Eight members of an Amish community went to jail after they refused to pay fines for failing to affix orange safety triangles to their horse-drawn buggies. The men refused to pay the fines on grounds that their religion bars them from wearing or displaying bright colors because they are considered too modern. Jailed for misdemeanor contempt of court, the inmates were provided dark-colored jumpsuits in place of the standard issue orange coveralls.
Although the story is a minor religion-related human interest story, it was worth posting because it produced the greatest mugshot series in the history of modern crime:
How awesome is that? If Frodo Baggins, Samwise Gamgee, Meriadoc Brandybuck, Peregrin Took and the rest of their shire crew were ever arrested I imagine their mugshots would look exactly like this. I especially love the guy in the bottom left-hand corner. 5’2″ of pure Amish menace.
By the way, I don’t usually side with the scofflaws, but good on these guys for being willing to go to jail over their religious beliefs.
September 16th, 2011 | 2:28 pm
Really, if you can’t see a horse-drawn buggy unless it has an orange safety triangle on it, you probably shouldn’t be driving at all.
September 16th, 2011 | 2:32 pm
That must be Bilbo, upper right.
September 16th, 2011 | 2:39 pm
Thank heaven these gangstas are off the streets and no longer menacing innocent bystanders with their buggy whips.
September 16th, 2011 | 2:56 pm
Patrick:
No streetlights, middle of the night…black isn’t the most visible color ever. The orange triangle has reflectors built in. Same reason cars have red tail lights.
September 16th, 2011 | 3:19 pm
According to the article:
“While members of the Swartzentruber Amish sect will affix reflective tape to the rear of their buggies, they eschew use of the bright safety triangle, which they consider too modern.”
Making this story one of absurd but typical bureaucratic meddling and intransigence.
That being said, part of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment for what you’ve done, in order to demonstrate the absurdity and/or injustice of a given rule/law. Since I don’t believe the Amish find it immoral to pay fines for stupid laws, they should have paid up, unless there’s some larger pattern of injustice going on.
September 16th, 2011 | 3:27 pm
They’re only required to use the society’s colored marker if they venture with their buggies onto the roads built by that society. They don’t need them on their own fields. I wonder if they’ve considered that aspect of the issue. I also wonder to what degree that kind of argument might be used against my own religious-based opposition to some law.
September 16th, 2011 | 3:41 pm
They’re only required to use the society’s colored marker if they venture with their buggies onto the roads built by that society. They don’t need them on their own fields. I wonder if they’ve considered that aspect of the issue.
They’ve probably spent more time thinking about what a “fair” division of common space among people of different beliefs than most contemporary liberals (I’m thinking gay rights advocates) have.
September 16th, 2011 | 3:44 pm
I don’t like the idea that these people owe it to society to do what society tells them to. It’s not the same standard we use for other (e.g. liberal) groups.
Society should accommodate them as much as we accommodate anyone else whose beliefs are in conflict with common norms.
Let them use lanterns, or find some other solution that does not involve bright colors. These people are just trying to live their lives and they should not bear the entire burden – nor should they be restricted to their own land, “in the closet”, as they say.
How ridiculous when illegal aliens get financial aid and young lawbreakers get their records “sealed”, but we’re hauling these people into court for having beliefs that predate the laws in question.
September 16th, 2011 | 3:47 pm
I’m afraid I’m not terribly sympathetic. The Amish also don’t vote or join the military because it is too worldly, or something. It seems like such a small concession to living in the society that protects their right to believe as they see fit to accommodate to the needs of the safety of OTHERS.
September 16th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
Why should they put these holy men in jail when they could use the space for liberals, gay rights advocates, and illegal aliens? Real Americans want to know!
September 16th, 2011 | 4:44 pm
Funny how they have a problem with an orange safety reflector being too modern but have no problem riding on a PAVED road.
September 16th, 2011 | 5:37 pm
Several Amish farmers in western Kentucky have been involved in accidents because their buggies are difficult to see when they drive at night. A number of Amish farmers have hung lanterns on their buggies but this was not deemed to conform with the traffic laws regarding slow-moving horse drawn vehicles.
