Learn from the Amish?

The American ultra-orthodox, who insist on living in the 21st century as their ancestors lived in the 17th century in Europe, see the American state as an unclean body and are not ready for any contact with it. How did the Amish and the United States authorities manage to achieve coexistence after all, and where did we go wrong in the relationship between the state and the ultra-orthodox public in Israel? A conversation with Prof. Benny Neuberger, senior faculty member at the Open University, who studies the relationship between the Amish and the American state 

The starving mother case in Jerusalem and the ultra-Orthodox riots surrounding the opening of the Kalka parking lot on Shabbat have rekindled the issue of the problematic relationship between the ultra-Orthodox sector in Israel and the state and its institutions. The Amish sect in the United States and the relationship that developed between it and the federal authorities can provide an example - or at least an inspiration - in the search for a modus vivendi (peaceful coexistence) between a population that seeks to maintain a religious background for its distinct existence - and authorities that seek to maintain the supremacy of the law and the principle of equality before the law.

Prof. Benny Neuberger, head of the master's degree program for democracy studies at the Open University, who specialized among other things in the study of religion and state relations in democratic countries, recently published an article about the Amish in issue #12 of "Democratic Culture". In a conversation with him, Prof. Neuberger insists that even if there is room for comparison, what can we learn from the Amish?

The American ultra-orthodox, who insist on living in the 21st century as their ancestors lived in the 17th century in Europe, see the American state as an unclean body and are not ready for any contact with it. How did the Amish and the United States authorities manage to achieve coexistence after all, and where did we go wrong in the relationship between the state and the ultra-Orthodox public in Israel? A conversation with Prof. Benny Neuberger, senior faculty member at the Open University, who studies the relationship between the Amish and the American state

Between the relationship that developed between the state and the Amish in the United States and the relationship between the state and the ultra-orthodox public in Israel, we must not forget two points of difference, which make all the difference. The first point: the Amish do not want any contact with the state and therefore they are not ready to accept even one dollar from the American state, while the ultra-Orthodox in Israel, despite their reserved attitude towards the state, which sometimes reaches the point of not recognizing it and its powers, do not hesitate to receive funds from it and even use the their political power to get more.

And the second point: the Amish are not violent, they do not resort to verbal violence in any way. Not only will they not raise a hand and attack a soldier, or a policeman, or a passerby - they will not raise a hand to defend themselves even when they themselves are being attacked. They will fight for their rights, but only in non-violent ways. They will go to prison in order not to violate a religious commandment, but they will do so without any resistance.

And that's not all. Two additional facts, which greatly facilitated finding compromises in the US, do not exist in Israel. First, the numerical ratio between the community and the majority in the country. The Amish number only 200 thousand, out of the population of the United States of 300 million, and it is clear that in this number they do not threaten anyone. This makes it possible to show a very forgiving attitude towards them, and to see them as an exceptional and special case.

Second, not only numerically, but also ideologically, the Amish are not a threat, since they have never tried to impose their way of life on American society, or on the "English" as they call everyone who is not Amish. While the ultra-orthodox in Israel definitely have a desire - or at least a stated ambition - to change the way the State of Israel is run. While the basic attitude of the Amish towards the American state is one of gratitude for giving them refuge from the religious persecution they suffered in Europe, the basic attitude of the ultra-orthodox public towards the Zionist state is one of reservation and criticism - both due to "pushing the end" of the Zionist act and due to the secular lifestyles introduced in the country.
An attitude of deep gratitude to the country

And yet, "the lessons of the Amish deserve to be learned by other communities and other governments," Prof. Neuberger writes in his article, "since they have something to show that with the help of a liberal and flexible approach, and not a state approach - predatory 'from above' or radical-revolutionary 'from below' - it is possible to bridge on ideological chasms and to ensure peace and coexistence".

Prof. Neuberger, who are the Amish?

