| Author | Message | ||
     Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8206 Registered: 4-1997  |
Maybe the legal team trying to get Bach back into M/SO schools can work out a deal here? "You let us sing, we'll let you string"  | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 3409 Registered: 1-2004  |
Wow! I didn't know this thread existed until after I started mine. I didn't have a problem with it; but I am thinking since this is being allowed, then Christmas Songs should be allowed in the schools. By the way, it passed 4 to 1. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 1655 Registered: 8-2002 |
Eruvs exist in many communities. A quick glance, shows more in NY and NJ than other states -- but they're in place around the country http://www.bostoneruv.org/links.htm Doesnt seem like there's been any anarchy in these places. /p | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 4086 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'd guess West Orange would have some experience with this. There's what seems to be a fairly large orthodox community near the high school. | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 918 Registered: 2-2002 |
FYI: This is a done deal as far as the town's vote is concerned. As of last night there was a 4-1 vote in favor of permitting the eruv. The outgoing Ian Grodman voted against it largely on instinct about government being involved in "establishing" religion at all although equal weight could be made for the argument that prohibiting the simple right-of-way could easily be construed as preventing the "free expression of religion". Ian seemed to express uncertainty about the correctness of his lone dissent. Personally I think that Fred was absolutely right in his legal judgment based on precedent and certainly right in his moral consideration based on common decency, -as was Ken also correct in making sure that the permission was granted townwide so as to prevent any sort of "segregation". All this vote really does is have the town say, "Hey yeah, it's ok with us if you walk here carrying or pushing stuff, (like your kids), since you seem to need permission from us as a religious requirement to get to Temple on the sabbath." Since it is inclusive of the entire town I'm not sure that the congregants will even need to put up anything, (as modest "pathmarkers") on the utility poles, (which BTW they would have to work out separately with the utility company first since the town does not own them), but I don't really know for sure about that detail. I look forward to a nice Kosher Deli and Bakery on Springfield ave. Shalom PS: Isn't every religion's peculiarities "quasi-mystical" when observed from the outside? It is all about traditions of observance as expressions of devotion. Otherwise it would just be science with "natural laws". | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6388 Registered: 5-2001  |
Aqua - this issue was raised in a hateful, vitriolic manner. Not all Orthodox Jews have litters & run amok politically. Personally, I don't get the power of mysticism of any religion, but if people want to run around on Saturdays because there are plastic tabs on utility poles, let them. Are we talking about Orthodox or Hasidim, BTW. I don't think discussion on religion is taboo at all. Frankly, it bores me. But a month ago, we were stereotyping black residents south of Springfield. Today, it's Jews. Gays have always been fair game on this board, but with the exception of a handful of a few incredibly ignorant bigots, they are routinely taken to task. I have a problem with bigots in any form. S'OK with you? | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1077 Registered: 2-2004 |
Nothing wrong with describing large families as litters of course. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 275 Registered: 11-2003 |
Thanks for the info Steel. Reservations aside, I'm glad to see that at least the entire town will be included. Another effect of the eruv: housing will become more expensive, relatively speaking, for houses inside the eruv than outside. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11492 Registered: 1-2003  |
aquaman, what you missed in parsing the original message is the implication that once there is an eruv, it's a sure bet that Jews would start running the town in objectionable ways and would crowd their homes into unsuitable conditions. There is also the implications that all Orthodox Jews would do this if only given the opportunity. That is bigotry of the highest order. I don't need an eruv, and I don't understand a person's desire for one (in the same way I don't understand why anyone would have homosexual urges) but I'm content to let people have what they want as long as it does no harm. An eruv seems harmless, especially if those who want it bear the cost and the liability. | ||