As for riding on a paved road, they usually drive their buggies on the side of the road, not the actual pavement, and generally try to avoid paved roads, especially heavily-trafficked one.
September 16th, 2011 | 6:02 pm
White signs have a reflective color. Highway signs are white/black. Why is the government unwilling to provide an alternative and admit that it is wrong to force citizens to obey stupid laws?
September 16th, 2011 | 6:04 pm
If they want to live somewhere where they will never be bothered by anyone not conforming to their peculiar way of life, then they probably shouldn’t live on the east coast adjacent to some of the most densely-populated urban areas in the modern world.
There are still plenty of wide-open spaces available in the American west and southwest where it would take days by buggy before they would ever encounter a single person, much less a road. Maybe they should move there.
And, by the way, being willing to go to jail over a delusion isn’t a virtue, it’s just stupid and a waste of time and resources.
September 16th, 2011 | 6:26 pm
As for riding on a paved road, they usually drive their buggies on the side of the road, not the actual pavement, and generally try to avoid paved roads, especially heavily-trafficked one.
Not all of them. I’ve passed quite a few who were content to use the asphalt.
September 16th, 2011 | 6:45 pm
The article saluted the men for sticking to their religious convictions. I do not agree with that sentiment. The Amish in MN all fasten a triangular warning sign. Also no one in the United States has an unlimited op-out from our laws because of “religious convictions”, including those of the Native American Nations who have a limited sovereignty.
The Amish, in my experience, request that no one take their photos. This is a minor request that should be respected. In keeping with that, I generally would not post or repost or link to their photos! This is not a major crime and therefore the above principle, in my opinion, should apply.
September 16th, 2011 | 7:20 pm
Though I liked the nomination for Bilbo, the most asinine part of this, to me, is the government’s requiring a mugshot of anyone guilty of a misdemeanor.
September 16th, 2011 | 8:20 pm
Your comment about feet and inches of menace because more scary when you get the measurement correct.
These appear to be a collection of rather tall gentlemen.
September 16th, 2011 | 8:22 pm
“If they want to live somewhere where they will never be bothered by anyone not conforming to their peculiar way of life, then they probably shouldn’t live on the east coast adjacent to some of the most densely-populated urban areas in the modern world.”
Where did this come from? They’re not asking anyone to conform to THEIR way of life.
Their religious conviction is foolish (which does not mean it is not genuine) and they should pay up; they are not heroes. But they pay taxes, too — the roads are not “our” roads rather than “their” roads. Just because they choose not to use asphalt on their own land, how in the world does that make it wrong or hypocritical for them to drive on the roads? They’re not out there campaigning to ban asphalt.
September 16th, 2011 | 8:23 pm
Oh, and BTW, Hobbits are beardless by nature. Says so right in Tolkien.
September 16th, 2011 | 9:15 pm
Why should they put these holy men in jail when they could use the space for liberals, gay rights advocates, and illegal aliens? Real Americans want to know!
My point is that there is no reason why the Amish should have to stay “in the closet” just because their way of life happens to conflict with other peoples’ values.
But I see that the same people who bleat loudest about “tolerance” don’t necessarily mean that everyone has an equal right to expect to be tolerated, eh?
Apparently, only people who want to change the world need, deserve, or get “tolerance”. Everyone else should just get out of the way – stay on their own property or move West or something.
Nice to know the idea of keeping people on reservations hasn’t died out. Get back on your own land, people! You’re not allowed in public spaces! Topless lesbian parades are a valid form of protest but driving without an orange triangle? You’re a threat to decent society!
When exactly did “equality” jump the shark, anyway?
September 16th, 2011 | 10:04 pm
I’m surprised they refused to put the orange reflectors on their buggies, but they didn’t refuse to pose for the mugshots. They’re pretty strict aboiut having their photos taken. Wonder what made them give in.
September 16th, 2011 | 11:05 pm
You people sound like Ross Perot.
