British Court To Define Jewishness

[Caliga]

  Did we ever figure out who that chick is in the photo?  She looks like a young Erin Grey of Silver Spoons and Battlestar Galactica fame.

[Ed Anger]

Did we ever figure out who that chick is in the photo?  She looks like a young Erin Grey of Silver Spoons and Battlestar Galactica fame.

Buck Rogers. 

[grumbler]

You completely misunderstand. See my reply to dps above.

One of us does misunderstand the other, that is true.

"Ethicity" is the broader concept than "race". An "ethnic group" is a group of humans whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage that is real or assumed; "race" is merely one of the markers of a common heritage.

Disagree, but since all of these concepts are quite flexible, I would just note that I think far more people would agree that "race" is the broader definition, and leave it at that.  There certainly isn't any real "race" or "ethnicity" which we could compare and test.

That this marker is more assumed than real we agree.

The difference being that i assume that it is 100% artificial, and you (ppresumably) do not.  That's okay with me.  Beliefs about ethnicity define ethnicity.

I refuse to get into your usual complaints about being misinterpreted etc.

And I refuse to allow you to get away with selectively cropping my quotes to make it appear that my position is the exact opposite of what I am actually saying it is.

I agree that race is a social construct. I do not agree that merely believing in the literal existence of this social construct is "racist".

We disagree about that, but I would not that your position is not logically sound.  My position is that the argument for the existence of "race" necessitates that race "means something significant." Why?  Because if it doesn't mean something significant, it has no meaning.  Racism is the belief that one's "race" is an important contributor to one's individual characteristics. You cannot have it both ways.  "Race" is either meaningful, in which case belief in it is racism, or it is meaningless, in which case belief in it is stupid. 

It may be mistaken but it is not "racist".

It would be both, in my opinion.

Do you, or do you not, believe that the belief in the literal existence of "races" is "racist"?

That is pretty much the definition of racism.   suppose that one could believe in races but not believe that they have any meaning, but that would be silly, no?

Simple question.

Simple answer.

I disagree. Jewish beliefs are fundamentally different from Catholic ones on this point.

I disagree.  I don't think judaism is as monolithic on this point as you think (and, indeed, the fact that there is a court case rather demonstrates that point).

Ethnic groups exist whether you choose to believe in them or not. This is one area where the subjective opinions of people create an objective reality.

Ethnic groups exist in people's minds in much the same way "races" do.  The difference is that people who believe in an ethnicity don't generally believe that ethnicity actually determines anything; it is descriptive, and generally situationaly defined.  However, there is nothing objective about ethnicity.  It cannot be sensed in any fashion.  It is as artificial a construct as nationality or "race."

[Caliga]

Buck Rogers. 

You're quite correct.  Erin Gray = Buck Rogers.  Face = Battlestar Galactica.

[grumbler]

Um...this is one of the most primary and fundamental principals of Judaism.  Some Jews may choose not to believe it but it sorta goes on in the Torah, which I hear is a document related to Judaism in someway, that Jews are a people.  It is sort of like saying the Pope is not head of the Catholic Church because some Catholics believe he isn't.  It simply is ridiculous.

So a Jew is a person who believes in the Torah?  But that's not what Jews believe!  Try not to tell me what all Jews believe, m'kay?

Your Pope analogy is, as you note, "simply... ridiculous."

Correct analogy: It is sorta like saying that some Catholics aren't Catholics because they believe they are not Catholics.  Or, in a better analogy, it is like some people believing that married Anglican priests can become Catholic priests and some saying they cannot. Is the person an "actual" Catholic priest?  That depends on what you believe.  Right now, the Pope says that they can, but guess what:  some Catholics disagree with the Pope! And Popes change their minds!

None of it is objectively real.  It is all a matter of belief (just like the belief that Jewishness passes through the mother but not the father).  And that, of course, is my point.

[sbr]

Did we ever figure out who that chick is in the photo?  She looks like a young Erin Grey of Silver Spoons and Battlestar Galactica fame.

I was in love with Erin Gray back then.

[Admiral Yi]

Did we ever figure out who that chick is in the photo?  She looks like a young Erin Grey of Silver Spoons and Battlestar Galactica fame.

Natalie Wood's stunt double.

[Caliga]

I was in love with Erin Gray back then.

Who wasn't?  Oh right, Marti. 

[Malthus]

Disagree, but since all of these concepts are quite flexible, I would just note that I think far more people would agree that "race" is the broader definition, and leave it at that.  There certainly isn't any real "race" or "ethnicity" which we could compare and test.

These terms have actual meanings, even if you do not happen to believe they describe anything worth describing.

Their meanings are not mysterious - "ethinicity" is a simple description of the process whereby people group themselves into subdivisions based on a variety of factors creating kinship, real or fictitious.

"Race" can be one of those factors. It is not of course the only factor. Thus, "race" is the narrower definition.

The difference being that i assume that it is 100% artificial, and you (ppresumably) do not.  That's okay with me.  Beliefs about ethnicity define ethnicity.

