British Court To Define Jewishness

[Berkut]

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. 

Yeah, I think the court should base their decisions on what nutty people will think if they don't rule in some fashion or other.

The fact is that rejecting someone as a Jew based on their moms status is "inherently discriminatory", so I don't have any real problem with them saying so, and demanding that a state supported school stop doing it, and operate under the same rules everyone else operates under.

[dps]

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. 

Yeah, I think the court should base their decisions on what nutty people will think if they don't rule in some fashion or other.

The fact is that rejecting someone as a Jew based on their moms status is "inherently discriminatory", so I don't have any real problem with them saying so, and demanding that a state supported school stop doing it, and operate under the same rules everyone else operates under.

Well, of course it's inherently discriminatory.  The legal argument is that the 2006 law allows that discrimination.

[Berkut]

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. 

Yeah, I think the court should base their decisions on what nutty people will think if they don't rule in some fashion or other.

The fact is that rejecting someone as a Jew based on their moms status is "inherently discriminatory", so I don't have any real problem with them saying so, and demanding that a state supported school stop doing it, and operate under the same rules everyone else operates under.

Well, of course it's inherently discriminatory.  The legal argument is that the 2006 law allows that discrimination.

The case rested on whether the school's test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M's mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism.

Right, the debate is about whether this is an allowed kind of discrimination or not.

Of course, Malthus' characterization of the courts position as claiming that Judaism is inherently discriminatory doesn't really include that distinction.

[The Minsky Moment]

And no, apparently the kid cannot convert to Judaism, no matter what he does, it is *required* that his mother convert.

This is a misreading of the situation.  The kid never had a conversion - he is claiming to be Jewish by virtue of having a Jewish mother.  The Orthos are claiming that he doesn't have a Jewish mother and therefore cannot claim to be Jewish on that basis.  Nothing prevents the kid from getting converted himself - and were he to get an orthodox conversion - than the orthos obviously would then consider him to be Jewish.

The real issue in this case is whether a particular sub-group or sect within a religion (Orthodox Jews in this case) gets to define the standard for membership for all Jews. 

[Malthus]

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. 

Yeah, I think the court should base their decisions on what nutty people will think if they don't rule in some fashion or other.

What you are saying is you don't care about potential bad unintended consequences.

The fact is that rejecting someone as a Jew based on their moms status is "inherently discriminatory", so I don't have any real problem with them saying so, and demanding that a state supported school stop doing it, and operate under the same rules everyone else operates under.

Of course it's "discriminatory". Deciding that some Jew can go to the school and a non-Jew can't is "discriminatory"! 

In point of fact, deciding that person A is a Jew and person B is not is "discriminatory", by definition. You are discriminating between them.

What's less obvious is that deciding A is a Jew based by birth is a "discrimination" that can't be tolerated. There is nothing so far given as to why this is "not okay".

Perhaps you would like to take a crack at why this is such a big deal?

[Malthus]

Right, the debate is about whether this is an allowed kind of discrimination or not.

Of course, Malthus' characterization of the courts position as claiming that Judaism is inherently discriminatory doesn't really include that distinction.

You are really twisting my meaning here. 

[The Minsky Moment]

[

The case rested on whether the school's test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M's mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism.

Right, the debate is about whether this is an allowed kind of discrimination or not.

It's not quite that simple.

The problem is that the plaintiff (the kid) was *claiming* membership in the religion on the basis of an ethnic test, so it seems a bit odd for the very same plaintiff than to argue that the use of an ethnic test is inherently discriminatory.

[The Minsky Moment]

Of course it's "discriminatory". Deciding that some Jew can go to the school and a non-Jew can't is "discriminatory"! 

Which is why Timmy was right (!) in the first post -- the concept of having a modern, secular democratic state directly fund religiously affiliated educational institutions is inherently flawed from the get-go.  That other ridiculous or problematic consequences then flow from this initial terrible idea should not be surprising.

[Malthus]

Of course it's "discriminatory". Deciding that some Jew can go to the school and a non-Jew can't is "discriminatory"! 

Which is why Timmy was right (!) in the first post -- the concept of having a modern, secular democratic state directly fund religiously affiliated educational institutions is inherently flawed from the get-go.  That other ridiculous or problematic consequences then flow from this initial terrible idea should not be surprising.

Yup, and that seems to be the general consensus.

Or at least, if you must fund them, don't allow them to restrict admissions to "their" group.

One of the problems as I understand it is that in some places, standards of public schools are so bad, that the religious ones are actually better - as they are staffed by people with some interest in educating the kids.