Prof. Neuberger: "The Amish are a Christian, Protestant sect, with a code of conduct and strict principles. They are a faction of the Anabaptist Christians - those who oppose the practice of baptism, which is accepted in most Christian communities, and who believe that the believer must join the community not immediately after birth, but only upon reaching maturity. Only then will his joining be an act of true free choice. In Europe after the Reformation, the Amish were persecuted for their refusal to swear allegiance to the rulers - as they only recognize God's rule over the world, for their refusal to bear arms and for their refusal to join the official churches. Hundreds of them were thrown into prison and even executed for their faith.

"The attitude of the Amish towards the American country is an extremely positive attitude of deep gratitude. The fact that in the last 300 years not a single Amish has died in America due to his religious belief is a huge thing for them. In their eyes, the United States is the land of freedom—and for that they are grateful. But despite this they do not want any contact with the state, because the state is by its very creation an impure body. In their opinion, the state was created by God due to man's sins and was meant to protect the good, punish the bad and administer justice. But since the government that leads the country makes use of coercive power, the army, the police, etc. - this is an unclean body, and according to the principle formulated by Paul, 'You shall not touch the unclean' (New Testament, Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, chapter 17, verse XNUMX), the Amish are not ready Come with her in any way. From their point of view, the disconnection must be complete. From the point of view of 'not being stung, and not being honeyed'.

"They pay taxes and observe the law as long as the law does not contradict the principles of their faith. If a conflict arises, they will break the law and willingly go to jail. They do not turn to the country's legal system, because God is the one who should judge the person and not a flesh and blood judge, or a jury. For the same reason they are unwilling to serve as jurors. And at this point, the state went towards them and freed them from this duty, which in the United States is a civil duty.

"The conflicts were revealed in those cases where laws and regulations violated what the Amish consider principles of faith, or in the language of the law, their principle of religious freedom was violated. The situation became particularly acute in the 20th century with the establishment of the welfare state, in which the state - also a distinctly capitalist state like the United States - is increasingly involved in economic and social issues."

