Boulder Eruv Freakout

Note to readers: If you don't know what an eruv is, google it.

Wires of an eruv in the West 50s, New York City

Mazal tov! to Aish Kodesh in Boulder on getting city council approval to put up an eruv. Only problem is, the leftists who claim to be tolerant are really, well, intolerant. Here's some coverage courtesy of the Daily Camera (and what a rag it is).

.... After lengthy debate, the council voted 5-2 to approve the eruv....

Some members of the Boulder City Council took issue with the proposal to grant a lease to Congregation Aish Kodesh to build an eruv, or religious boundary.

City Councilman Macon Cowles argued against the lease, partly because people who live inside the boundary weren't informed that it could be created. He and Councilwoman Lisa Morzel voted against the eruv.

"There have been people important in my life whose very lives in the United States came from their having fought against the regimes in Europe that required them to live within certain boundaries, required Jews to live within certain places," Cowles said. "I believe that there are many people who would be offended with the idea that we are going to take a demarcation for religious purposes to make it convenient for a community to abide by a rule that's 4,000 years old."

.... In an e-mail memo sent earlier Tuesday, Cowles had said he appreciates the intention behind the eruv, but wanted to make sure the city stays on the right side of First Amendment law.

If Boulder leases public space to one religious group, First Amendment principles will require the city to give any other group the same treatment in the future, Cowles said — which could lead to a "slippery slope" of applications.

"Do we want to establish a precedent where a community or group of public citizens (who) want to use our public right-of-way can do so?" he asked. "One request may well lead to another ... I think we ought to have a legal memo from our city attorney about the long-term interests of this."

Here's a letter to the editor: Fundamentalists, cults in the news

2012 doomsday cults and a Jewish eruv. I had to check to see if I had picked up the Onion instead of the Camera (Dec. 16). Camera writer Ryan Morgan has reported that orthodox Jews are "just a few regulatory hurdles away from having an easier Sabbath." They want to erect a nylon-coated Kevlar line around central Boulder, so they can carry a wallet or tote a child on their sabbath. Is this rational, reasonable behavior for people living in the 21st century?

I think this is a waste of time for the city engineer and the Boulder City Council. Why is the city encouraging this delusional behavior?

RANDELL MEIER
Boulder

Now for the enlightened thread of online comments. What's interesting here is the slow but sure increase in bigotry as the "conversation" unfolds. It doesn't take too awfully long to get around to Gaza, and then swastikas. Unfortunately, in order to illustrate, I have to post quite a bit of this crap -- so I'm tucking it under the fold.

Ponderosa:

Did you hear people testifying that without an eruv they are forbidden from carrying their children outside of their homes on a Saturday, or that a disabled person cannot use a wheelchair outside on that day? What do those poor people think will happen to them if they violate those prohibitions?"

"Robert_Paul_Smoke" is especially vile. Oh, and he's Jewish to boot.

.... the facts are is that it is these accoutrements of the religion that support a religion of deep separateness from the world -- like as not, wrapping leather around one's arm -- insisting that others participate who have no interest -- this is classic spiritual materialism - and the simple and logical outgrowth of that is a separateness from the reality of one's own actions -- sure, judaism is a rich and beautiful religion -- but the othodox jews -- and not all of them, but some -- really wear blinders in terms of the political reality of their nation-state and its policies and procedures with those who are not of the same faith -- many orthodox jews in Israel believe that the Palestinians are vermin -- or certainly not human -- so it's the same as any raw christian fundamentalism -- the sinners are going to hell, and it's a small step in the right direction to assist that process at the point of a gun -- I like most of the jewish people I know, and most of them are not caught up in this ancient mythology containing a long collection of arcane beliefs and self-proving mythic ritual -- I would assert that if I pee into my hat and call it a holy act, it is no more or less holy than anything in the canon of religious jewish orthodoxy -- and, if I dress up in hasidic garments and light candles on Halloween, I submit that I am as religious as any jew who says they are the true religious followers -- so I have nothing against people having increased support for their religion, but in parts of Israel on the sabbath you can still get a rock thrown at you for driving a car -- and the mystical acts related to the religion put people in a fog when it comes to thinking for themselves and seeing the reality of their own circumstance in relation to the rest of humanity --

kl53c:

Where did these jews come from and why is it only NOW in 2007 that we are taking this on?

douchie:

hocus pocus! cant believe some people actually believe this.

