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    54. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      I always thought that this passage in Acts was referring to this letter that became widely spread in the Early Christian Church then lost for 1600 years:
      The Didache

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    55. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doesn't matter, it would encourage the drilling companies to act more honestly.

      The Amish want fair dealings without lawsuits, the corporations want to take advantage of the lack of lawsuits to deal unfairly. If a third party reaps 100% of the reward of a lawsuit, things are likely to be more, not less enforced, which should encourage fairer dealings with the Amish than the general population, a win win for the Amish.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    56. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      So, people still need to be killed for cheating on a spouse?

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    57. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no lawyers in the Bible. Lawyers are the invention of the Devil.

    58. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Not at all, if they use it it is necessary to the survival of their family's way of life, which is the primary reason that modern machinery is allowed. FDA and USDA guidelines don't allow for hand milking and require refrigeration for obvious reasons. Families that had been dairy farmers for generations were left with a choice, abandon their family's traditions or modernize to the minimum extent necessary to continue.

      That's not the whole story. The FDA has not said that Amish cannot hand milk or require refrigeration for their own milk on their farms. What the FDA and USDA has said is that the Amish may not sell raw milk across state lines. If the Amish (or anyone else) want to sell across state lines, they must abide by USDA guidelines which means pasteurization and refrigeration, etc.. They can still sell raw milk if it is within the state. The Amish man in the FDA case was warned not to sell across state lines. Instead of ceasing to selling interstate, the farmer re-categorized the milk business as a cow-sharing venture where buyers were not purchasing milk per se but buying portions of milk cows.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    59. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Not just their ancestors either. In some sects each Amish is to go out into the world and live in the real world. It's called Rumspringa, and they go out around 14-16 and come back when they are ready to live like the Amish do. Most of them do choose to come back. It's pretty amazing when you think about it. I would not want to give up my life of technology, but they find their way of living to be better in some way that we don't really understand.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    60. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There are Amish who will 'not use electricity', but will use a diesel generator at the barn to run the dairy equipment."

      That is because the milking machines have to meet an FDA standard.

    61. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Using a generator to acquire electricity is viewed as being less reliant on the outside world than, say, getting it from the power grid.

      I don't understand that one, since the generator fuel (usually diesel or gasoline) also has to come from the outside world. However, considering some of the mineral rights they have, Amish Petroleum might be right around the corner.

    62. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You like many probably think more "freedom" automatically means more happiness, and fewer choices means less happiness. But happiness doesn't work that way.

      Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA

      Where you see patriarchal and authoritarian they see Family. There certainly are dysfunctional families amongst them. But even in more "conventional" non-Amish societies there are decent happy families despite Dad being a dictator and kids not being able to vote him out. So we shouldn't assume they'd be more likely to be unhappy just because of that.

      We might also do well to learn a few things from them. They ban technology or a particular usage of it, if it may weaken the amish community. So you are less likely to see kids playing with electronic devices by themselves and ignoring everyone else, and more likely to see kids playing or talking with each other.

    63. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by zooblethorpe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hatta, I've generally appreciated your comments in the past, but this is a cheap shot, and off the mark at that.

      In one interview I read, an Amish fellow explained the reasoning. The idea, as best I understood his explanation, is that they believe that God intended for people to work a certain amount in this life. Devices that offer shortcuts to that are therefore shortcutting God's intentions for how people should live, and ultimately encouraging laziness and sloth.

      From that basic principle, he continued, automobiles are clearly out, but telephones might not be, and refrigerators could also be allowed. Which helped explain why I would see Amish folk riding a horse or a buggy from home to the dairy store near my relatives' house where the Amish sold their wares, and why that store was equipped with a refrigerator to keep the milk cold.

      From that basic principle, it looks to me like logic is being applied to the real world.

      I also note that the people I've known in life who've had to work the hardest to achieve success generally value that success all the more. Folks who clawed their way out of the ghetto to get to college, and who then followed through on their clear plans for professional careers thereafter. This stands in stark contrast to the people I've known who were given everything they possibly desired, and who don't understand the value of work. Folks who floated into college without a plan and without any ambition, who partied and vandalized, and who then tried to pass off casual acquaintances as glowingly impressed professional references in order to schlub their way into jobs that they couldn't really do. So I have to say that the Amish point of view might well be right to some extent, even if I don't hold to their sky-wizard reasons for it.

      Cheers,

      --
      "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
      "A four-foot prune."
    64. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ve recently had a few decades of socialism, which is as close to actual religion as you can get, and any sort of complaining was "politically incorrect".

      What country are you in. The United States has never been any where close to socialism, except in the minds of paranoid radicals.

    65. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Mennonites are quite varied. They range from being extremely "plain" to absolutely modern sitting along side any other mainstream Christian denomination. I grew up in a town with a significant Mennonite Brethren presence and some of my best friends were Mennonite, and I had no idea until college that in the east there were Mennonite groups with communities similar to the Amish. Ie, all the farmers used normal tractors, they drove normal cars, they listened to rock and roll or country, etc.

    66. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which seems to think that Catholicism is about opposing abortion and gay marriage while raping children

      I don't know about the raping children part, but the Roman Catholic church my grandparents and parents belong to is very strongly opposed to abortion and gay marriage. And no, this isn't just my grandparents and parents having these feelings. Back when I still attended, the pastor would routinely go on a rant about abortion and gay marriage.

      I will grant that such feelings may not be as wide spread as the media portrays it, but a fiction it ain't.

    67. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it isn't *solely* about that, and the reasons for both have to do a lot more with charity (yes, encouraging homosexuals to be celibate instead of outright excluding them can be considered charity, as can taking care of pregnant women regardless of their economic state) than outright bigotry.

      But you wouldn't know that from reading say, the New York Times, which only mentions Catholic opposition to both when the crazy activists come out, and then only mentions the Catholic Church at all when Fr. so-and-so has been sued because back in 1972 during the sexual revolution he raped an altar server.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    68. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be neglecting the six verses prior to the one you quoted. The primary thrust is that (in modern terminology) the correct model is binding arbitration within the church (which reflects Jesus' teaching on how to handle the situation when your brother wrongs you). Interestingly, this arbitration would probably have been legally binding, because Roman law allowed Jewish synagogues to make binding judgements about matters between two members and Christianity was still viewed as a Jewish sect at the time.

    69. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by SEE · · Score: 1

      When Jesus spoke on the matter, he didn't limit it to relations among Christians:

      Matthew 5:39-42 - âoeBut I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you."

      Luke 5: 29-30 - âoeWhoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either. Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back."

    70. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      Well, you're the one who claimed to be septic.

    71. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Actually there is a great range of observance among the Amish, all the way from staying in the 19th century (not too many) to complete assimilation.

      And it's not a Bible-following paradise. There were a lot of scandals about Amish being involved in incest and child sex abuse, for example.

    72. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      close-minded, condescending, arrogant, pretentious assholes.

      That description fits most atheists, actually.

    73. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      There's a world of difference between being a sceptic and being a septic; or at least the 53 inches of the Oxford English Dictionary.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    74. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Quite simple really (although I am not saying that I completely agree with their interpretation), just look at the following verses: Matthew 5:38–42, 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. There are others as well that feed into this same thought, but I'm too lazy to look them up currently.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    75. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      My trend would be to say the contract isn't within the community of believers- but I can see their point.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    76. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      As I said there are a few more verses that contribute to their understanding.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    77. Re:lawsuit by proxy? by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      How should I know? I haven't done any research on "most theists". However, it's gross speculation to say anything about them as a whole. He provided zero factual basis for his assertions, making them mere opinions. The weight of opinion on an argument is based solely on the expertise of the speaker in the field -- the only time appeal to authority is not completely fallacious -- yet he himself provides no credentials of any kind.

      The fact that he ostensibly asserts all of this with references makes him close-minded. He has no facts yet reaches a conclusion.

      The fact that he ostensibly asserts all of this with no credentials makes him pretentious. He has no exposure to the field yet believes his opinions have merit.

      The fact that he ostensibly asserts that a group of people is inferior merely on the basis of the type of their religion makes him condescending and arrogant. He believes himself to be objectively better than literally billions of others.

      Why should I even consider the merits of his opinion when it clearly has none?

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  4. PROXY? by deadlydiscs · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure with billions involved, the Amish will think of something. After all, somehow they got themselves hooked into that electric Amish heater infomercial. I mean, that's all kinds of amish-wrong.

    1. Re:PROXY? by thoriumbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Amish are not thinking on the billions, they are thinking on their land. They rarely rely on money anyway, so the billions would not be that compelling to them. But frackle their soil and wreck their land, and they will be deeply concerned.

    2. Re:PROXY? by t1oracle · · Score: 1

      Is that billions with a "B?" Umm, ok for 10% I'll be whatever kind of liaison they need. Who do I have to call? I can live in a barn until it's over I don't mind at all! :-D

    3. Re:PROXY? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      For most of them this is not true anymore. They might not care about wealth, but they are as impacted by drought as any other. Often they have to get loans for farm equipment as well. These wells could have let them avoid those loans or even make each other loans, as they prefer to do.

    4. Re:PROXY? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is that billions with a "B?"

      Umm, ok for 10% I'll be whatever kind of liaison they need. Who do I have to call?

      Your last sentence indicates that you lack the knowledge to properly represent the Amish.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:PROXY? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Actually most/many Amish sects now allow prepaid cell phones. This is because they do not involve debt, can be bought from stores they already go to and do not require any infrastructure to be built on their land.

    6. Re:PROXY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the article isn't about the oil companies wrecking their land. It's about them duping people into signing ridiculously low mineral rights leases while also using up a significant portion of their land to set up the well. The companies are also taking advantage of Ohio law concerning how mineral rights leases expire. The author could have written this article 30-40 years ago since the area has been home to oil production for quite a while. Ohio is where Standard Oil was founded, so it wouldn't be surprising if the lease expiration "feature" was something that was made a law during John D Rockefeller's time. Fracking is thrown in there to get some people foaming at the mouth about it.

  5. Amish frack like anyone else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They just frak with only their spouse.

  6. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are actually several different "sects" of Amish, all with differing interpretations. Saying that they don't make use of the courts is incorrect. Some don't, but for most the prohibition is in filing lawsuits for personal gain.

    In any event, it's really not something anybody should be concerned with. The Amish have the right to take advantage of the courts, and the right to choose not to use them. If their belief system says don't use the courts, well that's too bad but it's a burden they've placed on themselves.

    1. Re:Wrong by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. If the fracking did something like destroy their land so it couldn't be used for farming, they would likely be able to sue to get justice.

      What they probably won't do is sue if the energy companies don't give them all the money they agreed to, but at the same time, it doesn't prevent the Amish from living their lives.

      Although the Amish are not idiots, they have decided to live their lives without many modern conveniences. Presumably, they aren't going to be necessarily interested in extracting as much money as they can as there is no benefit to them in a lot of money except keeping score. Since mineral and resource rights are money that they would make without working for it themselves, it's a windfall that they may well not need or even want.

