I do wonder: Is there no synagogue in that neighborhood for
its Jewish residents to attend? If not - why not? If there is no Shul in the
neighborhood, one ought to be built.
I believe that if such gatherings are held on a regular
basis, they can alter the character of the neighborhood. I’m not sure, for
example, how comfortable I would be if my next-door neighbor held a weekly Mass
every Sunday led by a Catholic priest in his home, or if my next door neighbor
held weekly Islamic services in his home every Friday led by a Muslim Imam.
This isn’t about whether they have the right to do so. I
believe they absolutely do. What people do behind closed doors in terms of
religious practice is nobody else’s business - as long as it is not disruptive.
They are entitled to worship as they wish - a constitutionally guaranteed
right.
However even though they have that right - it would not
entirely eliminate my discomfort—minor though it may be.
So, I understand why some residents in a neighborhood in
University Heights, Ohio object to a weekly Shabbos minyan in the home of one
of their Jewish neighbors. I would therefore suggest that - as a matter of
principle - just because someone has a right to do something doesn’t always
mean they should do it.
While neighborhood objections may reflect a degree of
antisemitism (latent or otherwise) it may simply be discomfort with the idea of
a private home being turned into a makeshift house of worship. Which is
incongruous with the harmony of block.
That said, there is little doubt in my mind about the antisemitic nature of the city ordinance that blocked Daniel Grand, an Orthodox Jewish homeowner in University Heights, Ohio - from holding a weekly minyan in his home...
To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.
