http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html?em=&pagewanted=print
QuoteWho Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question
By SARAH LYALL
LONDON — The questions before the judges in Courtroom No. 1 of Britain's Supreme Court were as ancient and as complex as Judaism itself.
Who is a Jew? And who gets to decide?
On the surface, the court was considering a straightforward challenge to the admissions policy of a Jewish high school in London. But the case, in which arguments concluded Oct. 30, has potential repercussions for thousands of other parochial schools across Britain. And in addressing issues at the heart of Jewish identity, it has exposed bitter divisions in Britain's community of 300,000 or so Jews, pitting members of various Jewish denominations against one another.
"This is potentially the biggest case in the British Jewish community's modern history," said Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle newspaper here. "It speaks directly to the right of the state to intervene in how a religion operates."
The case began when a 12-year-old boy, an observant Jew whose father is Jewish and whose mother is a Jewish convert, applied to the school, JFS. Founded in 1732 as the Jews' Free School, it is a centerpiece of North London's Jewish community. It has around 1,900 students, but it gets far more applicants than it accepts.
Britain has nearly 7,000 publicly financed religious schools, representing Judaism as well as the Church of England, Catholicism and Islam, among others. 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.
By many standards, the JFS applicant, identified in court papers as "M," is Jewish. But not in the eyes of the school, which defines Judaism under the Orthodox definition set out by Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Because M's mother converted in a progressive, not an Orthodox, synagogue, the school said, she was not a Jew — nor was her son. It turned down his application.
That would have been the end of it. But M's family sued, saying that the school had discriminated against him. They lost, but the ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal this summer.
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."
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.
"The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act," the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but "on faith, however defined."
The same reasoning would apply to a Christian school that "refused to admit a child on the ground that, albeit practicing Christians, the child's family were of Jewish origin," the court said.
The school appealed to the Supreme Court, which is likely to rule sometime before the end of the year.
The case's importance was driven home by the sheer number of lawyers in the courtroom last week, representing not just M's family and the school, but also the British government, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the United Synagogue, the British Humanist Association and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal ruling threw the school into a panicked scramble to put together a new admissions policy. It introduced a "religious practice test," in which prospective students amass points for things like going to synagogue and doing charitable work.
That has led to all sorts of awkward practical issues, said Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, because Orthodox Judaism forbids writing or using a computer on the Sabbath. That means that children who go to synagogue can't "sign in," but have to use methods like dropping prewritten postcards into boxes.
It is unclear what effect the ruling, if it is upheld, will have on other religious schools. Some Catholic schools, accustomed to using baptism as a baseline admissions criterion, are worried that they will have to adopt similar practice tests.
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."
Absolutely insane that the state can interfere in these matters.
It's a natural consequence of state funded religious schools.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2009, 01:32:51 AM
Absolutely insane that the state can interfere in these matters.
Did you read the article?
Quote from: stjaba on November 10, 2009, 01:49:47 AM
It's a natural consequence of state funded religious schools.
That was my first thought as well, but I wonder if a non-state funded school could get away with discriminating on the basis of ethnicity.
But on the other hand, a "certified" Jewish mother doesn't *necessarily* have to be ethnically Jewish either.
Anyway, as it's a state-funded school, the notion that it can exclude applicants based on their parents' ethnic or religious ancestry is untenable. If it wishes to screen students with that (IMO) outdated and exclusionary requirement of who is Jewish, then it should seek private sources of funding. Simple as that. Of course, clusterfucks like this show why governments shouldn't be in the business of funding parochial schools in the first place.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2009, 01:32:51 AM
Absolutely insane that the state can interfere in these matters.
It's absolutely insane that a religious school can accept funding from the national government and expect no backlash against discriminatory policies.
Let's give Tim the benefit of the doubt and assume he included funding the school as interference.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 10, 2009, 01:32:51 AM
Absolutely insane that the state can interfere in these matters.
The State can intervene anywhere, especially it if pays for whatever service is being offered. <_<
G.
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.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2009, 01:59:39 AM
Anyway, as it's a state-funded school, the notion that it can exclude applicants based on their parents' ethnic or religious ancestry is untenable. If it wishes to screen students with that (IMO) outdated and exclusionary requirement of who is Jewish, then it should seek private sources of funding. Simple as that. Of course, clusterfucks like this show why governments shouldn't be in the business of funding parochial schools in the first place.
Is it as simple as that? Education is a public concern so it is not like as soon as you become fiscally private the state cannot step in to require you to run your school a certain way.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2009, 09:38:17 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2009, 01:59:39 AM
Anyway, as it's a state-funded school, the notion that it can exclude applicants based on their parents' ethnic or religious ancestry is untenable. If it wishes to screen students with that (IMO) outdated and exclusionary requirement of who is Jewish, then it should seek private sources of funding. Simple as that. Of course, clusterfucks like this show why governments shouldn't be in the business of funding parochial schools in the first place.
Is it as simple as that? Education is a public concern so it is not like as soon as you become fiscally private the state cannot step in to require you to run your school a certain way.
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.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2009, 09:44:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2009, 09:46:38 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2009, 09:44:03 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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?
That is exactly how things work over here. I mean yes I COULD send my children to Jewish schools but why would I pay all the money to do so when I am not even Jewish?
I think it should plain be illegal to exclude based on ethnicity or religion for a school. I mean so a few non-Jewish kids may end up at your school. Big deal.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2009, 09:54:50 AM
That is exactly how things work over here. I mean yes I COULD send my children to Jewish schools but why would I pay all the money to do so when I am not even Jewish?
AND your kids would turn into minions of the evil jew.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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.
That makes sense. But it seems the biggest loser in this solution would be that Jewish school, since by having had that requirement in the first place, I guess it fears it would no longer be able to fulfill its religious mission properly.
Quote from: PDH on November 10, 2009, 09:55:41 AM
AND your kids would turn into minions of the evil jew.
Well aren't we all minions of the evil jew anyway? Might as well embrace it.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2009, 09:56:29 AM
no longer be able to fulfill its religious mission properly.
Subverting right thinking people?
A lot of the best state-funded schools in England and Wales have religious requirements though. Since religion (at least in the cases of Judaism and Christianity) is more prevalent in the middle and upper classes than the rabble it is a way of selecting for intelligence (which isn't allowed :P). So the parents and board of governors will be against getting rid of the religious requirements as that is a protector of the school's academic standing.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2009, 09:59:04 AM
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.
This doesn't make sense, to me. I doubt there are anywhere near as many, say, Muslim schools as there are Christian. So as a practical matter won't Muslims be paying the same in taxes and getting fewer choices as to where to send their kids?
Quote from: PDH on November 10, 2009, 09:55:41 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2009, 09:54:50 AM
That is exactly how things work over here. I mean yes I COULD send my children to Jewish schools but why would I pay all the money to do so when I am not even Jewish?
AND your kids would turn into minions of the evil jew.
You say that like it was a bad thing.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 10:09:21 AM
Quote from: PDH on November 10, 2009, 09:55:41 AM
kids would turn into minions of the evil jew.
You say that like it was a bad thing.
I'm on to your ways, foreign infidel, poisoning our wells!
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2009, 09:56:29 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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.
That makes sense. But it seems the biggest loser in this solution would be that Jewish school, since by having had that requirement in the first place, I guess it fears it would no longer be able to fulfill its religious mission properly.
How so? Presumably it will have classes on Jewish themes. If non-Jews get exposed toi that stuff on the public dime, dunno if they are losing anything.
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2009, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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.
The problem is in allowing discrimination based on something that isn't clear - namely, "religion". Judaism is a
tribal identity, not a "religion" only. Seemingly, discrimination based on tribal identity isn't allowed; ergo, Christians can practice discrimination as per the law, but Jews can't (unless they change the nature of Judaism to make it more like Christianity).
Quote from: Faeelin on November 10, 2009, 10:03:37 AM
This doesn't make sense, to me. I doubt there are anywhere near as many, say, Muslim schools as there are Christian. So as a practical matter won't Muslims be paying the same in taxes and getting fewer choices as to where to send their kids?
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).
Quote from: MalthusThe problem is in allowing discrimination based on something that isn't clear - namely, "religion". Judaism is a tribal identity, not a "religion" only. Seemingly, discrimination based on tribal identity isn't allowed; ergo, Christians can practice discrimination as per the law, but Jews can't (unless they change the nature of Judaism to make it more like Christianity).
Judaism is a religion too. These days its perfectly possible to convert despite having no ethnic Jewishness in you (like the boys mother). These schools are entirely legal strictly on the religious lines, not the ethnic ones.
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2009, 10:17:06 AM
Judaism is a religion too. These days its perfectly possible to convert despite having no ethnic Jewishness in you (like the boys mother). These schools are entirely legal strictly on the religious lines, not the ethnic ones.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2009, 09:46:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Maximus on November 10, 2009, 11:16:43 AM
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.
More importantly(IMO) it doesn't depend on a definition of religion.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2009, 11:33:58 AM
Quote from: Maximus on November 10, 2009, 11:16:43 AM
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. ;)
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2009, 10:17:06 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 10, 2009, 11:58:14 AM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 10:34:41 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2009, 12:04:34 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 10, 2009, 11:58:14 AM
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. :lol:
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.
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2009, 12:17:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 10:34:41 AM
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.
Quote from: stjaba on November 10, 2009, 01:49:47 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 12:36:37 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 12:36:37 PM
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.
QuoteTo 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."
QuoteBest 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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2009, 01:06:58 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 12:36:37 PM
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.
QuoteTo 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."
QuoteBest 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:
QuoteUnder 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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 12:58:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 12:36:37 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2009, 01:06:58 PM
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.
QuoteCouldn'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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2009, 01:06:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:23:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2009, 01:06:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:27:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:19:02 PM
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?
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:29:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:23:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2009, 01:06:58 PM
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.
Quote 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."
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:33:30 PM
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 :D), I reject the notion that Judaism is a "racial" issue. "Tribe" isn't the same as "race".
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:33:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:35:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:29:46 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:23:43 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2009, 01:06:58 PM
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.
Quote 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?!)
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:38:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:33:30 PM
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 :D), 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.
QuoteIn 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?
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:46:24 PM
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.
QuoteIn 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".
QuoteWhat facts are YOU operating on?
Uh, my knowledge of the religion I was brought up on, and the article?
QuoteAnd 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?
QuoteAnd 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
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
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. :(
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:10:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:10:29 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2009, 03:35:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:10:29 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 02:46:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:10:29 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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"! :lol:
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?
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:39:28 PM
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:39:28 PM
[QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:42:22 PM
Of course it's "discriminatory". Deciding that some Jew can go to the school and a non-Jew can't is "discriminatory"! :lol:
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 10, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:42:22 PM
Of course it's "discriminatory". Deciding that some Jew can go to the school and a non-Jew can't is "discriminatory"! :lol:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:51:59 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 10, 2009, 03:48:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:42:22 PM
Of course it's "discriminatory". Deciding that some Jew can go to the school and a non-Jew can't is "discriminatory"! :lol:
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:10:29 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2009, 04:15:24 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:42:22 PM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2009, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:10:29 PM
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).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 10, 2009, 03:44:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 10, 2009, 03:44:01 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 05:26:49 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 05:28:34 PM
Gene pool. When grabon drinks a martini that doesn't make him a WASP.
:huh: Ethnicity doesn't have anything to do with genes.
Quote from: Maximus on November 10, 2009, 05:33:42 PM
:huh: Ethnicity doesn't have anything to do with genes.
Nothing? OK, then I take it all back.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 05:28:34 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 05:26:49 PM
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.
Genes don't matter in the religious/"ethnic" definition of "Jew". A convert is considered 100% Jewish, and a child of a convert is considered "ethnically" Jewish by birth.
Race also doesn't matter (Ethiopian Jews or "Falashas" are considered 100% Jewish, in spite of being, well, Black).
Perhaps 'Jew as ethnicity" is a trifle misleading, as most people are used to 'ethnicity" having a genetic component. Judaism isn't an "ethnicity" so much as a "tribe" (the difference being you can join a tribe).
Quote from: Maximus on November 10, 2009, 05:33:42 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 05:28:34 PM
Gene pool. When grabon drinks a martini that doesn't make him a WASP.
:huh: Ethnicity doesn't have anything to do with genes.
That's way too strong of a statement. Ethnicities are formed by people living in the same geographical area and reproducing largely between themselves for many generations. That kind of makes ethnicity genetical to some extent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 05:34:48 PM
Nothing? OK, then I take it all back.
Well they are related in that you usually get both from the same place-- your parents. And I guess if some ethnicity defined itself as being of a certain gene pool then it would be. Can't think of any such case offhand though.
Quote from: DGuller on November 10, 2009, 05:37:47 PM
That's way too strong of a statement. Ethnicities are formed by people living in the same geographical area and reproducing largely between themselves for many generations. That kind of makes ethnicity genetical to some extent.
Yea, I would say they are parallel, they usually go together, but one does not depend on the other in most cases. See my post above.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 05:35:24 PM
Genes don't matter in the religious/"ethnic" definition of "Jew". A convert is considered 100% Jewish, and a child of a convert is considered "ethnically" Jewish by birth.
Race also doesn't matter (Ethiopian Jews or "Falashas" are considered 100% Jewish, in spite of being, well, Black).
Perhaps 'Jew as ethnicity" is a trifle misleading, as most people are used to 'ethnicity" having a genetic component. Judaism isn't an "ethnicity" so much as a "tribe" (the difference being you can join a tribe).
If you consider Sammy Davis an ethnic Jew I think we are using the word differently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 05:53:07 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 05:35:24 PM
Genes don't matter in the religious/"ethnic" definition of "Jew". A convert is considered 100% Jewish, and a child of a convert is considered "ethnically" Jewish by birth.
Race also doesn't matter (Ethiopian Jews or "Falashas" are considered 100% Jewish, in spite of being, well, Black).
Perhaps 'Jew as ethnicity" is a trifle misleading, as most people are used to 'ethnicity" having a genetic component. Judaism isn't an "ethnicity" so much as a "tribe" (the difference being you can join a tribe).
If you consider Sammy Davis an ethnic Jew I think we are using the word differently.
Well, he isn't, as I understand he converted.
His hypothetical
kids (were he a woman, or in the case of a progressive sect that allows for patrilinial descent) would be.
And yes, "ethnic" has a different meaning when it comes to Jews and Judaism: it means Judaism by descent from a Jew (in most cases, a Jewish
woman) - but "a Jew" could be a convert.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 06:08:56 PM
Well, he isn't, as I understand he converted.
His hypothetical kids (were he a woman, or in the case of a progressive sect that allows for patrilinial descent) would be.
And yes, "ethnic" has a different meaning when it comes to Jews and Judaism: it means Judaism by descent from a Jew (in most cases, a Jewish woman) - but "a Jew" could be a convert.
OK.
In your previous post you said children of converted mothers are considered ethnic Jews. Who is it that is doing this considering?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 05:24:33 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 10, 2009, 03:44:01 PM
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 agree with Malthus - I don't your distinction between "descent" and "ethnic membership". It seems like you are confusing ethnic identity with genetics. There are plenty of "ethnic Jews" with blue eyes.
Ethnicity is about a perceived common heritage. An "outsider" can become part of the group by adoption (which is what a Jewish conversion really is) - once he or she does, then any descendent automatically becomes a member of the common group by virtue of whatever rule of ethnic identification by descent that community employs.
QuoteIn your previous post you said children of converted mothers are considered ethnic Jews. Who is it that is doing this considering?
The Jewish community itself.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 10, 2009, 06:35:47 PM
The Jewish community itself.
Did the Jewish community ever put this opinion into written form?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2009, 06:46:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 10, 2009, 06:35:47 PM
The Jewish community itself.
Did the Jewish community ever put this opinion into written form?
I think there is some Talmudic commentary on the concept, yes, but I can't cite chapter and verse.
The Sammy Davis Jr question is not merely theoretical either. The status of the Falashas (Ethiopian Jews) was an issue that had to be dealt with by the religious authorities in Israel relatively recently. There was some question about whether they had to go through some kind of special ritual to deal with the fact that they were non-Talmudic and there had been interevening forced conversions to Christianity. However, IIRC the majority view was that the Falashas were legit members of the House of Israel, notwithstanding some obvious genetic divergences.
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.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 10, 2009, 06:55:39 PM
And yet, of course, that doesn't stop individual Jews (perhaps many) from seeing them as somehow less than "really" Jewish.
That's a big no-no; as is often the case with religion, practice of individuals diverges from the dogma.
In any event, I think we are going a little far afield here. In rendering its ruling about "inherent discrimination" the Court singled out the pratice of identifying membership in the faith on the basis of descent from the Jewish mother. I.e. it is the Court itself that equated descent with the "ethnic test." And that ruling (if accurately reported) seems odd for me because the plaintiff's initial claim to be a Jew was based on precisely the same criterion the Court found so offensive.
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2009, 12:04:34 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on November 10, 2009, 11:58:14 AM
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. :lol:
How so many Euros? Britain is a peculiar case...
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:06:30 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 10, 2009, 09:46:38 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 10, 2009, 09:44:03 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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"?
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2009, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2009, 04:57:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2009, 05:07:48 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2009, 09:59:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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". :D
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2009, 05:00:40 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 09:51:15 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 11, 2009, 05:00:40 AM
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".
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 10, 2009, 06:55:39 PM
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'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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 09:59:36 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 10, 2009, 06:55:39 PM
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!
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 09:01:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 09:59:36 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 11, 2009, 10:25:31 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 09:59:36 AM
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.
There are lots of rude people out there. Upper middle class Jews in particular. I used to sell to this crowd when I was working in my mom's studeo, and of course my mom's relations mostly are - enough to make *me* anti-semitic. :D
The cause is of course that Judaism is an "ethnic" or tribal identity. The theory is that a "convert" is adopted into the tribe, and is as good a Jew as anyone whose family has been part of the tribe since time out of mind. The *reality* is that those whose families have "always" been Jewish have, to the extent they are assholes, a tendancy to look down on newcomers. Thus, in Judaism the official tribal (rabbinical) law is that thou shalt not act like an entitled asshole in your relations with converts.
The reason is often based on the Biblical admonition to treat strangers kindly, since Jews were themselves strangers in the land of Egypt. Here's a rabbi's explaination of this:
http://www.rabbihorowitz.com/PYes/ArticleDetails.cfm?Book_ID=636&ThisGroup_ID=292&Type=Article
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically.
Where it leads to is the Court's adoption of a Christian definition of religion: "This does not mean, as Lord Pannick suggested it would mean, that no Jewish faith school can ever give preference to Jewish children. It means that, as one would expect, eligibility must depend on faith, however defined . . ."
That is the ultimate irony here and why this ruling is likely to infuriate many British Jews. In the name of the abstract principle of non-discrimination , the Court has adopted a definition of religious affiliation peculiar to one particular religion (which coincidentially happens to be the majority religion) and forced it upon a minority religion.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 09:01:18 AM
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.
That's not at all my reading of the decision. The school said the kid was Jewish by every criteria except their own. Both the school and the Government (which was supporting the school) said that the admission criteria was linked to ethnicity (see paras 42-45). It's hard to see how the Court could have come to any conclusion other than it did given the legislation and the position of school and Government. I'm a little surprised they got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Where does this leave the school and its admissions policy? Well there decision not to admit this child is quashed and has to be reconsidered. Obviously it has no effect on those already at the school. The decisions to let them join is not being challenged.
It's admissions policy must be redrawn so that it is based on whether the parents practice their religion rather than whether their mother is Jewish by race or not. The present policy admits the children of a Jewish mother who is atheist but not those of a Jewish father who is observant or of a mother who has converted to the wrong sect. The Christian schools manage this, I don't see why the Jewish ones cannot.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 10:53:54 AM
It's admissions policy must be redrawn so that it is based on whether the parents practice their religion rather than whether their mother is Jewish by race or not. The present policy admits the children of a Jewish mother who is atheist but not those of a Jewish father who is observant or of a mother who has converted to the wrong sect. The Christian schools manage this, I don't see why the Jewish ones cannot.
