Harry's Place

Note that the odious BNP has latched onto this case.

I am not linking but here is what they say: “While the full legal ramifications of the ruling will have to be carefully considered, there can be no doubt that it is a serious blow to any organisation or group which seeks to self-define its membership criteria. This could have important implications for a party such as the BNP, which also self-defines its membership.

Although there is a large difference between a state-funded faith school and a privately financed political party, all BNP members should be aware that the latest ruling represents a serious threat to any group which seeks to preserve its identity.”

These Judges have used their power in order to ’socially engineer’.

They have in effect usurped the power of Parliament.

My starting point is that I do not think that clerics associated with religious schools should be allowed to set religious tests in order to restrict access to what is, in fact, a public good.

To put it bluntly: I do not think that priests should have a right to decide who gets the benefit of a particular state education.

It is unlucky for the JFS that it operates a definition of Jewishness which has a ‘racial’ (whatever that means) component that renders it unlawful. This leaves Jewish schools (and, were there any, Zoroastrian schools) particularly exposed.

However, the solution is to change the law, so that clerics in receipt of public funds are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion, as well as ‘race’.

Sorry?

The CoA’s judgement is based on the principles set out in the Law Lords ruling in Mandla vs Dowell Lee.

The MacPherson inquiry, and any definition of racism it contains has absolutely no bearing on this case, which is why it isn’t referenced in the ruling.

@DavidT

That is an absolutely defensible position. But would you agree that the way for secularists to change the status quo is via the political process – not through sleight of hand via the judicial back door.

mettaculture (a barrister) says that the intent of the ruling was to ‘teach the Jews a lesson’.

I disagree with David T.

I wholeheartedly support his starting point. I too think faith schools should be scrapped. But that is not relevant here.

What is relevant is that this is a FAITH school. The racial definition of ‘Jewish’ should not apply, and only the religious one should. Unfortunately the definitions in faith matters are the domains of clerics.

If this were a school reserved for ‘racial’ Jews, it would be an unacceptable aberation. No schools for racial whites or racial blacks would be allowed, and the mere fact that conversion is an accepted path to entry demonstrates unequivocally that *race* is *not* a consideration (after all, you cannot convert to another race!).

No, the issue here is one of faith, so it is right (in so far as we’re being forced to swallow that pill at all) that clerics determine what is considered observant Jewish practice.

@Unity

Red herring. The reason they didn’t reference Macpherson was that it would have caused their false equivalence to be even more exposed.

I do not think that priests should have a right to decide who gets the benefit of a particular state education.

You want to have your cake and eat it.

This is a denominational school. As long as you do not outlaw such schools, the priests are the only ones who have the right to decide who belongs to that denomination.

You don’t like the decision of those priests? Join a different denomination. Set up your own denomination. Become an atheist.

Jonathan is right in saying:

These Judges have used their power in order to ’socially engineer’.

They have in effect usurped the power of Parliament.

In fact, there are two reasons why you can’t get into JFS, one if your mother did not convert to Judaism in the way approved by JFS and the other if your mother isn’t Jewish and didn’t convert at all. That’s the ‘racial’ or ‘ethnic’ part of the judgement. After all, as a kid, you can’t do anything about your mother.

“You don’t like the decision of those priests? Join a different denomination. Set up your own denomination. Become an atheist.”

I don’t think that priests “own” a religion.

If Jews cannot use ancestry to define ‘who is a Jew’ then how come the Monarchy can use ancestry to define ‘who is the Monarch’?

Can anyone tell me the difference?

From the JFS webpage http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/the-jewish-dimension.aspx

Our students reflect the very wide range of the religious spectrum of British Jewry. Whilst two thirds or more of our students have attended Jewish primary schools, a significant number of our Year 7 intake has not attended Jewish schools and some enter the School with little or no Jewish education. Many come from families who are totally committed to Judaism and Israel; others are unaware of Jewish belief and practice. We welcome this diversity and embrace the opportunity to have such a broad range of young people developing Jewish values together.

The school accepts Jewish children from a wide range of religious backgrounds, even as mentioned in the other thread a Catholic, baptised and confirmed as a Catholic but who happens to have a Jewish mother. Meanwhile a kid, brought up in the Jewish faith, who prays in Hebrew and attends synagogue is not allowed to attend because he’s not racially Jewish.

The Court of Appeals did not accept that a criteria that would exclude a half Italian Jew but accept a Jewish Catholic was anything else but racially based, that makes it illegal.

Jonathan 29 June 2009, 11:09 am
If Jews cannot use ancestry to define ‘who is a Jew’ then how come the Monarchy can use ancestry to define ‘who is the Monarch’?

Because royalty isn’t a racial group. Next question?

I don’t think that priests “own” a religion.

I didn’t say they do, you did.
The priests are the recognised custodians of a given religion. How they got to be recognised is irrelevant. If you ask any ‘Orthodox’ Jew who is the head of ‘Orthodox’ Judaism in the UK, they’ll say ‘Jon Sacks’. If you ask any Anglican who heads the Anglican church in the UK, they’ll say ‘old Rowan’.

These bods are the final arbiters in their respective religions. That’s just the way it is. Exactly as the House of Lords used to be the final arbiter in English law, and now Brussels is or Strasbourg or however it works these days.

Because royalty isn’t a racial group

Nor is Judaism, however much you try to push this counterfactual line.

@DMAndy

That is not the point. If matrilineal descent is wrong for the Jews, how can it be right for the Monarchy?

Moreover – if Jews were NOT regarded as a ‘race’ by the 1976 Act, this judgement would not have been possible.

It shows how farcical and contrived the judgement is.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but surely the Macpherson Report was not legislation? That would be why it wasn’t referenced.

As a matter of idle curiousity, can you go to this JFS school if you convert to Judaism yourself while your parents are both say tenth generation Scottish presbyterians or something?

Alec – Macpherson has become practice so it doesnt matter whether it was legislated or not. Judges are supposed to look at the real world I believe.

“If you ask any ‘Orthodox’ Jew who is the head of ‘Orthodox’ Judaism in the UK, they’ll say ‘Jon Sacks’. ”

I don’t!

@Brett

yes but it is v unlikely bcos orthodox conversion takes time and dedication

Jonathan,

You’re going over ground already covered on the other thread. You’re right, if being Jewish wasn’t regarded as being a race on the various Race Relations Acts then this would not have been the outcome. But being Jewish is regarded by case and statute law as being a race. In fact one of the reasons for the Race Relations Act 1965 was an increase in anti-semitism.

I’m not sure why Me thinks this is a counterfactual, it’s the established law of the land – if Me doesn’t like it he can campaign to change it.

No, Jonathan, the reason that the ruling didn’t reference MacPherson is simply that its not germane to the case in hand, in which there is already well established case law.

You seem to be labouring under the impression that public inquiries make law – they don’t, and MacPherson’s definition of a racist incident has no legal force unless its encapsulated in law by Parliament or adopted into precedent by the courts, which it won’t be a definition based solely on the alleged victim’s subjective perception of an incident is, on its own, so wide as to unworkable.

Jonathan, another question if you don’t mind: Can you go to this school of your mother is Jewish, but you are not (say you converted to Hare Krishna); or if you and your parents are ‘racially’ Jewish, but are openly athieist?

Jonathan:
I am not linking but here is what they say: “While the full legal ramifications of the ruling will have to be carefully considered, there can be no doubt that it is a serious blow to any organisation or group which seeks to self-define its membership criteria. This could have important implications for a party such as the BNP, which also self-defines its membership.

It’s wrong when the BNP do it, and it’s wrong when the JFS do it.

The judgement has been welcomed by non-Orthodox Rabbis Danny Rich and Jonathan Romain

Both of these non-orthodox rabbis are in fact militantly against having Jewish or other faith schools of any kind. It’s one of the more predictable moves of the BBC and other UK mainstream media to wheel one or other of them out on programmes tut-tutting about admissions to orthodox Jewish and other faith schools so as to make it look as if they do speak for a wider constituency than themselves.

They do not speak for the non-orthodox movements they belong to, who are in fact supportive of all Jewish faith schools, currently have three non-orthodox state Jewish primary schools and are currently establishing a non-orthodox Jewish state secondary school of their own.

The real issue is that there seems to me to be a profound legislative muddle around the issue of ethnicity in relation to status and access to goods, facilities and services which begins from the very designation of the legislation as “Race” relations legislation. “Race”, as we know is a scientific non-construct, or at best a highly constructed one. The very reason racism is deemed legally as well as morally wrong is that it’s based on the notion that the human population is divisible into distinct and separate groups whose characteristics are totally shared and immutable, and that these races can be ranked in terms of their human worth and deserts.

Ethnicity can be defined in various ways, but includes shared genetic descent plus or alternatively long-term shared cultural and historical practices. It’s extremely problematic legally, because although the English are usually regarded as an ethnic group, the British are not. Yet restricting the access of public services to “the British” is likely to fall foul of the legislation, as I think the government will find when they cynically try to prioritize access to public housing to “people with long-standing connections to an area” in order to stave off the appeal of the BNP.

