British Court To Define Jewishness

[Duque de Bragança]

My eldest son's school is a Church of England school and selects principally on religious grounds. It does, however, set aside 10% of the places for people from non-Anglican backgrounds. Personally I agree and approve of this policy but wouldn't want such a policy to be enforced by central government.

It is interesting how so many Euros are all "you Amerikkkans are so religious" and yet some put up with far more state-sponsored religious bias than Americans would. 

How so many Euros? Britain is a peculiar case...

[Martinus]

What is absurd is drawing a hard line between "ethnicity" and "religion", and declaring that discrimination on the basis of the one is A-Ok, and discrimination on the basis of the other is verboten.

This scheme, which works perfectly well for Christianity, simply doesn't work with Judaism, which has as many have noted aspects of both ethnicity and faith to it. In Judaism, belief plays very little part in defining 'who is a Jew', so the sort of test appropriate for (say) determining who is a Protestant has no place and makes no sense. Lutherans may be saved by faith alone; Christians may be defined by faith alone; Jews are not, and no amount of judges saying they are will make it so.   

That said, I have no sympathy for the Orthodox insisting that they speak for all Jews - they don't.

The question is should we essentially tolerate racial/ethnic discrimination only because "it is a part of their religion"?

Of course, we tolerate gender discrimination and sexual orientation discrimination by other religions, so I guess the answer is yes.

I still can't understand why religions are given "special treatment" like this.

[Martinus]

As a state-funded school, I think most would agree they shouldn't be able to ban applicants on the basis of one's parentage.

As a privately-funded school, in *practical* terms, I think most people are willing to accept (as Malthus has outlined), the simple distinction between ethnicity and religion doesn't exist in the way it does in Christianity.  The Orthodox Jewish religion is long and established with a great tradition of scholarship, and, again *practically* speaking, I think most people are essentially willing to leave them to their own devices in that regard if they're the ones paying for it.

I agree I am just wondering if that is actually legally true.  Aren't there laws about excluding based on ethnicity and religion even for private companies?  I mean we have parochial schools here and I have NEVER heard of them not admitting a student because that student was not Catholic...I mean I question if they would even be allowed to do that.

There are laws against gender discrimination, yet the catholic church gets away with only hiring male priests, for example.

[Martinus]

This would avoid the absurdity of having a British court rule on who exactly is a Jew.

I don't see how this is absurd. If you address your commercial offer to a certain category of people ("Jews") then why shouldn't a court be able to interpret what this means in case of a dispute? It's basic contract law - the only thing absurd here is the school which made this a part of their commercial offer.

If I made a public promise to give $1000 to the first black person who comes to me, and garbon came to claim it, and I refused, saying that he is not black, isn't it a fairly predictable and normal course of events that he would sue and then the court would have to "rule on who exactly is a black person"?

[Martinus]

Seems to me a better solution than having a state-sponsored "faith test" would be to eliminate all requirements for any school that the persons taught be of a particular faith; after all, few persons who are not Jewish or Catholic would really want their kids to go to a specifically Catholic or Jewish school; and if they do, what's the harm?

This would avoid the absurdity of having a British court rule on who exactly is a Jew.

Thats the way it usually works, my mam works at a catholic school but she has a bunch of non-catholic students. A lot of kids from irreligious families and even a muslim.
What the article says though is that due to a new law if a school is over subscribed then priority goes to people of that religion.
Which is fair enough to me.

Defining this kid as not Jewish is of course not good.

So if I wanted to start a school for white kids only, it would be sufficient for me to start a cult where you cannot be a member of my religion unless you are white (vide: malthus defending an ethnic/tribal component in religious screening), then start a religious school for members of that religion and voila, I have an all-white school (just make sure I don't have extra free space for the non-whites non-religious folk)!

Perfect. Never thought I'd see Malthus defend racism, though.

[Gups]

Hi all, long time no see etc.

