Were These Amish Actually Violating Governor’s Orders? Or Is This A TV Station Hunting For A Story?

Iowa has been getting attention as one of the states not officially ordering schools closed during coronavirus. The governor limited it to a recommendation that they close for four weeks, issued mid-March. Here is an article describing it as a “recommendation,” and here is the governor’s own two-minute video statement doing the same.

But things have apparently changed in the past several days. Bear with me for a minute as I run through it.

The governor issued another proclamation last Thursday, April 2. In the press conference, she says that “I am also ordering that school closures are extended through April 30th.”

One problem: it’s confusing the way the governor states it, because it sounds like this simply a continuation of an already existing “order”.

The relevant text of the proclamation also does not clear it up, in my view:

SECTION ONE. Pursuant to Iowa Code § 135.144 (13), and in conjunction with the Iowa Department of Public Health and the Iowa Department of Education, unless otherwise modified by subsequent proclamation, I hereby order that all public schools and nonpublic schools, as defined in Iowa Code § 280.2, shall remain closed until and including April 30, 2020, to prevent and control the transmission of COVID-19.

Again, sounds like a continuation of an existing situation (“shall remain closed”) – but I don’t see where the initial “recommendation” became an “order.”

On the other hand, the governor’s office press release accompanying the proclamation, does make it sound more like a “fresh” act: “The proclamation orders the closure of schools, waiving time requirements as long as school districts put in place a continuous learning plan until April 30th.”

Finally, other media support that there has been no official “order” up until this proclamation – for example, the Des Moines Register reported this in an article dated March 31, just two days prior to this latest proclamation:

All of Iowa’s K-12 schools voluntarily closed after Reynolds on March 15 recommended a four-week shutdown to stem the spread of COVID-19. Iowa is one of three states without a statewide order closing schools.

Which brings us to the meat of this post.

Area news station KTVO headlines an article today that the Amish have been going against “orders” from the Governor: “Amish schools still meeting for class despite Governor’s orders.”

The station shot footage on Thursday, April 2, and reported that the Amish were continuing to hold school as of that day.

That’s the same day the governor issued the new proclamation described above – at her scheduled 2:30pm press conference.

But the Amish in question – of the Bloomfield community (Davis County) – have apparently been very careful to follow existing requirements for holding school.

That’s according to the County Attorney, who was contacted by KTVO:

We called up Davis County Attorney Rick Lynch to ask him why.

Lynch was aware that these schools in the Old Amish community were still opening doors to students.

“It’s my understanding that the Old Order Amish are following the rules of Gov. Reynolds, in that they are sending their younger kids in their classes to school half a day in the mornings, with the teacher, with less than 10 people together at one time,” Lynch said.

The younger class goes home at noon and they clean up the facilities, or whatever, where they are, to hold the school. Then in the afternoon the older children come in with the teacher and have no more than ten in one period at the same time.

So the Amish have essentially been holding two separate school sessions daily, in order to keep the number of people present in the room below 10.

They hold school once in the morning. Then they clean up and do it again for another group.

It sounds like up until very recently, the Amish have been taking pains to make sure they adhere to the actual order from the governor which would seem to apply here – the one limiting gatherings to 10 or less.

Here’s the video report. If you can’t view it below, you’ll find it here.

Why this report of Amish violating orders?

So – I’m not sure why KTVO created this report, because:

a) I can’t find evidence that any order – in other words, more than just a “recommendation” – was made public before the April 2 official press conference (the day KTVO went to the school and shot the video above)

– and –

b) because the governor’s press conference on Thursday announcing the new order took place starting at 2:30 pm – well into the already-ongoing school day.

To me, it looks like the Amish here have been diligently following the guidelines in place up until this recent change.

What it also looks like, is that the news station saw this as an opportunity for a story.

It appears they are attempting to either:

a) portray the Amish as violating an order when no such order had yet been made public

– or –

b) portray them violating an order that had literally just been announced in the middle, or end, of that same school day

The big problem for me is the headline.

It feels like they are trying to confuse us into thinking that the Amish were violating orders when no such orders yet existed – and meanwhile the Amish were being careful to adhere to the actual rules in place.

