| Author | Message | ||
     Eliza Jackson Citizen Username: Tookiew Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2005 |
Can someone please explain why Maplewood is lending official sanction to the quasi-mystical practices of certain orthodox Jews? Why is Maplewood so willing to set up a "magic circle" (apparently called an eruv) so that these people can now carry things out of there homes on Saturday? Has anyone considered the demographic ramifications if this attracts the Jewish brooklyn crowd? Homes with 12 to fifteen kids? A gradual influx of orthodox until they are politically potent enough to sway local elections with bloc voting, when they will decide to defund public schools, and relax zoning rules so they can build mega-houses in which to cram their broods? Do we want Maplewood to become Crown Heights? | ||
| Peter Citizen Username: Backfrombklyn Post Number: 7 Registered: 7-2005 |
Umm, R U nuts? | ||
| Brett Citizen Username: Bmalibashksa Post Number: 2092 Registered: 7-2003 |
wow, this is going to get good. I'll make the popcorn | ||
| Parkbench87 Citizen Username: Parkbench87 Post Number: 3160 Registered: 7-2001  |
Eliza, Not the way to get started on MOL. Your post is bigoted and extremely offensive. Here is the article from yesterdays Star Ledger. http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1135057700276750.xml?starledger? nex&coll=1 Tuesday, December 20, 2005 BY SARA K. CLARKE Star-Ledger Staff Maplewood is considering a proposal to make it easier for members of the Orthodox Jewish community to observe the Sabbath, while increasing the town's appeal to young Jewish families. Tonight, the township committee will listen to public comment and then may vote on a resolution to let the Orthodox community establish an eruv, a symbolic boundary that lets observers carry items on holy days. Without an eruv, carrying is an act of labor that is forbidden outside the home. Jewish leaders have been considering an eruv for about three years, after hearing repeatedly from young families that the lack of one was a deal-breaker in their decisions of whether or not to move to Maplewood. The physical eruv -- consisting of designated utility lines and plastic strips -- would leave the landscape of town largely unchanged. But it would significantly help parents, who otherwise aren't allowed to carry children outdoors or push strollers, said Steven Bauml, chairman of Maplewood's Eruv Committee. "It's something that will be invisible to everyone except the people who are looking for it," he said. The eruv also helps people in wheelchairs or those who need to carry medication, both otherwise homebound on the Sabbath. Approximately 60 families attend the two Orthodox synagogues in Maplewood. Orthodox leaders believe an eruv -- combined with Maplewood's proximity to New Jersey Transit lines -- would attract young Jewish families looking to escape the skyrocketing cost of home ownership in New York. "To establish a family as Orthodox Jews, it's far more convenient to live in a community that has an eruv," said Jeffrey Kingsley, a member of the Eruv Committee, who said Orthodox parents steer toward nearby communities with eruvim, such as West Orange or Livingston. The concept of an eruv dates back almost 2,000 years and is included in a collection of Rabbinical laws called the Mishnah, said Azzan Yadin, an associate professor of Jewish Studies at Rutgers University. While civic law doesn't require town permission for the eruv, Jewish religious law requires community consent. Just about every major U.S. city has an area delineated by an eruv -- including Boston, New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C. In New Jersey, communities with an eruv include Cherry Hill, Deal, Teaneck and East Brunswick. Advertisement Maplewood's project is expected to cost $20,000, and would be paid for with private funds. The cost includes a rabbinical expert to help lay out the eruv, Bauml said. Mayor Fred Profeta said the creation of an eruv in Maplewood would put the Orthodox community on equal footing with other ethnic groups in town. "Maplewood is a town that prides itself on diversity and inclusivity," Profeta said. "As a practical matter, we have actually been excluding a certain number of Orthodox Jews because of the carrying rule." While Maplewood's proposal was presented at the last township committee meeting without controversy, eruvs have sparked disputes in other communities, from Palo Alto, Calif., to London. In Tenafly, township officials waged a lengthy legal battle against residents of an Orthodox synagogue who attached plastic strips to utility poles to create an eruv. Township officials sued the residents, claiming the strips violated a municipal law against posting items on utility poles. But a federal appellate court ruled against the town, saying the ordinance against posting was being selectively enforced. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, forcing the borough to seek a settlement. Tenafly officials are expected to vote on a settlement in January. In Maplewood, the eruv may actually bring economic benefits to Springfield Avenue, an area of town earmarked for redevelopment. Both Orthodox synagogues are located near the commercial strip, and a growing Orthodox community could draw businesses, such as kosher butchers and bakers. "There are various kinds of businesses that serve a traditional Jewish community and that attract a regional clientele," said Bauml, the committee chairman. But while the eruv may come with economic implications, Profeta said that's not the impetus behind the resolution to allow it. "The motivation for this as far as I'm concerned is fairness and inclusivity," Profeta said. "If there is an ancillary economic benefit, we'll be happy about that as well." | ||
| Fight the power Citizen Username: Tookiew Post Number: 2 Registered: 12-2005 |
It is well known that Orthodox communities have many children, and are politically cohesive and tend to bloc vote. Hence, in NY (and in Bklyn, from whence I derive) politicians cowtow to them, and distort the process in their favor, giving them zoning variances, etc. I think this is not about inclusiveness, but about an extremely ambitiuos local politician trying to establish a future power base for when he runs for higher office. | ||
| ML Supporter Username: Ml1 Post Number: 2878 Registered: 5-2002  |
Profeta and DeLuca got about 85% of the vote in the last election, as did Huemer last year. Maplewood already votes as one big "bloc." unless the newcomers can somehow displace a bunch of die-hard Republicans, their presence here will mean nothing to Profeta's political fortunes. | ||
| Wendyn Supporter Username: Wendyn Post Number: 2572 Registered: 9-2002  |
I think Cato is back. | ||
| C Bataille Citizen Username: Nakaille Post Number: 2346 Registered: 5-2001 |
Check the username for "Eliza Jackson" and "Fight the Power." | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3139 Registered: 5-2001  |
Tookie, Before you write, maybe you should READ and become educated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv An eruv is something that already exists in most major cities around the world. Welcome to MOL, but spew your hate & prejudice elsewhere. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10033 Registered: 5-2001 |
Yeah, the next thing you know they are going to want to put up a thirty foot Mennorah on the lawn in front of Town Hall.  A eruv would be an interesting constitutional issue on the State endorsing a particular religion. If I wanted to put up crosses on utility poles I can imagine the outrage. I doubt that Maplewood is about to become the next Crown Heights. Certainly the orthodox people here in town are good people, at least the ones I know. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8199 Registered: 4-1997  |
If a local church wanted to post crosses on utility poles throughout town, would that be kosher? (didn't see bobk's post) | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3140 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, To my knowledge, an eruv has no religious symbols on it & it practically invisible from the street. I found this link with a picture: http://www.laeruv.com/adapter.htm | ||
| howardf Citizen Username: Howardf Post Number: 364 Registered: 6-2001 |
I recall that the Tenafly case had interesting constitutional ramifications, but in essence, because the effect is so de minimis and does not interfere with anyone else's interests, courts are not that interested in striking down eruvs. Whether the results would be different if the religious ritual was Muslim is, of course, a different story. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 268 Registered: 11-2003 |
Most of the utility poles in town are already in the shape of a cross. All that is needed is for the town council to officially recognize the poles as such.  | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 739 Registered: 7-2004  |
I don't care as long as it is privately funded. Although it is silly that they can't carry things out of their homes on Saturdays. Just like Catholics and their don't eat meat of Fridays. When will people realize that there are traditions, but then there are just things that are way outdated and just misunderstood from the start. | ||
| MBJ Citizen Username: Mbj Post Number: 64 Registered: 10-2005 |
Catholics can eat meat on Friday, McCheese. Try to catch up with the current times. Thanks. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8200 Registered: 4-1997 |
