BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 May 09 - 06:20 AM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST,Mike
Date: 18 May 09 - 02:38 AM

I too am in Ramapo, and the issue is not as clear cut as presented. There are two issues, one is the density issue and the other is Tax free housing. Most of the tax free base in Ramapo is "public" meaning schools and hospitals open to all. But the largest by far of the "residents" living tax free are in the religious community. They use RLUIPA to force changes and live tax free. That creates additional hostility. I live in Montebello and a new Temple was built and it is an asset to the community. BUT, only the Rabbi lives on the grounds, not 300 "students" who use town facilities. That is the issue. A ward system would allow all communities to be represented. Congress is not elected "at large", all views need a voice in the town.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST,Fieldvole
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 08:29 PM

Rabbi-Sol.

If I/we tried to interfere with your religion by asking/telling you
to change or alter it, because we didn't like the way you do things,
we would be politely told to $%&* off and mind our own business,
wouldn't we? We would also be out of order in doing so, because it
IS your own private business, and quite rightly so.

So, as I said in my previous post, why are you asking the local
community to change their private/public lives to suit YOUR religious
beliefs?

This thread has dragged on and on, covering varying aspects of the
case, and basically getting nowhere, it never will get anywhere as
long as one part of the community is trying to force the other part
to change it's long established laws, (which you came to the area to
enjoy the benefits of). Sorry, but as I said before, you shouldn't
be putting the residents of this community in the position of having
to defend their well thought out zoning laws against religious belief.
In other words a public issue against a private one. It can't be done!


As you well know, there is no defense against the religion argument,
(which is why you are using it, and shouldn't be) because however
you try to defend yourself against it, it will be construed as
racialism. (If that is the correct term, but you know what I mean)

*********************************************************

Let us go into the realms of the ridiculous for a moment.

1. My aged mother, who lives near you, has an ingrowing toenail, she
can't walk very far and needs a local store. SORRY Rabbi-Sol but you
will have to give up a small portion of your front yard to build her one.

2. The local people need a drive in cinema / bowling alley / shopping
mall. SORRY Rabbi-Sol but it is going to be built right down the street from you. You are going to lose your pleasant outlook so that
the local people can have what they want. WELL TOUGH LUCK.

*********************************************************

This is what you are really saying to your local community isn't it?

Would YOU like it? I think not! (Especially as you have zoning laws to stop this sort of thing).

As I said before, if you can't do it within the existing rules,
(without bringing the big religious cannon into the battle), then
you would be better looking elsewhere for the things you need.

I am sorry if I sound nasty about this, but there are too many people
trying to force other people into doing what they don't want to do,
and using the religion / color gambit is the worst way of doing it.
As I said before, laws are laws. Once you get / if you get this
through, who will be the next group to flout the laws?
They did it, why can't we? they will say. And yet another part of our lives, laws and freedom will be lost.

No Rabbi, I appreciate that you are driven by your religious beliefs,
BUT, they ARE *YOUR* religious beliefs, no one elses, not the community's or maybe even your next door neighbours. They are YOURS.
Why should the rest of the community take them on board?

SO...if you feel you must fight the laws, then fight them cleanly,
do it within the existing laws which have served you well for so long.
And if you lose, well, you gave it your best shot and you must think
again and move on to other ways of getting what you need.

Right, rant over, it's getting late here and I must go.
Whatever you do or however it ends up, I wish you well.

Best wishes

Fieldvole

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:27 PM

I'd say that "your priest man", or "your brickie man" would make sense enough. More typically the qualification might come after as in "your man in the street". But "your man with the bodhran" or "your bodhran man" both would sound natural enough.

Anyway, either way, I'd have thought that, over here, the expression doesn't in itself carry any sense of disrespect.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 04:49 PM

McGrath of H: We got off topic here---check the quote. It may be a difference in the US interpretation of such a comment vs a British one---or just truly unintelligent way of communicating---does this make sense to you: your priest man --or, how about, your minister man, etc;? Again--might be the difference in the two countries expressions.

As to dialect---well, perhaps my error there since Greg seemed to be using some sort of southern colloquialism of poor taste---but see above--if I am wrong in his residence then the joke falls flat and is out of place on my part.

But--hurry back anyway---heah?

Bill H

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 04:13 PM

Y'all hurry back, heah?. But only when y'all can have discourse in an intelligent manner. See- I can do dialect also.


I didn't realize that the dialict heard in Cornwall, UK, is so similar to the dialect of the southern states of the US. Imagine that. Learn something new every day. Do the Cornish really say y'all?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 03:28 PM

"Your man" isn't an offensive way of referring to a third party. "I saw your man down the shops yesterday". It just means "the man we are talking about", and it's a very common expression, especially, but not exclusively, in Irish conversation.

Why should it be seen as insulting to insert "Rabbi" in the middle to clarify which "your man" is being referred to?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Once Famous
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 08:01 PM

Actually Bill H., I kind of heard Greg S. expounding "well I'll be dipped in sheeeeit."

Thank you ladies and gentlemen for your attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 07:56 PM

To start---Greg S: "Rabbi, Man" I go no further---intelligent discussion is already lost I see. Y'all hurry back, heah?. But only when y'all can have discourse in an intelligent manner. See- I can do dialect also.

Dave the G: I, too, have had those questions and thoughts---and, hopefully, Sol will explain them. From his point of view. I feel we evolve and we progress---and laws and practices should change to fit the evolvement of society. For the true believers one must ask, then, if God created man, gave him thoughts, etc; does it not follow that the practices of "man" will also evolve and that will be in the way it should be. The way ---if you believe in the Almighty---He planned.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 06:48 PM

I loved that stuff earlier in the message, where your Rabbi man explained that God says you can't ask someone to turn on the light, but you can say "It's dark in here" and hopes he gets the message. And apparently there are people who believe this in all seriousness. The mind, as they say, boggles. You'ld think God would be too busy running the universe to have time to take the piss out of credulous people. (credulous men I mean. Women aren't allowed to hear about it, apparently...though you can see why. They might laugh).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 05:29 PM

Communities evolve and laws sometimes have to be changed to fit the new realities that have come into existence

and just how does this apply to Jewish orthodoxy Rabbi-Sol?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 05:16 PM

Uncle Dave,
               
             As I said once before; Communities evolve and laws sometimes have to be changed to fit the new realities that have come into existence. Otherwise, people in the South would still be living under the Jim Crow segregationist laws.

                                           SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 03:23 PM

I am reminded of a sign in a store (forget what kind now), which said:

"Failure to plan on your part does not constitute an emergency on our part."

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 02:14 PM

Guest,
       When we first move into these neighborhoods we are not aware of the zoning restrictions until the Synagogue is already a fait accompli. After all most of us come from NYC where anything goes as far as zoning is concerned.
                                              SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Amos
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 08:37 AM

What's wrong with that? I would love to be rescued from my own foolishness!! lol!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Oct 04 - 08:21 AM

Fine, so why would you move into a neighbourhood where this evoloution would be restricted. Seems to me you want be rescued from your own foolishness.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 01:49 PM

In Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods, synagogues are not planned for. They always evolve as the need grows. Most start out as a quorum (minyan) of 10 males that start praying regularly in some private homeowner's basement. As more people move in to the area, the home based synagogue suddenly outgrows its acommodations and then has to find a more permanent home. This is the only type of Evolution that Orthodox Jews believe in. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Oct 04 - 09:12 AM

Why would someone whose religion requires them to be near a place of worship move into a neighbourhood where there is clearly no place of worship near by ? Further, why would you then expect the community to change the rules when you chose to live there. Also, Is a walk of a mile or so considered too long. Perhaps an accommodation could be made by putting a church on the edge of the community. People should look to the law to save them from a lack of foresight. They should also not call existing laws bigotry because they haven't gotten their own way.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: musicmick
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 09:32 PM

I am pleased to announce that, as of 9:27 PM, October 4th, 2004, God is officially on my team. Excercising His right of free agency, He has agreed to a multi-year deal with options. From this date and time, anyone claiming that God is on their side will be hearing from my lawyers. Have a nice day.