And then they are using a more obscure and unclear word – “directive” – to blur the meaning. They repeat that word several times in the body of the reporting and the video. It makes it sound like the Amish have been habitually violating an order for a long time now.

Am I being too cynical about this station’s report?

Should I give them the benefit of the doubt?

Is this just sloppy, or more than that?

Supporting the “sloppy” argument, they do have a factual error in the caption on their video:

A student approaches an Old Order Amish schoolhouse Thursday, April 5, 2020. (KTVO)

This most recent Thursday was April 2, not April 5.

April 5 was yesterday, in other words, Sunday.

So which is it

Maybe KTVO were confused in their reporting, given the unclear reporting/communication about this around the governor’s statements, which I have described above.

Still, it seems a news station would be more careful to be clear and precise in their reporting when the reporting in question hinges on the meaning of words with related, but importantly, different meanings, in this case the words “recommendations,” “directives,” and “orders.”

Or maybe the Amish were somehow openly flouting the new proclamation last Thursday – the same day when KTVO was creating their video, and the governor was making her school closure announcement.

But given the reported careful adherence of the Amish to holding school while respecting the existing 10-person gathering limit order, I’m more inclined to give the Amish the benefit of the doubt here, than I am this news station.

Get the Amish in your inbox

Join 15,000 email subscribers. No spam. 100% free

    Similar Posts

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


    1. Tv station hunts for story

      This is clearly the media skewing the truth to make a conservative group (Amish) look bad.
      The media has lost its ability to do objective, unbiased reporting.
      I support the Amish and their ability to follow government guidelines (not rules).

      1. Jamie Simpkins

        What Government?

        We have taxation with 0 representation so I am confused as to what “government” you’d be referring to?

      2. station is wrong

        schools are closed here in Iowa.

      3. Lauren DeCruz

        Ignorance and the media.

        Trying to keep their narrative going the desperate leave no barrel unturned. They should ask themselves just how essential is their service. Perhaps a little humility every time they get their paycheck. Advertisers don’t seem to be running out of funds so paying for junk news must be profitable. I have a long list of products and services I will avoid. The elite have been dumbing down for some time now in order to accommodate the sorry state of humanity they must work with. This includes Hollywood and Academia as well as the “Media.”
        Leave the Amish alone. People who are aware of true freedom and have fled from and abandoned so much to maintain their liberties are a People the Media and the rest of Society could never understand. When the “Englishers” report on or portray this population the results are always the same, the outsider’s ignorance.

    2. Lorna Klotzbach

      Were the Amish Actually Violating Governor's Orders?or Is This a TV Station Hunting for a Story?

      I think that your hunch about the TV station is correct. TV stations exist by virtue of their ratings. Any story that sounds sensational, and/or that gives critics a “legitimate” reason to be critical, and to blame-shift, will increase ratings in these troubled times. It is too bad that this reporter and producer and editor will not realize the on-going harm and loss of respect that such a story will cause the Amish communities.

      I’ve talked to both very conservative Old Order Amish and very “progressive” New Order Amish people. They all are fully aware of the COVID19 crisis in America and seem to be doing what they can to be careful and to cope with the economic shutdown, the isolation, and the shortages.

      1. Good points, Lorna. I mentioned this in a comment below, but there is probably increased pressure on some media outlets now, due to ad budgets being slashed for this quarter.

        It results in a lot of stories related to the virus, since that’s the main thing going on, and that’s what (many) people want to read about.

        I’m even doing way more related to the virus topic than I would have expected – but mainly because that is just about the only news coming out right now over traditional channels on the Amish.

        But good news for those tired of it, tomorrow’s post at least will have nothing to do with COVID-19 🙂

    3. Caroline Burns

      You are absolutely right, I think, to suspect bad faith on the part of the station.

      You are absolutely right, I think, to suspect bad faith on the part of the station. Not cynical at all.

      I’d rather my comment not be printed. Especially this part, because it might seem petty/prissy: it’s ‘flouted,’ not ‘flaunted.’

      But you set forth an excellent (coherent and compelling) case.

