August 10, 2006 Issue                                       

©2006 The Chestnut Hill Local

Chestnut Hill: college town?

The word community encompasses many things.

People can be drawn into a community or be born into it. They can belong to a community based on a common location, shared beliefs or a joint sense of purpose. There are nations and neighborhoods, churches and charities, sports clubs and book groups. Some have made good arguments that regular members of an Internet chat room are members of a community. The important thing is that people get together and agree that it is better to contribute to a community than to remain secluded from others consumed only by their individual concerns.

In Chestnut Hill, community is defined by many factors. There’s the geography: The Wissahickon and Cresheim creeks to the south and east. The shared history experienced by everyone who has spent time on the Belgian-blocked corridor of Germantown Avenue. The people who work here, who live here or just come regularly to shop or eat are different facets of that community.

And of course there are many who are tied to community in Chestnut Hill by the school they attended: Chestnut Hill Academy, Springside, Jenks, Norwood Fontbonne, Crefeld, and OMC. No matter what neighborhood or suburb they come from, they belong to part of a Chestnut Hill community.

Soon that community is going to change in what may be one of the biggest ways it has since the Morgan Tract was developed into Chestnut Hill Village — Chestnut Hill College, one of the neighborhood’s cornerstone institutions, has completed the purchase of a parcel of land that will effectively double the size of the school. Enrolment at the school is going to increase dramatically. The demand for student housing is already outpacing the school’s supply. A lot of young people are going to be moving to Chestnut Hill and making their mark. How will Chetsnut Hill respond?

It doesn’t take much imagination to see Chestnut Hill becoming a college town. Though its reputation is currently that of a quaint neighborhood of the elderly well to do and the established middle-aged professional, the influx of college student will create interesting demands.

There are already a few obvious college-friendly businesses in Chestnut Hill – Hideaway Music will definitely benefit from a large college crowd in the neighborhood. Borders will, too. Starbucks, Chestnut Hill Coffee Co., Chetsnut Hill Sports and Mango seem like good candidates to see business get better.

But still there seems like other shops might want to rethink things. How many businesses close up in Chestnut Hill by 5 p.m.? The Hill has a good mix of restaurants but how many cater to a college crowd (in other words, have menu items suitable for a college budget)? What does Chestnut Hill think about a college bar or two?

The Chestnut Hill community is going to change. Most likely, judging by other communities that have hosted large colleges, that change should be a real boon, both economically and culturally. Chestnut Hill certainly has a very good group of thinkers and planners at its disposal. The Chestunt Hill District certainly has the capability to look at what the college’s growth will mean. Now is probably a good time to start.

Change is on the way.

Pete Mazzaccaro

Looking for truth in a tough place
by George Stern
Columnist

Oh, how tempting it is to try and duck the dilemmas caused by the current fighting in Gaza, Lebanon and Israel. Much has been written about the political implications of the attacks and counterattacks. Pundits have been busy speculating as to the role the US, Iran, and Syria have been playing and wondering aloud whether Israel, which has been watching a build-up of Hezbollah armaments for a long time, was simply waiting for an “excuse” to attack (which the Hezbollah incursion certainly provided). Many have also weighed in on the definition of “proportionate” response, all part of the curious notion that there are “fair” ways to fight wars, and unfair ones. Meanwhile, innocents are being killed and a new group of refugees is on the march.

Quite understandably, many religious bodies — Christian, Jewish, and Muslim — have taken the position that the sole aim at this point should be to broker a ceasefire, without trying to determine fault. When lives are at stake, they say, you have to do what you can to save them. The problem is, saving a life today might leave in place the forces that will take lives tomorrow.

It is a purpose of religion to discover “ultimate truth.” Religious truth seekers may be divided into two basic groups. One group claims that their understanding of God’s word is the only correct one, based upon a scripture that they alone have received or upon their specific interpretations of more widely accepted scripture. The other group says that there can be many claims to “truth,” none of which can be proven until and unless God makes a definitive pronouncement that simply cannot be ignored.

Politics also seeks “truth,” but of a different sort. Politics seeks solutions to social and economic problems. One element in defining those solutions is the compilation of facts (“truths”), some of which are indisputable. It is a fact, for example, that Hezbollah was founded by Iran as a way of exporting its revolution, which closely links religion and politics, and specifically to fight Israel and the West. Today it is Iran and Syria’s proxy in Lebanon. It is also a fact that militant Islam is opposed to Christianity, Judaism, and indeed to strains of Islam different from its own. The existence and readiness to fight of these forces are “truths” that sensible policy cannot ignore.

But while religion seeks to discover immutable truths – whose interpretation is certain – politics sets policies and laws that take into account not only indisputable facts (“truths”) but also a sense of what the public can accept. Politics cannot function based on absolutes. That’s why it works best when it steers clear of religion. When religion and politics mix, the result is often immobilization or, worse, protracted struggle. A group that insists that “God” tells it what to do simply cannot compromise; yet politics is the art of compromise, without which a society cannot function smoothly. The abortion struggle in America and the fighting in the Mideast are in part attributable to the intrusion of absolutist religious doctrines — immovable, immutable, and uncompromising – on a political process that by definition must compromise. Democracy is unworkable in a society unaccustomed to or incapable of dialogue and compromise.

Now in practice, religion does not have to be “absolutist.” In the search for ultimate truth, many religious groups see no need to lay claim to the truth without some sort of Divine intervention. America is actually proof of that. Most Americans are quite comfortable with the brilliant notion of America’s founders that religion had to be disestablished. They envisioned a nation in which religious groups could express their ethical positions, but in which the political process would steer clear of making decisions based on religion. Most Americans believe that they have the individual right to worship and believe (or not) as they please, but they do not have the right to impose beliefs on others. The same is true of people of various religious persuasions in other parts of the world. Still, disestablishment set a high and challenging standard, and the struggle over the role religion should play in making political decisions is in fact ongoing.

Those of us who believe in the power of faith groups working together understand that such work must occur in the here-and-now, in the real world in which the practical and the ethical interact in dialectic. I for one hesitate to make pronouncements about issues over which I have neither control nor anywhere near a full understanding. What I see happening in the Middle East is painful and gut-wrenching. The number of individuals, groups, and nations that play problematic roles is all too high. I pray for lasting peace. May it be God’s will to move everyone in that direction.