Here's an amazing story in the Chicago Tribune about a family divided by deceased dentist Max Feinberg's will, which said that any descendant marrying a gentile would be disinherited from his sizeable estate. Well oy–four out of his five grandchildren have married gentiles, and one, Michele Trull, is now suing her own parents over the payout. Sad. Great reporting by Ron Grossman. Probably took a blood to crack this case. Juicy excerpts:
But Judge Patrick Quinn feared that allowing the Jewish clause to stand could form a legal slippery slope. Suppose Max Feinberg had reservations about his descendants' marrying a black person. The judge asked: Do we really want courts "to enforce the worst bigotry imaginable?"… Max Feinberg's will defined offspring who married non-Jews as "deceased."
…
According to Michael Feinberg, this tangled affair began when his father discovered that a grandson was taking a gentile to the junior prom at Niles West High School in Skokie. "My father let my son, Aron, know he wasn't happy with the idea of diluting the family's Jewishness," Michael Feinberg said.
Michael Feinberg said that while he might not share the ideas his father wrote into his will, he feels obliged to uphold them. It's painful to be sued by your own daughter, he added.His wife, Marcy, said Trull's actions are something like the old adage about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
She might win in court, but she is exiled from the family dinner table."I have to think she misses the gefilte fish," Marcy Feinberg said.
Sad sad. I love gefilte fish. My mother happily serves it to my wife, who doesn't care for it. If this case sounds outlandish, you should understand that some of the energy behind this blog flows from the shaming/guilt that many Jews experience when they make the choice I made, to marry out. And note that in his book Faith or Fear, Elliott Abrams, Bush Middle East aide, rationalized shunning of the intermarried:
In calling for "wrenching changes in behavior" to end intermarriage, Mr. Abrams would seem to mean "scolding, rejection and exclusion" of Jews who marry out. He even seems to praise the idea of sitting shiva for a Jew who marries a non-Jew, in the belief that he or she is dead to the community.
OK, I know, Abrams is concerned with Jewish survival. But there have got to be ways to approach this issue without guilting young people who are following very American journeys (many of them wealthy, who, as Jane Austen reminds us, will naturally be the object of marital attentions).
Not a comment on this story – but another Chicago story you might be interested in about Rep. Mark Kirk and getting x-band radar to Israel:
link to chicagoreader.com
/>
A tinyurl for the story referenced above:
link to tinyurl.com
/>
No one is entitled to an inheritance.
"No one is entitled to an inheritance."
I should think not. Especially after the crime of marrying a gentile.
It's fairly simple. Phil Weiss doesn't care about Judaism in any shape or form. That's certainly his choice. But he is really bothered that other people do.
And Duscany, be a Moslem girl who marries out of the faith, you run a serious risk of strangulation
Some goyishe kop once condemned intermarriage; that led this one here: No To Intermarriage!
It would be wise for the Smarties to expect to be subjected sooner or later to the same laws they so heartily enact for the goyim.
Witty:
The case is more complex than your kneejerk response warrants. Apparently, none of the grandchildren was married at the time that the trust was written. Additionally, the problems began when the daughter who married the gentile sued her father for misappropriating funds from the trust for his own personal use. He and his wife countersued on the basis, that according to the father's will, written according to traditional Jewish law, the daughter was dead (because she had married a gentile).
What is at issue is whether the state (which adjudicates all wills and trusts) is forced to submit itself to a religious ruling which regards Jews who have married goyim as "dead." The court has been asked to decide mainly whether it can regard as dead persons who are obviously not legally dead, because of religious doctrine. The court is well within its rights to overrule this clause, which if it enforced it would be in breach of the equal protection clause of the constitution and the amendment that separates state from religion.
Let me add one more thing: I believe the ruling at this point is only whether the grand daughter who married the goy has the right to sue. The son of the dentist (father of the grand daughter) argues that she can't because, according to the will, she is dead.
It's a no-brainer that the court cannot allow that plainly religious language to stand and has to grant that, for all intents and purposes, she is in fact alive.
This link works.
Some goyishe kop once condemned intermarriage; that led this one here: Intermarriage Opponent
It would be wise for the Smarties to expect to be subjected sooner or later to the same laws they so heartily enact for the goyim.
So…let me get this straight.
If a Non-jew objected to his son or daughter marrying a Jew, that would be called anti-semitism, right?
But if a Jew objected to his son or daughter marrying a non-Jew, that's called shunning intermarriage?
Misappropriating funds is a crime and should be punished. Any funds misappropriated is not part of an estate.
The assumption that she has a right to someone else's money, is false.
"some of the energy behind this blog flows from the shaming/guilt that many Jews experience when they make the choice I made, to marry out"
Gentile whites feel guilty for being white, jews fell guilty for not being jewish enough.
"My father let my son, Aron, know he wasn't happy with the idea of diluting the family's Jewishness"
Substitute the last word in that sentence with "whiteness" or "Aryan blood" and the facism of it becomes clear. What a disgusting concept – and what a disgusting condition to put in a will.
And, in Phil's case, his wife was welcomed into the family, fully.
And Phil was likely not shamed in any noticeable way.
Different Jewish families have different attitudes. There is no valid generalization about this.
ALL traditional societies value the continuity of them.
I reiterate. Some people are concerned with the survival of Judaism. Like this man. And some people, like Phil Weiss, don't give a flying fuck. What I resent, And why I keep coming back here. Is that Phil Weiss is an advocate of total assimilation and the destruction of Israel, fine and dandy. Yet the hook that he uses is that he's Jewish. It is a total contradiction and intellectually dishonest.