Because they are not Christian schools. They are Jewish ones.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically.
Where it leads to is the Court's adoption of a Christian definition of religion: "This does not mean, as Lord Pannick suggested it would mean, that no Jewish faith school can ever give preference to Jewish children. It means that, as one would expect, eligibility must depend on faith, however defined . . ."
That is the ultimate irony here and why this ruling is likely to infuriate many British Jews. In the name of the abstract principle of non-discrimination , the Court has adopted a definition of religious affiliation peculiar to one particular religion (which coincidentially happens to be the majority religion) and forced it upon a minority religion.
Yup, that was pretty well my opinion from the start - the court's ham-fisted ruling results in pounding the round peg of Judaism into the square hole of the basically Christian definition of "faith".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 10:50:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
However, what I do not understand is where this leads, logically.
Where it leads to is the Court's adoption of a Christian definition of religion: "This does not mean, as Lord Pannick suggested it would mean, that no Jewish faith school can ever give preference to Jewish children. It means that, as one would expect, eligibility must depend on faith, however defined . . ."
That is the ultimate irony here and why this ruling is likely to infuriate many British Jews. In the name of the abstract principle of non-discrimination , the Court has adopted a definition of religious affiliation peculiar to one particular religion (which coincidentially happens to be the majority religion) and forced it upon a minority religion.
Because the defenders of this decision made it clear that that definition was based on race/ethnicity. British Jews can't have it both ways. They can't say that discrimination
against Jews based on ethnicity is wrong but discrimination
by Jews based on ethnicity is OK.
The other demerit of this decision is that it completely whitewashes the decision of the British State to confide admissions authority in the Office of the Chief Rabbi, without taking into account the positions of the other Jewish sects. This again is the result of a mentality of trying to fit a religion that has no central authority into the frameword of a majority religion that does have one. By making that choice, the State effectively created this situation in the first place; because if non-orthodox conversions were accepted as genuine for admission purposes, this case never arises.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:00:38 AM
The other demerit of this decision is that it completely whitewashes the decision of the British State to confide admissions authority in the Office of the Chief Rabbi, without taking into account the positions of the other Jewish sects. This again is the result of a mentality of trying to fit a religion that has no central authority into the frameword of a majority religion that does have one. By making that choice, the State effectively created this situation in the first place; because if non-orthodox conversions were accepted as genuine for admission purposes, this case never arises.
Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 10:57:12 AM
Because the defenders of this decision made it clear that that definition was based on race/ethnicity. British Jews can't have it both ways. They can't say that discrimination against Jews based on ethnicity is wrong but discrimination by Jews based on ethnicity is OK.
See my comment above. The whole notion of discrimination by Jews based on ethnicity is an artifact of the State's own religious policy.
The entity that is trying to have it both ways here is the UK government. The government does not seem to be able to bring itself to make a full break with the country's theocratic institutions, and instead has pursed a half-assed policy where the historical State-sponsored religious institutions maintain significant aspects of their historical character, with a bone thrown to other religions in the form of similar state aid. But what purports to be equal treatment of the different religions by the State is not -- a religion is only entitled to autonomous employment of state aid if it acquiesces to the government's definition of itself, which just happens to be a definition drawn from the official state creed.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:03:44 AM
Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.
QuoteThe present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 09:01:18 AM
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.
That's not at all my reading of the decision. The school said the kid was Jewish by every criteria except their own. Both the school and the Government (which was supporting the school) said that the admission criteria was linked to ethnicity (see paras 42-45). It's hard to see how the Court could have come to any conclusion other than it did given the legislation and the position of school and Government. I'm a little surprised they got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Where does this leave the school and its admissions policy? Well there decision not to admit this child is quashed and has to be reconsidered. Obviously it has no effect on those already at the school. The decisions to let them join is not being challenged.
It's admissions policy must be redrawn so that it is based on whether the parents practice their religion rather than whether their mother is Jewish by race or not. The present policy admits the children of a Jewish mother who is atheist but not those of a Jewish father who is observant or of a mother who has converted to the wrong sect. The Christian schools manage this, I don't see why the Jewish ones cannot.
In Catholic schools, for example, a kid is "Christian" through the ritual of baptism. This apparently doesn't offend against the definition of "race", even though every Catholic kid gets baptised and has no choice in the matter. I do not know if someone can be "Catholic" if they have not had the sacrament of baptism but merely state that they "practice Catholicism".
In Judaism, a kid born to an athiest Jewish mom is Jewish (unless they convert to something else). The Court recognized this fact; it simply stated that the school cannot consider it for purposes of admission.
The Court said nothing about how the school *could* choose "who is a Jew" (presumably they recognized that they had created an impossible dilemma). A "faith test" in inimical to Judaism, which is not founded on faith alone (an atheist Jew is still a Jew).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:03:44 AM
Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.
QuoteThe present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.
That's the policy of the school, not the Government.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:12:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:03:44 AM
Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.
QuoteThe present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.
That's the policy of the school, not the Government.
\
This is a state-funded school; that distinction is meaningness. Note that the Respondents in his very case include not only the school itself and an affiliated synagogue, but also the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. That is precisely the root problem here - state and religion have become hopelessly entangled.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 11:11:22 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 10:53:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 10:19:29 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 09:01:18 AM
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.
That's not at all my reading of the decision. The school said the kid was Jewish by every criteria except their own. Both the school and the Government (which was supporting the school) said that the admission criteria was linked to ethnicity (see paras 42-45). It's hard to see how the Court could have come to any conclusion other than it did given the legislation and the position of school and Government. I'm a little surprised they got leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Where does this leave the school and its admissions policy? Well there decision not to admit this child is quashed and has to be reconsidered. Obviously it has no effect on those already at the school. The decisions to let them join is not being challenged.
It's admissions policy must be redrawn so that it is based on whether the parents practice their religion rather than whether their mother is Jewish by race or not. The present policy admits the children of a Jewish mother who is atheist but not those of a Jewish father who is observant or of a mother who has converted to the wrong sect. The Christian schools manage this, I don't see why the Jewish ones cannot.
In Catholic schools, for example, a kid is "Christian" through the ritual of baptism. This apparently doesn't offend against the definition of "race", even though every Catholic kid gets baptised and has no choice in the matter. I do not know if someone can be "Catholic" if they have not had the sacrament of baptism but merely state that they "practice Catholicism".
In Judaism, a kid born to an athiest Jewish mom is Jewish (unless they convert to something else). The Court recognized this fact; it simply stated that the school cannot consider it for purposes of admission.
The Court said nothing about how the school *could* choose "who is a Jew" (presumably they recognized that they had created an impossible dilemma). A "faith test" in inimical to Judaism, which is not founded on faith alone (an atheist Jew is still a Jew).
You don't need to be baptised. Your parents need to show they are practicing
The Court's role is not to drat schools admissions policies. It is to deal with whether a particular admission policy is lawful under statute or not. The school will have to redraft it (if they don't win the appeal).
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:12:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:03:44 AM
Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.
QuoteThe present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.
That's the policy of the school, not the Government.
It is certainly the weak spot in the case, since the gov't apparently allows and approves this policy.
The better solution to the issue would be to broaden the ambit of who gets to decide what is a "valid conversion". The real complaint here is that the mom's conversion was considered invalid - by the Chief Orthodox Rabbi of Britian, who has no standing among Jews generally; Judiams is non-heirarchical and doesn't have bishops or popes.
The Chief Rabbi's decision then gets enforced by the state, through allocation of funding to the school and the decisions on admissions. Thus, the Chief (Orthodox) Rabbi's writ is extended over Jews who are not Orthodox - because of the British state.
That's the real problem here, and it is not addressed in this ruling.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:15:23 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:12:22 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:03:44 AM
Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.
QuoteThe present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.
That's the policy of the school, not the Government.
\
This is a state-funded school; that distinction is meaningness. Note that the Respondents in his very case include not only the school itself and an affiliated synagogue, but also the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. That is precisely the root problem here - state and religion have become hopelessly entangled.
Come on, can't you just admit you misread the judgement?
The schools admission board is not part of the Government or the state. If it was then the Governmebnt woudl choose admissions policies, which it does not. Lots of non-governmental organisations are funded wholly or partly by the state.
I agree with your last point, without having any particular idea how they could be disentangled without ruining the entire education system.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:17:01 AM
The Court's role is not to drat schools admissions policies.
But in fact it has done exactly that - it has required the school to draft a new admissions policy based on "faith."
Welcome back EG.
Great to see you here, Gups. I am enjoying this debate. I agree with JR, though, that the state has created this problem by trying to have things both ways.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:20:50 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:17:01 AM
The Court's role is not to drat schools admissions policies.
But in fact it has done exactly that - it has required the school to draft a new admissions policy based on "faith."
Surely there is a distinction between requiring a new draft of an unlawful policy and drafting it yourself.
As Malthus notes, the solution is simple. Apply the same rule to the non-orthodox.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 03:51:59 PM
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.
Not here. The reasons private (not just religious) schools are better is that they can reject problematic students, while state schools cannot.
Quote from: grumbler on November 11, 2009, 11:22:37 AM
Great to see you here, Gups. I am enjoying this debate. I agree with JR, though, that the state has created this problem by trying to have things both ways.
Thanks (and to Berkut too). Just a flying visit - this afternoon proves what a timekiller this board is.
I don't think the state created it necessarily but it sure hasn't tried to address the issue in any way. No one hates the entanglement of religion and education more than me. I have to spend £9K a year on a private school to avoid hypocritically pretending to be a Christian.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:20:14 AM
Come on, can't you just admit you misread the judgement?
I have quoted it accurately. What you are really accusing me of is making a false assumption that the school board is a de facto instrument of the State. To wit:
QuoteThe schools admission board is not part of the Government or the state. If it was then the Government woudl choose admissions policies, which it does not. Lots of non-governmental organisations are funded wholly or partly by the state.
He who controls the purse, controls the spender. Full stop. The government can set the conditions by which state aid is provided. It could insist that the school accept any halakhically valid conversion or lose state aid. It chose not to do so and that choice is no accident.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:17:01 AM
You don't need to be baptised. Your parents need to show they are practicing
The Court's role is not to drat schools admissions policies. It is to deal with whether a particular admission policy is lawful under statute or not. The school will have to redraft it (if they don't win the appeal).