September 16th, 2011 | 11:11 pm
“These appear to be a collection of rather tall gentlemen.”
The numbers on the charts are not feet and inches, they are inches. So they are actually quite small on average.
September 16th, 2011 | 11:25 pm
How’s this for a compromise…. They could hang a triangular shaped bag of oranges at the rear of the buggy. It would be bright enough to be easily seen and could not be considered modern or worldly since God made the oranges. And as a bonus, upon completion of the journey…. a tasty snack!
September 16th, 2011 | 11:38 pm
Where’s Gandalf to save the day?
Joe Carter, the gentleman in the left hand corner is Mr. Tumnus from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Tumnus
September 17th, 2011 | 12:13 am
Why can’t they just be left alone? They set up their own community out in the middle nowhere at the time over a hundred years ago. The article is not very accurate in saying they believe these things are “too modern.” The Amish are pro–humility / anti-pride, and as such don’t wear anything that calls attention to themselves; brass buttons, bright colors, etc. It soundsl like they were willing to compromise with reflective tape, but the authorities were not. If someone is driving on the back roads in Pennsylvania Amish country, they should know to be on the look out for them and drive more carefully. It’s not like you’re going to rear-end one on the interestate in LA. They stick to themselves and do not try to force us to their ways, so we should honor them with the same courtesy.
September 17th, 2011 | 3:40 am
“If they want to live somewhere where they will never be bothered by anyone not conforming to their peculiar way of life, then they probably shouldn’t live on the east coast adjacent to some of the most densely-populated urban areas in the modern world.”
They were there first. We should insist that all those urbanites take their sprawl elsewhere. Since you suggested the wide-open spaces out West — send them there and leave the Amish alone.
September 17th, 2011 | 6:36 am
@Jeffy jeff: 60 inches comes to five feet when I do the maths, though I recognise that you guys like to do some things differently over there, I think you still hold that to be the case…
September 17th, 2011 | 6:40 am
Why doesn’t conscience lead them to refrain from driving at night given the danger from cars
and given their position on bright colors which bright colors by the way, God has lavished on tropical reef fish, parrots and butterflies…..not to mention lightning bugs. Why can’t they learn from the lightning bug like the proverbial books say to learn from the ant and from rock badgers?
They sign in their lives at the deep level….the true care for elders and of keeping them near the
younger generations. Why cloud that witness with a preferential option for the dark in a religion that holds that we are the light of the world….”for among these, you shine like stars in the night.”
September 17th, 2011 | 7:03 am
We had the same question raised in Europe, by Sikhs who refused to wear crash helmets.
The issue was, if there are to be different laws for different communities, based on their religious affiliations, then what exactly do we mean, by calling the Republic “one and indivisible”?
September 17th, 2011 | 8:49 am
Like Trappist monks, the Amish are visible reminders that God calls each of us to live conscious of the fact that His ways are not the world’s ways. They deserve respect from every Christian.
September 17th, 2011 | 9:19 am
Crips. Bloods. Gambinos. Swartzentrubers. Where would we be without the state to protect us peaceable, God-fearing folk from hoodlums like this?
September 17th, 2011 | 9:59 am
I thought those pics were the membership photos for the ZZ Top fan club. I
September 17th, 2011 | 1:00 pm
We had the same question raised in Europe, by Sikhs who refused to wear crash helmets.
The issue was, if there are to be different laws for different communities, based on their religious affiliations, then what exactly do we mean, by calling the Republic “one and indivisible”?
We already decided the issue.
Laws are optional, and access to the roads is a basic right.
The only question is why the Amish aren’t entitled to the same privileges we afford illegal aliens.
September 17th, 2011 | 1:09 pm
The Free Exercise law regarding this issue was set down in Employment Division v. Smith. The court held there is no religious exemption for laws of general applicability. In other words, if the law is not aimed at the suppression of religious activity, a religious believer has no right to disobey it even though the law steps on his religious beliefs (in that case the ritual use of peyote). Justice Scalia wrote the opinion.
We can have a debate about whether the authorities in this community should, as a matter of accommodation to a religious minority, grant the Amish an exception to the posting rule. There is no good argument that religious minorities get to ignore laws of general applicability any time it suits them. My own view is that the evidence suggests the government is genuinely concerned about a safety issue and granting the exception would make the roads less safe. If that is the case, the Amish should not get an exception. They are then faced with a choice. (1) obey the law; (2) don’t go on the road; or (3) go on the road in violation of the law and accept the consequences.
September 17th, 2011 | 3:56 pm
Barry, as far as I understand it, peyote use is actually legal for religious use. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act was specifically amended to include it, and to prevent discrimination based on the use of it in religious ceremonies.
Link is here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious_Freedom_Act#1994_Amendments-_Full_Text
Native Americans can also legitimately ignore certain laws because they are recognized as sovereign nations. The casinos where I live can legitimately discriminate in hiring on the basis of racial preference, for one. So they aren’t the best example.
As for the Amish, I think they tend to hairsplit too much on their prohibitions, and this is one of them. The bright colors idea is to prevent vanity, while this would be to promote safety, and all of the use would be the same. It’s not like reflective tape is any less colorful.
September 17th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
Crips. Bloods. Gambinos. Swartzentrubers. Where would we be without the state to protect us peaceable, God-fearing folk from hoodlums like this?
Rod Dreher,
As a type of blog comment, I find this short, sarcastic, hit-and-run type of message to be among the least helpful. Claiming a religious exemption from the law is a serious matter, and of course in the United States and many other free and democratic countries, the legitimate authority of the law and the legitimate rights of citizens to free exercise of religion are in constant tension. To imply that law enforcement officials are somehow overly zealous in requiring the Amish to obey traffic-safety regulations because they are not, after all, members of gangs or organized crime is an extraordinarily weak argument, but implying it in a short, sarcastic, hit-and-run post pretty much guarantees you will get away with it.
I think Barry Arrington above pretty much hits the nail on the head. In refusing to follow the regulation and refusing to pay the fine after being cited for not following the regulation, the Amish here are refusing to obey a legitimate law. Also, this is an ongoing case:
It is not as if some small-town police department foolishly went overboard one day and should now be embarrassed. This is a real, ongoing test—potentially involving the country’s highest court— of the government’s authority to make and enforce reasonable laws versus the rights of citizens to invoke freedom of religion.
September 17th, 2011 | 4:59 pm
[...] This story makes me think of this video… [...]
September 17th, 2011 | 7:37 pm
The county in Wisconsin where I was raised has both Amish and Mennonites . They use the orange sign on the back of their buggys or open wagons. This sign is a warning that this is a slow moving vehicle. All farmers including my brother (who is a Catholic) also use this on farm equipment.
September 17th, 2011 | 8:29 pm
I live in southeastern Iowa. Within a 60-mile radius of my home there are several communities like this one (not exactly alike, but quite similar), including one within 15 miles.
I am much in favor of these communities, their way of life, and so on. (Plus their baked goods at farmers’ markets, which have to be tasted to be believed.) But speaking from experience: 60 miles per hour, early darkness due to fall, a black buggy pulled by a dark brown horse, you don’t see it until you are practically side by side with it—it can be scary, as well as dangerous. Iowa does enforce the reflective triangle law. For which I have at times been grateful.
September 17th, 2011 | 8:31 pm
By the way, my comment does not mean I agree with David Nickol, since I have adopted as a general rule of life that I do not agree with David Nickol on anything. No animus involved; it’s just something I repeat to myself every morning while shaving.
September 18th, 2011 | 12:30 am
David Nickol: “As a type of blog comment, I find this short, sarcastic, hit-and-run type of message to be among the least helpful.”
You’re totally right, dude. Your comment at 4:39pm on September 16 above is the sort of serious, thoughtful, in-depth comment that we should all shoot for.
September 18th, 2011 | 1:08 pm
Conservative Christians seem to dish out more disrespect and condescension than they receive.