How were the conflicts between the Amish and the authorities?
"The Amish argued that the new laws and regulations contravene the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that 'Congress shall make no law governing an official state religion or prohibiting the freedom of religion,' and harmed the freedom of religion and the individual liberties of community members.
The state, for its part, argued that the rule of law, which is general, and equality before the law must be maintained. There have also been cases where the state has argued that the collective religious freedom of the Amish community infringes on the individual rights of the individual Amish.
"The Amish declared that in the event of a conflict between the divine commandment and the laws of the kingdom of this world - the divine commandment prevails. On the other hand, the state argued that in a democracy the rule of law, as an expression of the sovereignty of the people, is supreme and the law must apply to everyone.
"Contrasts of views were revealed in many areas and touched on weighty issues - starting with compulsory education, military service, national insurance and vaccinations for children, and ending with trifles such as protective helmets on construction sites and warning triangles for strollers.
The confrontation on the subject of compulsory education
"The Amish waged a long and protracted struggle on the subject of military conscription, which until the XNUMXs in the United States was compulsory conscription. The Amish, who oppose any form of violence, could not, according to the principles of their religion, enlist in the army. In the end, regulations were passed exempting a person from the obligation to serve in the military for religious reasons.
But - and here is something we can perhaps learn from - the state insisted that this exemption be given only to those who are willing to go to significant civil service in the field of health, forest protection, road construction, etc. and in a place that is not near the conscript's home.
"The Amish accepted this upon themselves, but demanded that the civil service that cannot be done near the recruit's community, should at least be done near another Amish community, and this so as not to cut off the young man from his way of life. The young Amish from Pennsylvania was serving with the Forest Service in Ohio, close to another Amish community.
"This can certainly be copied here: an ultra-Orthodox who is not ready to serve in the army, will be required to serve in national service, and if he does not want to be exposed to a bad culture, in an environment foreign to him, an ultra-Orthodox Jerusalemite will do his service in Netivot or Emanuel.
"Another conflict concerned the issue of compulsory education. In most states of the United States, compulsory education is until the age of 16, sometimes until 18. The Amish oppose, on grounds of religious freedom, education above the age of 14. According to the Amish, in order to grow up to be modest adults, which is the Amish ideal, all the children need to learn are basic studies: reading and writing (in the Amish language, but also in English), arithmetic, scriptures, and the history and culture of the Amish. There is no need for them to learn physics, or Chemistry, foreign languages, or general history. The Amish have no interest in their children becoming engineers, or reaching the moon. All they want is to be 'good people.'
"The state's demand from the Amish to introduce compulsory education even above the age of 14 led to a conflict that greatly intensified with the establishment of large high schools relatively far from the students' homes. The Amish saw these schools as a danger, as they feared that because of the distance, they would cut off their children from their homes and anyway from their culture and religion. Also the fact that the teachers in these schools are mostly 'English' - that is, not Amish - caused great concern, and there was a fear that such teachers would entice the young Amish to take an interest in subjects that would alienate them from their communities.
"In a famous confrontation in the state of Iowa, the children of one of the Amish villages were forced onto a bus that was taking them to a remote public school. The incident caused an uproar and finally a solution was found: the state rented a school near the Amish village, and the community members pledged to finance the teaching staff and find their own certified teachers. As for the curriculum, it was agreed that it would not conflict with state law, but would be structured so as to avoid conflict with the Amish's religious beliefs.
"The issue of restricting compulsory education reached the Supreme Court in the state of Wisconsin. Amish jurists argued that the religious freedom of the Amish included the right not to give their children a formal education from the age of 14 to 16. Such a step has nothing to do with threatening anyone in American society and therefore it is appropriate that it override the principle of the rule of law, which in this case would be nothing but arbitrary enforcement of good and moral people who are not criminals.
Exemption from wearing a safety helmet
"On the other hand, the state of Wisconsin claimed that law enforcement is essential for maintaining an orderly political system. The company has an interest in providing universal and equal education for all - and freeing children from ignorance. "The Supreme Court ruling is overwhelmingly in favor of the Amish. There is no doubt that the state has a responsibility for the education of its citizens, but this interest should be measured in relation to legitimate demands for the exercise of religious freedom. The court added that the education that the Amish give their children is a proper education and the evidence is the low crime rate, and the low unemployment and divorce rates among them."
Not all the issues in dispute were as fundamental as the issue of compulsory education. In the United States, since the seventies, there has been a law requiring workers on construction sites to wear protective helmets. The Amish wear a wide-brimmed hat on their heads, as part of their religious customs.
When they were required to remove their hats to put on their protective helmets, they refused. The state did not give up and the Amish were fired from their jobs. Of course, they did not oppose or demonstrate, but in the United States a storm broke out.
When appearing before the courts, the Amish representatives claimed that they know that the helmet is an essential safety measure, but by refusing to wear the helmet, the Amish are not endangering anyone but themselves.
The state was convinced and gave up. A regulation was enacted exempting anyone who requests it for religious reasons from wearing a helmet, but only the Amish needed such an exemption. A compromise in a similar spirit, i.e. one that was accepted because of the Amish and in practice they were the only ones who needed it, was on the subject of the payment of the National Insurance. In the United States, the National Insurance is basically a tax, which everyone must pay - employer and employed.
The Amish, as mentioned, have no problem in principle with paying taxes, but since the tax bears the name 'insurance' - because it comes to guarantee the payment of a disability pension, or survivor's pension - they refused to pay, so as not to receive the benefits they are due from the state when the time comes. Because of this refusal, the Amish went to jail. In the end, the state enacted a law that allows a person to be exempt from paying the National Insurance for religious reasons, the only ones who took advantage of it were the Amish.
The Amish find the main source of their livelihood in agriculture and the United States provides agriculture with very generous subsidies. America's efficient farmers create huge surpluses, and so that they don't flood the market, the state asks them to limit crops and in return it compensates them for it. In their typical way, the Amish accept the restriction but refuse to accept the compensation.
So far in all the examples, the authorities are the ones who have been flexible. Are there examples of flexibility on the part of the Amish as well?
"Yes, the Amish also knew how to be flexible on those issues where the American state was not ready for any compromise. A difficult conflict arose around the issue of vaccines. The Amish are not against medical treatment, but vaccination, which is a form of insurance for the future, is not acceptable to them.
In their opinion, one should trust in God's grace and not need a vaccine, which is merely an attempt to preempt a cure for a plague. The state waived vaccinating adults, but insisted on vaccinating children, and the Amish accepted it.
"The same goes for the light reflectors that the Amish wagons were required to hang on the back side. The Amish do not use cars for travel purposes, or for farming (although they will agree to travel in an ambulance if it is an emergency). As humble people they travel only in carts.
The state gave up on issues such as an annual test and license to the stroller owners, but demanded, for safety reasons, that a reflective triangle be hung on the back wall of the stroller. A faction of the Amish claimed that this triangle was against their religious belief by being eye gouging. The state did not give up and finally the Amish compromised and agreed on a smaller reflector than the standard triangle".
Are the Amish participating in the election?
"They claim that the elections do not concern them, and it is true that they hardly take part in the presidential and senate elections. But - and here they show a rather opportunistic flexibility, similar to that of the ultra-orthodox in Israel - they do participate in the local elections, in which they have a real interest and in which it is important for them to influence.
In Israel - concessions beyond reason
"If in Europe participating in elections is a civic duty, and in Belgium it is even a legal duty and if you don't vote - you will be fined, in the United States voting is considered a right. Those who do not want to choose do not have to do so. To participate you have to bother, go register and then vote. The Amish say: 'We don't want to participate in the elections, and of course we won't bother and we won't go anywhere to register. But if the state comes to us and takes us to the polls, we will go.' And this is what happens in the local elections, which are interesting from their point of view and in which their participation percentages are very high, like among the ultra-Orthodox here."
When you compare the relations between the "Orthodox" of America and the authorities there to the relations that have developed in Israel between the ultra-Orthodox and the state, it seems that in the United States they succeed in following the path of compromise, while here all compromises fail and there is frustration on both sides. Where did we go wrong?
"In general, I am in favor of compromises in the relationship between the state and the ultra-Orthodox, as in the American model. But in the United States the state also knew how to stand up for itself. For example, on the subject of military service: the state waived military service, but did not waive civil service. This is an example of a principle that must not be compromised - mandatory service must be mandatory for everyone, at least as a civil service.