I am myself a non-practicing Jew. I am considered by the Jewish community (and consider myself) just as "Jewish" as the most orthodox rabbi.
If this ruling requires the school to redraft its policy to include a faith test of some sort, presumably I would not pass it; I would "not be a Jew".
This runs counter to the definition of Judaism used by Jews.
The notion that a Jewish institution has to reform itself to look like a Christian institution in order to support an Orthodox Chief Rabbinate, to enforce a "faith test" chosen by one sect (the most "extreme" at that), all in the name of some abstract notions of fairness - seems unreasonably perverse.
I agree with the consensus that the problem in the first place is caused - by the school being publicly funded. The result is that it has become entangled in concepts developed by a society that, while not necessarily Christian itself, have been developed in an almost wholly Christian context - so that it seems reasonable and natural to insist that a "religion" is also a "faith", that has a hierarchy entitled to lay down the law, etc. - concepts not really applicable to Judaism.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:23:07 AM
As Malthus notes, the solution is simple. Apply the same rule to the non-orthodox.
That is not his solution as I understand it. His solution as I understand it is mine - force the school to accept all conversions conducted in accordance with Jewish law to be valid, regardless of the sect of the presiding rabbi. That would solve the problem that caused the case to arose - but it happens to be a solution foreclosed by this ruling.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 11:30:57 AM
I am myself a non-practicing Jew. I am considered by the Jewish community (and consider myself) just as "Jewish" as the most orthodox rabbi.
This makes more sense to me. Ethnicity confers religion but religion does not confer ethnicity.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 11:30:57 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:17:01 AM
You don't need to be baptised. Your parents need to show they are practicing
The Court's role is not to drat schools admissions policies. It is to deal with whether a particular admission policy is lawful under statute or not. The school will have to redraft it (if they don't win the appeal).
I am myself a non-practicing Jew. I am considered by the Jewish community (and consider myself) just as "Jewish" as the most orthodox rabbi.
If this ruling requires the school to redraft its policy to include a faith test of some sort, presumably I would not pass it; I would "not be a Jew".
Is that the case?
I think they are saying you cannot exclude someone because they do not pass an ethnic Jewishness test - that does not at all mean that they MUST exclude those who pass an ethnic Jewishness test, but not a religious one.
I still do not see this as such a huge problem. The fact that Judaism has some ethnic conditions for inclusion doesn't make them 'special' such that they should have different rules from any other religion. Otherwise anyone can create a religion that is as exclusionary as they like. You keep harping on the ability to convert as being key to allowing this kind of discrimination.
Fine. I want to create a religion that only allows white people to join, or people who convert to my religion. However, to convert to my religion, any non-white must cut off two fingers.
Aren't you arguing that this should be perfectly acceptable - in fact, if you replace two fingers with "chunk of their penis", isn't that pretty much what the rabbi is demanding (at least for men)? is the theoretical ability to convert adequate to excuse racial or ethnic discrimination that is normally NOT permitted?
I don't see why Judaism should get some kind of pass when they want to dip into the public trough. Yes, the faith rules are not really "fair", but then, excluding people from good schools based on whether their mom was converted in Church A rather than Church B is not really fair either.
We all agree this is a mess whose foundation is the basic fact that the state is supporting religious institutions - but given that that is not going to end, I don't see the courts decision as particularly hostile to Jews by any means, nor do I think it's effect will be practically meaningful either.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:29:26 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:20:14 AM
Come on, can't you just admit you misread the judgement?
I have quoted it accurately. What you are really accusing me of is making a false assumption that the school board is a de facto instrument of the State. To wit:
QuoteThe schools admission board is not part of the Government or the state. If it was then the Government woudl choose admissions policies, which it does not. Lots of non-governmental organisations are funded wholly or partly by the state.
He who controls the purse, controls the spender. Full stop. The government can set the conditions by which state aid is provided. It could insist that the school accept any halakhically valid conversion or lose state aid. It chose not to do so and that choice is no accident.
Unless this schools board is different from all the others, it is not appointed by the Govt and its sole function (to produce and implement an admissions policy) is not overseen by the Govt. Nor is funding dependent on either outcome, rather it is based on the number of children at the school and certain other criteria not related to admissions.
The Government could set conditions but have not done so. It can't be right that the policy of the admissions board is the Giovernment's policy simply because the Government could, if it chose to, pass new legislation empowering it to interfere in admissions policies and then do so.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:41:32 AM
Unless this schools board is different from all the others, it is not appointed by the Govt and its sole function (to produce and implement an admissions policy) is not overseen by the Govt. Nor is funding dependent on either outcome, rather it is based on the number of children at the school and certain other criteria not related to admissions.
The Government could set conditions but have not done so. It can't be right that the policy of the admissions board is the Giovernment's policy simply because the Government could, if it chose to, pass new legislation empowering it to interfere in admissions policies and then do so.
This particular school is directly affiliated with the United Synagogue, an institution established by an Act of Parliament (and a named Respondent). There is a long history in the UK of the state dealing with all "Jewish questions" by interfacing directly with the US, it predecessor the Great Synagogue, and the Chief Rabbi who is entrusted with the leadership of the US. This school is the product of that historical development. Thus, although the school board is not directly appointed by the Prime Minister, the fact remains that it is appointed by an official state-constituted body, and owes its existence to state funding.
The defense here seems to be that because the government has chosen not to interfere directly with admissions policy, it cannot be ascribed any responsibility for such policy. That does not seem persuasive to me. First of all because the government set up the very structures that led the admissions policy being adopted. Second, because a decision to delegate is just as much as much a policy as a decision to make an affirmative decision to take action. The government can't evade its responsibility by burying its head in the sand while it hands over wads of cash to one favored sect.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 12:14:23 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:41:32 AM
Unless this schools board is different from all the others, it is not appointed by the Govt and its sole function (to produce and implement an admissions policy) is not overseen by the Govt. Nor is funding dependent on either outcome, rather it is based on the number of children at the school and certain other criteria not related to admissions.
The Government could set conditions but have not done so. It can't be right that the policy of the admissions board is the Giovernment's policy simply because the Government could, if it chose to, pass new legislation empowering it to interfere in admissions policies and then do so.
This particular school is directly affiliated with the United Synagogue, an institution established by an Act of Parliament (and a named Respondent). There is a long history in the UK of the state dealing with all "Jewish questions" by interfacing directly with the US, it predecessor the Great Synagogue, and the Chief Rabbi who is entrusted with the leadership of the US. This school is the product of that historical development. Thus, although the school board is not directly appointed by the Prime Minister, the fact remains that it is appointed by an official state-constited body, and owes its existence to state funding.
The defense here seems to be that because the government has chosen not to interfere directly with admissions policy, it cannot be ascribed any responsibility for such policy. That does not seem persuasive to me. First of all because the government set up the very structures that led the admissions policy being adopted. Second, because a decision to delegate is just as much as much a policy as a decision to make an affirmative decision to take action. The government can't evade its responsibility by burying its head in the sand while it hands over wads of cash to one favored sect.
This all seems tenous to me but OK. It's the Government's fault. The Government (the Court of Appeal) has told itself that its policy contravenes the Government's (Parliament's) law. The Government (the School Board) now has to comply.
I'm not sure if any of this is particulaly relevant to whether the Court made the right decision or not.
PS The United Synagogues Act 1880 was a private Act of Parliament. As with all private Acts it wasn't promoted by the Government of the day or supported by it (or opposed for that matter).
Jews suck. Film at 11.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 12:27:39 PM
This all seems tenous to me but OK. It's the Government's fault. The Government (the Court of Appeal) has told itself that its policy contravenes the Government's (Parliament's) law. The Government (the School Board) now has to comply.
I think what it shows is that the problem here is not merely state entanglement with religion; it is compounded by this particular state's penchant for favoring certain established organizations with historical pedigree.
QuoteI'm not sure if any of this is particulaly relevant to whether the Court made the right decision or not.
It's relevant to why the case existed in the first place.
Where the Court errs it seems to me is in para 26: "That, Ms Rose submits, is discrimination against M on the ground of ethnicity – in the first instance the ethnicity of his mother, which is enough to bring the case home; and by extension the ethnicity of the child. "
The court appears to accept Rose's position, but the statement is incorrect. The ethnicity of the mother has nothing to do with the admission decision. What drove the admission decision was the fact the the mother's conversion was not conducted under the aupices of the Office of Chief Rabbi.
Quote from: Berkut on November 11, 2009, 11:40:49 AM
Is that the case?
I think they are saying you cannot exclude someone because they do not pass an ethnic Jewishness test - that does not at all mean that they MUST exclude those who pass an ethnic Jewishness test, but not a religious one.
Logically it does, since the Court has already stated there are only two ways to be a Jew:
1. Descent; and
2. Conversion.
If someone is "not a Jew" by descent, and if you acn't include or exclude someone on this basis (and I think you'd agree that logically if one cannot EXCLUDE a Jew for lacking a Jewish mom, you equally cannot INCLUDE a Jew for having a Jewish mom) they must, logically, become one by conversion. There is no other way.
Unless of course the Court requires the school to draft one - such as a 'faith test'.
Then, congratulations! You are supporting the creation of an Orthodox Jewish faith test - something that has no part in Judaism, and gives an Orthodox "head rabbi" control over the very definition of the faith.
Of course, having an Orthodox Head Rabbi in control of admissions is the problem in the first place. This "solution" merely makes that problem
worse.
QuoteI still do not see this as such a huge problem. The fact that Judaism has some ethnic conditions for inclusion doesn't make them 'special' such that they should have different rules from any other religion. Otherwise anyone can create a religion that is as exclusionary as they like. You keep harping on the ability to convert as being key to allowing this kind of discrimination.
The word is not "special", it is "different".
It is easy to tell if a kid is Catholic. Catholics have the sacrament of baptism. Is that "special"? Should Jews adopt Baptism too, so that you feel they are all nice and equal?
