Skip to main content

ACLU Time?

Question: When is a house not a home?

Answer: When it’s a Jewish temple.

Chabad Lubavitch, an Orthodox Jewish organization, bought a Victorian era house in Litchfield and announced that it planned a temple on its property. The temple would require changes in the house: a roof steeple bearing a clock face with Hebrew lettering on it to identify it as a synagogue and a star of David. These changes did not pass muster with Litchfield’s Historic Commission, which previously, according to a story in the Waterbury Republican American, “had ordered flower boxes removed from in front of homes and more recently a historic plaque to a Revolutionary War hero taken down from the side of a house.”

During a Sept 6 meeting, Commission Chairman Wendy Kuhne offered an objection to the plan. According to the minutes of the meeting: “A steeple will be added to the roof of the building and have a clock face with Hebrew alphabet lettering. The siding will be a combination of wood and Jerusalem stone. Mrs. Kuhne noted her own objections to the stone which is not indigenous to the district, feels the clock tower is not appropriate, and the Star of David may not comply with the District.”

Litchfield Borough Warden Lee Losee politely pointed out that the nearby Methodist Church has no fewer than two stars of David set in its stain glass windows.

Chabad’s disappointed president responded, “I felt that an essential element of the expression of our religion had been denied," Eisenbach said when asked by the Republican-American about the Sept. 6 meeting. "However, I am sure the commission will come to appreciate the beautiful new addition to Church Row."

The reference to Church Row is a stinger. When the Historic Commission looks at the property owned by Chabad Lubavitch, it sees a house. But when the owners look at their own property, they see a temple. There was a time – long passed in Connecticut – when it was thought that owners could make renovations to their own property without being impeded by the architectural police.

A remembrance of that distant time caused Andy Thibault, Connecticut’s Nat Hentoff, to erupt in polite fury at the presumption of Litchfield’s Historic Commission. “Once, the people of Connecticut had such a thing called 'property rights,'" Tibault wrote on his blog site, The Cool Justice Report. “Absent installing a public health hazard, one was pretty much free to do with one’s land what one wanted. This was, of course, before planning and zoning did a little rearranging of the notion of private property.”

How different it was in Waterbury. Seeking to move from New York, Rabbi Yehuda Brecher of Torah Umesorah, the National Society for Hebrew Day Schools, knew he would find a welcoming shelter in Connecticut’s city on a hill. Waterbury, the city chosen by Ken Burns to broadly represent American soldiery in his World War II film, is not one of Connecticut’s gated cities.

It was the almost impertinent cross scraping the sky on one of the city's tumbling hills, and its rich immigrant heritage, that drew more than 110 orthodox Jewish families to Waterbury. There they have transformed a corner of the city, refurbished old housing stock, filled a school with pious young people, added their mite to an already rich cultural diversity and made a city on a hill sing a song of love and fellowship.

Connecticut’s Civil Liberties Union, always energized whenever a crèche comes too close to a town green, may want to join Chabad's attorney, Peter Herbst Sr., in any future legal proceedings to assure that constitutional religious rights are observed. The snoring from that quarter, whenever genuine religious rights are put in jeopardy, would wake the dead.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p