Jewish Post, Indianapolis, Marion County, 25 May 1945 — Page 14

Th* Jewish Post G. ML COHEN Editor and Publisher JANE CALVELAGE Managing Editor

JKWISH POST COKRRSI’ONDKNTS Atlanta Nathan Cohen Boston Bob Green Charlotte, N. C. .. Cranberry Dickson Chicago Ben Gallob Columbus Lou Berliner Des Moinea Frank Brody Detroit Robert DeWolfe Duluth Norman L. Levine Erie Eve Heller Fort Worth .. Mrs. Phil W. Edwards Hartford Ruby Zagoren Houston Mrs. Benjamin Bloom Jacksonville ...... Beatrice A. Pelser Kansas City Ben B. Schifman Milwaukee Sidney Kaufman Newark Mrs. Ann Ross New Haven ...... Herman S. Modes New Orleans H. W. Bierhorst Oklahoma City .... Rev. Wm. N. Lifschults Philadelphia Fred K. Schecktor Phoenix Ken Arlin Portland, Me. .... Leonard J. Cohen Portland, Ore Herman Landau Richmond % Hank Wolfe Rochester Mrs. Doris Miller . San Francisco Ernest Lenn Rabbi Saul White Seattle Joseph F. Parker Syracuse Louis Gerber. Jr. FOREIGN CORRESPONDENTS Mexico City Marcel Jover Montreal Charles J. Lazarus Quebec David Kirshenblatt Toronto Wilfred List

Tisha B’Av July 19 Rosh Hashonah Sept. 8

Friday, May 25, 1945 The Editor's Choir I have the following letter from Mrs. A. Weinstein of 7332 S. Lowe Ave., Chicago, and since It is a great deal like many other letters on the same subject, I am going to discuss it. “The sermon delivered by Dr. Holmes which you have printed in your paper, I have reread several times. “It seems to me if this sermon could be broadcast over a large network it might apprize the Christians of something they had no knowledge of, and might help perhaps to combat the rising tide of anti-Semitism. “May I have your personal opinion?” Many of our readers, and some in very high places have gone to the national civic defense agencies, with exactly the same suggestion. They are so taken with the sermon, that they cannot help but feel that everyone who reads it would react the same way. Unfortunately that is not the ^pase. I do know that several northern Indiana businessmen offered to finance the publishing of the sermon in daily newspapers, but the Anti-Defamation League turned down the offer. And I think I can understand why. The sermon it seems comes under the heading of too obvious propaganda. It is just too powerful a dose. When I first heard of the A. D. L. decision, I differed, but now I am inclined to agree with it. First though, I should point out that Dr. Holmes is a Unitarian, and Unitarians do not believe in the Immaculate Conception of Christ. So at least here, the majority of Christians would be offended, although I presume the sermon could, with Dr. Holmes permission, be edited from that standpoint. The sermon has been tested by us on a good many non-Jewish families, and in too many cases the reaction is very bitter, with the comment along the line, that *^he Jews are trying to claim all the glory, the Jews think them-

selves above other people, and so forth. It is just too much for most people to stomach. The psychologists probably have some name for this type of reaction. I have often thought that The Post might print the sermon, in say for instance the New York Times, as a message, in the same way many business firms do, with, of course, the changes as indicated above. In this way, a private organization, not connected with anyone, might get the sermon across to the public in a manner which might be ef-. fective. If this test is successful, perhaps other means along the same lines could be employed. The national civic defense agencies are not omniscient. They probably would welcome a test of this kind, under private auspices. Many people have offered to reimburse The Post for the distribution of these sermons, but it has been our privilege so far to send out free, even unto the mailing, over 150,000 copies of it. We still have on hand another 100,000 copies, which we intend to distribute in the same manner. This new idea, however, is a bit more than we can handle, now, which is why I am broaching the subject here. If you want it done, you’ll have to make it possible, so let me hear from you. * • • In the past two weeks I have received three personally addressed letters, i.ne after the other, from the American Council for Judaism, seeking my membership. Although some of my “friends” are going to say, see, they recognize in him a kindred soul, what I am trying to point out is the aggressive membership campaign the Council conducts. The letters are written on an automatic typewriter, and are convincing. I can see easily how they would bring in members, although this is not to say that they are doing that. The work of this kind is being handled by Sidney Wallach Associates, a firm of experts, which includes, besides Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Wallach, Nathan Delth, who at various times has been publicity director of the Joint Distribution Committee and more lately, the Jewish Welfare Board. Usually in mail campaigns a test is made perhaps with as large a mailing as 5,000. If results are satisfactory, then the mailings are upped into the hundreds of thousands. In this case I presume local members of the Council send in lists oi names, and this is the means by which the mailing lists are compiled. When I was membership chairman of the local Zionist district, and sought the same position in the Ohio Valley Zionist Region, I had in mind a telephone campaign, and I still think this type of solicitation would double or treble the Zionist membership in the United States. Let a crew go from city to city, where in each place they would find an office already set up with ample telephones and lists to call, and I’m sure they would bring in the members in droves. My experience as a membership chairman was that too many people were never solicited for membership, and not that those who were solicited said “no." The last membership figure of the Council was 6,000. When and if new figures are released we may learn how successful has been the mall order drive.