[Berkut]

Of course it's "discriminatory". Deciding that some Jew can go to the school and a non-Jew can't is "discriminatory"! 

Which is why Timmy was right (!) in the first post -- the concept of having a modern, secular democratic state directly fund religiously affiliated educational institutions is inherently flawed from the get-go.  That other ridiculous or problematic consequences then flow from this initial terrible idea should not be surprising.

Yup, and that seems to be the general consensus.

Or at least, if you must fund them, don't allow them to restrict admissions to "their" group.

One of the problems as I understand it is that in some places, standards of public schools are so bad, that the religious ones are actually better - as they are staffed by people with some interest in educating the kids.

Around here the religious (read: Catholic) schools are considered to be very good.

However, the public schools (at least the suburban ones) are also considered to be very good - some of the best in the country in fact.

So the parochial schools actually advertise very heavily to get kids to go to their schools, and by no means do they even make an effort to restrict that recruiting to Catholics.

But it is a tough sell, I think. There is a cost to having incredibly good public schools, and I pay rather exorbitant school taxes compared to most of the country. Seems to me like I am already paying pretty steep tuition to support high quality public schools, so why would I want to shell out even more for a private school?

I can certainly see why people want vouchers, and see why they could really undermine a quality public school system.

[dps]

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. 

Yeah, I think the court should base their decisions on what nutty people will think if they don't rule in some fashion or other.

What you are saying is you don't care about potential bad unintended consequences.

Given that the alternative is for the court to, in affect, say, "We won't enforce the law, because extremist elements in society might use it potentially get some benefit from it", I'd say that's a reasonable position.  IMO it's the job of the courts to interpret the law;  if there are negative unintended consequences of the law, then it's up to the legislative to remedy that.  Granted, that probably works better in the context of a written constitution.

Anyway, the whole case is a great example of potential bad unintended consequences being actualized.     Seriously, leaving it up to a "designated religious authority" to determine who qualified to get in if the schools were oversubscribed should have obviously had some potential pitfalls.

[Malthus]

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. 

Yeah, I think the court should base their decisions on what nutty people will think if they don't rule in some fashion or other.

What you are saying is you don't care about potential bad unintended consequences.

Given that the alternative is for the court to, in affect, say, "We won't enforce the law, because extremist elements in society might use it potentially get some benefit from it", I'd say that's a reasonable position.  IMO it's the job of the courts to interpret the law;  if there are negative unintended consequences of the law, then it's up to the legislative to remedy that.  Granted, that probably works better in the context of a written constitution.

Anyway, the whole case is a great example of potential bad unintended consequences being actualized.     Seriously, leaving it up to a "designated religious authority" to determine who qualified to get in if the schools were oversubscribed should have obviously had some potential pitfalls.

There are other alternatives. The Court could base its decision on some other grounds--for example, that the Orthodox conclusion that this kid's mom's conversion was "invalid" was unreasonable in the circumstances - courts here at least have the power to judicially review administrative decisions.

Such a ruling would have had the benefit of not declaring a central tenant of Judaism 'inherently discriminatory".

In reality, courts pick and choose through reasons all the time to get where they want without causing too much unintended damage. They are not disinterested legal automatons issuing rulings regardless of social consequence (nor should they be).

[Admiral Yi]

It's not quite that simple.

The problem is that the plaintiff (the kid) was *claiming* membership in the religion on the basis of an ethnic test, so it seems a bit odd for the very same plaintiff than to argue that the use of an ethnic test is inherently discriminatory.

No he's not.  He's claiming membership by descent and practice.  If Sammy Davis jr. had been a woman his child could claim membership by descent but obviously not by ethnic membership.

[Malthus]

It's not quite that simple.

The problem is that the plaintiff (the kid) was *claiming* membership in the religion on the basis of an ethnic test, so it seems a bit odd for the very same plaintiff than to argue that the use of an ethnic test is inherently discriminatory.

No he's not.  He's claiming membership by descent and practice.  If Sammy Davis jr. had been a woman his child could claim membership by descent but obviously not by ethnic membership.

I don't get your point. If Sammy Davis Jr. was a woman and had converted by Orthodox means, his kid would be "ethincally' as Jewish as the kid of someone descended from 100 generations of Rabbis.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't get your point. If Sammy Davis Jr. was a woman and had converted by Orthodox means, his kid would be "ethincally' as Jewish as the kid of someone descended from 100 generations of Rabbis.

Gene pool.  When grabon drinks a martini that doesn't make him a WASP.