Friday, September 12, 2008

"Jewish Voice & Opinion" Weighs In On Side Of Shul

The September issue of the Jewish Voice and Opinion came in the mail today. My Shabbat would not be complete without it.
The shul controversy story is addressed with a headline that reads:
Trying to Shut Down the Etz Chaim Minyan, Teaneck May Be Using Unconstitutional Regulations to Ban Religious Assembly
Here's the whole story.


Anonymous said...

So basically teaneck will eventually have a shul on every street corner.

Anonymous said...

Wow! what an ignorant post!

Teaneck will have a shul where its residents need and/or want one.

Welcome to America.

I realize it clearly bothers you that other people get the right of self-determination. From reading the different blogs it is quite clear that many people around here what to decide how OTHER people should live.

Thank G-d, the framers of the Constitution were far more intelligent and that might explain why America is the greatest country on Earth.

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that you give that rag any credibility. I know of so many stories that she printed over the years that are completely FALSE. Or she takes a grain of truth or an incomplete story and spins it so that it is false just to make the Orthodox community look good and demonizes everyone else. (we just finished Tisha B'Av but I don't think that the Queen of Sinas chinam knows that)

This yellow journalism rag is the alter ego of an Englewood overly wealthy bored housewife who MAYBE took a journalism course or 2 in college and thinks she is providing a service by posting super lashon hara for a thrill and her own legitimacy. Maybe she should be giving her money and time to charity instead of pretending to be a journalist. By the way, she DOES provide a service - legitimate journalists always have a good laugh at her expense.

Why did I post as anonymous? Because she is so unethical and not too bright in the field of journalism that she will find out who I am and post made up stories as she has about others in the past. Like the bully in the playground it makes miss low self esteem feel powerful.

Please start an intelligent line of conversation that could be a kiddush Hashem instead of legitimizing this Chillul Hashem.

Out Of Rightfield said...

Remember, the federal decisions don't say anything about whether the building in question is a private prayer group in a house or a full fledged synagogue, meaning zoning regulations should have absolutely no relevance to synagogues (or churches or mosques).
So before these 78 anti-semitic petition signers made their case, they only had to "deal" with a single family home. If the federal law trumps the zoning rules, which it probably will if push comes to shove, then there is nothing to stop Rabbi Feldman and his gang from building a giant edifice on Queen Anne Road.
This group of 78 may have just screwed themselves.

Anonymous said...

I guess every jew is wealthy than since they love taking homes off the tax roles, that is what will happen and is already happening in this town.

I mean QA has two shuls within spitting distance of each other, was there really a need for that? You telling me your fat asses are too lazy to walk an extra block or two?

Anonymous said...

Well as per the Lying Rabbi Feldman that is still all we gotta deal with a Single family home. Now if it really is a shul than the Rabbi really screwed himself because he can not live in the shul and get tax exemption. So is the rabbi finding a new home?

Anonymous said...

Let's leave the building on the tax rolls and confront "rabbi" Feldman on his books on ethics, that would be more productive to the town and more fun.

Anonymous said...

Yeah...let's CONFRONT him...

Just wondering, do you plan on doing that anonymously?

You're the 'lying' one and the one who lacks all 'ethics'.

When you're ready to 'confront', you'll come out of your dark shadows and do it in the open.

When you do that, of course, you'll be exposed for the liar you are.

p.s. I'm sure Rabbi Feldman is very grateful that you are concerned about his property taxes.

Anonymous said...

Is there a need for two shuls on QA?

Who is ANYBODY to tell another person where they should pray?

Again, Welcome to America. If you don't like the Constitution....too bad.

There are also 3 shuls on W. Englewood Avenue.

How many churches in town? Since there is no prohibition against driving, why do we need more than one?

Anonymous said...

p.s. I'm sure Rabbi Feldman is very grateful that you are concerned about his property taxes.

I thought he rented the tenement? So what the heck does he care what the property taxes are on his RENTAL PROPERTY, is HE paying them or his landlord ?

Anonymous said...

How many churches in town? Since there is no prohibition against driving, why do we need more than one?

I don't know how many? I don't belong to any of them. If you will notice except for one or two faiths there is just one church for each faith.

