British Court To Define Jewishness

[Maximus]

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.

Speaking from experience, they may not be allowed to discriminate based on religion, but they are allowed to create and enforce their own code of conduct which can amount to basically the same thing.

[Valmy]

Speaking from experience, they may not be allowed to discriminate based on religion, but they are allowed to create and enforce their own code of conduct which can amount to basically the same thing.

Yep.  But that is different.  If the school is good enough to put up with that people will want to go.

[Maximus]

More importantly(IMO) it doesn't depend on a definition of religion.

[Malthus]

Speaking from experience, they may not be allowed to discriminate based on religion, but they are allowed to create and enforce their own code of conduct which can amount to basically the same thing.

Yep.  But that is different.  If the school is good enough to put up with that people will want to go.

There is no length parents will not go to get their kids into a good school. 

[Faeelin]

Thats their problem.
The catholic schools though they recieve state funding are linked in with the church and it is from their church community that they came to be founded and are ran. Muslim communities are perfectly free to do the same if they really want to send their kids to a religious school (which most don't).

My issue is if we have a situation where there's a cappy public school, a small number of Muslims, and a nice Anglican school. The Anglicans will get preference in going there, and there aren't enough Muslims to start up their own school. This seems problematic.

[Richard Hakluyt]

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.

[grumbler]

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. 

US religious schools do not test for religion, and wouldn't get away with it if they tried.  As Max notes, they may have rituals and whatnot that appeal to Catholics more than non-Catholics, but anyone can go to them and they specifically state that they evaluate applications the same regardless of religion.

As far as the OP is concerned, this isn't about defining Jewishness, it is about deciding whose definition of Jewishness is a legally valid reason for practicing discrimination.

[Josquius]

Yup, Judaism is a religion too, you can convert to it. But you can also be born as one. That's what makes it a "tribal' as opposed to a solely religious identity. A person born to a Jewish mom is considered "Jewish" even though they don't practice the religion at all and don't believe in Yahweh.

To say that this person isn't Jewish is to impose an outsider's view on what, exactly, the "religion" consists of. Worse follows, because in Judaism belief isn't at all important - unlike Christianity, where "faith" is a major element (to the extent that in English "faith" is synonimous with "religion") in Judaism "faith' is quite irrelevant.

This whole exercise is a futile attempt to pound the round peg of Judaism through square holes developed for Christianity. 

You speak of Jews as being special in being a ethnicity and a religion but in the UK Catholics are sort of the same thing too.
These days catholics are generally just as religious as Anglicans (i.e. not at all- the wave of Polish immigration earlier in the decade was quite interesting due to this) they do however still define themselves as 'catholic'. With a lot of them this is down to being of Irish descent but to many others they are just catholic. Its what they are.
Catholic schools do tend to draw heavily from these ethnic catholic populations.
But still; they aren't going to reject new catholics. A catholic school in Glasgow mainly aimed at the Irish-British isn't going to reject a kid called Smith who has moved to the area from England.

To the main point of what you said...well there's different Jews. Ethnic Jews and religious Jews. Even if the two do have heavy overlap and you are counted as a religious Jew automatically just for being a ethnic Jew the definition used here is solely of the religious side. To allow ethnic discrimination is just not on in my book.


As has been said earlier- you take the state's money then you must obey the state's rules.
Out of the muslim schools in the UK (there are quite a lot, over 100 at least) only a dozen or so are state schools, the rest are public schools so they're free to discriminate however they want.
Additionally schools that are state funded though they officially bare religion badges and draw support from those comunities have to stick to the national curriculum. This means there is often very little religion to be seen in them at all. In my mam's school for instance they just get the local priest in for assemblies occasionally and have different holidays to regular schools.

[Razgovory]

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. 

US religious schools do not test for religion, and wouldn't get away with it if they tried.  As Max notes, they may have rituals and whatnot that appeal to Catholics more than non-Catholics, but anyone can go to them and they specifically state that they evaluate applications the same regardless of religion.

As far as the OP is concerned, this isn't about defining Jewishness, it is about deciding whose definition of Jewishness is a legally valid reason for practicing discrimination.

You know, I hadn't thought about that but you are right.  I went to Catholic school for a while and some of the kids there were protestants.  Nobody really cared.  I was pretty young then and there aren't alot of Jews or Muslims in the area but I don't think they would have been banned either.