As I’ve argued in the previous post on the topic of this judgement, mainstream and legal discourse defines Jews as a single ethnic group, but the most simple process of visual and historical investigation will demonstrate that Jews, including orthodox Jews are actually descended from and include a wide variety of genetic ethnic groups..
This historical diversity is constantly being increased both by the process of conversion and the increasing intermarriage, particularly in Israel, of previously historically separate Jewish ethnic subgroups.

Genetic studies show some degree of common descent between Jews of different historical subgroups, but it is always below 50% of their gene pool in common with the surrounding non-Jewish population. In other words, Jews of the Yemen are genetically more like non-Jewish Yemenis than they are genetically like the Jews of Polish origin, who are in turn genetically more like non-Jewish Poles than they are like the Jews of Dutch origin.

The Court of Appeal in its judgement appears to have conflated the halachic Jewish decisor of matrilineal descent with common genetic ethnic descent. While I’m not legally qualified, and may well radically have misread the judgement, it does look to me as if they have failed to recognise that Jewish matrilineal descent does not in the Jewish community mean the same thing as shared ethnic matrilineal descent as defined in UK law.

On the contrary, the pool of Jewish mothers in the UK as in other countries is a genetically and historically ethnically diverse group. And in particular, it fails to give sufficient weight to the fact that since a particular course of action (orthodox conversion) can be undertaken that enables a woman of non-Jewish ethnic descent to become as validly Jewish for orthodox Jewish school admission purposes as a matrilineal descendant of King David or the first High Priest Aaron. And an ethnically genetically proven patrilineal descendant of these two Jewish luminaries would not be considered Jewish by orthodox Jewish law if the individual descendant did not have a halachically recognised Jewish mother.

DM Andy

As I said – that shows the absurdity of the judgement. The ‘76 Act was framed with the intention of punishing racists. The definition of ‘Jew’ in that Act is entirely different to the one used at JFS. Yet the judgement depends on linking them.

If a man hit Nick Griffin because he thought he was Jewish and called him a ‘filthy Jew’, then Griffin would have a case of aggravated assault, under the ‘76 Act.

That is how different the definitions are.

The Court of Appeals did not accept that a criteria that would exclude a half Italian Jew but accept a Jewish Catholic was anything else but racially based, that makes it illegal.

This nails it.

Jonathan wants the judges to look at “the real world”. Well, in the real world, the school is using racial, not religious, selection criteria. How can that be anything other than illegal?

I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the contradictions inherent in a constitutional monarchy. I’m a republican. But none of that can confer validity on this school’s selection process.

Thanks Judy

@Brett

“Can you go to this school of your mother is Jewish, but you are not (say you converted to Hare Krishna)”

No

“or if you and your parents are ‘racially’ Jewish, but are openly athieist?”

Yes

This is what the statement of the JFS’s admission policy (above) says:

“some enter the School with little or no Jewish education. Many come from families who are totally committed to Judaism and Israel; others are unaware of Jewish belief and practice. We welcome this diversity”

In other words, they’ll accept you if you meet a particular “racially” based definition of a Jew, with no interest at all in your level of observance or commitment to Judaism (or Israel!!!!).

In answer, Jonathan might say: “Yes, but the definition of Judaism according to “race” isn’t a product of racism, it is a product of religious doctrine, and is not malicious”. Fair enough. But it is still a race based criteria

Judy would say, I think, that the JFS will now have to introduce a “commitment to the faith” test, which would exclude some halachically Jewish children from non observant families who might otherwise be “brought back into the fold” by attending JFS.

I appreciate that concern, but I have to ask: should this really be the function of a state funded school? I think not.

Again: it is unfortunate that Orthodox Jews define jewishness by matrilineal descent. That makes schools like the JFS more exposed than Catholic schools. But my bottom line is this. I don’t desperately mind having denominational schools. I think parents should be allowed to choose them. However, I don’t think that clerics should be allowed to set the admissions policy.

I’m prediciting that, based on the responses of Jonathan, Brett now agrees that the judges were correct.

“The Court of Appeal in its judgement appears to have conflated the halachic Jewish decisor of matrilineal descent with common genetic ethnic descent.”

The problem is that the definition of ‘race’ is a mess, and is largely nonsensical.

I don’t really care if discrimination in access to public goods is based on a religious or “racial” test. It is still sectarian, and it is still wrong.

Brownie

“the school is using racial, not religious, selection criteria”

No. It is possible to convert as well. The school is using religious criteria which means either a Jewish mother or accepted conversion.

Again – the monarchy uses heredity. We allow inherited wealth.

And these things are for Parliament to decide – not Judges dabbling in social engineering by drawing false equivalences.

““or if you and your parents are ‘racially’ Jewish, but are openly athieist?”

Yes

Well, here’s your problem! The school has a race-based admissions policy not exclusively a faith based one.

If you can get into the school based on your genetic heritage, rather than your faith practice, then the school can’t lay claim to being a “faith school”.

To be non-racist – not to mention logically consistent – the school would have to be open only to those who are practicing Jews in the religious sense. A practicing Jew who was born into a Hindu family should have a higher status than someone who declared their atheism a year after the Bar Mitzvah. The latter should be excluded from teh school.

I’m now leaning towards where David T is coming from. You can’t have it both ways. For it to legitimately be *a faith school* it must scrap any racial entry qualifications and look exclusively at *faith*.

I’m now leaning towards where David T is coming from.

Bingo!

No. It is possible to convert as well. The school is using religious criteria which means either a Jewish mother or accepted conversion.

Sorry but it’s “yes”. Your use of “as well” and “or” above just means that it’s not exclusively racial criteria all of the time.

My argument is that the key admission requirement is *not* in fact racially based, as I’ve tried to explain in the comment above.

The legally recognised status of Jewish schools has gone hand in hand legally with the recognised status of Christian denominatlonal schools going back to the mid nineteenth century. The state has always recognised that denominational authorities are the only ones who should determine the admissions policies and the educational content of denominational education. And those authorities are composed of both clerical and non clerical trustees, with the ultimate decision usually but not exclusively resting on a named clerical authority. And the state in the UK has financially aided such schools long before there were such things as “state schools”. So, David T, those issues were decided long before state schools existed.

There have been a number of occasions when there was renewed controversy over whether the state should be funding religious schools, notably in 1906 and 1944. But in each and every case, the democratically elected parliaments of the day decided that it should. So suck up the democratic decisions, David T. Your opinion is your own– if you want to change the legislation, campaign for it. I think you’ll find the huge majority of the parents and other voters of this country don’t support you.

Ultimately, this isn’t the CA’s ‘fault’, and whatever decision they reach won’t affect the problem at the heart of this: that there are some Jews who would like their kids to go to JFS and JFS doesn’t want them. The CA may have reached a judgement, but they didn’t set the terms of the dispute.

The father instituted proceedings when he found the process of conversion for his son would take too long.

He should have started them a while back, perhaps when his daughter was denied admission.

It’s not the school’s fault the father has not planned out his or his son’s life with sufficient care. After all, he has known of these problems since he married a non-Jewish wife and had children by her.

The CA has already said it would not necessarily have a problem if the religious issues, such as those above, perhaps, had been adduced by the school.

But the father has decided to make a racial discrimination issue of it.

Upon investigation, i’s really quite simple now: If you can get in *even if you do not practice the Jewish faith* then it is NOT a genuine faith school.

There is a way around this. What these sort of schools should do is have “an ethos”.

If you enjoy Jewish culture (I had a friend who liked Greek culture so much she was determined to marry into a Greek familiy) then you select to go to that school. The school has no say in who gets in, but they are allowed to conduct the cultural/religious component of education from a Catholic/Jewish/Hindu/Humanist/Anthroposophical/Whatever… ‘ethos’.

Anyone can go – within normal state school admission policy – but they agree to participate in the cultural and/or religious life of the school.

Easy and fair!

My argument is that the key admission requirement is *not* in fact racially based

The only logical interpretation of this comment is that it’s an implicit acknowledgement that one or other non-key admission requirement is racially based.

From where I’m sitting, I don’t see that DavidT has anything to “suck up”.

I’m unsure what the legal provisions for public schools are – namely, if they can restrict enrollment due to what is, in effect, one parental line. I would not be overly concerned if they could.

My beef is, as before, the state-funding aspect of this. Is there a realistic concern that the JFS is going to find itself inundated with spurious applications from non-Jewish families who display no committment to Jewish culture?

mettaculture (a barrister) says that the intent of the ruling was to ‘teach the Jews a lesson’.

Metta said only that? Are you sure he didn’t augment it with 10,000 other words?

So, Mike, are you finding more leisure time now you’re no longer the Children’s Laureate?

