May 1, 2017

Political Censorship Gives MDIFW Pause to Come Up With Definition of “Red”

This country is ruled by censorship and fear! It’s called political correctness and that involves something called “religion.” And because one tiny sub-sector, of a sub-sector, of a sub-sector of a group who prefer to call themselves “religious” and their “religion” prohibits them from wearing “flashy” clothes, they want the State of Maine to change the law that requires hunter orange mandates, for public safety reasons, in minimum amounts for hunting in the Maine woods, to satisfy their “religious” beliefs.

According to George Smith’s article, there appears to have been but two issues (or that’s all Mr. Smith chose to report) involved with the recommendation for or against this bill – safety and the definition of “red.”

I expressed my opinions about this subject last week.

It should be a no-brainer about safety. If outdoorsmen and safety experts, as has been done for over a decade now, subscribe to the promoted talking points of how much safer hunter orange (a minimum standard luminescent orange color highly visible even in questionable amounts of daylight) is over any other clothing, then the issue of its requirement should not become one of religion…should it? One can understand the government forcing people to murder unborn babies as a violation of a “religious” or moral belief, but to participate at the risk of endangering, not only the Amish, but the risk of causing confusion where years of training and adapting to hunter orange and “identifying a target” seems a bit silly to me. And where does the liability on the issue fall? One would rationally conclude that the wearing of “flashy” clothes might be something not permitted, for many of the same reasons Pagan worship practices many outrageous things include “flashy” statues, idols, clothing, etc., when an Amish person goes out in public, not into the woods to hunt.

One might even make argument that if one believes God gave man the dominion over animals and therefore hunting is allowed by a religious order, then perhaps there is something wrong with the religious order banning “flashy” clothing and not the law that has been crafted for public safety.

If my “religion” was so important to me that I can’t bring myself to wear hunter orange so that I can participate in hunting deer in Maine, I think I would give up hunting during the time I had to wear “flashy” clothing. Either it is that important or it’s not.

So now, to further this idiotic nonsense of political correctness and perpetuate the fear of some sort of reprisal from the “religions,” state law makers are now going to try to pass the buck (no pun intended) and come up with a definition of “red” in hopes they can use that as an escape goat.

So tell me! How much more absurd can our society become attempting to turn their backs on the one and only Creator of all things, in order to appease the Satanic worship and idiosyncrasies of a group choosing to call themselves “religious” in order to reap the benefits of political correctness’es preferred treatments and special privileges?

Perhaps the State of Maine should consider the below photograph as a great example of what they can require of Amish hunters, while at the same time appeasing the “rights” of many other groups and not running the risk of offending them.

*Update* – I forgot to mention when I wrote this an hour ago, that, according to Smith’s article, when asked about how wardens would enforce the Amish exception, he wrote: “if a warden did issue a summons for not wearing orange, the hunter would have to prove in court that his religion prohibited him from doing so.”

Information available here is very lacking. But suppose such an Amish Exception becomes law. Do the Amish then have a preferred privilege over someone who might belong to another “religious” sect that also prohibits “flashy” clothing? Will the Amish, if caught wearing “red” instead of what’s required by law, have to also go to court, at their expense, to prove their innocence? The other question of importance is when does it become necessary that every citizen is presumed guilty until they can go to court and prove their innocence – which is exactly what such a statement establishes?

Again Amish Seeking Special Interest Hunting Privileges

A proposed Maine bill, LD 426, would provide an exception for the Amish, who claim they are opposed to wearing bright-colored clothing, to wear “red” while hunting instead of the required hunter or blaze orange.

“SUMMARY – This bill allows a hunter whose religion prohibits the wearing of hunter orange to instead wear red. It also directs the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to amend its rules to reflect this exemption.”

Questions that need to be answered:

1. This proposed bill does not allow for the definition of “religion” nor does it specifically exempt the Amish from wearing hunter orange. Any “religious” group would be exempt. What can of worms is this going to create? What other groups will seek preferential treatment or exemptions from Maine laws.

2. By allowing an exemption to special interest groups, which any “religious” group is, setting of such a precedent could have far reaching future problems. Has this been thought through completely?

3. According to testimony by a member of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, who support the passage of LD 426, it was stated that this bill would, provides visibility for a hunter and a choice for persons who have a religious opposition to wearing orange.” [emphasis added]. An interesting perspective, when the overwhelming majority of hunters are required, by law, to wear the blaze orange, evidently if you are religious, the increased visibility is not necessary? In addition, it was also stated that if Amish (religious) people took their children hunting, it would be left up to the parents as to whether or not they needed to be seen. Clearly this is a double standard. I understand the so-called “religious” aspect, although it appears that the Amish prohibition against wearing bright clothing is not practiced or enforced universally. Last time I checked it was a legal REQUIREMENT that hunters wear blaze orange. Isn’t this a public safety issue and not one of fashion? Which brings us now to the next question.

4. If all “non-religious” hunters who wear blaze orange are in the woods hunting with “religious” hunters wearing, instead, red, even though the law states that a hunter must know his/her target, is the legal onus and liability now placed doubly so on the “non-religious” hunter to learn to recognize a “religious” hunter not wearing blaze? What is the difference in exempting all hunters and giving them the choice, over allotting this privilege to a religious person? Should this bill proposal exempt “non-religious” hunters from liability for “accidentally” shooting a “religious” hunter because he was allowed to not follow the same rules of safety?

Perhaps it is time for the “religious” people to lobby God and ask Him for an exemption to a seemingly silly requirement. For by Grace are you saved, by Faith, not according to the color of the clothes you wear.

However, last night god spoke to me directly and instructed me to never wear hunter orange. I must now lobby the government for a preferentially treatment law. How can the State deny me or anyone else who makes such a claim, from being granted this exemption?