                Mike Miller

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 04:13 PM

"God is on my side!" "God is on my side!"   "No, God is on my side!

God is schizophrenic, I guess.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 04 Oct 04 - 02:39 PM

Musicmic--I guess my pronunciation stems from my Austrian background--more German style Yiddish I guess.
    You are right about the "if there were 1.... etc;" I heard it as 10 and 10 different opinions. So---an anecdote of course. Years back I produced some fund raising concerts---did it myself and asked for colunteers where needed--sound, advtsg, etc; All worked out fine. A local Conservative group is putting on a concert later this year and asked me to consult with them---I went to their first meeting----what a commotion. Everyone had an opinion on how to do it. Simple things became complicated. I ended up volunteering to come for the final one (meeting) and set it up on the day of the show---makes life a lot simpler.

    Well, as to your other thought---true---Dylan did get that right---everyone has God on their side---or so they think.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: musicmick
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 09:45 PM

Chaver Hahn, in my family it was pronounced lekh in kup. There is a saying that if there are two Jews, there will be three kinds of Yiddish. My point was that Orthodox Jews seem to object to limitation of religious expression except when they are doing the limiting. Of course, they have God on their side so who are we to object.

               Mike Miller

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: MaineDog
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 08:23 PM

The first amendment is directed to Congress: "Congress shall make no law--" not to local governments. This was done so that states and localities will have discretion in matters of religion... in those days, I think, different states had different religious majorities, not exactly establishments, but preferences, at least. We also have freedoms of association, and assembly, which could tend to exclude certain people in order to maintain their identity. Let's assume that you and your Orthodox community had established a township that met all of your needs, and then the ACLU decided to move in and say thay you were violating the rights of Muslims, how would you feel then?
In America, rights and freedoms must be balanced against one and another, and although religious freedom is very important, it cannot always win out, because we are a pluralistic democracy, not a theocracy.
I very much hope that we all can learn to live together in peace, and I certainly wish no one ill will.
MD

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 08:12 PM

Artbrooks:   Which is similar to the pragmatism of the U S, U K, and other nations with similar constitutional guidlines. This brings us back to my original point---A Jewish State with secular majority that compromises with religious parties (similar to Dems/Repubs/3d parties in the US) to achieve funcionality that can keep the nation moving on.   

Surely if the, say, Satmars had their way Israel and perhaps the rest of the world as we know it would be long gone. Intransigence never has a happy ending.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: artbrooks
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 08:01 PM

The reason that governmental bodies in Israel follow the "rules" of the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox is not because Israel is a Jewish state or because these are somehow necessary to maintain its Jewish identity. Rather, it is for a very pragmatic reason: Israel has a parliamentary governmental system and no political party in recent decades has held a majority in its own right. The party with the largest number of seats must go into coalition with others to establish a government, and the religious parties have shown that they are pretty much willing to ally with anyone as long as their particular interests are satisfied.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 07:54 PM

Bill,
       Your Orthodox friend was wrong. The same way that I am prohibited from doing certain things on the Sabbath, another Jew, whether he is observant or not is similarly prohibited. If I ask another Jew to do a prohibited act on the Sabbath for me, it is the same as if I had done it and it would be my sin. Similarly, I can not even ask a Gentile directly to do something for me ON the Sabbath. I would have to arrange it with him BEFORE the Sabbath. In the case of a non life threatening emergency or communal need I can hint to the Gentile on the Sabbath but can not ask him directly. If I want the light put on I would have to say "It is dark in the house" and he would have to understand by himself what I want him to do. Of course, if it is a life threatening emergency even a Jew can violate the Sabbath.   SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:48 PM

Ebbie:   I never knew that about the Amish--=-the variance in the power sources ( propane/oil etc;) Just goes to confirm my earlier post---though I do find it incongruous to see Hassidim dressed in their traditional garb speaking on their cell phones.

