This is a tough issue. Normally, I wouldn’t prefer the hand of government in Amish affairs. Building codes are oftentimes ridiculous, as well.
However, if we all the Amish to build as they wish based on their religious beliefs, then we would have to do the same for every group.
This would also open the door for such things as Muslim women being allowed to completely cover their face in their driver’s license photos for “religious reasons”
I think there is a point in which some lines must be drawn. I don’t think that telling the Amish to observe the same local building codes as everyone else is an over-reach.
Maybe the problem is government drivers licenses and government building codes.
I agree with you, to some extent. The driver license issue is one of safety and for purposes of identification which is a legitimate law enforcement issue. Some, but not all, building codes are in place for the purpose of public and fire personnel safety. If the specific code sections to which they object involve safety, then the Amish should be held to that standard. If it is a nonsafety issue and simply blind enforcement of useless codes, then the Amish ought to be allowed to argue for an exemption on a case-by-case basis and only on the grounds of serious interference with the practice of their religion. I don’t believe it would set a serious precedent if challenges were limited to those very narrow avenues.
Sorry, but “drawing the line” by equating potential muslim terrorists hiding behind a veil in an ID photo, with not letting the Amish continue building traditional structures with an over 100 year safety record is, I submit, asinine.
Your analogy is as absurd as arguing to ban leatherworkers who make holsters for handguns because their allowance might somehow imply personal ownership of nuclear weapons.
Hyper-generalization is rampant and destroying critical thinking and clear understanding everywhere. Try not to add to it.
If anything, the Amish could teach the government a thing or two about how to run an economy.
This would also open the door for such things as Muslim women being allowed to completely cover their face in their driver’s license photos for “religious reasons”
They should be allowed to cover their faces for any reason.
I remember a time when there was no photograph on a driver's license.
What's next, fingerprints? implanted biochips?
Since the issues appear to be: 1) The failure of the Amish to install smoke detectors, 2) the failure of the Amish to submit engineering blueprints of their structures, and 3) their failure to appropriately kiss the inspector’s behind, I’d have to say that the intrusive codes should be removed because they are, indeed, intrusive.
If they were Amish contractors wanting to sell houses to non-Amish buyers you'd be right. But since both builders and occupants of the houses in question are Amish (possibly the same people) and don't want the stuff mandated, and the lack of the stuff doesn't endanger anyone not a part of the transaction, what's it to the goobermint if they want smoke defectors or not? You're in effect protecting them from themselves.
(Yes I know the goobermint does it all the time, but I don't agree with it those times either)