Bimah Not a Soapbox
I completely disagree with Rabbi Richard Levy in his comments saying that politics should be allowed to be preached from the pulpit (“Panel on Politics From the Pulpit,” Sept. 24). The pulpit is no place for some rabbi to force his or her political beliefs on the congregation, unless he or she chooses to allow those with dissenting views to preach theirs. Why should a rabbi choose to make some of his or her congregation uncomfortable while spouting their political ideas? If I want political views, I’ll go to political meetings, where I will be free to express my political thoughts.
Rabbi Levy also mentions immigration reform and health care in regard to Jewish tradition. Immigration reform has nothing to do with Jewish tradition. Our immigration problems are unlike immigration problems ever faced by America or any other country in the world, in its massive scope, and no politician wants to do anything necessary to correct this problem. Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers and should be treated as such, and this has nothing to do with Jewish tradition.
Harvey M. Piccus
Tarzana
Ariel’s Status
Ariel is a settlement. Period. Israel has not annexed it, and there has been no agreement to officially establish it as part of Israel. That time may come, but until then, Ariel remains a settlement, no matter how “citylike” it looks and regardless of its cultural and educational institutions that for some may blur the line between Israel proper and occupied territory. Even with the good intentions of promoting culture and education, it is inaccurate and dangerous for leaders of our community to perpetuate the notion that Ariel should be treated “as part of the State of Israel, because the government of Israel looks at Ariel as part of the State of Israel,” as Richard Sandler states in a recent Jewish Journal article (“L.A. Donors Play Role In Israeli Settlement,” Sept. 24). This is simply not true. More than 120 government-sanctioned and more than a hundred illegal outposts are not considered by any official body, including the government of Israel, to be a part of sovereign Israel. They jeopardize Israel’s future as a secure, Jewish and democratic state. What Israel needs is support for its pursuit of a two-state solution rather than efforts to perpetuate the destructive status quo.
Arthur Stern, Beverly Hills
Sanford Weiner, Los Angeles
Americans for Peace Now regional co-chairs
Islamic Center:For or Against?
Dennis Prager states that Ground Zero is hallowed ground as is Auschwitz (“A Response: The Case Against the Islamic Center,” Sept. 24). He goes on to say “That is precisely the argument against the Islamic center near Ground Zero.” Hallow means to make holy or sacred, sanctify, consecrate, according to Webster’s New World Dictionary. That being the case , why doesn’t Mr. Prager cry out against the building of three World Trade Center buildings at Ground Zero?
Leon M. Salter
Los Angeles
I arrived at this debate critical of opposition to building an Islamic center so close to Ground Zero but left supporting such opposition unless a major condition, which heretofore has received little, if any, publicity has been met (“Nuns, Mosques, Protesters and the Debate Over Ground Zero,” Sept. 24). What struck me after reading the articles in this issue was that if it is to be built, such a prominent expression of Islam needs to address the Ground Zero tragedy perpetrated in its name on American soil only two blocks away. That could be done, for example, by including in the center a prominent memorial to the 9/11 victims.
I’ve come to think many of Mr. Prager’s views produce heated responses from the left when they convey an undertone that suggests: “It’s my opinion, and it’s the truth.” This is not such a case.
Roger Schwarz
Los Angeles
Auschwitz was a pristine site, used only as memorial and museum; all other uses would profane it. At Ground Zero, subways run and new office buildings are being constructed.
Auschwitz objections applied equally to all potential uses of the site. At Ground Zero, there is no objection to commerce or Christian worship, only to Islam. This is precisely the definition of bigotry: allowing one race or religion and not another.
Poland was not asked to ban the convent, but there were calls for [the] New York City government not to allow the project there. The terrorists wanted to end the freedom to practice every religion everywhere, and they would win! The mosque must be at this location to defy the terrorists, by saying America allows every religion to be practiced, where they sought to end religious freedom.
New York City dead: 2,800
Auschwitz dead: 1,100,000
The convent site was selected because Auschwitz was there. The New York City site was selected for its proximity to its users’ workplaces.
Stephen Weinstein
Camarillo
Correction
The photo of Cantor Juval Porat accompanying the article “BCC Cantor First to Be Trained in Post-Holocaust Germany” (Sept. 17) was taken by Kenna Love.
JewishJournal.com welcomes letters from all readers. Letters should be no more than 200 words and must include a valid name, address and phone number. Letters sent via e-mail must not contain attachments. We reserve the right to edit all letters. Mail: The Jewish Journal, Letters, 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1510, Los Angeles, CA 90010; e-mail: letters@jewishjournal.com; or fax: (213) 368-1684.