      That's not to say that they will or want to give this stuff away, but at the same time, if the energy companies are not actively hurting them, lawsuits are just a contentious issue that they don't need. Of course, nothing prevents them from pointing out that the energy companies are cheating them to interested parties and having those people publicize it (as seems to have happened here). This may give outsiders the idea that the Amish are being cheated and taken advantage of, but I just see it as them placing their priorities in a place where most people would not in modern society.

    2. Re:Wrong by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Right. If the fracking did something like destroy their land so it couldn't be used for farming, they would likely be able to sue to get justice.

      They would certainly be able to sue; getting justice is a different matter.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Wrong by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      it's a burden they've placed on themselves.

      Because a monopoly 'justice' system that's forced on them and violates their right of conscience and religious teachings is not an externally imposed burden at all.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Wrong by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      In any event, it's really not something anybody should be concerned with. The Amish have the right to take advantage of the courts, and the right to choose not to use them. If their belief system says don't use the courts, well that's too bad but it's a burden they've placed on themselves.

      While we're at it, let's take those "oath or affirmation" lines out of the Constitution. An oath should be good enough for anyone. If Quakers can't serve in office because they won't take an oath, that's a burden they've placed on themselves.

    5. Re:Wrong by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      Although the Amish are not idiots, they have decided to live their lives without many modern conveniences.

      Not quite, they've decided to live their lives without being beholden to and dependent on outsiders. Why don't they wire up their houses to electricity? Because their way of life would rapidly change to make them dependent on it. Same reason they don't use cars or tractors. I don't know why, but I find this to be an important distinction... maybe it's because people think that the Amish just made this weird choice for no justification when there is a more fundamental, and more understandable reason for their denial of modern conveniences.

    6. Re:Wrong by slugstone · · Score: 0

      In any event, it's really not something anybody should be concerned with. The Amish have the right to take advantage of the courts, and the right to choose not to use them. If their belief system says don't use the courts, well that's too bad but it's a burden they've placed on themselves.

      I would hate to live in your world. More like I really hate being a minority in your world. Having to fight and scratch for every little thing just because my belief system is different than the majority.

    7. Re:Wrong by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      It's not about the courts, or the Amish. It's about companies not living up to their end of the agreement because they know the Amish won't come after them in court. It's about moral decay and the sociopathy of large corporations.

    8. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems there's an easy fix here. There are lots of people that like working for non-profit charities. And lots of people that like the idea of preserving culture, and preserving the rights of those who are unable to defend themselves. So a few lawyers and business types could get together and form a non-profit Friends of the Amish organization as a non-profit with the mission to defend the Amish from the intrusion of modern concerns. They can do things like file suits against fracking companies on behalf of Amish communities, and take the lawsuit profits to prop up the non-profit, saving up windfalls to fund future cases. Then the Amish themselves don't have to be concerned with these matters at all; they have an external shield doing it for them without their even asking or perhaps even knowing.

    9. Re:Wrong by dywolf · · Score: 1

      so we should just ignore the wrongdoer?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    10. Re:Wrong by dywolf · · Score: 1

      this. its still wrong, even if the amish let them get away with it.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    11. Re:Wrong by azadrozny · · Score: 1

      My understanding of the Amish was that they typically use trusted outsiders to broker these kinds of deals. Apparently not the case here. I am surprised that the family in this article didn't talk it up within their community first. Sounds like they were cash strapped, but getting the lawyer involved first was a better way to go, especially if you won't sue. The lawyer may have been able to work out a long term deal, but with options to kick them out if they feel they are getting "fracked". I suspect this farmer will not make the same mistake.

      I agree with your sentiment. If they choose not to take the company to court, then they need to live with the consequences of their actions.

    12. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In the Amish community near me, it's less the picture you paint, and more one of convenience. They do not drive, they do not have electricity and they do not (obviously) have the internet. BUT, they do not hesitate to ask for rides, even for a mile or so away. The do not hesitate to spend their evenings at the neighbor's house in the summer who has air conditioning. They do not hesitate to get cellular phones for access to the internet.

      Bullshit.

    13. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And an oath in this case functions essentially as a religious test, dumbass, which is why some sects have problems with giving them and others do not.

      Hence the additional "affirmation" language (so as not to run afoul of the Establishment Clause, inter aalia).

    14. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, if fracking did something to their land, no more Amish would make deals with them - so it's a question of do you abuse your one client or ensure you have a lot of future clients? Most of the time the profit is in the latter choice.

  7. if they were benefiting from the Amish heater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would they need money from the oil companies to cover their bills

    not like they live beyond their means

  8. electic amish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ohhh, you gonna paint that barn tonight
    Ohhh, down beside da lantern light
    Ohhh, you gonna finish all your chores
    Black bonnet girls you make the Amish world go round

    Yah

    I was just an Amish boy
    Full of purity und joy
    Knew damn well that I was holier than thee
    Left alone with Cousin Greta
    What a naughty baby sitta
    Heathen woman, you made a Mennonite out of me

    Yah Yah

    I know girls who never curse
    Chicks who know their bible verse
    Every one of them wore a dress down to da floor
    Though their chastity and charm
    Made them quite pleasant on da farm
    There ain't nothing like a good old Amish whore

    Ohhh, you gonna paint that barn tonight
    Ohhh, down beside da lantern light
    Ohhh, you gonna finish all your chores
    Black bonnet girls you make the Amish world go round
    Yah
    Black bonnet girls you make the Amish world go round

    Hey Carl
    Yah Graeber
    What's the difference between Greta and my buggy.
    I don't know Graber what is the difference
    Well, not everybody has been in my buggy.
    Ha ha ha ha

    Yah listen now
    I've been on my knees all day
    All I do is sit and pray
    Thought I saw the Lord but I can't really tell
    But I knew from da beginning
    With this lust and all this sinning
    Black bonnet girls and me will surely burn in hell

    Yah dig this
    Ohhh, you gonna paint that barn tonight
    Ohhh, down beside da lantern light
    Ohhh, you gonna finish all your chores
    Black bonnet girls you make the Amish world go round
    Yah
    Black bonnet girls you make the Amish world go round

    Get on your buggies and ride
    Black bonnet girls
    Man that Greta's built like a brick outhouse
    Black bonnet girls
    As long as I've got a pew, she's got a place to sit
    Black bonnet girls
    Yah, she could churn my butter anytime
    Black bonnet girls
    Hey Greta, show us your ankles
    Ooooh

    1. Re:electic amish by PRMan · · Score: 1

      As I walk through the valley where I harvest my grain
      I take a look at my wife and realize she's very plain
      But that's just perfect for an Amish like me
      You know, I shun fancy things like electricity
      At 4: 30 in the morning I'm milkin' cows
      Jebediah feeds the chickens and Jacob plows... fool
      And I've been milkin' and plowin' so long that
      Even Ezekiel thinks that my mind is gone
      I'm a man of the land, I'm into discipline
      Got a Bible in my hand and a beard on my chin
      But if I finish all of my chores and you finish thine
      Then tonight we're gonna party like it's 1699
      We been spending most our lives
      Living in an Amish paradise
      I've churned butter once or twice
      Living in an Amish paradise
      It's hard work and sacrifice
      Living in an Amish paradise
      We sell quilts at discount price
      Living in an Amish paradise
      A local boy kicked me in the butt last week
      I just smiled at him and turned the other cheek
      I really don't care, in fact I wish him well
      'Cause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in hell
      But I ain't never punched a tourist even if he deserved it
      An Amish with a 'tude? You know that's unheard of
      I never wear buttons but I got a cool hat
      And my homies all I agree I look good in black... fool
      If you come to visit, you'll be bored to tears
      We haven't even paid the phone bill in 300 years
      But we ain't really quaint, so please don't point and stare
      We're just technologically impaired
      There's no phone, no lights, no motorcar
      Not a single luxury
      Like Robinson Crusoe
      It's as primitive as can be
      We been spending most our lives
      Living in an Amish paradise
      We're just plain and simple guys
      Living in an Amish paradise
      There's no time for sin and vice
      Living in an Amish paradise
      We don't fight, we all play nice
      Living in an Amish paradise
      Hitchin' up the buggy, churnin' lots of butter
      Raised a barn on Monday, soon I'll raise anudder
      Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
      Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art
      I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like
      On my knees day and night scorin' points for the afterlife
      So don't be vain and don't be whiny
      Or else, my brother, I might just have to get medieval on your heinie
      We been spending most our lives
      Living in an Amish paradise
      We're all crazy Mennonites
      Living in an Amish paradise
      There's no cops or traffic lights
      Living in an Amish paradise
      But you'd probably think it bites
      Living in an Amish paradise

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:electic amish by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      As I walk through the valley where I harvest my grain
      I take a look at my wife and realize she's very plain
      But that's just perfect for an Amish like me
      You know, I shun fancy things like electricity
      At 4: 30 in the morning I'm milkin' cows
      Jebediah feeds the chickens and Jacob plows... fool
      And I've been milkin' and plowin' so long that
      Even Ezekiel thinks that my mind is gone
      I'm a man of the land, I'm into discipline
      Got a Bible in my hand and a beard on my chin
      But if I finish all of my chores and you finish thine
      Then tonight we're gonna party like it's 1699

      We been spending most our lives
      Living in an Amish paradise
      I've churned butter once or twice
      Living in an Amish paradise
      It's hard work and sacrifice
      Living in an Amish paradise
      We sell quilts at discount price
      Living in an Amish paradise

      A local boy kicked me in the butt last week
      I just smiled at him and turned the other cheek
      I really don't care, in fact I wish him well
      'Cause I'll be laughing my head off when he's burning in hell
      But I ain't never punched a tourist even if he deserved it
      An Amish with a 'tude? You know that's unheard of
      I never wear buttons but I got a cool hat
      And my homies all I agree I look good in black... fool
      If you come to visit, you'll be bored to tears

      We haven't even paid the phone bill in 300 years
      But we ain't really quaint, so please don't point and stare
      We're just technologically impaired

      There's no phone, no lights, no motorcar
      Not a single luxury
      Like Robinson Crusoe
      It's as primitive as can be

      We been spending most our lives
      Living in an Amish paradise
      We're just plain and simple guys
      Living in an Amish paradise
      There's no time for sin and vice
      Living in an Amish paradise
      We don't fight, we all play nice
      Living in an Amish paradise

      Hitchin' up the buggy, churnin' lots of butter
      Raised a barn on Monday, soon I'll raise anudder
      Think you're really righteous? Think you're pure in heart?
      Well, I know I'm a million times as humble as thou art
      I'm the pious guy the little Amlettes wanna be like
      On my knees day and night scorin' points for the afterlife
      So don't be vain and don't be whiny
      Or else, my brother, I might just have to get medieval on your heinie

      We been spending most our lives
      Living in an Amish paradise
      We're all crazy Mennonites
      Living in an Amish paradise
      There's no cops or traffic lights
      Living in an Amish paradise
      But you'd probably think it bites
      Living in an Amish paradise

      Yech

    3. Re:electic amish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok...now get Wierd Al to sing this!

    4. Re:electic amish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This made my day

  9. Oil folks ripping people off what a shock! by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Who was surprised by this? Other than the Amish.

    I wonder if the Amish will use the courts when their water well is unusable or a major spill occurs. Sure that is not a normal thing, but when you are already ripping them off on the lease you might as well do a shitty job casing the well too.

