| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11523 Registered: 1-2003  |
Nice job misinterpreting me, aquaman. Prejudice against groups is different than against individuals, OK? Your religion of intolerance probably won't be tolerated well, but you already knew that. | ||
| gj1 Citizen Username: Gj1 Post Number: 278 Registered: 11-2003 |
The eruv can become, in effect, a form of self imposed housing segregation. I guess that's OK for some, however, IMO it's not the governments business to sanction. Others disagree, including the courts, apparently. Oh well, I hope this doesn't paint me an anti-semite. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11526 Registered: 1-2003 |
If it's self-imposed, that means it's not government imposed. So what's the problem? I think those who have offered bigoted positions here ought to provide their real life names. If their views have enough merit, they should be able to stand behind them without fear. And I'm not counting you, gj1. I think you're trying to see the logic, and I disagree, but I don't find it anti-semitic. | ||
| aquaman Supporter Username: Aquaman Post Number: 632 Registered: 8-2001 |
Religion and toleration? Har dee har har. Religions don't tolerate other religions as being alternatives to their "true way." It's either their way or amnation-day. But you already knew that. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8224 Registered: 4-1997  |
I never said praying in the public sphere. I think I meant formal use of public land/property for private religious purposes; something along the lines of a conflict with the Establishment clause of the Constitution. In effect, government is authorizing making certain geographical areas more hospitable to one group. I see that as interference with the Establishment clause even though the courts haven't. My sense is that government should NOT vote on anything to harm or condone any religion. I'm solid with the J-man on this one (Jefferson). | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11527 Registered: 1-2003 |
Trying to agree on whether religions have done more good or bad throughout history is like trying to agree on which political party better represents the people. So forget that. Religious organizations, like others, eventually work towards preserving themselves, above all other concerns. But remember there are people in them, and to imply that all religious people are categorically intolerant is inaccurate and unfair. The political climate has changed a lot recently. I don't know a lot of people who claim that theirs is the only true religion. I see a lot of "hey if it works for you..." instead. | ||
| shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 1110 Registered: 7-2002 |
So Dave, you don't think alternate-side-of-the-street-parking should be suspended on Yom Kippur? | ||
| howardf Citizen Username: Howardf Post Number: 365 Registered: 6-2001 |
There should be no problem with relgious accomodation, such as suspending parking regulations on special holidays, as long as those accomodations are given out to all and the use does not infringe on other's usage of public facilities. The issue arises when one person or group's use infringes on other legitimate uses. It should be a fair question to ask as to whether government action unfairly targets, or favors, one group over another. For example, some towns give special property tax breaks to the elderly, who have paid out over a long period, but who no longer have children in the school system. The justification is that is more economical to forego some tax income rather than have houses turn over to people with young kids who will use more governmental resources. Our town has also made specific efforts to target gay couples, on the grounds that they are high income, and tend not to have more than two kids. The CCR makes efforts to promote a racially balanced town. So is it a fair question to ask if we want to target groups identified by religious affiliation, by either making it harder, or easier, for them to settle here? I don't know, but it raises unsettling questions, not to mention hackles. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 991 Registered: 5-2003 |
You aren't supposed to drive on Yom Kippur--if you're religious--so alternate side of the street parking is irrelevant for that day. | ||
| monster Supporter Username: Monster Post Number: 1756 Registered: 7-2002  |
Just in case anyone may get the wrong idea, I tried a little humor in my post above. I meant no disrespect towards you CLK, or anyone else, but towards organized religion....? I very seldom comment towards religious posts, but on this one I just had too. If you've seen the few times that I have commented about religion, you may well have noticed that I have said I would defend yours or anyone elses right to worship (no matter what I think of it), it's one of those things that I believe, freedom, be that as it may.... | ||
| MBJ Citizen Username: Mbj Post Number: 67 Registered: 10-2005 |
"I tried a litlte humor in my post above". Very little. | ||
| mplwdian Citizen Username: Mplwdian Post Number: 123 Registered: 3-2003 |
