Rabbi Mendy Goldberg of the Chabad House of Coram, on Long Island, N.Y., was one of scores of people interviewed by Forward reporters examining the scope and impact of a federal program providing grants to nonprofits at risk for terrorism. “There were a few incidents of anti-Semitic slurs and vandalism,” he said. “Then we found that if the government was willing to pay for it, we should improve security.” In 2007, with the help of the Lubavitch organization, Goldberg’s Chabad House received a grant to install closed circuit cameras, extra lighting, an alarm system and electronic monitoring.
Forward Editorial: Crossing the Line
Rabbi Mendy Goldberg of the Chabad House of Coram, on Long Island, N.Y., was one of scores of people interviewed by Forward reporters examining the scope and impact of a federal program providing grants to nonprofits at risk for terrorism. “There were a few incidents of anti-Semitic slurs and vandalism,” he said. “Then we found that if the government was willing to pay for it, we should improve security.” In 2007, with the help of the Lubavitch organization, Goldberg’s Chabad House received a grant to install closed circuit cameras, extra lighting, an alarm system and electronic monitoring.
So the question is: Should you have paid for this?
Should public funds be used to upgrade security at an avowedly religious institution through a federal program whose guidelines give an advantage to those religious institutions? When the Nonprofit Security Grant Program began in 2005, it was not sold to Congress as a Jewish earmark, but it certainly acts like one today, with the vast majority of grants going to Jewish organizations not by accident, but by design. At the time, the Anti-Defamation League criticized the program on constitutional and policy grounds, and its warnings were prescient.
The program undoubtedly has made many synagogues, day schools, JCCs and Chabad houses feel more secure. But at great cost to constitutional principle and communal fairness.
The constitutional test should be obvious. Would the Jewish leaders who lobbied for this program and boast of their success in winning grants each year react so positively if three-quarters of the federal funding instead went to mosques and evangelical churches? Once that nebulous but powerful line between religion and state is violated, we can never be sure which group will receive the next benefit.
The ADL also warned that the grants program would lead to “divisive intra-communal competition” for scarce resources and to a politicization of the process. That, indeed, is what has happened.
The Forward’s analysis shows that Orthodox institutions are dramatically overrepresented in the distribution of these grants, with the relatively small number of Chabad institutions receiving more than Reform synagogues, the largest denomination in the country. Partly that’s because Reform’s leaders also expressed serious doubts about the constitutionality of the program; Orthodox Jews are less troubled about that. But it’s also because the Orthodox community had the clout and organizational skills to push its constituencies to apply for the grants.
If security is such a problem in 2011, then the Jewish community should pay for itself to be safe, and not become dependent on receiving federal money that sets a worrisome and, frankly, embarrassing precedent. This is not a line we should cross again.
Forward = bad jews
shame on him for letting them interview him
michal
The Forward is a rag of self-hating “Jews”. No, they would rather that mosques get extra security because they are the “victims.” Sick.
Milhouse
When reading this one has to wonder whether the writer is really as stupid as he appears to be, or whether he’s faking it. Does his socialist anti-religious philosophy really blind him to the stupidity of his words, or is he aware of how stupid he sounds but can’t help himself?
There is nothing at all in the constitution about the separation of church and state. You will search the constitution in vain for that phrase, and it doesn’t appear in American jurisprudence before the 1940s, when it was introduced by Justice Hugo Black, who got it from – of all places – the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan was big on “separating church and state”, because it was very anti-Catholic, and hated the fact that Catholic schools were getting government funding on the same basis as public schools. (Jewish schools weren’t even on the radar back then. Nor was radar, for that matter.)
It’s obvious that the reason this funding goes primarily to Jewish institutions is because those are the ones in the most danger. Antisemitic violence is a real though small phenomenon in America, and small, visibly Jewish institutions tend to be Orthodox; and Chabad Houses are often the most visible Jewish presence in an area. In addition, while “American” antisemites are racists, and hate all Jews no matter how secular they are, Jihadists are not racist at all, and hate us for our religion, not for our “blood”; thus they will target shuls and Chabad Houses rather than JCCs.
Back around 1995, there was a story going around, whipped up by the left-wing press, that some racist gang was going around burning black churches. It soon turned out that this was not true; that church arson is a constant problem and affects all kinds of churches, white or black, and there was no particular increase that year, and certainly no racial component. Many of the arsonists turned out to be black. In general churches are subject to vandalism and arson because they’re empty at night, and because delinquent teenagers get a rebellious kick out of the sacrilege of “hurting G-d”. It’s like the Dor Haflogo: “let’s build a tower and climb up to the sky, and fight Hashem”.
But my point is that when this happened, liberals all around the country raised money to rebuild the black churches, and liberal Jews were the most prominent in this effort. (It later turned out that most of the money was stolen by a black bishop, who went to prison for it, but that’s another story of liberal gullibility.) And there were definitely calls for the government to act on providing security, catching the arsonists, and making sure it doesn’t happen again. Nobody suggested that because these were churches there was a constitutional problem. And these liberal Jews had no problem with their money going to build churches. So the Forward editorialist’s suggestion that Jewish leaders would have a problem “if three-quarters of the federal funding instead went to mosques and evangelical churches” is disingenuous.
We are in Crazy Times
New Jewish Leaders Donald Trump -ED Koch- Dov Hikind- …. I guess if Turner gets Elected all the Jewish Leaders of Jewish Social Agencies , Bkur Cholims etc etc will now go to Lobby New Congressman from “ Broad Channel ” >> http://www.5tjt.com/local-n…
Stupid
Shame.
Why would Shliach EVER talk to the Forward?!
Publicity hound Shluchim like this, will keep getting burned.
This guy should know better.
Bad move.
FORWARD MARCH
why wu who sit in crownheights has the audacity to say’this guy should know better’. so, he sees an oppurtinuty for hafatzos hamaayanos, and being thats what he has dedicated his life to, doesnt pass it up.
so u come l’achar hamaase from your comfortable armchair on crown st., saying ‘bad move’.
after YOU make ANY move. and only then will u be able to, and understand to never say ‘bad move’