[Lysistrata]

More bigotry.

From http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/465063.html

In the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, the Jerusalem municipality has erected a memorial to the fatalities of the August 2003 terror attack on the No. 2 bus: a memorial plaque bearing the names of those who were killed. The name of one of the dead, Maria Antonia Reslas of the Philippines, was engraved separately from the others, and she was given the title "Mrs.," while the Jewish dead were awarded the title "sainted" (kadosh). "Shortly after the ceremony," the newspaper (Haaretz Hebrew edition, August 9) reports, "there was already evidence of the scratching that unknown persons had done over Reslas' name."

The damage to the plaque is an ugly act of vandalism but the plaque itself, which officially declares that one of the dead is a second-class victim because she is not Jewish, is far more shameful and ugly. This is not a matter of an act by extremists. The hand hesitates to write this, but the truth must be told: The municipality of Jerusalem decided to degrade the woman who was killed out of consideration for the feelings of the public.

These things are not being written out of a tendency to "devour the ultra-Orthodox." This phenomenon, about which the ultra-Orthodox public complains a lot, does indeed exist, and it deserves condemnation like any other manifestation of hostility toward an entire community. However, the story of the plaque brings to mind a phenomenon of the opposite sort: The mayor of the city of Jerusalem is an ultra-Orthodox politician, Uri Lupolianski, who was elected with the help of the votes of a considerable number of liberal voters who remembered to his credit his praiseworthy activity at Yad Sarah [an organization which provides medical equipment to the needy].

The terrible suicide attack on bus No. 2, in which entire families were killed, aroused profound identification among the general public with its ultra-Orthodox victims. Many people spoke, with admiration and even envy, about the dignified way in which the ultra-Orthodox coped with their disaster. That is to say, precisely on the background of this incident there has been an evident willingness on the part of many secular people not only to respect the ultra-Orthodox, but also to recognize the seemly aspects of their world.

Is it really the halakha (Jewish religious law) that necessitated the degrading inscription of the name of the woman who was killed? It is known that the halakha prohibits the burial of Jews and non-Jews together. Does this prohibition also apply to a memorial plaque? If the title "kadosh" is reserved, according to tradition, exclusively for Jews, would it not have been possible to relinquish it? And if indeed there is no possibility, according to the halakha and tradition as interpreted by the ultra-Orthodox, of mentioning Jews and non-Jews together in a dignified way, would it not have been preferable not to have posted the plaque? Are official memorial plaques a religious requirement?

The truth is that this is not a matter, in this case at least, of halakhic requirements. However, this is also not merely a manifestation of insensitivity, but rather of a perception that is deeply rooted in broad circles of ultra-Orthodox society - even if it must not, of course, be attributed to every single ultra-Orthodox person. This perception refuses to accept a non-Jewish person as being of equal worth and to internalize the fact that here, in Israel, we are not a Jewish community that is concerned only for its members but rather a sovereign state that is responsible for everyone who lives in its territory.

This attitude toward non-Jews has nothing to do with the Jewish-Arab conflict and the feelings of fear and hostility that it arouses; the dead woman who was treated with contempt in Jerusalem is a victim of Arab terror. Nevertheless, it is clear that this basic approach toward non-Jews has implications in the Jewish-Arab context. Public opinion surveys show that hostility toward the Arabs is stronger among the ultra-Orthodox than among other segments of the public.

Is an ultra-Orthodoxy possible that is not based on these perceptions? It is to be hoped that it is. There are ultra-Orthodox Jews abroad that differ from this approach in important respects. In Israel, too, there are examples of a different approach: Yad Sarah, for example, also cares devotedly for non-Jews in need. The question is whether the ultra-Orthodox public in Israel, including its leaders and its spokesmen, is prepared to rid itself entirely of the view that non-Jews are not really human beings. If the answer is negative, this does not bode well for initiatives that aim to nurture dialogue and understanding between various segments of the Israeli public.

[Millennium]

Lysistrata? You've chosen an interesting name for yourself. Given your use of "more bigotry" despite the fact that as I write this you've only made one post, I can only assume that you are in fact nothing more than an alias for another poster. By the way, do you know who the historical/mythical Lysistrata was?

Unfortunately, this article suffers from a rather bad form of bias. And no, it's not biased against the Jews in this case; if anything it's biased for them, but I don't think the bias even really lies there. The bias, in this case, is a narrow worldview which fails to take into account her own worldview, which while still largely unknown is almost certainly very different.

We know that Mrs. Reslas was not Jewish. Given this, what religion was she? The Philippines is a predominantly-Christian nation, and so she probably was as well, but there is also a strong Muslim presence in the region. Of the various Christian sects, only Catholicism uses the "sainted" title for their dead, and even then only for martyrs; Reslas was not a martye. If she was Christian, then "Mrs." would be the appropriate title to use.

Most Muslims, on the other hand, would have been quite offended by the use of the title; while Islam treats certain men with reverence, it makes quite a point about having no saints. Once again, "Mrs." is the religoiusly-appropriate title, if she was Muslim.

My point? From the standpoint of a non-orthodox Jew, this may be offensive, as it doesn't seem from such a viewpoint to treat all the victims equally. From the standard of Reslas herself, however, it may be entirely appropriate. Given that Reslas is the one being memorialized, her viewpoint on how that should happen is vastly more important than that of anyone else. I don't have all the information -in particular, I don't know exactly what religion she was- but the point is that equality is a relative thing, and what one person terms "equal" might be horribly unequal to another.

It's rather like the constant debate over a Roosevelt memorial, and whether he should be in a wheelchair or not: Roosevelt took great pains to hide his disability in public life, and would not want to be memorialized with that disability available for all to see. What he "would have wanted in modern times" is irrelevant, because he did not live in modern times; he has to be dealt with on his own terms, as a man of the era he lived in.

[deomacius]

Lysistrata,

Looks like you have a chip on your shoulder. Care to explain your grudge or how you came to that conclusion?

[Zimphire]

Heya PerryP,. sup.

[Lysistrata]

It's rather like the constant debate over a Roosevelt memorial, and whether he should be in a wheelchair or not: Roosevelt took great pains to hide his disability in public life, and would not want to be memorialized with that disability available for all to see.

Comparing being a non-Jew with being disabled is an interesting way of thinking. Who are you trying to insult - gentiles or the disabled?

I don't know exactly what religion she was- but the point is that equality is a relative thing,

Like in South Africa?

her viewpoint on how that should happen is vastly more important than that of anyone else.

Are you going to dig her up and ask her? Do you think she would agree to a memorial which 'officially declares that (she) is a second-class victim because she is not Jewish' or she would be happy that 'the ultra-Orthodox public in Israel, including its leaders and its spokesmen, is prepared to rid itself entirely of the view that non-Jews are not really human beings'?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by deomacius:
Lysistrata,

Looks like you have a chip on your shoulder. Care to explain your grudge or how you came to that conclusion?

The projection-o-meter just buried the needle.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lysistrata:
Comparing being a non-Jew with being disabled is an interesting way of thinking. Who are you trying to insult - gentiles or the disabled?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I compared situations, not people. In particular, I compared two situations where well-meaning folks want to memorialize someone in a way which that person did not want to be memorialized. No insult is intended to anyone, except possibly the people doing the memorializing.

Like in South Africa?

(This question came in response to my statement "Equality is a relative thing").

You know, you sound an awful lot like perryp, the only person I have ever accused of being anti-Semitic. When I say "equality is a relative thing", I mean that what one person considers equality might be considered horribly unequal by another. By "like in South Africa" I assume you are referring to the now-dead policy of apartheid, which was a favorite comparison of perryp's to make.

No, not like in South Africa. No one pretended that apartheid was about equality. I'd say that a better example of the relativeness of equality would be the affirmative-action debates of the US. I, for example, believe that to treat everyone equally, everyone must be judged by exactly the same standard unless there is some bona fide medical reason which prevents a specific person from being judged that way. There are plenty of people, however, who believe that this is not equal treatment, because they believe that certain classes of people (whether those classes are drawn up by race, gender, economics, or whatever) will inherently do more poorly by any one standard than other classes might. I don't believe this to be a problem, so long as every single part of the standard is relevant to the task at hand and no part is irrelevant to that task: what's important is that the job is done well, not who does it. My opposition would claim that this is a socially irresponsible viewpoint, but I've long been an advocate of the separation of Society and State (believing it to be just as important as the separation of Church and State), so I don't really care about this.

Are you going to dig her up and ask her?

I can't do that, and you know I can't. But we can deduce from what we know about her what her reaction might have been. There is one piece of data we still need -namely, her religious beliefs- but that data will not be terribly difficult to find.

Do you think she would agree to a memorial which 'officially declares that (she) is a second-class victim because she is not Jewish'...

Does the memorial say this? It doesn't. That it "officially declares that she is a second-class victim" is your opinion, and evidently the opinion of the writer of this article. But frankly your opinions don't matter (I loathe using the phrase, because I know you'll twist it as some kind of call for censorship, but it's true that your opinions on this matter really are irrelevant). The only opinion which matters is that of the person being memorialized.

I don't claim to know what your faith is, if you have any. But I ask you honestly: would you want to be posthumously declared a saint of a religion which you never followed in life? There was a famous incident some years back where a band of missionaries went into Jewish cemeteries and started performing Mormon baptisms over the graves. The families of the deceased were horribly offended by this, and rightly so. The deceased never wanted to become Mormons in life, or they would have done so. What right did those missionaries have, therefore, to consecrate them in a foreign faith after they had died?

or she would be happy that 'the ultra-Orthodox public in Israel, including its leaders and its spokesmen, is prepared to rid itself entirely of the view that non-Jews are not really human beings'?

She would probably be as pleased about that as any other person would be. However, you still have no evidence that the memorial was created with intent to dehumanize her.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Millennium:
*Snip*

Smackdown


with extra points for civility.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Smackdown


with extra points for civility.

seconded.

[Lysistrata]

"Shortly after the ceremony," the newspaper (Haaretz Hebrew edition, August 9) reports, "there was already evidence of the scratching that unknown persons had done over Reslas' name."

It's tragic so many people support this kind of desecration