I am disgusted but not surprised by the bigotry of numerous posters on this thread. If anyone really cares to understand this issue (and the legal requirement that Mayor Profeta and the others on the TC followed when they passed the resolution giving permission for use of public utility poles for the eruv boundaries) they should read the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, a copy of which can be found at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/013301p.pdf#search='tenafly%2C%20nj%20eruv%203rd%20circuit' I personally am thrilled the TC voted to permit the eruv and think it will be highly beneficial to our community. | ||
| bill671 Citizen Username: Bill671 Post Number: 231 Registered: 6-2002 |
Maybe we should hang rhutabaga off the stop signs in town. Again, I take the stance of let's all get along, live and let live, let's be restpectful, tolerant and go on to more important things. I do find it interesting that some who may have seemed so adamant against prayer at a sports dinner, or Christmas songs without lyrics seem to have less of a problem with this. Obviously there are very passionate opinions out there, what sometimes seems to be lacking is consistency. Why should I who may or may not believe in the significance of an Eruv have to live within it's boundaries? Again, I am not against it, actually, am probably for it - especially if it could have a positive effect on home values. Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Festive Kwanzaa, Happy New Year, or whatever blows your skirt up!!! PS: Should I say the New Years sentiments may tend as to offend me? My ancestors celebrate Samhain - the Celtic New Year - October 31/November 1st - so imposing an arbitrary date of December 31 / January 1st could be considered offensive, but am I complaining? Do the Chinese worry about it? | ||
| extuscan Citizen Username: Extuscan Post Number: 560 Registered: 6-2001 |
I dont think the Town Council should have voted at all. Government shouldn't approve or dissaprove of any religion. Government shouldn't promote a religion, and it shouldn't prevent people from celebrating their religion. If any group, religious or otherwise, wants to mark a telephone pole thats between that organization and the owners of the phone pole. If the TC voted against this, that would be unconstitutional. But they shouldn't have had to vote at all... its not thier decision to approve or dissaprove of marking a phone pole. They are already all marked with ID tags as it is. So there it is, government can't say yes and they can't say no. They can shut up. -John | ||
| sac Supporter Username: Sac Post Number: 2950 Registered: 5-2001 |
I believe that they had to take an action in order to ALLOW it to be done because it involves attaching something to public utility poles (or similar.) | ||
| steel Citizen Username: Steel Post Number: 924 Registered: 2-2002 |
extuscan John, It was the leaders of the two temples who came to the TC to ask permission as part of their needs. It is not simply a matter of marking the poles which again, does not even need to be done, (apparently) within Maplewood since the entire town is now part of the eruv. It could thus be argued that a "non-vote" or refusal to vote would have the same effect as a no and although the town may not have an obligation to help these people out of their self-imposed religious conflict I do not see the harm in doing so. ____________________________ Bill, I seems to me that there is a clear difference and thus no inconsistancy between being on a sports team, (by your example) and thus being subjected to, (if I may use so harsh a word) or made to feel required to joining in prayer versus simply going about your business in town which now has a new invisible meaning to someone else. One requires participation pressue the other does not. | ||
| CLK Supporter Username: Clkelley Post Number: 1789 Registered: 6-2002  |
monster, s'Okay. I didn't really take you for a bigot. But when you put up with mocking of your religion over & over, your hackles get raised pretty easily. aquaman: "Religions don't tolerate other religions as being alternatives to their "true way." It's either their way or amnation-day. But you already knew that." I didn't already know that. I certainly don't teach my daughter that. Shame on you for spreading around such malicious nonsense. | ||
| Urbanretreat Citizen Username: Urbanretreat Post Number: 15 Registered: 7-2005 |
The Tenafly decision makes a lot of sense, especially given the facts - basically, the city hadn't objected to religious and other non-religious postings before, so they couldn't object when the eruv was installed. The issue going forward will be whether other religious or secular groups are also allowed to install items on utility poles. At that point, a city will have a difficult time objecting, unless any applicable ordinance is incredibly well written and enforcement has been consistently even handed. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11531 Registered: 1-2003 |
extuscan, a yes vote seems to say effectively, "we don't care" or "we don't mind" which is pretty much in line with what you're saying. It's not in favor of the eruv. Thank you, Mplwdian, for the legal background. | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 188 Registered: 2-2003 |
How friggin' stupid is this, an eruv is nothing more than a way to ignore your own religious beliefs (if you happen to be an Orthodox Jew), if you have such a belief (religion) that curtails you certain freedoms, then come up with a way around those beliefs, you may as well consider yourself a hypocrite. As a Jew, I don't presume to render an opinion on eating meat during Lent. By the same token, I would expect those unfamiliar with the concept of eruvim to refrain from rendering rabbinic opinions! | ||