QuoteFine. I want to create a religion that only allows white people to join, or people who convert to my religion. However, to convert to my religion, any non-white must cut off two fingers.
Aren't you arguing that this should be perfectly acceptable - in fact, if you replace two fingers with "chunk of their penis", isn't that pretty much what the rabbi is demanding (at least for men)? is the theoretical ability to convert adequate to excuse racial or ethnic discrimination that is normally NOT permitted?
Now you are entering Marti territory with the analogies. No, the 'cutting a chunk off the penis" problem remains, because presumably the argument (if one cannot be "Jewish by descent") is that one must prove to be Jewish by conversion (or some nebulous "Jewish by practice" test) - both of which will (surprise, surprise)
require male Jews to be circumcised! Since the UK gov't clearly has no problem with
religious discrimination, a test that states "male Jews are only Jewish if they are circumcized" is perfectly acceptable - as it is not an "ethnic" test.
QuoteI don't see why Judaism should get some kind of pass when they want to dip into the public trough. Yes, the faith rules are not really "fair", but then, excluding people from good schools based on whether their mom was converted in Church A rather than Church B is not really fair either.
We all agree this is a mess whose foundation is the basic fact that the state is supporting religious institutions - but given that that is not going to end, I don't see the courts decision as particularly hostile to Jews by any means, nor do I think it's effect will be practically meaningful either.
It is an absurd decision which compounds the very problem that brought this kid to court in the first place - the strangle-hold of the chief Orthodox Rabbi over admissions.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 12:47:06 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 12:27:39 PM
This all seems tenous to me but OK. It's the Government's fault. The Government (the Court of Appeal) has told itself that its policy contravenes the Government's (Parliament's) law. The Government (the School Board) now has to comply.
I think what it shows is that the problem here is not merely state entanglement with religion; it is compounded by this particular state's penchant for favoring certain established organizations with historical pedigree.
QuoteI'm not sure if any of this is particulaly relevant to whether the Court made the right decision or not.
It's relevant to why the case existed in the first place.
Where the Court errs it seems to me is in para 26: "That, Ms Rose submits, is discrimination against M on the ground of ethnicity – in the first instance the ethnicity of his mother, which is enough to bring the case home; and by extension the ethnicity of the child. "
The court appears to accept Rose's position, but the statement is incorrect. The ethnicity of the mother has nothing to do with the admission decision. What drove the admission decision was the fact the the mother's conversion was not conducted under the aupices of the Office of Chief Rabbi.
And therefore she was not Jewish in any sense of the word. But had she been born Jewish, the son would have got in whether she was religiously Jewish or nor.
So the admissions policy favours those who are ethnically Jewish. I don't see how this can be disputed.
And that is against the statute which the Court has to apply. Maybe the statute is wrong and should have an exclusion for Jews, but that is a different matter.
I think it should. Special rules for Jews have worked out so great in the past.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 09:01:18 AM
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:
I agree that this is another key factor that creates this weird result. In the States, the anti-discrimination laws apply with equal force to discrimination based on religion or creed as on race. That apparently does not hold in the UK. Thus, Jewish organizations in the UK take the legal position that Judaism is a racial group in order to come under the ambit of the anti-discrimination laws - and that ends up driving what appears to be circular reasoning by the court to the effect that Jewishness is a racial category because it is a race.
QuoteAnd therefore she was not Jewish in any sense of the word. But had she been born Jewish, the son would have got in whether she was religiously Jewish or nor.
So the admissions policy favours those who are ethnically Jewish. I don't see how this can be disputed
Sure it can be disputed - the link between "being born of a mother who is Jewish" and Judaism being an ethnic category is an artefact of the UK's legal structure which deems Judaism to be a race.
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 12:55:21 PM
It is an absurd decision which compounds the very problem that brought this kid to court in the first place - the strangle-hold of the chief Orthodox Rabbi over admissions.
Only over the admissions policy of this school. Just to be clear, there are about 40 Jewish schools in the UK. 7 are affliated with the US. Many of the others are Orthodox, some are reformed and some liberal.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 01:02:08 PM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 09:01:18 AM
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:
I agree that this is another key factor that creates this weird result. In the States, the anti-discrimination laws apply with equal force to discrimination based on religion or creed as on race. That apparently does not hold in the UK. Thus, Jewish organizations in the UK take the legal position that Judaism is a racial group in order to come under the ambit of the anti-discrimination laws - and that ends up driving what appears to be circular reasoning by the court to the effect that Jewishness is a racial category because it is a race.
Great. By defining themselves as a "race" they are now defined as "racists" for favouring themselves.
Why, they are just the KKK in Kippahs! :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on November 11, 2009, 01:04:58 PM
Great. By defining themselves as a "race" they are now defined as "racists" for favouring themselves.
And they must define themselves as a race to obtain antidiscrimination protection because the law permits discrimination on the basis of religion, and indeed must do so in order for the entire system of pseudo-state religious schools to operate the way it does.
In UK law there is the same protection against discrimination on grounds of religion as there is for race except on schools admissions policy.
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 01:20:53 PM
In UK law there is the same protection against discrimination on grounds of religion as there is for race except on schools admissions policy.
OK. But then why were the respondents so keen on making sure Jews were covered under the Race Relations Act?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:03:44 AM
Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.
QuoteThe present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.
More specifically, from the article in the OP:
QuoteUnder 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.
In other words, the government delegated the task of establishing who was a member of a particular faith to a "designated religious authority" of that faith. This would imply that the criteria set by that authority are sanctioned by the government--the designated religious authority has acted on behalf of the government in setting the criteria--in affect acting as an agent of the government.
Once we figure out who the Jews are we should mark them and their descendants in some way so that the can be easily identifiable. That'll make sure everyone knows for certain who is a Jew and who isn't. I can't believe no ones ever thought of this before, it makes things so much easier.
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
In other words, the government delegated the task of establishing who was a member of a particular faith to a "designated religious authority" of that faith. This would imply that the criteria set by that authority are sanctioned by the government--the designated religious authority has acted on behalf of the government in setting the criteria--in affect acting as an agent of the government.
That is certainly how it would be viewed from a US law perspective, and that is how I see it.
I gather in the UK that the legal culture is a bit different, with different kinds of "quangos" and parastatals running about, and the UK lawyers don't tend to take such a binary view. But it seems to me that ultimately someone is either holding the strings or not.
Quote from: dps on November 11, 2009, 01:35:31 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 11, 2009, 11:10:03 AM
Quote from: Gups on November 11, 2009, 11:03:44 AM
Which decision of the state was this? It's not mentioned in the Court's decision.
QuoteThe present policy is to give priority to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (the OCR) or are following a course of conversion approved by the OCR.
More specifically, from the article in the OP:
QuoteUnder 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.
In other words, the government delegated the task of establishing who was a member of a particular faith to a "designated religious authority" of that faith. This would imply that the criteria set by that authority are sanctioned by the government--the designated religious authority has acted on behalf of the government in setting the criteria--in affect acting as an agent of the government.
The paper got it wrong. The Government has no power to designate a religious authority to define admissions criteria. Criteria are drawn up by the school. I suspect this stems from the fact that a religious school does have to have a designated religion, in this case, Jewish.
Gups? Yay :cheers:
Update:
:bowler: :Joos
Quote
UK court accused of interfering in Jewish identity
By Michael Holden Michael Holden
15 mins ago
LONDON (Reuters) – Britain's top court was accused of interfering in religious matters after it ruled on Wednesday that a Jewish school was guilty of discrimination by refusing entry to a boy whose mother was a Jew by conversion, not birth.
The Supreme Court said the policy employed by the popular JFS school in London broke race laws by using ethnicity to decide which pupils to admit.
It was the latest in a number of decisions that have brought religious principles into conflict with secular laws in Britain.
Equality campaigners welcomed the verdict, but some Jewish groups said it showed the difficulty of applying modern law to 3,500 years of Jewish tradition.
They said the ruling, passed by five votes to four, would affect not only on Jewish schools but the whole community, as it meant judges were in effect deciding who was or was not Jewish.
"Essentially we must now apply a 'non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish'," said Simon Hochhauser, president of the United Synagogue.
The case was brought after the school refused to admit a boy, known as M, whose father was a practicing Jew and whose mother had converted to Judaism at a non-orthodox synagogue.
The over-subscribed school gave precedence to children recognized as ethnically Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation of the Commonwealth.
This stipulates that a person is Jewish if they are descended through the maternal line from a woman who is Jewish, or if they have undergone an orthodox Jewish conversion course.
British faith schools are allowed to select pupils on grounds of religious belief, but the Supreme Court decided that JFS had breached the Race Relations Act as it had failed to demonstrate that its ethnic-based policy was proportionate.
NOT RACIST
However, the judges said JFS had not been racist in a pejorative sense.
Russell Kett, chairman of the school's governors, said it had wanted its test of 'Jewishness' to be based "solely on orthodox Jewish religious law, rather than on a series of factors which themselves have no relevance under Jewish law but which seem to support the notion of a test of Jewish practice required by the English legal system."
However, Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of the "progressive" Liberal Judaism organization, said Jewish identity was "primarily about thought and deed, rather than biology."
"We have consistently opposed the politically motivated admissions policy of the Jewish Free School (JFS) and are saddened that the board of governors of JFS, along with others in the community, have created this self-inflicted wound."
Of Britain's estimated 300,000 Jews, about three-quarters are affiliated to orthodox synagogues, the rest to progressive ones.
Broadly, orthodox Jews hold strictly to ancient Jewish law, while progressives follow more modern interpretations.
Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, said the closeness of the court's judgment showed how complex the issue was.
He welcomed a suggestion by the judges that the law could be changed to allow Jewish schools to operate a different admissions policy that addressed the issues of religious law.
In 2007, the government refused to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from anti-discrimination laws that they said could force them, against their beliefs, to place children with gay couples.
On Tuesday, a registrar who was fired for refusing to carry out gay civil partnership ceremonies because they clashed with her Christian beliefs lost an appeal against her dismissal.
Here's the judgement
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0105_judgmentV2.pdf
5-4 is reallly unusual (not least because the default number of judges is 7).
Incidentally, some of you may remember that I had a case before the House of Lords, which turned out to be its penultimate judgement before becoming the Supreme Court. A very solid 7-0 victory.
Quote from: Gups on December 17, 2009, 06:07:30 AM
Here's the judgement
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0105_judgmentV2.pdf
5-4 is reallly unusual (not least because the default number of judges is 7).
Incidentally, some of you may remember that I had a case before the House of Lords, which turned out to be its penultimate judgement before becoming the Supreme Court. A very solid 7-0 victory.
TLDR.
I am pleased that they reached a judgement, though. :bowler:
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:43:53 PM
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?!)
I wonder why the debate has to be so muddled.
Would it be possible to determine a separate word for ethnicity-jewish, religious-jewish and tribal-jewish?
Really, though, I have a problem with the claim that it's possible to be born jewish. Other than some hypothetical jewish ethnicity how can one be an automatic member of a tribe or religion at birth? It's just not possible.
Though I'm all for discrimination, and I find it delicious how many people jump to defend it in this thread.
It's just a bit tiring that it always has to be about the jews.
Keeps me wondering how long you're going to be able to claim freebies off that whole holocaust incident.
Quote from: Slargos on December 17, 2009, 07:49:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2009, 02:43:53 PM
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?!)
I wonder why the debate has to be so muddled.
Would it be possible to determine a separate word for ethnicity-jewish, religious-jewish and tribal-jewish?
Really, though, I have a problem with the claim that it's possible to be born jewish. Other than some hypothetical jewish ethnicity how can one be an automatic member of a tribe or religion at birth? It's just not possible.
There is nothing "hypothetical" about Jewish ethnicity.
QuoteThough I'm all for discrimination, and I find it delicious how many people jump to defend it in this thread.
It's just a bit tiring that it always has to be about the jews.
Keeps me wondering how long you're going to be able to claim freebies off that whole holocaust incident.
What on earth does this have to do with the Holocaust? :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:28:45 AM
There is nothing "hypothetical" about Jewish ethnicity.
What do you mean by this?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2009, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:28:45 AM
There is nothing "hypothetical" about Jewish ethnicity.
What do you mean by this?
That pretty well all Jews view Jewishness as an ethnic identity and not merely as a religion. There is nothing "hypothetical' about it - it is a simple fact.
Ask any Jew - "is it possible to be an atheist Jew?" Something like 99% would answer "of course". Something like half the Jewish population of Israel is atheist or agnostic, no-one questions whether or not they are Jewish.
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:28:45 AM
There is nothing "hypothetical" about Jewish ethnicity.
What on earth does this have to do with the Holocaust? :lol:
Sure there is. A person can ostensibly be a convert without being ethnically jewish, so in that sense a jewish ethnicity becomes a hypothetical excersise without further information.
I'm quite curious about how you track jewish ethnicity anyway. Is it a gene thing, or is it just "far enough back that we don't know whether the ancestors were jewish or not". Can ones offspring become ethnically jewish by way of marrying converts for 6 generations, or does one have to sprinkle some true jewish blood into the mix?
It's funny, when I talk about stuff like this I'm a racist, but when you jews do it it's not a matter of eugenics or racism, but simply your religious prerogative.
And the holocaust is naturally involved since there are few people who can discriminate so readily without being confronted about it like the jews with your cult of victimization. People here actually jump to the defense of discrimination based on ethnicity when it's jews doing the discriminating. I find that highly amusing.
But keep playing innocent, by all means. I am not emotionally invested.
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2009, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:28:45 AM
There is nothing "hypothetical" about Jewish ethnicity.
What do you mean by this?
That pretty well all Jews view Jewishness as an ethnic identity and not merely as a religion. There is nothing "hypothetical' about it - it is a simple fact.
Ask any Jew - "is it possible to be an atheist Jew?" Something like 99% would answer "of course". Something like half the Jewish population of Israel is atheist or agnostic, no-one questions whether or not they are Jewish.
I'm asking you, then.
If I convert to judaism, do I become a jew?
If I marry another convert, is our offspring then ethnically jewish?
Quote from: Slargos on December 17, 2009, 10:59:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:28:45 AM
There is nothing "hypothetical" about Jewish ethnicity.
What on earth does this have to do with the Holocaust? :lol:
Sure there is. A person can ostensibly be a convert without being ethnically jewish, so in that sense a jewish ethnicity becomes a hypothetical excersise without further information.
I'm quite curious about how you track jewish ethnicity anyway. Is it a gene thing, or is it just "far enough back that we don't know whether the ancestors were jewish or not". Can ones offspring become ethnically jewish by way of marrying converts for 6 generations, or does one have to sprinkle some true jewish blood into the mix?
When someone converts, they become Jewish. "Ethnicity" isn't the same as "race", you can *become* a different ethnicity by going through the right hurdles but you cannot *become* Black if you are White.
So, "ethnicity' has nothing
necessarily to do with genetics. The rules are, you are Jewish if born of a Jewish mom or if you convert.
QuoteIt's funny, when I talk about stuff like this I'm a racist, but when you jews do it it's not a matter of eugenics or racism, but simply your religious prerogative.
To be frank, you are a racist because you hate and despise people of other ethnicities and wish them harm. :P
There is nothing "racist" in acknowledging the differences between ethnicities; the "racism" comes in when one expresses hatred for another ethnicity or race (really "racism" is bigotry specific to "race', but let's use it in the broader meaning).
Jews pronouncing a definition of what it means to be Jewish isn't "racism"; Jews expressing hatred or contempt for non-Jewish ethnicities is "racism".
Naturally as a dumb Swede you don't know the difference: as all Jews know, Swedes are all dumb as posts, and thus easy to exploit. :P
[In case you didn't get it, that's an example ... :D]
QuoteAnd the holocaust is naturally involved since there are few people who can discriminate so readily without being confronted about it like the jews with your cult of victimization. People here actually jump to the defense of discrimination based on ethnicity when it's jews doing the discriminating. I find that highly amusing.
But keep playing innocent, by all means. I am not emotionally invested.
Again, there are two relevant meanings to the term "discrimination":
One is essentially 'telling the difference between X and Y". That is what Jews are here doing.
The other is a perjorative meaning, as in "racial intolerance and discrimination".
Again, I don't expect a dumb Swede to know the difference, etc. :D
Amusing.
So "you're not jewish enough because your mother wasn't born a jew nor converted in the correct temple" is a benevolent form of discrimination.
I wonder whether you believe this yourself, or if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Quote from: Slargos on December 17, 2009, 11:23:11 AM
Amusing.
So "you're not jewish enough because your mother wasn't born a jew nor converted in the correct temple" is a benevolent form of discrimination.
I wonder whether you believe this yourself, or if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Jewish enough for
what?
That's the problem - not the definition of "Judaism", but whether access to any particular institution should be granted to a "Jew", however defined.
Again, I expect such subtleties are beyond the grasp of a Swede. :D
Quote from: Gups on December 17, 2009, 06:07:30 AM
Here's the judgement
http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/uksc_2009_0105_judgmentV2.pdf
5-4 is reallly unusual (not least because the default number of judges is 7).
Incidentally, some of you may remember that I had a case before the House of Lords, which turned out to be its penultimate judgement before becoming the Supreme Court. A very solid 7-0 victory.
Hey Gups, it's been a long time! :) How are you doing? Great to see that you're still hanging around. :cheers:
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:55:11 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2009, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:28:45 AM
There is nothing "hypothetical" about Jewish ethnicity.
What do you mean by this?
That pretty well all Jews view Jewishness as an ethnic identity and not merely as a religion. There is nothing "hypothetical' about it - it is a simple fact.
Ask any Jew - "is it possible to be an atheist Jew?" Something like 99% would answer "of course". Something like half the Jewish population of Israel is atheist or agnostic, no-one questions whether or not they are Jewish.
i had an argument with a friend who lives in my apartment where he postulated that to be a jew you had to believe in the faith. i think he forgot all those times he called himself a jew even though he's openly an atheist. this was the same guy that said that rush limbaugh was the leader of the republicans and that one could have an iq of 140 and still have down syndrome. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 17, 2009, 10:43:16 AM
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 10:28:45 AM
There is nothing "hypothetical" about Jewish ethnicity.
What do you mean by this?
"Hypothetical" is a term with a specific meaning. Malthus is correct.
The concept of ethnicity for Jews is completely artificial and completely arbitrary, but has nothing to do with a hypothesis.
But then, the concept of all ethnicity is artificial and mostly arbitrary. Jews just add the conversion angle to make theirs completely arbitrary.
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 11:18:20 AM
When someone converts, they become Jewish. "Ethnicity" isn't the same as "race", you can *become* a different ethnicity by going through the right hurdles but you cannot *become* Black if you are White.
What a wonderfully convenient definition of "race" :lol:
So, "ethnicity' has nothing
necessarily to do with genetics. The rules are, you are Jewish if born of a Jewish mom or if you convert. [/quote]
And a wonderfully convenient definition of "ethnicity." :P
QuoteThere is nothing "racist" in acknowledging the differences between ethnicities; the "racism" comes in when one expresses hatred for another ethnicity or race (really "racism" is bigotry specific to "race', but let's use it in the broader meaning).
Jews pronouncing a definition of what it means to be Jewish isn't "racism"; Jews expressing hatred or contempt for non-Jewish ethnicities is "racism".
You are aware that these convenient definitions are not widely shared, right?
QuoteAgain, there are two relevant meanings to the term "discrimination":
One is essentially 'telling the difference between X and Y". That is what Jews are here doing.
The other is a perjorative meaning, as in "racial intolerance and discrimination".
Actually, that is the same definition. It is just used in different contexts.
Racism is generally held to be the belief in "races;" that one can tell important things about a person's character by the degree to which they do or do not possess characteristics by which one distinguishes between "races." Some (e.g. Merriam-Websters) insist that racism consists only of the belief that race is the
primary determinant of characteristics (i.e. that one can say "niggers are lazy" without being racist so long as one thinks that their laziness is mostly due to their being men) but I have never bought that distinction.
