wkp@lanl.ARPA (12/12/84)
The following is the major part of an article which appeared in the S.F. Chronicle and which I am posting for the most part without any comment. The article concerns the efforts of a Lubavitcher Rabbi (Eli Cohen) to put a giant menorah near the entrance to the Golden Gate Bridge. The article was written by a non-Jew, Warren Hinkle. *************************************************************** The rabbi gazed over the boundless bay and sighed. "This is where we hope to put the menorah on Hanukkah, he said. The rabbi was thin like a frail sandwhich with a saint's smile on his milk-fed face and a long red beard that had passport to heaven writeen all over it. Rabbi Cohen came here recently from N.Y. City, where menorahs on bridges leading to and from Manhattan are as unexceptional as flags at City Hall. The rabbi had this dream of putting a menorah -- the symbol of light and freedom -- near the Golden Gate Bridge entrance. But in San Francisco, big artillery has been drawn against the bridge menorah. It's not the Christians who are in opposition. It's the Jews. A proposal to establish an outdoor Hanukkah menorah near the toll plaza entrance to the bridge will be heard by the bridge Board of Directors this morning. It was submitted on the rabbi's behalf by bridge director Quentin Kopp, who noted that the plaza was a place where "other holiday symbols, most notably Christmas trees, have also been placed in the past." The menorah proposal has been formally opposed by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith and the Jewish Community Council of San Francisco, Marin, and the Peninsula. No other...voices have been raised in opposition. I [Warren Hinkle] called up Earl Rabb, the executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, to ask him what in G-d's name he had against putting up a holiday menorah at the Golden Gate Bridge, where there have been Christmas trees as long as I can remember. Rabb said that the Jewish organizations were maintaining a militant watch over the separation of church and state and were "concerned about preserving a strong constitutional society." He said the menorah was a religious symbol and therefore his people felt it was not proper to display it on public property. What about the giant menorah that Bill Graham built that is lit in Union Square every year at Hanukkah? What about the Christmas trees in public squares all over town? Why pick on a menorah off on one side of the Golden Gate Bridge plaza? Rabb said the "current political climate" had heightened "Jewish sensitivity" to the public display of Jewish religious symbols. He defined the current climate as the "increasing Christianization of America" under Ronald Reagan and Jerry Falwell. In such a time, Rabb said, if I understand him correctly, many Jews fear roiling the waters of anti-Jewish prejudice by doing something as upfront as putting a nice menorah off to the side of the Golden Gate Bridge. Although I empathize with Rabb and the guardians of the separation of church and state, I think they are a bit overcautious in letting their fear of Jerry Falwell put a damper on bringing light and cheer to the holiday season here. [Hinkle then proceeds to close his article with some examples of his sense of humor.] To someone who spent 16 years in the religious concentration camp [sic] of Catholic schools, the menorah is a beautiful and historical symbol, as Rabbi Cohen instructed me yesterday, of the very freedom to express religion publicly that the bridge directors will rule on today. For what it's worth, I'm saying 10 Hail Marys for the rabbi. ********************************************************************* Comments? bill peter los alamos
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (12/13/84)
> > The following is the major part of an article which appeared in > the S.F. Chronicle and which I am posting for the most part without > any comment. > > The article concerns the efforts of a Lubavitcher Rabbi (Eli Cohen) to > put a giant menorah near the entrance to the Golden Gate Bridge. > The article was written by a non-Jew, Warren Hinkle. > > *************************************************************** > > Comments? > > bill peter I think this is a problem all over America. Jews are afraid to assert themselves as Jews. They think if they can hide te fact of their Jewishness then the non-Jews will like them better. What they don't realize is that they are fooling themselves. If we show that we care and stand up for our heritage ( and all it stands for ) the non-Jews might possibly respect us more. The problem is that these jews are ashamed to say they are different. They want to mix with society, to assimilate and become like the masses. This might be the cause for the extremely high intermarriage rate in America today. If the Jews were instilled with a sense of pride in their religion, rather that it being a blemish, maybe more people would be interested in seeing it stick around a few more years, rather than destroy it from within. Eliyahu Teitz. > los alamos
ktw@whuxi.UUCP (WOLMAN) (12/17/84)
I posted the gist of my response in private to the original poster, but because I find myself in essential agreement with Teitz, have chosen to post the response publicly as well. I thought "Jewish Self-Hatred" was something that was part of the entity known as "The Past." Obviously not: it is easy to forget that the past is something that happened a nanosecond ago. It is still somewhat amazing that major resistance to the overt signs of symbols of Judaism comes from within the Jewish community. "Hey, if we keep our heads down, no one'll know. . . ." This doesn't work. It didn't work in Germany in the 1930's, and it isn't working here, either. Does history teach us ANYTHING? How many times do we have to be hit over the head with a two-by-four before we get the point? If They are coming after us, They will do so menorah or not; the decision to announce one's presence is at least affirmative rather than self-deceptive and--dare it be said?--cowardly. A few years back, in Teaneck, New Jersey a related battle broke out in the Jewish community over the plans of a recently-arrived Orthodox group to construct a mikveh. Far too many secular or non-Orthodox Jews were horrified; there may even have been court battles; and there was certainly pressure on the Orthodox to "keep a low profile" for fear of appearing "too Jewish." Although I am sketchy on the terms of the settlement, the mikvah WAS built. But the battle--conducted inside the Jewish community, rather than between Jews and Gentiles--was another wedge in the increasing rift between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews, and served the interests of NO ONE. Ken Wolman Bell Communications Research whuxi!ktw (201) 740-4565