One might be interested in seeing a film of a few years back called: A Price Above Rubies.   I had thought at the time it was a documentary--it was not. It was with very mainstream and famous actors and much despised by the Hassidic community. Well worth viewing since it does show both sides---the faithful and the secular.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:29 PM

We surely have embarked on a theological discussion . I believe that can lead to understanding from many sides if we keep open minds.

The good Rabbi made comments re: raison de etre for the State of Israel.   He also made reference to being understanding by not driving through Meah Shirim. He surely is correct there. The problem presents itself in the demand for the shutdown of ElAl and/or public transport on that day.   Since the majority of the nation is secular it would seem to me that they should not be made to abide by the religious minority's rules.

Musicmic makes that very valid point---the definition of the State as used by the UN in its creation.
By the way--Musicmic---it is Loch in Kopf (Hole In The Head).

It is not generally known, I believe, that there is a particular Hassidic sect (Satmar) that are very anti-Israel.   They consider it a secular and illegal place. Their belief is that only Messiah can bring us into the "Promised Land".

So--to bring it to a conclusion---it comes down to beliefs. I know that is a simple truism. Perhaps the dichotomy is in that those who have "faith" ie: total belief in something are on one side and those with a more pragmatic and questioning philosophy are on the other. All religions have their "faith". They all believe they are the holders of "truth" Therein lies the problem. So, here on earth, it must be adjudicated by the rule of secular law. Given that fact---and given the definition of Jewish by Jews and also by the UN (vis a vis Israel) --we have to accept Israel as a Jewish Secular State. Probably the best solution all around

One last thought about the electrical use mention.   I have never understood why it is OK to accept the benefits of the product provided you are not involved in its manual operation. I am reminded of an Orthodox friend of mine from many years ago who asked me to hold his cash on the Sabbath as we walked about town--so if he wanted something--say ice cream--I would purchase it. You are not a sinner if you receive the benefit as long as someone else did the deed--whatever it is.

I cannot argue with "faith"--but logic????


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 06:07 PM

'Old Order' Amish equate, pretty much, to Orthodox Jews, it seems. The Amish do not permit themselves - or each other- to own motor driven vehicles but they will hire non-Amish or people who were reared Amish but no longer are 'observant', if they never formally joined the Amish church. (Usually between the ages of 14 to 18).)

For some reason, they also distinguish between gasoline and electric power. For instance, it is OK to use gas generators to run dairy 'milkers' but it is not OK to run electric lines to one's home. It is Ok to use oil lamps or to use propane to fuel your reading lamps.

As to families, the Amish too prefer to have their offspring and other extended family living close by. Often,in the old days, the father had enough property to deed certain portions to various offspring on which to build. In addition, it has always been the practice to have a amsller house built close to the family home for the eventual use of the patriarch and matriarch. However, the Amish tend to have large families and today it is much harder to find or afford farms so it is no longer possible in many cases to practice "the old ways". So, many more young Amish men become mechanics (small engine) or factory workers these days, rather than the traditional farmer or carpenter.

Last winter in my travels I visited several Amish communities and I was surprised to learn that the old ways are still alive to a certain vital degree.

No wonder I thought for the first few years of my life that I and my family were Jews!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: musicmick
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 05:14 PM

The good rabbi's argument is, at best, self serving and, at least diversionary. He agrees that the vast majority of Israelis are non-observant (that's OrthodoxSpeak for non-Orthodox) but feels that the Orthodox Rabbinate should make laws based upon ancient mores that are rejected by everyone except the 12-15% who, coincidentally, agree with him. Israel is and was intended to be a refuge for the Jews of the world (So sayeth the UN in 1947) and a Jew was defined by birth, not belief. His suggestion that Jews are all like him is ludicrous.
He doesn't define my Judaism. Neither do those laws that favor his anachronistic views. It is hard enough for the Gentile world to accept a Jewish state without describing that state as Iran without the veils.
I am not saying that the rabbi is duplicitous. He is just wrapped in the clutches of self rightiousness and, in such a position, he is unable to think objectively. But I do wish him, as I wish you all, a year of peace and happiness.