  10. Their own fault by Jiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they had religious objections to the police, and thus refused to use them, would we start seeing stories that they are being robbed and the robbers are getting away?

    Of course if they don't use the courts, they don't get the benefit of the courts. If they refuse anything based on religious grounds, they're not going to get it. That's what "refuse" means. If they refuse the process of getting justice, they're not going to get justice, just like if they refuse internet service, they don't get internet service.

    What next, articles about the cruel dilemma of Christian Scientists who are dying of disease because their religion discourages them from seeing doctors?

    1. Re:Their own fault by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      I fucking hate this attitude. Blame the victim it's their fault! Yes, the affected people could fight back, but the story isn't about that as much as it is that these are large corporations purposefully taking advantage of their knowledge that the Amish won't fight back. If you go up to a pacifist and punch him in the face it's funny because he won't punch back right!? Right?

    2. Re:Their own fault by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In the U.S. corporations are our religion. The "Christianity" thing is a smokescreen. If it makes money and screws the other guy then in corporate-centric America it is right.

      I'm ready for the -1 mod on this... but I will keep saying it. We've got major problems with our ethics in the U.S. and corporatism is being the true religion. The Joel Olsteen "God wants you to be successful" crap is by no means Christianity.

    3. Re:Their own fault by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they refuse the process of getting justice

      They refuse a process, one that's claimed to get justice, when it often does not.

      It's so funny to see people call the US a 'Christian Nation' when its conflict resolution system is based on vengeance and disallows third party defense, contrary to all just moral codes do (this would help the Amish here). Jesus taught forgiveness, tolerance, and mutual aid - it's really hard to mesh the two.

      At the same time, if the Amish were to actually defend their property rights, the government that runs this so-called 'justice' system would do things to the Amish that would be considered illegal if anybody else did it and immoral by most watchers.

      There are conflict resolution systems that are compatible with property rights and the kinds of non-zero sum games that Jesus taught. We're not allowed to choose those here - the default system is always in play and it's based on retribution and violence. The Amish's resolve is admirable in this case. Blaming the victim is never admirable.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Their own fault by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      What next, articles about the cruel dilemma of Christian Scientists who are dying of disease because their religion discourages them from seeing doctors?

      Please tell me you see the difference between an act of nature (disease) and a system created by the government (courts). I don't know exactly what the solution is, but to say that the government can't, where practicable, make accommodations for people's deeply held religious belief is nonsense. It certainly has no basis in history or what most people would consider reason and justice. The phrase "oath or affirmation" is in the Constitution because Quakers have a religious objection to oaths. Did you think that "Sundays excepted" got in there because that's when people had barbeques? What about exemptions from military service or allowing some religious groups to use peyote?

    5. Re:Their own fault by retech · · Score: 1

      I wondered how long it would take for some asshole to make this statement and the have the subsequent vote up.

      /. is nothing if not consistent with it's comments.

    6. Re:Their own fault by physicsphairy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they had religious objections to the police, and thus refused to use them, would we start seeing stories that they are being robbed and the robbers are getting away?

      If they had religious objections to invoking the police, it would be irrelevant. The police are still going to track down the robbers and arrest them regardless of whether mom and pop want to file charges. In structuring our society, we have arbitrarily decided to make a legal distinction between certain types of injustice. It used to be the case where I live that domestic violence was not prosecuted unless the abused wanted to press charges. You'd think if someone was being abused they would want their abuser to get what was coming to them. But that is not always the case, I suppose we decided we wanted the abuser to face justice regardless, because now they will be prosecuted by default.

      It is just as arbitrary deciding we are going to rely on a civil enforcement of contract law. In fact, we do have measures to protect certain disadvantaged people in contracts---minors, people with mental defects---but so far not people averse to filing lawsuits. Just because the Amish are willing to allow injustice to be perpetrated against them doesn't make it okay and doesn't mean we as a society are obliged to accept it, any more than we are obliged to allow physical abuse simply because the abused wants to remain in the relationship.

      The reason the Amish don't wish to file a lawsuit is because they have a different set of priorities. Their goal is to make their lives a compelling argument for what they believe in. They are instructed to shun lawsuits because legal disputes often result in discord and when it comes to a choice between the money or maintaining goodwill they suppose money is not that important. You're right that it is their choice to make. But it doesn't change the fact that they are being wronged and cheated. I don't understand why you think they need to be actively trying to get the better of their oppressors before we're allowed to be sympathetic.

    7. Re:Their own fault by dragonsomnolent · · Score: 1

      I have a friend who is a priest (Catholic) and he insists that the Catholic church is the One True Religion and everything else (including all other denominations) are not, in fact, truly Christian. I once got him to call Jesus a pagan by asking if the Jews were pagan. Personally, I believe in the Cosmos. I can see it, I know I am a part of it, I know that we all are. I don't know that it's "alive" or "intelligent" but I believe it is, others don't, doesn't bother me. Never understood why people get their knickers in a bunch over people not seeing things their way when it comes to religion. After all, you and I can look at a tree and never see it the same, and that's a physical object we can touch, taste, etc.

      --
      I got nuthin
    8. Re:Their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the U.S. corporations are our religion.

      That's a good thing. This means you can change the way the corporations act by voting with your wallet (politicians too, with your actual vote)

      Corporations only do immoral and unethical things because you the citizen and the consumer allow them. Those poor Amish may be the victims, but you are not a victim. You have the power to stop them.

      Yes, it'll be rather inconvenient to not get all the shinies and nice things corporations make, but that is the price of upholding your principles and ethics. And who else is going to fight? The Amish live simple lives and don't fight back because of their religion, what's your excuse?

    9. Re:Their own fault by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      I'll respect what they believe when I think it is moral and just and they demonstrate that they truly believe it through their actions. I don't care if they refrain from murder because of a self-consistent, logical moral framework based on the principle of minimizing harm, or if they refrain from murder because a sky fairy told them it is wrong. Either way, I'll respect their choice to refrain from murder and encourage them to continue doing so.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    10. Re:Their own fault by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Do you have a superior suggestion? Sure there's a few problems with what corporations do nowadays, mostly as a result of corporatist laws and such (government granting special favors that an individual or other corporations couldn't attain), but by and large the fundamental corporation model has been around for centuries and isn't surpassed in it's ability to satisfy consumer demand.

    11. Re:Their own fault by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Because Christianity isnt about feeling good about what I believe, its about trying to help people avoid the penalty for their misdeeds.

      So that you feel the existence of the cosmos and whatnot is interesting, but as a Christian I dont feel a particular thrill simply because you feel something. Im more concerned that you think personal beliefs trump reality in this regard.

    12. Re:Their own fault by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

      "Christianity", is hugely profitable. Just look at the big beautiful churches in many neighbourhoods. Within a few minutes walk of where I work in the downtown core, there are two enormous churches. Each of them taking up a city block.
      The "God" racket looks pretty profitable to me. :)

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    13. Re:Their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most "Christianity" isn't Christianity if you ask a Christian of a different sect.

      Citation needed. Sure, there are some christians with that mindset, but most christians don't hold that their flavor of christianity is the one true flavor.

    14. Re:Their own fault by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Some churches are raking in the dough --- but a lot aren't, even if they've got big buildings. Many large, impressive church buildings are legacies from many decades ago, when they did have more abundant funds; now under-utilized and barely scraping by to keep the lights on. Many major denominations face an aging and declining membership, with diminishing funds. A few corporatized megachurches can still pull in big, profitable crowds with slick advertising (and often rather hollow "prosperity gospel" theology), but the magnificent old cathedrals from a long-gone heyday of ecclesiastical prosperity are not a good indicator of current finances.

    15. Re:Their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the U.S. corporations are our religion. I'm ready for the -1 mod on this... but I will keep saying it. We've got major problems with our ethics in the U.S. and corporatism is being the true religion. The Joel Olsteen "God wants you to be successful" crap is by no means Christianity.

      Unfortunately it is much worse than just the Joel Olsteen take on being a greedy Christian asshole is OK with GOD, it also has been how this country has been run!

      'It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven'.

      Corporations have no soul and neither do those who sit there behind desks, snorting coke, wheeling and dealing in the labor of others. And by and large they are smart enough to use religion as a smoke screen and will even hire public relations people who deal in pushing quasi liturgical PR nonsense.

      Charles Dickens recognized this. So do many great authors even to this day.

      Unfortunately people like BUSH, and the real ex president CHANEY (sic) MILO MINDERBINDER and all the self righteous corporate myrmidons and minions in reality just distort the Christian faith for profit.

      So what's new?

    16. Re:Their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Punching a pacifist is the right thing to do.

    17. Re:Their own fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had religious objections to the police, and thus refused to use them, would we start seeing stories that they are being robbed and the robbers are getting away?

      Of course if they don't use the courts, they don't get the benefit of the courts. If they refuse anything based on religious grounds, they're not going to get it. That's what "refuse" means. If they refuse the process of getting justice, they're not going to get justice, just like if they refuse internet service, they don't get internet service.

      If someone has a conscientious objection to owning a firearm, should it be okay to shoot them because they won't fire back?
      If someone lets their boyfriend beat them, do they deserve medical care, and should we refrain from arresting the scumbag?

      It turns out that there is a major societal cost to allowing this sort of behavior to go on, regardless of what the victim thinks. And the theory of "turn the other cheek" does apply to reporting crimes. Amish tend to under-report crime and try to work things out between themselves on reparation and forgiveness. That creates all sorts of problems, especially when it comes to sexual assaults, where the victim's family is considered the one harmed as much or more than the victim.

      We don't prosecute crimes with public prosecutors under the theory that it's all about what the victim feels. We do so because there's a cost to us all from it.

      What next, articles about the cruel dilemma of Christian Scientists who are dying of disease because their religion discourages them from seeing doctors?

      Well, it is a problem when the putative Christian Scientist is a minor in control of parents who object. It's also a problem if they become disease vectors for the rest of the community. Look at all the problems we're having eliminating polio and protecting the world from that threat because the remaining holdout Muslim communities think that vaccination is a plot to sterilize them or that it's a front for the CIA (which is true now, thanks to the hunt for bin Laden, so fuck you CIA).

    18. Re:Their own fault by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, it's not funny, but I'm not going to cry for him, either. He made his choices, now he gets to live with them.

    19. Re:Their own fault by Jiro · · Score: 1

      If someone "lets" their boyfriend beat them, that normally means that they "let" him because they fear some sort of consequences if they try it.

      If they said "I don't care if there are any consequences or not, even if I could avoid getting beaten for no cost whatsoever I would still let him beat me--it's a matter of principle to let people beat me!", I'd put them in the same category as someone who routinely leaves their car door unlocked with expensive jewels inside and comes back one day to find it stolen. Yes, they were robbed and robbery is not permitted just because the door is unlocked, but at some point, failing to take reasonable precautions makes you an idiot.

      And if someone says "God demands that I leave jewels in an unlocked car", they're not any less of an idiot just because they got the command from God.

  11. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They need binding arbitration.

  12. Time to call in the Amish Mafia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Problem Solved!

  13. Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real world by couchslug · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    is not my problem or concern.