      1. Flout/flaunt

        Caroline- thanks! And thanks for catching my vocabulary error. I’ve fixed it. I don’t mind being corrected on that at all. You posted this in the public comment section, so I hope that’s okay.

        I didn’t plan to write so much on it, buy this story got a bit under my skin today.

        My suspicion is that someone wanted to run a story against a population they viewed as “non-compliant” without digging in too deep on the actual details of the governor’s statements and guidance – or worse – going with the story knowing that the Amish actually weren’t violating “orders.”

        I’m happy to hear and consider any information to the contrary.

    4. Caroline Burns


      ‘flouting,’ not ‘flaunting’

    5. Jamie Simpkins

      2 Thessalonians 8-11

      It is clear that very few read the Bible or take it at it’s word as those of our Creators. In Chapter 2, Verses 8-11 Thessalonians, it states that God shall send the wicked and unrighteous a great delusion to separate the lovers of lies from the the lovers of truth.

      All throughout the Bible we are admonished to be “wise as serpents but gentle as doves”, and, to “know they enemy”. We are also instructed by our Lord and Savior to “Be in this world but not OF this world”.
      How many times must we be instructed to not listen to the lies of Satan and his manifestations of sorcery? The television is just such an instrument and has been used to insert a virus into the minds and hearts of all who gaze upon the beast.

      I have been in study these 18 years and have found that those in power are of Satan. What I find most unsettling is that any Christian would vote for a man who is vain, vulgar and irreverent, the antithesis to Christ’s teachings.

      I am 100% sure that this world is run by Satanic people and this “Pandemic” was planned last Fall by Bill Gates and other prominent entities.
      Anyone can look it up. It is called ‘Event 201’; A simulation of a “Pandemic”.

      If we are so readily disposed to giving up our Constitution and Bill of Rights for ‘safety’ then we deserve neither.

      The Amish are caught between two worlds, one very plainly is serving Satan.

      The English lack Wisdom and it is costing our Amish neighbors greatly.

      1. Geo

        "I am 100% sure"

        A lot of your post, if read thoughtfully, makes good sense, but where you go off the rails is when you say you are 100% sure of things you can not possibly know. 100% certainty about anything outside of (possibly) mathematics defines the delusions you write about.

      2. T. Miller

        Ordained of God

        The powers that be are ordained of God and set in office according to His will. I admit His ways are past finding out, but He has everything under control. He sees the big picture. The powers that be ARE NOT ORDAINED OF SATAN. That doesn’t mean we have to like them. That’s hard to do when you have a guy sitting in the White House of questionable moral character, I know, but we are asked to pray for him (them), and so we must. I know, some Christians think the guy in the white House is the anti-Christ. I don’t know anything about that, but I know God raises them up and puts them down. Some times He chooses some pretty nasty ones. We must pray for them all. The only hope we have is in Christ, the Solid Rock. ALL other ground is sinking sand.

    6. Allen Franks


      No governor can make you stay home unless your under house arrest. First amendment is a right NOT a privilege and it Guarantees freedom of assembly.

      1. Geo

        Constitutional rights

        No Constitutional rights are absolute. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre, you can’t carry a machine gun, and you can’t kill, mutilate, or torture in furtherance of your religion, among many other things you have no unassailable right to do. You can Constitutionally expound on matters you don’t remotely understand however.

      2. Miller

        Constitution not a Divine Document

        The Constitution, good as it is, is NOT a Divine Document or Holy Scripture. It was written by men who were trying their best (for the most part) but were not the anointed of God. Many of them were not even real believers, but on the whole men with good intentions, for the most part. I’m not too sure about those who owned other human beings as their personal property, and there were several. The document is a very human effort, well intentioned, but it has had to be changed (amended) numerous times. It’s not a Christian document either. It never mentions Jesus even once. It’s not a “forever settled in Heaven” kind of document. As much as we love it as a guide for our nation, it has had to be changed numerous times. Christians know that the Holy Bible IS the steadfast, unchangeable document for such a time as this. Thank God for a such a sure and certain guide. Constitutions and even the laws of the time, come and go, but the Word of God is forever.