People have attributes that are different from each other. Some have black skin and some have white. The artificiality lies in assuming that these differences are meaningful in any sense beyond the (purely subjective) matter of defining ethnicity.

And I refuse to allow you to get away with selectively cropping my quotes to make it appear that my position is the exact opposite of what I am actually saying it is.

But I haven't. I've asked you what your position is, and you have clarified - it is exactly what I thought it was. See your own answers below.

We disagree about that, but I would not that your position is not logically sound.  My position is that the argument for the existence of "race" necessitates that race "means something significant." Why?  Because if it doesn't mean something significant, it has no meaning.  Racism is the belief that one's "race" is an important contributor to one's individual characteristics. You cannot have it both ways.  "Race" is either meaningful, in which case belief in it is racism, or it is meaningless, in which case belief in it is stupid. 

I deny that your dilemma has any reality. Garbon saying "I'm Black" does not mean that Garbon is either a racist or stupidly repeating the meaningless. It is purely descriptive - it describes a category, nothing more.

There is nothing about such a description that of necessity implies that the person making it thinks that being Black is better, or worse, than being White or Oriental.

It would be both, in my opinion.

And it is that opinion I disagree with.

That is pretty much the definition of racism.   suppose that one could believe in races but not believe that they have any meaning, but that would be silly, no?

Again, Garbon describing himself as "Black" isn't what I think of when I think of "the very definition of racism".

To my mind, "racism" requires some sort of assumption of superiority, inferiority, or essentialism based on race.

To argue otherwise is, I contend, to be absurdly sensitive. If every mention of race becomes "racist" then "racist" loses any meaning as a perjorative statement. If everyone os "racist" then no-one is.

Simple answer.

Fair enough. Why all the pissing and moaning about being "misquoted"? You clearly meant exactly what I thought you meant.

I disagree.  I don't think judaism is as monolithic on this point as you think (and, indeed, the fact that there is a court case rather demonstrates that point).

No, it doesn't. i take it that you have not read the judgments of the House of Lords?

If you did, you'd be in for a surprise.

I'll save you the effort and quote from the first judgment in the case:

It is a fundamental tenet of Judaism, or the Jewish religion, that the covenant at Sinai was made with all the Jewish people, both those then alive and future generations. It is also a fundamental tenet of the Jewish religion, derived from the third and fourth verses that I have quoted, that the child of a Jewish mother is automatically and inalienably Jewish. I shall describe this as the "matrilineal test". It is the primary test applied by those who practise or believe in the Jewish religion fordeciding whether someone is Jewish. They have always recognised, however, an alternative way in which someone can become Jewish, which is by conversion.

None of this was disputed by any of the litigants. What created this dispute was that the mom of the boy denied admission was converted by a non-Orthodox conversion - which was not recognized as valid.

Thus, she was not 'Jewish' (because she had not converted "properly") and her son was not "Jewish" be descent - because the mom was not Jewish.

Nothing whatever to do with a difference of opinion over whether one can be Jewish by ethnicity, or whether Jews are a "people".

Ethnic groups exist in people's minds in much the same way "races" do.  The difference is that people who believe in an ethnicity don't generally believe that ethnicity actually determines anything; it is descriptive, and generally situationaly defined.  However, there is nothing objective about ethnicity.  It cannot be sensed in any fashion.  It is as artificial a construct as nationality or "race."

The fact that a category exists only in people's minds doesn't make it meaningless or non-existant. It is based on very real differences - differences in language, in culture, and in belief.

[dps]

It is the content of Jewish beliefs that make Judaism an "ethnicity", not the fact of difference.

Uhm, hasn't your whole position in this thread been (paraphrased), "Jews, unlike Christians, are not defined by belief, but rather by ethnicity"?  But now you're saying that Jewish beliefs are what determines that ethnicity.  I'm confused.

If the lawyers for the school didn't do any better than that in their arguments before the British courts, no wonder the school lost.

[Valmy]

Uhm, hasn't your whole position in this thread been (paraphrased), "Jews, unlike Christians, are not defined by belief, but rather by ethnicity"?  But now you're saying that Jewish beliefs are what determines that ethnicity.  I'm confused.

If the lawyers for the school didn't do any better than that in their arguments before the British courts, no wonder the school lost.

Wow this is not that hard man.

Judaism holds that the Jewish people are the Jewish people and are a NATION chosen by God to glorify him on earth by doing a lot of shit.  These people are defined in two ways:

1. You with have a Jewish Mother

2. You undergo a formal conversion

It has always been that way and that is as fundamental to Judaism as there being no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet is not Islam.  To say this isn't true is essentially to say there are no Jews and their religion does not exist.
The saddest part is THIS IS NOT EVEN UNDER DISCUSSION IN THIS CASE.  The only issue here is the legitimacy of the conversion process as different sects of Jews have different conversion processes and they bicker about whose are legitimate all the time.  But no organization of Jews ever questions the basic idea of what a Jew is.  There is even a classification for non-Jews who believe as the Jews believe, they are still not Jews though.

So why you are being so obtuse about this very simple and fundamental concept is beyond me.

[Malthus]

It is the content of Jewish beliefs that make Judaism an "ethnicity", not the fact of difference.

