Against the advice of the Anti-Defamation League—the agency which has been primarily responsible for the security of the Jewish community—numerous synagogues and other Jewish agencies in San Diego County are applying for grants from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to “harden” their premises against a possible terrorist attack.

Tina Friedman, community relations director of the United Jewish Federation, said DHS has allocated $320,885 to help finance anti-terrorist improvements for  “high-risk non-profit organizations in San Diego County.  This pot of money will be divided among eligible Jewish community institutions and various non-Jewish institutions that apply for it, she said.

Friedman declined to identify the institutions that are applying for the funds on the grounds that to do so would tip off potential terrorists that the institutions consider themselves to be soft targets.

Morris Casuto, ADL regional director in San Diego, said his organization declined to support the legislation that authorized such federal expenditures because, in ADL’s opinion,  it violates the constitutional wall between church and state.  Further, he said, it  may set a precedent for future attempts by the government to underwrite religious programs.

Casuto said the Union for Reform Judaism took a similar position.

Friedman said the United Jewish Communities—an umbrella organization for Jewish Federations around the country—supported the legislation as did the American Jewish Committee.

Sam Sokolove, AJC’s regional director in San Diego, declined immediate comment on the controversy.

Friedman said that those who support the legislation believe that protecting the lives of people who come to the buildings is important—be they Jews or Gentiles.  The United Jewish Federation employs non-Jews, as do synagogues around the county, she said.  Therefore money given to a synagogue is not for the protection of a single religious group, it is for everyone’s protection, she said.  

Furthermore, said Friedman, the money is provided to the institutions with “no strings attached.”  There are no theological tests for institutions accepting the grants, she said.

Casuto said as the agency that strongly advises Jewish institutions to protect themselves, ADL sympathizes with those who want stronger security. However, he said, the ADL also is mindful of the “exceedingly important constitutional consideration—given what we believe to be the ongoing attack on the wall separating church and state.  Taking this money will come back to haunt us.”  

Even if there were no constitutional issue, he added, he is concerned that the grant process will set institution against institution both in the Jewish community and outside of it as they compete for the limited amount of funds.  With such a small pot of money available, he said, from a policy standpoint, institutions should place a higher premium on promoting unity rather than divisiveness.

Casuto added that the money under the legislation has to be used for very specific purposes such as erecting concrete barriers, hardening walls and making windows blast proof—steps to guard against a bombing.  He said other kinds of security expenditures, such as for cameras, motion sensors, and the like, are not considered eligible under the grant.

If hardening the premises is necessary, Casuto said, then Jewish institutions ought to raise the money for it themselves.

Friedman countered that protecting lives is a priority in the Jewish community, and “we’re talking about keeping people safe here.” — Donald H. Harrison