The Sentinel, v.087 no. 10, 1932

              .,o 1Me Sentine
A WEEKLY NEWSPAPER DEVOTED TO JEWISH INTERESTS
Topics of the W7eek
RABBI S. FELIX MENDELSOHN
**
A Pauperized Community
The approaching Holy Day services will once again bring promi-nently
the synagogue and its problems to the attention of the com-munity.
That our synagogues are in financial straits is well known to
everybody, in spite of the fact that they have been operating under
almost unbelievably reduced budgets. The seriousness of the situation
is to be found not so much in the lowered incomes of the synagogue but
rather in the fact that its leaders have thus far not devised any effective
methods of saving it from total collapse. And here an interesting
aspect should be pointed out. If exact figures were available it could
be easily proven that the reform and conservative synagogues have in
the present depression suffered proportionally more than orthodox syna-gogues.
For this deplorable phenomenon our reform and conservative
congregations have only themselves to blame. Through their near-sighted
tactics they have pauperized the community.
Orthodox Jews know very well that each and everyone of them
must contribute his share, whether great or small, to the maintenance
of the synagogue. On week days collections are taken up and on
Sabbaths and Holy Days donations are pledged freely. Orthodox wor-ship
is so arranged that for the least privilege which one enjoys he is
not only expected but reminded to pay. On occasions of joy and sorrow
donations for charity and religion are solicited and announced. No
Jew will ever have his son Bar Mitzvah or observe Yahrzeit without
contributing as liberally as possible to his synagogue. These contribu-tions
are made so regularly that no one will ever think of saying that
he is tired of giving or that he has already done his share. The ortho-dox
Jew looks upon the synagogue as belonging to him just as much
as to anybody else and he therefore considers it a joyous duty to par-ticipate,
even if only to a small extent, in its maintenance.
How about our progressive synagogues? All forms of indirect
giving have been branded as "schnorring " and they have therefore
been abolished. In order to maintain themselves these synagogues
resolved that there is only one respectable way of raising money and
that is through membership dues. Since the abolition of indirect giving
has removed an important source of revenue, the membership dues of
necessity had to be high-a fact which made these synagogues only the
heritage of the few. The large majority rightly said that the high
membership dues prevented them from being members in the average
reform and conservative synagogue. These congregations, however, did
not deprive any Jew from enjoying whatever privilege he desired even
though he was not a member. As a result of this situation Jews have
been sending their children to the religious schools of synagogues, have
had them confirmed and Bar Mitzvah, came to these synagogues for
Yahrzeit, and made demands upon the services of Rabbis without
contributing anything towards the maintenance of their religion. For,
the majority of the people argued, why should we worry about the
synagogue when its needs are well taken care of by its wealthy mem-bers?
This process of pauperization was enacted even in connection
with Holy Day services when reform Temples in this city announced
how many thousands of seats they were giving away to the "needy."
As a natural consequence of this objectionable publicity thousands of
Jews in Chicago, who could well afford to buy Holy Day tickets, alibied
and said that they were participants in "the mammoth"~ services where
free seats were promised.
After studying the methods hitherto pursued by our progressive
synagogues one can readily understand why they are in such a serious
plight. The few former wealthy members are at present unable to bear
the burden while the majority has been trained to obtain religion gratis
even in the good old days, and they certainly have seemingly good ex-cuses
for pleading poverty at this time. While untold damage has
already been done, our progressive synagogues can still save themselves
from bankruptcy provided they are sufficiently far-sighted to chane
their tactics. Every Jew who comes in contact with the synagogue must
be taught that he must pay something for whatever service he enjoys.
Reform and conservative congregations could improve their finances
immediately by making collections at every one of their services. The
argument against this step would be that Jews are not expected to
handle money on the Sabbath. This contention appears to us fallacious
because we should like to see the Jew or Jewess worshipping either in
reform or conservative synagogue who does not handle money on the
Sabbath on account of religious scruples. However, if our progressive
synagogues are not ready for this practice yet, the thing to do is to
abolish free religious services of any nature to anybody-unless these
people are truly charity cases and they are maintained either by Selden
street or by the Illinois Emergency Relief Commission. If a family is
poor it should pay, let us say, twenty-five cents a week for sending its
child to a congregational school, for as long as it pays something the
lesson that the maintenance of religion is everybody's duty sinks into
the hearts of our people.
The approaching Holy Day services offer an excellent opportunity
to our progressive congregations to begin reminding our people of their
duty to the synagogue. The Chicago Federation of Synagogues has
very wisely adopted a resolution that all its constituent congregations
should not admit anybody to Holy Day services without tickets and that
no ticket should be issued either Rosh Hashonah or Yom Kippur eve
or morning. Let our congregations enforce rigidly these two regula-tions
which simply mean that every worshipper must provide himself
with a ticket before the Holy Days. As these people call for tickets let
every applicant be explained that even though business is poor he must
do something to help the synagogue keep its doors open. Tickets should
also be given gratis, by all means-but only to those who after investi-gation
are proven to be truly charity cases. If our synagogues will
display greater vision and sounder business methods in the conduct
of their affairs their finances will improve considerably and they will
thereby be enabled to carry on their work more effectively in the
future.
Can the Wrong Be Erased?
The Hibbert Journal, a quarterly devoted to serious discussions
of religious and philosophical problems, has for years enjoyed very
high standing in the intellectual world. Under the editorial manage-ment
of Dr. L. P. Jacks it published articles which displayed much
erudition and genuine liberality. Jewish subjects, too, have from time
to time been treated in this quarterly by Jews and non-Jews in a fair
manner and among its frequent contributors has been Dr. Claude G.
Montefiore, leader of Jewish liberalism in England and well-known
scholar. When the July issue of this quarterly came to hand many
liberals were therefore surprised to find there an article by a certain
Ray Knight of India in which he makes the startling accusation that
ritual murder was prevalent among the ancient Hebrews down to the
second century before the Christian Era and that this practice is
substantiated in the Bible. To corroborate this statement Mr. Knight
refers to a book "Josephus and the Jews" by Professor Foakes Jack-son,
an English scholar who is at present in this country. When
Professor Jackson was informed of the theory ascribed to him he said:
"It all seems, rather ridiculous that I should be accused of coun-tenancing
such an absurdity with which I learn the article in the
Hibbert Journal charges me. From it some apparently suppose I
endorse the so-called blood accusations brought against the Jews. I
can only quote from my own book, "Josephus and the Jews," where
the writer only uses me to prove the antiquity and the widespread in-fluence
of the accusation: 'We come next to an accusation which,
ridiculous as it is, has continued through the ages and has been trans-ferred
from Jews to Christians and then employed by Christians against
Jews. . . . In each instance there was an unwarranted suspicion that
a human sacrifice was part of a worship so carefully hidden from the
outside world. . . . Not so long ago this absurd and wicked fiction
caused a cruel persecution of the Jews in eastern Europe.' "
From Professor Jackson's statement it can be readily seen that
Mr. Knight does not belong to that company of scholars who have
hitherto contributed to the Hibbert Journal. How then did this pseudo-historian
succeed in getting a hearing from Dr. Jacks who has always
been known for his learning and liberality? The editors of the Opinion
Magazine, to whom Professor Jackson issued his statement, maintain
that Dr. Jacks owes an apology to the Jewish people for printing this
piece of calumny. Reports from London state that such an apology
will no doubt appear in the next number of the Hibbert Journal. But
can a mere apology undo the grave wrong committed against Israel?
September 2, 1932
*.