New York Amish in court over smoke alarms

[brooklynite]

BBC:

...What had provoked the inspectors to issue Stop Work Orders was the Amish men's refusal to install smoke alarms in their newly built houses.

In court and in broken English - their first language remains a German dialect - Andy Miller explained that it would be against their Christian beliefs to have something so modern in their homes.

...snip...

I asked him what would happen if he did not wake up and all his children were burned to death.

"If God does not wake us, well, that must be part of his plan," Mose told me.

Heck , why apply Building Codes at all? I'm sure God will keep the roof from falling in...unless that's "part of his plan".

[Warpy]

1. I'd say leave them alone in this regard

Trying to force the issue is a losing game, really. While they might be forced to put in battery operated smoke detectors in, you can be certain there will be no batteries in them.

[Starboard Tack]

2. I say leave them be. They don't harm our society in any way.

They tend to be good, simple people who do less harm to our planet than most.

[AlbertCat]

3. They tend to be good, simple people

They tend to be uppity, close minded control freaks. There is nothing quaint about the Amish!

[Starboard Tack]

4. The Amish? "uppity"? "control freaks"?

Now who were you saying is "close minded"?
"quaint"? - where did that come from

[Warpy]

6. Some congregations are certainly like that

and they all tend to be very controlling of everything their members do. Some congregations have gotten to be quite accepting of the English around them.

However, the lifestyle is almost a museum of nineteenth century farming and home life and that's what's quaint.

My wakeup call about sentimentalizing the Amish came about 40 years ago in DC. I saw a family crossing the street, a youngish man followed by eight stair step children with an old woman bringing up the rear. I did a double take because the old woman on closer inspection was likely his wife and close to his age.

[dimbear]

5. Other than having too many children, in other words, in the worst way. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

7. They harm society in the worst way by having too many children?

Are you fucking kidding me? How many would be OK with you? Are there other groups you would like to see have fewer children?

Do you think their average of about 7 kids has a carbon footprint approaching the average American, just 1 American?
They don't take welfare, they don't pollute, they don't proselytize, they grow produce and make the things they need in self sustainable communities. They ask for nothing, except to be left alone.

[dimbear]

8. OK would be replacement, which is about 2 per family.

Thanks for your interest in the future.

[Starboard Tack]

9. Yeah, they are really taking over and using all the resources.

I don't advocate large families, but I believe in choice and women's rights. Amish are not officially part of their church until they reach at least 18 and then they decide. I do not subscribe to their religion, but their sustainable life style and small carbon footprint is admirable.
Over population is not an issue in this country. Over consumption is the problem. My interest in the future is reflected in my own life style choices.

[Curmudgeoness]

10. I also say leave them alone on this issue, but

they are not exactly "good" people to animals. Their animals are not treated well, in fact, for people who depend on their horses to get around and help in the field, they are usually not in good condition and are not cared for well. They are also the major raisers of puppy-mill dogs in my state (PA). I do not know why they have such ill-regard for animals, but they do.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Wow. Sorry to hear that.

I guess they are human too. Hopefully, those who abuse animals are not the majority.
I found this link interesting. Nice photos and mixed comments.
http://www.pbase.com/terry434/image/43553552

[BiggJawn]

15. I was going to mention that.

But you got to it first. "Good, gentle, simple-living people"

Who run puppy mills. Lots and lots of puppies...



"Ja, ve make lotsa kinderhunden fur da Englische!"

[trotsky]

12. Our society has specific laws designed to protect children.

We have decided that there are situations in which the state can step in and remove children from a harmful environment, if necessary.

Do you agree or disagree with these kinds of laws?

[ElboRuum]

13. Not an either/or question.

Some are warranted, others not. Some don't do enough, some are too intrusive.

It depends on the context, the rationale, and the burden.

Which outweighs which in this case? Does the state's interest in protecting children outweigh the free practice of their religion, or vice versa?

I don't have the answers, but I don't believe we can ignore the nuance here for the ease of a binary answer.

[trotsky]

14. I fully realize that.

I'd like someone else to try to do the same.

