Freedom of Religion vs. Law

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/us/14amish.html

Hamill, Sean D. “Religious Freedom vs. Sanitation Rules.” The New York Times. The New
            York Times Company, 13 June 2009. Web. 27 September 2011.

In “Religious Freedom vs. Sanitation Rules,” author Sean D. Hamill draws on a very intriguing subject – where does religious freedom intersect into law? In the United States it is common knowledge that anyone is free to practice any religion they choose. In fact, it is the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. But in this article Hamill wonders where the line should be drawn. He uses an Amish community as a perfect example. The Amish say it is against their religion to have modern new tanks for their outhouses, but the state says their hand-made tanks are against regulations and standards. Which wins out – freedom of religion or law?

The author does not have a clearly intended audience. This article seems to be meant simply for the public in general. His intent is to draw on both sides of the argument – the view of the Amish and the view of the government.

The article begins with the story of Andy Swartzentruber, an Amish man who served 90 days in jail after refusing to upgrade an outhouse located on his land. The state said his methods for removing the waste – collecting it beneath the outhouse and then dumping into a field – were unsanitary. Swartzentruber said the safety measures required by the state were “too modern.”

Hamill uses this example to very clearly show how law and freedom of religion can overlap, ultimately causing some major problems. In the article he goes on to tell the stories of other people in the Amish community who faced similar outhouse-related problems.

The article may seem like it is based solely on the Amish. The majority of it is used to explain Swartzentruber’s predicament. However, there is a much deeper message here. In writing this piece, Hamill’s purpose was not simply to enlighten others on the plights of the Amish community. It was to show an example of the “gray areas” where laws and freedoms collide.

Hamill did not use bias when writing his article. It was very straightforward. He uses direct quotes from both the Amish and government officials affected by the situation. For example, he quoted a neighbor to the Amish who said, “The rules should be the same for everybody...” as well as an Amish man who replied, “Our forefathers, that’s why they came across the sea, for religious freedom.” These are two very different points of view, and Hamill leaves it up to the reader to decide which is correct.

We are guaranteed many freedoms in our constitution, but it is not always easy to discern how far these freedoms extend. Religion and laws sometimes do not coincide. However, it is true that every person should have to live by the same rules and standards. Unfortunately, in situations like this, that may intrude on certain peoples’ way of life. For this reason, it is extremely difficult to form an opinion on this subject.

This is a topic that I am very interested in pursuing. It is fascinating to me that one part of our legal system could contradict another. It would be an easy topic to delve into further, and I’m sure there is much information available. It would also be easy to find other specific examples to support an opinion on either side. The only problem I see is MAKING an opinion. It may seem easy to say, “Oh, of course you have to follow the law,” but first a person must put themselves “in the shoes” of an extremely religious group of people like the Amish. For these reasons, I think this would be a great topic for others as well.