-
IT'S INAPPROPRIATE!!!
Many years ago, when I was in public school and started to learn about the history of the United States, one of the very first lessons taught was about the seperation of church and state. Since then, this concept has come to the fore front many, many times. Most schools have abolished any reference to G-d. It is most inappropriate for a religious instituion to show favoritism and partiality in a Century Village election. I believe the banner posted on the Temple at the Haverhill exit should be taken down immediately.
-
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree. When I first saw the sign I was shocked. How dare a religious institution become involved in a UCO election! It would be more appropriate to rent a billboard!
ReplyDeletepeople are talking... It has been called racist by a few. I seriously doubt that is the intent, but just the same, the temple should not be putting up signs. wonder how it effects the tax status. And what about working on the Sabbath? Isn't it forbidden? things that make you go hmmmmmm.
ReplyDeleteI am a former Church Trustee. During the time that I served, I never would have voted to allow political signage of any kind to be placed on Church property. If I had found myself outvoted on such a matter, I am certain that the Pastor or District Supervisor would overrule such placement, and for good reason.
ReplyDeletePolitical advertisement or endorsement, whether for public, or in this case, private office, is divisive, and has no place at a House of Worship. Placement of this sign, by a candidate who appears to be a member of the Congregation, with the apparent approval of a Congregation President who also happens to be a former UCO President, is a conflict of interest of the first order. Any reasonable person would consider the sign to be an endorsement of the candidate by the Congregation.
And, as Roberta points out, it is simply Un-American.
Take a Picture of the political ad and send it to the IRS, they should have their 5013C status revoked.
ReplyDeleteHappy T-Day to all.
Mike
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteLack of critical judgement, just what we need in our UCO President.
This is exactly what we could expect from the 73% solution pedant.
Dave Israel
Right- it is the candidate's decision to use this venue that troubles me here.
ReplyDeleteAll challenging candidates face the problem of "name recognition" to some degree, and the fence opposite the Haverhill gate is a really good spot. A thoughtful, reasonably intelligent candidate would have resisted the urge to use it.
The sign says 'Take Back the Village" Where has the Village gone? I would hate to see where the Village will go with this piece of work. What has she done for the Village?
ReplyDeleteNo Grace- the sign does not say "take back THE Village".
ReplyDeleteThe sign says "take back OUR Village".
If the sign was attached to a utility pole out on Okeechobee, the message would be innocuous enough, but attached to a House of Worship, the implication is obvious and disturbing. Who, exactly, is meant by "OUR"?
This is exactly why Churches and Synagouges never allow this sort of thing, and political candidates, at every level, are very careful about the use of these protected venues. The placement of this sign was a bad decision.
Another example of what your vote will get you. Think and vote with care.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Temple is where the "President Reject" needs to center her activities, and stay FAR away from UCO.
ReplyDelete“Separation of church and state” is not a Constitutional phrase, as many people know. I don’t believe the US Constitution forbids any religious group from expressing its views on political matters. To do so is an important part of religious FREEDOM. Should the religious institutions in Germany have been muzzled during Hitler's time? Tax-free status is another issue in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt’s a different matter, however, for a candidate to approve of an organization promoting his or her candidacy. This becomes a judgment call—should the candidate have allowed this or not? You and I can decide, by the ballot box, whether we approve of what the candidate has allowed.
It is also possible that a candidate may not have been aware of being endorsed by an organization. Usually then the candidate lets it be known he or she accepts the endorsement or disapproves of it on any of several grounds.
I think Don4060's statement "It is the candidate's decision to use this venue that troubles me here" and Dave's point about the candidate's "critical judgment" get to the issue here.
Lanny:
ReplyDeleteUndoubtly, the"Candidate Select"
is completely aware of the endorsement, a "Meet & Greet" is
scheduled for early next month
on their premises.
Houses of Worship,should abstain
from all issues, that do not pertain to religious practices.
I too, am appauled to think the
Presiding President, a former
Pres. of UCO, would succumb to
this tasteless display...This is
a internal matter..and that is where it's to remain.....
Spot on Lanny- Churches express political opinions all the time, but usually about ISSUES, not CANDIDATES, and those opinions usually link a particular political issue with some central tenet of a particular religious faith. If there is a dogmatic link between Orthodox Judaism and WiFi that I am not aware of, somebody, please, clue me in.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as I said, I have very little interest in decisions made inside a self-governing religous community of which I am not a part. People can do whatever they want. But I do question the decision making ability of a candidate who, after a long career working in schools, makes a campaign move that violates the "church/state" sensibilities that are the norm in all parts of the United States. They teach this stuff in junior high school social studies.
As you said Lanny, it was a "judgement call".
Being away I have not seen the sign. Is it in the property of the Orthodox Synagogue of the Congregation AITZ CHAIM?
ReplyDeleteHi New to CV,
ReplyDeleteNovember 28, 2013 at 9:31 PM,
Yes, on the inside of the fence.
Dave Israel
The "other" synagogue said No to placing a sign there.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Grace,
ReplyDeleteNovember 29, 2013 at 9:12 AM,
The evidence please???
Dave Israel
according to IRS: Since she is not running for a PUBLIC office then the sign does not affect the 501(c)3 status.
ReplyDeleteThis is a corporate election- next time the Board of American Express needs a new Director, lets's see if any of the Candidates hang banners off St. Patrick's or Temple Emanuel.
ReplyDeleteThis not a matter of legality or taxation. It is a matter of taste, sensitivity, and, ultimately, judgement. Anshei Shalom refused to allow the sign placement. Of course they did, just as pretty much every other House of Worship in America would have done, because this type of thing IS SIMPLY NOT DONE.
I may be a little late in my comment,and I totally agree with Roberta's statement. Separation of church and State in Century village too.
ReplyDeleteWe are in enough trouble with this issue in the entire country ,let's not being it "home'.
oh-oh....watch out....making a comment here will get you on Olga's bigot list!!!!
ReplyDeleteewww she scares me...
NOT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
ReplyDeleteThe modern concept of a wholly secular government is sometimes credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke, but the phrase "separation of church and state" in this context is generally traced to a January 1, 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson, addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut, and published in a Massachusetts newspaper.
To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut
January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States
To Bob R: I thought it was called the "cockroach" list on the "other" blog...
ReplyDeleteHi Peter,
ReplyDeleteDecember 4, 2013 at 10:32 AM,
I believe it says "Bigoted Cockroaches"
It could be their campaign platform!
Dave Israel