British Court To Define Jewishness

[Berkut]

But your claim that Judaism cannot be defined simply on religious terms is not shared by all Jews.

The court is saying there is an acceptable standard, and that standard cannot include ethnicity. They aren't even ruling on who Jews are - they are ruling on one sects defintion of who they are NOT, and saying "hey, that isn't a religious distinction, but an ethnic one, and that is not ok". Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And I don't see how they could possibly affect the "actual meaning" of the term "Jew", since apparently even before the ruling that definition was in fact disputed by Jews to begin with!

I don't think this is absurd at all - except to the extent that I find the entire system whereby the state funds religious schools rather absurd to begin with - this is no more or less absurd, in fact, I would say that this lessens the overall absurdity, since it forces more schools to allow students to attend who sure look like Jews to me, and apparently plenty of other Jews as well.

[Malthus]

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."

All of these people "want" to be Jews, since the prize (access to school) depends on it.

There is no test that adequately encompasses being a Jew, since it is not necessarily a matter of belief, nor yet of practice. 

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.

The problem with the "one size fits all" classification is that different religions have different things that they emphasize as necessary for membership.

In Islam, for example, it couldn't be easier: you simply recite the formula of submission.

In Christianity, you do the right rituals such as baptism or, in some cases, have faith.

In Judaism, you are a member of the community, or tribe: either by birth or by "conversion". Unless you renounce that community by some express act (such as, converting to something else).

While they are all no doubt absurd to one extent or another, they are not all the same. It isn't obvious to me why "you get to go to this particular group's school if you are a member of the community of this group" is *more absurd* based on birth, rather than baptism or having faith.

The reason "ethnicity" is usually considered a bad form of discrimination, is that people can't help it - if you were born Black or Italian or whatever, you can't change it. Judaism is different because you *can*. You can "convert" to Judaism if you want to, and you can convert out of it if you want to.

[Berkut]

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."

All of these people "want" to be Jews, since the prize (access to school) depends on it.

There is no test that adequately encompasses being a Jew, since it is not necessarily a matter of belief, nor yet of practice. 

Apparently not all Jews agree with that position.

[Malthus]

But your claim that Judaism cannot be defined simply on religious terms is not shared by all Jews.

The court is saying there is an acceptable standard, and that standard cannot include ethnicity. They aren't even ruling on who Jews are - they are ruling on one sects defintion of who they are NOT, and saying "hey, that isn't a religious distinction, but an ethnic one, and that is not ok". Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And I don't see how they could possibly affect the "actual meaning" of the term "Jew", since apparently even before the ruling that definition was in fact disputed by Jews to begin with!

I don't think this is absurd at all - except to the extent that I find the entire system whereby the state funds religious schools rather absurd to begin with - this is no more or less absurd, in fact, I would say that this lessens the overall absurdity, since it forces more schools to allow students to attend who sure look like Jews to me, and apparently plenty of other Jews as well.

There is precious little that is shared by all Jews, because Judaism isn't a hierarchical religion - there is no Jewish "pope" who can lay down the law as to any particular point.

I reject the point that, because Jews are not internally certain on any point, that thus any interpretation imposed by non-Jews is sensible. This is simply not a dispute in which non-Jewish opinions are going to be helpful. Even if those opinions sound "reasonable" -- to someone who isn't a Jew.

Legal definitions have a tendancy for unintended consequences: bad facts may make bad law, and bad law is a bad idea.   

Edit: moreover, the Court has yet to rule on the matter. The lower court went one way, the appellate court the opposite, and the matter is now before the highest court.

[Malthus]

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."

All of these people "want" to be Jews, since the prize (access to school) depends on it.

There is no test that adequately encompasses being a Jew, since it is not necessarily a matter of belief, nor yet of practice. 

Apparently not all Jews agree with that position.

Really? I did not get that from the article.

Rather, it is the validity of the mother's conversion that was at issue.

[Berkut]

But your claim that Judaism cannot be defined simply on religious terms is not shared by all Jews.

The court is saying there is an acceptable standard, and that standard cannot include ethnicity. They aren't even ruling on who Jews are - they are ruling on one sects defintion of who they are NOT, and saying "hey, that isn't a religious distinction, but an ethnic one, and that is not ok". Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

And I don't see how they could possibly affect the "actual meaning" of the term "Jew", since apparently even before the ruling that definition was in fact disputed by Jews to begin with!