    Yes, their particular cult is marketed to appear quaint, but it's still just another Superstition of the Desert and I laugh at the misfortunes of people who choose to believe in such insanity.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  14. A Secret Life - BBC documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you believe for one minute the Amish had anything to do with an electric fireplace made in China by children/prisoners, I have some ocean front property in Eastern Ohio that might interest you...

    In all seriousness, anyone who wants to learn about Amish life should check out "Amish - A Secret Life" by the BBC. Although it could be argued the subjects are no longer "true" (you'll have to watch to understand why) the documentary is probably the closest thing to Amish life anyone reading Slashdot will see. Check it out when you have an hour to spare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaBnmSyNxHE

    1. Re:A Secret Life - BBC documentary by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      They Amish just make the mantle. That is the scam. It has been suggested that the Amish are in fact only assembling Chinese made mantles, so they can use this name.

    2. Re:A Secret Life - BBC documentary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although it could be argued the subjects are no longer "true" (you'll have to watch to understand why)

      Why can't you just tell us? That was rather rude leaving everyone to wonder like that. Is it really that hard to phrase succinctly?

  15. "not my problem or concern" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see, they are religious but not muslim so they are contemptible to you.
    Spoken like a true liberal.

    1. Re:"not my problem or concern" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us liberals consider all Abrahamic cults and their bronze age mentality contemptible.

    2. Re:"not my problem or concern" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you should form your own opinions based on evidence rather than let Rush Limbaugh talking points form them for you.

      just sayin'

    3. Re:"not my problem or concern" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The majority of my neighbors are amish. I will take a amish family over a smug liberal as my neighbor any day.

    4. Re:"not my problem or concern" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is it? Are liberals bleeding hearts who care too much about people's rights or careless people who only care about ourselves and our benefits check? These two personalities types are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm a liberal atheist, I disagree with the OPs comment. Does that now make me a conservative or can you admit you're just broad brushing people based upon your beliefs?

    5. Re:"not my problem or concern" by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This that "lib" really smug or is that just the image you've formed in your own mind?

      Living in Indiana I have quite an image of the smug, blowhard, know-it-all but ignorant conservative built up. It doesn't mean I am always right.

    6. Re:"not my problem or concern" by couchslug · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      I didn't mention Muslims, what you interpreted was not what I wrote. Should I "interpret" that you are a Bible Thumper so paranoid you see your Muslim competitors under every rock?

      Prove Jehovah exists and your enemies will evaporate. No proof, then you deserve no respect as a person because you spout toxic insanity. Anyone who professes that a God exists has the burden of proving their assertion.

      I hold ALL Superstitions in contempt because they have had THOUSANDS of years to prove their Imaginary Friend(s) exist and have utterly failed to do so.

      I reject ALL slavery to the minions of the tribal superstitions of the desert. It would be delightful if you just killed each other, but you stunt the progress of mankind.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:"not my problem or concern" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this 'smug' lib would prefer for you to be living next door to an amish cultist as well.

      I for one do not get my moral guidelines from a bunch of Bronze Age sociopaths.

  16. Pichforks at dawn! by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Funny

    That ought to learn the oil & gas companies a lesson!

  17. Sin, Repent & Do Petenance by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can't they sue the pants off of these guys and then repent afterwards?

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:Sin, Repent & Do Petenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are Baptists.

    2. Re:Sin, Repent & Do Petenance by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      or Catholics.

    3. Re:Sin, Repent & Do Petenance by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Faithful Amish would not treat Jesus' blood like a credit card.

    4. Re:Sin, Repent & Do Petenance by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what they are doing. Oh wait, you were talking about the Amish?

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    5. Re:Sin, Repent & Do Petenance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Catholics would have to give up 10% of their winnings.

  18. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by spottedkangaroo · · Score: 1

    ... maybe that's true; but their whole society is designed around living separately from the society they view as damaged. They don't want to take part (and not just for religious reasons). Why should they be forced to participate in a supposedly free country? It's not like they're forcing anything on us... they're just trying to live quietly out of the way.

    --
    Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
  19. Silly by Sparticus789 · · Score: 2

    Why would the Amish need a court system? They have the Amish Mafia to protect them.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
    1. Re:Silly by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      that's the Catholics.

    2. Re:Silly by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Why would the Amish need a court system? They have the Amish Mafia to protect them.

      This. They will have the Mullet gang pay them a visit, with some scissors. You can't make that shit up (and that's why it's terrifying).

    3. Re:Silly by Aerokii · · Score: 1

      Why would the Amish need a court system? They have the Amish Mafia to protect them.

      This is a thing? On DISCOVERY CHANNEL? That's it- I give up on Television.

    4. Re:Silly by idontgno · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, that's the Spanish Inquisition.

      It's reasonable that you didn't think of them. No one ever expects them.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one ever expects them.

      No one...except for this man.

  20. I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It isn't so much the Easter/Christmas Christians. I mean when you have someone that only has a passing involvement in their religion, it is not at all surprising when they ignore some (or many) of the rules. However you see it in the really orthodox as well. They find what they believe to be loopholes and use them.

    Orthodox Jews are some of the best examples:

    So Exodus 35:3 says "Do not light a fire in any of your dwellings on the Sabbath day." This relates to Exodus 16:23 which says "This is what the LORD commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of sabbath rest, a holy sabbath to the LORD. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.'" Basically the idea is, as far as biblical scholars can tell, that making a fire was a lot of work (try making a fire rubbing sticks together, it sucks) and the Sabbath is a day of rest. So none of that, you make your food on Friday, rest on Saturday. Remember that we are talking the ME/Mediterranean here, so you didn't really need fire for warmth.

    However, for whatever reason, the Talmudic interpretation has decided that electricity is fire. I'm not sure why, but that is what the orthodox churches teach. So, you aren't allowed to operate electric devices on Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath), in particular your oven. Well that's pretty damn inconvenient in the modern world... So they find all kinds of "loopholes". You can get ovens that have timers longer than 24 hours. You set them up the day before, and they'll heat up (and down) at the prescribed times. Also while an Orthodox Jew can't go and push the buttons to operate an elevator in their building, it is 100% fine to have a Gentile who does it for you. Or, since elevator operators are a rather unnecessary expense these days, elevators can be (and are) set in to 'Sabbath Mode' where they automatically stop at every floor and open up, and just keep cycling. Takes longer, you have to get on and wait, but you can use it without 'operating' it.

    This is real, and it is big. There are plenty of Orthodox Jews that seem to think it is important to obey that part of the bible, but that they can find ticky loopholes and gotchas to get around it and god will be ok with that. I don't claim to understand it, however it is what it is.

    On the flip side you'll see some weird stuff like stores that won't let you order on the Sabbath. B&H Photo Video, one of the best camera stores in the US, is like that. They have a big, well designed, online ordering system. However it won't let you order on the Sabbath. You can browse, but if you try to place an order, it won't allow it, you have to wait, it won't queue it into the system. The servers don't get the day off, but they aren't allowed to take orders :).

    So you can see how, given things like this, people might assume the Amish would be similar. It is not from dealing with people who are casually religious that you get the idea, but from dealing with those that are deeply religious and seem to care about certain rules, but are 100% fine with going around those rules in tricky ways.

    Now lest someone think I'm picking on the Jews here, I just chose the example because it is one you see a fair bit in America. You should see some of the things various orthodox Muslims do that are against the Koran, but they've found a loophole that makes it "ok" in this particular case.

    1. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Totally my personal belief here, but the people we see on TV, yelling about Homosexuality, being puffed-up about Christianity aren't actually Christians at all. They don't meet any of the traditional requirements. They're prideful, spiteful, hateful, etc... all the classic deadly sins. The whole idea of what Christianity is has been taken over by false loudmouths. They need to be called out by the greater community, but of course they never will be.

    2. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hi Sycraft,

      As an Orthodox (I prefer Torah observant) Jew, I feel like I should clarify this. It's really just unfortunate teachings by those who don't fully understand.

      The prohibition is on LIGHTING a flame on the Sabbath day. This, and all prohibitions must align to the the 39 categories of work that went in to creating the Temple, Now, while I can't LIGHT a flame on Shabbat (the Sabbath), I can use timers, because there are long-held religious rules surrounding allowing others to perform actions for me, when asked indirectly. For example, I can say "man, it's hot in here" hoping that you'll turn on the A/C, but I can't say "dude - the AC".

      Now with regards the LIGHTING the flame, this actually has nothing to do with electricity's prohibition on Shabbat. The real issue with turning lights on and off (or say lighting and shutting off gas) are two of these base 39 items: building, and destroying. The Torah and Talmud don't proscribe against electricity - but the notion of building an item (for lights, think of turning one on as building a circuit). Similarly, shutting lights off is destroying that circuit.

      There are plenty of people in my world who look for "loopholes" as you'd say. But there's a difference between those self-identifying as something (i.e. Orthodox) versus practicing, as in all religions.

    3. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by pne · · Score: 1

      However, for whatever reason, the Talmudic interpretation has decided that electricity is fire. I'm not sure why, but that is what the orthodox churches teach.

      The story I heard is that switching electricity on or off is fire, because flipping the switch may cause a tiny spark.

      (Which would explain why you would be allowed to leave your electric oven on - it's the switching process that's not allowed rather than the electricity per se.)

      --
      Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
    4. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      I can use timers, because there are long-held religious rules surrounding allowing others to perform actions for me, when asked indirectly. For example, I can say "man, it's hot in here" hoping that you'll turn on the A/C, but I can't say "dude - the AC".

      So, do you use non-deterministic timers with a reasonable chance of not "getting the hint" and deciding to remain off? An instruction to a machine to turn on at a particular time is about as direct and unambiguous a mandate as you can make, with zero reliance on the "free will" of the device to voluntarily decide to help you out.

    5. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - because these are classical CHRISTIAN issues and interpretation, not JEWISH ones. The timers are tools put in place before Shabbat - and they're exceedingly deterministic. Robots would be 100% for the record - so long as their programming was established prior to shabbat itself.

    6. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Quila · · Score: 1

      You can't turn on a light, but you can repair one that's broken. So unscrew a lightbulb, "breaking" the lighting system, before Sabbath, and "fix" the light system later when you need light.

    7. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Fine; but that means that the analogy with a human friend being given a "hint" about how to help out is entirely inappropriate for this case. There's little justification (if you're trying to explain this situation to someone not an Orthodox Jew) for treating robots as "friendly gentiles" who just happen to help you out on the Sabbath when given indirect hints (when the closest "human" analogy would be slaves given direct orders under threat of death to bake your Sabbath meals). You may have a separate logic for relations with inanimate machines; but it doesn't appear to particularly logically follow from the principles applied to human actors.

    8. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      My GE gas oven has a Sabbath mode that causes the oven to not start immediately when I set it to come on but will start randomly in the next 10 seconds. I view this as a lawyerish way of "obeying" a commandment while not actually desiring to obey it.

    9. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I mean when you have someone that only has a passing involvement in their religion, it is not at all surprising when they ignore some (or many) of the rules. However you see it in the really orthodox as well. .

      How does "passing involvement" go together with "really orthodox"? Isn't that a contradiction?

      By the way, how many Christians or Jews actually live up to Lv 12:6, 20:9, 20:10, 20:13? (Lv 20:10 together with Mt 5:28 is an especially explosive combination!)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    10. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The Torah and Talmud don't proscribe against electricity - but the notion of building an item (for lights, think of turning one on as building a circuit). Similarly, shutting lights off is destroying that circuit.

      Does that mean that you spend Sabbath in mandatory coma? How do you sustain mental processes without neural electrochemistry?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      So they find all kinds of "loopholes".

      This is real, and it is big. There are plenty of Orthodox Jews that seem to think it is important to obey that part of the bible, but that they can find ticky loopholes and gotchas to get around it and god will be ok with that. I don't claim to understand it, however it is what it is.

      That actually seems to be something of a passtime, or more a point of pride. There is a certain kind of the Orthodox type who takes particular pride in (a) sticking to the absoloute letter of the rules while (b) violating the spirit to the greatest extent possible by finding ludicrous loopholes, while also subscribing to bizarre interpretations which also don't hold up but makle life difficult. I guess it gives them something to do.

      I wonder if there's been a Talmudic ruling on the Tata Air car since it does none of the precisely forbidden things like burning fuel (or electricity!).

      I wonder how they would also respond to MOSFET switches that go between high resistance (but not OC) and low resistance since again they would do none of the precise things that they claim make electricity disallowed.

      100% fine to have a Gentile who does it for you

      A "shabbos goy" in the Yiddish speaking parts.

      Now lest someone think I'm picking on the Jews here,

      Not really. It seems to be a notable part of the culture of the Orthodox bunch. The reforms and liberals don't seme to be remotely bothered and many of them consider it to be a bit silly, to be honest.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    12. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      The Torah and Talmud don't proscribe against electricity - but the notion of building an item (for lights, think of turning one on as building a circuit). Similarly, shutting lights off is destroying that circuit.

      And then one day someone realized that breathing involves building carbon dioxide by destroying oxygen, so all strict observers of the Torah stopped that and died the next Shabbat. The End.

      If you want to come up with a bunch of arbitrary rules for how your club should run and then argue about them with your spare time, bully for you. But don't try and act like there's real logic behind them.

    13. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The story I heard is that switching electricity on or off is fire, because flipping the switch may cause a tiny spark.

      I just wonder how this all goes together with the fact that our bodies continuously oxygenate sugars. If a "tiny spark" qualifies as fire, then technically, we're permanently burning all the time much more than that.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    14. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by WhatAreYouDoingHere · · Score: 1

      No - because these are classical CHRISTIAN issues and interpretation, not JEWISH ones. The timers are tools put in place before Shabbat - and they're exceedingly deterministic. Robots would be 100% for the record - so long as their programming was established prior to shabbat itself.

      Christians know (or, at least should know) that "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor." and that "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." (Galatians 3:24-25; Romans 10:4 NKJV), and salvation is not from keeping the law at all. The law could not justify.
      "Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:2-3) Even after salvation, continuing in our walk with Christ is not about keeping the old laws. God desires mercy and not sacrifice.

      --
      "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
    15. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by kbahey · · Score: 1

      Great examples, I will add more ...

      - The Eruv system, where on the Sabbath it is forbidden to carry stuff from one place to another unless it is an enclosed farm or something. So a wire is set up on utility posts to encircle the whole city, and therefore observant Jews can move stuff from one place to the other. This is implemented in several major cities in the USA.

      - The seventh year farmland must be fallow rule (Shmita). Land owned by Jews in Israel is sold on paper to Palestinians using an intermediary lawyer, so it can be farmed and harvested that year, then at the end of the year, the ownership is transferred back to the original Jew.

      - Jewish restaurants in Budapest serve patrons on Saturday, but you have to come a day earlier and pay in advance.

      Yes, similar "juristic tricks" are in other religions. For example, some were developed centuries ago in Islam (called just that Hiyal: tricks, loopholes) to circumvent certain laws, and several authors have written against them condemning the practice.

    16. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Hatta · · Score: 1

      How is that not a "No True Scotsman" fallacy?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    17. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Totally my personal belief here, but the people we see on TV, yelling about Homosexuality, being puffed-up about Christianity aren't actually Christians at all. They don't meet any of the traditional requirements. They're prideful, spiteful, hateful, etc... all the classic deadly sins. The whole idea of what Christianity is has been taken over by false loudmouths. They need to be called out by the greater community, but of course they never will be.

      That's easy. What you have to remember is they're *forgiven.* Doesn't matter what their sins are, they've accepted Jesus as their personal savior, and his blood washes away all their sins. Doesn't matter if they're hateful, spiteful, greedy, lustful, any of that. Their sins are forgiven though Jesus.

      One of the more corrupt interpretations of Christianity, in my opinion, as it completely absolves them of true responsibility, but it's what they and those who follow them believe.

      So, they may not be "True" Christians, but as far as they and their followers are concerned, THEY ARE. You, and that "greater community" you're referring to, if you don't agree with them, well, obviously YOU are not "True" Christians, so they don't give two fruit loops what you or the "greater community" says. You've been led astray at best, heretics or minions of evil at worst, even if they don't think of you in those exact terms, and your opposition to their beliefs serves as proof they're RIGHT.

      After all, if fools or the minions of evil oppose you, you must be on to something.

    18. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the fact that you think there are deadly sins doesnt speak highly of your knowledge of Christianity.

      It is generally true however that folks on TV trying to sell a message are generally not what you would consider "solid christians".

    19. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      I agree with the theology presented here, but unfortunately you're on the wrong end of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy for presenting this as a commonly "known" principle among Christians. Whether as a de jure or de facto result of widespread approaches to Christianity, a typical Christian is more likely to lean towards considering one "freed for the Law" rather than "freed from the Law."

    20. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Well, except for lustful- that one is the one they're usually yelling about.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    21. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Totally my personal belief here, but the people we see on TV, yelling about Homosexuality, being puffed-up about Christianity aren't actually Christians at all. They don't meet any of the traditional requirements. They're prideful, spiteful, hateful, etc... all the classic deadly sins. The whole idea of what Christianity is has been taken over by false loudmouths. They need to be called out by the greater community, but of course they never will be.

      There is a good reason they will (probably) never be called out. Christians are admonished not to judge, and to let such judgment be passed by divine authority. In essence, this means that liars and charlatans have a free pass to claim their religious association, whether or not they misrepresent the doctrine that has been spelled out and interpreted for over a millennium. This also allows religions to evolve as "true practitioners" lead by example, while leaving the door open for "forgiveness" when those loudmouths meet with a humbling exposure.

      It is actually a quite rational assumption that false loudmouths will hold the reins of authority over a major religions. This is because, if you derive your morals and ethics from any particular doctrine but do not claim or advertise such authority, you can still be a "good" person in your religion - even following a mission to spread your beliefs. Someone else is sure to take up the charge of advertisement if it leads to worldly success, but the promotion of, "Do as I say, not as I do," rhetoric is not generally a resonant message outside of abjectly impoverished circumstance. Religion, as a social and political order derived out of anthropological necessity, is almost always posited on non-worldly conventions in order to influence worldly behavior and outcomes. We strive to make our tribal in-group larger by choice (not simple bloodlines), while establishing rules that clearly define the out-group.

      Just remember that a rational assumption is still not a proof, though. Mayhap someday a guy like the Pope could pleasantly surprise you.

    22. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the fact that you think there are deadly sins doesnt speak highly of your knowledge of Christianity.

      Given that using the terminology of the "Seven Deadly Sins" is a long-established and ongoing teaching practice in the world's single largest Christian denomination (Roman Catholicism), I'd say your own knowledge of Christianity appears a bit thin. You might not agree with Roman Catholic theology (and a variety of other denominations that adopt the same "deadly sins" categories), but you can't "No True Scotsman"-away the influence of Roman Catholic teaching on defining what "Christianity" means today for a huge number of self-identified believers.

    23. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its fair to say that Catholics would not consider Protestants to be christian, and Protestants would not consider Catholics to be Christian; so perhaps it is better to clarify which group you mean. It is for sure that whichever group is christian, the other is not.

      I'd also note that the RCC doesnt define christianity; the church founders do, and none ever made reference to deadly sins, nor did early bishops, nor did the apostles, nor did Jesus, nor did any part of the bible.

    24. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by EvanED · · Score: 1

      On the flip side you'll see some weird stuff like stores that won't let you order on the Sabbath. B&H Photo Video, one of the best camera stores in the US, is like that. They have a big, well designed, online ordering system. However it won't let you order on the Sabbath. You can browse, but if you try to place an order, it won't allow it, you have to wait, it won't queue it into the system. The servers don't get the day off, but they aren't allowed to take orders :).

      Huh, I've noticed that, but never knew why (but never been dedicated enough in the answer to investigate). Thanks for the information. :-)

    25. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Call it a "loophole" if you wish, but one can have a viable rationale for why Old Testament rules are no longer followed. Often, this takes the form of holding those rules are superseded by the "New Covenant" between God and man applying since the life of Christ. There is massive internal scriptural support for this notion.

      Within that context, we have a "meta-ethical heuristic" given to us directly by Christ: "Love God and your neighbor as yourself", and directly stated as the principle on which all supposed interpretations of the Law "hang" (and are thereby justified as interpretations, or not). When in doubt regarding the letter of the OT Law, apply that, toward determining whether one's approach maximizes those objectives for the context at hand..

      Note that this does -not- mean (though every atheist to a man will claim it does) that the OT Law is now "wrong". It was always contextual to begin with, and contextual rules need application according to context, just like our secular system that has a means to handle cases such as horse-drawn-carriage parking laws. Were there contention about a modern-day law regarding parking, a lawyer could indeed invoke the horse-drawn-carriage law as -precedent-, based on its -intent- as reapplied to the modern context. This does not, in fact, in any way say the horse-drawn-carriage law is -wrong-.

      In fact, wide swaths of the OT Law -cannot- be literally word-for-word performed from the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD right up to the present day. You have several optional conclusions in regard to this:

      1. God's nature is such that he would demand word-for-word compliance with a Law he has made impossible to perform in that manner.

      2. God does not expect word-for-word compliance, and thus would naturally provide us a mechanism to resolve apparent conflicts--as he has, per above.

      3. There is no God.

      You may choose option #3. However, be aware alternatives to that stance exist, and they do not require "loopholes".

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    26. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      I'm Protestant (Lutheran), so not a fan of many important portions of RCC theology --- but I think you may be pushing a particularly extreme form of sectarian narrow-mindedness that is not a necessary component of either Protestant or RCC (or other offshoots, e.g. Orthodox) theology.

      It is for sure that whichever group is christian, the other is not.

      This is not "for sure" in a general case. For example, from a Lutheran perspective at the time of the Protestant Reformation, the RCC was the Christian Church, just obscured with a massive cruft of unnecessary and even harmful teachings. There is a long history of ecumenical understandings between divergent Christian groups that accept various bases for a shared Christianity even if "the other side" is "doing it wrong." There is room to be in error and be a Christian --- indeed, that may be a defining aspect of a religion founded on forgiveness and righteousness not of one's own manufacture.

      the church founders do, and none ever made reference to deadly sins, nor did the apostles, nor did Jesus, nor did any part of the bible.