| Stuart0628 Citizen Username: Stuart0628 Post Number: 189 Registered: 2-2003 |
Religions don't tolerate other religions as being alternatives to their "true way." It's either their way or amnation-day. Huh? While certain religious groups believe this, it does not mean that it is true for all groups. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11536 Registered: 1-2003 |
Perhaps aquaman thought that the vocal minority speaks for the majority. That could happen if most of his contact with religion is with the "amnation-day" type of spiel. Maybe he thinks all the reasonable people he knows are irreligious!  | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 8226 Registered: 4-1997 |
And round and round we go. I think this very topic is proof enough of the wisdom of Jefferson: that government should not vote up or down on anything that promotes or hinders any religion. We're a secular nation. The visibility or invisibility of any religious artefact is irrelevant. Saying that other communities have them doesn't make it right. Was anyone right who defended slavery by arguing Georgia had it? | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2045 Registered: 5-2004  |
Lizziecat, actually the whole reason that alternate side of the street parking is suspended on Jewish holidays is BECAUSE Jews aren't supposed to drive on those days. Let's say you live in the City and you are Jewish. Monday and Tuesday are Rosh Hashanah. On Sunday you park on a Monday side. You can't move your car on Monday night so that you're on a Tuesday side, so you'd get a ticket if the rule was not suspended. | ||
| shoshannah Citizen Username: Shoshannah Post Number: 1111 Registered: 7-2002 |
Rastro, You beat me to it! Of course. That's the accommodation. Otherwise Jews would get ticketed. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1213 Registered: 3-2002 |
Extuscan and Dave, does that mean that the government should never rule on zoning issues that have an impact on places of worship? That they are not allowed to take into consideration the religious holidays in the calendar when deciding on next year's town calendar? If you insist that this facilitation of religious life is unacceptable, shall we move on to all of the other minor facilitations in town code and practice? Bill, I and others have already said why we feel that this discussion is about a different set of issues than prayer at school-linked events or the place of holiday music in the curriculum. If you didn't read it earlier in the thread, I'm not taking the time to repeat it here. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6818 Registered: 5-2001 |
As I understand it, the TC voted to accommodate the needs of existing Maplewood residents who asked for assistance in providing a means by which members of two congregations in Maplewood could carry items (including young children) on the Sabbath. Period. If some are inferring that as a result of this decision, certain people may find our town to be more attractive to them, what is the harm in that? There a lot of groups which find Maplewood attractive for a variety of reasons. Those who work in NYC find our town attractive because of the easy commute to either lower Manhattan or Midtown. Those who enjoy art, theater and/or music are attracted to our town because of the cultural resources which we have here. Those who are looking for a Currier and Ives feel to their community are attracted to the town's architecture. Those who like living in a town where most people get along well with each other most of the time regardless of any differences in race, religion, alienage, etc. are attracted to our reputation for being a place where people of widely diverse backgrounds get along well together. There are so many reasons why Maplewood has become a desireable place to live that I really don't see how the addition of an eruv to our town will do anything more than provide another in a long list of reasons why people may want to move to Maplewood. What on earth is wrong with that? | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2267 Registered: 3-2003 |
"I think this very topic is proof enough of the wisdom of Jefferson: that government should not vote up or down on anything that promotes or hinders any religion." Does it "promote" religion for Orthodox Jews to be able, completely unobtrusively, to use public property? Let's see what Jefferson had to say: "Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547 Had a majority of the Maplewood TC voted against the eruv, they would have been hindering the free exercise of religion. Why this is not obvious to you escapes me, unless I take into account the fact that you object to religion. (Your hero Jefferson did not; he objected to the Church.) I think it's odd that you have not protested at all about the highly visible evergreen-and-red-ribbon bedecked lampposts all over South Orange. What do you think these decorations on public property symbolize? Secular good cheer--and nothing else? (No red blood of Christ, no evergreen resurrection?) Yet you indulge in a load of Establishment Clause handwringing over some nearly invisible metal strips on telephone poles that will exist solely to signify to people who are looking for them that they may carry objects on their own sabbath. No one is being preached to. There is no more violation of the wall of separation here than there is in townships establishing zoning regulations for houses of worship. "We're a secular nation." No, we are not a "secular nation." We are a nation of laws which do not (or should not) promote or discourage any particular religion. Permitting eruvim does not promote Judaism, or Orthodoxy. It simply allows Orthodox observance in such a way as to intrude on the conciousness of no one who isn't Jewish. "The visibility or invisibility of any religious artefact is irrelevant." It is not remotely irrelevant. | ||