“The state has always recognised that denominational authorities are the only ones who should determine the admissions policies and the educational content of denominational education. ”

Yes, but I disagree with that.

In the mean time, this country – directly and via the EU – has enacted anti-discrimination provisions. I support those laws, and am glad to see them applied.

But the father has decided to make a racial discrimination issue of it.

To be fair, it was a case begging to be made.

Also, Catholic schools are not required to take Protestant pupils or vice versa, I do not think.

It strikes me that this might be a similar issue. A liberal and progressive school has opened, recently. Historically the orthodox are and have been a majority (about 61%, liberal and progressive about 27%).

I am not sure it is a appropriate for the state to intervene in this matter, any more than it would be appropriate for it to lever a Catholic child into a Protestant, or vice versa.

“To be fair, it was a case begging to be made.”

Only for beggars.

@Brett
“Can you go to this school of your mother is Jewish, but you are not (say you converted to Hare Krishna)”

i think you could still go to jfs in these circumstances. don’t forget as far as the rabbis are concerned you can’t actually stop being a jew! i don’t think there’s that many 11 year old jewish born hare krishnas in north london to test this scenario though

Look, Judy is right. If you want to hit at Jewish schools, try to do it through the democratic system.

Not through tortuous flimsy judgements from social engineers masquerading as Judges.

David T:

However, the solution is to change the law, so that clerics in receipt of public funds are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion, as well as ‘race’.

Exactly. And that should apply to discrimination on the selection of staff as well as pupils.

Indeed better yet, rather do not give clerics public funds.

zkharya,

I would ‘beg’ that you re-read the judgment of the CA. The decision has nothing whatsoever to do with allowing adherents of one faith attend the school of another (re your “Catholic child into a Protestant school” comment). It’s concerned with the use of public money to subsidise schools that employ racially based selection criteria.

You contribute if you want to.

If you want to hit at Jewish schools…

Fuck right off with your implied accusation.

@Zkharya
Catholic schools are allowed to exclude non-Catholics, likewise Church of England schools are allowed to only accept Anglicans. But what the Catholic school is not allowed to do would be to allow non-Catholics from Irish families and not accept non-Catholics from English families. That would turn a religious test (allowed) into a racial test (unlawful).

If the JFS had a policy that admitted only children from Jewish families who attended Orthodox synagogues then they would be allowed to do that. What they cannot do is accept some children and reject others based on their race.

“Is there a realistic concern that the JFS is going to find itself inundated with spurious applications from non-Jewish families who display no committment to Jewish culture?”

JFS would have to tighten up its religious criteria, excluding, likely, not only such as M, but also lots of halachic Jews from Progressive or Reform backgrounds. But, also, Jews from an orthodox background would more easily fulfil the criteria.

It would also make it more difficult for such as M to get in in future. Unless the parents but them on a conversion course at an earlier age.

Will that increase or decrease sectarianism?

@Brownie
My understanding of the matter is that even if JFS was not in receipt of state funding, they would still have to abide by the race discrimination legislation. The only thing that would be different is that they could maintain their religious admissions policy even if they were undersubscribed if they were private.

Andy, Brownie:

M was not excluded on the grounds of “race”. There was a conversion course open to him. His father instituted procedings when he judged it too long and too arduous.

I am not sure that is the school’s fault. That is the father’s, for poor planning.

@Brownie

I mean ‘if you want to hit at faith schools’

and there was no accusation:

The fact is that this insane judgment hits Jewish schools. Not Catholic schools. Not Muslim schools. Not Church of England schools. Because it uses the 1976 act.

It is itself a discriminatory Judgment. Which is one reason why the Lords must reverse it.

That is when the father decided to make a racial discrimination case of the issue.

“I am not sure it is a appropriate for the state to intervene in this matter, any more than it would be appropriate for it to lever a Catholic child into a Protestant, or vice versa.”

I don’t want to see the state intervening in this matter. I just want the state to apply anti-discrimination law. I would also like to see the law extended to prevent religious discrimination in institutions that are in receipt of state funds.

If you want to hit at Jewish schools, try to do it through the democratic system.
Not through tortuous flimsy judgements from social engineers masquerading as Judges.

How do you think the Race Relations Act became law?

My understanding of the matter is that even if JFS was not in receipt of state funding, they would still have to abide by the race discrimination legislation.

Yep, my comment doesn’t make it clear that I reocgnise this is the case, however, what motivates me in this specific instance is the fact that I do pay for it. It’s certainly nothing to do with any urge to “hit at Jewish schools”.

“How do you think the Race Relations Act became law?”

Parliament passed it

Look, for the record, I would like to see, if possible, a non-denominational Jewish state school (I think a new one has opened, recently). What I do not wish to see, I think, is a nominally orthodox school compelled to be otherwise. That is like compelling a Catholic school to take Protestant pupils, I think.

Meanwhile a kid, brought up in the Jewish faith, who prays in Hebrew and attends synagogue is not allowed to attend because he’s not racially Jewish.

not true, it’s because he’s had a conversion that’s not recognized by orthodox judaism. if he was actually a practising orthodox jew, he himself would find this conversion unacceptable!

if this was based on race, the pupils with only one jewish parent who happens to be their mother would also be excluded.

the problem is that the rules of “who is a jew” according to orthodox judaism, while having innocent origins, are today making orthodox judaism look a bit racist. the stupidest element of this is that the passage in the bible from which the matrilineal descent law is extracted doesn’t really say anything of the sort and has evidently been misappropriated. but as religions are by their nature superstitious nonsense, it seems a bit unfair to single out one stupid element of judaism over all stupid elements of all religions. the biggest problem in education today is not jfs, which is one of the best schools in the country. the jewish community is small and its own affairs do not have wider implications in british society. while jfs may be state funded, its religious studies and hebrew lessons are not. and i’m sure that the parents of pupils at the school more then contribute in their taxes the costs of running the school. all in all, i think there is a bit of a case here for just leaving jfs alone. there is another jewish secondary school in north london now that will accept children such as the boy in this judgement.

I mean ‘if you want to hit at faith schools’

Fair enough.

That is when the father decided to make a racial discrimination case of the issue.

zkharya, why are you more concerned about the motivations of the father than you are about the school employing racially based selection criteria, whether or not you believe the criteria were in play in the case of M?

“JFS would have to tighten up its religious criteria, excluding, likely, not only such as M, but also lots of halachic Jews from Progressive or Reform backgrounds.”

Not necessarily. It could hold firm that its teaching ethos was Orthodox Judaism, and that non-Jews, or Jews from different backgrounds would just have to fit in.

A Catholic school cannot admit practicing Catholics plus anyone ethnically Italian regardless of whether they’re practicing or not. This is in effect what JFS is trying to get away with.

If it is a Jewish *faith* school, then it is for people of the Jewish *faith*. Faith is not the same as genetic heritage, ethnicity or cultural background. At the point where they take an interest in mother’s birth certificates, we have a problem.

What I do not wish to see, I think, is a nominally orthodox school compelled to be otherwise. That is like compelling a Catholic school to take Protestant pupils, I think.

It’s not a bit like it. If being a “nominally orthodox school” means the invocation of race based selection criteria, then it becomes a race issue. You can claim it’s a fundamental tenet of your reiligion all you like, but race relations legislation exists for a reason.

mettaculture (a barrister) says that the intent of the ruling was to ‘teach the Jews a lesson’.

This seems to me to be a suggestion with no evidence whatsoever.
There is some circumstantial evidence that the inclusion of Mr Justice Sedley as one of the three appeal judges may have affected the verdict, because historically, he comes from a family of veteran Communist Party lawyers and learned his trade in what was known as a Communist set of chambers. The intellectual history that formed him as therefore as militantly anti-religious as the intellectual history of Michael Rosen (whose parents were also long term Communist Party activists–on his father’s side, going back to his grandparents).

Both Rosen and Sedley seem to have followed substantially in the mind-set of their parents in respect of religious issues.

It has always been an article of faith, going back to Marx’s notorious “On the Jewish Question”, in the Communist mind-set and its new Left descendant mind-sets to see Judaism as a religion from which Jews need to be freed.

Sedley’s track record, before he became a judge, was to support radical secular causes, sometimes in an apparently less than temperate way.

As such, it’s rather like putting David T on to judge a case like this. I doubt if the judgement, even with three judges, in such a case would be unaffected by the particular anti-religious dogmatism David T invariably brings to any issue involving public provision for accommodating the religious needs of practising Jews or Muslims.

Also, Catholic schools are not required to take Protestant pupils or vice versa, I do not think.

That’s true, but although conversion Roman Catholicism may be based on a lengthy process it ultimately is unrelated to whom/what one’s mummy was (well, maybe Richard Williamson would make an exception for Conversos).

As far as I can see, the JFS would accept anyone as long as they were of Jewish matrilineal heritage. That was a mistake.

JCOSS opens in September 2010. Its criteria are (paraphrasing) “any child whose parents are members of a recognised synagogual body or could be”. That is the practical solution to this problem.

Not that it will satisfy those who cannot accept that denominational authorities should have the right to decide on the members of the denomination.

Genetic studies show some degree of common descent between Jews of different historical subgroups, but it is always below 50% of their gene pool in common with the surrounding non-Jewish population. In other words, Jews of the Yemen are genetically more like non-Jewish Yemenis than they are genetically like the Jews of Polish origin, who are in turn genetically more like non-Jewish Poles than they are like the Jews of Dutch origin.

sorry to be a pedant but i dont think this is quite accurate. if you look in the maternal line jews tend to be genetically more similar to their nonjewish neighbours than other jewish groups. however if you look in the paternal line, the opposite is true. the genetics of course are somewhat at odds with the rabbinical rule of matrilineal descent!

furthermore the dutch/polish example is a bad one. most dutch jews are descended pretty recently from either spanish/portuguese jews or eastern european jews. the latter group will therefore be more closely related to polish jews than the local dutch population.

Brownie, I’m not. And I think the racist here is you.

Judy

here here

not true, it’s because he’s had a conversion that’s not recognized by orthodox judaism. if he was actually a practising orthodox jew, he himself would find this conversion unacceptable!

Posters persist in making this point with such alacrity that I really do have to check… was the JFS waiving this stipulation for non-practicing children as long as their mummy was Jewish?

Legalistic banter is exciting but the bottom line here is that there are Jews who want to go to JFS but JFS says they can’t. And there are Jews (who may not be parents or children) who think that’s crap. People either pro or anti the judgement can go on and on offering their exegeses on the judgment but what’s really going on is how people who say they’re Jewish want to live, ie in different ways, education of children being a key part of anyone’s view of themselves.

Michael Rosen has spoken. Further discussion is pointless.

Christian faith schools have no place in this discussion. There are no racial criteria used to decide on who is or isn’t Christian. Likewise, the same applies to Islamic faith schools.

“Not that it will satisfy those who cannot accept that denominational authorities should have the right to decide on the members of the denomination.”

Jonathan, I think you’re missing the point.

(Putting aside the question of whether we should have faith schools at all)

That is a perfectly legitimate selection policy for a faith school. No one disputes the denominational authority’s rights to select in a faith school – *so long as that selection is based on faith and not race*.

like compelling a Catholic school to take Protestant pupils

Catholic schools do take Anglican children and vice versa; racial or confessional criteria are irrelevant.

And I think the racist here is you.

It’s ironic that race-based school selection criteria just flies over your head but you can spot I’m a racist from a few comments on a blog.

I’m not racist, but I am overdrawn which is why I don’t like my money being used to subsidise schools that demand to know who your mummy was.

Posters persist in making this point with such alacrity that I really do have to check… was the JFS waiving this stipulation for non-practicing children as long as their mummy was Jewish?

but then your point is that they are currently letting in people that they shouldn’t be, and not that this boy should have been admitted.

i think the school would say that they take it on trust that you are sending your children to jfs because you want them to receive an orthodox jewish education – and that they’re not going to start prying into your private life to check up on you (like some other schools do). however, if you didnt even bother to get an orthodox conversion, then that’s a public fact that you’re not committed to orthodox judaism.

for what it’s worth, i think they should have let him in, but i’m not too comfortable with the courts dictating jfs’s admission policy

Christian faith schools have no place in this discussion. There are no racial criteria used to decide on who is or isn’t Christian. Likewise, the same applies to Islamic faith schools.

yes because they’re both more than happy to have young malleable minds too proselytise to

“Brownie, I’m not. And I think the racist here is you.”

You know what irks me. This blog, more than almost any other UK political blog, spends so much of its time standing up to antisemities and exposing assorted neo-nazis, yet the second it is mildly critical of any Jeiwsh practice from a secular standpoint, out come the accusations against its authors of racism and antisemitism.

Well fuck you!

BTW, Michael, your former assertion that most people would not associate “The Massacre of the Innocents” with the Gospels, Herod or Jesus, rather, say, Brueghel, or that the journalist authors of that article were likely not pro-Palestinian nationalists, remains, in my view, rubbish.

I had to break from that discussion on more pressing matters. But I could never keep up with your word count anyway.

And as if I’d ever give you my supervisor’s name or address. And your points on English grammar were completely spurious. Which was surprising in an English poet.

I meant just the opposite, z. I was suggesting that this issue opens up more serious and interesting questions than just the legalistic interpretation of the CA’s judgement. I know, z, that because you disagree with me about some – probably most – things, it doesn’t therefore mean you have to disagree with me about everything!

Same to you, Brett.

Thanks for that, Michael. As if I didn’t know, and you had to tell me.

Brett

We are not going to agree. You say that the matriarchal definition is a racial one. I say that that definition has been long accepted by the state.

OK so posters have objected to the matriarchal definition.

But no-one has disagreed with my reasoning as to why this is a bad judgement.

zkharya, It was less than a year before the admission deadline that the school informed E (M’s father) about the length of the conversion process (several years).

So effectively they have a policy that says if we think you’re a Jew you’re in even if you know absolutely nothing about the Jewish faith, if we don’t think you’re a Jew then you need to study for several years before we accept you as a student. That, the Court of Appeal ruled, was the equivalent of a club admitting any man, but only allowing women with a degree to join. It’s discrimination, pure and simple.

by the way michael, if you are in fact michael rosen and not a troll, that programme you were on with germaine greer a couple of months ago was a very bizarre bit of tv!

It’s disappointing to see so much support for this kind of divisive who’sajewism on HP.

First, the MacPherson definition of racism established by the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry – a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person – seems about right to me. It follows that membership of a racial group is a matter of self-identity and/or others’ perceptions.

But it’s not relevant to the case, which is subject to the fairly circular definition of “racial group” in the Race Relations Act.

Second, let’s remember that the same issue is often raised by the Haredi in Israel about the Law of Return. Under the Law of Return, Israeli law gives the right of return to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations — though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).

Given the history of the Jewish people, especially over the last 100 years with the loss of documentation entailed by the fact that 95%of the world’s Jews live in a different country to their great-grandparents, could any other be approach really be practical?

Would you really want to see the State of Israel adopt a JFS-type test?

Brett

You disagree on the matriarchal definition. As Judy pointed out that has been accepted by the State for many years.

No-one has so far disputed my contention that this is an invalid judgement.

Tevya

“It’s disappointing to see so much support for this kind of divisive who’sajewism on HP.”

Blame Sedley et al

I think it’s disgusting that JFS has excluded this student, because the family obviously wants a Jewish education for their kid. Why else would they elect to send their child to a Jewish school? If the family is willing to participate fully in JFS, then it shouldn’t matter at all how Jewish the student is.

This is yet another example of the chutzpah of the Office of the Chief Rabbi and the London Beit Din.

No-one has so far disputed my contention that this is an invalid judgement.

I think you mean wrong, rather than invalid.

The definition of a Jew for the purposes of the Race Relations Act is much wider than the biblical one [under the OCR and JFS interpretations]

The interpretations of the OCR and JFS are wrong. Does that dispute your contention?

Your point in fact is that it is a “glaring fallacy” for the UK courts not to understand that you and JFS wish to answer the who’sajew question in two radically different ways.

No it isn’t.

“That is like compelling a Catholic school to take Protestant pupils, I think.”

Why not? Why should a priest decide who gets to go to a school that is paid for out of general taxation?

, in such a case would be unaffected by the particular anti-religious dogmatism David T invariably brings to any issue involving public provision for accommodating the religious needs of practising Jews or Muslims.

I am not dogmatically anti-religious. I am pro religious. Choice of religion is a human right.

What I am opposed to is sectarianism, or the empowerment of clerics by the state. That is a very different thing. Fortunately, we have a law which – to some extent – makes attempts to advance sectarianism unlawful.

Sedley is an interesting case. I do know him, and think him a very fine lawyer. However, it is true that his background is Communist: and as we know, Communists have very poor records when it comes to Jews. It is a pity he decided this case, therefore.

PS: Michael Rosen – can you choose another name. Most people here think you’re THE Michael Rosen (who also posts here). Perhaps “TPFKAMR”?

This just in: a Michael Jackson angle on the present admissions policies of JFS: seems like that might be a better outcome for those children than some of the more likely alternatives, actually.

This just in: a Michael Jackson angle on the present admissions policies of JFS: seems like that might be a better outcome for those children than some of the more likely alternatives, actually.

except that pollard is wrong on both counds. jackson’s children’s mother lives on a ranch in the US, not london, and she’s not seeking custody.

“Why not? Why should a priest decide who gets to go to a school that is paid for out of general taxation?”

I quite agree. It really is insane that Priests should have a say in this sort of thing. Even insaner now we know how, ahem, unrelaible they can be whn in the charge of children.