Mr. Witty:
Unfortunately, the Federal courts have adopted a policy of striking down contract requirements on the basis of public policy. The most obvious example of this is the inclusion of restrictive covenants in deeds to real property. ("Thou shalt not sell to blacks.")
As you state, no one has a right to an inheritance. Similarly, one could argue that no one has a right to buy a particular piece of property.
Personally, I am all in favor of private discrimination, or at least the right to it. "If I were king," I'd probably grimace and uphold the disinheritance, as I would allow nasty bigots to refuse to sell property to black people. But I'm not king, and courts do invalidate otherwise valid covenants and other contractual provisions on the basis of public policy, and that's the facts, Jack. (Err, Richard.)
Without seeing the will, I don't know why Max Feinberg's lawyers didn't simply include a no-contest provision, but that's a side issue.
Aren't you mixing apples and oranges here. An inheritance is an internal family matter. Property is another case. Although believe it or not I'm on your side. I have no problem with restricted towns, clubs, whatever.
But again, why is an inheritance a matter of public policy.
Sword is right.
The right to buy property in a public marketplace is an entirely different beast than the presumed right to inherit money from an individual in a one-way gift.
Inheritance is a private gift.
I personally doubt that Phil is saying to his parents "You encouraged me to marry a Jewish woman, you bigots."
I don't know much about the case, and I don't care what the man does with his property. I just tire of the acceptance of the Jewish double-standard on race, religion, ethnicity and morality.
Sword: "I reiterate. Some people are concerned with the survival of Judaism. Like this man."
No, "this man", (as you put it), is concerned with only the survival of tribal elements of Judaism. The ethnic bits, the exclusive bits, ya know? And by sounding like a cracker of times past, he does a disservice to the religion.
Ethnic tribalism is a dirty scourge to this planet, a heat engine for irrational hatred, a flashpoint for war. It is a sentiment tailored for an age when folks sat in mud huts and swore revenge against the people across the mountains with the funny brow.
Why can't Judaism rise above these primitive feelings? Why can't Judaism be about what you believe in, and not who your mother is?
As the world gets smaller, this is the direction we're headed in — ideas shall reign over blood. You can get on this bus, Sword, or you can stay in your mud hut and howl at the moon. Your choice.
–Slim
You don't know anything about Judaism. It's actually Phil who is obsessed with the tribal aspect. This guy just wanted his grandchildren to marry Jews. It was important to him. It's was his money. I truly don't understand the reaction. You keep saying no more money for Israel. Why is this different.
Mr. Jewish Moneybags should be able to leave his money to whomever (or whatever) he wants, same as white supremacists, black tribalists, southern Baptists, whatever…
The principal is that central governing powers shouldn’t intercede in private affairs of race and religion — like forcing American taxpayers to subsidize organized Judaism by shipping our money to Israel so that the organized Jewish state can use it to kill Muslims — as SOG and Witty demand.
If SOG and Witty want to send THEIR money to Israel, fine. That’s their right. Just don’t force me to subsidize your tribe, and I won't demand that you subsidize mine.
But so long as the government is taking our money and using it to endorse Judaism over other religions in the Levant, why should it not do the same in America? Hence, its okay for Jews to racially discriminate against non-Jews, but not vice-versa. My hunch is Mr. Jewish Moneybags’ will will be upheld, whereas the case of a white supremacist moneybags demanding his fortune be left to non-Jewish whites only would not.
Hypocrisy, thy name is organized Judaism.
>> You don't know anything about Judaism. … This guy just wanted his grandchildren to marry Jews.
Precisely. And have, presumably, "jewish babies". And, in your words, stem "assimilation." That's not a mindset blinded by ethnic tribalism?
Can you imagine the moral outrage if a german disinherited his grandkids for marrying jews?
As for me not knowing anything about Judaism, well, this is what I do know: My wife has been barred from any formal involvement with the jewish faith, even as she was "brought up" jewish, even as her father was jewish, solely because her mother was not jewish. And this is by "liberal", "reform" branches, no less.
How many drops of jewish blood doth a jew need?
You are being intellectually dishonest to argue here that ethnic tribalism is not a dominant force amongst today's jewish community. For if not, what do you and others mean by "assimilation"? This is a codeword for, …, what? Clearly, blood still matters.
Slim wrote: "assimilation"? This is a codeword for, …, what?'
—–
Short answer #1: miscegenation.
Short answer #2: race betrayal.
Given this, how did U.S. organized Jewry ever get a reputation for liberalism, open-mindedness, and progressiveness? Great P.R., great window dressing (all that retailing expereince?) and a usefully (feigned) self-righteous pose for any "victim" minority group to adopt in order to break the majority culture, religion and spiritual esprit de corps.
Notice, now that U.S. organized Jewry has displaced the WASPs, it is increasingly gravitating into the bully boy GOP, (as if its corruption of the Dems wasn't enough).
But in the end, it only succeeds because the spiritually empty majority tolerates it. Interesting how the more "secular" America gets, the lower the average American falls, yet the higher organized Judaism and its fascist hangers-on of both Left and Right ascend. Coincidence? Not.
Let's say you're a Jew and the cops are on your tail and you have to make a run for asylum in Israel. When you apply for your citizenship, they don't ask you questions about theology. Nothing about the halachal laws. They don't even ask if you know any yiddishisms. They ask you about your mother's bloodlines. Period.