The West Nickel Mines Amish School Murders and the Cultural Fetishization of “Amish Forgiveness”
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article makes a reasonable point, namely, that the public acclaim the Amish received for their extension of forgiveness after the Nickel Mines shooting "was not about the Amish at all, or about the girls who suffered and died..." but was instead an act that revealed "a cultural consciousness that desperately sought satiation from the chaos and confusion..." of modern American life, including the events of 9/11.
That is a good, basic assessment of the public response, but there are a number of things in the article that need to be stronger for this to be an article worthy of publication:
Is it indeed the case that many of the commentaries in the aftermath of the Nickel Mines shooting referred to 9/11? There is not much evidence in this article to support that contention, and I'm not convinced many commentators made that particular connection. A few did, as you illustrate, but the article (line 162) says it was "commonly mentioned." How often? What percent of published commentaries, print or online, mentioned 9/11 in the course of discussing Amish approaches to forgiveness? The point I just made is complicated by the fact that some Amish people in and around Nickel Mines referred to the school shooting as "our 9/11." So there's some confusion in the analysis: it's one thing to quote the Amish as saying that this was their 9/11, and it's another thing for commentators to ask the question about whether the world would be a better place if America had responded to 9/11 as the Amish did to Nickel Mines. I think that difference needs to be articulated more clearly. Do both sorts of references to 9/11 contribute to the article's argument about "fetishization of Amish forgiveness"? What is the point of identifying and outlining the Jewish critiques of Amish-style forgiveness? How do their views contribute to your overall argument about fetishization? The concluding paragraphs about fetishes and fetishization are very hard to read -- filled with too much jargon, and without clear enough connections to the "forgiveness" part of the essay. If the article is fundamentally an argument about fetishization, then it would make sense to begin the article with a full explanation of the concept, and then move to show how the various commentaries played that role.Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is very well organized and carefully written. The topic, the West Nickel Mines Amish School Murders and "forgiveness" is a very timely one, especially in countries where issues of religion and violence are becoming a major issue of concern. The first part of the paper explains the events in a clear and researched way, with a variety of sources reporting the event as well as religious studies scholars who commented on the issue of forgiveness. The major issue of the paper is the difference between the Amish concept of forgiveness and the Jewish law concept of forgiveness and "yielding to a higher authority. The paper connects this with the discussion following the 9/11 events in the United States systematically, and I am convinced that the author has researched it carefully and made a good case. The part of the paper that was the weakest, or in need of further development, is the author's claim in the abstract and on page 7 line 304 that the issue of the girls themselves and their lives was disregarded or ignored, and that the forgiveness issue needs to be seen in light of a nation coming to grips with chaos and confusion after 9/11. Making the case that it was not about the girls or that the girls were not considered adequately must be handled with attention to feminist/gender studies literature on Amish women and girls. Alternatively, if the discussion is about chaos and confusion after 9/11, more psychologically informed research should be included in the article. One or the other would be fine, but at least one of these should be developed further before publication.
Author Response
Please see attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the setup for the argument is not new information, the analysis and basic argument is creative and original and is credible and pursuasive.
A tiny copy edit issue on line 92 the word "that" should probably be delete bc the sentence now doesn't make sense.
Author Response
Thank you for your feedback.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Your revisions have made this a much better essay, and one that is now worthy of publication. I do believe, however, that the references to the two critiques of Amish forgiveness (Jacoby and Gottleib) don't add to the essay or its argument. In fact, their inclusion for no apparent reason detracts from the argument, for it leads down a trail for no good purpose. In your response to my query about this, you say that you address my concerns in lines 112-133 and 136-138, but you also admit that those sections do not contribute to the essay's argument about fetishization--which, of course, makes me wonder, "Why include them?"
Author Response
Given the suggestions from this reviewer, I removed the material related to Gottleib and Jacoby, as it does not add to the main points I am trying to convey. Deleting this part of the text does make the argument clearer.