"I am in favor of child allowances for all sectors, but the decision made under the pressure of the ultra-Orthodox to increase the allowance starting with the fifth child was shameful, and was the fruit of blackmail that should not have been submitted to. And indeed this was canceled later. Compromises need to be reached, but the compromise arrangements could be more favorable to our society if the country knew how to stand by its basic principles. It is forbidden, for example, to turn a blind eye and tolerate the violent activity of the chastity guards on ultra-Orthodox street. In America they wouldn't let it happen, but it doesn't happen there either, because the Amish themselves oppose any violence.
"Regarding the education system, the ultra-Orthodox should be allowed to have their own education system, but we should not have reached the situation we have reached in Israel and which has no equal in the world: in no western country, which has separate religious education, is there not 100 percent funding from the state, while renouncing a core program . In America, the Amish were given up, but the Amish do not receive government funding. Private religious schools that receive aid - for example in France - are obliged to teach a core curriculum dictated by the state. In Israel, for political reasons of a coalition, the state made concessions that are beyond reasonable."

Prof. Benny Neuberger recently received an invitation to stay for three months as a guest of an Amish educational institution in Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania. This was after the heads of the Mossad heard about his interest in community research and were exposed to his scientific resume. It can be assumed that the stay in Elizabethtown and the direct meeting with the community leaders will enrich the extensive knowledge Prof. Neuberger has accumulated on the Amish subject.