Red Michael Rosen is the Michael Rosen who writes children’s books. I think people can click on the red and get through to my website. A black Michael Rosen posts here but you can’t click on black.

naomi, it was bizarre, but I just thought if you don’t try bizarre sometimes, you get old very quickly.

Yeah, and that so-called Jew Sedley. It’s all his fault. No it’s not. It’s the ‘fault’ of Jews who want their kids to go to JFS but can’t.

I think its wrong that the Judges have to decide who is a Jew and hence decide that the exlusion of “M” is on racial grounds.

If JFS want to make it a rule that they only admit Jews who are Orthodox (ie not liberal or reform) then I think its their business. If we compare with a Catholic School they will not only ask if you are a Catholic but also whether you are a church goer. Hence, they have established its not enough to be born into a Catholic family but you must also be practising.

Having said all of that I wish some commonsense had prevailed. The desire to go to JFS surely demonstrates that the family wish their son to be schooled in Jewish orthodoxy and one presumes they will keep a kosher home as if they were more orthodox than Liberal or Reform.

I wish the judgement hadn’t concluded on the basis of race and the special case that Jews are regarded as a race for race relations purposes. This tends to suggest JFS have a policy or racial purity.

My wish is for the judgement to be overturned and for JFS to extend some sympathy and understand that Judaism will not collapse by allowing “M” to attend.

Jonathan- ’social engineers masquerading as Judges’ have been expanding the remit of the RRA 1976 for over 30 years because it legitimises the slippery concept of ‘indirect discrimination’. There’s nothing ground breaking about the JFS ruling.
It was the ‘indirect discrimination’ concept, and the case law that derived from it, that required local authorities to end their reliance on waiting lists and a ‘local connection’ as a deciding factor in social housing allocations- something which PM Brown now belatedly seeks to change, in the light of large scale white working class defections to the BNP!

naomi, it was bizarre, but I just thought if you don’t try bizarre sometimes, you get old very quickly.

good for you! and congratulations on your victory!

If JFS want to make it a rule that they only admit Jews who are Orthodox (ie not liberal or reform) then I think its their business.

Not when this lapsed Catholic is paying for it, it isn’t.

Ah! You’re ‘red Michael Rosen’ – I thought you were the other one! Easy to remember, now, though!

If JFS want to make it a rule that they only admit Jews who are Orthodox (ie not liberal or reform) then I think its their business.

No, it is my business, because I am a taxpayer and a citizen of a country which has anti-discrimination legislation.

Mark

I obviously accept that the Judiciary sometimes leads the legislators.

But here is a case where they have based an important judgement on a non-sequitur (the use of the RRA to strike down matriarchal lineage).

Moreover the matriarchal lineage definition of ‘who is a jew?’ has been accepted by Parliament for at least 50 years – so they are trying to contravene the will of Parliament.

That is why I call them ’social engineers masquerading as Judges’ .

It’s legit to claim that this judgement came in the context of the government’s wish that faith schools widen their criteria for entry. Some already do. I’ve worked in CofE schools in Tower Hamlets that have at least ten per cent Muslim kids.

Surely the problem is with the definition of Judaism as a race in the first place? I can understand why it was done, but it seems inevitably to lead to cases like this. If Judaism is a race, then my daughter (born to a Jewish mother, daughter of a Jewish mother, daughter of a Jewish mother, and so on into the mists of time) is Jewish even though she has never been observant and, as far as I know, is an atheist as I am.

On the other hand, if Judaism is a religion that qualifies for support from the state as far as education is concerned, then surely anyone who adheres to the religious convictions involved and matches the observance criteria qualifies regardless of who his or her mother is or was.

So I assume that my daughter, if she started Orthodox observance according to the family tradition, could enter this school. If she did that without having a Jewish mother, she could not enter the school. That can’t be right.

Jonathan,
The Court of Appeal haven’t overturned anything, they have accepted the matriarchal lineage definition of being a Jew. They have ruled that M is being discriminated against because in the eyes of OCR and JFS he is not a Jew.

Discriminating against someone because they are not a Jew is as bad as discriminating against someone because they are a Jew. Surely you accept that.

@Peter Jackson,
It’s actually worse than that, your daughter because she has a Jewish mother could attend JFS even without starting Orthodox observance. But you’re right, if she started Orthodox observance without having a Jewish mother she would not be allowed to attend unless she completed the “several years” conversion process.

@DMA

I didn’t (I think) write ‘overturn’

And no they have not accepted matrilineage: “the conclusion of the court is that the requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or by conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act 1976.”

They say that matrilineage contravenes the RRA. But in saying that, they rely on the fact that Jews are included in the RRA. But Parliament never intended the RRA to be used in this restrictive way. That is my point.

You know what irks me. This blog, more than almost any other UK political blog, spends so much of its time standing up to antisemities and exposing assorted neo-nazis, yet the second it is mildly critical of any Jeiwsh practice from a secular standpoint, out come the accusations against its authors of racism and antisemitism.

Well fuck you!

This quote from Brett tells us everything about the mind-set of marxist/new-left approaches to racism. It assumes that because they are committed to militantly fighting racism based on genetic ethnic descent, it gives them a free ride and even credentials on campaigning against and vilifying the historic and cultural practices without which there would be no Jewish people.

And when challenged on that, the response is usually abuse.

It’s legit to claim that this judgement came in the context of the government’s wish that faith schools widen their criteria for entry. Some already do. I’ve worked in CofE schools in Tower Hamlets that have at least ten per cent Muslim kids.

I can’t really credit that Michael Rosen is as ignorant of the history of Christian schools in this country as these comments suggest–after all, his own father went to Davenant Foundation School in the very same Tower Hamlets, which is a CofE foundation which like all the CofE schools in the area was taking in Jews in numbers throughout the period of the Jewish immigrant settlement in the East End, in the last thirty years of the nineteenth century, throughout the firstt half of the twentieth century and up to the sixties, when I and most of the remaining Jews moved out.

The reason for that is that religious multiculturalism–or the notion that you happily have notional observance of one faith alongside others in the same institution goes right back to the days of the Roman empire, where the Romans would happily pay tribute to the local deities as long as their own were given primacy of place and the dominant role. Thus, the tradition to this day of Church schools and secular schools alike do some sort of notional celebration of Chanukah–a Jewish festival which actually commemorates a Jewish religious zealot victory and an extirpation from the Temple of pagan practices installed by the Greeks and their local followers–as one of a series of notional celebration of “festivals of light’. Diwali, Chanukah–one assembly each and the odd display, Christmas–three weeks of projects, the whole school covered with decorations, daily singing of Christian carols and a whole school nativity play.

It’s nothing to do with government initiatives on faith schools widening their entry. Christian schools have always been into wanting other religions to experience education in their faith, because they are committed to conversionism however much they soft-pedal that core belief. Orthodox Judaism, in contrast, is strongly opposed to it, particularly where it involves young children of other faiths.

All groups have membership rules and there will always be individuals who wish to join / belong to the group but who wish to remove its defining rules. That’s human nature but not of much use for the continuity of the group. Jews belong to a 3,500 year old group with lots of rules yet are also individuals with very big doses of “human nature”.

There will always be an individual who behaves in a manner which is unorthodox with respect to the long standing, possible inflexible, but “them’s the rules” group. He/she is always so convinced of his correctness, his reforming path, his progressiveness that he quickly disparages the original group with labels such as “othodox” and other less mild descriptions.

So he wants to join, because he wants the group cohesion but at the same time cannot accept the rules – in fact wants to throw them out.

Jewish history has a long list of such individuals ranging from Shuki/Jesus of Nazareth and Saul/Paul of Tarsis (particularly) to Saul/Paul of Burgos to Baruch Spinoza to Isaac Disraeli to the 19th century and current, “Reform” and “Progressive” movement adherents et al.

Of course there is a modern twist. Most Jews in modern countries, like most XYZs, are not what you might define as “religious” – what ever that means – yet wish to remain part of the group – whose only real membership definition is one of birth or conversion – with an implied or with respect to converts, explicit, requirement to believe in God! (in the Jewish manner – which actually is much easier than the Christian or Islamic style).

So people queue up to belong or rejoin on their terms (not too much of that God stuff please), which of course, automatically outweigh those of the group they are trying to attach themselves to.

This is the real issue at JFS – nothing to do with religion at all – just one of group rules (of which the individual was well aware) and an individual wanting to replace them with his own definitions.

If JFS were the only school in the UK then the individual would have a valid case, but it is a school amongst very many, of all shapes and sizes, which this individual has chosen to reshape to his requirements and having failed to, has a classic case of “sour grapes”.

Now complicated by a gaggle of social engineering busy bodies,
who are following the time honoured tradition of the Catholic church and others over the last millenia.

You say that the matriarchal definition is a racial one. I say that that definition has been long accepted by the state.

Really?

That’s certainly not my reading of established precedent in discrimination law, i.e.

My Lords, I recognise that ‘ethnic’ conveys a flavour of race but it cannot, in my opinion, have been used in the 1976 Act in a strict racial or biological sense. For one things it would be absurd to suppose that Parliament can have intended that membership of a particular racial group should depend on scientific proof that a person possessed the relevant distinctive biological characteristics (assuming that such characteristics exist). The practical difficulties of such proof would be prohibitive, and it is clear that Parliament must have used the word in some more popular sense. For another thing, the briefest glance at the evidence in this case is enough to show that, within the human race, there are very few, if any, distinctions which are scientifically recognised as racial. I respectfully agree with the view of Lord Simon in Ealing London Borough v Race Relations Board [1972] 1 All ER 105 at 115, [1972] AC 342 at 362, referring to the long title of the Race Relations Act 1968 (which was in terms identical with part of the long title of the 1976 Act), when he said:

‘Moreover, ”racial” is not a term of art, either legal or, I surmise, scientific. I apprehend that anthropologists would dispute how far the word ”race” is biologically at all relevant to the species amusingly called homo sapiens.’

In short, the judiciary rejected the notion of race as a biological/genetic concept, other than in terms of the ‘human race’ as long ago as 1972 and, frankly, I think that the law is all the better for that particular decision.

“All groups have membership rules and there will always be individuals who wish to join / belong to the group but who wish to remove its defining rules.”

True, but these private clubs, as we should then call them, should be privately funded, not bankrolled by the public. In return for access to public funding, there are conditions.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples specifically states that indigenous peoples have the right to decide who can and cannot join their organizations.

The British National Party would probably argue that their very existence is to promote and defend the rights of indigenous tatooed Barking knuckle-draggers, just as there exist organizations in Brazil to promote the rights and defend the rights of chaps with elongated earlobes and blowpipes.

Victory to both!

’social engineers masquerading as Judges’ have been expanding the remit of the RRA 1976 for over 30 years because it legitimises the slippery concept of ‘indirect discrimination’. There’s nothing ground breaking about the JFS ruling.
It was the ‘indirect discrimination’ concept, and the case law that derived from it, that required local authorities to end their reliance on waiting lists and a ‘local connection’ as a deciding factor in social housing allocations- something which PM Brown now belatedly seeks to change, in the light of large scale white working class defections to the BNP!

“Indirect discrimination” specifically derives from EU law, not from the decisions of UK judges. It was first defined as far as I’m aware in relation to the ground-breaking cases around gender discrimination at the European Court of Justice. Because of those of cases, the concept of indirect discrimination was used to strike down the practice of defining men’s and women’s jobs as different (and therefore indirectly maintaining higher pay for men, despite the existence of sex discrimination legislation), and substituting the principle of equal pay for work of equal value.

But, yes, I think the latest Brown wheeze around prioritizing people “with local connections” for access to housing, will be struck down by the courts as indirect discrimination against EU migrants. But of course, that’ll be long after the election which this latest move is a ploy for. It’ll be far from the first time a British government has cynically introduced legislation and policies which it knows perfectly well will be struck down by the EU court–after the government has derived the short term political benefit.

This UK taxpayer has absolutely no objection to providing funding for a school such as JFS that sets its own conditions for admission, in accordance with a traditional Orthodox (and orthodox) interpretation of whom it deems to be members of its (and I cringe slightly to use this term, but it seems more or less the most fitting construction in contemporary English) faith community.

He does however object to the notion that simply because a body receives public funding (amongst other sources of funding) it should therefore, as a matter of course, be obligated to abandon its purpose and adopt identical principles and policies to all other (part or wholly) state-funded bodies; which in this case would essentially mean adopting a secularist policy that is presumably the exact opposite of that intended by the school’s founders, governors, and the parents who choose to send their children there.

The UK is, thankfully, a pluralistic, and yes, tolerant, society. And long may it remain so. There is no need for “one size fits all”: this mindset was a big part of that which (through the politics of envy, in large measure) destroyed large parts of the best elements of the state schooling system in the poisonous decades since the 1960s: now the same destructive mentality seeks, for all manner of, mostly wholly fallicious excuses, and out of gut prejudice, wishes to destroy many of the best state schools that remain, those that operate in a religious ethos, and which are, quite rightly, permitted to choose whom they educate on a religious basis. Indeed we must fight this manic “one size fits all” bigotry – which, pure and simple, is what it is.

Leave the JFS alone.

“If she did that without having a Jewish mother, she could not enter the school.”

She could, but it would take time, longer than the father either planned or was prepared for.

“This quote from Brett tells us everything about the mind-set of marxist/new-left approaches to racism.”

Oh lord, now I’m a “Marxist”. That’s very funny!

I love cultural practices, even when linked to religious traditions. I think they’re quaint, and even quite enriching. Mostly. Some are mad and destructive. I’m outspoken about these. Sorry.

What I do not wish to see, I think, is a nominally orthodox school compelled to be otherwise. That is like compelling a Catholic school to take Protestant pupils, I think.

No, it’s like compelling a Catholic school to accept that Protestant pupils are Catholic because some ignorant judge said so.

What they cannot do is accept some children and reject others based on their race.

Oh FFS, they are not doing that! After all we’ve said, can you really not understand that race does not come into it? The SAME situation would apply had the parents been Chinese, or one was Cherokee and the other Estonian, or any other permutation. THAT’S why the ruling is a complete nonsense.

The problem with the ruling, and with much of this comment thread for that matter, is the confusion between someone who is a “Jew”, in the broad sense of the word; and someone who is a “Jew”, in the sense that JFS define it for their admissions policy. These are two very different things. There are several different denominations and different religious authorities in Judaism and, like most religions, they don’t always get on or agree with each other. I can remember a time in my childhood when Rakusens matzos were Kosher for Pesach in London but not in Manchester, because the Manchester Beth Din refused to certify them. Applying the definition of a Jew under the Race Relations Act to an intra-denominational dispute within Judaism just seems completely inappropriate.

“Oh FFS, they are not doing that! After all we’ve said, can you really not understand that race does not come into it? “

Of course race came into it. Regardless of the family’s religious practice, if the child’s mother (note, not the child) had been ‘racially’ Jewish, then there wouldn’t have been a problem.

venichka 2:00 – yes, indeed.

And what’s wrong with ‘faith community’? That’s exactly what it is.

Those who claim to be tolerant and pluralistic except where something is not to their personal taste, and we have seen them on this thread and on the other one, are not tolerant and pluralistic but the very opposite.

Regardless of the family’s religious practice, if the child’s mother (note, not the child) had been ‘racially’ Jewish, then there wouldn’t have been a problem.

Simply untrue, and a false use of the term ‘racially’. If the child’s mother had belonged to the Orthodox Jewish community, one criterion (and one criterion only!) for that being that she belonged to the Jewish ethnic community, then … etc.
The other criterion, of course, being ‘halachic conversion’ for the purpose of the JFS (NOTE: not for the purpose of Reform Jewish schools, who are also part of the Jewish ethnic community, which is an important additional argument imo, which I may come back to but my curry beckons). This optional route of halachic conversion pulls the rug from under the ‘race’ argument, because members of ALL races can take it.

Admissions to Church schools

“Church of England schools welcome all pupils from their local neighbourhood, including members of other faiths. If there is a shortage of places in the school, the admissions policy set by the governing bodies of voluntary aided, academies and foundation schools will give an order of preference to categories of pupils. Admissions policies are set by the governing body and differ from school to school: some ask for evidence of active involvement in the local church, others look at pupils’ travelling distance from school or at medical reasons for needing a particular school. Voluntary controlled schools have their admissions determined by the Local Education Authority.”

Can’t see anything in these guidelines about genetics or even faith, so all the explicit references to ‘priests’ and Church schools are irrelevant.

In return for access to public funding, there are conditions.

Irrelevant, and rather nasty. Irrelevant, because we have said that the RRA, however totally misapplied here, makes no distinction between state-funded and private-funded bodies for its purpose. Nasty, because you are saying to SOME cultural and ethnic communities that they must follow your prejudices or else, but not to others.

‘Me’… Jonathan has already admitted that the child’s mother could have been an atheist and it wouldn’t have mattered if she had been considered ‘racially’ Jewish. The mother did not need to be Orthodox.

zkharya 29 June 2009, 2:03 pm
“If she did that without having a Jewish mother, she could not enter the school.”
She could, but it would take time, longer than the father either planned or was prepared for.

Okay, I’ll bring my daughter back when she’s 15 and finished her conversion to start Year 7. That’s not a realistic solution is it.

Of course race came into it. Regardless of the family’s religious practice, if the child’s mother (note, not the child) had been ‘racially’ Jewish, then there wouldn’t have been a problem.

Not so. An ethnically descended Jew who converts to Christianity or becomes a so-called “Messianic Jew” (ie one of a group of Jewish-descendent Christians who claim the acceptance of Jesus is compatible with Judaism) is not regarded as Jewish according to halachah, and is therefore not eligible for entry to JFS. The so-called Messianic Jews would love to get their children (and themselves as staff) into JFS.

And a born-halachically-Jewish mother might be of Afro-Caribbean genetic descent or ethnic Russian descent or ethnic Arab descent–in Jewish law, there is no such thing as “racially” halachically Jewish. Halachically-born Jewish mothers can be and are from any ethnic or racial group in the world

@zkharya: Just out of interest, how long would it take for my daughter to become qualified to enter the school if she didn’t have a Jewish mother?

Orthodox Judaism, in contrast, is strongly opposed to it, particularly where it involves young children of other faiths.

If that is so, why should JFS want to give priority to a child who was halachically Jewish, but from a non-observant family?

Isn’t the truth that orthodox Jews have a very strong interest in ensuring that as many children who “count” as Jewish according to orthodox halacha are brought up as observant Jews?

Isn’t that why they’re so keen to turn away non halachically Jewish kids – because that will take places away from the non-observant halachacally Jewish ones?

How does turning a child from a wholly non-observant Jewish background into a practicing Jew who can say Shema, Amidah, lain tefillin, say the correct brochot etc differ in a material sense from “converting children”

?

Just on a side issues, Jonathan Sacks is the Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue, not of ‘Orthodox’ Judaism. I am a sephardi Jew, and he is not our chief rabbi, but we are orthodox and recognised as such. Our ’spiritual leader’ is a man called Rabbi Dr Abraham Levy OBE.

This does not detract from the fact that the state should not be telling a religion that the way it defines (and has done for thousands of years) who is part of that religion, is now not allowed.

Judy, fight with Jonathan over that. When I asked if a one could get a place in the school “if you and your parents are ‘racially’ Jewish, but are openly athieist?”

He replied “Yes”.

You will also note that it was this answer from Jonathan which changed my mind – from my initailly supportive of the JFS position and over to David T’s position.

‘Me’… Jonathan has already admitted that the child’s mother could have been an atheist and it wouldn’t have mattered if she had been considered ‘racially’ Jewish. The mother did not need to be Orthodox.

Sorry Brett, but I don’t think this is right. The whole problem with this case began because the mother did not have an Orthodox conversion, only a progressive one.

I am also yet to see anyone explain how you convert to a race, which the judges seem to think is possible.

“Indirect discrimination” specifically derives from EU law, not from the decisions of UK judges. It was first defined as far as I’m aware in relation to the ground-breaking cases around gender discrimination at the European Court of Justice.

Surely, you’re talking about the ECHR, which is affiliated to the Council of Europe, but not directly to the institutions of the EU?

@Judy: This is becoming very confusing. Is Judaism a race or not? You seem to be saying that someone who is racially Jewish (according to the halachah definition) can be declared not to be Jewish because of doctrinal conviction.

So surely, Judaism can not be a race as defined by law?

I’m not particularly exercised by this, but just curious for family reasons. It’s clear that my daughter would be defined as Jewish by anyone using the racial definition, but apparently is not Jewish by the JFS definition.

Could you explain a bit further?

The child is not being discriminated against. You might as well say the US discriminates against him by not accepting him within the US community unless he undergoes a process of conversion.

As for JFS’ being a state school, well, for over a hundred years the state has not queried or sought to intervene in its selection criteria. That state has been happy to fund an orthodox Jewish institution.

Conversion to orthodox Judaism has always been rigorous, much harder than for many other faith groups, for all kinds of historical reasons.

The father wants his son to attend JFS precisely to have an orthodox Jewish education. But he is himself not willing to fulfil orthodox criteria with regard to his son, rather to subvert them on the grounds of racial discrimination.

That doesn’t make much sense to me: I do not see how he can want his son to have an orthodox Jewish education, have an orthodox upbringing etc while ligitigating against JFS on the grounds that those very same orthodox criteria are racially discriminatory.

He is prosecuting as racist the very orthodox institution to which he wants his son to belong as an orthodox Jew.

Surely, you’re talking about the ECHR, which is affiliated to the Council of Europe, but not directly to the institutions of the EU?

No, it is a product of EU, not ECHR law. Which is part of UK law because of the European Communities Act 1972.

This does not detract from the fact that the state should not be telling a religion that the way it defines (and has done for thousands of years) who is part of that religion, is now not allowed.

It most certainly shouldn’t. I agree. It is entirely up to religious institutions to decide who counts as a member of that religion.

However, I’m talking about a public sector school, in receipt of state funds, that is not a religious institution.

From a mostly British, non-Jewish, Anglophone perspective:I think the confusion comes down largely to these two things:

1) The word “Jew” has both “national” (or if you must, but I’d rather not, “racial”) and “religious” meanings – which (as well as being subject to various interpretations within the Jewish community or communities) overlap but are not identical (and the quotation marks I have used here further indicates difficulty in separating or defining the exact categories intended by each of those terms). The distinction is important in this regard in as much as whatever the JFS’s decision was based upon it had nothing, I repeat, nothing, to do with “racial discrimination”

2) Partly because of the above, defining who constitutes “a Jew” is quite evidently NOT dependent on the same criteria upon which one may determine who constitutes “a Christian” (of whatever kind). ie baptism, acceptance of and belief in the terms of the Nicene Creed; with also the reasonable expectation of involvement in the sacramental and/or community life of a particular parish or other structure. But in any case the word Christian (at least in this part of the world) has NO “national” or “racial” implication whatsoever.

(The situation with Muslims is more complicated again – in as much in some parts of the world – Bosnia springs immediately to mind – “Muslim” is used as a kind of “ethnic” rather than a strictly “religious” designator)

The judges seem to have ignored the above and attempted to apply the rules of definition that one, in the contemporary English context, conventionally regard as being acceptably applicable to determining who is a Christian (or a given kind thereof) to a school that obviously has no interest in determining that, but rather uses, no less conventional, but quite evidently different, criteria on who constitutes the kind of Jew it is intended to educate.

P. Jackson, from what I understand “several years”. Scroll down to the bottom:

From the High Court case http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1535.html

34 M’s father, E, is a member of the Masorti New London Synagogue. He considers himself to be, and doubtless many others who consider themselves to be Jews would also consider him to be, of Jewish ethnic origin, to be of the Jewish faith and to be a practising Jew. His former wife, M’s mother, is of Italian national and ethnic origin. Before she and E married she was converted to Judaism under the auspices of the rabbi of an independent Progressive synagogue. M is therefore, in E’s eyes, and doubtless in the eyes of many who would consider themselves Jews, of mixed Jewish and (through the maternal line) Italian ethnic origin. According to E, M is recognised as Jewish by the Reform synagogues of Great Britain and the Assembly of Masorti synagogues, practises his own Jewish faith, prays in Hebrew and attends synagogue and a Jewish Youth Group.

35 Because the OCR does not recognise the validity of conversions carried out by Progressive synagogues, it does not recognise M as Jewish.
…
56 E wishes M to be educated at JFS. The dispute which has given rise to the present litigation arises in circumstances where, as E realistically accepts, it would be futile for him to seek the OCR’s recognition of M’s Jewish status.

57 Accordingly, E thought to comply with the second limb of paragraph 1.1 of the admissions policy which, as we have seen, also gives priority to children “who have already enrolled upon or who have undertaken, with the consent of their parents, to follow any course of conversion to Judaism under the approval of the OCR.”

58 However, on 4 October 2006 E was told by Rabbi Rashi Simon of the OCR that the OCR would recognise only conversions preceded by a course of study, religious instruction and observance which took several years, and that it would only be on completion (or very rarely at the very end) of this process that the OCR would even consider recommending a child for JFS. In these circumstances E decided, so it would seem, not to pursue this route.

Ven

Write us a guest post on this, then.

Orthodox Judaism, in contrast, is strongly opposed to it, particularly where it involves young children of other faiths.
If that is so, why should JFS want to give priority to a child who was halachically Jewish, but from a non-observant family?

Isn’t the truth that orthodox Jews have a very strong interest in ensuring that as many children who “count” as Jewish according to orthodox halacha are brought up as observant Jews?

Isn’t that why they’re so keen to turn away non halachically Jewish kids – because that will take places away from the non-observant halachacally Jewish ones?

Orthodox Jews don’t accept that non-halachically Jewish children are Jewish. Full stop. Jewish ethnicity without halachic descent is not recognised in Judaism.

Their schools exist as part of the process of inducting young Jews into the full practice of Judaism, which is done through every aspect of their practice, ethos and philosophy, not just the specific lessons labelled “religious education”. RC, Sikh and Muslim schools have a similar “whole school life and practice” approach. The policies of CofE schools on the whole are much more nebulous. There’s many a CofE school I know of where the only way you’d know it was a CofE school is that if you look very hard around the reception area, you might find a plaque somewhere saying it was opened by such and such a bishop on such and such a date. Yes, really!