               Mike Miller

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 02:02 PM

I believe that in France Muslim girls are starting to wear those wigs in school, to comply with the same religious rules, now that scarves are banned.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: HuwG
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 01:54 PM

I believe that the comparative lack of tension between Jewish and other communities in Britain has been the Jewish willingness to pay lip service to their own religious laws and the sometimes restrictive laws of the land and local by-laws, while subverting all of them.

Sometimes this has resulted in wry humour. As an example, in Golders Green and Hampstead, one could often see well-dressed Jewish ladies with gorgeous flamboyant hair styles, out shopping. The flamboyant hair was of course a wig, designed to preserve the "modesty" of the lady, by not showing a strand of her own.

I learned that morsel of information from a girl I knew who stayed with her sister and brother-in-law there while the brother-in-law served at the Army's postal service centre in nearby Mill Hill Barracks. Another acqaintance is the son of a woman who was employed to light fires for Jewish families in Cheetham Hill in Manchester, if these were needed on the Sabbath.

As you can imagine, none of the Jewish people in question could be described as "Orthodox", even if they did dress in the black clothing associated with orthodoxy, especially on the Sabbath.

In Britain, any restrictive religious sect is increasingly suspected of sanctimony, even those home-grown. By comparison, those whose emphasis is on internal spirituality rather than external display of righteousness are more respected. The Rastafarians are generally better regarded for example, than the rigid "Wee wee Frees" in Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 01:20 PM

Electrical use do to the conscious efforts and positive actions of an individual. Not autonomous actions over which we have no control.
SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 01:04 PM

"electrical use" - but everything involves electrical use, when you get down to it. Even breathing and thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 03 Oct 04 - 12:52 PM

When Israel first became an independent state in 1948, there was a famous Hebrew folk song that was poular called "Dundai". To quote a line from the song " Eretz Yisroel belee Torah, he kegoof belee neshamah". For those who do not understand Hebrew, the translation is:
"The land of Israel without the Torah, is like the body without the soul". Although Israel is a democracy it is not at all like the USA. It is above all things the JEWISH homeland. The Torah and its laws are what sets the Jewish people apart, and makes them unique from all other people. It is what has enabled us to resist assimilation and has helped us to survive throughout all the generations of persecution that we have endured. Basic to our faith is the definition of "Who is a Jew ?", which can only be defined by Torah law as interpreted by the Rabbinical authorities. Marriage and Divorce as well at matrilineal vs. patrilineal descent, are part of that definition. The laws of citizenship and the right of inheritance stem from these Biblical laws. Similarly, observance of the Sabbath (Shabbat), is the defining commandment of Judaism. Take away these concepts and you cut out the very heart and soul of Judaism, making Israel, just another ordinary nation in the world without its unique Jewish character. That is why it is important that public entities, such as the transit system or El Al, not operate on the Sabbath. Nobody forces individuals to be religious or observant. To prove this point, the secular Jews in Israel far outnumber the observant ones. One should however be sensitive to the feelings of those who want to observe the Sabbath, by not driving vehicular traffic through areas such as Meah Shearim which is 99% ultra orthodox. People are entitled to peace and quiet on their day of rest, without being disturbed. It is no worse than the situation in Bergen County, N.J. where the residents have overwhelmingly voted to maintain the Sunday blue laws and keep the stores and malls closed on Sundays. SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: musicmick
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 11:19 PM

Perhaps the good rabbi will offer his opinion on those areas in Israel where the Orthodox have decreed that the Sabbath will not be sullied by cars and enforce this decree by roping off the public thoroughfares. Like the vast majority of Jews in Israel, I am not Orthodox and I can say, without reservation, that, when the Orthodox have authority, they are less than tolerant of non-Orthodox practices.
(The multi-party makeup of Israeli politics insure that no party gets a clear majority so the National Religious Parties join coalitions and wield power beyond their numbers). They successfully opposed bus services on Shabbat. They determine who is entitled to citizenship and right of inheritance. They tried to ban Shabbat TV but the Israelis drew the line at missing their weekly dose of Raymond Burr.
In this, present, controversy, I feel the faint aura of hypocracy. This, we need like a lekh in kup.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 09:23 PM

I am back on line after a 3 day hiatus, due to my celebration of the Jewish Succos (Tabernacles) Holiday and the Sabbath which came in on the very next day. Now to answer some questions.

