Digest of Public Opinion on Jewish Matters

[The purpose of the Digest is informative. Preference is given to papers not generally accessible to our readers. Quotation does not indicate approval.–Editor.]

“What Price Religion” is the caption which appears over an appeal for funds published by the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. The appeal, appearing in the April issue of the “Union Tidings”, organ of the Union, reads, in part:

“That is a fair question.

“For us the question goes further: What price Judaism?

“The Union of American Hebrew Congregations is making every effort to strengthen the bonds of religion in the home, in the classroom, in the synagogue. It is making every possible effort to make Judaism a part of life for Jews. It is making every possible effort to hold our younger generation firmly to the home and to the faith. But these efforts are rendered almost futile by the lack of support which the Union is receiving from many of its constituents, from large numbers of the men and women who have called on the Union to do this work which they now fail to support.

“If Judaism is to be strengthened, if it is to be perpetuated in this country, the Union must have the means with which to carry on the work which it is organized to do.

“Without this support the efforts of the Union cannot hope to succeed, and the Jews of America must answer the question ‘What Price Judaism’ in a definite, positive manner. They must answer it by furnishing the Union with the financial means for carrying out the program that was adopted at the Cleveland convention.”

THE RELIGIOUS ISSUE IN THE BALTIMORE ELECTIONS

The injection of the religious issue into the mayoralty elections in Baltimore which took place last Tuesday and the action of Harry H. Goldberg, a member of the Republican committee of Baltimore, who resigned in protest when he learned that the Republicans would fight their Democratic opponent on the ground of his being a Catholic, are the subject of comment in the press. The New York “Times” relates the story as follows, in an editorial of May 5:

“How does Mr. William F. Broening, Republican, come to be elected Mayor of Baltimore over Mr. William Curran, Democrat, by a majority of more than 17,000 in a strong Democratic city?

“Throughout the campaign there was an impressive sense of something underhand. It was revealed in the last days of the canvass. There was a secret Republican meeting Saturday night. Mr. Harry E. Karr, a distinguished lawyer, withdrew as soon as he found that the religious issue was to be raised. Mr. Harry H. Goldberg, who attended the first meeting, was sworn to an affidavit of which this is a part:

“‘At this meeting Eugene Frederick stated that they were assembled to aid Mr. Broening and that a spade might as well be called a spade and that the fight was to be made on Mr. Curran because he was a Catholic. Thereupon I said I could take no further part in the proceedings because as a Jew, I have no quarrel with Catholicism and, as a Mason, I have no right to inject Masonry into politics.’

“At another Republican meeting handbills were distributed: ‘To the voters of Baltimore City. When you vote for your candidates, do you know who they are? Or is it just for your party?’ Then follows a list of the candidates with their political and religious description. ‘Catholic’ is printed in capitals. The Baltimore Sun published a facsimile of this document.

“Mr. Curran, Catholic, was defeated. The Protestant Democratic candidates for Controller and President of the Council were elected. In the Third District, a Democratic ‘stronghold,’ the three Catholic Democratic candidates for members of the City Council were beaten. The case seems clear. There was a glorious uprising of religious intolerance in a region whose history and traditions would leads us to expect the contrary.”

Dwelling especially on Mr. Goldberg’s action, the “Jewish Morning Journal” of yesterday feels that there is a lesson in this incident for every Jew. The paper says:

“Mr. Goldberg acted correctly and he deserves recognition for refusing to be inveigled into a position which would have put Jews generally in an embarrassing light.

“Every politically intelligent Jew who understands the general situation and realizes how dangerous it is to raise a religious issue in a political campaign, should take the Baltimore Jew as an example. Similar situations, in one form or another, will arise again and again during election of delegates and election conflicts. The Jewish citizen must be the first and most outspoken opponent against the injection of religious issues into politics. In the war between the Protestants and Catholics in this country we are neutral, with a leaning to the side of the minority against whom an effort at discrimination is made on religious grounds.”

CHARGES WIDEPSREAD DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JEWS IN MARYLAND

Charges of widespread religious prejudice and discrimination against Jews in Maryland are made by B. H. Hartogensis, Baltimore lawyer, writing in the forthcoming issue of the “Jewish Times” of Baltimore.

Mr. Hartogensis was instrumental in helping the recent passage in the Maryland legislature of the hill amending the state marriage law so as to authorize ” other religious ministers than ministers of the Gospel and Quakers to perform marriage ceremony.”

Mr. Hartogensis writes:

“In effect, by its legislation and decisions, the state holds its Jews in light esteem, and sets the pace to its denizens, so that despite our patriotic devotion to the State for full 300 years with war records unsurpassed, with the splendid achievements of our scientists, educators, professional men, merchants and of our deserts generally, it is a fact that the Jews here are cynically considered by the average Christian, as stated in a recent letter to ‘The Baltimore Sun,’ as ‘something beneath them, as something to keep aloof from,’ ‘something even to loathe and despise, something to ridicule and laugh at.’ It is not pleasant to record that the ‘Best People of the City of Baltimore openly sanction race-segregation levelled at its Jews, who are openly advertised as pariahs and outcasts from select neighborhoods and apartment houses, among them Roland Park, Ashburton and the Morris Organization of 600 apartment houses.

“The ‘Sun’ in commenting on March 27, 1926 on the writer’s expose of the hateful blasphemy Act of religion of 1649 miscalled Edict of Toleration as being still in force in the ‘free State’ used these words editorially: ‘No reasonable man would deny the large measure of toleration, day in and day out that marks the life of the people of this State.’ It is against this socalled ‘toleration’ one of lofty condescension to those beneath them as if they did not have equals rights and were not their equals, that seif-respecting Jews, not spineless cravens, do protest. Due to this condescension in a manner peculiar to Baltimore City, membership is denied us in the Rotary Club and similar business men’s organizations, in the Masonic Shrine, in an ever increasing number of ‘purely Christian’ subordinate lodges of nonsectarian orders, wherein one blackball rejects applicants, and in rendering their ritual so distinctly Christian as to be offensive to conscientious scrupulous Jews.

“Insofar as the State, which belongs equally to all its citizens, continues this so-called ‘toleration’ by the Christian majority, it is damnable and must come to an end, as in really free states of the Union.”