The Court of Appeal judgement is here in case anyone is interested. It might be noted that the respondents to the appeal were rather humstrung by the need to maintain that Jews are an ethnic or racial group so as to retain the protection for them of the Race Relations Act:

It is here, as it seems to us, that the respondents' argument encounters a major problem. One of the great evils against which the successive Race Relations Acts have been directed is the evil of anti-Semitism. None of the parties to these proceedings wants or can afford to put up a case which would result in discrimination against Jews not being discrimination on racial grounds. There would have to be something wrong with such an argument. So Lord Pannick accepts, indeed insists, not only that Jews are an ethnic or racial group and not simply a theological construct, but that for all purposes except those of the OCR and the school, M is a Jew. This is not an easy position to maintain, but its corollary, if it can be maintained, is that what excludes M is not his race or ethnicity but his eligibility to be regarded in Orthodox eyes as a Jew, a matter of pure theology.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/626.html

As several of you have noted, the problem stems from the fact that almost all religious schools are state funded. It's a historical issue since many schools were formed by churches. Unfortunately nobody is suggesting that the church's role in education ceases, probably on pragmatic grounds. While the schools are state funded, the churches own the land and buildings. So we're stuck with the fact that parents in a very secular country who's only good local school is run by a church have to go through the charade of going to church for years to get their kids into a school for which they are paying taxes.

[Valmy]

There are laws against gender discrimination, yet the catholic church gets away with only hiring male priests, for example.

OMG!  I hear they even require members of their clergy to be...*gasp*...CATHOLICS despite laws against discrimination based on religion or creed!  Wow how bigoted.

[Malthus]

Seems to me a better solution than having a state-sponsored "faith test" would be to eliminate all requirements for any school that the persons taught be of a particular faith; after all, few persons who are not Jewish or Catholic would really want their kids to go to a specifically Catholic or Jewish school; and if they do, what's the harm?

This would avoid the absurdity of having a British court rule on who exactly is a Jew.

Thats the way it usually works, my mam works at a catholic school but she has a bunch of non-catholic students. A lot of kids from irreligious families and even a muslim.
What the article says though is that due to a new law if a school is over subscribed then priority goes to people of that religion.
Which is fair enough to me.

Defining this kid as not Jewish is of course not good.

So if I wanted to start a school for white kids only, it would be sufficient for me to start a cult where you cannot be a member of my religion unless you are white (vide: malthus defending an ethnic/tribal component in religious screening), then start a religious school for members of that religion and voila, I have an all-white school (just make sure I don't have extra free space for the non-whites non-religious folk)!

Perfect. Never thought I'd see Malthus defend racism, though.

Excuse me?

You appear to be missing my oft-repeated stance - that the school should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion at all, much less "ethnicity" - see the post you quoted above. I also happen to think public funding of religious schools is a bad idea in the first place.

You are confusing my attack on the Brit Court's reasons (which are silly for the reasons I have stated) with the results (the kid gets let in - I have no quarrel with that).

Or, to turn it around: "I never thought I'd see Martinus defend religious discrimination, in order to support public funding of religious schools". 

Moreover, the comparison of Judaism's 'ethnic" composition to racism is retarded. The whole reason why "racism" is considered worse than other forms of discrimination is that one cannot choose one's race. If you want to be White, you can't "convert" from being Black (M. Jackson aside). In contrast, if you want to be a Jew, you *can* convert.

[Malthus]

This would avoid the absurdity of having a British court rule on who exactly is a Jew.

I don't see how this is absurd. If you address your commercial offer to a certain category of people ("Jews") then why shouldn't a court be able to interpret what this means in case of a dispute? It's basic contract law - the only thing absurd here is the school which made this a part of their commercial offer.

If I made a public promise to give $1000 to the first black person who comes to me, and garbon came to claim it, and I refused, saying that he is not black, isn't it a fairly predictable and normal course of events that he would sue and then the court would have to "rule on who exactly is a black person"?

This is a matter of administrative law, not contract law. A school isn't making a legally enforcable unlitateral contract with passing potential students.

[The Minsky Moment]

If I made a public promise to give $1000 to the first black person who comes to me, and garbon came to claim it, and I refused, saying that he is not black, isn't it a fairly predictable and normal course of events that he would sue and then the court would have to "rule on who exactly is a black person"?

Not exactly.
Assuming the court found the unilateral contract to be valid and enforceable, its task would then be to determine what the meaning of "black person" was *in the contract*.   That is somewhat different from the State actually promulgating a definition of "black person".

[Malthus]

I think I see what Yi is getting at a little bit.  For instance, a while ago some religious Jewish relatives of mine adopted some non-white children, performed all the proper ceremonies (bris, bar mitzvah, etc), so they are entirely Jewish.  And yet, of course, that doesn't stop individual Jews (perhaps many) from seeing them as somehow less than "really" Jewish.

This sort of discrimination of course exists, but it is considered very "non Jewish" and extremely rude.

In fact, in Judaism it is considered extremely rude to comment on the fact someone is a convert.

[garbon]

I've known some pretty rude Jews.  This one invited himself over to my house and proceeded to tramp in snow and mud into my bedroom carpet.

[Berkut]

I think I see what Yi is getting at a little bit.  For instance, a while ago some religious Jewish relatives of mine adopted some non-white children, performed all the proper ceremonies (bris, bar mitzvah, etc), so they are entirely Jewish.  And yet, of course, that doesn't stop individual Jews (perhaps many) from seeing them as somehow less than "really" Jewish.

This sort of discrimination of course exists, but it is considered very "non Jewish" and extremely rude.

In fact, in Judaism it is considered extremely rude to comment on the fact someone is a convert.

I comment on my sisters conversion all the time. Good thing I am not a Jew!

[Malthus]

Hi all, long time no see etc.

The Court of Appeal judgement is here in case anyone is interested. It might be noted that the respondents to the appeal were rather humstrung by the need to maintain that Jews are an ethnic or racial group so as to retain the protection for them of the Race Relations Act:

It is here, as it seems to us, that the respondents' argument encounters a major problem. One of the great evils against which the successive Race Relations Acts have been directed is the evil of anti-Semitism. None of the parties to these proceedings wants or can afford to put up a case which would result in discrimination against Jews not being discrimination on racial grounds. There would have to be something wrong with such an argument. So Lord Pannick accepts, indeed insists, not only that Jews are an ethnic or racial group and not simply a theological construct, but that for all purposes except those of the OCR and the school, M is a Jew. This is not an easy position to maintain, but its corollary, if it can be maintained, is that what excludes M is not his race or ethnicity but his eligibility to be regarded in Orthodox eyes as a Jew, a matter of pure theology.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/626.html

As several of you have noted, the problem stems from the fact that almost all religious schools are state funded. It's a historical issue since many schools were formed by churches. Unfortunately nobody is suggesting that the church's role in education ceases, probably on pragmatic grounds. While the schools are state funded, the churches own the land and buildings. So we're stuck with the fact that parents in a very secular country who's only good local school is run by a church have to go through the charade of going to church for years to get their kids into a school for which they are paying taxes.

Seems to me the Court found itself on the horns of a dilemma.

1. It accepted that there were two ways of being Jewish: (1) by birth; and (2) by conversion.

2. It decided that the school including someone as Jewish "by birth" (or excludiong someone because they are not) was prohibited "racial discrimination".

3. Thus the school could not exclude this person on that basis.

4. However, the school *can* discriminate on the basis of "religion". 

However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically. The Court did not declare this kid to be a Jew. It merely states that the school cannot use the "by birth" criteria. The kid is not (Orthodox) Jew by conversion . Thus he's not Jewish at all, in terms of the school's "excess enrollment" criteria.

Without more being said, the effect of this ruling isn't to admit this kid, it is to in effect un-admit all the other kids who are Jewish "by birth" and have been admitted under the excess enrollment criteria. They will presumably all have to leave or get converted. 

[crazy canuck]

This sort of discrimination of course exists, but it is considered very "non Jewish" and extremely rude.

In fact, in Judaism it is considered extremely rude to comment on the fact someone is a convert.

One of my partners and her child from a previous marriage converted when she married a Jewish fellow.  She says she used to run into this all the time although it got better as the years passed.