Don Burke

Comment on ACLU Sues To Stop Michigan County From Demolishing Amish Homes (December 20th, 2019 at 18:53)

I hesitate to jump off into this, knowing that like the vaccination question and so many other topics, this is one that another voice isn’t likely to change anyone’s mind. So, I’m not out to change anyone — just to toss in a few thoughts and let the readers weigh them for whatever they are worth.

I will also preface this by saying I have no first-hand knowledge of any of the players or the situation in question. Furthermore, I don’t know all the details of what has happened. And since there is great truth in the old adage I just now made up — “One who speaks beyond that which he knows is a fool” — I should probably stop here, delete what I have written thus far, and go twiddle my thumbs in the corner. But I’m not. So call me a fool…, and it will probably be true.

Truth is, I can see aspects to both sides. On the Amish side, as someone has already mentioned there are all kinds of animals regularly doing their business in the woods and yards and everywhere else all around us. What a few additional humans add into a privy-covered hole in the ground is not likely to make a bit of difference. Hey, when I was growing up I used my share of outhouses — both at my grandfather’s house, and in many of the country churches that my father preached at through the years. And back in the day outhouses were everywhere — and people lived just fine. So I get it — and to a great degree even agree.

But on the other hand, I can put myself in the place of the officials as well. It’s like being the parent of a few thousand children, all with different ways of looking at things, and yet you not only have to treat them all fairly, but you have to write out one set of laws that will govern all those differences in an identical way in spite of the differences. Before we armchair critics get all hot and bothered about how others are (in our opinions) failing at it, I would suggest taking the time to write out a full set of alternate laws that not only accommodate the Amish, but equally accommodate the traditional (non-plain) Christians, the Muslims, the atheists and the agnostics — and anyone else who might be a part of any given community. If one allows for exception (even so-called religious exception) for the Amish, then consistency demands that the same has to be done for all beliefs (and non-beliefs). Can any of us write the laws to do that? An anyone want to be responsible for enforcing them day-to-day? Not I, said the duck.

And another thing…, and please note that I speak as a pastor who takes quite seriously the idea of our religious freedom…, IMO this is technically not a matter of freedom of religion. (Please hear me out before throwing tomatoes (or insults).) To the best of my knowledge I have read every word in the God’s Word, and not a single time to my recollection does it mention the sanctity of the privy. So this is not a question of their *religion*, but of their *culture*. I know the Amish wouldn’t agree — and I’m sure that many here won’t agree. But religion deals with our living before our deity/God as he wishes; and since God hasn’t spoken to this subject (directly or indirectly), in the final analysis it isn’t a religious matter in the first place. Being Amish has both religious and cultural aspects — and this question here is solely in the cultural, not religious, realm.

And so are governing officials supposed to be bound by every cultural exception that any group wishes to forward? There is simply no way. So how are the officials to govern the whole, treating all the same, with every group wishing to push its exceptions?

And yes, back in the day there weren’t all the modern septic systems, and people survived; and also back in the day many problems were caused by disease from open sewage. I’m no disease doctor, but I feel pretty confident that there is a difference in the degree of problems caused by open human sewage vs animal droppings. By design the human’s waste system helps to expel human-related disease — things that arguably would not be a part of animal excrement. TO the degree that sewage is left open (and an outhouse does not isolate sewage from the surrounding atmosphere), disease can be more easily spread.

And the health officials have to be aware of ALL this, write laws to address all of this, and try to enforce those laws with dozens of individuals or groups demanding, “except me.”

So yeah, I can see at least aspects from both sides in this situation. And I’m sure I don’t even know the half of it. And that’s what makes being armchair critics such a dangerous thing — we think we know enough of all the factors to make a call about what is right and what isn’t. Most likely we don’t.

But all that said, I am hopeful and even inclined to think there are possibly options which can work out the situation without the need to level homes, yet still allow the officials to do their jobs of not only protecting the public, but to do so in a way that treats all fairly and consistently, even with all their differences.

My apologies for such a long post.

Don Burke

Comment on ACLU Sues To Stop Michigan County From Demolishing Amish Homes (December 21st, 2019 at 10:15)

Randy, if there was any appearance of wisdom it was probably more a case of enough years of experience in doing things poorly that I’ve learned a few things to not do again along the way. (ha)

As far as not agreeing with me on some of the finer points…, well, there are times I find I don’t even agree with myself a couple of weeks or months down the pike. (ha) So, not to worry on that.

I do agree with you that the absence of a direct command in scripture (“absence of an express scriptural reference”) does not necessarily mean there are no religious implications. For example, no where does the Bible *directly* speak to the question of driving the speed limit. However, it does *indirectly* speak to it (i.e., in principle, even if not in specifics) as it speaks of the need for the Christian to honor governing authorities and the laws. And as far as I’m concerned, following those directions from God — whether by direct command or indirect principles — makes something a religious matter. However, when we go beyond that, we start flirting with what Jesus called the tradition of the elders — what in His time were oral laws (which would later be written down in the form of the Mishna). These oral traditions were *additions* to the Law, but lifted to a level that they were in name considered to be equal to the written Law (from God), and in practice often superseded that Law. IMO what the Amish do (although the degree will of course vary from one individual or group to another) is to make a secondary set of rules (ordung (if I’m spelling that right)) and call it their “religion.” The Amish I know would not take it as far as the Jews did and make this equal to or greater than the scriptures — which is good. This secondary group of rules are at times attempt to spell out applications they believe can be inferred from the scriptures — doing exactly what the Jews did with their oral traditions. And Jesus made it clear (IMO) that in such cases going beyond what God said in our additional rules does not make those rules on a par with what God said. As such, there are not legitimately a religious matter.

One huge example in Jesus’ own time was the rules about the Sabbath. In the Law God made the Sabbath a day of rest. Simple; to the point; clear. The Jews, in attempting to spell out what that meant, came up with all kinds of “application” laws they made a part of their “tradition.” A tailor could not accidentally carry a needle (what he daily worked with) in his robe on the Sabbath or he was “breaking the Law; a scribe could not carry enough ink to write two characters (letters) on the Sabbath, or he was deemed to be breaking the Law; a doctor (or anyone else) could not help a sick person get well on the Sabbath. All of these things were man-made rules deemed to be the implication from the written Law. In a word, Jesus said “Hogwash.” Or better put, if God didn’t say it (directly or indirectly), it’s really not religious demands after all. And as such, those secondary laws must bow to what God does say (again, directly or indirectly).

This is why I make the distinction between the religious aspect of the Amish (the directives that are legitimately given or infered from the scripture) and the cultural. Since God does not speak to outhouses (directly, or in principle (that I recall)), this obviously forces this topic into the cultural (secondary rules) category.

And to follow this a step further, since God doesn’t speak to privies but He does speak to our need to follow the laws of our governing leaders…., well, the implication of that seems to be pretty clear where God Himself stands on what the Amish should do in this situation if the em passe can not be negotiated into a compromise.

I’m sorry, I certainly had no intention of going into such a long spiel in my explanation. (ha)

But that said — and to my main reason for reply — thanks ever so much for all of your encouraging words. That means more to me than I can begin to convey! Thank you.