abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (12/18/84)
It happens that this intrepid and peripatetic net contributor has just returned from San Francisco where he was exposed to the local controversy (which Bill Peter of Los Alamos brought up) while reading the Northern California Jewish Bulletin at the apartment of a friend. Not incidentally, I am personally acquainted with the San Francisco Lubavitcher Rabbi, Eli Cohen, thanks to his hospitality this past June when I spent a Shabbos in San Francisco on another trip. If you had the stamina to read Peter's article (96 lines?) you know that there is a controversy about whether giant menorahs are appropriate for display on government property at Hanukah. The facts were slightly obscured in Peter's article, quoted from elsewhere. Briefly, a giant menorah has been displayed at this time of year for the last ten years in Union Square, in the center of the fashionable shopping and hotel district of S.F., and next to the financial district. To convey the character of neighborhood, I'll mention that two of the three cable car lines passes right by Union Square. It is a small one-block square park right in the middle of the busiest part of the city. The Lubavitcher movement, I believe, is completely responsible for the menorah's existence. It is about 15 feet tall; I saw it and photographed it two years ago. When the Lubavitchers wanted to place an additional menorah next to the Golden Gate Bridge traffic, several Jewish groups appeared at a municipal meeting to block it. In the Northern California Jewish Bulletin, Rabbi Eli Cohen expressed his "pro-menorah" opinion head on against a local official of the B'nai Brith Anti Defamation League whose name I do not recall. However as many of you know, the BB ADL is a highly respectable group which deserves the support of all Jews for its work to insure that gross anti-semitism is not quietly insinuated into American life. The entire argument between Lubavitch and the ADL is extremely simple. I boils down to the fact that the ADL views the menorah on a par with a "creche" (nativity scene), while Lubavitch views the menorah on a par with a Christmas tree (for the purpose of comparison to accepted standards of separation of church and state). Actually, I agree with the Lubavitch point of view. In spite of Jewish groups' efforts to prevent creches from being displayed in Pawtucket, RI and elsewhere, I don't have trouble advocating the display of menorahs. Should Jews police themselves more stringently than non-Jews care to? On this issue, I think not. Correct me if I'm wrong, however. Isn't the Christmas tree actually a non-religious (i.e., non-historical) symbol of the season? By comparison, the menorah is explicitly a Jewish symbol with origins directly from historical events reasonably central to Jewish theology. So (don't tell anyone but,) actually I think that the menorah is comparable to the creche. But if Jews aren't going to advance Jewish interests, who is? --J. Abeles mhuxm!abeles
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (12/18/84)
Frankly, I don't care much whether the Menorah is equivalent to a nativity scene or a Christmas tree -- my view is that the display of any of the above on public property violates the separation of church and state, and should not be done. Yes, I know the Supreme Court feels otherwise -- that does not give me the license to act in a way I consider to be immoral. (It took about 60 years for the to reverse themselves on Plessey vs. Ferguson; maybe this one will be reversed somewhat sooner.)
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (12/18/84)
Even if the menorah is comparable to a creche (nativity scene),
as J. Abeles suggests, I'm not sure that it would be equally
"wrong" to have a large one on display. Christianity is unquestionably
the dominant religion in North America, and most sects within
Christianity believe in missionizing (read: converting the Jews,
and others). Putting up a Jewish religious symbol such as a menorah,
however, poses no "threat" to non-Jews, precisely because Jews have
no interest in converting non-Jews. The purposes of the menorah, as
I see it, is twofold: to remind Jews of Chanukah, that they might
remember to observe it; and to announce our celebration to the world
at large, that they may know of it (but not observe it).
Dave Sherman
--
{utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave
{allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!davelynnef@tekgvs.UUCP (12/18/84)
We have our own menorah controversy going on here in Portland, OR. The local Lubavich rabbi, Moshe Wilhelm, wants to put a menorah in Pioneer Square, which is the new "public place" in downtown Portland. Pioneer Square already contains an enormous Christmas tree. The local synagogues are all against this, basically for the separation of church and state reason. It will be interesting to see what happens. Lynne Fitzsimmons [ucbvax, decvax, allegra, ihnp4]!tektronix!teklabs!lynnef
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (12/20/84)
Even though the Menorah is not a symbol of missionary zeal,
and does not "threaten" non-Jews, it need not be constructed
on Governemnt land with government support. Surely there is
privately owned land visible from the bridge upon which the menorah
can be constructed with private money. Why does the secular
governemnt have to be involved?
- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
{allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison