Skip to comments.Amish men jailed for refusing to pay buggy fines
Posted on 01/12/2012 10:21:58 PM PST by george76
MAYFIELD, Ky. - A group of Amish men were sent to jail in western Kentucky Thursday for refusing to pay fines for breaking a state highway law that requires their horse-drawn buggies to be marked with orange reflective triangles.
The men have a religious objection to the bright orange signs, which they say are flashy and conflict with their pledge to live low-key and religious lives.
"I totally understand your objection," the judge told Byler. "But you're in violation, and it's not up to me to change the law. It doesn't really matter what I think about any of this."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
They shouldn’t let them drive their buggies until they comply. What they’re doing is dangerous.
Nobody is quite wearing a halo in this dispute.
That’s statist thinking. Shame on you.
I can see other groups coming out now.....being of a particular religious group that frowns on lights of any type....so they believe the removal of tail lights is necessary. Another group frowns on power steering, so they remove the belt to their power steering. Another group believes that seatbelts are a religious issue, so they remove the seatbelts. Another group believes that glass of any type is a problem, so they remove all windows on a car.
We are approaching a point in American society where people are going to be focusing on just about every single issue and making themselves into all kinds of religious groups.
Do they go to an Amish prison or are they sent to a real prison with electric lights, a TV, power door locks and a roommate named Bubba who has not seen a real woman since the Carter administration?
This kind of talk — in this case the erection of strawmen — is exactly why I said nobody has a halo.
In some cases the Amish have been around there far longer than the modern high speed roads and highways that paved over their horse and carriage dirt roads. On the other hand, it is not a Christian thing to put a non biblically mandated lifestyle statement ahead of the welfare of your neighbors. On a third hand (are we growing an octopus?) it seems too little study has been paid to scientifically viable alternatives to those gaudy orange triangles.
Finaly, they Amish terrorists got busted at this!:)
Am I the only one who thinks a judge saying, “It’s not up to me to change the law” is incredibly refreshing?
Last summer, I think, I made a gas stop on I-80 in western PA, and getting back on I pulled out behind a flatbed wagon being driven by a young Amish woman with a load of Amish kids in the back. They were crossing under the highway on a road which was a heavily traveled two lane highway itself. Normally I bridle at every infinitesimal delay in these situations, as irrational as it is to do so, as I often contemplate, but here I was moved to calm myself, and I kept a respectful distance. There was a red traffic light, and as I sat behind the wagon looking at the children, a young girl looked back at me and gave a slow wave, which I returned. For me it was a unique experience.
This is the job of their seniors in appellate courts. (Duck’n & runn’n)
Thus, for example, Rastafarians have been prohibited from sacrificing animals in furtherance of their religious observance. Nor can Mormons practice polygamy in furtherance of their tenets.
The harder cases come when the state attempts to compel medical practitioners to participate in abortions contrary to their religious beliefs or pharmacists to sell the morning-after pill.
If one considers the cases on the principle that driving on the highways is a privilege which the state can regulate reasonably, the Amish should be made to comply. If one applies that principle to those who choose to engage in the business of medical treatment, nurses should be made to participate in abortions.
On the other hand, if one analyzes the cases on the basis that the nurses are being affirmatively required to violate their religious principles, they should not be compelled to participate in abortions. One can say that the mere participation in an industry does not deprive one of the freedom of religion when the regulation is not directly related to public safety or the police power. It is related to a social good perceived by the legislature, to wit, that nurses should be properly trained in committing abortions but that is hardly a compelling justification to deprive one of religious liberty guaranteed in the First Amendment.
We can play with the idea that it is within the state's power to prohibit activity such as animal sacrifice or polygamy and religious belief does not prevail against the general police power. There is, after all, an argument to be made justifying laws against animal sacrifice and polygamy which, whether one is persuaded or not, cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable.
But a distinction might be made that the state has less power affirmatively to compel people to do something, such as commit abortions, than it does to prohibit activity, such as driving without required markings-especially when that activity is connected to a privilege, driving on the roads, rather than a right, such as free speech. We can say that when one ventures onto the roads he makes a choice which submits him to regulations for the general welfare, such as driving on the right, stopping on red, and having tail lights and markings. But when one decides to practice medicine one has not made a decision which submits him to that degree of regulation. The contrary argument, of course, is that a nurse who was not trained in abortion might subsequently engage in an abortion and cause a patient harm. Would we extend that argument to cover euthanasia?
“Thats statist thinking. Shame on you.”
Oh, puhlease. Their stupid religious beliefs stops where it interferes with other peoples rights...such as not swerving into a ditch and getting dead or maimed or running them over and killing them and getting sued and living with such a monumental emotional disaster. Get a grip. Let them put a stupid sign on the back on their 18th century carriages. Sheesh. That is not “statist”, it’s just commonsense.
And before you attack, I was a chairman of Veterans for Constitutional Restoration (VetsCor). If you don’t know what that is, look on the sidebar of this site or on the front page.
And yet allowances have been made in the past, at least, for things like native American Indian ceremonial hallucinogenic mushrooms. Reasonable will differ from one court to another, and it’s often at the appellate level that such differences come down to brass tacks.
No kiddin’! :-)
The interesting appellate decision will be how the court handles polygamy in the wake of any ruling permitting gay marriage. Political correctness favors gay marriage but opposes polygamy. Logic does not inherently make that distinction. That is never been an impediment to judicial activists in the past and it will be interesting to see what emanations and penumbras they find the to justify gay marriage and continue to prohibit polygamy.
...perhaps letting them paint a reflecting paint sign on their buggies would solve this dispute....seems other Amish in other states have no problem using the familiar triangle
As usual, you have posted much to think about in a coherent and well-formed argument. I don’t get a chance to thank you for your posts as often as I’d like, but I’m taking this opportunity to let you know they are always mulled over and appreciated.