Ethnicity is, of course, a very flexible term. I would argue that Jews are as ethnic as Catholics; the only difference is that atheist Jews are called Jews and atheist Catholics are called "lapsed Catholics." The whole "Jewish by descent from a Jewish mother" thing is, in my mind, just a reminder that Judaism retains far more neolithic beliefs than Catholicism does. I think it is quite quaint, but am rather suspicious of those who actually think it is important.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2009, 01:48:48 PM
What a wonderfully convenient definition of "race" :lol:
And a wonderfully convenient definition of "ethnicity." :P
Huh? Race is based on some allegation of genetic difference (granted, mostly fictive). It is a subset of ethnicity.
QuoteYou are aware that these convenient definitions are not widely shared, right?
I would say they are widely shared. :huh:
Claiming that my ethnicity is different from yours isn't "racist".
QuoteActually, that is the same definition. It is just used in different contexts.
Racism is generally held to be the belief in "races;"
No, it isn't. :huh:
"Racism" is the belief that one's race is a, or the, important measure of the person.
QuoteMain Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.
or
Quote1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Please produce a definition from some reputable source that states that "racism" is the mere belief in different races.
Quotethat one can tell important things about a person's character by the degree to which they do or do not possess characteristics by which one distinguishes between "races." Some (e.g. Merriam-Websters) insist that racism consists only of the belief that race is the primary determinant of characteristics (i.e. that one can say "niggers are lazy" without being racist so long as one thinks that their laziness is mostly due to their being men) but I have never bought that distinction.
That's nonsense. One can say that those with dark skin are "Blacks" or "of the Black race" without thereby being "racist"; you aren't imputing any particular characteristics to said "race".
Saying "Blacks are lazy" does impute such characteristics and this is, indeed, racist.
QuoteEthnicity is, of course, a very flexible term. I would argue that Jews are as ethnic as Catholics; the only difference is that atheist Jews are called Jews and atheist Catholics are called "lapsed Catholics." The whole "Jewish by descent from a Jewish mother" thing is, in my mind, just a reminder that Judaism retains far more neolithic beliefs than Catholicism does. I think it is quite quaint, but am rather suspicious of those who actually think it is important.
Fact is that Jews have
different beliefs than Catholics, "neolithic" or not. That is why Judaism is an "ethnicity' and Catholicism isn't.
Myself, I do not impute any superiority or inferiority to that difference; if you must then you must.
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 02:56:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2009, 01:48:48 PM
What a wonderfully convenient definition of "race" :lol:
And a wonderfully convenient definition of "ethnicity." :P
Huh? Race is based on some allegation of genetic difference (granted, mostly fictive). It is a subset of ethnicity.
That's backwards. Ethnicity is a sub set of race, at least as the terms are normally used. Usually, I don't care for semantic arguments, but in this instance, I have to agree with grumbler--you're just using definitions that are convenient for you and ignoring the common usage.
Quote
QuoteYou are aware that these convenient definitions are not widely shared, right?
I would say they are widely shared. :huh:
Claiming that my ethnicity is different from yours isn't "racist".
QuoteActually, that is the same definition. It is just used in different contexts.
Racism is generally held to be the belief in "races;"
No, it isn't. :huh:
"Racism" is the belief that one's race is a, or the, important measure of the person.
QuoteMain Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination.
or
Quote1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Please produce a definition from some reputable source that states that "racism" is the mere belief in different races.
Quotethat one can tell important things about a person's character by the degree to which they do or do not possess characteristics by which one distinguishes between "races." Some (e.g. Merriam-Websters) insist that racism consists only of the belief that race is the primary determinant of characteristics (i.e. that one can say "niggers are lazy" without being racist so long as one thinks that their laziness is mostly due to their being men) but I have never bought that distinction.
That's nonsense. One can say that those with dark skin are "Blacks" or "of the Black race" without thereby being "racist"; you aren't imputing any particular characteristics to said "race".
Saying "Blacks are lazy" does impute such characteristics and this is, indeed, racist.
QuoteEthnicity is, of course, a very flexible term. I would argue that Jews are as ethnic as Catholics; the only difference is that atheist Jews are called Jews and atheist Catholics are called "lapsed Catholics." The whole "Jewish by descent from a Jewish mother" thing is, in my mind, just a reminder that Judaism retains far more neolithic beliefs than Catholicism does. I think it is quite quaint, but am rather suspicious of those who actually think it is important.
Fact is that Jews have different beliefs than Catholics, "neolithic" or not. That is why Judaism is an "ethnicity' and Catholicism isn't.
Say what? Bhuddists, for example, have different beliefs than Catholics; that doesn't make Bhuddism an ethnicity. Plus, if having different beliefs is part of the definition of ethnicity, then the fact that Catholics have different beliefs than Jews would make Catholicism an ethnicity, too. :huh:
Quote from: Malthus on December 17, 2009, 02:56:23 PM
Huh? Race is based on some allegation of genetic difference (granted, mostly fictive). It is a subset of ethnicity.
"Race" is a subset of ethnicity? :huh: I don't think even those who believe in races would accept that as a general rule. They might hold that "Black Hispanic" is a subset of "Hispanic" but not that the "Negro race" is.
QuoteI would say they are widely shared. :huh:
Er, no. :huh:
QuoteClaiming that my ethnicity is different from yours isn't "racist".
Nor is claiming that your hair color is different.
QuoteNo, it isn't. :huh:
"Racism" is the belief that one's race is a, or the, important measure of the person.
Nice job cutting off the part of my post that says
exactly this! :lmfao:
QuotePlease produce a definition from some reputable source that states that "racism" is the mere belief in different races.
Please don't crop my quotes so that you can reinterpret them incorrectly and then feed back exactly the meaning I used for "belief in race" as an attempt to refute my claim.
QuoteThat's nonsense. One can say that those with dark skin are "Blacks" or "of the Black race" without thereby being "racist"; you aren't imputing any particular characteristics to said "race".
If you mean by "of the Black race" something important besides skin color, then of course you are being racist; you yourself state that racism is "the belief that one's race is a, or the, important measure of the person." If you think race isn't important, then why even mention it? If you think it is important, then by your own definition you are racist.
Racism, of course, exists. "Race" does not, except as a social construct.
QuoteSaying "Blacks are lazy" does impute such characteristics and this is, indeed, racist.
Yes. That was my
entire point in bringing up that example! :lol:
QuoteFact is that Jews have different beliefs than Catholics, "neolithic" or not. That is why Judaism is an "ethnicity' and Catholicism isn't.
Oh, lots of people have lots of different beliefs. Some Jews have some beliefs about the ethnicity of Jews, and other have different beliefs. Some Catholics think that Catholicism is important to their ethnicity, and some don't. Same thing goes for Jews.
QuoteMyself, I do not impute any superiority or inferiority to that difference; if you must then you must.
Me? I don't even recognize the differences. People's beliefs are what they tell me, and ditto for their ethnicity and "race." If person A tells me that person X is a Jew, and person X tells me that he isn't, then I impute only that person A has a belief, and person B has a belief. Ditto if person A says person B isn't a Jew, and person B says that he is. "Jewishness" is, to me, a matter of belief, whether discussing the Jewsishness of the belief-holder, or the Jewishness of a person the belief holder is referring to.
That is true for every ethnic and religious group and "race." I don't belief in any of them
a priori.
Death to all the juice.
Quote from: dps on December 17, 2009, 06:26:18 PM
That's backwards. Ethnicity is a sub set of race, at least as the terms are normally used. Usually, I don't care for semantic arguments, but in this instance, I have to agree with grumbler--you're just using definitions that are convenient for you and ignoring the common usage.
This makes no sense.
"Ethnicity" is the notion that there is some factor (it could be colour of skin, it could be descent from a supposed common ancestor, it could be a common language or culture) that unites people. "The Greek ethnicity".
"Race" is the notion that the important common characteristic is specifically an alleged genetic similarity - for example, "the White race". It is thus a more
specific subset of the
general category, "ethnicity".
While it is true that "races" are often larger groupings than "ethnicities", this is irrelevant.
For example:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ethnicity
QuoteNoun 1. ethnicity - an ethnic quality or affiliation resulting from racial or cultural ties; "ethnicity has a strong influence on community status relations"
"Racial
or cultural ties". How on earth can "ethnicity" be a subset of "race"? The definition of "ethnicity" includes both "race"
and more - cultural kinship.
QuoteSay what? Bhuddists, for example, have different beliefs than Catholics; that doesn't make Bhuddism an ethnicity. Plus, if having different beliefs is part of the definition of ethnicity, then the fact that Catholics have different beliefs than Jews would make Catholicism an ethnicity, too. :huh:
It is the
content of Jewish beliefs that make Judaism an "ethnicity", not the fact of difference.
I am merely pointing this out, assuming that the reader has read the rest of this thread.
Quote from: grumbler on December 17, 2009, 07:03:39 PM
"Race" is a subset of ethnicity? :huh: I don't think even those who believe in races would accept that as a general rule. They might hold that "Black Hispanic" is a subset of "Hispanic" but not that the "Negro race" is.
You completely misunderstand. See my reply to dps above.
"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.
That this marker is more assumed than real we agree.
Quote
QuoteClaiming that my ethnicity is different from yours isn't "racist".
Nor is claiming that your hair color is different.
QuoteNo, it isn't. :huh:
"Racism" is the belief that one's race is a, or the, important measure of the person.
Nice job cutting off the part of my post that says exactly this! :lmfao:
QuotePlease produce a definition from some reputable source that states that "racism" is the mere belief in different races.
Please don't crop my quotes so that you can reinterpret them incorrectly and then feed back exactly the meaning I used for "belief in race" as an attempt to refute my claim.
QuoteThat's nonsense. One can say that those with dark skin are "Blacks" or "of the Black race" without thereby being "racist"; you aren't imputing any particular characteristics to said "race".
If you mean by "of the Black race" something important besides skin color, then of course you are being racist; you yourself state that racism is "the belief that one's race is a, or the, important measure of the person." If you think race isn't important, then why even mention it? If you think it is important, then by your own definition you are racist.
Racism, of course, exists. "Race" does not, except as a social construct.
I refuse to get into your usual complaints about being misinterpreted etc. 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".
It may be mistaken but it is not "racist".
