| Author |
Message |
    
Jonathan Teixeira
Citizen
Username: Jhntxr
Post Number: 332
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 8:04 pm: |     |
The funny thing about strings are they can be retied , but then there is a ' knot ' that is created. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 850
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 11:22 pm: | |
I could be wrong, but...
Wouldn't he existing power and/or telephone lines be sufficient to establish the physical boundaries of the eruv?
If so, isn't the only remaining work to be done is to have an inspection by the appropriate (Rabbinical?) authority, and then placing markers on the utility poles?
Are separate wires or strings actually necessary?
TomR |
shoshannah
Citizen
Username: Shoshannah
Post Number: 1112
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 11:24 pm: | |
What nobody has touched upon is this: How is erecting an eruv any more "accommodating" to Jews than erecting a new synagogue? Would this thread exist if the zoning board agreed to allow construction of a new synagogue? |
kh
Citizen
Username: Woodhilldriver
Post Number: 5
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, December 23, 2005 - 11:37 pm: | |
I appreciate Jonathan's comments but this has been brought before the courts before. It is not an issue of church and state as the courts see it. Although I do agree Jonathan on the subject of the initiator of this thread getting a free copy of Protocols. Although I'm sure she has read it many times before. Shame on all of the bigots on these boards, if not for the anonymity we would never know the feelings of so many people in town. Maybe, this isn't the progressive, inclusional town I thought I moved to. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 853
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:23 am: | |
marian,
This is at least the second time you have advocated not permitting the exposition of ideas and/or opinions with which you disagree.
You've convinced me.
Nobody should ever say anything with which marian disagrees.
Hey, I have rights too!
Nobody should ever say anything with which I disagree.
Damn! We all have the same rights.
OK. Nobody should ever say anything with which anybody else disagrees.
TomR |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 6828
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 9:09 am: | |
Shoshanna:
There would probably be a great deal more opposition to a new synagogue being erected in town since that would require taking another property off of the tax roles. This could result in still higher taxes for homeowners in town.
I have yet to see anyone on this or any of the other threads on this topic provide a single instance in which anyone would be hurt or inconvenienced by an eruv.
Tom R:
As I understand it, since the eruv could include the entire town, existing power lines should be sufficient in most cases and the poles have to be marked to show rabbinical approval of the eruv's boundaries. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2054
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 10:00 am: | |
TomR, actually, the problem with existing power lines is that they are not a single continuous ring around the town. So while the poles are in place to handle this, the power cables themselves are not.
Bob K, the issues regarding PSE&G are there, but I'm sure they will be handled in the same way they are handled in other towns that have eruvim. It's not like this is some new idea that has not been done elsewhere. Other towns have done it with no expense, and without major issues with utilities. Why is there any assumption that things will be more difficult here? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10063
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 11:40 am: | |
Rastro, most of the communities that have built an ervu had considerably more than 60 Orthodox people to support it. However, most of my speculation is just out of curiosity and a semi-dislike for PSE&G. I have never liked them (PSE&G) since they closed down the street cars and sold Olympic Park. 
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14362
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:05 pm: | |
Bobk,
Do you really have a problem with the Eruv? |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2434
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:39 pm: | |
OK. Nobody should ever say anything with which anybody else disagrees.
TomR: I disagree. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10064
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:52 pm: | |
NO, NO, NO, I don't. The TC resolution is a minor accomodation to a religious group along the lines of parking regulations, although some of the parking regulations here might actually be viewed as hostile to a religion. I don't think the TC even had to approve it, but most congregations ask for permission anyway, since the propety used belongs to a utility.
I admit, to being fascinated by the concept and having a practical turn of mind, the implementation.
I also admit to being somewhat interested in comparitive religions. I usually stick to differences in protestant Christian denominations, but the whole concept and history of the eruv is interesting.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2436
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 12:59 pm: | |
I don't think the TC even had to approve it, but most congregations ask for permission anyway, since the propety used belongs to a utility.