[LeftyMom]

21. They're part of our society, and so are their children.

If the adults choose to die of smoke inhalation that's their stupid choice to make, but that's not a risk they can take on for their children. We don't let JWs kill their children by refusing blood transfusions, but they're perfectly free to make that decision as adults. The same is true for Christian Science people and various other faith healers and denial of medical care.

The law is pretty clear on this one- you can do any stupid thing to yourself in the name of your god that you please, but you can't risk serious harm your kids.

[Starboard Tack]

22. Actually, they are not part of our society.

Our society left them behind a long time ago. I doubt any sane parent wants to kill their children. You and I may consider their behavior foolish, but do we have the right to impose our "modern" values and gadgets on them? Calling someone else's omission of a safety device in their life is highly subjective. Visit the Gungeon sometime, where you will find some who carry guns virtually everywhere it is legal to do so. They do it for their "safety". Would you like them to impose gun ownership and carrying on every parent, in the name of public safety?

These guys are extreme for Amish, but I still say leave them alone.

[LeftyMom]

24. They're a subculture but they're part of American society

They drive on public roads, accept rides in cars, buy their groceries and household goods at the nearest Wal-Mart and sell their products to the "English". When they're sick they go to hospitals, when their animals need them they call the vet. On a phone.

Just as they can be made to put reflective triangles on their buggies so they don't cause traffic accidents (and they already lost that fight in court,) they can be made to put in smoke detectors so their kids don't die. That's a pretty big risk to shrug and ignore when you heat and cook with wood.

[Starboard Tack]

25. I guess you didn't read the piece.

They won the "reflective triangle" case. And I doubt these particular Amish shop at Walmart or call the vet. "Their clothes were roughly sewed together - like Victorian patchwork puppets."
I'm not defending their choice, but I am defending their right to make it based on their own values. You would not want to be forced to send your kids to a school where you felt they were in danger of being indoctrinated, contaminated or poisoned in some way. Enough with the Nanny State.

[LeftyMom]

26. There's a big wide gulf between "no you can't let your kids burn alive" and the nanny state.

Death by smoke inhalation is an awfully strange thing to choose to defend.

[Starboard Tack]

27. If that were an issue, I'm sure it would have come up by now.

These folk are living the way they do for centuries. I think they've got the smoke and fire thing down by now. Personally, I hate smoke detectors and like many people, I have often removed the batteries. Most people don't realize that smoke detectors are really for multi-room dwellings and apartment buildings, not one or two room houses, where things don't get left burning. Show me some stats on Amish children dying in fires and maybe I'll rethink it.

[dimbear]

16. I hate to be practical in this forum, but smoke alarms er fire sensors don't have to be electrical.

They existed long before electricity was tamed. As simple as a candle jammed in the off switch of a windup bell.

Same principle as automatic sprinklers.

[Silent3]

17. That's more of a high heat detector...

...the a fire or smoke detector, and would only go off, and probably not very loudly, once a fire was well under way -- unless the fire started right under the detector.

You'd need to place these detectors in many locations, much like sprinkler heads, for them to do much good. And the results would still not be as good as one or two smoke detectors.

But no worries, God's Will takes care of everything.

[ZombieHorde]

18. One one hand, I love personal freedom, but on the other hand,

I love safety regulations, especially for children who don't really get a say.

[mr blur]

19. And yet they don't live in mud huts,

or even caves?

How "modern"!

[cynatnite]

20. No, it's not gawd that didn't wake you. It's you not saving your kids' lives when you had the chance

Backwards fuck!

He is using his religion justifying a sure-fire method of preventing children's deaths. You can believe he is to be respected for standing up for his religion, but at the end of the day his kids are still dead because he didn't believe in smoke alarms. No justification for this whatsoever.

[Starboard Tack]

23. Wait till all our children must have GPS trackers implanted as infants

I embrace a lot of socialist values in the name of public safety, but imposing hi-tech gadgets on those who prefer to lead a simple life is wrong. If they want to move to the city, then they must conform.
They don't tell others how to behave or how to parent their children.