| ess Citizen Username: Ess Post Number: 726 Registered: 11-2001 |
Just to clarify: the eruv doesn't give anyone the right to walk anywhere; it has to do with extending the boundaries of one's house and allowing, for example, women to carry their babies or push them in a stroller. The eruv does not mean that the Orthodox will be running amok in any form. Categorizing the Orthodox as having "quasi-mystical" beliefs (which seems to have been delivered in a derogatory tone, and which, actually, can be said about just about any religion that is not one's own) and as having dozens of children just perpetuates stereotypes and bigotry and divisiveness -- the very things Maplewood is supposedly known for not condoning. | ||
| Stevef Citizen Username: Stevef Post Number: 142 Registered: 5-2005  |
These are the funny hat people, right? | ||
| ess Citizen Username: Ess Post Number: 727 Registered: 11-2001 |
OK, NO. First of all, the term "funny hat people" is offensive. Second of all, "Orthodox" does not mean "Hasidic" (and the Hasidim are the sect with the much stricter forms of dress). Third, why is it acceptable to refer to the children of Orthodox Jews as "litters"? They are obeying a commandment. I have not once heard any of the notorious multiple births referred to as "litters" -- only children of Jews. More bigotry at its highest form. I echo Tom's sentiments. I don't need an eruv, personally, but it harms absolutely nobody, and actually can make some people's lives easier. Greenetree, you say that gays are fair game. I offer that Jews seem to be fair game. Even though I personally find all bigotry abhorrent, I see that the last remnant of socially acceptable bigotry is anti-Semitism. And it makes me sick. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1890 Registered: 5-2001 |
Two great posts ess. To the point and accurate, without stooping to the level of the first poster or some subsequent ones. | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6390 Registered: 5-2001 |
E- my point is that somehow it has become OK to target and stereotype on MOL. There have been offensive, anti-gay threads popping up here and there for years. The anti-black threads are more recent & today is the first anti-Semetic thread that I can remember. Not having a contest for "most oppressed", just an observation. I think perhaps the problem is that formerly illiterate and ignorant people have learned to type. Pity. Apologies on the "litter" comment to the extent that anyone thinks I was specifically referring to Hasidim. I refer to any brood of kids greater than 3 as a "litter". Including my mother's and my mother-in-law's. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 627 Registered: 8-2001 |
Greenetree, I hear ya. I didn't get the hate or vitriol. My response to your "please shut down this thread" request was to point out that there is justification for discussion. And you changed the word "brood" to "litter". I think that you're injecting more vitriol than the originator. Bigot, racist, homophobe, anti-dentite.... these are words used too early in discussions. Finally, why are you the PC Police? You have no children, you don't conform to the Jewish traditions, or any organized religion, as it seems. You aren't offended by the word Brooklyn or mystical. My point is, don't be so offended by proxy. (Did I get that right, Tom Reingold?) | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1891 Registered: 5-2001 |
greentree, you posted before I edited my response to ess (originally I was referring to her first post and then when I saw she posted again, a quick read thought I might as well make my comments about both her posts). I see your point about more gay bashing than Jew bashing but as soon as there are more observant Jews (i.e., orthodox) in the picture, many statements come out that really are quite bigoted and hateful. I did not include you in my "subsequent post" remark and didn't even notice your use of the term "litter" but accept your apology. | ||
| Fight the power Citizen Username: Tookiew Post Number: 3 Registered: 12-2005 |
Nothing racist was intended. All I suggest is that when Maplewood's officials begin to deliberately market the town to a certain demographic, we should have a public discussion as to (1) why we are targeting just one group, rather than all groups, and (2) what the effects might be on the town should Maplewood "tip" and become significantly orthodox. What changes will these bring? Do we want these changes? Why is this something forbidden to which to discuss? | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 919 Registered: 2-2002 |