St. Paul's Lutheran Church: Located at 61 Church Street
New Life Convent Church: Located at 9 Genesee Avenue
Presbyterian Church of Teaneck:Located at 1 Church Street
Korean Catholic Church of Teaneck: Located at 1095 Teaneck Road
Teaneck Baha'I Center: Located at 126 Evergreen Place
First Baptist Church: Located at 1592 Teaneck Road
First Church of Christ Scientist Located at 1075 Queen Avenue
Ethical Culture Society: Located at 687 Larch Avenue
Christ Episcopal Church: Located at 480 Warwick Avenue
St. Mark's Episcopal Church: Located at Grange and Chadwick Roads
Trinity Evangelical Free Church: Located at 390 Teaneck Road
Dar-Ul-Ar Isiah: 201-692-7730, Located at 320 February Terrace
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses: Located at 292 Willow Street
Grace Lutheran Church: Located at 1200 River Road
Our Savior's Lutheran Church:, Located at 70 Cedar Lane
Teaneck United Methodist Church: Located at the corner of Windsor and Beverly Roads
St. Anastasia Roman Catholic Church: Located at 1095 Teaneck Road

Now why is it that your fat ass can not walk and extra block or two to attend a shul? why build a new one on each street corner in town, are you all that lazy?

What Lola Wants said...

"Now why is it that your fat ass can not walk and extra block or two to attend a shul? why build a new one on each street corner in town, are you all that lazy?"

Dont you know the old joke about the Jew on the desert island and there being 2 shuls? When the sole Jew is rescued he is asked why there are 2 shuls. He answers, "that one over there is the shul that I DON'T go to"

The screaming snarky anonymous' above who keep screaming "liar!" to every post they disagree with need to find a shul that will obviously put up with them. "Doeth the lady protest too much"?

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Lola.

But, every shul/minyan but one will 'put up with me'. I can daven at the JCT (orthodox minyan), Care One, Beth Aaron or Etz Chaim.

Those who live over here, know there is little love lost between Arzei and Etz. This is just a fact of life that will have to last for a while.

I'm reasonably sure that under the Constitution, it is my right to decide where to daven/pray and where not to.

I don't tell you or ANYONE else, where they should pray.

Why do you see fit to tell me?

Out Of Rightfield said...

Shavua Tov & Gut Vach
I heard from a little birdie that a family that lives on Queen Anne between the two shuls, but does not daven in either of them, tried their hand at "healing the rift" by having a community-wide Shalosh Seudos at their house this afternoon, to which all of the rabbis and neighbors were invited free of charge.
My source tells me that the Arzei Darom people and the Feldman people, for the most part, stayed on separate sides and did not talk to one another.
Anybody available with an eyewitness, first hand account? Please tell.

Anonymous said...

Mostly true, but the family that hosted, does daven occassionally at Arzei and rarely at Etz.

There was some mingling between the two groups, but not a lot. Probably depended on how 'involved' people were in the original rift and/or how involved some have been with current issues.

Teaneck Truth said...

who cares?

esther said...

Hey Out of Rightfield, are you going to participate in out little in-person get-together for Teaneck blogging participants?

Anonymous said...

No what bothers me is that as an atheist I have to support religious freedom and get NOTHING in return.

The idea that churches and synagogues etc should not pay property taxes is antiquated, based at a time when there were no cars (or toilets for that matter).

Just pony up like everyone else for fire police sewers etc. Time for a change. Don't waste time with the stale rap taht you are already paying taxes, thats for YOUR home, not the church or synagogue. Again what about those who do not believe. Does AMERICA turn it's back on them.

Stop already.

esther said...

The above post by an alleged atheist does not represent the prevailing opinion of people who are not relgious in a traditional sense.

Nobody can argue that tax-exemptions are the exclusive domain of traditional religious institutions. Non-theistic religious organizations like the Ethical Culture Society benefit from tax-exempt status. So do non-religiously-based charitable organizations, foundations and community-based organizations.

It is fair to argue that too much of one thing is not good for a town. Towns thrive when they have a healthy mix of things. We've all complained about too many nail salons and banks. (As an aside, two more banks are opening up on Teaneck Road in the 8 block stretch between Route 4 and Cedar Lane) Towns need a diversity of land uses if they want to be economically robust and interesting place to live.

Out Of Rightfield said...

Speaking of banks, we've got so many in town, that MY bank, TD Banknorth on Cedar Lane, done gone and shut down. Now I've got to go to the mall near the armory or to Hackensack.
Just my luck, every bank opens up six branches in town, but MINE decides to close. Go figure.

Out Of Rightfield said...

The constitution guarantess freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Joseph said...

"The constitution guarantess freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion."

Nope. The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion and protects the frees exercise thereof. IOW, it both protects the observance of religion and ensures that religion and state do not get too entwined.