BobK: Sometimes you just don't pay attention. For whatever reason the Rabbinic authorities say that you must ask the civil authorities for permission to establish an eruv. So if the civil authorities refuse to deal with the issue then you can't set it up. Not voting is the same as voting no. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10065
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 2:50 pm: | |
Anon, how about Tenafly, where a suit was filed by the congregation? It depends on the Rabbi and the Congregation. Unless the group that approached the TC is looking for an exclusive, like the cable tv franchise, in temporal legal parlance they probably don't need permission.  |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2439
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 4:29 pm: | |
BobK:
You really don't pay attention. Read the Third Circuit's opinion linked above by maplewdian. The County Executive gave permission, which the Court characterized as "ceremonial", Cablevision installed the "lechis" and the eruv was created. The Town Council then ordered them taken down citing a Town Ordinance that had never been mentioned previously and that was never really enforced. The eruv proponents then sued. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2440
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, December 24, 2005 - 4:34 pm: | |
Here's the link:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/013301p.pdf#search= |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10067
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 11:04 am: | |
Anon, going to the County Executive on a purely local matter is unusual to say the least. The equivalent here would have been if the petitioners had gone to Joey D, and I can imagine the uproar here if that had happened. The people in Tenafly probably knew that the local government officials would be hostile to their request. One way or another the local community (Tenafly) rejected the request and, like Michael, the petitioners went to court. The 3rd Circuit's opinion is a masterpiece of avoiding any major Constitutional issues.
Da facts are da facts. Spinning to fit you world view is interlectually dishonest. Have a nice Holiday and good luck to the Orthodox in getting the eruv completed on a timely basis.
|
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2448
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, December 25, 2005 - 12:50 pm: | |
The 3rd Circuit's opinion is a masterpiece of avoiding any major Constitutional issues.
Now you're a Constitutional scholar? Did you read the opinion? It is very long and detailed and a complete analysis of the relevant law. What constitutional issue did they avoid?
Asking permission from the "civil authorities" is "ceremonial".
The Tenafly TC procrastinated and expressed a negative attitude without taking a formal vote. They never mentioned the ordinance they would later cite. From reading the opinion one gets the impression that the TC was just prejudiced against the Orthodox. So they went to a "higher authority", the County Exec. Then the TC got all bent out of shape.
Merry Christmas and a happy and health New Year to you and your family. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10072
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 7:46 am: | |
One way or another this is another case where a religious group went to court to find equity. I don't have a problem with them doing so. However, many of you who are critical of Michael S's lawsuit against the school district might rethink your position. |
FlyingSpaghettiMonst
Citizen
Username: Noodlyappendage
Post Number: 18
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 8:43 am: | |
Bob K, comparing the two situations is like comparing apples and oranges. If the eruv is approved, I will not be effected in the least. I don't care if there are little tags on the power lines. I don't ever even look at the power lines unless one is down and sparking in front on me.
However, if Michael S's suit is held to be valid, my children would be forced to sing about a savior they do not believe in in order to participate in a school activity. Very different situations. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10073
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 9:05 am: | |
Flying, wrong, wrong, wrong. The ban that caused the suit was about instrumental music.
My point is simply a plea for some degree of tolerance for all and a reminder that in matters such as this, whose ox is getting gored often causes different reactions. |
FlyingSpaghettiMonst
Citizen
Username: Noodlyappendage
Post Number: 19
Registered: 11-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 10:08 am: | |
Bob, please call me FSM  .
Yes, I know that the district ban was on instrumental music, but don't cha think that if they suceed on that one, vocal music isn't far behind?
The difference between the two situations is painfully obvious. One forces you to participate and the other doesn't! |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10074
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 - 10:24 am: | |
FSM, for the record the SOMSD had been bouncing along for years with a compromise that basically didn't please either side, but avoided open warfare and law suits. Now the camels nose is under the tent flap and who knows what is going to happen. The BOE policy goes far beyond any Constitutional requirements. In any event the decisions will be made for us, not by us, in a court room which doesn't please many people here.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page