From: aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur)
Subject: Re: The Mitzva of Rabbi Weiss
Date: 12 Sep 92 16:56:30 CDT


In article <1992Sep12.015344.16368@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> avr@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (adam.v.reed) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.153834.9504@walter.cray.com>, aleks@cray.com (Aleksander Mazur) writes:
>>  And the real issue
>> is not in details (like whether Rabbi Weiss went once or twice
>> to the court), but whether he did that because it would make him feel
>> right, or he did that because he felt his religion commanded him
>> to be intolerant. Any clues on that ?
>
>I don't know how Alexander Mazur meant that, so I'll try to give
>it a serious answer as a Jew. Our religion commands us to
>tolerate certain evils, and to be intolerant about others, in
>proportion to their impact. The existence of *any human
>habitation* (no matter whether or not it was a convent), *in
>that specific location* (rather than 100 yards away),
>constituted, in Jewish eyes, the desacration of a Jewish
>cemetary, and was deeply offensive to Jews whose relatives may
>have perished there. When someone offends us, we are obliged
>to assume that he did not intend to offend, but rather that he
>did not know that his action was offensive; and therefore, in
>order to give him an opportunity to do teshuva (since the good
>of teshuva far outweighs the evil of the offense), we are
>obliged to let him know that he has offended us.
>
>In the Jewish view of things, the good of enabling the nuns to
>do teshuva, by informing them of how hurtful their actions had
>been, far outweighed the minor misdemeanor of the peaceful,
>non-violent trespass that Rabbi Weiss carried out in order to
>educate them. And Cardinal Glemp's imputation to Rabbi Weiss of
>an attempt to harm the nuns is, at best, a symptom of deepest
>stupidity. Tak glempil Glemp.
>
>To learn more, I recommend
>
>Memory Offended: The Auschwitz Convent Controversy, edited by
>Carol Rittner and John K. Roth. New York, Praeger, 1991. ISBN
>0-275-93848-4.
>			Adam_V_Reed@ATT.com

Thanks for serious answer - that answer means for me, that your
religion is in that aspect far away more intolerant than others that I know.
I want to stress that entire action did not serve informational
purposes. If I want to inform somebody about anything, I simply
call him or send a letter. Never I force high wall to deliver 
a message, nor I break any security system, I do not even have
to trespass another property taking with me a group of followers. 
In this particular case message was delivered before to anybody
seriously interested in those issues. There were negotiations
between Catholic church in Poland and representatives of Jews.
Polish side suggested common action that would possibly enable
bulding Jewish house of prayers or anything Jews would like,
outside borders of the camp.  That suggestion was rejected
but still such a suggestion means something - that Catholic
church was tolerant. I can understand that such a place
should not exist inside the camp. But outside the borders
of the camp I cannot imagine any jurisdiction other than of the government
or owner. Lets assume that exists another religion that requires
praying in places like that and that religion is equally intolerant
as yours. Does that mean that followers of both religions should
fight wars or should they tolerate each other ? If my religion
does not allow women to wear jeans then I should invade other
country and take jeans off women there ?

A. Mazur
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish