.19 108. Friday, April 18, 1986 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS NOW BUYING VALERIE TAYLOR FUTURISTIK 1260 D Rankin Troy 585-7990 Fashion Resale is paying cash for spring and summer women's clothing and accessories. for information call Mon.-Fri.12 to 6 Deal Direct with the Manufacturer Call for Appointment Aziascoaw- 540-9548 ICIVAVAVON.M5. ', Wishing You & Yours A Happy Passover David Wachler& Sons Internationally famous award winning Jewelers 100 S. Woodward Birmingham, Michigan 48011 (313) 540-4622 Mon.-Sat. 10-5; Thurs. 10-8:30 Ideal Cut Diamond Jeweler RT Renaissance Center • Tower 200 Suite 275 Detroit, Michigan 48243 (313) 259-6922 Certified Gemologist American Gem Society Furniture Renta Wishing Everyone A HAPPY & HEALTHY PASSOVER • 28720 Northwestern Hwy. • Southfield n 358-4303 BACKGROUND Kippot Continued from preceding page believed that Captain Goldman should have been granted the exemption to wear his yar- mulke. He joined the majority only out of concern for issues not before the Court; namely, what would happen if a Sikh or Rastafarian also sought similar exemptions for their religious practices. It would be unfair to treat them differently than Or- thodox Jews, Justice Stevens claimed, and thus accepted what he called the "neutral, complete- ly objective standard — visibili- ty." The problems with Stevens' analysis, however, are threefold. First, as Justice Brennan pointed out, "the implication that a neutral standard that could result in the disparate treatment of Orthodox Jews and, for example, Sikhs is more troublesome or unfair than the existing neutral standard that does result in the different treat- ment of Christians, on the one hand, and Orthodox Jews and Sikhs on the other" is puzzling. "Both standards are constitu- tionally suspect," Justice Bren- nan argued, and "before either can be sustained, it must be shown to be a narrowly tailored means of promoting important military interests." Second, it is the duty of a judge to decide the case presented to the Court and not theoretical issues. Turbans, dreadlocks and saffron robes were not before the Court; yar- mulkes were. Perhaps the other issues would remain theoretical, a real possibility since .there is no indication in the record that any such situations actually ex- ist. Perhaps the Court, if presented with such questions, would find that Sikhs, etc. can- not be constitutionally barred from practicing all facets of their religion while in the arm- ed services. Perhaps not. But all of those possibilities, as a juris: prudential matter, should not have negatively impacted on Captain Goldman's rights as they clearly did • in Justice Stevens' opinion. And third, judges constantly make distinctions and draw lines; that is one of their most important functions. Here, by refusing to make such distinc- tions, Justice Stevens said, in ef- fect, that since the right to religious practice of others might have to be denied, it likewise must be denied to observant Jews. Such reasoning is fallacious. It would, of course, be unfair and unconstitutional to discriminate in treatment be- tween Jews and Sikhs. It would, hgwever, neither be unfair nor unconstitutional to treat their religious beliefs differently if "functional utility, health and safety . considerations" and other grounds so mandated. It might be difficult to make those distinctions, but we expect from our Supreme Court justices the . ability and the courage to make difficult decisions. In this in- stance, Justice Stevens failed the test. One interesting factual aspect of the case does, however, become clear in Justice Stevens' opinion;' namely, that the Air Force was not acting out of lof- ty ideals in defending its dress code. Rather, the treatment of Captain Goldman clearly had a "retaliatory motive" in that the complaining officer was the pro- secutor in a court martial in which Captain Goldman testified for the defense. Goldman's "extremely high ratings in his performance evaluations" were ignored, as was the prior evaluation, bitter- ly ironic in hindsight, that Goldman "maintain(ed) ap- propriate military dress and bearing." Spite, and not esprit de corps, was the critical factor. Moreover, the new commanding officer who acted on the com- plaint also ignored the earlier approval of Goldman's wearing his yarmulke given by the previous commanding officer. Unfortunately, the issues of motive, waiver and estoppel were not presented to the Court for valid tactical and philosophical reasons, and thus could not form the basis of any decision. Nonetheless, they lend yet another perspective to the case, and further undercut the almost unquestioning difference given to military decision by Justice Rehnquist. And finally, on a political note, this case affirms yet again that when specific Jewish issues are before the Court — such as accommodation of Sabbath observance, the building of a creche on public property, or preserving the right to wear a yarmulke in the military — it is the liberal justices who raise their voices to protect the rights of the Jewish community, as they often do to protect the rights of other minority groups. It is a fact we would do well to remember. Israelis Are Confident Tel Aviv — Despite its prot- racted conflict with the Arab world, eix wars and escalating terrorism, Israelis remain op- timistic about peace and confi- dent about the nation's security situation. They have. enormous faith in the army, and believe the country is able to confront almost any threat — including an all-out attack by the com- bined forces of all the Arab states. These are some of the general conclusions of a research project on "National Security and Pub- lic Opinion," conducted by Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies. Respondents to the survey felt that Israel's security situation ,