Anonymous said...

Again, what amazes me is that if Feldman's group would have been truthful in their zoning application, none of this would be happening. The Cease and Desist is due to the incorrect zoning. Once that is fixed it will be business as usual. No one is stopping them from meeting at Care-one until their zoning issue is resolved. The issue isnt eitz chaim...its the zoning and the Feldmaniacs who try to find shortcuts to circumvent the systems in place.

Out Of Rightfield said...

The cease and desist order, I think, only applies to the move from the family room to thye living room (or maybe it's vice-versa), not to religious services.

Anonymous said...

What amazes me is that you keep spewing the same LIE over and over again.

As stated in the article, RABBI Feldman spoke to Mr. Gluck, the head of the Building Depeartment TWICE and followed up with a letter to him making sure that what was being done met all zoning requirements as a private prayer group.

Mr. Gluck confirmed this. Mr. Turitz confirmed this as well, at the April Council Meeting when 5 neighbors got up and spoke against the group, with 2-3 of them spewing pure lies and/or slander and/or bringing up topics they no nothing about.

Then, Mr. Gluck made an about face.

End results - the prayer group will continue. Mr. Gluck and Teaneck will likely get sued. Teaneck will lose (it always does) and the taxpayers will pay for GLUCK'S LIES.

Had Mr. Gluck been truthful with Feldman's group and told them that they would need to apply for zoning, then I doubt they would have proceeded as they did.

Your anager seems to be misplaced.

Yoni said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


I almost sent you a direct e-mail, but the simple fact is that neither side could possibly tell the story without hundreds of acts of lashon hora.

At this point, I think the details of what happened 3 years ago is irrelevant to what is going on today. What can not be disputed is that roughly 20-25 of 50-55 families chose to leave Arzei Darom about 3 years ago.

Maybe these people were irrational. Maybe they were control freaks. Maybe they were completely justified. Does it really matter now?

Some left to go to Beth Aaron. Some joined Rabbi Feldman at the JCT. Some davened in a new minyan (without a Rabbi) in a few people's homes (including 576 QA).

Now, 2+ years later, the ones that went to the JCT and the ones that davend at 576 have come together (for the most part) to daven at the Rabbi's house at 554 on shabbos/yontuf.

What in my opinion is relevant is that there are members of Arzei who are working with some of the neighbors who oppose this minyan. I don't believe this to be the feelings of the majority of Arzei or of the neighborhood at large.
Besides the obvious issue of having members of one minyan work against the members of the other is the fact that Arzei was created in a very similar fashion to 554 in that Arzei davened for 4-5 years in someone's home before filing for any variances to become a shul (at a different site).

While there will not be perfect peace in the neighborhood for a while, the chances will go up greatly if the members of Arzei Darom would worry about Arzei Darom and stop interfering in what goes on at 554. This should be something that is dealt with between 554 and its immediate neighbors. People who live 2, 3, 4 and more blocks away who daven at Arzei should not be turning this into a turf battle.

Yoni said...

Thank you for your thoughtful and rational approach to this whole discussion.

Anonymous said...

Thoughtful but generally biased and misleading.

Anonymous said...

so then lets hear the other non biased side then.

Hina said...

People should read this.

Anonymous said...

I come late to this discussion - today is Thanksgiving - but for anyone who is now logging on, I ask you to consider this remark, posted by someone in September: "... zoning regulations should have absolutely no relevance to synagogues (or churches or mosques)." Now, this is an untenable remark and I wonder if this poster is capable of being objective. Look, the Constitution provides for protection of religion but it does not protect the abuse by religion of imposing its will on others. My right to have a synagogue ends where the larger community has a reasonable right to require the adherence to regulations and ordinances. The neighbors are also entitled to protection. Would this poster be so generous if there were mosques on both sides of his block? Let's not permit frumkeit to be the new fascism. For God's sake!
- Nachum L.

Anonymous said...

There is a good possibility that there is no god and if there is one, he/she does not care how much or how often anyone prays or how many temples anyone builds. I acknowledge such a possibility and save a lot of time. Religion is a great divider of people.

Anonymous said...

[url=]hip hop jewelry[/url],[url=]hip hop pendants[/url],hip hop watches,[url=]bling bling[/url] ,hip hop,[url=]hip hop chains[/url],hip hop bling,[url=]iced out chains[/url],[url=]wholesale chains[/url]
hip hop jewelry
wholesale hip hop watches
hip hop rings

Janis evans said...

useful post thanks...
quickbooks enterprise support phone number