Uhm, hasn't your whole position in this thread been (paraphrased), "Jews, unlike Christians, are not defined by belief, but rather by ethnicity"?  But now you're saying that Jewish beliefs are what determines that ethnicity.  I'm confused.

If the lawyers for the school didn't do any better than that in their arguments before the British courts, no wonder the school lost.

Your paraphrase is incorrect.

Moreover, the case in the British Court did not turn on the question.

The truth is that Judaism is an ethnicity that is defined by a bunch of religious rules found in the ancient texts of Judaism, generally known as the "Old Testament". These rules establish who is, or is not, a Jew. A "Jew", as pointed out by Valmy (and as noted by the British Court) is a person who is either born of a Jewish mom, or who converts.

The Bible states that Jews are a "people", or a nation. Jews throughout history have accepted this as being true. Now, oddly enough, it is not a requirement in the Bible to be a Jew that Jews actually believe in God. All they must do, to be Jews, is to be born of a Jewish mom (or convert). Beliefs in God are not required.

Obviously, belief in "the rulez" of Judaism is required - at least, to the extent of believing that Jews are "a nation" as defined. If you don't believe that, you cease to be a Jew as far as you are concerned (although other Jews will still consider you a Jew no matter what you do, unless you convert to something else).

Thus, Judaism is far different from Catholicism, or indeed any form of Chistianity I know of. None of them have "rulez" that define themselves as a nation. All of them are a lot more interested in the content of your beliefs about God than Judaism is.

Thus, it makes a lot more sense in Judaism for someone to call themselves a "secular Jew" or a "Jewish atheist" than a "secular Catholic" or a "Catholic atheist". Most "religious Catholics" would view a "Catholic atheist" as not a Catholic at all. Most "religious Jews" view "Jewish atheists" as undeniably Jews (albeit not being good Jews).

I don't know of an major branch of Judaism that requires a belief in God or religious practice to be considered a "Jew".

I sincerely hope that helps.

[dps]

Uhm, hasn't your whole position in this thread been (paraphrased), "Jews, unlike Christians, are not defined by belief, but rather by ethnicity"?  But now you're saying that Jewish beliefs are what determines that ethnicity.  I'm confused.

If the lawyers for the school didn't do any better than that in their arguments before the British courts, no wonder the school lost.

Wow this is not that hard man.

Judaism holds that the Jewish people are the Jewish people and are a NATION chosen by God to glorify him on earth by doing a lot of shit.  These people are defined in two ways:

1. You with have a Jewish Mother

2. You undergo a formal conversion

It has always been that way and that is as fundamental to Judaism as there being no God but Allah and that Mohammed is his prophet is not Islam.  To say this isn't true is essentially to say there are no Jews and their religion does not exist.
The saddest part is THIS IS NOT EVEN UNDER DISCUSSION IN THIS CASE.  The only issue here is the legitimacy of the conversion process as different sects of Jews have different conversion processes and they bicker about whose are legitimate all the time.  But no organization of Jews ever questions the basic idea of what a Jew is.  There is even a classification for non-Jews who believe as the Jews believe, they are still not Jews though.

So why you are being so obtuse about this very simple and fundamental concept is beyond me.

I get the concept.  I just don't think you've done a very good job of explaining it, plus you are insisting on using words in ways that aren't consistant with their common meanings.  I mean, think about it:  grumbler pretty much insists that terms have strictly defined meanings, while I've basically argued in the past that usage and content determine meaning, and that we should take a common-sense approach toward that.  But in this thread, both of us are insisting that the way you're using the term "ethnicity" is whacked.  That maybe should give you pause.

FWIW, I think that the British court got it wrong.  If you are going to allow certain groups to run schools and give them state funding to do so, but still allow them to favor members of their own group in admissions, then to me common sense says that you then should allow them to determine who is and isn't a member of their group.  But that's probably a very American take on it.  In fact, in this country, there is a good chance that the courts wouldn't have taken the case, on the grounds that it would require them to rule on the content of Jewish religious teaching, and they can't do that.

EDIT:  Aak! you posted while I was typing the above.  Yeah, that's a much better explanation.  Ad yeah, I already understood the concept. 

And I replied to Vlamy, thingin that the post about me being obtuse was Malthus.  Fuck, I feel stupid now.

[Malthus]

I get the concept.  I just don't think you've done a very good job of explaining it, plus you are insisting on using words in ways that aren't consistant with their common meanings.  I mean, think about it:  grumbler pretty much insists that terms have strictly defined meanings, while I've basically argued in the past that usage and content determine meaning, and that we should take a common-sense approach toward that.  But in this thread, both of us are insisting that the way you're using the term "ethnicity" is whacked.  That maybe should give you pause.

In this case, you are both wrong. I've already written why a couple of times.

This may be the very first instance where I've ever seen someone argue that they are right because they agree with Grumbler, whom they usually disagree with. 

I'll give your argumentum ad grumbulum exactly the weight it deserves - namely, none. 

Anyway, I'm not as combative in tone as Valmy. 

[Jacob]

...argumentum ad grumbulum...