■n»

Opportunity Knock.*

r 1 ''HE suggestion made here some weeks X back for a united front of all Jewish groups at San Francisco was, as could have been expected, wasted, although the Synagogue Council did later attempt to effectuate some kind of cooperation. But it seems that just such a united front as that suggested, with men like Judge Frankfurter, Judge Rosenman, Herbert Lehman, Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath and Sidney Hollander conducting the negotiations, could very likely be successful now. The San Francisco Conference was too near at hand when The Post first made its suggestion, and the need for co-operation was not as yet as effectively demonstrated as it is today. So that now everyone seems to agree, and all

that is necessary is for the proper personages to take the lead. When the next opening for presentation of the Jewish case will appear is in the fture. As a result there won’t be that tenseness and spirit of competition between the national Jewish organizations as was evident prior to the San Francisco Conference. Major difficulties have a tendency not to appear as salient in times of no stress. Several years ago the B’nai B’rith was in a position to call the national Jewish organizations together. But we are a step past that stage now. The need now if for leadership of the very biggest names in the Jewish field to assert themselves. The opportunity is knocking.

Divided on Accomplishments

TN view of the lack of unanimity in reports X of Anglo-Jewish newspapermen as to the degree to which efforts of Jewish leaders to improve or safeguard the position of Europe’s and Palestine’s Jews were successful, it would seem that the most reliable reports are those of the journalists for the Yiddish press, who seem to portray “disgust” more than any one other characteristic in respect to accomplishments at San Francisco as far as the Jew is concerned. Then too, the first Jewish consultants to report back. Dr. Stephen S. Wise and Rabbi Israel Goldstein, have expressed open disappointment at what did and did not transpire at the conference.

As good a summary as any is that of Milton Brown, which is a pen name for someone in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, who writes: “Speaking from the Jewish standpoint. It now seems fairly clear that the main benefits that the San Francisco Conference of the United Nations will bring to the Jews will come from such gains as all peoples will derive from a general world security body. If there is some species of world organization, should a Hitler arise in one place or another, there will be some body to which Jews might reasonably appeal to deal with this menace.”

Bergson 1 s Hebrew Committee Evil and Empty, But—

r | >HE Hebrew Committee for National LibX eration, latest front of Peter H. Bergson, represents actually no one in Palestine. It is an empty agency, self constituted, and, has violated every tenet of decent restraint in its claims. For instance read this paragraph from a letter in the New York Times by Rabbi Morris M. Rose, who is Co-Chairman of the ZionistRevisionist Organization of America: The Hebrew Committee of National Liberation consists of stateless and Palestinian Jews, who are better fitted to represent the interests of Europe’s homeless Jews and Palestinian Jewry than those Jews who are British or American nationals. Dr. Weizmann, as a British subject, should find it rather embarrassing to represent the interests of the Jewish nation in Palestine to Great Britain. This

Current UJA Split Compared to Tale of Goat and Pigeons by the American Jewish World, of Pittsburgh—As we pointed out some time ago, the split-up of the United Jewish Appeal and the Joint Distribution Committee is not making any immediate difference to this community or to communities where funds are collected and then allocated by a communal budgeting committee. But we also insisted that for the good of the whole, the Jewish public must insist that they iron out their differences and become reconciled. Various proposals of arbitration and half a dozen plans for reconciliation have been rumored. Now comes the assertion, in a copyrighted story in the Jewish Post, that the President’s War Relief Control Board has stepped into the picture. This Board, consisting of Charle? Taft, Joseph Davies, and Charles Warren has the last word as to which agencies may function in raising funds for overseas relief. Lacking a license, no group may collect or transmit such funds. It is likewise suggested that the Board is much concerned over the “large increase in campaign expenditures this year over last.” It questions the justification of such an increase. So it seems that arbitration must be agreed to so the two groups will unite once again. We do not pretend to know which side is right or whether both sides are wrong. We have received plenty of explanations from both. But we are reminded of the divorce proceedings that ran something like this: The judge speaking to the husband: “Your wife charges extreme cruelty which has made her life unbearable. Do you have anything to say to that?” Husband: “Yes, your Honor. It was really the

should rather be the task of a Palestinian such as Peter H. Bergson, who is a native of Jerusalem and the nephew of the late Rabbi Abraham Kook, former Chief Rabbi of Palestine. Rabbi Morris M. Rose. You get the idea what it meant by the Yiddish term “chutzpah.” The Hebrew Committee has only one small thing in its favor. And that is that as far as ameliorating the Jewish plight, it has been effective in doing just that, and by its accurate sense of timing and news value and lack of restrain has awakened public interest in the causes it represents. And moreover its latest ist groups no end, and seems merely to agantic, although it has angered the official Ziongravate the possibility of the passage by the Congress of a strong Palestine Resolution, might possibly do just that.

Comment other way round. She was cruel to me. She insisted on keeping a goat in the bedroom. The air became so rank that I couldn’t stand it any longer.” The judge, amazement written all over his face: “Well, why didn’t you open the window?” Husband: “And let all of my pigeons fly out? I should say not!” Now we are not suggesting whether it is the J. D. C. that insists on keeping the goat and the U. P. A. that insists on the pigeons or vica versa. We are suggesting that housecleaning that moves out both the goat and the pigeons is very much in order. • • • Confusion Arises from Present Observance of Confirmation and Bar Mitzvah, Dr. William Furie Says in The Jewish Advocate— In brief, since Confirmation is not purely an academic procedure of graduation on the basis of prescribed scholarly accomplishments, but is mixed with the religious privilege and, indeed, “obligation” to the confirmed, school standards suffer. And, thus, diluted as minimum programs must of necessity be, they are further weakened by the “necessity” to be confirmed. Likewise, the religious aspect of Confirmation is fraught with weakening dangers. Since many boys have been “Bar Mitzvahed,” there is torn feeling toward the signficance of Confirmation. Further, since there are allegedly certain academic prerequisites: completion of courses, study examinations — the religious, automatic assumption of “adult” responsibility and loyalties is not quite clear. In essence, then, we find much confusion in the present form of the Confirmation, confusion analogous to that prevailing in the Bar Mitzvah program.