September 18th, 2011 | 2:58 pm
And conservative Christians would seem to tolerate less in the name of religious liberty than non-religious liberals.
September 18th, 2011 | 8:20 pm
RR, my answer to that is to go on a place like slate, huffpo, or the guardian, and try and defend a position politely from a conservative christian viewpoint. Then, come back to us and report on how you feel about conservative christians and religious/secular liberals.
September 18th, 2011 | 10:02 pm
Brian,
“You’re totally right, dude. Your comment at 4:39pm on September 16 above is the sort of serious, thoughtful, in-depth comment that we should all shoot for”
One of the things I admire about David’s contributions is that he was right to criticize Dreher’s comment. Another thing I admire is that he’ll agree with you that he sometimes sinks to that level. He’ll offer no false apology but will cop to the same failing straight up.
I’m not sure why some people like to rip on him so. His comments are always thought provoking, and he brings in fresh arguments. He largely disagrees with folks writing in First Things, but he offers productive disagreements. He’s not merely contrarian, and he’s almost always patient and respectful.
He differs from the liberal trolls who sometimes visit and from the conservative trolls who have taken up residence.
September 18th, 2011 | 10:52 pm
Dblade,
“RR, my answer to that is to go on a place like slate, huffpo, or the guardian, and try and defend a position politely from a conservative christian viewpoint. Then, come back to us and report on how you feel about conservative christians and religious/secular liberals”
Slate, Huffpo, and the Guardian are not the right points of comparison. Those are mass liberal publications, and First Things is a small, conservative, intellectual journal of ideas. Compared to its peers, such as Commonweal or Christian Century, First Things is roughly even.
September 18th, 2011 | 10:53 pm
That being said, part of civil disobedience is accepting the punishment for what you’ve done, in order to demonstrate the absurdity and/or injustice of a given rule/law.
Only problem, the law is neither absurd nor unjust.
Blake
My point is that there is no reason why the Amish should have to stay “in the closet” just because their way of life happens to conflict with other peoples’ values.
But I see that the same people who bleat loudest about “tolerance” don’t necessarily mean that everyone has an equal right to expect to be tolerated, eh?
….
When exactly did “equality” jump the shark, anyway?
Not really sure but keep bringing gay rights into every single thread and at some point you’re going to jump a shark, if you haven’t already.
‘Ric
Why can’t they just be left alone? They set up their own community out in the middle nowhere at the time over a hundred years ago.
1. Pennsylvania is not the ‘middle of nowhere’ either now nor a hundred years ago. Yes PA has plenty of rural areas but no even a dark back country road gets a fair amount of traffic. And no going slow on PA roads is not the norm. Relative to NJ, everything in PA is far apart, you almost never see cops on the roads, and there’s a lot less traffic jams, so yea everyone tends to take it pretty fast. Asking everyone to drive 20 mph is not going to fly.
2. I guess we can call this a social version of the Heisenberg Principle. They can’t be left alone because they can’t leave us alone. While its true that in a car.v.buggy match, I’d place my money on the car…it’s not a very nice thing for a person driving a car to hit a buggy. It’s also not a nice thing for someone to have on their head that they may have injured or killed someone. While the Amish impose very little on the larger community, it doesn’t alter the fact that they are a part of the larger community and its unavoidable that means there is some responsibilities they have to it.
The Orange Reflective sign IS a compromise that reasonably accomodates their religious beliefs with everyone’s legitimate interest to avoid avoidable tragedies. If I was driving a car with no headlights, tail lights or break lights, I’d get anything from a nasty ticket to the car being impounded. They are not being required to attach electric lights to their vehicles, the non-electric orange sign is a reasonable compromise.
Michael PS
The issue was, if there are to be different laws for different communities, based on their religious affiliations, then what exactly do we mean, by calling the Republic “one and indivisible”?
I suspect the laws are not different. If I wished to drive a hoarse driven buggy, I could get away with attaching just the orange sign rather than electric lights….even though I’m not Amish. Likewise if an Amish person, for whatever reason, decided to drive a car they would have to use the same headlights, tail lights, and brake lights that all other car users have to have.