More FYI: A quick google search reveals that : "On the 21 May 1877 the Eliza Jackson Home in North Hill Street in Liverpool opened. It provided homes for six "poor spinsters and widows of the Jewish faith" and carried weekly allowances for the residents. The Home was built with a bequest by Miss Eliza Jackson and an endowment fund created by her sister Henrietta Braham and vested in the Old Hebrew Congregation." Apparently an attempt at irony? PS: The town is not-at-all "marketing to a specific demographic", -the vote was a simple accession to a simple request and the right thing to do. (sheesh). | ||
| greenetree Supporter Username: Greenetree Post Number: 6392 Registered: 5-2001 |
Finally, why are you the PC Police? I apologize; I didn't realize that you missed the election. | ||
| The Oracle of MOL Supporter Username: Oracle_of_mol Post Number: 174 Registered: 2-2005  |
It's been highly entertaining to watch the recurring progression of Orthodox Jewish enclaves in your country over the past twenty years, starting with one or two "pioneer" families moving into thriving communities, eventually resulting in massive influxes of same, irrevocably altering the political, social, and economic landscape. As Brett observed, this is going to get good. Wait till the mandatory singing of "Dreidel, Dreidel" at Holiday Concerts becomes the subject of a Stratechuk lawsuit... Go in peace. --The Oracle of MOL | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11495 Registered: 1-2003 |
I think it's not quite offense by proxy, because Jews are Jews, whether or not we observe the religious practices. Bigotry against orthodox Jews affects orthodox Jews first, then other Jews, then all human beings. It's in the same way bigotry against blacks or gays hurts us all. | ||
| Stevef Citizen Username: Stevef Post Number: 143 Registered: 5-2005 |
If the walls set up are metaphoric, why must physical objects be used to create them? It makes no sense. It is catering to a religion and it needed to be discussed more before approved. Sad day for Maplewood leadership. (The hat people thing was a joke. Look at my hat.) | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 984 Registered: 5-2003 |
I just told Mr. Lizziecat that Maplewood is going to have an eruv, and he said "who cares?" Which is exactly how I feel. If people feel that they need such a thing, let them have it, or let them sell indulgences in a storefront, or paint pentagrams in the crosswalks. As long as nobody rams their religious BS down my throat I don't care. Excuse me, I have to put up my Festivus pole. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1893 Registered: 5-2001 |
It's no more catering to a religion than allowing a church or synagogue to be built in a town. It's no more catering to a religion than seeing the kosher symbol on all the food you likely have in your unkosher and/or non-Jewish home. And by the way, I'm a not very observant Jew who attends a conservative synagogue quite frequently. Your sad day comment is gross. | ||
| Fruitcake Citizen Username: Fruitcake Post Number: 248 Registered: 9-2003 |
Religious beliefs are quasi-mystical? What's quasi about them? They are completely mystical, for all religions. That's the whole point. That's what makes them religious. | ||
| ess Citizen Username: Ess Post Number: 728 Registered: 11-2001 |
Greenetree - I accept the litter comment apology as well. It was more a lashing out against those who stereotype Jews than your remark (and I see that you were referring to another post). All forms of hate and bigotry are unacceptable. Not just gay-bashing, not just anti-Semitism, but all of it. It's not ok to target and stereotype on MOL - no more here than in the real world. | ||
| Stevef Citizen Username: Stevef Post Number: 144 Registered: 5-2005 |
Churches and synagogues exist on public land? Wow, new one to me. Food is a publically owned item? Again, you know more than I do apparently! To heck with secular America. Let's just divide up public space between the Christians and Jews and let Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist Americans look on in complete and utter bafflement. You people are wacko. Shame on you. May a nest of vipers land in your bathtub. | ||
| Joe Citizen Username: Gonets Post Number: 1078 Registered: 2-2004 |
I have no idea what to make of Greentree's litter apology. I'm probably misintrepeting it but it sounds like, "I would never refer to a large Hasidic family as a litter, but all other large families are fair game, because I come from a large family too." It's pretty demeaning. There are things I call family and friends, jokingly, which I wouldn't call others. I humbly suggest confining the term "litter" to your immediate family. | ||
| Urbanretreat Citizen Username: Urbanretreat Post Number: 12 Registered: 7-2005 |