Although riding on the Sabbath was originally prohibited to give the animals a rest, the prohibition of riding in an automobile is for entirely different reasons. It mainly falls under the prohibition of lighting a fire on the Sabbath. It involves combustion as well as electrical use, as well as carrying in the public domain, all which are prohibited acts on the Sabbath.

The law is, if the Synagogue is beyond walking distance, or the person is too infirm to walk, one must pray at home rather than violate the Sabbath.

The concept of "Eruv" is as follows. One can build a fence which demarcates the difference between a public domaine in which carrying or pushing strollers is prohibited, and a private domaine in which such acts are permitted. A public domaine is defined as a place in which 600,000 people can pass through in the course of one day. That is why Eruvs are not permitted in Manhattan or most parts of Brooklyn.
They are permitted however in areas such as Monsey, where I live. An "Eruv" is a symbolic fence. It is constructed by using the telephone or electrical wires that are located on utility poles. In order to be valid, the wire must pass directly over the pole. In cases where the wire goes alongside the pole a "lechi" or firring strip of wood (approximately 16 inches in length), must be nailed to the side of the pole on which the wire is attached, so that theoretically if the strip were extended all the way to the top, the wire would pass over it. In this way, a designated area enclosed by the wires is now defined as private domaine. Written permission must be obtained from the secular local governing authorities in the area as well as the utility companies that own the poles. Also, the area enclosed can not contain a major express highway or passenger rail line. In our area, the "Eruv" can not encompass the New York State Thruway or the Palisades Intersate Parkway, for fear that the 600,000 population limit might be breached.

Orthodox Jewish law which is based upon the Torah as handed down to Moses at Mt. Sinai, is immutable. There may be different interpretations of that law but the basic concepts can never be changed. Driving, or riding in an automobile on the Sabbath, unless it is done for a life saving emergency, is one of those concepts.

                                                SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 11:08 AM

jOhN from Hull asked why religion could not be updated, and told us that he understood the no-riding on the Sabbath was originally to give the animals a rest.   Interesting.

I once was talking with some Orthodox Jewish friends about the kashrut food laws, and I made the comment that I thought they were originally because of (in the case of not eating pork) avoiding trichinosis, and (in the case of the milk/meat divide, "not seething the calf's meat in its mother's milk") humanitarian reasons.

His reply was emphatic: "NO! We observe these rules because God said so!

The point is that the believers will deny your rationale, jOhN, however right or wrong you are. And of course your rationale, while possible or even persuasive, can't be proved, any more than the doctrine, "because God so commanded" can.

And even supposing that the Sabbath no-riding rule was humanitarian in origin (which we don't know), or the no-pork rule was health oriented (which we don't know), these rules now serve what I'll call "a liturgical purpose" (maybe wrong language, but it will serve for this purpose) for observant Jews, and besides that they serve as a means of maintaining community identity, a sense of "us" versus "them". Jews have maintained their cohesiveness, their sense of who they are, for thousands of years while scattered into many foreign cultures, many foreign lands, in part by such practices, and one cannot expect their attachment to these rules to go away even if you were to prove a historical health or humanitarian or other non-religious origin.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Grab
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 09:32 AM

I'm failing to understand this. Since when was there a religious requirement for families to live next door to each other? Granted, some people do want to, but if there's no houses available then tough titties. If the zoning laws required you to break the rules of your religion, then you might have a case, but this is simply personal preference and nothing else. You can't shout "discrimination" just because you can't find a house in your price range near your family/place of work/favourite restaurant/pub/whatever.