Most likely the motivation for having an exemption written into the law allowing buggies to avoid being required to attach electric lights was the knowledge that it would put a huge burden on groups like the Amish. But strictly speaking the law is applicable to all equally. One does not have to be Amish to take advantage of it….the non-Amish buggy enthusiast is as welcome to the law as anyone else.
David
Crips. Bloods. Gambinos. Swartzentrubers. Where would we be without the state to protect us peaceable, God-fearing folk from hoodlums like this?
Rod Dreher,
As a type of blog comment, I find this short, sarcastic, hit-and-run type of message to be among the least helpful…
I’d just say Dreher is right. The police in Amish country should first concentrate on arresting Crips, Bloodsd and Gambinos shooting it out on the streets. They should then arrest Amish people who refuse to put the orange signs on their buggies. Problem solved.
September 18th, 2011 | 11:57 pm
Dblade,
As I said in my comment, the government may accomodate religious practice when it passes a law of general applicability. It is not required to under current First Amendment law. The law to which you refer was passed in response to the case to which I refer.
September 19th, 2011 | 2:36 am
You should be wary of applauding someone just because they’re willing to go to jail for their religious beliefs. This issue is relatively trivial, but there’s plenty of zealots willing to go to jail (or worse) for much more reprehensible beliefs.
September 19th, 2011 | 8:07 am
“This is a real, ongoing test—potentially involving the country’s highest court— of the government’s authority to make and enforce reasonable laws versus the rights of citizens to invoke freedom of religion.”
At some point in primary school a teacher had our level read an essay regarding a civilization which had the Cult of the RAC. If I recall, those who did not worship RAC – via tithes (monthly RAC payments), sporting events (RAC races), contributions to those workers who pounded RAC paths smooth, RAC shows, etc. – where marginalized. The essay even described cases of mortality, mainly of young persons, during the cult’s initiation rites.
Freedom of religion indeed.
September 19th, 2011 | 9:24 am
“1. Pennsylvania is not the ‘middle of nowhere’ either now nor a hundred years ago. ”
They set up their community 250 years ago. I assure you, it was the middle of nowhere. Even now, the places they live are not like Philadelphia, the Lehigh Valley, or Pittsburgh. Granted there is a small but steady flow of traffic on the “back roads” in Lancaster, Lebanon, and York (not to mention Mercer and Crawford) counties these days, but the Amish did not move here (meaning North America) in 1985 and decide to build their farms next to subdivisions.
September 19th, 2011 | 10:10 am
Freedom of religion indeed.
SteveP,
Could you explain how what you read in primary school has anything to do with requiring the Amish to affix orange reflective triangles to the backs of their vehicles? My purpose in pointing out that this current incident is part of a legal battle dating to 2008, involving the ACLU, and possibly going to the Supreme Court was to point out that the issue of religious freedom was being taken very seriously. It has never been the case in the United States that a religious group can simply claim exemption from a law that everyone else must follow and the state has said, “Sure, do whatever you want.” I don’t think anyone seriously wants ever claim of religious exemption to be honored, although some people seem to think they do.
September 19th, 2011 | 10:41 am
It’s a somewhat rare occurrence for me to agree with David Nickol, and an even rarer one for me to agree with Boonton, so this is quite a day for me!
I’d also like to echo Michael’s defense of David Nickol. Would that every person who disagreed with the articles written here did so with such style and grace.
As to the substance of the article, I respect the decision of the men in this case, though I do disagree with them. I don’t see the requirement of the orange triangle to be unreasonable. I hope there’s a way for the trouble to be resolved through compromise; perhaps triangles of some other color would meet the men’s acceptance while still providing with sufficient safety?
September 19th, 2011 | 10:52 am
Oh, and people might want to check out exactly where Graves Co, Kentucky is. It’s not exactly downtown Lexington.
