Printer Friendly
The Free Library
4,489,826 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

`Eruv' Isn't Required In New Jersey, Federal Court Rules.


A New Jersey community can deny Orthodox Jews use of public utility poles and street signs to post religious symbols, a federal court has ruled.

On Aug. 9, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Bassler ruled that the Tenafly Tenafly (tĕn`əflī), affluent residential borough (1990 pop. 13,326), Bergen co., NE N.J.; settled 1640, inc. 1894. It is a suburb lying along the Palisades and the east bank of the Hudson River. Borough Council could legally restrict Orthodox Jews from using public property public property n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public. (See: common property) to erect an "eruv" (religious boundary) around the community.

An eruv incorporates homes into a larger territory, allowing observant Orthodox Jews to partake in activities outside their homes that would ordinarily be prohibited on the Jewish Sabbath, such as pushing a baby stroller. The eruv is constructed by tying markers to community poles such as light posts, letting other Jews in the community know where the boundary's limits are.

The Tenafly Borough Council voted 5-0 to remove the eruv from public property, prompting the Tenafly Eruv Association to file suit in federal court. Local government officials argued that permitting utility poles to be permanently used for a religious purpose would violate the constitutional principle of church-state separation. Bassler agreed.

"Since the Borough Council's decision was narrowly tailored to prohibit only conduct that might generate the appearance of an entanglement between church and state, no constitutional infirmities resulted, and there is no cause for a court to second guess such a decision," Bassler ruled in Tenafly Eruv Association v. Borough of Tenafly.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Americans United for Separation of Church and State
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Church & State
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U2NJ
Date:Oct 1, 2001
Words:222
Previous Article:Georgia Biology Text Passes Test At State Appeals Court.(Brief Article)
Next Article:Illinois Governor Approves Islamic Food Law.(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
The Supreme Court's new rule on amicus briefs.
SECTION 8 PROGRAM RULED MANDATORY IN NEW JERSEY.
TEI tells Supreme Court ... revenue rulings are mere litigating positions and not entitled to deference.(Tax Executives Institute)
Was it something we said? The government's defensive reply to TEI's amicus brief in Mead strikes a nerve.(Tax Executives Institute, United States v....
Courts issue conflicting decisions in public-entity cases against gun industry.
JUSTICES EASE RULE ON SETTING TOP PRICES; HIGH COURT OVERTURNS ANTITRUST RESTRICTIONS.(News)
Online research strategies for the bookish lawyer: lawyers with more legal than technical know-how can still use the many computer tools available to...
Misidentification noted.(Letters)
HIGH COURT VOIDS AQMD RULE ALTERNATIVE-FUEL REQUIREMENT FOR VEHICLE FLEETS STRUCK DOWN.(News)
When a win may not mean much.(Church & State)(ruling denying state scholarship aid to divinity student)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2008 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles