MennoNet.com

The city is going to lose big time once this gets appealed. The precedents are pretty clear on this one, and the defendants already decided to do jail time for religious freedom.

As one who lives at the center (Berlin) of the largest Amish community in the world (Holmes County, Ohio), I have said that there is nothing that the Amish could do that would do more to create good will among their non-Amish neighbors who share the roads with them than to put bags on their horses. (We live right in town, too, and there are often piles in front of our house that prevent us from even getting into our drive w/o getting it on the vehicles. It is not only nasty smelling and so sticky it is difficult to wash off, but it is corrosive as well.)

At what point must those who decide not to upgrade to newer technology, be punished by those who accepted modern technology?
In our church, a couple who is switching to store-bought clothing for ladies, is trying to put a guilt trip on those who would prefer to keep on sewing their own clothing.
There are always progressives who will find a way to "punish" non-progressives. They can't go on and do their own thing in peace. They try to put pressure on everyone else to conform to their new ideas.
It was the same worldview that caused white men to treat Native Americans the way they did.

In Holmes County, the Amish were there before the automobile.

In Auburn, the automobile was there before the Amish, so I think the Amish should concede.

Neto wrote:As one who lives at the center (Berlin) of the largest Amish community in the world (Holmes County, Ohio), I have said that there is nothing that the Amish could do that would do more to create good will among their non-Amish neighbors who share the roads with them than to put bags on their horses. (We live right in town, too, and there are often piles in front of our house that prevent us from even getting into our drive w/o getting it on the vehicles. It is not only nasty smelling and so sticky it is difficult to wash off, but it is corrosive as well.)

Perhaps the car-driving Mennonites could be a witness to their neighbours as well by complying with federal emissions laws, no longer deleting the EGR from their trucks, not turning up their fuel pumps, refraining from rolling coal even if they have an impressive smokestack installed, and not polluting the atmosphere. To go a bit farther, complaining about the EPA, emissions laws, etc could also stop being a regular topic of conversation.

At least the ecosystem of horses and manure is designed to be sustainable. Asphalt roads, the oil industry, the automobile industry, and polluting our atmosphere isn't sustainable.

I really fail to see how putting bags on horses would be "punishing" anyone (not even the horses). Guess I kicked a bucket of worms over....

Edited to add: If you all think it matters "who got here first", then I could point out that the street we live on was built as a part of a housing addition, with plots way too small for an Amish home & barn, etc. It is heavily used by the Amish, however, because it gets them off of streets which are more heavily traveled by cars & trucks. I have no problem with that, but I think being considerate goes both ways. I really can hardly believe the attitudes being expressed here.

It's a complicated question. Where should religion allow some to disregard what others believe to be common sense laws? Polygamous Mormon sects? Sky clad Wiccan worship? Anabaptists and Quakers exempt from the draft? Peyote or marijuana as sacraments? I guess I lean toward accepting all of the above, but people will invent "religions" to be exempt from things they don't like. And there is real danger in allowing the state to decide what's a valid religion. I'd like to see the legal arguments both sides make; it would be interesting.

I can certainly see some freedom of religion needs to be curtailed. Think of human sacrifice as an extreme case. This issue is one of arguable environmental harm by a practice a church requires; I'm sure the matter would be clearer if it were a more serious harm.

The Supreme Court has criteria to test bona fide religious convictions.

Like it or not, Schwarzies easily pass the tests. And it's not like they enjoy living so backwards. They just honestly believe it's what God wants them to do.

I was surprised to read that two Amish men are suing the city. My understanding was that Conservative Anabaptists did not go to court, or is just that they don't take Christian brothers and sisters to court?

I was surprised as well. Typically Cons. Anabaptists don't sue at all, unless it is a formality that the law requires in order to process some claim. Once I was involved in an accident that the insurance company was glad to give $2000 to for "pain an injury" to help cover medical expenses and time off work, but it required a simple going to court and having a judge approve this via law suit. The insurance company offered to do this and actually wrote up all the paperwork and so it was not like we were taking them to court but they were rather taking us to court, yet we were the ones who were technically suing.

Some Old Orders don't tend to have their doctrine thought through as well, which is why they will do things like this, vote in national elections, or even have religious convictions against diapers for that matter.

And yes, taking a brother to court is seen as being unscriptural.