I don’t know that they should have this exemption, and I definitely think that they are under a serious misunderstanding about the requirements of the Christian religion. But that’s not really for me to decide, and the point isn’t advanced by arguments about how they “choose” to live in “populated” areas. They only “choose” that insofar they don’t move up to the Yukon as urban sprawl increases. In fact, the Amish are constantly in a state of population migration as they continue to seek the wide open spaces. They need it, as their agricultural, patriarchal culture requires ever-increasing amounts of land for the ever-growing number of sons to farm. The Swartzentrubers themselves have the biggest problem in this regard, since they believe in extremely large family sizes.
For an almost-inside look at the Swartzentrubers, their beliefs, practices, and current situation, pick up “Plain Secrets” by Joe Mackall. It’s better information than folk assumptions about the Amish and the basis of their beliefs and way of life.
September 19th, 2011 | 11:10 am
They set up their community 250 years ago. I assure you, it was the middle of nowhere. Even now, the places they live are not like Philadelphia, the Lehigh Valley, or Pittsburgh.
I’m unclear, did they create asphalted roads for cars 250 years ago when they set up these remote communities in the middle of nowhere? However remote these communities are there would be no issue if these were just grass trails fit only for hoarses.
but the Amish did not move here (meaning North America) in 1985 and decide to build their farms next to subdivisions.
No but the reality is you own the land you own. If you don’t want to ever see a subdivision built next to your land, well then you’ll have to buy the plot next door. I think here the community is putting forth a good faith effort to accomodate the Amish community but that has to be a two way street. Clearly the asphalted roads were paid for with the taxes of people who use gas and just because many (but not all) arrived in 1985 or thereabouts doesn’t mean its reasonable to ask them to not drive at a reasonably fast speed or enjoy a resaonable amount of safety on the roads they most likely paid more for.
Ethan C
I hope there’s a way for the trouble to be resolved through compromise; perhaps triangles of some other color would meet the men’s acceptance while still providing with sufficient safety?
Well another factor here is uniformity helps. You want signs to look more or less the same so that the driver’s eye can be trained to pick up on them quickly. If some stop signs were a different shape and color many drivers would miss them and you don’t want drivers spending a lot of time on the road scrutinizing a novel sign they encounter.
Perhaps a decent compromise would be to require the triangle (which is a uniformly recognized sign that is used for many non-Amish, slow moving vehicles) but only make it an offense you can be ticketted for at night. Any Amish person who really feels the sign is too much can resolve the issue by restricting their buggying to daylight hours.
If they have to travel at night, perhaps they will feel less uncomfortable about keeping the sign covered up during daylight hours and exposing it at night.
September 19th, 2011 | 11:36 am
David Nickol: You know very well the dominant (i.e. most popular) cult will prevail as the most reasonable.
September 19th, 2011 | 12:08 pm
“If you don’t want to ever see a subdivision built next to your land, well then you’ll have to buy the plot next door.”
True, but I don’t know that the Amish are insisting that they don’t want to see a subdivision next door. I’m not defending the Amish stance, I’m just disputing the argument that says, “Well, they’re the ones who decided to live next door to all these people with cars” with an “um, not exactly.” In the spirit of fairness, maybe the people with cars and the asphalt roads ought to accept at least SOME of the burden of driving in places the Amish have been driving (paved or otherwise) for hundreds of years? Again, I don’t support the Amish refusal to use triangles, I just think that it’s odd that (according to some of the rhetoric in these comments) the Amish are receiving the entire burden of coping with the traffic, when they neither created it, nor chose to live where it has come about.
September 19th, 2011 | 12:34 pm
You know very well the dominant (i.e. most popular) cult will prevail as the most reasonable.
SteveP,
I am not even sure what that means.
September 20th, 2011 | 11:36 pm
@ Duane, “Why is the government unwilling to provide an alternative and admit that it is wrong to force citizens to obey stupid laws?”
B/c that would be the end of the EPA.
September 24th, 2011 | 10:45 am
Am i the only one to notice that they seem to be a lot taller than average? Three of them are close to seven feet tall!
September 25th, 2011 | 10:18 pm
The second guy on the second row looks like a guy I know… if he were Amish. :)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact