Post · bonfire.cafe

"... the U.S. Supreme Court in 2021 ... found that Minnesota courts overstepped. It said the burden was on the government to prove that the mulch basins wouldn’t work, not on the Amish to show they would. And it sent the case back to the Minnesota courts for reconsideration. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that if 'the government can achieve its interests in a manner that does not burden religion, it must do so'."

#MargeyBeck, #SteveKarnowski, 2023

https://apnews.com/article/amish-septic-tanks-court-minnesota-ad2fdc9d51a12a3292e6c9a740f57f6e

(1/?)

#ReligiousFreedom

AP News

Religious freedom vs. 'gray water.' AP explains ruling favoring Amish families who shun septic tanks

A long-running religious freedom case has come full circle with a court ruling over the way a deeply conservative Amish community disposes of bath and dishwater.

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · last month

This case demonstrates how some laws protecting religious freedom protect everyone's freedom. Even those who don't consider ourselves religious.

Governments often mistake convention for morality, and established practice for scientifically confirmed practice. The Amish legal defence of using organic methods for greywater reclamation, like Michael Reynolds' legal battle for the right to experiment with Earthships, is about exploring the bleeding edge of science, not defying it.

(2/?)

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · last month

Because they can't prove their methods are more environmentally sound unless they can experiment with them, democratic governance must protect their freedom to act on the belief that they are. Unless and until government's scientists can conclusively prove otherwise.

Reynolds' case used more technical legal arguments. But the Amish relied on laws protecting their freedom to follow their religious beliefs, which mandate avoiding technologies that erode their ability to live independently.

(3/?)

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · last month

At the heart of freedom of religion is a much broader principle; freedom of belief.

The world we experience consists of two kinds of things; those can be conclusively proved to be this way or that, and those that can't. Even if scientism is right that all things end up in the first category when enough evidence accumulates, there will always be some in the second. Including whether or not scientism is correct; unless we run out of unknowns one day, we'll never know for sure.

(4/?)

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · last month

Freedom of belief is about our autonomy to do what we think or feel is right when we're dealing with unknowns.

To use septic tanks, mulch pits or artificial wetlands. To build conventional houses, earthships or sod cottages. To drink wine in our spiritual ceremonies, or smoke cannabis, or take entheogens.

The law doesn't always protect our freedom of belief, such as in that last example. Although this too is changing, and that's a good thing.

(5/?)

Strypey

@strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz replied · last month

Knee jerk objections to legal judgments upholding freedom of belief, on the basis of fundamental atheist beliefs that "religion is stupid" are self-contradictory, and best ignored. Arguing with the ignorant beliefs of people who are convinced they're smarter than anyone who thinks differently is a fool's errand.

As an old saying puts it;

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of your time, and it annoys the pig.

(6/6)

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances

Bonfire social · 1.0.0-rc.3.21 no JS en

Automatic federation enabled