ffrf's response to city of miami beach

8/12/2019 FFRF's Response to City of Miami Beach

1/3

July 14, 2014

Sent via U.S. Mail and Email:[email protected]

Raul J. Aguila

City Attorney, City of Miami

1700 Convention Center Drive

Fourth FloorMiami Beach, FL 33139

Re: Letter responding to FFRFs concerns with city-endorsed eruvin

Dear Mr. Aguila,

Thank you for your July 10, 2014 letter responding to our concerns about the existing and

proposed eruvin. In that letter, you state that the eruvindo not violate the establishment clause,

and can be legally permitted. As you know, any government action must have a legitimatesecular purpose to comport with the Establishment Clause. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S.

602, 612-613 (1971).

The letter states that the eruv has the secular purpose of allowing Orthodox Jews to participatein matters of daily living outside of their homes on Saturday, their Sabbath. There is nothing

secular about that purpose. FFRF successfully struck down Wisconsins official Good Friday

holiday, observed for the purpose of worship because worship is not a secular purpose.1

Similarly, the purpose of the eruvyouve put forward is only meant to aid one particular

religious sect, Orthodox Jews, to act in accordance with that sects own religious lawsconcerning their Sabbath. There is nothing secular about helping a religious sect comply with

religious law. What do you think the reaction would be if Miami Beach endorsed and even

helped devout Muslims rope off an area in which to adhere to Sharia law?

Perhaps you were suggesting that the eruvin alleviate a burden on Orthodox Jews religious

exercise? This rationale might be acceptable if this were a government-imposed burden.Soldiers serving overseas may not be able to worship as they choose so it may be an appropriate

the government to provide them with a chaplain to accommodate their religion.

Orthodox Jews suffer no government-imposed burden on their religion. The Sabbath

prohibitions on labor are imposed by their own religion. If they do not wish to adhere to thoserules, the solution is to renounce Orthodox Judaismnot designate public and private property

that they do not own as belonging to that sect. This is as absurd as a Catholic deciding to fast for

1Find more information on this suit, including the ruling, here: http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/highlighted-court-

successes/item/12385-ffrf-wins-good-friday-state-holiday-challenge.


2/3

2

Lent and then claiming the government has a responsibility to feed him.2 The government

cannot favor one religion by alleviating its self-imposed burdens or allowing it to impose thatreligion over wide swaths of public and private property. This is not freedom of religion; it is the

imposition of religion.

This unavoidably religious purpose creates serious problems for the Miami Beach eruverected in1985 with city resources.3 The Declaration of Rights in the Florida Constitution clearly states,

No preference shall be given by law to any church, sect or mode of worship, and no moneyshall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect or

religious denomination, or in aid of any sectarian institution. 6. Florida voters rejected

amending this language in November 2012. If any government resources used to help erect any

of the eruvin, as they were in Miami Beach, the eruvin violate the Florida Constitution.

There are problems with eruvin other than the Establishment Clause. The government has no

power to ask citizens of many faiths or no faith to enter property belonging to one particularfaith. Religious faith is an intensely personal choice. Many religious adherents would feel

uncomfortable entering property where orthodox religious law applies. Some may even beprecluded from doing so by their own religion. Therefore, the eruvinviolate the ReligiousFreedom Restoration Act rights of every citizen who is not an Orthodox Jew. The eruvinrequire

Hindus, Muslims, and atheists to enter property designated as a private, Orthodox Jewish

household. The government is essentially forcing citizens of every religion other than Orthodox

Judaism onto property dedicated to one religions laws. This meets the standard put forth by theSupreme Court in the recentHobby Lobby decision.

We understand that the Miami BeachEruvCouncil is making an economic argument: Call theFontainebleau hotel and find out how much they make over the Passover holiday, said Abraham

Galbut, the Councils representative.4 This bizarre logic would justify any illegal action so long

as it was profitable, from organized crime to human trafficking. The issue is not whether the

eruvmakes businesses money, but whether it is government endorsed. If it is profitable for

businesses and locals, why not ask those private property owners to erect the eruvinstead of thegovernment?

The Orthodox Jewish Sabbath prohibitions are extensive: no sowing, plowing, reaping, binding,

threshing, winnowing, selecting, grinding, sifting, kneading, baking, shearing, bleaching ordyeing fabric, spinning, threading needles, weaving, separating, tying, untying, sewing, tearing,

trapping, hunting, slaughtering, skinning, curing hides, scraping pelts, marking, cutting, writing,

erasing, building, demolishing, lighting or extinguishing a flame, and of course, carrying from

2

See Taylor v. Pelican Bay, C 07-639 MHP (PR), 2010 WL 2671989 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2010) (prisoners hungerstrikes were self-imposed missed meals, not government caused conditions to warrant constitutional objection). 3Gaspar Gonzalez, Strings Attached: Orthodox Jews in Miami Beach consider it a harmless symbol,but others

believe it violates the U.S. Constitution,Miami New Times(February 2 1, 2002), noting that the eruv was erected

with the help of the-police and fire departments of Miami Beach, Surfside, and Bay Harbor Islands, available at

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2002-02-2 l/news/strings-attached/ full/.4Michael E. Miller, Atheists Claim Eruv Imposes Orthodox Judaism on Miami Beach, Demand Removal,

Miami New Times(July 10, 2014), available at

http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2014/07/atheists_claim_miami_beach_eruv_imposes_orthodox_judaism_o

n_the_public_demand_removal.php.


3/3

3

private to public domain or vice versa.5 The far-reaching nature of the religious prohibitions

does not make them any less religious. A city-endorsed eruvis city-endorsed religious law.More specifically, it is a city-endorsed space for complying with religious law.

Our history has seen enough division over religious claims to land control or ownership and

adhering law. The founders separated religion and government to stop that divisiveness.Government should not be facilitating for religious groups seeking to stake out more spiritual

territory. In short, the government cannot sanction, let alone erect, religious loopholes. Werenew our request to cease permitting eruvinand remove all unauthorized physical structures

from public land.

Sincerely,

Andrew L. Seidel

Staff Attorney

Freedom From Religion Foundation

5SeeRonald L. Eisenberg, Shabbats Work Prohibition: A discussion on prohibitions for the Jewish day of rest,

My Jewish Learning website, last accessedJuly 14, 2014. Available at

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/practices/Ritual/Shabbat_The_Sabbath/At_Home/work.shtml?p=1

ffrf's response to city of miami beach

Documents