It is fairly invisible, but the line it crosses into govt. funding it is certainly not invisible. Will other religious organizations receive equal funding and/or services from township employees? I fully respect the beliefs, but there are secular questions attached. Public space should be a religion-free zone. Period. Once the line is crossed, it should be open to all religions. This seems self-evident. Mayor, even if it's privately funded, who is responsible for putting them up and who is responsible if there is an accident involved in doing so? I think the answer is: taxpayers. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 625 Registered: 8-2001 |
Not so fast, there, MBJ. Mayor is right. THE LATIN CHURCH: SUBJECTS UNDER, AND MATERIAL ELEMENT OF, THE LAW Throughout the Latin Church the law of abstinence prohibits all responsible subjects from indulging in meat diet on duly appointed days. Meat diet comprises the flesh, blood, or marrow of such animals and birds as constitute flesh meat according to the appreciation of intelligent and law-abiding Christians. For this reason the use of fish, vegetables, mollusks, crabs, turtles, frogs, and such-like cold-blooded creatures is not at variance with the law of abstinence. Amphibians are relegated to the category whereunto they bear most striking resemblance. This classification can scarcely preclude all doubt regarding viands prohibited by the law of abstinence. Local usage, together with the practice of intelligent and conscientious Christians, generally holds a key for the solution of mooted points in such matters, otherwise the decision rests with ecclesiastical authority. Furthermore, on many fasting days during the year the law of abstinence bars the use of such viands as bear some identity of origin with flesh meat. For this reason eggs, milk, butter, cheese, and lard are interdicted (St. Thomas, Summa, II-II, Q. cvii, art. ult., ad 3). The Church enjoins the ways and means whereby her subjects must satisfy the obligation of doing penance inculcated by natural law. Many of the Fathers allude to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority in reference to the obligation of abstinence. The disciplinary canons of various councils bear witness to the actual exercise of authority in the same direction. Texts of theology and catechisms of Christian doctrine indicate that the obligation of abstaining forms an element in one of the Commandments of the Church. Satisfaction for sin is an item of primary import in the moral order. Naturally enough, abstinence contributes no small share towards the realization of this end. As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the Church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII [Cf. Prop. 23, ap. Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale, 145 (Rome, 1905)]. In fine, the Trullan synod (can. 58, ap. Hefele, "History of the Councils of the Church", V, 231, Edinburgh, 1896) inflicts deposition on clerics and excommunication on laymen who violate this law. Furthermore, theologians claim that a grievous sin is committed as often as flesh meat is consumed in any quantity on abstinence days (Sporer, Theologia Moralis super Decalogum, I, De observ. jejunii, # 2, assert. II), because the law is negative, and binds semper et pro semper. In other words, the prohibition of the Church in this matter is absolute. At times, however, the quantity of prohibited material may be so small that the law suffers no substantial violation. From an objective standpoint such transgressions carry the guilt of venial sin. Moralists are by no means unanimous in deciding where the material element of such minor disorders passes into a material disorder of major importance. Some think that an ounce of flesh meat suffices to constitute a serious breach of this law, whereas others claim that nothing short of two ounces involves infringement of this obligation. Ordinarily, the actual observance of the law is confined to such circumstances as carry no insupportable burden. This is why the sick, the infirm, mendicants, labourers, and such as find difficulty in procuring fish diet are not bound to observe the law as long as such conditions prevail. DAYS OF ABSTINENCE (1) Friday From the dawn of Christianity, Friday has been signalized as an abstinence day, in order to do homage to the memory of Christ suffering and dying on that day of the week. The "Teaching of the Apostles" (viii), Clement of Alexandria (Strom., VI, 75), and Tertullian (De jejun., xiv) make explicit mention of this practice. Pope Nicholas I (858-867) declares that abstinence from flesh meat is enjoined on Fridays. There is every reason to conjecture that Innocent III (1198-1216) had the existence of this law in mind when he said that this obligation is suppressed as often as Christmas Day falls on Friday (De observ. jejunii, ult. cap. Ap. Layman, Theologia Moralis, I, iv, tract. viii, ii). Moreover, the way in which the custom of abstaining on Saturday originated in the Roman Church is a striking evidence of the early institution of Friday as an abstinence day. (2) Saturday As early as the time of Tertullian, some churches occasionally prolonged the Friday abstinence and fast so as to embrace Saturday. Tertullian (De jejunio, xiv) calls this practice continuare jejunium -- an expression subsequently superseded by superponere jejunium. Such prolongations were quite common at the end of the third century. The Council of Elvira (can. xxvi, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 147) enjoins the observance of one such fast and abstinence every month, except during July and August. At the same time the fathers of Elvira abrogated the "superposition" which had up to that time been obligatory on all Saturdays (Duchesne, op. cit., 231). Moreover, Gregory VII (1073-85) speaks in no uncertain terms of the obligation to abstain on Saturdays, when he declares that all Christians are bound to abstain from flesh meat on Saturday as often as no major solemnity (e. g. Christmas) occurs on Saturday, or no infirmity serves to cancel the obligation (cap. Quia dies, d. 5, de consecrat., ap. Joannes, Azor. Inst. Moral. I, Bk. VII, c. xii). Various authors have assigned different reasons to account for the extension of the obligation so as to bind the faithful to abstain not only on Fridays, but also on Saturdays. Some hold that this practice was inaugurated to commemorate the burial of Christ Jesus; others that it was instituted to imitate the Apostles and Disciples of Christ, who, together with the Holy Women, mourned the death of Christ even on the seventh day; while others claim that it owes its origin to the conduct of St. Peter, who passed Saturday in prayer, abstinence, and fasting, to prepare to meet Simon Magus on the following day (Acts, viii, 18 sq.; cf. Migne, P. L. XLIX, coll. 147, 148). Though the Roman Pontiffs have constantly refused to abrogate the law of abstaining on Saturday, special indults dispensing with the obligation have been granted to the faithful in many parts of the world. (3) Lent In point of duration, as well as in point of penitential practices, Lent has been the subject of many vicissitudes. In the days of St. Irenaeus (177-202) the season of penance preceding Easter was of rather short duration. Some fasted and therefore abstained from flesh meat etc. for one day, others for two days, and others again for a greater number of days. No distinct traces of the quadragesimal observance are discernible until the fourth century. The decrees of the Council of Nicaea in 325 (can. v, ap. Hefele, op. cit., I, 387) contain the earliest mention of Lent. Thenceforward ecclesiastical history contains numerous allusions to those forty days. Nevertheless, the earliest references to the quadragesimal season indicate that it was then usually considered a time of preparation for baptism, or for the absolution of penitents, or a season of retreat and recollection for people living in the world. True, fasting and abstinence formed part of the duties characterizing this season, but there was little or no uniformity in the manner of observance. On the contrary, different countries adopted a different regime. At Rome it was customary to spend but three weeks, immediately before Easter, in abstinence, fasting, and praying (Socrates, H. E., V, 22). Many attempts were made to include Holy Week in Quadragesima. The attempt succeeded at Rome, so that thenceforward the Lenten season consisted of six weeks. During these six weeks Sundays were the only days not reached by the law of fasting, but the obligation to abstain was not withdrawn from Sundays. As a consequence, the Lenten season numbered no more than thirty-six days. Hence St. Ambrose (Serm. xxxiv, de Quadrag.) notes that the beginning of Lent and the first Sunday of Lent were simultaneous prior to the reign of Gregory I. In the seventh century four days were added. Some claim that this change was the work of Gregory I; others ascribe it to Gregory II (Layman, loc. cit.). Duchesne (op. cit., 244) says that it is impossible to tell who added four days to the thirty-six previously comprised in the Lenten season. It is likely, at all events, that the change was made so as to have forty days in which to commemorate Christ's forty days in the desert. Be this as it may, the Church has never deviated from the ordinance of the seventh century whereby the Lenten season comprises forty days over and above Sundays. (4) Ember Days The beginning of the four seasons of the year is marked by Ember Week, during which Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday are days of fasting and abstinence. Ember