Now the synagogue issue, I have some sympathy with you, although I still don't see why a religion should ban driving a car on the Sabbath. But that case is done and dusted.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST,freda
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 09:08 AM

i just typed up a big response to this one, which went into a black hole when mudcat went down! but thanks to mudcat's back door, here i am to try again!

(back door? try..http://207.103.108.105/threads.cfm)

i worked in the housing co-op movement in nsw for many years. i live in an inner city artists co-op in sydney, which we designed and created ourselves, selecting architects and builders to create the community we wanted. our co-op spans between two streets, we have a huge open back yard, and a communal laundry, office and small hall.

There are around 50 co-ops in city and rural areas in NSW with between 5-30 dwellings per co-op. Some co-ops are located in one building while others live in separate houses within one suburb.there are several warehouse conversions in the inner city. Co-ops here have been formed by people from a range of backgrounds as diverse as the Hmong from Laos, South Sea Islanders, people from Latin America, Arabia, India, Vietnam, and the Philipines. we have co-ops for older people, co-ops for students, co-ops for singles, co-ops for families.

i have been involved in pushing for planning which allows for different groupings, more connections and less isolated, nuclear forms of living. there has been a lot of negotiation with different councils over time. the inner city council that assisted us has since been amalgamated into a much larger one. but the local council was good, and worked positively with us and our architects. as we live in an area of high density housing, we managed to get what we had hoped for, with some concessions on both sides.

in my co-op, we each have our own self contained apartment, except for the laundry. in my experience, communal living works best when people have as few rules as possible to restrict them. Some set ups ive seen include families buying houses a street away - close, but not too close, or people with adjoining back yards who open it all up (we've done this here). you would be surpised how people who have the same philosophy can interpret that very differently.

here in Oz, we call people who are opposed to innovative housing NIMBYs (Not in My Back Yard) - i guess thats probably an international term. i look forward to a century of better housing in all ways, both in building design and in creative planning. Rabbi-Sol, there are so many architects who want to work with people to design more creative forms of living. but when youre dealing with pushing for different styles of living, what you experience as a religious or cultural issue, others are interpreting as a planning issue. ít is also worth looking at the restrictions, and seeing what can be achieved within them. We achieved a great community by playing a few games, not challenging certain things, but achieving them without confrontation. another group of artists never made their community happen, because they werent prepared to compromise.

good luck with it all,

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 08:38 AM

I dont see a willingness to compromise on either side here, which is possibly why you are in this position, life is full of compromises.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: HuwG
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 07:39 AM

A little belatedly, here is a web site dealing with the North-west London Eruv.

I really should have looked at this before posting earlier, no doubt Rabbi Sol will be rolling his eyes at my fleeting glimpse of the blindingly obvious. In particular, there are many such areas already in the US, though they are a comparatively recent innovation in Britain.

The visible signs of the NW London eruv are small marker posts and wires or tapes (which I believe are secured to buildings); they are certainly not obtrusive and do not in any way affect the activities or access of non-Jewish people in the area.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 07:19 AM

The zoning laws are just an excuse to keep us from becoming the majority here, which we soon will be.

I see, it's about winning and you want the opposition to give in as soon as possible.

The idea of freedom of religion seems to go very far in the USA. It is one of several constitutional rights in Germany and in some cases these rights clash with each other. Then the freedom of religion has to stand back sometimes. For instance, several church bells have to be silent at night time, for that interferes with the right of the citizens of no bodily harm done to them. And a several times interrupted sleep can lead to bodily harm. It's a matter of compromise, however, and nobody over here would be able to stop the midnight bells at Christmas with that argument, for Christmay only comes once a year.

Tolerance and compromise is two-sided. What would you offer as a compromise, Rabbi Sol?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: greg stephens
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 01:19 AM

I have been doing a lot of musical work recently at Rook How in Cumbria, a Quaker Meeting House in Cumbria, which doubles as a hostel where we take asylum seekers for musical weekends away from the lousy dump in Stoke they normally have to live in. Anyway,Rook How was built by the Quakers miles from anywhere to serve as a central point for Quakers to meet from all over the southern lake district.(it is 2 miles from a pub and 5 miles from a shop). And they used to walk in for meetings from fifteen miles away. This does not add anything constitutional to the arguments, but it does show that if you make a little effort, you can walk to services quite a distance from home.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 11:40 PM

jOhn, when I become Emperor of the Universe, you can be my representative for Earth...I, too, would 'relax the rules a bit'....

but my friends who practice these religions tell me they really do not WISH the rules relaxed. The feeling seems to be that certain hardships or rules that test resolve and committment are good for us, and are a part of the routine.