I don't think this is absurd at all - except to the extent that I find the entire system whereby the state funds religious schools rather absurd to begin with - this is no more or less absurd, in fact, I would say that this lessens the overall absurdity, since it forces more schools to allow students to attend who sure look like Jews to me, and apparently plenty of other Jews as well.

There is precious little that is shared by all Jews, because Judaism isn't a hierarchical religion - there is no Jewish "pope" who can lay down the law as to any particular point.

I reject the point that, because Jews are not internally certain on any point, that thus any interpretation imposed by non-Jews is sensible. This is simply not a dispute in which non-Jewish opinions are going to be helpful. Even if those opinions sound "reasonable" -- to someone who isn't a Jew.

Legal definitions have a tendancy for unintended consequences: bad facts may make bad law, and bad law is a bad idea.  

But again, it is not the case that Jews all agree with your definition of what makes someone Jewish, therefore the claim that this is being imposed on them by non-Jews (which I don't have a problem with anyway, to be honest) doesn't really fly. Apparently there are lots of Jews who think the ethnic distinction is bollocks as well. Why should the court ignore their views in favor of the exclusionary group who is engaging in ethnic discrimination, which is explicitly NOT allowed by law?

Your argument seems to be that since religious discrimination is ok, then ethnic ought to be as well. Not only do I not agree with that, since it would then mean you should be arguing that no-black schools should be fine, that isn't what the law says.

The law says you cannot discriminate on ethnic terms. Saying that membership in some group is based on your mothers membership in that group is pretty much the definition of  ethnic, isn't it? Just because your religion is racially defined doesn't mean the state must cater to that, anymore than if someone starts up a religion that only allowed anglo-saxons to join.

Again, I still do not understand the practical problem this ruling would create. So this school would have to allow students who are practicing Jews who are not ethnic Jews. So what? Why is that a bad thing?

[Berkut]

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."

All of these people "want" to be Jews, since the prize (access to school) depends on it.

There is no test that adequately encompasses being a Jew, since it is not necessarily a matter of belief, nor yet of practice. 

Apparently not all Jews agree with that position.

Really? I did not get that from the article.

Rather, it is the validity of the mother's conversion that was at issue.

The case has stirred up long-simmering resentments among the leaders of different Jewish denominations, who, for starters, disagree vehemently on the definition of Jewishness. They also disagree on the issue of whether an Orthodox leader is entitled to speak for the entire community.

    "Whatever happens in this case, there must be some resolution sorted out between different denominations," Mr. Benjamin said in an interview. "That the community has failed to grasp this has had the very unfortunate result of having a judgment foisted on it by a civil court."

    Orthodox Jews, of course, sympathize with the school, saying that observance is no test of Jewishness, and that all that matters is whether one's mother is Jewish. So little does observance matter, in fact, that "having a ham sandwich on the afternoon of Yom Kippur doesn't make you less Jewish," Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, chairman of the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue, said recently.

    Lauren Lesin-Davis, chairman of the board of governors at King David, a Jewish school in Liverpool, told the BBC that the ruling violated more than 5,000 years of Jewish tradition.

    "You cannot come in and start telling people how their whole lives should change, that the whole essence of their life and their religion is completely wrong," she said.

    But others are in complete sympathy with M.

    "How dare they question our beliefs and our Jewishness?" David Lightman, an observant Jewish father whose daughter was also denied a place at the school because it did not recognize her mother's conversion, told reporters recently. "I find it offensive and very upsetting."

    Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism here, said the lower court's ruling, if upheld, would help make Judaism more inclusive.

    "JFS is a state-funded school where my grandfather taught, and it's selecting applicants on the basis of religious politics," he said in an interview. "The Orthodox definition of Jewish excludes 40 percent of the Jewish community in this country."

[Malthus]

But again, it is not the case that Jews all agree with your definition of what makes someone Jewish, therefore the claim that this is being imposed on them by non-Jews (which I don't have a problem with anyway, to be honest) doesn't really fly. Apparently there are lots of Jews who think the ethnic distinction is bollocks as well. Why should the court ignore their views in favor of the exclusionary group who is engaging in ethnic discrimination, which is explicitly NOT allowed by law?

Your argument seems to be that since religious discrimination is ok, then ethnic ought to be as well. Not only do I not agree with that, since it would then mean you should be arguing that no-black schools should be fine, that isn't what the law says.

