DAN'S PAPERS, October 24, 2008 Page 13 www.danshamptons.com
Unconstitutional? ABattle over Mothers with Baby Carriages in Westhampton Beach By Dan Rattiner A group that is opposed to the erection of an eruv in Westhampton Beach has hired a professor of law from Pennsylvania to write a letter to the Westhampton Beach Village Trustees, explaining to them in great detail why they should not give permission to the local synagogue in that town to erect an eruv. The letter, 18 pages long and written by Special Counsel Marci A. Hamilton of Washington Crossing, PA, and sent to Bruce Rosen, a lawyer from the firm of McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen and Carvelli of Florham Park, NJ, and then forwarded to each member of the Trustees, the Mayor and the Village Attorney individually as well as the Incorporated Village of Westhampton Beach on Wednesday October 7. It was created as an 18-page legal brief complete with footnotes and references to other cases, on behalf of an organization from the Westhampton area recently created, called the Alliance for the Separation of Church and State for the Greater Westhampton Area. (A reply by a lawyer in support of the eruv was sent October 19.) The letter in opposition is well reasoned, and suggests that the creation of an eruv in Westhampton would be a violation of the Constitution, which insists on a separation of
church and state in America. Eruvs are in hundreds of towns, villages and cities throughout the United States, and, physically, consist of a piece of string that runs along the tops of telephone poles confining a particular area, within which, Jews who practice their religion in an Orthodox manner can on the religious day of the week when they are supposed to do no work, nevertheless, “push and carry” wheelchairs, children and infants as
it is illegal to get a government body to approve a religious interpretation. And so, therefore, since there is now a request in for the Village to approve an eruv, a positive response by the Village would essentially be an illegal intrusion between church and state. This is a very interesting argument. And, according to Rabbi Schneier, of the Westhampton Beach Synagogue, it is true that such permission, according to Jewish law, has to be granted by a municipal authority. It can come from any authority that can shut down roads and dictate traffic control in any village, town, county or state. Governor David Paterson could approve this eruv. The argument may be interesting, but it is far fetched. There are plenty of examples of municipalities approving religious requests. Westhampton Beach approves menora lightings, the placement of creches, Blessing of the Fleet Ceremonies and St. Patrick Day parades. On its own it has Easter egg hunts and Christmas trees in villages and parks. The Supreme Court decision ruled that the creation of an eruv is a private matter involving two entities, which are a religious organi-
The basis of the argument is: It’s illegal to get a government body to approve religious interpretation. an exception. The reason they can do this is that rabbis have ruled that in special circumstances, inside the home, things such as carrying children or pushing cradles or pushing the elderly in wheelchairs, can be allowed if an eruv is created. The eruv “extends” the home to include all that is within its confines. The basis of the argument in this brief is that
(continued on page 26)