September 9, 2021 - 11:50am
So writes David Larson in Crisis magazine, examining the rapid growth of a community which has doubled in size in just 20 years. There are now 350,000 Amish in the United States, and their demographic growth shows no real sign of letting up.
The Amish are notorious for their restrictive lifestyles, with their communities essentially functioning ‘off the grid’. Having two tweenage daughters and becoming increasingly aware of the sheer evil that is TikTok, this all sounds pretty sensible to me. If only they’d change their rules about booze I might sign up.
Groups like the Amish are notable for their continued growth as a sect, even as wider America has seen a sharp drop in church attendance, particularly amongst the younger cohort. This change has almost certainly played a part in radicalisation both on Left and Right: socially isolated Republicans as well as self-identified liberals are far more likely to find meaning in politics than religion.
Of the historically mainstream Christian denominations in the US, the majority — the Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians — fought brutal wars in the 16th and 17th centuries. Western Europeans eventually grew weary of the endless sectarian violence and the result was liberalism, the idea that the only way to stop conflict was to let people live by their own consciences.
Probably the biggest losers at the time were the Anabaptists, a radical sect from Switzerland whose main attribute was a belief in adult baptism. The Anabaptists were widely hated and persecuted, but this wasn’t totally irrational; when they did manage to take power in the German city of Münster in 1534-5, it ended in a bloodbath.
There, an insane Dutch actor and tailor called John of Leiden made himself dictator, instigating capital punishment for “lying, slander, avarice and quarrelling” as well as adultery, before changing his mind and installing free love and communism — and endless terror.
The Anabaptists were therefore considered a lunatic fringe, although they largely became pacifists; looking for a better life, about 500 of them left southern Germany for North America in the mid-18th century, settling in Pennsylvania, the most tolerant of the English colonies (established by those proto-lefties, the Quakers).
Even in the 21st century groups like the Anabaptists and the Amish have so far resisted secularisation, and modern fertility trends, so their numbers continue to grow at an enormous rate. Demographic projections into the distant future carry huge caveats, but perhaps one day American public discourse will care less about 1776 or 1619 and more about 1534.
Of course such sects all have similar problems, as Eric Kaufmann wrote about in his book on religion and demography. They may have strong social capital within the group, but they play little wider part in society.
A similar dynamic already exists in Israel, where the ultra-Orthodox historically neither worked nor fought in the army, but as they’ve become demographically more dominant have come under increasing social pressure to change. If they do adapt, for the sake of the wider country, it perhaps offers a template for the future of religious America — one in which an obscure religious sect like the Amish goes mainstream — weird as it may well be.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFirstly 60% of homeless in London are foreign nationals, so if we helped them get home to where they can get support from friends and family, that solves 60% of the issue. Secondly, we have had mass immigration running at 700,000 a year for two decades of mostly low-skilled labour, which was been great for every sector of society, except the poorest, who have seen depressed wages and high housing costs. Once we limit mass immigration, wages will go up and housing costs go down, stopping people getting homeless in the first place. Thirdly there will always be some who actually want to live on the streets by choice & no amount of do-gooders effect will get them off.
1) The figures you’re quoting relate to rough sleeping specifically (as noted by Richard Pinch). 2) The largest group (nearly half) of rough sleepers in London are UK nationals (data source: London’s Poverty Profile: https://www.trustforlondon…. I am not seeking to win any points here – there’s this narrative that it’s all about foreigners which has been used to justify the Government doing very little, and as a result the numbers sleeping rough of all nationalities have more than doubled since 2010.
If UK nationals account for less than half of London rough sleepers, it follows that more than half are foreign nationals. This is consistent with Jamie Gerry’s statistic. Your second point appears to be self-contradictory, unless a nuance is escaping me.
It does not help the argument in this article that it confuses rough sleeping with homelessness. The latter is a legal definition and most people who are homeless are not sleeping rough (which is not to say that being legally homeless is anything other than awful). For Oct-Dec 2019, about 65,000 households were legally homeless, of which about a quarter were in temporary rented accommodation, about a quarter living with family and friends, and about 3% sleeping rough.
Why not simply hang everyone caught dealing drugs irrespective of how often or how small an amount. Once that profession dries up (about a day after the first tranche of public hangings) we might get a start to see a clearer picture of what’s what on the streets.
Precisely. Our current policy on the so called “War on Drugs” is an utter fiasco. A pathetic cocktail of punishment and indulgence, that not only rewards the Drug Barons, but ludicrously also rewards the numerous Enforcers.
The irresistible elixir of bloated Public Sector pay and pensions, means no one is prepared to do more that spout meaningless platitudes and sanctimonious drivel.
We must either implement total liberalisation or begin to execute on an industrial scale. It is the duty of the State to protect its citizens even if that means killing a few of them, as Aristotle may/might have said.
Rarely in life do things ‘unravel’ by themselves. While sympathising with Gary’s plight, there is surely some event or concatenation of events that triggered his descent & that it isn’t mentioned indicates less an interest in the truth than in politicising a situation that is not, inherently, political.
I think the only place you don’t see street dwellers is where there are laws against being homeless that are actually enforced. We need homes for the homeless, new laws, and active enforcement. Quite a revolution in thinking.
it was interesting to note the opinions of West Indian immigrants towards white Englishmen in the BBC documentary ‘The Colony’ made in 1964 but aired again recently. A few of the participants had noted after many years in England how Englishmen are “all for themselves” and put their own interests first. Others mentioned how Englishmen had no love in them for others. As a white, working-class, middle-aged Englishmen I have to say I concur with these views. There is a very slight prospect of English people suddenly taking an empathetic view of the homeless or rough-sleepers other than to clear the streets of ersatz living quarters. We are by and large a nation of selfish materialistic individualists.
The workman ought to be worth of his hire. This is going to be difficult in any reasonably free economy. It’s impossible in a world of globalization and mass labor migration. Pretty those things should be addressed along with dealing with the mentally ill and the substance-addled.