"It was not immediately clear how widespread opposition to the rabbis’ e-mail has been within the congregation, but Mr. Ripp said he had been inundated with messages from people upset about the rabbis’ statement, and some members had posted comments online and circulated e-mails expressing concern.<quoted text>
As it's only the 5th of the month, and I'm already up to click 5 of my free 10 monthly NYT clicks, I'd better not re-open the link/NYT aticle you posted....but....
I thought the whole point of the article was how outraged the congregants were over the letter signed by the congregation leaders in support of the UN decision re: Palestine's new status.
No, not every single congregant was outraged, but it sure gave the impression that was the general reaction.
I have no doubt that anyone there is not supportive of Israel. I guess the point to me was how supportive they are of the rights of Palestine. Like letting the Nazis march in Skokie (or wherever), it's a true test of liberalism and a groups or peoples' rights.
But others supported the action..."
Controversy makes good news. Also, it wouldnt suprise me if at least 1 NYTimes editor/reporter belonged there as well. Its a large and extermely well known congregation.
In general, the clergy there are famous for being in the front of human rights issues.(if I recollect, one of them might have served time in an Argetinian prison in their youth) When they speak, people listen. That is news in itself.
I was prevented from accessing a Wall Street Journal article yesterday for the same reason.