May 23, 2012 10:58 AM
- RELATED ARTICLES
- > Group Seeks Southampton Town Zoning Board Approval For Religious Boundary In Westhampton Apr 10, 2013 9:12 AM
- > East End Eruv Association To Challenge Southampton Town'S Sign Ordinance Apr 3, 2013 1:09 PM
- > Judge Tosses Lawsuit Filed By Group Opposed To Creation Of Religious Boundary Feb 6, 2013 2:09 PM
- > Decision On Religious Boundary Lawsuits Could Come This Year Jan 19, 2013 2:35 PM
- > Lawsuit Filed Against Westhampton Beach Regarding Eruv Aug 8, 2012 1:11 PM
more
An application to attach wooden markers on utility poles throughout Quogue Village, to create a religious boundary called an eruv, was denied on Friday by village trustees, and, earlier this week, those pushing for its establishment said they intend to sue the village over the rejection.
At their monthly meeting, the trustees voted 5-0 to accept a written decision that denies the application filed in January by the nonprofit East End Eruv Association (EEEA). The group wanted to install two markers, called “lechis,” on 46 utility poles in the village that are owned by Verizon and the Long Island Power Authority, and a single marker on two of the poles for an “indefinite and unlimited period of time,” the application states. Some of the poles are located along Montauk Highway, at... more
At their monthly meeting, the trustees voted 5-0 to accept a written decision that denies the application filed in January by the nonprofit East End Eruv Association (EEEA). The group wanted to install two markers, called “lechis,” on 46 utility poles in the village that are owned by Verizon and the Long Island Power Authority, and a single marker on two of the poles for an “indefinite and unlimited period of time,” the application states. Some of the poles are located along Montauk Highway, at... more
Maybe they read a few of my posts?
Nah, probably not...
That would be like Catholic congregants of Sacred Hearts asking Southampton Village to confirm allowing or disallowing the eating of fish on Fridays...
Makes no sense.
It's an interesting doctrinal point. Under Orthodox Jewish doctrine, the eruv must be established with the consent of the local community UNLESS the residents are bigots. So the legal action to come will attempt to establish that the lechai'in must be allowed by law AND that Quogue residents are bigots.
Nothing personal, Quoguites.
>> "UNLESS the residents are bigots"
What is your source on that?
HHS is poking fun at them (plaintiffs), unless I am mistaken.
Thanks for the info, but I remain confused...
That implementation of a finer point of doctrine requires the consent of a local authority implicitly suggests respect for that authority's own rules and reasons to grant a special request or not.
Should a recognized authority's response come back as a "No," perhaps it is just a "No," or a supportable "No," and not necessarily the presence of animus or prejudice.
That a sect would force such an issue anyway ...more seems to defy the spirit and intention of its own doctrine's directive to cooperate with local authority in the first place.
I apologize, and retract my statement that bigotry makes government approval of the eruv unnecessary. I relied on the assertion of a forum correspondent that I am unable to verify. As far as I can tell, a proclamation by a government authority (bigoted or not) authorizing the eruv is necessary for it to be valid.
The whole thing is costly and sad and both side are responsible for the break-down in communication.
This really is Quogue vs Religious articles attached to telephone ...more poles.
And no, Christmas lights, trees and Santa Claus are not religious articles.
Tenafly is not germane and the court will so find. In Tenafly, the eponymous town was found to have engaged in "selective enforcement" in that it had permitted symbols, religious an otherwise, on its utility poles before the Orthodox Jews made their application. Quogue has never permitted such attachments and has removed them whenever residents have placed them without authorization.
However, the only way that this question will be "decided" by the initial trial is ...more if the losing side declines to spend more money. The constitutional question of the propriety of posting ANY permanent religious symbols, regardless of prior practice, is still in question.
I do agree that it is sad that a tiny group has victimized blameless neighbors, again, by compelling them to waste their money opposing presumptuous self-assertion.
HUGE "technicality"...
Looked like my own updated birth certificate..
Of course, by stating this the logical conclusion will be that I'm intellectually bankrupt zealot.
"Because I want it" and "It's no big deal" don't count.
Let's hear it.
The "eruv" is just one of many examples of how the orthodox get around the supposed rules of their....and my religion.
Yes or no to all, no exceptions.