Week occurs after the first Sunday of Lent, after Pentecost, after the feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, and after the third Sunday in Advent. According to some writers the Ember Days in December were introduced by the Apostles as a preparation for the ordinations which occurred during that month (Layman, loc. cit.). The scriptural basis for this practice is to be found in Acts, xiii, 2 sq. The summer Ember Days were observed during the octave of Pentecost (St. Leo I, Sermo ii, de Pentecost.), and the autumn Ember Days in September (Idem, Sermo viii, De jejunio septimi mensis). In the False Decretals (c. 840-50) Pope Callistus (217-22) is made to add a fourth week. We decree, he says, that the fast which you have learned to keep three times yearly, shall henceforward be made four times a year (Epist., Decr. lxxvi, cap., i; Migne, P. G., X, 121). St. Jerome, in his commentary on the eighth chapter of Zachary, believes that the Ember Days were instituted after the example of the Jews, who fasted and abstained four times during the year, as noted in the preceding paragraph. St. Leo I (Sermo vii, De jej. sept. mensis) considers that the purpose of penance during Ember Week is to urge the faithful to special efforts in the cause of continency. The two views are entirely compatible. (5) Advent Radulphus de Rivo (Kalendarium eccles. seu de observations canonum, Prop. xvi) and Innocent III (De observ. jej., cap. ii) testify that the Roman Church appointed a period of fasting and abstinence as a preparation for the solemnization of Christmas. Traces of this custom are still to be found in the Roman Breviary indicating the recitation of ferial prayers during Advent just as on days of fasting and abstinence. Radulphus de Rivo (loc. cit.) remarks that the Roman Church appointed the first Sunday after St. Catharine's feast as the beginning of Advent. 6. Vigils In former times the clergy assembled in church, on the eves of great festivals, and chanted the divine office. In like manner the laity also repaired to their churches and passed the time in watching and praying. Hence the term vigil. Innocent III (op. cit., i) mentions the vigils of Christmas, the Assumption, and the Apostles (28 June). It is likely that the obligation of abstaining on the vigils of Pentecost, St. John Baptist, St. Lawrence, and All Saints was introduced by custom (cf. Azor., op. cit., VII, xiii), for, according to Duchesne (op. cit., 287), the element of antiquity is not the fasting, but the vigil. Formerly, the obligation of abstaining on vigils was anticipated as often as a vigil fell on Sunday. This practice is still in vogue. (7) Rogation Days These days occur on the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday preceding the Ascension. Mamertus, Bishop of Vienne, introduced (some time before 474) the custom of reciting the Litanies on these days. He also prescribed fasting and abstinence thereon. This practice was extended to the whole of Frankish Gaul in 511 by the first Council of Orléans (can. xxvii). About the beginning of the ninth century Leo III introduced the Rogation Days into Rome (Duchesne op. cit., 289). An almost similar observance characterizes the feast of St. Mark, and dates from about the year 589 (Duchesne, op. cit., 288). | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3141 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, You mean the same taxpayers who currently subsidize every religious organization now - since they don't pay any taxes? If the private funds cover the installation and insurance, you are OK with this, then? | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 269 Registered: 11-2003 |
Does the proposed eruv include the entire township? If not would the town council then be in effect establishing where Orthodox Jews can and cannot live within the town? I understand that it is really a mattter of where they will or will not live, but still, I don't see this as any of the governments business. | ||
| Wendyn Supporter Username: Wendyn Post Number: 2574 Registered: 9-2002 |
I think Profeta is wrong when he says: "Maplewood is a town that prides itself on diversity and inclusivity," Profeta said. "As a practical matter, we have actually been excluding a certain number of Orthodox Jews because of the carrying rule." Maplewood has not excluded anyone from living here. People who choose not to live here because there is not an eruv are not being excluded. It is like saying meat excludes Catholics by being available to eat on Fridays. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8202 Registered: 4-1997 |
