The proposal to erect an eruv in Westhampton Beach has led to a great deal of anger and confusion. The debate has been characterized by misunderstanding, mutual distrust and - worse - expressions of anti-Semitism.

This is an unfortunate turn of events for a proposal that really shouldn't be all that controversial. Contrary to what many have said, an eruv - a symbolic boundary that would allow Orthodox Jews to carry books, push wheelchairs and strollers, and engage in other otherwise proscribed activities on the Sabbath - would not fundamentally alter the community or otherwise interfere with the lives of non-Jews. It is, simply put, a matter of basic religious accommodation that would allow one segment of a community to go about their daily lives while adhering to their core religious beliefs.

Still, the community reaction to the proposed eruv in Westhampton Beach is not all that surprising. Eruv proposals have at times stoked similar fears. In Tenafly, N.J., one such proposal resulted in a federal appeals court ordering the town to permit an eruv.

Having been intimately involved in that controversy as legal counsel to the Tenafly Eruv Association, I know that good information about a proposal can go a long way toward dispelling common myths about an eruv's impact and help to defuse tensions.

An eruv is a nearly invisible boundary made up of existing overhead wires and plastic or rubber strips that cannot be distinguished from the wire coverings used by the telephone company. According to one federal judge "unless one knows which black plastic strips are and which are utility wires, it is absolutely impossible to distinguish the two."

This symbolic boundary plays an important religious role. According to Jewish law, observant Jews may not lift, push or carry objects - including canes, wheelchairs and baby strollers - outside their homes on the Sabbath. In accordance with a religious convention practiced for more than 2,000 years, however, these activities may be performed outside the home on the Sabbath within a ceremonially demarcated area. In short, the use of an eruv has been a sincere part of Jewish religious practice for more than two millennia.

An eruv is not an attempt to create an enclave within a community, nor is it an attempt to make other Jews or non-Jews feel excluded. The eruv enables observant Jews to live within and positively contribute to the life of a diverse community while still remaining faithful to their core religious identity and beliefs.

Community discussions about the eruv often revolve around one question: Will the eruv change our community? We heard the same concern in Tenafly, and this question often goes to the heart of people's fears and concerns about change. While understandable, such concerns are unfounded since the presence of an eruv does not fundamentally alter the character of a community. It is little more than a largely invisible geographical boundary.

Indeed, five years after its eruv was put in place, the mayor of Tenafly said: "t is invisible and has made no change ." In short, eruvs help some neighbors practice their religion without changing any aspect of life for others.

Some argue that the eruv will create an Orthodox Jewish enclave in Westhampton Beach. While I think we all must reject such nativist thinking, the fact is many diverse Long Island communities have eruvs, including Oceanside, Merrick and Long Beach. Eruvs also exist in hundreds of very diverse communities across the country - including one in Washington that encompasses the White House - where they have had no impact on the community at-large other than to accommodate and improve life for observant Jews.

Is the eruv a violation of the separation of church and state? No, it is an accommodation that does not involve the expenditure of taxpayer money or require any government interference or entanglement with, or endorsement of, any particular religion.

It is disappointing that the Westhampton Beach eruv proposal has generated so much controversy. It is also deeply troubling that a small group of people have attempted to exploit the debate to promote feelings of hate and anti-Semitism within the community.

Hopefully, members of the community will become informed and learn from the experiences of other communities around the country who have understood and accommodated the religious beliefs and needs of their neighbors.

__________

Robert G. Sugarman is chair of the Religious Freedom Task Force of the Anti-Defamation League.  He is a retired partner at Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.