The law says you cannot discriminate on ethnic terms. Saying that membership in some group is based on your mothers membership in that group is pretty much the definition of  ethnic, isn't it? Just because your religion is racially defined doesn't mean the state must cater to that, anymore than if someone starts up a religion that only allowed anglo-saxons to join.

Again, I still do not understand the practical problem this ruling would create. So this school would have to allow students who are practicing Jews who are not ethnic Jews. So what? Why is that a bad thing?

Where are you getting your facts from? The group opposing the Orthodox Rabbis are opposing it because, on the facts of this case, the kid had a mom who converted in a non-Orthodox temple and the Orthodox don't recognize that conversion as valid.

Seems to me that, unless you have some source of facts other than the article, you are making your argument on faulty premises.

Moreover, unless and until a Black guy can "convert" to being White (and isn't Michael Jackson  ), I reject the notion that Judaism is a "racial" issue. "Tribe" isn't the same as "race".

[dps]

The law says you cannot discriminate on ethnic terms.

But that's not as absolute as it seems.  For example, in the States, you have certain rights (maybe privileges would be a better term) if you're a member of certain Indian tribes, and that is determined by your ethnicity.  And there are "set-asides" for minority groups for government contracts.

[Malthus]

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."

All of these people "want" to be Jews, since the prize (access to school) depends on it.

There is no test that adequately encompasses being a Jew, since it is not necessarily a matter of belief, nor yet of practice. 

Apparently not all Jews agree with that position.

Really? I did not get that from the article.

Rather, it is the validity of the mother's conversion that was at issue.

The case has stirred up long-simmering resentments among the leaders of different Jewish denominations, who, for starters, disagree vehemently on the definition of Jewishness. They also disagree on the issue of whether an Orthodox leader is entitled to speak for the entire community.

    "Whatever happens in this case, there must be some resolution sorted out between different denominations," Mr. Benjamin said in an interview. "That the community has failed to grasp this has had the very unfortunate result of having a judgment foisted on it by a civil court."

    Orthodox Jews, of course, sympathize with the school, saying that observance is no test of Jewishness, and that all that matters is whether one's mother is Jewish. So little does observance matter, in fact, that "having a ham sandwich on the afternoon of Yom Kippur doesn't make you less Jewish," Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, chairman of the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue, said recently.

    Lauren Lesin-Davis, chairman of the board of governors at King David, a Jewish school in Liverpool, told the BBC that the ruling violated more than 5,000 years of Jewish tradition.

    "You cannot come in and start telling people how their whole lives should change, that the whole essence of their life and their religion is completely wrong," she said.

    But others are in complete sympathy with M.

    "How dare they question our beliefs and our Jewishness?" David Lightman, an observant Jewish father whose daughter was also denied a place at the school because it did not recognize her mother's conversion, told reporters recently. "I find it offensive and very upsetting."

    Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism here, said the lower court's ruling, if upheld, would help make Judaism more inclusive.

    "JFS is a state-funded school where my grandfather taught, and it's selecting applicants on the basis of religious politics," he said in an interview. "The Orthodox definition of Jewish excludes 40 percent of the Jewish community in this country."

How does it support your contention? I see no mention here that those Jews opposing the Orthodox are opposing the "by birth" contention.

What they object to, is the Orthodox stating what those criteria are (for example, more progressive congregations allow "jewishness by birth" to be patrilinial as well as matrilinial - in Orthodoxy, it is matrilinially only).

That would make sense of the hyperbole "40%" figure (surely you are not of the opinion that 40% of British Jews were not born Jewish?!)

[Berkut]

But again, it is not the case that Jews all agree with your definition of what makes someone Jewish, therefore the claim that this is being imposed on them by non-Jews (which I don't have a problem with anyway, to be honest) doesn't really fly. Apparently there are lots of Jews who think the ethnic distinction is bollocks as well. Why should the court ignore their views in favor of the exclusionary group who is engaging in ethnic discrimination, which is explicitly NOT allowed by law?

Your argument seems to be that since religious discrimination is ok, then ethnic ought to be as well. Not only do I not agree with that, since it would then mean you should be arguing that no-black schools should be fine, that isn't what the law says.

The law says you cannot discriminate on ethnic terms. Saying that membership in some group is based on your mothers membership in that group is pretty much the definition of  ethnic, isn't it? Just because your religion is racially defined doesn't mean the state must cater to that, anymore than if someone starts up a religion that only allowed anglo-saxons to join.

Again, I still do not understand the practical problem this ruling would create. So this school would have to allow students who are practicing Jews who are not ethnic Jews. So what? Why is that a bad thing?

