Was it too much to be suited up if they didn’t take up arms? How much help was enough to seem condoning? Because of their “stubbornness” COs were often treated poorly. Sometimes they were even separated in hopes of shaming them into cooperation. This was still problematic for Amish men however, because their belief system required them to not participate in the war machine whatsoever, combatant or not. “On 16 March 1918, Congress passed the Farm Furlough Bill, ostensibly releasing soldiers needed in agriculture. In fact, however, the new law offered a means of moving absolutist COs out of army camps and onto farms for the duration of the war.” (Keim, 48) These COs furloughed to farm work were not welcomed by the communities to which they were moved. The public was upset with the wages they would be earning while not having to be in battle like others making the same amount. As one can see, there was some progression in the issues of being a conscientious objector, but for the Amish the biggest changes occurred with World War II. World War II was different from the previous wars in that it seemed more “good versus evil” which led to less people applying for a CO status. The CPS- Civilian Public Service emerged which was an alternative developed for those who did not accept noncombatant action and did not want to face jail time for noncompliance. This alternative allowed them to do work of national importance, away from the war machine. Then came a program was often referred to by the name given to COs in the military- I-W. This helped give the men a better chance to witness against the war instead of being moved to some out of the way camp for working. (Keim 57-8) Despite the progress, the Amish still struggled with the options available, because many men seemed to be assigned to hospitals and the like where they were constantly immersed in the “English” world. Olshan quotes from “Steering 1996-72,1”
environmental stresses of outside, worldly society. The committee still doesn’t shorts itself on all attributes normally considered to such an organization. Olshan cites “…the chairman of the Steering Committee has felt it necessary to issue several disclaimers essentially denying the heirerarchical character of the organization. ‘Some people may think that the Committee is trying to run the churches but this should not be so. The Committee is only the voice of the churches combined’” (Old Order Amish Steering Committee 1972L58; emphasis in original). As American society continues to be more regulated and standardized, it is more that the Amish have to stand against as a separate people. (Olshan, 612) Before regulations such as standardized formal schooling and the like, the Amish didn’t have to butt heads with the government because they could do their own thing. The problems arise when American society continues becoming more regimented on the books because Amish society doesn’t coincide with these ways that may not seem like a big deal to anyone else. A few voices aren’t really enough, so the Old Order Amish Steering committee serves to provide a voice for many. In summary, the Amish have had to struggle to maintain their religious freedom and still maintain their principles of non-resistance. In treading lightly to find the footing as a subject rather than citizen of the land, they have had to make some compromises but in general their core values stand as strong as ever. The more American society becomes regulated and standardized, the more they will have to hold their ground, but since the creation of the Old Order Amish Steering committee they have had more success in finding a voice to defend their way of life. They separate themselves from the worldly society in methods of education, pacifism, certain taxes, insurance and welfare programs, and use of technology. Although they seem to be stuck in centuries of old, they aren’t frozen. They change and adapt with the times just as everyone else does, but in a significantly different way. This different way is less about pace and more about