QuoteQuoteSaying "Blacks are lazy" does impute such characteristics and this is, indeed, racist.
Yes. That was my entire point in bringing up that example! :lol:
Do you, or do you not, believe that the belief in the literal existence of "races" is "racist"?
Simple question.
QuoteOh, lots of people have lots of different beliefs. Some Jews have some beliefs about the ethnicity of Jews, and other have different beliefs. Some Catholics think that Catholicism is important to their ethnicity, and some don't. Same thing goes for Jews.
I disagree. Jewish beliefs are fundamentally different from Catholic ones on this point.
QuoteMe? I don't even recognize the differences. People's beliefs are what they tell me, and ditto for their ethnicity and "race." If person A tells me that person X is a Jew, and person X tells me that he isn't, then I impute only that person A has a belief, and person B has a belief. Ditto if person A says person B isn't a Jew, and person B says that he is. "Jewishness" is, to me, a matter of belief, whether discussing the Jewsishness of the belief-holder, or the Jewishness of a person the belief holder is referring to.
That is true for every ethnic and religious group and "race." I don't belief in any of them a priori.
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.
QuoteOh, lots of people have lots of different beliefs. Some Jews have some beliefs about the ethnicity of Jews, and other have different beliefs. Some Catholics think that Catholicism is important to their ethnicity, and some don't. Same thing goes for Jews.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 10:56:19 AM
QuoteOh, lots of people have lots of different beliefs. Some Jews have some beliefs about the ethnicity of Jews, and other have different beliefs. Some Catholics think that Catholicism is important to their ethnicity, and some don't. Same thing goes for Jews.
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.
Yup. Jews are a "people" in a way that Catholics are not.
I think what non-Jews have difficulty in understanding, mainly because of our Western obsession with race, is that a "people" need not necessarily have any alleged genetic component.
Rather than "race", think "tribe" or "nation". A person can be adopted into a "tribe" by going through the correct initiation rituals; think of some White guy who "goes native" and is adopted by the Hurons. Wiggers and Michael Jackson aside, you cannot join a different "race" once you have been pidgeon-holed (even though the markers of "race" are mostly arbitrary and socially-determined in the first place).
The notion that there is something inherently morally wrong about people divvying themselves up like this is, again, an artifact of Western obsessions about race and racism. Oddly. no-one complains about people self-identifying as Greek or German, even though nationalism has arguably done way more damage than racism.
I think I need to get a Court Jew to live in my house, so he can advise Princesca to stop disagreeing with my every statement. :bowler:
Quote from: Caliga on December 18, 2009, 02:03:47 PM
I think I need to get a Court Jew to live in my house, so he can advise Princesca to stop disagreeing with my every statement. :bowler:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsofteuropean.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2Fslap.jpg&hash=80761844084c010a485978698964de173024f6a8)
:lol: 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.
Quote from: Caliga on December 18, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
:lol: 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. :mad:
Quote from: Malthus on December 18, 2009, 10:46:26 AM
You completely misunderstand. See my reply to dps above.
One of us does misunderstand the other, that is true.
Quote"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.
QuoteThat 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteIt may be mistaken but it is not "racist".
It would be both, in my opinion.
QuoteDo 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?
QuoteSimple question.
Simple answer.
QuoteI 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).
QuoteEthnic 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."
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 18, 2009, 02:13:45 PM
Buck Rogers. :mad:
:Embarrass: You're quite correct. Erin Gray = Buck Rogers. Face = Battlestar Galactica.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 10:56:19 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on December 18, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
:lol: 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.
Quote from: Caliga on December 18, 2009, 02:11:13 PM
:lol: 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.
Quote from: sbr on December 18, 2009, 02:22:40 PM
I was in love with Erin Gray back then.
Who wasn't? Oh right, Marti. :(
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2009, 02:13:50 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote
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.
Quote
It would be both, in my opinion.
And it is that opinion I disagree with.
QuoteThat 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.
QuoteSimple answer.
Fair enough. Why all the pissing and moaning about being "misquoted"? You clearly meant exactly what I thought you meant.
QuoteI 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:
QuoteIt 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".
QuoteEthnic 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.
Quote from: Malthus on December 18, 2009, 10:36:35 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 04:55:22 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 04:55:22 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 18, 2009, 10:36:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 05:04:40 PM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 04:55:22 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 05:37:54 PM
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. :lol:
I'll give your
argumentum ad grumbulum exactly the weight it deserves - namely,
none.
Anyway, I'm not as combative in tone as Valmy. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on December 18, 2009, 05:55:40 PM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 05:37:54 PM
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. :lol:
I'll give your argumentum ad grumbulum exactly the weight it deserves - namely, none.
Anyway, I'm not as combative in tone as Valmy. ;)
I didn't argue that agreeing with grumbler makes me right. I'm arguing that when 2 people with such differing approaches to how we should interpret the meanings of words both think that you're wrong, you should seriously consider that you're, if not wrong
per se, at least using terms in ways that aren't helping your argument.
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 06:04:13 PM
Quote from: Malthus on December 18, 2009, 05:55:40 PM
Quote from: dps on December 18, 2009, 05:37:54 PM
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. :lol:
I'll give your argumentum ad grumbulum exactly the weight it deserves - namely, none.
Anyway, I'm not as combative in tone as Valmy. ;)
I didn't argue that agreeing with grumbler makes me right. I'm arguing that when 2 people with such differing approaches to how we should interpret the meanings of words both think that you're wrong, you should seriously consider that you're, if not wrong per se, at least using terms in ways that aren't helping your argument.
I disagree. I don't think the fact that two people disagree with me means anything, frankly.
Isn't an argument based on logic and analysis a better foundation than one based on this sort of thing? After all, I see your
argumentum ad grumbulum and raise you an
argumentum ad valmium ... ;)
Quote from: Malthus on December 18, 2009, 03:11:27 PM
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.
These terms have 'actual meanings" to people besuides you, even if you do not believe that these other meanings are equally valid.
I am not going to debate anything as silly as whether the articifical concept of "race" is narrower or broader than the equally artificial concept of ethnicity. I also won't debate whether the Starship Enterprise could beat a Star Destroyer. It is all perception.
QuotePeople 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.
"Albino" is neither an "ethnic group" nor a "race." Sometimes a set of differences is used to define a "race" and sometimes it isn't. *shrug* That doesn't make for a very interesting concept.
QuoteBut I haven't.
But you did.
QuoteI 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.
Garbon saying "I am Black" is racist if he believes that his being "black" creates any actual differences in his character that would not be present if the term he used was "San Franciscan." If he doesn't believe that,, then his saying "I am Black" isn't terribly meaningful; he could be saying "I am a 49ers fan" as far as any actual concept of "race" is concerned.
QuoteThere 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.
Well, it isn't actually a "description" at all, of course, because it isn't describing
anything. He skin color is brown. A different shade of brown than mine, but just a shade of the same color as pretty much everyone else's skin. Ditto, "white" describes nothing, except albinos.
IMO, if Garbo were using the term to "describe" himself, it would probably be more along the lines of "I am a person who has always been made conscious of being different because people looked at me as a 'black' person."
QuoteAnd it is that opinion I disagree with.
So long as you do not assume that your opinion carries any more weight than mine, that's okay with me.
QuoteAgain, Garbon describing himself as "Black" isn't what I think of when I think of "the very definition of racism".
Garbon wouldn't be describing himself, would he? He could wear a black shirt, though.
QuoteTo my mind, "racism" requires some sort of assumption of superiority, inferiority, or essentialism based on race.
What do you call the belief that "race" determines something significant about a person, except "racism?" Racism has gotten a bad rap, I agree, but that doesn't change the nature of "belief in race." Saying "I am not racist because racism is bad and I am not bad" is a pretty feeble argument.
QuoteTo 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.
The unwarranted assumptions here are (1) that all mention of race constitutes a belief in "race" and (2) that there is some inherent value in using "racist" as a pejorative. Everyone is not a racist. I am not, for example. The vast majority of people in the US probably are racists, though. That is something that can only be overcome through education.
QuoteFair enough. Why all the pissing and moaning about being "misquoted"? You clearly meant exactly what I thought you meant.
But I meant the opposite of what you said that I meant when you "misquoted" me. All i ask is that you don't crop your quotes taken from my posts in a manner that implies I am stating something different than what i am actually saying.
QuoteNo, it doesn't. i take it that you have not read the judgments of the House of Lords?
The judgement said that there had never been a dispute and there was no case? Didn't know that.
QuoteNone 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.
So there was a dispute? Jews are not monolithic in their beliefs? I rest my case.
QuoteThe 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.
Since I didn't say that the category was meaningless or non-existent, I take it you are conceding the point I actually made, which was that these beliefs did not (as you used to contend) "create an objective reality."
Racism exists, as an attitude. So does ethnic pride. The difference between them is that "race" is a concept that attempts to impute values to labels that are clearly not actually descriptive ("the black race," "the white race," "the yellow race") but which claim to be exhaustive, whereas ethnicity simply tries to describe some set of values, customs, or whatnot, and is not intended to be exhaustive or prescriptive.
Whether Jews are members of a religion, an ethnicity, a nationality, or a race depends on who you talk to/read and when they spoke or wrote. I believe that the current fad is to call it an ethnicity except when referring to Israel, in which case (only) it is a nationality. But my understanding of the current fad may well be out of date. I don't try to keep up with that stuff, frankly.
Quote from: Valmy on December 18, 2009, 05:04:40 PM
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.
You are right. This is not that hard, and I don't understand how you could be so obtuse about it.
There are people in the world who have Jewish mothers but do not consider themselves "Jews." Some other person/group considers them Jews. Ditto there are people who consider themselves Jews, but whom others don't consider Jews (like in this case). To argue that it is all cut and dried and settled because you believe that your definition of Judaism is the only "true" definition is obtuse.
There is debate. There is controversy. Live with it. "What is a Jew?" is an open-ended question.
Quote from: grumbler on December 18, 2009, 08:13:08 PM
IMO, if Garbo were using the term to "describe" himself, it would probably be more along the lines of "I am a person who has always been made conscious of being different because people looked at me as a 'black' person."
Yes, which is what makes the difference, not something that is innate in me.