      The church founders never made reference to quite a bit of common "derived" theological formulation developed later. Even in Protestant denominations that give absolute primacy to "as-presented-in-Scripture" doctrine over later "tradition," later theological formulations are accepted to the extent that they are consistent with and clarify/condense "proper scriptural" Christian principles. For example, the Apostle's and Nicene Creed are not found in the Bible; nor the Augsburg Confession, or the Formula of Concord. Core formulations of Trinitarian doctrine post-date the "Church founders" through the Biblical record up to the time of Paul. Just because it's not directly found in the Bible doesn't make a later theological synthesis (from earlier "scattered" concepts) un-Christian. While I'm not a personal fan of the "Seven Deadly Sins" analysis framework, I need a more sophisticated argument than "not a direct quote from the Bible," because that would toss out a huge amount of "good" theology too.

    27. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Holi · · Score: 1

      Find me a christian that does not judge and I'll show you a deaf mute.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    28. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by pne · · Score: 1

      Permanently burning is fine. You're allowed to light a candle before the Sabbath and then keep it burning, for example. (As I understand it.)

      --
      Esli epei etot cumprenan, shris soa Sfaha.
    29. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "They need to be called out by the greater community, but of course they never will be."

      That's the nature of Superstition, to exalt man over other men based on unprovable assertions.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    30. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      If these rules are seen only a problem to be solved, then of course the orthodox look identical to the cynics. The difference is in viewing them a process of continual mindfulness of the relationship with the community and with God.

      Let's look at you example " the Talmudic interpretation has decided that electricity is fire". It's not that electricity is decided to be equivalent to fire and then done. It asking what are the rules about fire trying to accomplish and whether electricity advances those ends or not.

      This is actually a lot like when people say that lawyers and legislators and judges who claim to be true believes in legal systems are all just cynics gaming the system. The cynics see a problem to be solved, the believers see a continual process of seeing how new experiences either relate or do not relate to existing rules.

    31. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      The RCC has been clear throughout history that it does not consider any who hold to "salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone" to be saved. They made a declaration at the council of trent:

      “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12)

      (Pulled from http://www.wayoflife.org/database/romedeniesgrace.html)

      In case you are not familiar with the term, anathema is a fairly strong term indicating a lack of saving grace.
      Meanwhile, the entire thrust of "sola fide" is that believing that savlation is by "grace, plus other stuff" completely undermines that value of Christ's blood and is tantamount to rejecting the cross.

      The point is, that the two core doctrines of salvation (the RCC version and the Protestant version) are pretty much opposites. One says that salvation must be by faith alone (though said faith will not be alone), the other says that salvation MUST be accomplished by faith, and other stuff.

      It sounds harsh, but this cant be ignored. For all the agreement between RCC and protestant theology, at the two ultimate issues (means of salvation and source of authority), they disagree fundamentally. It would be like debating whether Mormonism is the same as classic christianity; for all that it shares with classic christianity, it disagrees precisely on those issues that matter most (means of salvation, what salvation is, role of the father, identity of the son, what constitutes revelation).

      While I'm not a personal fan of the "Seven Deadly Sins" analysis framework, I need a more sophisticated argument than "not a direct quote from the Bible,"

      How about "the idea of unforgiveable sins directly contradicts all that the apostles and Jesus himself taught"?

    32. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Golddess · · Score: 1

      "They don't meet any of the traditional requirements. They're prideful, spiteful, hateful, etc... all the classic deadly sins."

      I suppose it could be argued that one can be Christian yet also be some/all of those things.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    33. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      The point is, that the two core doctrines of salvation (the RCC version and the Protestant version) are pretty much opposites.

      I'm not trying to minimize the seriousness of the divide --- Protestants and Catholics can't be simultaneously correct on the (highly important) "mechanics" of salvation. But I am loathe to leap from that to saying one or the other is not Christian. Christians in grave error, perhaps; doing a terrible job of rightly proclaiming the Gospel (and perhaps doing more harm than good); but maybe Christians nonetheless. Speaking from the Protestant side, I can still forgive a Catholic for damning me to hell, and see them as a Christian --- considering that categorization as a gift from God, rather than a product of having the right personal theology. And, regardless of the "official" hard-line Council of Trent declarations, there are also plenty of Catholic theologians/priests/laypeople willing to enter into some level of shared dialogue, and consider Protestants to be Christians (albeit with an especially unpleasant time in purgatory awaiting them). Perhaps the most important distinction to make is separating judgment of the teachings/system from judgments of the people: Catholics and Protestants can mutually condemn each others' doctrinal systems as being anti-Christian, without necessarily considering the individual church members to not be Christians (though floundering in error). Consider, as an example, Paul's council in Romans 14 for accepting even those with "weak faith" who erroneously tacked on unnecessary dietary restrictions to their personal Christian piety --- their doctrinal error did not wholly sever them from Christ's work.

      How about "the idea of unforgiveable sins directly contradicts all that the apostles and Jesus himself taught"?

      Note, in Roman Catholic theology, being a "deadly sin" has nothing to do with being unforgivable --- the "Seven Deadly Sins" can be forgiven. The distinction is rather that they are considered to be especially dangerous as they "engender other sins, other vices" (see the Wikipedia article on the subject for a brief overview). As for whether there is such thing as an "unforgivable sin," one does need to take into account Biblical references to the "unforgivable sin" of "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," e.g. Mark 3:29. I prefer interpreting this along the lines of "the only way to make a sin unforgivable is to refuse God's forgiveness of sins (through the Holy Spirit)"; nonetheless, it is a matter that requires some nuanced theological care (rather than a blanket dismissal of "not in the Bible," because it *is* in the Bible).

    34. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Golddess · · Score: 1

      one can have a viable rationale for why Old Testament rules are no longer followed

      True. But that isn't what Sycraft-fu was talking about. It isn't about not following the rules, it's about technically following them in such a convoluted manner that outsiders just look at it and go "really? You really think that counts as following your rules?"

      For a car analogy, lets take two people exceeding the speed limit. The one explains that he thinks the speed limit is too low in that area, so he ignores the limit and goes with what he thinks is a safe speed. The other, goes into a convoluted explanation about how he wasn't actually speeding. In fact, he was actually going under the limit.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    35. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Although often these rules aren't there as a "you must do this or else". They're not really "laws". Many rules are about proving that one is a proper Jew who keeps the tradition alive, and also it is a constant and daily reminder that they're Jewish. Ie, like a wedding ring reminds you all day long that you're married and tells others this fact as well, wearing a head covering and tassles reminds them that they are Jewish every single hour and not just on Sabbath, plus it tells everyone they see that the person is Jewish and a member of that particular community.

    36. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      I may need to read up on deadly sins, but the idea that the work of Christ is insufficient "in one pass" to account for a particular mortal sin still seems particularly dangerous.

      I generally agree with you, but regarding whether they are classified as Christians I guess I am going by "are they following Christ". I would consider "understanding and believing what Christ taught" and "understanding the difference between the law and grace" to be a requirement for that. Otherwise, it seems very difficult to me to distinguish between "liberal christians" who would deny anything supernatural in the bible or in substitutionary atonement; "fundamentalists" who would hold to scriptural integrity, inerrancy, and authority; mormons who would add several new texts and (I believe) deny a number of doctrines regarding man's state before God; etc. I think it is also highly relevant whether someone is merely ignorant, or whether they knowingly reject the idea of "saving grace".

      I also do agree that there are almost certainly people "in" the roman church who are truly Christian; I should have been clear that when I speak of "catholocism", I am speaking of the official stance. Because of their stance on infallibility, authority, and tradition, there is indeed an "authoritative" RCC stance on many doctrines, and that is what I am speaking of. (my understanding is that a council making a declaration on doctrinal issues is held to be infallible in the same way that the Pope ex cathedra is)

      Of course all of this is opinion; I do not truly know who is and is not saved, but I cant see how to understand the gospel in a way that doesnt draw hard and fast lines where you must be "orthodox" in order to be "Christian".

    37. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God loves all his children... even members of the Westboro Baptist Church.

    38. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      A big one you see in Muslim countries is ways around the "no charging of interest" thing. They have all sorts of special "technical" ways that things get done which have the net effect of being a standard mortgage, credit card, that sort of thing. It is set up in such a way they can tell themselves that it isn't interest, but of course it is.

      Sometimes it is more direct. You'll see Saudi's in their traditional garb get on a plane, change to a western suit during the flight, and then when they get to Europe or the US go off and drink and partake in other proscribed activities. Then on the way back they change back, and go on with their orthodox lives. Near as I can tell it is justified with the "Well it didn't happen in the holy land," sort of mentality.

      You see it all over, and not just in religion: A group of humans will come up with rules they are supposed to follow, for whatever reason. They will then decide some (or all_ of said rules are inconvenient and try to find technical ways around it such that they can tell themselves they aren't breaking the rules, though they actually are.

    39. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by kbahey · · Score: 1

      Agree about the one about interest, that some schemes are made to not look like interest, but underlying it it is almost the same.

      The part about some Saudis drinking and gambling is not circumventing the laws but staying within their letter. This is mere hypocrisy: conformity to social pressures, and indulging when no one is around. They are not pretending that what they do is within Islamic law, they just don't adhere to it at all. The same happens elsewhere. A Dutch friend from an old Protestant order tells me about whole villages where TV is banned, and of course adultry, while elders go to Amsterdam to enjoy the sin of the flesh, and have curtains so no one can look into their home and see them watching TV. This is different. They don't pretend this is lawful.

      Agree about human nature. It only takes a few out for themselves to spoil it for the rest.

    40. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      (Which would explain why you would be allowed to leave your electric oven on - it's the switching process that's not allowed rather than the electricity per se.)

      The problem there is that the power is switched in your oven, it's not PWM. Inductives maybe.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    41. Re:I think he's dealt with other orthodox types by illtud · · Score: 1

      However, for whatever reason, the Talmudic interpretation has decided that electricity is fire. I'm not sure why, but that is what the orthodox churches teach. So, you aren't allowed to operate electric devices on Saturday (the Jewish Sabbath), in particular your oven. Well that's pretty damn inconvenient in the modern world... So they find all kinds of "loopholes". You can get ovens that have timers longer than 24 hours. You set them up the day before, and they'll heat up (and down) at the prescribed times.

      My oven (Bosch) has a 'sabbath' mode. I guessed it was something to do with this, but was suprised to see it in the manual - that's a pretty small share of their customer base that they've accounted for in their programming.

  21. Maybe the fracking waste by mynamestolen · · Score: 0

    can be refined and fed to all those wild animals they sell on the black market.

    --
    work in progress
  22. Time for the Amish Mafia.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    To pay oil company executives a visit... Those guys make the Italian mafia look like pussies.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  23. Social Darwinism by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

    They are extremists/fanatics, even if they are not violent. This is just another form of themselves pushing themselves to the fringes.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:Social Darwinism by c0lo · · Score: 1

      They are extremists/fanatics, even if they are not violent. This is just another form of themselves pushing themselves to the fringes.

      You say it like it's a bad thing.