| Lizziecat Citizen Username: Lizziecat Post Number: 993 Registered: 5-2003 |
Rastro, I guess we have a different interpretation of the parking issue. I envisioned people driving to shul and being able to park on both sides of the street. My mistake, I guess. As a Jewish unbeliever, I have no problem driving, or carrying, or pushing things on the holidays. Or eating. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 5353 Registered: 12-2001  |
Did the registering of same sex couples a while back at town hall promote homosexuality? Or am I missing the thread of the argument seeing as how that is not a religion. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 2046 Registered: 5-2004 |
Lizzie, neither do I. But then, we're not the ones the eruv would be for. | ||
| wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 1901 Registered: 5-2001 |
Great post JCrohn. Good to see your amazing intellect at work in areas with which I agree.  | ||
| kathy Citizen Username: Kathy Post Number: 1216 Registered: 5-2001 |
Dave, Having an eruv does not promote religion. It does nothing to make anyone more religious or to encourage anyone to change their religion. It only affects people who are already religious, by allowing them to do certain things (like carry their wallet and keys outside of their houses) that their religion would otherwise not allow them to do. It is highly unlikely that this will have any direct impact on anyone but the Orthodox Jews that is designed to accommodate. Is that "cheating"? Well, it is an interpretation that lets religious people live in the modern world. Lizziecat: "You aren't supposed to drive on Yom Kippur--if you're religious--so alternate side of the street parking is irrelevant for that day."--Au contraire. Alternate side of the street parking requires you to move your car every day from one side to the other. If you can't drive, you can't move your car, so if the rules weren't suspended you'd get a ticket. What doesn't make sense is suspending those rules for the holidays of other religions--I presume that that is only done in order to be even-handed. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2426 Registered: 6-2002 |
Lizzie: I was the first one to mention alternate side of the street parking. The reason for the suspension as pointed out by Rastro seemed so obvious that I really didn't understand your post. Perhaps you have never lived with alternate side of the street parking in a place like NYC. You have to park your car on one side of the street on one day and then get up the next morning and move it across the street. If the day after you park is a religious holiday, you are prohibited from moving your car across the street. The suspension of alternate side of the street parking is to accomodate religious practice. So, Dave and others do you object? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2427 Registered: 6-2002 |
Has anyone ever objected to the religious prayers that begin and end the annual reorganization meeting of the Maplewood Township Committee? I'm distracted! Floating in from the other room is the voice of Jerry Stiller as Frank Costanza beginning the Festivus airing of grievances!  | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2428 Registered: 6-2002 |
I'd like to second Wendy's commendation of JCrohn's post. I'd also like to express appreciation for maplwdian's link to the Third Circuit's opinion in the Tenafly case and Susan's post of yesterday, which began "I'm depressed". No reason to be, Sue, you are absolutely correct. As to the stereotyping of the Orthodox and why they are not desirable neighbors, I must add: 1. Their kids will refuse to join the local gangs. 2. They will not open Nail Salons. 3. They will probably not send their kids to public schools while at the same time pay taxes to support those schools. 4. They may bring new businesses to Town other than nail salons. 5. They are unlikely to patronize Village Trattoria or St. James Gate, so they will not add to the waiting time for a table. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14348 Registered: 10-2001  |
Yeah, but will they man the town's cameras on Shabbat? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2429 Registered: 6-2002 |
No, but they may sell the Town photographic equipment at a bargain price. | ||
| sbenois Supporter Username: Sbenois Post Number: 14349 Registered: 10-2001 |
Why don't we just put up a picture of an Eruv? | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2430 Registered: 6-2002 |
Can't "Thou shalt not make any graven images." |