SoBoPop:

As far as I know, there has been no influx of religious fundementalists of any religion here in Boulder. I'm not an expert, in fact I don't know a whole lot about this, but I think you would be able to recognise traditional religious Jews by the hats or beenies on men's heads, beards, ear locks of hair on boys, hair coverings on women. Black clothing.

mondoboulder:

"Should municipalities actively involve themselves in facilitating things which have no rational basis just because they are seen as causing no harm?" Would you like that in smaller words? Hint: Personal harm to any particular individual is not the test of public policy.

mondoboulder again:

the length of time something is believed doesn't increase it's public legitimacy. If the eruv built in Boulder doesn't satisfy the requirements of all differing rabbinic opinions, will it then define an area in which certain believers CAN'T live? A lot of fish in this kettle.

JakPott:

Similiar to the church asking for special treatment in its extra-large addition, the eruv also asks for special treatment since I am no allowed to string anything from any utility pole anywhere. A hypothetical comparison would be the request for footbaths (which inflicts no harm on anyone) which got excoriated by the fox-folks. Would those supporters of the eruv also take a stand and support the footbaths at airports ? or possibly downtown in select areas through council approved easement to allow such use ?? Would the supporters of the eruv also allow my string of tiny phalusus that lead to the nitro club in my worship of Eros ?

Doug:

The First Amendment says, in relevant part, "Congress shall make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof." The Fourtheenth Amendment makes the First Amendment applicable to the states. Not giving a license to install an eruv is not a prohibition of anything, much less a belief system. Giving a license to install an eruv clearly "respects" an establishment of religion. And as mondo so rightly points out, raises equal protection problems. As to harm, one might argue that an eruv is a hate crime against ... rationallists. :)

crnkbait:

oh,, is north boulder where all the Jews are?? Huh... I find them all over Boulder, North , South, East, West. Why don't we wait and bring it to congress and build this boundary around the USA so all jews in America can be less stressed and "free"

moorek:

I just wonder who is going to check this line for the increase in dead animals and birds that become entangled in the fishing line? Who is going to endure the expense?

the_daily_tracks_what_you_read:

Personally, my religion requires a single dog-sized brass frog to be installed in a main community center (we placed it in the pearl street mall unbeknownst to all). We also require that after it is in place a touched by GOD (which he does only through children. Everytime you see a child on our Frog they are channeling our god and should not be touched for any reason) that all other religions respect our required boundary of 25 miles (diameter from the frog) of no other religions be practiced within this boundary. We only place 1 frog per state so we need little space and the boundary is invisible and costs nothing to the public.

doug again (obviously a constitutional scholar):

When the City of Boulder licenses public property for the express purpose of erecting an eruv, it harms my constitutional right not to have any form of government "respect the establishment of religion".

JakPott again:

The best interest of the public is complete fairness. Without denying the ability to worship, the public is not required to accommodate the nuance of every religion. Interjecting itself into the nuances brings the 'they got it, why shouldnt we' argument to every request. Therefore, in the name of complete fairness, no matter how innocuous, requests for variances and waivers to special interest groups should be denied for the very reason that they do not serve the greater public.

and again:

So if Google wished to erect a rainbow colored string around their new offices on telephone poles as part of a marketing campaign, it should be allowed ? I say no. The public space serves the public. An eruv is a mere convenience item to a very small part of the public. They can exist very well without it. It does not prevent them from practicing their religion. Feng Shui followers may wish to erect small crystals on traffic lights for all I know. In the public square, these types of requests should be denied - not out of religious intolerance, but for tolerance to the entire public. Special rights for convenience purposes show favortism and opens a can of worms. I oppose special easements for nativity scenes, eruvs, footbaths, goat sacrifices or whatever in the public square out of the sake of fairness to all.

Robert_Paul_Smoke again:

why is this different from having a nativity scene in the public square? i don't think it is -- if I have to see special accoutrements given a privilege my accoutrements are not given, then I'm being abused by the government --

gschrodt:

Wow, Boulder is going to have it's own Gaza strip... I can't wait for the air raid sirens...

Sea_Bass:

Does this mean I can have a boundary created for my 5 wives and not have to pay taxes?

sierra5701:

The Boulder City Forester must get permission to even trim tree limbs that might damage the Jewish string ... and having to make this point is awkward because I have many Jewish relatives. All this has done is give Muslims a target.

sharon.poczatek:

I have lived in areas with large Jewish populations and I have never heard of this before. Orthodox Jewish people strictly observed their Sabbaths privately. Couldn't the family erect the Eruv around their own property? Seems like a lot of whining over not taking a walk. I have had to stay home with my children many times while my husband did whatever. And yes, at times I chose this for religious reasons.