[Malthus]

Yup, Judaism is a religion too, you can convert to it. But you can also be born as one. That's what makes it a "tribal' as opposed to a solely religious identity. A person born to a Jewish mom is considered "Jewish" even though they don't practice the religion at all and don't believe in Yahweh.

To say that this person isn't Jewish is to impose an outsider's view on what, exactly, the "religion" consists of. Worse follows, because in Judaism belief isn't at all important - unlike Christianity, where "faith" is a major element (to the extent that in English "faith" is synonimous with "religion") in Judaism "faith' is quite irrelevant.

This whole exercise is a futile attempt to pound the round peg of Judaism through square holes developed for Christianity. 

You speak of Jews as being special in being a ethnicity and a religion but in the UK Catholics are sort of the same thing too.
These days catholics are generally just as religious as Anglicans (i.e. not at all- the wave of Polish immigration earlier in the decade was quite interesting due to this) they do however still define themselves as 'catholic'. With a lot of them this is down to being of Irish descent but to many others they are just catholic. Its what they are.
Catholic schools do tend to draw heavily from these ethnic catholic populations.
But still; they aren't going to reject new catholics. A catholic school in Glasgow mainly aimed at the Irish-British isn't going to reject a kid called Smith who has moved to the area from England.

To the main point of what you said...well there's different Jews. Ethnic Jews and religious Jews. Even if the two do have heavy overlap and you are counted as a religious Jew automatically just for being a ethnic Jew the definition used here is solely of the religious side. To allow ethnic discrimination is just not on in my book.


As has been said earlier- you take the state's money then you must obey the state's rules.
Out of the muslim schools in the UK (there are quite a lot, over 100 at least) only a dozen or so are state schools, the rest are public schools so they're free to discriminate however they want.
Additionally schools that are state funded though they officially bare religion badges and draw support from those comunities have to stick to the national curriculum. This means there is often very little religion to be seen in them at all. In my mam's school for instance they just get the local priest in for assemblies occasionally and have different holidays to regular schools.

There aren't "two kinds of Jews". There are of course many different kinds of Jews, but Jews do not divide up into "ethnic" and "religious" that neatly. The overwhelmingly vast numbers of Jews who exist are "ethnic" Jews; those who are 'religious" Jews only and not "ethnic" Jews are a tiny minority - as Judaism is not a religion that encourages prostheletizing and converting others. Quite the contrary, in general Judaism actively discourages conversion (again unlike many forms of Christianity). The number who are "ethnic" but not 'religious" are of course much greater, but this is often a matter of degree, since in Judaism it is perfectly possible not to believe in the religion at all and yet practice it.

I do not think that being born Irish-Catholic is really the same as being born Jewish. Certainly, many if not most people essentially inherit their parent's religious and cultural identity; the difference is that in Judaism, it's an actual part of the religion, unlike in Catholicism - where the *actual doctrine* is that a kid has to be baptised before being as it were "Catholic".

The problem, as Grumbler has pointed out (though I pointed it out first  ), is that the Brits are attempting to allow specifically "religious discrimination" while  making verboten "ethnic discrimination".

To my mind, this is an absurd and unworkable distinction when dealing with a religion such as Judaism, in which that distinction is blurry at best. Moreover, what's the "case" for making religious discrimination okay? Why is it that "ethinic discrimination" is so horrible it can't be allowed, but "religious discrimination" fine and dandy to the extent that it is officially encouraged? To my mind they are much the same (and in the case of Judaism, they *are* the same!)

Best thing to do to avoid this problem is to not officially recognize *either* sort of discrimination. 

[Berkut]

It's a natural consequence of state funded religious schools.

Bingo. Once you let the state pay, you give them the right to question what they are paying for.

[Berkut]

Best thing to do to avoid this problem is to not officially recognize *either* sort of discrimination. 

While of course I agree with this, I don't really understand your contention that it would be unreasonable to demand that Jewish schools be held to the same standard that other religious schools are held to.

You can discriminate based on religion, you cannot based on ethnicity, and there are apparently plenty of Jews who claim that simply practicing Judaism is adequate to make one a Jew.