        1. Geo

          A work of man

          The Constitution is indeed a work of man and not of God. As a living document written for it’s time, by it’s very nature it must adapt to realities beyond imagining when it was written. (Some) Christians may say it’s writing was inspired by God. Those who say it was not claim to know the un-knowable.

      3. Karen Baker


        Allen Franks, what about the right to live? My employer has shut down because of COVID19, and I’m home. Because we worked until March 20th, and because I
        was constantly nearer than 6’ to my coworkers, I stayed in my house for 14 days. I did not have the right, as a possibly infected person, to be spreading this virus to family, neighbors and other friends, to cashiers in stores that were still open. If I were infected, I could possibly infect someone else, and that person could possibly die. Doesn’t everyone have the right to live, to be healthy?
        As it turned out, I have not come down with this virus. But I have been to a grocery store once. I’ve been to a gas station, once. I have not gone to relatives or friends houses to visit. I when I take a walk, I keep my distance from anyone I might see. Why? Because any one of us could test positive, and infect the other. We may have constitutional rights to assemble in groups, but I think the right to live, to not come down with COVID19, beats the right to assemble any day.

        1. Constitution

          Ms. Baker: Well expressed. Thank you for caring enough about the constitutional rights of others, not just yours. The problem with the Constitution is that too many people interpret it based on their egotistical sense of entitlement.

    7. Geo

      If it bleeds it leads

      News media by nature is biased towards controvery and drama. When do you ever read a head line or a hear news anchor saying: “well folks, nothing worth reporting today so we will show reruns”. If there is no drama/controversy/outrage to report on, it must be suggested/hinted/implied. Certain public figures skillfully manipulate this media need for novelty; something/anything to generate coverage. For example; outrageous tweets by certain public figures tend to become print and broadcast headlines, in sheer spite of the fact only a small miority of the public would ever become aware ot the tweet other than being alerted by media’s need to say SOMETHING/ANYTHING to fill airtime and printspace.

      1. That sounds about right to me, Geo.

        I do wonder, if with the drop in digital advertising right now, whether news outlets feel even more pressure than normal to attract eyes to their content.

        1. Geo


          True that Erik. We agree. Absolutely it’s about money. (mamon, right?)

          1. I think so, at least part of it.

      2. Miller

        Freedom of the Press

        I’m so thankful for Freedom of the Press, otherwise these politicians would be spouting their own fake news night and day, without being challenged or questioned. Try living in a country where there is no Freedom of the Press like China or North Korea. I’ll take Freedom of the Press any day. After all, it’s in the constitution.

        1. Geo

          Name one

          I couldn’t agree more. At the same time some American politicians daily demonstrate utter disregard for facts and truth and that behavior seems to be what attracts their followers. Certain politicians have weaponized the term “fake news” and use it so freely it has no meaning. Calling fake news has become firmly established as the stock response to any embarrassing facts someone can’t weasel out of or blame on someone else.
          Fake news has become defined through misuse to mean embarrassing truth.

          1. Miller

            Breath of Fresh Hour

            Wow Geo, are you ever a breach of fresh air. Without Freedom of the Press those scampy politicians would spread their false propaganda and lies without any challenge whatsoever! Keep ’em honest. Expose the truth. Thanks God for Freedom of the Press in this great land.

        2. Freedom of the press

          Miller: It is because of freedom of the press that politicians are able to spread their fake news. While they are frequently challenged, they get away with their fake news because their supporters choose to believe them. These past three years are proof of that.

    8. Elaine

      I live in Iowa

      I live in Iowa and know some of the Amish. From what I hear, the Health Dept came to the Amish schools and told them they would have to close. They closed.

    9. Will


      More what you would classify as fake news there really are very little journalistic standards left anymore and if we can make up a story or change the facts enough to skew it pretty disappointing.

      Like many things that are reported on the reporters really have no background and what they’re reporting it don’t seem interested in trying to get one before they put out a story.

      1. Amish schools closure

        Will: There will always be stations and reporters who sensationalize or lie for ratings or readership. They tend to be stations and reporters who purposely appeal to the baser nature of their viewers and readers.

    10. Teresa Wideman

      We live in Ontario, and it seems that recently we have been seeing a lot more “tattletaleing” by people who are so quick to notice someone else doing something they feel is wrong. The government here has actually even opened a phone line for people to call and report activity that is suspicious. Maybe it’s that kind of finger pointing mentality by the tv station?

    11. Debbie

      I live in Iowa also...

      Must we really keep posting so much anti this and who’s not following rules/guidelines etc? Please Eric post other great topics like you usually do. Please don’t fall into the media frenzy about this unfortunate pandemic. No one on this earth has the answers… Only the Lord knows everything.

      1. Debbie, thanks for the comment, I think I understand where you’re coming from. And I’m glad you feel the topics covered here are generally good.

        I’ll just say the point of this post was not about pointing out who’s not following guidelines.

        It was about calling out the news station’s coverage of the Amish in this part of Iowa, who – according to the county attorney – were trying to hold school respecting Iowa law and following the guidelines as they have existed since the governor’s previous (mid-March) statement.

        I feel the news station’s coverage was unjust or at best sloppy, and I decided to write about it.

        I do understand some people are getting tired of the virus situation coverage in general. I did not plan to post so much about it…but I also didn’t expect it to become such a big topic. Almost every “Amish”-related story in the media nowadays has to do with the virus…

        I don’t plan to write on everything related to this, but will continue to post things here which I feel are worthy of posting. Hopefully the topic goes away sooner than later.

        The good news is that tomorrow’s scheduled post has nothing at all to do with the virus situation. I hope you’ll like it and thanks for reading. I agree with your last statement 100%.

    12. Walter Boomsma

      If it's about the media...

      I didn’t think this was meant to be a post about constitutional rights… if it’s about the media and the Amish, we’ve seen this before. It’s not about news, it’s about attracting readers and controversy sells. That might be an over-simplification but it’s driving “reporting.” The politicians contribute because they like to hedge their bets so much of what they say (and write) is unclear and vague. It’s a perfect system if we’re in search of sensationalism and in our current situation the news outlet and reporter with the “breaking story” wins. We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the headline had been “Amish Struggle to Understand and Comply with Governor’s Order” because few would care about the struggle. They will care, however if we can spin the story so that the public is threatened by a marginalized population.

      Critical thinking has never been more important or, unfortunately, so sadly lacking.

      1. They may have wanted to get a story out quickly following the new order. I think their reporting was such that it obscured things to make it seem the Amish were doing something they shouldn’t. If they had come in on Monday after word had gotten to the Amish about the change and found them actually violating the order, that would have been a different story.

        You are right we have seen this before. I think the last time I addressed something similar was in the fall over another headline which seemed to scapegoat the Amish. So that means about once every 4-6 months or so a story gets under my skin enough to write about it:) I have no problem with stories which fairly report when Amish actors are at fault. Everything I’ve seen in this story though tells me that wasn’t the case here.

    13. Erik, thanks for sharing the broad range of possibilities here — not just taking the first interpretation to cross the mind and running with that. We all could use a lesson in taking due time to ponder possibilities before we go off half-cocked.

      You mentioned that “shall remain closed” strikes you as implying that there was a previous order initiating that closure. I agree with you that that would be my first understanding of it as well. But considering the situation further I’m inclined to think this may instead be intended to be more of a catch-all wording. Since schools have been recommended close but not required to be, this most recent “directive” must cover all bases — schools which are closed and those which aren’t. With this possibility of some already complying and some not, they couldn’t exactly say, “shall close and remain closed,” for then the first part of that statement wouldn’t be applicable to those already closed. At the moment, I can’t think of a better concise way than what was given here to cover all situations that state all schools should remain closed.

      As to the other question of whether the headline was an intentional or unintentional misdirect…, well, let’s say that I think media in general has shown enough of its wretched disregard for truth at times, so I wouldn’t be surprised at most anything. But in this particular case I really don’t have reason to know (and thus to voice) one way or the other. I’ll leave that to others who are more impacted by it to determine that.

    14. Joe Donnermeyer

      Great story in Amish America and a great number of interpretations

      I remember the comment of a student in my “Amish Society” course at The Ohio State University, who when I asked the class what was the most important thing they learned about the Amish during the first week of lectures, the student answered “I didn’t know they were a Christian group.” You see, the first week included a brief history of the Anabaptism movement. I can’t imagine what this student thought they might be — rastafarian? Silly, isn’t it? These kinds of naive viewpoints often flavor media stories and can seem equally silly to those who have a longer and deeper association (and knowledge) about the Amish and other plain groups. The KTVO news story is silly and not to be taken seriously except as evidence of the variety or spectrum of outsider views of the Amish, whether those views are accurate or not, or sympathetic or not.

    15. Stephanie Berkey

      People are at different levels of awareness and acceptance (both part of processing shocking events like this). There are people in other countries not self isolating either (for example in England) as much as directed. Most governments don’t want to force people, like China does. Good leaders teach their people correct principles and allow them to govern their selves (within limits of course). It’s good to avoid rash judgements, like Don Burke demonstrated.

      The United States Constitution was inspired of God; the fact that changes were made don’t confirm that they were all necessarily good changes. Many people would like to change it out of existence. One of the first steps in problems solving is gathering information. I’m grateful for this site and these discussion because they aid in that.

      Correct principles are also what’s involved in critical thinking, which was very wisely advised by Walter. We would all do well to educate ourselves more on how to do that objectively with inspiration. I pray for all our leaders, and try to respect the very difficult job they are have of balancing safety with other issues, like our freedom and the economy.

      1. Miller

        Constitution is a fairly good document, but not "inspired"

        Dear Stephanie, Have you actually read the original Constitution, which of course has been amended many times because of the flaws. The founders were just men, not a prophet or revelator among them, and several (not all) believed in some kind of a Higher Power, never really defined. Slavery was allowed under the original. Women certainly could not vote. Blacks could not vote either. Mostly good and decent men tried to make a document that would be fair and just, even though some of them were owners of other men, women, and children (including several of the early Presidents). It was a good and fairly attempt, but it was not “inspired” by the Holy Spirit in the sense of the Holy Bible. That’s like trying to say the writings of the Mormon prophets or any other number of religions were inspired by the Holy Spirit, God breathed. That’s pure fantasy, of course. The constitution has been one of the better constitutions we’ve ever seen, although the constitutions of some countries pledge loyalty to Jesus Christ, by name. This one does not. It is a human document, thoughtfully written, but flawed and needed to be amended several times, otherwise some would still be buying and selling men, women and children. (Are you still sure that original document was INSPIRED by God? No woman would be voting, that’s for sure. Neither would any Black people have that right. Our only real hope is in JESUS CHRIST, the solid rock. We don’t need the wisdom of manmade apostles and prophets, either, “thinking more highly of themselves” than they ought to think. The Word of God is solid, and forever settled. It cannot be amended, even by “another testament of Jesus Christ” or any other spurious book.

        1. Stephanie Berkey

          Dear Miller, things worked very differently back then; many different kinds of people were enslaved for different reasons all over the world. It was normal. There is a lot more slavery today and of a much more depraved. Who are you to judge them?

          It is because of the enlightenment surrounding FREE Christianity under the United States Constitution that people all over the world eventually grew more aware and came to make needed changes. Some growth can take a long time and only under certain circumstances. I don’t believe it was or is scripture, but, yes, I’m absolutely certain it was inspired of God.

          The existence of flaws doesn’t necessarily mean what you assert. Sometimes they are God’s way of trying our faith. God can make our weaknesses strengths when we bring them before Him. The founders were great men who did this which brought about miracles through God’s guidance and blessing. They cooperated with Him in astounding ways!

          We would do well to cultivate more gratitude for this, and for the Lord, in whom they trusted greatly in. Where are you getting false information to the contrary? Those who try to revise history would enslave you. Look carefully at the fruits, if you believe what Jesus taught.

          The founding fathers weren’t alone in their trust of God. A wonderful book about that is, “Unlikely Heroes: Ordinary Men and Women Whose Courage Won the Revolution” by Ron Carter. As far as modern-day revelation, it looks like we simply disagree, but even ordinary people with God can make the difference between life and death, slavery and freedom.

          1. Miller

            Christian men do not enslave others

            “Christian” men do NOT own other human beings, nor do they buy and sell The constitution is one of the best of similar documents from other countries. The Constitution had nothing to do with ending slavery in other countries. Even England ended slavery long before we did, and the for most western countries. It took a war, not the constitution, to free the slaves. The constitution permitted slavery. No mention of God anywhere in the constitution, whatsoever. The Declaration of Independence mentions the “creator” in very nondescript way, but the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution. The Masons especially wanted a Higher Power to be recognized, and there were many of them involved with the Constitution, but even they didn’t get their way. Freedom of Religion is in the current edition of the Constitution, and that simply means freedom to believe or not believe in ANYTHING you want. That is your right. I thank God for the constitution, but as previous stated it needed to be amended (changed) numerous times over the years because of the embarrassing flows in the original. Try reading the original before the amendments and you might not be so hyper about it. For one, dear madam, YOU would not be able to vote, and if you are Black you could be legally owned (bought and sold) by others, and your whole family, too, for generations and generations, PLUS you couldn’t vote either.

            1. Stephanie Berkey

              Miller, you wrote,
              ““Christian” men do NOT own other human beings”. Do you have a scriptural reference for that? Do you believe Abraham was a Holy Prophet of God? How about Isaac and Jacob? Did they own other human beings?

              Where do you think other nations got their Constitutions? Could it be, from copying America’s? Do you know where our founding fathers got it from?

              “Jefferson had Already Studied the “Ancient Principles”
              Dr. Skousen tells us of the scholarly work Jefferson had done prior to writing the Declaration as though in preparation for it. “While studying the history of ancient Israel, Jefferson made a significant discovery. He saw that at one time the Israelites had practiced the earliest and most efficient form of representative government. As long as the Israelites followed their fixed pattern of constitutional principles, they flourished. When they drifted from it, disaster overtook them. Jefferson thereafter referred to this constitutional pattern as the ‘ancient principles.’ ” (The Making of America, pp. 27-28)” ~ The National Center for Constitutional Studies at https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-declaration-of-independence-part-of-american-law

              The United States Constitution goes hand in hand with the Declaration of Independence; they are both the supreme law of our land. I have read the original by the way, and would much rather have lived in America then than now, Sir.

              The letter of the law killeth and the spirit of the law giveth life (2 Corinthians 3:6). The spirit of this highest law is Christian, founded by Christian men, which does respect the right to believe whatever you wish. So, if you want to believe otherwise, feel free, as long as the Constitution stands that is.

              1. Stephanie Berkey


                I don’t believe it’s possible to truly own people, and only used that terminology to answer the way you put your accusations toward the founding fathers.

      2. Constitution

        Ms. Berkey: It is your right to believe that the Constitution was “inspired of God”. Which changes in it are bad? I would appreciate learning which changes you disagree with. Thank you.

        1. Stephanie Berkey

          Janice, I didn’t assert any were bad. I refuted the idea that just because changes were made, does not necessarily mean they were good.

          1. Constitution

            Ms. Berkey: Which changes were not good then? By the way, what is “free Christianity”, and what changes around the world came to be thanks to it? I don’t recall the Constitution mentioning Christianity. I suppose that the Constitution, similarly to the Bible, can be interpreted to mean whatever you want it to mean. Thank you.

            1. Stephanie Berkey

              Janice, what I meant by free Christianity is Christianity under freedom (as opposed to it under oppression from tyrants in Europe). In your opinion, would the Constitution have to mention Christianity to have been inspired of God?

              It seems to me you just want to debate for the love of debating, which I’m not really interested in. I already replied to your question about changes made; just because something was changed doesn’t necessarily mean it needed to be. That is faulty thinking.