EasyRider:

.... Before this issue came to light, if a woman said she could not take her baby outside unless someone strung fishing line around the Xcel powerlines surrounding her home, you would think she were absolutely nuts, and many people rightfully believe this is a bunch of superstitious nonsense. It's unfortunate that the city decided to cater and give credibility to neurotic fears that ill will befall people who carry things outside their homes on Saturday, and that the problem can be cured by a circle of Xcel power poles and blessed fishing line. Thankfully, the eruv is relatively harmless, except for the few birds that will inadvertently fly into the miles of nearly invisible fishing line, and the waste of large sums of private money spent on eruv consultants and constructing and maintaining the magical circle, money that could be better spent actually helping people in need. And the fact that it makes the well-respected Jewish religion look foolish in the eyes of many of us ignorant and bigoted people.

One sane voice, belonging to blacksho89:

IT'S A FLIPPING STRING, PEOPLE!!!!

backrange:

Why couldn't the Jewish community put up an invisible barrier, isn't it what's in your heart that counts? Or does Leviticus specifically name Kevlar and electrical poles? Why not keep it "secret" like the Mormon protective undergarments?

sierra5701:

City Councilman Macon Cowles is about the only one that tried to save taxpayers from the cost of lawsuits on this issue. Next step? Neo-Nazis should get a PERMANENT license to put Nazi flags on power poles (don't diss this idea because that symbol was first a positive Native American symbol that Hitler liked). The real question is "What is the IQ of voters that elected these City representatives?"

Ponderosa:

If it's just a "flipping string" then why would a whole room full of people and several rabbis show up at a city council meeting and wait four hours to testify for the need for this string?

Tailgunner_Joe:

Supporting diversity involves more than just slapping a bumper sticker on your Subaru.

backrange:

You can be as diverse as you want, please just do it without leasing public space for such diversity.

hansenjj:

It's pretty damn silly, but I could really care less as long as it's not being paid for with my tax $$. If it is costing the citizens of Boulder money then there is a problem. I can see bored teenagers vandalizing it for kicks -- will the observant Jews out working that day turn to dust if some young punk cuts the line with his pocketknife?

Ponderosa:

The age of five, before children can think on their own, is a perfect age to start brainwashing children and make them feel guilty about things such as picking flowers on a Saturday. No wonder believers feel so strongly about their taboos. But is it the role of the city to enable these types of neuroses?

meatpieandtatters:

I'll be applying for my own personal religious right-of-way so I don't have to be mixing with other more orthodox types. The nerve of having to be among others who don't believe as I do is simply disgusting. Whether it's a 5 year or 1500 year tradition makes no freaking difference. There were religions before 2,000+ years and we aren't making special allowances for them...

sierra5701:

I am a believer ... so I must kill doubters in thou name? After WW2 the Allies took land in North Africa and created Israel and Iraq ... and ever after has been really happy times for everyone? I would rather wrestle a wild boar than defend a religious belief because one is tough and the other is mean

.

Comments

[Michael]

Enjoying your blog on a daily basis.. Keep up your important efforts.

[Mordechai Y. Scher]

I am dumbfounded. The clear animosity and disrespect in the words and tone of those comments boggles my mind. Down here in Santa Fe we hear that Boulder is a groovy city. I don't think so...

[Schvach]

Decades ago a machloykes took place in my parents' home. A friend and co-worker of my mother came over for coffee. She was a German Holocaust survivor. Somehow the topic of an eruv came up; she went ballistic, pounding her fist on the table, lurching forward with a stiffened back and an angry punim, she shouted her objections over and over. I couldn't figure it out - such vehemence and anger.

[Neal]

I am not Jewish, but a Christian. I do however respect Orthodox Jews' right to practice their religion. Most of these negative responses arise from the fact that people simply don't agree with Judaism, or the idea of devout religious observance in general. Whether you think this is just "ancient mythology," or whatever, has nothing to do with it. These people have a right to exercise their religion, so long as it does no harm to others. And I have a revelation for the poster "Doug," and others: In the First Amendment , where it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," it's not saying at all what you and other historical revisionists are trying to make of it. "Respecting" in the legal language of the 1700's didn't mean "giving respect to." It means "with respect to," or "in regards to." Congress can't make religious laws, or establish a religion. That's what it means. But in our liberal times, many people ignore the next clause, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." They use the very law that was meant to protect religious freedom, and pervert it to restrict religious freedom. It's a travesty.