      Every circle has a fringe - eliminate it and, in time, all you'll have is a dimensionless point

      Funny when considering the point from evolution perspective for which, it seems that I remember, diversity is both a requirement and an outcome.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Social Darwinism by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      No, just an observation. When they push themselves so far off the normal curve then they'll fall off the map entirely, like the shakers or quakers... whichever one isn't around any more.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  24. So? What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A rare case in which the plaintiffs were Amish suggests that Ohio's oil and gas companies know this and have been willing to take advantage.'"

    Again, I say, "so, what?"

    The Amish don't have to sign the contract. But it damn sure isn't up to the body politic to protect them from themselves.

  25. Simple solution: by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't enter into any more agreements with those frackers.

  26. they might get rich from all the royalties by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Which probably frowned upon by the Amish. "Easy money" makes it hard to stay close to God.

  27. They also tell the kids parents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When kids are causing a ruckus, they, like everyone else, will tell the kids' parents and let THEM sort the punishment out.

    Since these corporations are the child of government edict, and the cours are the government's method of controlling the excesses of their children, this can be seen as merely the same thing.

  28. Middle-Men by nefus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I think it's the middle-men who are on the whole responsible for these issues. My own parents have been approached by middle-men, sorry not sure what their titles are, who handle contracts between land owners and the companies. They handle the initial contract and pre-payments for anything in the ground, including percentages for any find. The oil and gas companies just buy these contracts from them in the same way freddie mac and fannie may buy home loans. I don't know if this is true for the entire country but its certainly true for where my parents live.

  29. True Amish Lifestyle by Chordonblue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's funny when people talk about the Amish as if their assured piety somehow comes from genetics or something. The truth is, the Amish have ALWAYS sought for 'loopholes' in their situation - what the Bishops allow for is a different tale altogether.

    I could give you LOTS of examples, but here's a oldie AND a goodie. Back in the early 90's, I worked for a Commodore dealer in Lancaster County, PA (BIG Amish and Mennonite community). C= had kind of a non-sequitur deal: Buy an Amiga 500 bundled with a 1080 monitor, get a 'free' VCR - which was kinda silly. The A500 had no color composite out, so actually hooking it up to a VCR required this phallic-looking 6 inch long module (the A520), which of course, was not included.

    And yet...

    The Old Order Mennonites and even a few of the younger Amish were buying into this deal - big time. We sold more A500s than ever during this time - and the vast majority were going to that community. While the A500 didn't have a true color composite out (C= = STUPID!), the VCR did, and it just so happened that the monitor that came with the bundle did as well. I found out what was going on when I suggested to a conservative-looking young couple that, with an antenna connected to the VCR's tuner, you could actually watch TV on the monitor.

    I was taken aback by their shocked and seemingly terrified response, "Oh no! Don't SAY THAT! We don't want to watch TV on it!" What they DID want to watch was VHS video though. Because the Bishops were not up on the latest technology, they could claim that the computer system was the primary purpose of the deal - the VCR would not be mentioned, and they could watch all the tapes they wanted in the secluded privacy of their bedrooms.

    Today, if you see an Amish or Mennonite woman on the stoop of their house, cradling something close to their ear, you can bet it's a cell phone. There are cell vendors who specifically cater to the Amish's 'cash only' lifestyle.

    Folks, the Amish are as human as any of us. There are pious ones, but many are essentially trapped in a lifestyle out of necessity. Imagine this: With only an 8th grade education, and all of your friends and family belonging to the community, you'd probably stay because you'd fear the total abandonment of the only life you've ever known. But that doesn't mean they don't get rebellious or 'get up to dickens'... ;)

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by Chordonblue · · Score: 2

      I should also mention that MANY in the Amish/Mennonite community have computers (mostly for keeping track of their farming business). If you travel around my area, you'll see more solar panels than Silicon Valley adorning barns and farmhouses. HINT: They're not just powering the lights for a 4AM jaunt to the dairy... ;)

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    2. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      With only an 8th grade education, and all of your friends and family belonging to the community, you'd probably stay because you'd fear the total abandonment of the only life you've ever known.

      Makes me question how much you actually know of Amish. AFAIK, it is traditional during the teen years for young "amish" to be released from all responsibilities and sent out into the world for a season-- their "Rumspringa". Afterwards, they make a decision as to whether to return to the amish life or not.

      So its likely that theyve experienced more that "the world has to offer" than most people posting here on slashdot. IIRC it isnt unusual to find former meth addicts or whatever in amish communities.

    3. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by Chordonblue · · Score: 2

      Yes, and during Rumspringa, they find out how unprepared for 'English' life they are. I've lived among the Amish for 30 years now, often working directly alongside them. My point is that they still struggle with the balance in their lives - like everyone else does.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    4. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by __aaeihw9960 · · Score: 1

      Not all get Rumspringa (one of the most fun words to say, by the way). The community of >500 Amish individuals in my area does not allow Rumspringa. They do not speak English with outsiders as a rule - allowing only two individuals to interact with the English on a regular basis. BUT, they're almost always begging for rides and other modern conveniences.

    5. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I went to high school in an area with a large population of Mennonites (who are related to the Amish in some fashion that I never cared enough about to research). Mennonites live basically an identical lifestyle to the Amish. There's many "orders" of them, with some sticking very steadfastly to the traditional rules (those Mennonites would never send their children to a public school, never mind even thinking of owning anything with a motor).

      However, there were a lot of them that were far more advanced in technology, and those almost always sent their children to school. The Mennonite children really weren't all that much different, unless they were of the types that mostly refused technology (and even then, only different in their decision to lack it). In fact, many of them were really absolutely no different in the way they operated their lives from any other church-goer.

      There is one common theme they all had, though: Complete and absolute distrust of the government and any related groups, and a necessity of being able to support themselves. That was one of the reasons some of those Mennonites only ran on generators (or had big enough generators to run their entire house).

      Most of the Mennonites I met were graduating high school with plans for college. I'll admit that the ones I didn't meet, which were actually quite few, may not have necessarily received a full education. Hard for me to say, though, as the serious members prefer to stick to their own.

    6. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "With only an 8th grade education, and all of your friends and family belonging to the community, you'd probably stay because you'd fear the total abandonment of the only life you've ever known."

      That also explains the Bible Belt.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      Our school's main contractor for IT wiring is owned by two Mennonite brothers. They are indeed 'high tech', but interestingly, not for themselves!

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    8. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to have an A500+ with A520. It really isn't shaped much like a phallus.

    9. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Do you have some basis for believing that the two Mennonite brothers do not have high tech for themselves? The overwhelming majority of Mennonites have no teachings against any modern technology.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    10. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe them when they tell me they don't own a big screen TV or video game console in their homes. They have cell phones and computers, but they are a business necessity. I guess when I was thinking 'high tech', I was thinking entertainment-wise as I was cross-posting on the XboxOne at the time. ;)

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    11. Re:True Amish Lifestyle by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, I am a Mennonite and I don't own a big screen TV or a video game console. Although the reason is not particularly about my religious beliefs. I don't watch TV because I don't find enough of it entertaining enough to justify the cost. The same goes for video game consoles.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  30. Go meet them... by retech · · Score: 1

    Without meeting them, talking with them, and learning about them in person, I think all the armchair hypotheses is poorly formed.

    http://www.mennohof.org/

  31. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by dywolf · · Score: 1

    they're different frm you and think differently from you, so that makes it alright for someone to take advantage of them through unethical or illegal behaviour?
    like if someone shoves and punches a pacifist, and you think pacifism is silly, so he deserves what he gets?
    or you dont vegetarians/vegans, so when someone forces or tricks them into eating meat, its funny, and not your problem?

    Wrong is wrong, period.
    And if you arent standing up to it, you are part of it.
    Whether you sympathize with the victim or not.

    your name is appropriate, you're attitude gives you the moral and social aptitude of a slug or similar lower life form.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  32. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by dywolf · · Score: 1

    addendum: youre POV, couchslug, is simply an extension of might makes right, adapt or die. by your logic the american indians got what they deserves, as did the backwards and primitive peopels of africa forcably relocated across the ocean, or the Kurds in Iraq, or the Mongols and Tibetans oppressed by China. Tell me, do you also think girls in clubs and skimpy dresses deserve to be raped too?

    Lets blame all the victims and compeltely ignore the person(s) actually doing wrong.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  33. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

    The Amish adapt way better to the real world than financial institutions. It should be our concern.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  34. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think the blame still lies with the NG company. The "punching a pacifist" metaphor is a good one. Sure, he chooses not to punch back out of his own free will...but it's wrong that he was assaulted in the first place.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  35. Some Oil/Gas Execs are going to lose their beards! by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    *Tadum* *Crash* *Thud*

    Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week. Tip your waitor and try the fish.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  36. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by couchslug · · Score: 1

    I despise religion because Superstitionist societies impose restrictions on personal freedom which I reject.

    I therefore care nothing for the suffering of the religious because they are my enemies. Let their Sky Fairie save them. The only reason the Amish aren't much of a problem is the small size of their cult. Their ROE are still "superstition of the desert".

    Pacifists and vegans don't tend to build societies which are restrictive to personal freedom, so I've nothing against them and wish them no harm.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  37. Cultists or Corporations? by echusarcana · · Score: 1

    I don't have much sympathy for repressive religious cultists that reject the common conventions of our society.

    1. Re:Cultists or Corporations? by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Worshippers at the cult of capitalism, who use their money to repress others and foster anti-society tragedies of the commons, they are pretty bad.

      Wait, were you talking about the Amish?

    2. Re:Cultists or Corporations? by dywolf · · Score: 1

      so anything done to them thats wrong or unethical is ok?
      just like when the "lazy primitive backwards" tribes of africa were given an opportunity to work and be useful?
      just like when the ignorant savage redmen who resisted the advancement of culture and civilization were driven off their lands?

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    3. Re:Cultists or Corporations? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      who is repressed by the Amish? they even have the custom of "Rumspringa" where adolescents are allowed to leave the community to see life in the outside world, and non-amish behavior and attire is overlooked. then they get to choose whether to be baptised and join the community, or not.

    4. Re:Cultists or Corporations? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Not all Amish practice this custom, and for those who do practice it, not all incorporate leaving the community into it.

      In any case, brainwashing can also be a highly efficient form of oppression, where the victim does not even realize the fact. Various cults of personality throughout the history - Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc - have exploited that on a much bigger scale.

  38. not just in Ohio by awilden · · Score: 2

    This is a larger problem than in Ohio. In Montana there are a small number of Amish and various other Anabaptists (all of which consider judicial action "taboo"), and they're also finding themselves square in the crosshairs. The fact is that Anabaptists tend to choose to live in isolated areas (so they will be left alone), yet those isolated areas are the ones that are increasingly being exploited for natural resources.

    It's also important to understand some of the other restrictions that aren't obvious. If an "English" farmer has a railroad that is forced on him/her through his/her property, s/he can request a crossing be built so that the normal operations of the farm (like moving cattle) aren't impeded. But to do that requires the farmer carry insurance to indemnify the railroad for damage. Amish also don't believe in insurance. So that means that there are no crossings on their farms. Driving 5 miles out of your way to get to an existing crossing is a far larger problem if you're on horse than it is if you are driving an internal combustion engine.