I am unsure how this is a problem for Jewish schools. So they will have to let in students who do not meet the ethnic criteria for Judaism, why is that such a terrible thing?

[grumbler]

The problem, as Grumbler has pointed out (though I pointed it out first  ), is that the Brits are attempting to allow specifically "religious discrimination" while  making verboten "ethnic discrimination".   

Yes, i should have pointed out that i was re-iterating your point.

To my mind, this is an absurd and unworkable distinction when dealing with a religion such as Judaism, in which that distinction is blurry at best. Moreover, what's the "case" for making religious discrimination okay? Why is it that "ethinic discrimination" is so horrible it can't be allowed, but "religious discrimination" fine and dandy to the extent that it is officially encouraged? To my mind they are much the same (and in the case of Judaism, they *are* the same!)

To my mind, the difgference between the two is that Judaism is "individual" if it is "religious" (ie you are a Jew because you want to be and pass some requirement) and "racial" if you inherit it as an "ethnicity."

Best thing to do to avoid this problem is to not officially recognize *either* sort of discrimination.

Couldn't agree more, but you and I come from much far more more historically secular societies than we are discussing here.  If a society is going to allow religious state schools to discriminate on the basis of religion, then at least all should have the same means of determining religion, and basing a person's religion on their mother's religion (or even absurdly, sect within a religion) is even more clearly not on than allowing discrimination based on religion to begin with.

[dps]

The problem, as Grumbler has pointed out (though I pointed it out first  ), is that the Brits are attempting to allow specifically "religious discrimination" while  making verboten "ethnic discrimination".   

Yes, i should have pointed out that i was re-iterating your point.

To my mind, this is an absurd and unworkable distinction when dealing with a religion such as Judaism, in which that distinction is blurry at best. Moreover, what's the "case" for making religious discrimination okay? Why is it that "ethinic discrimination" is so horrible it can't be allowed, but "religious discrimination" fine and dandy to the extent that it is officially encouraged? To my mind they are much the same (and in the case of Judaism, they *are* the same!)

To my mind, the difgference between the two is that Judaism is "individual" if it is "religious" (ie you are a Jew because you want to be and pass some requirement) and "racial" if you inherit it as an "ethnicity."

Best thing to do to avoid this problem is to not officially recognize *either* sort of discrimination.

Couldn't agree more, but you and I come from much far more more historically secular societies than we are discussing here.  If a society is going to allow religious state schools to discriminate on the basis of religion, then at least all should have the same means of determining religion, and basing a person's religion on their mother's religion (or even absurdly, sect within a religion) is even more clearly not on than allowing discrimination based on religion to begin with.

Yeah, the problem is this bit from the article in the opening post:

Under a 2006 law, the schools can in busy years give preference to applicants within their own faiths, using criteria laid down by a designated religious authority.

It appears that the designated religious authority did lay down the criteria, but now the state objects to those criteria.  If the state wants to lay down the criteria, then the task shouldn't have been delegated to a "designated religious authority" in the first place.

[Malthus]

Best thing to do to avoid this problem is to not officially recognize *either* sort of discrimination. 

While of course I agree with this, I don't really understand your contention that it would be unreasonable to demand that Jewish schools be held to the same standard that other religious schools are held to.

You can discriminate based on religion, you cannot based on ethnicity, and there are apparently plenty of Jews who claim that simply practicing Judaism is adequate to make one a Jew.

I am unsure how this is a problem for Jewish schools. So they will have to let in students who do not meet the ethnic criteria for Judaism, why is that such a terrible thing?

That schools be forced into accepting students who aren't "ethnic" Jews or even Jews at all isn't such a terrible thing (remember, I'm the one who would drop all forms of discrimination). Having the British courts rule on such a matter - and worse, most likely getting it totally wrong - is an absurd thing, with possibly bad implications.

First, because those standards were developed with a very specific sort of religion in mind, and Judaism doesn't fit.

Second, because having courts rule on the matter of who is a Jew will probably (depending on how they rule) tend to distort the actual meaning of the term "Jew" to make it conform to the pattern set by Christianity - that is, a faith-based "religion" rather than a tribal "identity". To the extent that there is any value in having such distinctions (and I realize that for non-Jews there may be precious little), this is an issue.