Posted on 07/14/2008 5:38:32 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
(Collision might be due to growth in municipalities not accustomed to lifestyle)
Among the 600,000-plus hunters heading out for last year’s gun-deer season were three Clark County brothers who were cited for not wearing blaze orange — clothing, they said, that was against their Amish religion.
Members of the religious sect noted for their black felt hats, dark trousers, long dresses and bonnets are barred from wearing bright clothing.
But a Clark County judge ruled last month that there’s nothing in the Amish religion that compels them to hunt deer. So each brother was fined $143.10.
It was the latest in a growing number of clashes between the Amish and governments in Wisconsin:
• An Amish man in Jackson County was fined $10,000 in March for failing to get a building permit. He was part of a small group of Amish farmers who did not get building permits because they say conforming to the state’s uniform dwelling code is against their beliefs.
• An Amish couple in Clark County was ordered last month to shut down their candy and jam business because they were running an unlicensed food processing establishment.
• A refusal by some Amish farmers to comply with the state’s livestock premises registration law — designed to quickly locate livestock herds in a disease outbreak — could lead to a showdown in court. Some Amish fear that if they register their farms, it could lead to the state requiring them to register their animals individually. They say that would be akin to “the number of the beast” in the Book of Revelation.
The culture collision might be due to the growth of Amish in places where municipalities are not accustomed to the group’s simple lifestyle that shuns electricity, phones and motor vehicles.
“Where the rub and irritation comes is when they move into new areas and the local officials don’t know how to relate to them and there’s no history of collaboration,” said Donald Kraybill, an Amish expert at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania. “That might be happening in some places in Wisconsin because of the rapid increase and influx.”
Though there’s no comprehensive census of the Amish, Kraybill has tracked populations in states including Wisconsin by counting the number of settlements and church districts. According to his research, Wisconsin had 27 separate Amish settlements, 53 church districts and an estimated 7,150 adults and children in 1992.
In 2008, the figures had grown to 50 settlements, 115 church districts and 15,525 people.
The vast majority of Amish co-exist easily with non-Amish. Many move to Wisconsin in search of good farmland at relatively inexpensive prices.
But sometimes their wish for relative isolation collides with state and municipal regulations.
In November, Jacob J. Gingerich, 22, Aaron J. Gingerich, 17, and Herman Gingerich, 21, were cited for hunting deer on their family’s land near Loyal without wearing blaze orange clothing.
Their father, Jacob M. Gingerich, testified in Clark County Circuit Court that his family didn’t want to change the law but hoped for a compromise that would allow them to hunt on their property without having to wear the bright clothing designed to protect hunters from being mistaken for deer. He also said if they were forced to wear blaze orange, they wouldn’t hunt deer during the firearms season.
“We were hoping we could be exempted on our own place...our own land,” Jacob M. Gingerich told Judge Jon Counsell.
But a prosecutor pointed to statistics showing that a majority of firearm accidents during Wisconsin’s gun-deer season involved hunters in the same hunting party and most happened on private land.
“The orange clothing requirement is not an unconstitutional burden on defendants’ exercise of their religion,” Counsell wrote in his June 24 decision. He also noted that “nothing in the defendants’ religion compels them to hunt deer and hunting deer is not central to the Amish way of life.”
Darwin Zwieg has been district attorney for almost three decades in Clark County, which has a large Amish population. This was the first case he could recall involving Amish deer hunters claiming that wearing blaze orange was against their religious beliefs.
“Overall, they do their best to comply as long as it doesn’t interfere with what they believe to be their free exercise of their religion,” Zwieg said.
It was also in Clark County where Jonas and Katie Gingerich of Willard were ordered last month to stop making jam and candy they sold via mail order because they were operating a food-processing plant without a license, didn’t put required notices on candy that contained nuts and used an unapproved waste water disposal system.
In Jackson County, three cases are pending in the Town of Albion near Black River Falls involving Amish who did not get required building permits. In March, Daniel Borntreger, an Amish farmer who lives in the nearby Town of Franklin, was fined $10,600 for failing to get a permit before adding on to a building.
The pending cases involve Amish who claim it’s a violation of their religious faith to get a building permit, said Paul Millis, the attorney for the towns of Franklin and Albion.
“By having to comply with the uniform dwelling code their argument is they would have to change their ways so they’re in conformity with the rest of society and that violates their religious faith,” Millis said.
Though disputes between some Amish and the state’s 2-year-old livestock premises registration rule have not gone to court, state agriculture officials are preparing cases to forward to district attorneys who will ultimately decide whether to file complaints.
After pseudorabies was discovered last year on two Clark County swine farms — one Amish and one non-Amish — state health inspectors had to contact every farm within a five-mile radius. But since only half of those farms had registered with the state, it took inspectors two days to drive up every road in the outbreak area and alert farmers, something that had could have done much quicker by phone if they all had been registered under the state law, assistant state veterinarian Paul McGraw said.
“We’ve had a lot of Amish that have registered their premises, and we have a lot who are resistant to it. My understanding is that they’re not opposed to premise registration,” McGraw said, “but they’ve drawing their toe in the sand because it could lead to individual animal registration, which to them is the ‘mark of the beast.’ ”
Though some recent cases have gone against Amish defendants, Wisconsin courts have been friendly to the Amish in the past. In 1996, the state Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin courts should apply a least restrictive alternative test when considering claims that laws or regulations violate freedom of religion. Once someone proves they have a sincerely held religious belief and is burdened by a state law, the burden shifts to the state to prove that the law is based on a compelling state interest that cannot be served by a lesser alternative.
In that 1996 case, the state Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring the Amish to display a red and orange triangular emblem on the back of their slow-moving, horse-drawn buggies violated their religious freedom. Eight Amish men in Clark County who were cited for driving their buggies without the brightly colored signs offered to use white reflective tape, which the Supreme Court determined was an acceptable alternative.
“The Amish are fortunate to be in a state (like Wisconsin) where they have the opportunity to make their case and the state has the burden to show a least restrictive alternative,” said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center, a nonpartisan group that studies free expression issues. “That’s a big protection for a religious group.”
decent opinon here, on point
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2045173/posts
I call BS on your thesis of “upper Midwest harassment of Amish.”
I have family in and around the Shawano/Bonduel areas, north of Green Bay, who live in an around and among the Amish farms and the general air has been one of cooperation and respect. The Amish have been known and valued throughout the Fox Valley, and in the counties north of Milwaukee for their craftsmanship and and work ethic - I have first hand experiences with them working on repairing and restoring barns, and haven’t once heard a negative word said about them or their communities.
A few incidents does not a movement make.
“I wonder how the Amish stood on that issue.”
The Amish and the Mennonites do not get/use Social Security Cards.
“LOL! If those guys are hunting deer, they’re aiming waaaaaaaay too high! :)”
Not if they’re going for the “30 point” buck...lol
I agree. Sometimes I'd like a "do-over" where we could throw out some laws and a bunch of legislation, rethink them, and then start over. But, with--what--80% of Congress being lawyers, that's not going to happen any time soon.
LOL...now THERE’S a new law I could get behind: No person who is a member of the bar is permitted to hold public office of any kind. Conflict of interest, dontcha know.
Regards,
Maybe they are Texan deer.....rumor has it everything in Texas is bigger....
