“[t]he problem is that the rules of disposal of human waster are there to protect all of us.”
The ruling is controversial as the petitioner, Andy Swartzentruber, is a member of the Swartzentruber Amish sect. This Amish sect, generally does not use plumbing or electricity as they feel that these things run contrary to their religious beliefs (this was not explained further in Court). They also contest other practices that can be viewed as excessively “worldly” and resist attempts to be classified as part of modern American culture. Swartzentruber argues that the state requirement to use technology to treat sewage along with the state requirement to gain certification violate his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.
The questions applied are multi-tiered the first question becomes: does the state action place a direct or indirect burden on Swartzentruber’s ability to exercise his religion? If the answer to this question is yes then the state policy must meet two other standards (1) does the state action enacted in order to serve a compelling state interest and (2) could state action be reached by less restrictive means? The Court appears to take an indirect approach to this issue not reaching the question of whether the requirement is an infringement of Swartzentruber’s First Amendment free exercise rights and rather they determined that Pennsylvania’s statute meets both prongs of the second test.
In examining these questions the Court finds itself in a situation similar to Sherbert v. Verner (1963). As such, the implications of this case are far reaching as these decisions create guidelines for the level of state regulation and policy making that is acceptable if that action interferes with religious freedom.
It appears to me that the Court is correct in determining that this policy is narrowly tailored, that is to say, it does employ the least restrictive means possible to accomplish its end. As implied by the author of the piece and both a party named in the health code violation and a representative for the Sewage Enforcement Agency the problems with sewage disposal could be remedied by Swartzentruber obtaining a permit and using lime. This solution, as explained by another member of the Amish sect would not be in violation of the practices of the Swartzentruber sect.
Posts
4 comments:
I whole heartidly agree with Katherine's statement. The Sherbert test clearly applied to this case shows that the difference between belief and action hinges on the public good or interest. The disposal of waste is very important, especially with concern to water quality. Water is essential to everyone and the threat to this primary resource is of utmost importance to the public welfare. A claim to religious freedom does not outweigh the need to protect other citizens. Furthermore, the fact that this religious sect rejected a compromise makes their case less promising. However, the implication is that we might take secular interests over religious rights. This seems dangerous for me, but when considering the potential consequences for this sects actions, it seems more dangerous not to intervene.
This is interesting because it is one of the first cases where I have not felt like religious freedom and separation should prevail. I completely agree with Katherine and the decision of the court. There is a definite balancing that needs to be done when deciding between the state's interests and the rights of individuals. In this case, I think the state's duty to protect all citizens greatly outweighs the slight infringement of his religion that might exist. However, I do not know how I would feel if this same situation happened and I felt the state was directly oppressing this religion. The balancing of public health and rights is definitely one of the most difficult.
The way the court and the state found a way to compromise with the Amish sect—in figuring out that lime is a good way of meeting health codes—was great. This issue, because of the compromise the state was able to make with the Amish sect, did not violate the First Amendment. We have found that the sewage laws are not there because of any religious tradition, but for public health. If the law was there—such as the law dictating a Sunday day of rest—of course there would be opposition due to the fact that Sunday is a day that is traditionally dedicated to Christians.
This court case involving the Amish traditions and religion is intensely thought provoking. The intention of the sewage law was to ensure the good health of the people. The sewage regulation was not an attempt to stop the Amish, or anyone else, to abandon their religion because the government mandated it.
I am happy with the court's decision in this case. As the Amish are American citizens, the concept of adhering to society in which they live becomes even more important. I do not believe that exceptions should be made on purely historical reasonings, which this court deterred from. Past cases involving the Amish people have relied on historical standards that are not constitutional in any way. The court made a compelling decision that shows the true intention of the government.
Post a Comment