This is the first time I've heard of it, so I need to admit some ignorance. My basic intuition is that religion should be a private matter practiced at home or in congregations on private property and shouldn't intrude into the public sphere. At it's heart, I don't think it's really an issue about money. I don't have very strong feelings either way, but it raises interesting questions. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 271 Registered: 11-2003 |
Yes wendyn, as far as I'm aware Maplewood Township has no "carrying rule". If it does we should get rid of it.  | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10035 Registered: 5-2001 |
MHD, by its nature an Eruv is a religious symbol. | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 740 Registered: 7-2004 |
Thanks aquaman. I was afraid I was actually going to have to look that up. MBJ, while I may not know much, my knowledge of the catholic church is nothing to mess with. I am all caught up. Thanks. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6385 Registered: 5-2001  |
I respectfully must disagree with Mayhew. I don't welcome any troll. So, why are we letting this person draw us into his/her nasty, hateful little trap? IMHO, Dave should shut this thread down. I think we've had enough heinous stereotyping around here lately and it is disturbing as hell. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 983 Registered: 5-2003 |
It isn't really a religious symbol, Bob. I personally think it's a lot of nonsense, and I'm Jewish. It's like tying a string to a bunch of different utility poles and having a Rabbi say that it's OK to carry things or push a stroller within the boundaries of this string on the Sabbath. It doesn't affect anyone but the people who believe in it. | ||
| Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 741 Registered: 7-2004 |
Dave the answer to that is simple. Let whoever is pushung for this Eruv put it up. Make them show exactly what they are going to do, so everyone knows. This way any objections can be noted. Make them pay for it themselves, and have them sign a waiver of responsibility if anyone is hurt. So that way the tax payer don't lose. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8205 Registered: 4-1997 |
That's probably going to be done, but it still leaves questions open. Will our community's official governmental embrace of eruvim in town alienate Muslims who may want to choose Maplewood? I think the answer may be "yes" and it may help point out to people why government should have a hard line dividing church and state. Every day it's clearer and clearer to me that people in both parties have no clue what Jefferson, Washington, Franklin et al were trying to do here. | ||
| ess Citizen Username: Ess Post Number: 722 Registered: 11-2001 |
I have to agree with Greenetree and Lizziecat. 1. The troll began this thread with incendiary hateful words. This shouldn't be tolerated. 2. An eruv can be a wire, even a transparent wire. It can't be seen by anyone, unless one is searching for it, and it probably wouldn't come up in conversation, for example, with a realtor and a potential buyer -- unless, of course, that potential buyer happened to be Orthodox and had a reason to be interested in the eruv. Otherwise, it's like having milk marked Kosher or meat marked Halal (I think that's what it's called; please correct me if I am wrong). It doesn't make the food religious or different in any way. It is simply a certification of being OK for certain segments of the population. | ||
| I'm Only Sleeping Citizen Username: Imonlysleeping Post Number: 103 Registered: 8-2005 |
Can we erect some poles and declare a fundamentalist-free zone? I'd move there in a heartbeat. Religious zealots are ruining the world. | ||
| MHD Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 3142 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave - is there any evidence this has occurred in NYC, LA, Chicago, Toronto, Phoenix, Memphis, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Providence, Miami, Dallas, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Johannesburg, Melbourne, Gibraltar, Antwerp, Strasbourg etc etc? | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10037 Registered: 5-2001 |
Lizziecat, I respectfully disagree. An Eruv is a religious based convenience of people of a certain faith. A symbot doesn't have to be a cross, a crescent or a star. For the record, I think it raises interesting Constitutional points, but don't have a problem with it. Aquaman, I don't know where you picked up your posting but Vatican II, I believe, made abstaining from meat and fowl on Fridays optional. Most Catholics no longer engage in this practice. Trust me, I am married to one. Where is our resident Jesuit, Finnigan, when you really need her? | ||
| e roberts Citizen Username: Wnwd00 Post Number: 361 Registered: 3-2004 |
