RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM DOM

Dom, good morning and I thank you for responding. I appreciate it as I have appreciated all the work that you have done for the Village and the advise you have given to Gerry who regards you highly for this. However, and it is a big however, one good deed or two or however many there are, do not and does not excuse the lack of doing the right thing in another situation, particularly when one is as bright and aware a man as you are. And yes, I will publish your letter in its entirety but will do so a bit later on in the day  along with my response. So, to the letter.

     You state that it is a fact that the sign  that was in question was the banner for Phyllis Richland. Yes, it was - BUT there was also another sign and your president, David Israel, knew very well that once a can of worms is opened, ALL the worms come out. Pandora's box situation. Indeed, David Israel has no business even questioning the sign as it was OUTSIDE the venue of the Village, in a public arena and why? Because simply put, that man has shut off all venues, all accessibility for any opponent of his to gain publicity or public appearance. Is his ego that large that he must control everything? Is he now branching out into the outside world, G-d help us?! Anyway, to say that it was only the political sign- uh uh and you know that Dom, you know that in your heart and mind. We in the synagogue have to expend funds and time over things that were never in question and change a sign that stood there for 16 years and one that Code Enforcement was never going to cite because it bothered no one - until your David Israel came along.

     Next question. You state, right along with him, that there needs to be a separation between church and state. I agree and have always stated that there is no room for religion in the Oval Office, hating it when the candidates start quoting G-d. It matters not whether one is Lutheran, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim or even agnostic or pantheist. It matters only that one does right by the constituents be it here or in a wider arena. Your Mr. Israel has forgotten that and is hypocritical to the nth degree when he uses "sacrilegious" as an excuse. Truly, Dom, truly! And there is no issue of collusion here. The synagogue, following a long American tradition, supports the needs of those who need help as they are denied it elsewhere. Phyllis was denied her rights and so we allowed a sign to be hung. Do you think David needs a sign hung? As far as my sign, old news is dead news, but - it was there for the same reason and what's more, in the future we will accept more signs and make sure they are up to Code. What will David or his henchmen do then? Burn the place down?

     Churches and synagogues in any case, have long been involved with societal ills and their correction. Hence the Underground Railway. Hence the marchers at Selma. Hence the speeches about the Vietnam War. Hence the churches and synagogues homeless shelters, food pantries and soup kitchens. Religion lives in the midst of society and as such, the leaders will often speak of the issues. If your pastor or priest does not - that is his/her choice and the congregation can accept or change.
     You, in addition, have another error. How do I send it out without signing my name? True, I guess in that I cannot sign on line. I do not have the software for it BUT it is written on my blog. MY blog. With my name on it. Which everyone knows. No one else posts on there unless I am aware of it - and that is due to the disgusting emails received from some others in the other camp. So - why that accusation? Additionally, you state that you welcomed me as a new member of the Insurance Committee. Yes, you did and thank you for that, but it is a hollow thank you as shall I say, you did not welcome me when I was summarily fired by David who openly stated his PERSONAL reasons for that firing, without the Chair's knowledge or permission and she gave it to him but good, BUT here I am still fired because of David's tantrum and silence was the order of the day by you and everyone else. Why?  Frightened to lose a position? Each person has to answer that for himself/herself but the fact remains as it is and was.

     So, Dom. the question remains. knowing why, and you do, why David did what he did, and having read my response, do you still think he was justified in his actions? Do you think he is justified in shutting out all competition from all venues and why should it matter to him if someone hangs a sign. I have not seen him diligently along the roadsides of the Village border picking up the signs that the politicians all stick in the ground. Guess there are two rules going on here. Dom, face it. There is much that is wrong with David and I am asking all of you to think deeply about it and have the courage to say that either you believe in repressive tactics and no matter the consequences, full steam ahead, or you see the moral bankruptcy that led to this behavior. Please read the letter carefully and think it over. And right now the unresponsiveness is to this issue and the rest is for another day - or can be found in almost daily mention on my blog or Gary's and now that of Phyllis. Read them and think them over outside the poisonous atmosphere of UCO.

                                        Just as respectfully,   Esther Sutofsky


By the way, I believe the word salacious is being misused here. In fact, it is grounds for slander, but I will assume you did not recognize your misuse and for future knowledge here is the definition and synonyms:(of writing, pictures, or talk) treating sexual matters in an indecent way and typically conveying undue interest in or enjoyment of the subject: "salacious stories"

synonyms: pornographic · obscene · indecent · crude · lewd ·

Perhaps with this new knowledge you might want to edit the sentence containing that word. Just sayin'.