The problem, as we see, comes when YOUR rules require accommidation on MY part.

I wonder just how serious Rabbi Sol's reply was to greg stephens rhetorical question about "folk music" being a religion? It would be fun to see THAT tested in court!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 10:21 PM

I reckon religon ought to move with the times a bit.
I'm no expert on this exact travel to synagogue by feet only thing [and there is a similar rule in Islam ie you should walk to the mosque], but I was told that the original rule was brought in to give animals a rest, ie , thousands of years ago folk would ride everywhere on donkeys horses etc every day, nowadays we have cars, buses, bikes, motobikes etc, none of these things existed when the rules where made up.

Also other stuff, like in Islam all alcohol is banned, but recent medical research has proven that a little bit of alcohol is better than none at all, ie 1 pint or 1 glass of wine a day.

And them lot waht won't have blood transfusions, ie in the olden days drinking blood was stupid, as there were no fridges, and you would get ill.
And when blood transfusions was first invented, they didn't know about blood groups etc, so people died, but nowadays its all put in groups and tested, and heated up to kill germs etc.

If I was in charge of religon, i would relax the rules a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: HuwG
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 08:26 PM

I believe that about ten years ago or thereabouts, the Jewish community in Golders Green (north London, UK), declared part of that area to be an "eruv". Naturally, I don't fully understand any part of Jewish teaching or folklore, but I think it meant that it was an area where the strict letter of the law did not apply.

(The measure was originally meant as a benefit to those confined to a wheelchair, as they could be otherwise held to be "riding" on the Sabbath).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 07:19 PM

McGrath: Interesting you should mention this.   My point exactly from the earlier post.
          That was the problem which I thought unfair---and I am not Orthodox--some Orthodox were going to use a private home. The protests from neighbors---Jewish and Christian (organized by a Jewish person I know---not a friend surely) got the authorities to stop it. As you say ---parking was not a problem. No cars. Strangely that is the issue---among a few others--they presented to the authorities. Auto congestion. Truly a red herring---whatever that expression means.
          It all comes down to people and property values. With any type of understanding left somewhere out in the cold. I do not believe it is bigotry in anyway---but I do have to say it is sad when one Jewish person gathers his co-religionists and people of other faiths to protest use by some that are, he feels infringing on his property value.

          I would say, parenthecally, the same about any faith that would do something like that. Let us face it---nobody's hands are all that clean---and, perhaps, religion, rather uniting us, divides us.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:42 PM

Can't you have house synagogues, the way some Christians have house churches? Or the way Catholics will sometimes have masses in private homes? I've never heard that anyone has to ask permsision for those kinds of things - and after all in this case you can't by definition have problems about excessive parking causing a nuisance, since cars aren't used on the Sabbath by the Orthodox Jews involved.

That's all a very different issue from restrictions on the density of houses in a neighbourhood. In any neighbourhood there is going to be some upper limit for density, and being a good neighbour involves respecting that.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious Freedom vs. Local Zoning Laws
From: Rapparee
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 06:20 PM

Rabbi, when I was growing up our parish church was located four blocks away. We walked to it every Sunday, weather permitting (and cold wasn't an excuse!). On those days when the weather was frightful, we took the car (or if it was REALLY bad, stayed home).

I am familiar with the Orthodox walking to synagogue, having seen it often in Silver Spring, Maryland.

Is there a distance beyond which walking to Synagogue on the Sabbath is impermissible? I realize that for some (the aged, for example) a long(ish) walk would be a hardship, but I assume that some arrangements are made in these extraordinary cases.