aquaman, just for further clarification while Vatican II does not implicitly allow Catholics to eat meat on Fridays the US Bishops Conference asked for and was granted by the Holy See an exception. The exception allows US Catholics to eat meat on Fridays outside of lent if they substitute "a penitential, or even a charitable, practice of their own choosing". Within Lent however the option does not exsist and US Catholics along with Catholics worldwide are required to not eat meat in addition fasting for all those between the ages of 18-59 with some children as young as 14 also required to partipate to some degree. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 273 Registered: 11-2003 |
I very much dislike the idea of a government sanctioned boundry that limits were certain types of people live. I didn't get an answer before, but does anyone know if the proposed eruv includes the entire town? | ||
| finnegan Supporter Username: Finnegan Post Number: 263 Registered: 6-2001 |
Thread drift alert - Mayor, sorry but MBJ is right. Aquaman quoted (without attribution) from The Catholic Encyclopedia available online at newadvent.org and published in 1917. It annoys me to no end that they don't make the publication date of their information clearer at that site. Things have changed since 1917. Vatican II (1962-1965) allowed for the relaxation of the rules of fasting and abstinence. Fasting is an obligation on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday; abstinence from meat is an obligation for all the Fridays during Lent. http://www.usccb.org/dpp/penitential.htm Surely they mentioned The Second Vatican Council to you during your school days at Sorrows? | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 274 Registered: 11-2003 |
Why do people always insist on hijacking threads? If you want to discus the obligations of observing Catholics, start a new thread. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1076 Registered: 2-2004 |
I wonder if they'll accept competitive bids for putting up the Eruv. If all that's required is a thin metal wire I bet I can do it for a price less than $20K. | ||
| MBJ Citizen Username: Mbj Post Number: 65 Registered: 10-2005 |
Thanks Fin. That's what I meant by "catching up". Threads are "hijacked" simply to annoy people like you Gj. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 626 Registered: 8-2001 |
Oh, that's not wacky, when you put it that way.  Greenetree, why is discussing religion so taboo? For your information, there's an element of truth to the "heinous stereotyping" you are so disturbed by. Actually, I'd like to parse out the original message by Eliza Jackson to see where the patently offensive material is. Can someone please explain why Maplewood is lending official sanction to the quasi-mystical practices of certain orthodox Jews? Considering all the discussion M'wood gets on this message board, and in the mainstream press about religious topics, this seems like a valid question. The choice of words "quasi-mystical" are perfectly descriptive, imo. Not all people believe in this practice, not even all Jews, so it is a very superstitious practice carried out by a relatively small number of people. Why is Maplewood so willing to set up a "magic circle" (apparently called an eruv) so that these people can now carry things out of there homes on Saturday? Aside from the common misspelling, good question. A Rabbi declares a "string" a zone where believers can carry their own children on Saturdays. Why is M'wood assisting with this? Has anyone considered the demographic ramifications if this attracts the Jewish brooklyn crowd? Worth discussing. After all, the article states that the Mayor is trying to attract Orthodox Jews to Maplewood. Homes with 12 to fifteen kids? That's what "breeders" do, Greenetree. A gradual influx of orthodox until they are politically potent enough to sway local elections with bloc voting, when they will decide to defund public schools, and relax zoning rules so they can build mega-houses in which to cram their broods? They certainly do bloc vote. Is that offensive? Swaying local elections? Maybe, swaying which way, though? Do we want Maplewood to become Crown Heights? I don't, do you, Greenetree? Is it really offensive to say that a notoriously insular and tiny community pushing their peculiar beliefs onto communities outside their own because rents are getting too high? Or pointing out that they have many children? Like Irish Catholics and Mormon? Or that they disengage from public schools, request special schooling and busing at taxpayer expense? The point is that the Mayor is looking to recruit the Orthodox Community to Maplewood, and it's certainly worthy of discussion. Even the wackiness of the beliefs is worthy of discussion. Notice above how some people think they know the wacky rules of their own religion, but they don't. (You're welcome, Mr. McCheese.) |