              1. Constitution

                Ms. Berkey: You might think that I am arguing for arguments’ sake. I am not. I am a seeker of knowledge and understanding of other philosophies and religions. As I said in another post, the Constitution, similarly to the Bible, is open to interpretation. You and Allen prove that. Slavery is condoned in the Bible. As for the Constitution, it neither condoned nor condemned slavery. The 13th amendment changed that. The Founding Fathers believed in a higher power. They were Freemasons. Freemasons, while believing in a higher power, do not believe in a Christian god. Fundamentalists can interpret the Founding Fathers’ religious beliefs to suit their purposes, and they do, that does not change the fact that the Founding Fathers, knowing just how difficult Christians of the time could be, refused to impose a particular religion on the new nation. If you believe that the Constitution is of God, then you must also believe that God had a hand in the Founding Fathers’ decision to NOT make Christianity the constitutionally sanctioned religion of the USA! Fundamentalist Christians have been trying to change that ever since by claiming that their religious freedom is being taken away. Absolute nonsense of course! The only freedom Christian fundamentalists don’t have is the right to impose their religion on every US citizen. I appreciate your Biblical references, but, they are not relevant to the topic.

                1. Stephanie Berkey

                  Oh, they have relevance. There are none blinder than those who won’t see. Thank you for demonstrating that, Janice.

                  1. Constitution

                    Ms. Berkey: My disagreeing with you does not mean I am blind. It just means that you do not have the answers to my questions. That is okay. Someone else might.

                    1. Stephanie Berkey

                      I hope so. I’m sorry if I mis-read your intentions.

                2. Stephanie Berkey

                  The Holy Bible doesn’t condone slavery but teaches correct principles so that man may govern their selves with increasing enlightenment.

            2. Allen

              Yes it did

              Yea it mentions God without God there is no Christians. The Bill of Rights starts with
              “We hold these truths to be self evident that, the creator created all men equal”. The creator would
              Be God.

              1. Stephanie Berkey

                Exactly Allen, thank you! Very well put.

              2. Constitution

                Allen: AS I said, you can interpret the Constitution to mean whatever you want it to. That does not mean you are interpreting the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers meant for it to be interpreted. The Founding Fathers did believe in a higher power, a supreme being, but, most did not believe in the Christian god. They were Freemasons and Deists. That is why they used the term: creator. Even those who did believe in the Christian god were against imposing their personal beliefs on the American people. Without God there are no Christians? What does that even mean?

                1. Stephanie Berkey

                  God, the Creator, is Jesus Christ; without Him there would be no Christians.

            3. Stephanie Berkey

              It isn’t my intention to prove anything to anyone who fails to cultivate a desire to believe. Spiritual education takes faith and effort; no one can do it for us. God and others can only help, as we allow. If you desire to know anything, prayerfully research it carefully and extensively as needed.

              “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned.” ~ 1 Corinthians 2:14

              1. Miller

                Constitution as written did not end slavery.

                I notice dear friend that you earlier credited our Constitution with inspiring other nations to end slavery. Not so. Unfortunately, the US was one of the last to get rid of slavery. Even “mother” England ended slavery thirtysome years before us, ad did most western countries. The constitution didn’t end slavery, but allowed it, and slaves couldn’t vote. Of course, neither could women. Slavery ended here only after the War between the States, which left hundreds and thousands dead. It was only then the constitution was amended. It’s a work in progress. If we followed the intent of the majority of the founders who wrote it, we would still have slavery and women couldn’t vote. So much for Divine Inspiration. Not so with the real Word of God, which is True and Forever settled in Heaven. Constitutions come and go, but the Scriptures remain, and never need to be “amended”. That’s true Divine Inspiration.

                1. Stephanie Berkey

                  What I asserted was, “It is because of the enlightenment surrounding FREE Christianity under the United States Constitution that people all over the world eventually grew more aware and came to make needed changes.” The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and impressed the entire world. England stopped slavery in 1833. Therefore, yes, it had an influence upon the world to end oppression and tyranny of all kinds.

    16. Denise

      I live in Iowa and I would be surprised if the Amish would want to risk the good arrangements they have regarding their children’s education versus public education. If they remember the reason why they don’t have mustaches or buttons (military), I’m pretty sure they remember what happened not so long ago up in Buchanan County, Iowa, regarding public schools.Thanks for calling out KTVO. Every part of me wants to drive down to Kalona and/or Davis County (gas is cheap)and check things out but I am staying at home.