IL Sup. Court got it right in "Jews only" inheritance case
The Illinois Supreme Court got it right, yesterday, when they ruled that a person has a right to limit who can inherit one's money, on the basis of religion.
The case the court ruled on, as reported in this Chicago Tribune story, involved Erla and Max Feinberg. Max, a Jewish dentist, wrote a will that provided that his estate would go to his wife, which is usual and customary. Upon his wife's death, his substantial wealth would go to his five grandchildren. However, Max put a clause in his will that said that any grandchild who married outside of the faith would be dis-inherited.
Apparently, four of the five grandchildren married gentiles, a big no-no in Jewish tradition.
One of the five grandchildren felt that it was unfair to be dis-inherited for marrying Goy, so she sued. And lost.
The disgruntled granddaughter doesn't seem to understand that it's Grandpa's and Grandma's money, to do with as they please. They didn't owe her a cent.
Max and Erla could have given all of their money to their children, instead of to the grandchildren. They could have given all of their money to charity, leaving nothing to family.
They could have even given the money to me, in honor of my battles to fight injustice, one victory at a time. That would have been cool!
What the granddaughter doesn't seem to understand is that the executor of the estate is required to act in the same way that the deceased would have acted if the deceased were still alive to distribute the money himself.
It was Max and Erla's money. They could have given their own money to anybody they wanted to. It's their money, to do with as they please. If granddaughter doesn't like it, too bad. It's not her money.
I relate especially closely to this story because I was raised in a Jewish family with similar values as the Feinbergs. I married Celeste, a wonderful Catholic girl who has turned out to be the perfect wife, perfect in every way.
Celeste and Rob, at Le Titi de Paris French Restaurant in Arlington Heights. The perfect dinner with the perfect wife. Photo by Le Titi staff.
My two brothers married "nice Jewish girls from good families." Mom and Dad could have dis-inherited me and given my share of the money to my brothers, for my marrying a girl from a non-Jewish family, for any other reason of their choice (such as going atheist on them) or for no reason at all. It was their money and entirely their prerogative.
They didn't owe me a dime and, actually, I would have preferred that they were still around to spend the money on themselves, but they're not. So, thanks, Mom and Dad, for dividing your millions equally between my two brothers and me. The airplane that I bought with some of the money is really neat!
The Flying Sherman-ator. Photo by Celeste Sherman.
Please leave a comment, below, to let me know what you think, and tell your friends about this.
I look forward to your comments on this one. Let me know if you agree with me that, when you die, it's still your money and you can give it to anybody you want, without having to justify it.
Subscribe to
Godless in Chicago and receive an automated e-mail each morning, letting you know what new posts I've added during the past 24 hours.
Share this entry
Recommended for you
3 Comments
jackspatafora said:
Good for you, Rob! First you marry a nice Catholic girl (I did too so I know the value); second, you actually support a court decision which at its heart takes the value of religion rather more seriously than do most atheists.
Now is this a contradiction on your part, or simply your softer side showing through? I'm guessing the latter.
Bob Matter said:
Jack,
Despite being a staunch anti-theist, I also support the ISC's decision. You misinterpret the basis for Rob's (and my) support of the ISC's decision. It's not the value of religion at the heart of our support, it's preserving the sanctity of carrying out the deceased's wishes to the letter. As Rob says in his post, it's the deceased's money to do with as they please. Except for organizations like Al Queda, et al that Americans are legally barred from giving money to, you can specify to whomever you please to leave your money to and those wishes should be followed to the letter, no matter how nonsensical or obnoxious the stipulations may seem. When I die I hope I can leave a little money to the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Center for Inquiry, or perhaps even to Dawn Sherman, provided she marries and atheist.
jackspatafora said:
Rob!
I understand where the two of you are coming from insofar as the law; but as Rob already knows, I'm one of those who has trouble believing man can live by bread (or law) alone. Your positions satisfy the rational us, but what of the sentient us? Anti-theism can dismiss religion as superstition, but what can this dismissiveness provide that part of us that is neither served nor satisfied by the rationality of the law alone? In other words, once you've left the courtroom victories behind, what if anything do your principles have to offer us in our everyday lives...?
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: