post deleted because of offensiveness
That is one of the better photos I have seen hereabouts and I include rubbish (contrast) and window casing in my purvey.
Unfortunately you have photographed an Amish horse.
You have, IMO, contravened, the Amish ruling about photoing.
The Amish may not agree with me because they may not consider
that the horse, like the human, has a soul.
I, being a Hindu, know better and I make this protest on their behalf
in an area that they may be wanting.
I am going to contact Dr Anderson of X Files to obtain her address for
the Amish community so that I can write to them about this.
The X Files is the closest I have got to the Amish (other than this
beautiful contravening photo).
(Your garbage looks ghostly! 
)
Please do not take pictures of the Amish. It’s very intrusive and goes against their religious beliefs. The Amish believe that photographs go against the Biblical injuction to “make no graven image,” and they believe in a life of separatism from the world, which prohibits the world from having pictures of them.
I worship with a few former Mennonites and Amish, and I know that to have your picture taken when you do not know it, or even to have your house, horse, or buggy photographed when you have not provoked it at all, is a horribly emotionally disturbing thing.
It’s better to leave these people alone. They’re not doing anything to provoke us. They are only living.
Cran, I KNOW what the Amish believe on this subject, which is why we took great pains to make sure that the man driving the buggy was NOT included in the photo (their religious beliefs only include themselves, not their livestock or buggies). I am actually quite friendly with the Amish that live close to me (this man in particular has stopped and used my telephone)…they call us the “English family with almost a dozen children” (nothing from YOU Dub 
). This was NOT done out of malice, nor was it done to be intrusive. I think that the Amish are absolutely wonderful people, and I wish that I could implement much of what they do in their lives into my own.
Having said all of that, I can edit my post, if you find it that offensive.
Actually, it looks ghastly 
I do find it that offensive.
Done.
Izzarina, you should not have to pander to other people’s petty prejudices and self-aggrandizing sensitivities. That was a lovely photo and no more controversial or offensive than others that can readily be found in newspapers, magazines and on the internet, and since it is gone, here are some others to take its place.
Your photo was taken of a vehicle on a public road, and the operative word here is “public.” There is no legitimate expectation of privacy in a public area. And just as one can be seen in a public area, one can be photographed in a public area.
And you can get your picture taken with a twelve-foot, wooden Amish guy here –
I find your offendedness offensive.
Izzarina, you should not have to pander to other people’s petty prejudices and self-aggrandizing sensitivities. That was a lovely photo and no more controversial or offensive than others that can readily be found in newspapers, magazines and on the internet
What he said ^2.
The personal restriction against photographs is not a common Amish belief, but is more prevalent in Old Order Amish and Mennonites.
If you type “Amish” into images.google.com, you’ll find a whole passel of photographs of the Amish, including some folks smiling for the camera. “Amish in the City” is a UPN “Real World” style tv show where 6 Amish on rumspringa* are filmed living with 6 city kids. While it can be argued that the kids were on rumpsringa, that doesn’t mean that their religious beliefs were suddenly negated…if they or their families had a religious objection to photography, they certainly wouldn’t have taken part in this show.
Do we even know what Izz’s neighbor thought about the photograph? I’m sorry I missed it 
*rumpsringa is the “sowing the wild oats” rite of passage that Amish go through before being accepted as an adult in the Amish community. They live apart from Amish life for a time and they must decide voluntarily whether to return.
Hold on a minute. You opened this thread, saw a picture that offended you, made a comment, then you came back to the thread to be offended all over again? You have the choice to not re-visit threads that offend you. Izzarina did nothing wrong, and was more than kind in removing the photo.
Not offended. Sheesh, people!
A photograph of a person or animal is not a graven image, literally or figuratively.
Literally, it would need to be engraved which it is not. Figuratively, it would have to be an idol which it is not.
Yeeeeeeeeeeesh! Yoos guys are killin’ me!
Thanks for injecting common sense into what was a decent and interesting thread.
It only took one complaint to cause the city of Walnut Creek (where I work) to abandon the use of the term “Easter Bunny” and change it to “Spring Bunny” and “Spring Egg Hunt.” Yes, it’s a silly bit of historically inaccurate nomenclature to begin with, but I do resent over-reactions like that.
I agree with you, but there are many people who don’t take it to mean this, and I do try to respect this way of thinking where I can. I thought that my waiting until he was out of the picture was respecting that belief, but apparently Cran didn’t feel as such, and was very offended by what I felt was a picture trying portray the Amish in a good light. His offense was enough, and therefore I took down the picture…I am not one to try to claim that I have a right to post whatever I want, when I want.
Thanks for all the nice comments about the picture (my 14 year old son will be thrilled to know that you all liked it ). But really, this isn’t that big of a deal to me.
Hey! Not all of us here are guys
it does get a bit confusing…
I changed my avatar…does that help?
let me get my glasses…
yup! thanks! 