  39. No Sympathy by Going_Digital · · Score: 0

    I'm afraid I have no sympathy for religious folks, it is their choice to follow their rules but other religions play by different rules.

  40. The missing information by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    When it comes to the oil and gas industry, this means that any agreement an Amish farmer makes with a company is, for the farmer, practically unenforceable.

    In case anyone was wondering, and would prefer not to have to read TFA to find out what TFS is teasing about, the agreement made was to lease land to an oil company for $10/acre. The potential for a lawsuit comes about because the agent told them this was about the best price they could get - when the actual answer was more like $1000/acre - thereby, the article alleges, committing fraud.

    It could've been the Beverly Hillbillies/Witness mash-up I've been longing for, but alas.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:The missing information by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, looks like we're all still stuck writing our own Jethro in drag/Han Solo wrestling fan fic. What a relief, for a minute there I was worried all of my Miss Hathaway drawings were going to be wasted!

  41. Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is kind of like when the white man took the land from the Native Americans.

  42. Leviticus 15:19-30 & 20:18, Ezekiel 18:5-6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's because in Acts, the church told the Gentiles to ignore all the rules in the OT except for the sexual ones and eating blood. So it's actually very consistent with the text. Tattoos and mixed fabrics: rules to make Israel appear different. Gays: rule for everyone.

    Does the whole thing about not menstruating women (and items they've contacted) being Unclean and untouchable for 7 days count under sexual? (No jokes about eating blood, please)?

  43. But they are people by geoffrobinson · · Score: 2

    They are collections of people. Employees and shareholders, who are...people!

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  44. if you disagree with your government by Chirs · · Score: 1, Informative

    You don't stop obeying the law, you vote in a new government and get the laws changed.

    If you cannot get the laws changed to something you can live with, move somewhere else.

    1. Re:if you disagree with your government by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      If you cannot get the laws changed to something you can live with, move somewhere else.

      If the government is no longer acting in its citizens' best interests, then it's the government that needs to go, not the citizens.

      You don't stop obeying the law, you vote in a new government and get the laws changed.

      If rights are being violated, you don't go along with it while trying to vote in people that will repeal those violations. You stand up against them immediately and refuse to acquiesce. Voting in people to get the laws changed comes after that.

    2. Re:if you disagree with your government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you you fascist piece of shit.

    3. Re:if you disagree with your government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      if you live in china or russia you have to have a permit to move

  45. How do the Amish feel about milkshakes? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    ...and having theirs drunk?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  46. And I bet by publiclurker · · Score: 2

    you blame the government for not letting you rob your neighbors too.

    1. Re:And I bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying that ignoring patents and its ilk is the similar to robbing your neighbors, or were you trying to make a completely different point?

  47. Its the matter of Witness by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    Some folks (newer Christians mostly) may have a problem with certain things (eating stuff sacrificed to Idols and such)

    So as an older Christian you would not do %matters of faith issues% near/with those newer Christians.

    It Would be considered rude to drink near somebody thats partway through 12 steps and trying to kick tobacco but
    if you are not then

    Lets light up those Cubans and test that Burbon!

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  48. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pacifists and vegans don't tend to build societies which are restrictive to personal freedom, so I've nothing against them and wish them no harm.

    So your a bigot then? They do not think like you 'so they must be punished'.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

    couchslug is a bad name for you. couchbigot is a better one. I suggest you change it to that.

  49. Actually, no ... by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    Some sects will use tractors, but it's under their rules. Such as they can't have rubber tires, and it can't be a modern design. Or they can have machinery run by diesel or propane that's pulled behind a horse.

    They're willing to make exceptions when it's necessary for the community to survive.

    See Jameson Wetmore's "Amish Technology: Reinforcing Values and Building Community" : http://archive.cspo.org/documents/Wetmore-AmishTechnology-v2.pdf

    (I read a pre-print of the paper in 2006 when I was working on a paper for a class on 'Information Behavior' ... see also articles by D.Z.Umble (about telephones) or D.B. Kraybill (eg, 'Plain reservations: Amish and Mennonite views of media
    and computers') and Rheingold's 1999 article in Wired)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  50. Awww. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ridiculous beliefs come with a real-world disadvantage in life?

    Make no mistakes, those companies are evil and we need stricter environmental controls. But if people voluntarily choose to fuck themselves over by following a stupid belief system, that's their fault. The only sympathy I have is for the children that get murdered by their fundamentalist parents via "faith-healing".

  51. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by dywolf · · Score: 1

    so how is making a personal choice to not eat meat or live a vegan lifestype any different than making a personal choice to live or be Amish?
    no one is forcing them to do it.

    you're not helping yourself.
    you're an ignorant bigot, below even the slugs you name yourself for.
    begone maggot.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  52. it is about Freedom by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    It does not matter if they are a cult or neo-nazi. They have a right to not be fracked by the powerful and the protection of those rights applies to us all. We shouldn't have to fight to keep our own rights either but we MUST do our part to protect the rights of others so they do not have to go it alone.

    The ideals that make the system work are dead. Mammon is the dominant religion and it's values trump all the old ideals. All hail the book of Rand!

  53. BZZZZT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Amish don't buy much petroleum....probably not even much plastic.

    I guess that didn't help them, you--oh here it comes, people like you don't deserve politeness anyway--stupid, dumb mother fucker.

    1. Re:BZZZZT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Amish don't buy much petroleum....probably not even much plastic.

      The Amish are choosing not to enforce their contracts. They only have themselves to blame.

  54. Check your privilege, white boy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone is as privileged as you are. Not everyone can just move to another neighborhood, or country, just because they don't like the current one.

  55. Think again by TheLink · · Score: 1

    You're not thinking properly. When you disagree with the government you stop voting for them.

    Now consider the following:
    A) People that disagree with a large corporation will do a good job not paying for any of its numerous products and services on a day to day basis.
    vs
    B) People that disagree with their leaders will do a good job not voting for them every few years.

    Which is harder? If you think people aren't doing a good job in B, why do you think they'd be better at A? If they're doing a good job in B, then there's no problem right? ;).

    --
  56. Have you stopped hitting your wife yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If their belief system says don't use the courts, well that's too bad but it's a burden they've placed on themselves.

    That's the kind of mindset that says it's okay to allow domestic abuse if the victim keeps going back to the person who hits them. Some thing are just *wrong* on a semi-objective level, and that's why we have public prosecutors to uphold the notion that society itself is injured by the act regardless of what the direct victim has to say.

    People committing fraud and exploiting people just because they won't fight back is no different from a bigger kid punching a smaller kid because the smaller kid is timid or too weak to defend himself. It's disgusting, and it needs to be stopped.

    (Wow: The captcha is "sicken." Just perfect for your post.)

  57. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This begs a question or two:

    1. Are forgiveness and "letting bygones be bygones" and other pacifist-like "social disarmament" beliefs inherently a religious and "insane" value system? Has it no merit as an ethical framework outside of "Superstition of the Desert?"
    2. Is it okay, from a greater societal standpoint, to allow people to be exploited by more predatory citizens due to their ethical framework, or as you might frame it, mental illness? Does your answer change any if we're talking about schizophrenics instead of just religious people you don't respect?
  58. Sorry, but it is just as silly by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    It is trying to find loopholes, no matter how you want to justify it. If you like to do that, it if fine, but that is what you are doing. You are trying to obey the letter, not the spirit. Also it is choosing to interpret things in a certain, and not correct, fashion.

    You aren't creating or destroying a circuit when you turn a light on or off. A circuit exists independent of current flowing through it. You are just changing its configuration. And for that matter if you believe in the "creating" and "destroying" of an electronic circuit, well guess what? Your oven does that when its timer turn on and of, your fridge does that when its compressor cycles. As I said in no case is it actually creating or destroying anything, but it is no different if you operate a switch or if an automated system does.

    As for the indirect asking, you are doing nothing of the sort. Electronics are a deterministic system. When you tell the timer to turn on, you are doing so explicitly. You are giving it a command to activate the device at a specific time, a command it is required to follow in detail if it is functioning properly.

    As I said: Your sect has chosen to interpret Talmudic rules in a certain fashion, and chosen to interpret electricity in a certain fashion that says you shouldn't turn devices on or off. I think any scientist would say you are wrong in your interpretation, but it is yours and you may believe what you wish. However you find that inconvenient, so you then try to find technical loopholes around the law you've created.

    You aren't going to convince anyone as to the logic of your position because it is not logical, even internally. Now that's fine. You are free to believe what you wish, and operate as you wish. But don't be surprised that you can't sell people on the logic of the situation, it has none. You wish to pretend to obey restrictions without actually obeying them.

  59. Theory of Moral Sentiments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read Adam Smith's "Theory of Moral Sentiments" if you want to know what he thought of unregulated Capitalism.

    It's the book Ayn Rand never read and the one that no conservative would be able to stomach because he states explicitly that markets and capitalistic activity MUST be regulated for the common good.

    Sound familiar? (I didn't think so.)

  60. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    Is it wrong? Yes.

    Should we do something about it? No.

    If pacifist made an explicit choice to not fight back, why should we intercede to decide differently on his behalf, and respond with violence in his stead?

  61. Some great reward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they get pie in the sky, when they die.
    And after all, isn't that what it (religion) is all about?

  62. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Because there's a violent face-puncher on the loose and we shouldn't wait for him to run into a victim who will fight back?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  63. Explain why Canada is a nice place to live then by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    Canada never (successfully) revolted against the British.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Canada
    "In 1867, with the union of three British North American colonies through Confederation, Canada was formed as a federal dominion of four provinces. This began an accretion of provinces and territories and a process of increasing autonomy from the British Empire, which became official with the Statute of Westminster of 1931 and completed in the Canada Act of 1982, which severed the vestiges of legal dependence on the British parliament."

    Yet, Canada got rid of slavery decades before the USA. Canada now ranks higher on scales of health and happiness than the USA. So, there are other ways forward than violence.

    Even the American Revolution probably would not have succeeded except for help from the French who were at odds with the British.

    A related post I made today: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3833389&cid=43945791

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
  64. Re:Failure of Superstition to adapt to the real wo by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    That dilutes the moral point of being a pacifist, however. It's easy to be one when you have a big guy with a stick standing next to you and ready to enact violence on your behalf without you saying a word.

  65. I must misunderstand law ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    this means that any agreement an Amish farmer makes with a company is, for the farmer, practically unenforceable.

    Taking "agreement" to mean "contract" (as it certainly does in my country), then why is the contract unenforceable without going to court? You complain to the other party that the contract is not being followed ; they either disagree (more complex) or agree, and start to correct their actions.

    You're not suggesting that the "rampant piracy" model of business ethics is still prevalent in the home of ethical capitalist business, America. Or do you consider the concept of "ethical capitalist business" to be self contradictory? (I don't ; quite. But it takes unusual people, by the shipload, to achieve it.)

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  66. Reae French t: Explain why Canada is a nice place by Occams · · Score: 1

    Yes indeed. The French won the US war of Independence and then gave Americans the freedom that they so treasure. Any fair assessment of the final, decisive battle, the seige of Yorktown, would conclude that it was only won through the power of the French army and navy. Canada was not alone in finding a better way. Australia and New Zealand are also now much better places to live than the USA.

    --
    Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.