sms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal) (12/17/84)
> > The following is the major part of an article which appeared in > the S.F. Chronicle and which I am posting for the most part without > any comment. > > The article concerns the efforts of a Lubavitcher Rabbi (Eli Cohen) to > put a giant menorah near the entrance to the Golden Gate Bridge. > The article was written by a non-Jew, Warren Hinkle. > > *************************************************************** > > Comments? > > bill peter Last year I joined a Bnai Brith Singles group in my area. I had believed that the pluralism which had existed in the Hillel in the school I went to would exist in other BB groups. Pluralism has its pros and cons. It is good because it allows *all* Jews to identify with Judaism without any guilt even if they did not practice their Judaism. This allows at least a connection with other Jews. From that connection further education may occur leading to bringing these less committed Jews closer to Judaism. If you don't come to class, you can't learn and pluralism would seem to bring people to the classroom. The negative aspect is that pluralism leads to at least grudging acceptence of groups at the farthest fringes of Judaism and legitimizes some groups which could be harmful to Judism as a whole. The most extreme case I've seen was a fundamentalist Christian who claimed that since she followed "all" of Judaism's laws (and then some) she should be considered a Jewess. In this example I see an entry for some cults such as the Jews for Jesus. Fortunately, thisdid not occur in the case I mentioned. The majority of my experiences were positive and tended towards the first case. The point of this lengthy introduction is that I expected BB to maintain this policy beyond "the college experience". In fact, they do not. I have been on their mailing list for the last year or so and I have found that their "pluralism" extends from "center" to "left" only. There does not appear to be any room for the Orthodox view and only very little for any type of traditional view. To be sure, they pay lip service to Jewish Education, but it is obvious from the discussions of christmas on the net that those Jewish children who have the most jealousy of their peers' holidays are those who don't have the strong Jewish educational backgrounds. They see their peers (usually in public school) participating in their celebrations. This forces their parents to elevate the level of Chanukah from a minor (read: post Biblical) holiday to a major one (read: as if of Biblical origin). In the various BB publications I've read I've seen a lot of cultural Judaism Zionism and political activity within the US However, the most positive RELIGIOUS (read practice) expression was to wish everyone a happy new year in the Sept/Oct issues and to print a Menorah on the cover of the Dec issue of the national magazine. This is the priority of holidays which the Christians see in the Jewish calender (actually, since I am not a Christian I don't know that it is not reversed :-)). They know of very few other holidays in the Jewish calendar. With all of this, I am not surprised that BB lead in the fight *agaionst* the Menorah in San Francisco. If they can't exhibit a positive view of the mitzvot in their own (internal) publications, I would not expect them to support the public display of a mitzvah. Sam Saal ..!ihnp4!eisx!sms The opinions expressed in this essay have very little bearing on reality and may be nothing more than a good way of blowing off steam for the author.
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/18/84)
If I saw some Jews trying to persuade others not to build a mikveh
for fear of seeming "too jewish", I would certainly think they were
expressing a desire for a (disastrously) low profile.
But the Menorah controversy in Ca seems different to me.
American Jews are very aware of the ease with which christian
practices and symbols encroach upon government sponsored activities,
and many of us struggle to keep church and state separate.
It would be inconsistent for us to turn around and ask for state
support for a menorah. Let's keep religion and state separate!
I would love to drive across the Golden State bridge, looking at a
gigantic menorah, built with private funds, standing on PRIVATE
lands.
- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
{allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robisonmls@wxlvax.UUCP (12/19/84)
Thequestion that, I feel, should be asked is the following: is the placing of a large Menorah in the spirit and law of the holiday? Since we are told to display the Menorah in public view, the answer appears to be yes. Yet, when we consider the relation with Christmas, it seems that this is an attempt at equal time. Thus, it may strengthen, rather than weaken, the relationship between Hanukkah and Christmas. To draw a parallel between the construction of a Mikva (which is required of *all* communities, even before the construction of a synagogue) I do not think is valid. To sum up, I am not in favor of this form of showmanship. If the Menorah builders want to strengthen observance, they should distribute Menorahs to PEOPLE who can then perform the mitzva of lighting the Menorah. I don't think there is a mitzva of seeing a Menorah, only showing it. M.L. Schneider
hbb@hou5a.UUCP (H.B.Braude) (12/21/84)
An issue that bears mention in the quest to have a Channukah Menorah publicly displayed through the auspices of a municipality or federal agency is the law of 'Bechukosaihem Lo Teilaichu,' which is an ordinance recorded in the Bible that was given to the the Jews when they entered the land of Israel. The gist of the law is that the Jews should not try to mimic the modes of worship practiced by their neig