The history of this nation's declension from the high ideals of the Founders is well known. If we look at the transactions for which the Amish have been fined in Wisconsin and Iowa, they are largely personal decisions, such as not wearing orange when hunting on their own private property and not on public land. These actions are apparently tolerated in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where the Amish are long established. One poster stated that the reason for the harassment is due to ancient feuds with the "Hochdeutsch" in the Upper Midwest, as opposed to the Mennonite, Scots-Irish and white Catholic background of their neighbors in the lower Northern states where the Amish have been long established. This may be true. There is a tradition of hostility toward politically powerless minority religions that has popped up at different times since the mid-19th Century, as evidenced by the harassment of Mormon settlements in the Midwest and the Know Nothing movement against Catholic immigrants in the Northeast. Jehovah's Witnesses were the subject of ill treatment during the World Wars on account of their refusal to join the military or show homage to national symbols like the U.S. flag. Especially in the case of the Mormons, government officials, as high ranking as governors, sanctioned legal harassment and extralegal terrorism.
Eliminating disparity of treatment is an ideal that has rarely been achieved, whether at the local, state, or Federal level. All too often, top local officials become Boss Hogg or his urban or minority equivalent, and some of these Boss Hoggs to state or Federal government leadership. This has been the case since the founding of the republic. For example, Andrew Jackson used the spoils system to benefit his cronies and achieved some of his goals, such as defunding the Second Bank of the United States, outside of the legislative process. Restraining government power has been difficult to achieve as well, but there was greater success at it before the rise of modern liberalism. Until the New Deal, we had very limited restraints on trade and property rights at the Federal level and only mild ones, such as licensing requirements for physicians, at the state level. A major initial goal of the post-World War II government power. It was obviously unsuccessful in this area, and many who think of themselves as conservatives, have made their peace with Leviathan.
While fairness may be desirable, limitations on government power at all levels is more so. Let the Amish and others live at peace with society in general, if they desire to live peaceably.
Personally, I favor limited gov't and cast my vote based on that. Now if we could only find a way to convince the GOP to return to that belief, things might look better. The GOP squandered an almost 10 year chance to reduce spending and the size of gov't but they went lock-step in line with the Dems. They are really going to have to work to convince me to trust their arrogant behavior again.
I had the same thought as I was reading the article.
The Amish find difficulties in dealing with the government because they try to deal with it honestly and without joining it.
I had the same thought as I was reading the article.
The Amish find difficulties in dealing with the government because they try to deal with it honestly and without joining it.
This is most certainly true. In fact, I recognized the name of Jacob Gingerich because my father has had business dealings with him. Even called up to WI to make sure...
Is there a justification for this requirement beyond simply protecting a hunter from his own stupidity?
I don't know very much about hunting, but it seems as if the requirement is on par with seat belt laws, helmet laws, and other kinds of nanny-state regulation.
Running around through the woods in dark clothing, while other people are looking to shoot a deer, is a *very* stupid idea. But if someone wants to be exposed to that risk (or hang around someone that does), what business is it of the state to tell them they can't?
Seems like religion is irrelevant in this situation.
Got it, was just looking for a picture of “Big Dick”, with all due respect. Thanks for the funny pick-up.
Whether or not your relatives up there in copper country like them or not, Wisconsin has a history of intolerace for groups that refuse to conform.
Kind of a Prussian sort of thing. In fact, the ol'boys that opened up the greater part of the state to agricultural development were Junkers who actually relocated their estates with thier Polish peasantry to America.
The Amish and the Mennonites didn't get along with those folks in Germany, and they weren't any happier with them here.
Like I said Upper Midwest laws that affect Amish behavior in particular leave the Amish with a choice ~ their money or their comfort ~ that is, pay more for the same acreage in Indiana and be left alone to be nutcases, or pay less in the Upper Midwest and be targeted (except by the locals who all think they are great folks but who fail to go out and campaign to elect folks to office who think so).
Otherwise if the Amish want to take turns taking potshots at each other, frankly I don't care, but they do have a moral obligation to not let their neighbors err
I think there's something about that in most of their "ordenen" right there at the beginning, but my Plattdeutsch isn't all that good, so maybe it's not really there, but it should be.
True! :)
That makes sense, but if the concern is for the "shooters", why not just pass a law relieving them of liability if their victim wasn't wearing a vest?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.