...on the on-going issue of the eruv chazerot which has turned Westhampton Beach and its environs into a religious war zone since it was first proposed before the Village Board in early 2008.
This round of words started ten days ago when an associate professor at Pepperdine University School of Law, Michael A. Helfand, authored a Los Angeles Times Op-Ed entitled:
"...troubling. For a community organizer to so blatantly proclaim that her upper-class neighborhood is not 'for you' if 'you' are an Orthodox Jew recalls language employed during some of the gloomiest periods of bias in our nation's history."
(He's talkin' 'bout you, Estelle Lubliner! He's not a fan!)
Helfand further conjures up the vandalising and burning of mosques in Tennessee and Missouri, as well as the recent Sikh murders in Milwaukee, apparently in an effort to demonstrate what intolerance... he calls it "discriminatory resistance" ...of an eruv can cause.
All this from 3,000 miles away.
But he struck an eruvial nerve for some who followed up with their own views in the following days:
- Letters: An eruv in the Hamptons
- Religious boundaries: Would an eruv for Orthodox Jews in a Long Island town be too much of a religious intrusion?
- Letters: Making the call on an eruv
The last writer, from San Pedro, California, takes Helfand to task for his...
"...assertion that the proposed eruv in Westhampton Beach, N.Y., would be 'barely discernable' is his opinion and a decision that is not his to make.
The fact remains that an eruv does constitute a perceptible 'presence of consequence' in a neighborhood, which is no religion's to impose."
In other words, Professor, butt out!
Hey California Professor, if you think this "recalls language employed during some of the gloomiest periods of bias in our nation's history," consider the outrageous voter ID laws in states like Florida, Texas, and South Carolina, which by its difficulty to achieve, is blatant voter suppression, followed up by Pennsylvania and I believe Ohio?
The oft-stated argument that there is massive voter fraud has not been substantiated by the facts.
It is taking away the right to vote mostly from the poor.
A wag has opined that the Supremes took away the right to vote after the Bush-Gore Election; this time they plan to take away the right to vote before the Obama-Romney Election. Instead of reasonable measures to obtain a picture ID, (which I personally have no objection to), they are making it nigh near impossible for poor or elderly, people of color, inner city or rural individuals to continue to vote if they have no driver's license. That is unconscionable. They don't need that to enlist in the Armed Services, nor apply for a driver's license, for instance. So why now, except to affect the vote?
This manipulation is truly bias at its ugliest.
¡Basta! You may not use this as a forum for your non-sequitur personal political views! Got it?