Where are you getting your facts from? The group opposing the Orthodox Rabbis are opposing it because, on the facts of this case, the kid had a mom who converted in a non-Orthodox temple and the Orthodox don't recognize that conversion as valid.

Seems to me that, unless you have some source of facts other than the article, you are making your argument on faulty premises.

Moreover, unless and until a Black guy can "convert" to being White (and isn't Michael Jackson  ), I reject the notion that Judaism is a "racial" issue. "Tribe" isn't the same as "race".

The basis of the courts decision, however, had nothing to do with whether mom converted in an orthodox church or not it was based on the idea that moms conversion could define the sons jewishness in any case.

In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one's mother is Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was "benign or malignant, theological or supremacist," the court wrote, "makes it no less and no more unlawful."

What facts are YOU operating on?

And no, apparently the kid cannot convert to Judaism, no matter what he does, it is *required* that his mother convert. Clearly this fails the test for not being ethnic. And while tribe isn't the same as race, they are both ethnic labels, whose strict definition are loose enough to allow all kinds of unacceptable behavior if we let people start discriminating based on those labels.

And like I said earlier, your claim that there is one and only one definition of what being Jewish is is clearly disputed by a great many Jews. Liberal Jews seem to believe that conversion is perfectly fine.

My little sister is supposedly a Jew now, since she converted. Of course, my mom didn't, so does that mean she isn't really a Jew, although my niece is?

[Malthus]

The basis of the courts decision, however, had nothing to do with whether mom converted in an orthodox church or not it was based on the idea that moms conversion could define the sons jewishness in any case.

In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one's mother is Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was "benign or malignant, theological or supremacist," the court wrote, "makes it no less and no more unlawful."

Oh, I could not agree more - that's the basis of the Court's Decision, all right.

What there is not (contrary to your claims) is any sizable section of Judaism who rejects the notion that Judaism can be "by birth".

What facts are YOU operating on?

Uh, my knowledge of the religion I was brought up on, and the article?

And no, apparently the kid cannot convert to Judaism, no matter what he does, it is *required* that his mother convert. Clearly this fails the test for not being ethnic. And while tribe isn't the same as race, they are both ethnic labels, whose strict definition are loose enough to allow all kinds of unacceptable behavior if we let people start discriminating based on those labels.

Say what? Where exactly does it say the kid can't convert?

That doesn't even make any sense. How could a mom convert, but a kid not convert?

And like I said earlier, your claim that there is one and only one definition of what being Jewish is is clearly disputed by a great many Jews. Liberal Jews seem to believe that conversion is perfectly fine.

My little sister is supposedly a Jew now, since she converted. Of course, my mom didn't, so does that mean she isn't really a Jew, although my niece is?

What? You are just babbling nonsense now. Of course a person can convert to Judaism in Orthodoxy (it ain't easy, but you can).

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Conversion.html

[Berkut]

I am still waiting for you to tell me what bad thing is going to happen if they let some kid in who says he is Jewish, whether his mom converted or not.

That is the basis of the lawsuit - that the school cannot reject the kids religious identity based on the mothers conversion (or lack thereof). And the court (at least one of them) seems to agree, yet you categorically reject that that can be a reasonable ruling. I don't see why.

[Malthus]

I am still waiting for you to tell me what bad thing is going to happen if they let some kid in who says he is Jewish, whether his mom says he is or not.

That is the basis of the lawsuit - that the school cannot reject the kids religious identity based on the mothers conversion. And the court (at least one of them) seems to agree, yet you categorically reject that that can be a reasonable ruling. I don't see why.

To repeat: I'm the one who thinks it would be perfectly okay to let Christians in, let alone someone who only "isn't Jewish" by some Orthodox dude's definition, so clearly I have no problem with letting this kid in.

The "problem" lies in a Court defining Judaism as a matter of practice or faith (assuming of course that the Appellate ruling is upheld). It is neither, and pretending it is just to appease some notion that discrimination by birth is somehow worse than discrimination by religion, is rife with unintended bad consequences - that is, for those who think there is some value in Judaism.

Not to mention the anti-Semitic propaganda potential of having the highest court in the land publically announce that the very basis for membership in Judaism is "inherently discriminatory". Yes, I can see something of a downside to that, all right. 

[DGuller]

After they're done with this case and get their feet wet, can they rule on which is the one true faith?  There has been a lot of conflicting interpretations in the past.