I don't care whether it goes up or not, nor do I care if there is a manger placed the lawn of town hall, nor whether we place druidic symbols on the trees in the park. What I can't figure out, however, is if people are saying it is not a religious symbol. Don't Orthodox Jews want to install/erect the eruv precisely to enable them to abide by their religious beliefs? Would it be OK if the town agreed to allow Muslims to place, at their own cost, prayer mats on street corners so they could pray when it was necessary? What is the distinction - is that walking in public along the eruv is not a religious act? I don't see the distinction. The government is allowing publicly owned space to be used to further the beliefs of a particular religion. Again, it doesn't bother me if it goes up, but I just hope people are consistent in their views on public displays of religion. Basically it seems some are saying that as long as it is my religion, it is OK in public. See fundamentalists in the South. | ||
| extuscan Citizen Username: Extuscan Post Number: 559 Registered: 6-2001 |
I've always wondered what the point is of having a religious restriction, if you create very wide (town wide) exception. Why don't they just declare the entire county, or even the tri state area as an eruv. But just to stir up the pot... and perhaps a little toungue in cheeks... this is a very creative way to get white people to live near Springfield Ave. -John | ||
| AlleyGater Citizen Username: Alleygater Post Number: 1055 Registered: 10-2004 |
I really can't read this thread because it really is upsetting me. I agree with Greenetree whole heartedly. The person who posted this acted like a troll. Coming in, stirring up the pot, and no longer involved in the discussion. The way the topic was initiated smelled DOWN RIGHT RACIST to me. You don't want this town to be over-run with those Crown Heights visible Jews do you? DISGUSTING. Swap that comment with Blacks, Hispanics any religion or race and I think you all would be offended. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11496 Registered: 1-2003 |
If a government a cross on a hilltop for all to see, that would amount to telling the people that they should worship Jesus. An eruv, being invisible, doesn't seem like proselytizing to me. Jews generally abhor proselytizing. So I don't see it as government endorsing or establishing a religion. As to why one would want an eruv -- or restrictions and exceptions -- in the first place, it's hard to say, but I don't think ridiculing them for it is respectful. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11497 Registered: 1-2003 |
And we've all neglected to point out how the term "sucking up" is pretty offensive, too. | ||
| I am the Straw Supporter Username: Strawberry Post Number: 6545 Registered: 10-2001 |
Maybe the Mayor is trying to get a deal on a diamond or possibly some home entertainment equipment. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 1516 Registered: 5-2001 |
(above posted by Dave) Amen to that. | ||
| Valley_girl Citizen Username: Valley_girl Post Number: 87 Registered: 12-2004 |
Oh, that is totally cheating!!! (I just looked up what an eruv is!) | ||
| campbell29 Citizen Username: Campbell29 Post Number: 285 Registered: 4-2002 |
If the eruv is constructed, and there's a large influx of Orthodox, I guess that guy with the minyan problem will have it solved. What does an eruv look like, anyway? BTW - has anyone ever noticed that on certain, usually rural highways there will sometimes appear 3 crosses, one large and yellow - the other 2 smaller and blue? What are they? | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1897 Registered: 5-2001 |
And you were ordained by which seminary school Valley_girl? Look, I don't subscribe to much of the orthodox beliefs, feminist that I am, but to call it cheating is simplistic at best and judgmental at worst. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14325 Registered: 10-2001  |
How is it possible that the Eruv, which was the minor religious brouhaha last night, has completely obscured the fact that Maplewood is being threatened with a lawsuit if the Menorah - or any religious symbol - goes up in Ricalton Square? Doesn't anyone watch the TC meetings? | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1898 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually, I caught that part of the TC meeting last night, S. The whole shebang. The guy wanted to put up a sign as big as the menorah and/or the proposed creche about how religions have done harm to our society. I admired his spunk. What did you think of it all? I'm sure Art G. didn't appreciate staying up later than planned to be awarded his liquor license. Congrats to Here's to the Arts for getting it, btw. |