Orthodox Jewish schools–like other orthodox Jewish institutions from yeshivas and sems to old age homes do not provide for other religious groups or for those of no religion because they exist to promote Jewish observance and practice, and it is not appropriate, because it is implicitly conversionist, forbidden by Jewish law, to provide those to any others but Jews.

You can’t in Jewish law convert someone who’s already halachically Jewish to Jewishness. What you can do, and all Jewish institutions try to do, is to heighten and deepen their appreciation and practice of Judaism whatever the starting point for any given halachic Jew. The tradition is that all halachic Jews have an inner spark, however, tiny and invisible, that’s capable of being kindled. This is something I’d interpret rationally as a belief that no child is ever born free of cultural inheritance, however attentuated and unconsciously it is manifested in a child notionally brought up with absolutely no explicit encounter (and perhaps with apparently hostile encounters/teaching) related to Judaism. The whole international success of the Lubavitch outreach movement is built on this premise.

Having said that,

“57 Accordingly, E thought to comply with the second limb of paragraph 1.1 of the admissions policy which, as we have seen, also gives priority to children “who have already enrolled upon or who have undertaken, with the consent of their parents, to follow any course of conversion to Judaism under the approval of the OCR.”

may suggest JFS is in violation of its own policy.

But I can understand the US not wishing to accept anyone within their community who has not undergone the process of full conversion. JFS has to abide by some form of Judaism. I do not see how it can be by a “consensus” group where none exists for the majority of British Jews.

JFS is a Jewish school. It has to abide by some kind of Jewish ortho-praxy or -doxy. I do not see how the state can intervene in that without forcing it to revise what it holds to be “Judaism” i.e. Who is a Jew, which the CA specifically said it was not addressing.

@Peter Jackson
As far as the Race Relations Acts are concerned an individual can belong to any number of racial groups.

To take me as an example, I’m not Jewish, but for a number of years a work colleague thought I was. If he had discriminated against me based on his misidentification of me as Jewish, then he would have been guilty of racial discrimination even though I do not belong to the group he was discriminating against.

David T,

I think I’ve said all I really have to say on the matter, tbh (and in no sense do I claim to have any particular knowledge of the exact requirements of various rabbinical bodies as regards recognition of someone as a Jew).

My point is principally that: an Orthodox Jewish school, whether in the state sector or no, should have every bit as much right to choose whom it educates, based on its, conventional, understanding of whom is eligible upon the basis of its criteria, in order to maintain the intended environment in which there is an underlying and guiding religious ethos – that underpins everything the school is, does and is about, as should, say, a Catholic School, a Sikh school or whatever. (Leave the CofE out of this: regrettably I say – they stand for nothing, more or less)

It’s not a problem, not an outrage, not an affront, not “unlawful discrimination” that the criteria for determining who is eligible are different. One size does not fit all. This is pluralistic democracy in action. And it is far preferable to the French model.

@Brett

“When I asked if a one could get a place in the school “if you and your parents are ‘racially’ Jewish, but are openly athieist?”

For heavens sakes this is not ‘all or nothing’. Some halachic Jews are practising, some less so. I don’t know any that are ‘openly atheist’ who would want their kids to go to a Jewish school – why would they?

‘Reductio ad absurdum’ is no way to decide policy

“You can’t in Jewish law convert someone who’s already halachically Jewish to Jewishness. What you can do, and all Jewish institutions try to do, is to heighten and deepen their appreciation and practice of Judaism whatever the starting point for any given halachic Jew. The tradition is that all halachic Jews have an inner spark, however, tiny and invisible, that’s capable of being kindled. ”

But this is, in fact, converting, isn’t it?

The Jewish concept of ba’al teshuvah is equivalent to the Muslim notion that we “revert” to Islam.

Jews just apply that notion to matrilineal descent Jews only. They’re less ambitious.

But beyond that – it’s also about (perversely you may feel, if you do not support the notion of religious schools in the state sector in the first place) recognizing the separation between the state and religious authorities.

The latter, not the former ,are those who have – and those who MUST have – the say-so as to who belongs to their communities. It is not for the state to determine questions of religious allegiance, whether they be based on descent, practice, doctrine, or some combination of them, or anything else.

Leave the CofE out of this: regrettably I say – they stand for nothing, more or less

Actually, Ven, there’s quite a few things that the CofE does stand for:

environmentalism–very big on that

multi-culturalism–ditto

anti-racism–as long as it isn’t an issue of Islamist or left-wing anti-semitism

third-worldism–including wizard wheezes like “make poverty history”, supporting marxist liberation movements etc

Further, in matters as to who or who is not a Jew, or who or who may not be accepted into an orthodox Jewish school, the state will need to defer to some authority. If that is not the chief rabbi, who or what is it?

“The Jewish concept of ba’al teshuvah is equivalent to the Muslim notion that we “revert” to Islam.”

Actually non-Muslims “revert” to Islam, because Islam is humanity’s natural state, as it were.

” don’t know any that are ‘openly atheist’ who would want their kids to go to a Jewish school – why would they?”

Because they value the cultural heritage and traditions but don’t believe in god. This is surely not hard to grasp.

Poor Poor Jews.

They neither get to decide what constitutes antisemitism nor who is a Jews.

How sad.

Conme off it Brett. No activist atheist parent would send their kids to a religious school.

But this is, in fact, converting, isn’t it?

No, it isn’t.

The Jewish concept of ba’al teshuvah is equivalent to the Muslim notion that we “revert” to Islam.

Jewish concepts of “teshuvah” predate Islamic notions of reversion, of which I have no knowledge, by some hundreds of years. This is distinct from the Jewish concept of conversion, for which the Hebrew word is “ge’irut”, and for which specific laws define the conditions (such as immersion in a mikvah, etc etc)

Jews just apply that notion to matrilineal descent Jews only. They’re less ambitious.

No, there is no such thing as a “patrilineal” Jew in Judaism. A Jew in Jewish law is either of halachically-born matrilineal descent or has undergone a conversion in accordance with halachah. It is also possible for an halachically converted Jew to lapse and then return (one of the meanings of “teshuvah) to Judaism, as long as she or he has not converted to another religion.

You diminish yourself, and not Judaism by your passing sneers and aspersions of bad faith to Judaism (ie your ascription of bad-faith motives to wanting to keep non-halachically Jewish children out of Jewish schools, and this sneering assertion that Judaism is “less ambitious” than Islam.

“Jews just apply that notion to matrilineal descent Jews only. They’re less ambitious.”

Well, they’re not especially evangelical. They tend to keep it in the family, though not exclusively. Hence JFS’ preferring halachically born Jews, who desire, or whose parents desire, a relatively orthodox Jewish education or upbringing.

It is in favour of these that JFS usually rules. The question is, Is that discriminatory in an illegal sense?

Upon what criteria should M be preferred to one of these? Some kind of choice has to be made, not just with regard to M, but with regard to other halachically Jewish candidates.

Because they value the cultural heritage and traditions but don’t believe in god. This is surely not hard to grasp.

So why would they send their kids to a RELIGIOUS school?

Brett, I seem to recall you getting very affronted at the thought of someone (well…Lee Jasper…not a man I am inclined to defend in general, but in this case and on this point I shall) who could afford to buy their own property living in a council (or housing association, I forget) house: (Now – I think it is socially healthy that there is a mix of people on council estates, far more so than encouraging such places to degenerate into sink estates of last resort, so I don’t object to Jasper living on one. But here that is by the by)

But still – it is almost analogous to this: A child of an avowed atheist attending a religious school is surely denying a child from a religious family a place at that school to which they are surely better suited (no psychological mismatch or anguish resulting from a clash of values between school and home) and , in a sense, more entitled (and towards which, if the family has, through involvement with a connected place of worship, made donations towards whichever religious body funds and is involved in running the school, have even contributed towards)?

Why one rule for Lee Jasper and another for an atheist at a religious school?

Conme off it Brett. No activist atheist parent would send their kids to a religious school.

Actually, some do. Examples are Israeli parents–who still want their kids to be taught Hebrew, even if it means going to a religious school. And there are some Jewish parents who make racist assumptions that their kids will do better in a Jewish school (statistically they are right) than they would in a bog standard comprehensive school).

Jewish law is not worried by parental bad faith. The children are halachically Jewish, and they are entitled to be inducted into and experience the richness and full humanity of their Jewish heritage. And quite often, the children confound their parents by becoming religious in spite of the mockery and opposition they meet at home. Which is fair enough. Just as no Jewish school gets a free ride just because halachically Jewish children are admitted. There are some Jewish schools, as there are some RC and CofE schools which have acquired a reputation for turning off a lot more pupils than they turn on.

Judy, I defer to your better knowledge! (not for the first time)

Ven, all those years I spent doing professional work in CofE schools were not in vain!

I’m still not entirely certain I have got this clear in my mind, but despite all the discussion I have come to a conclusion; if a school discriminates against a child not because of its own actions or beliefs but because of its mother’s ancestry or beliefs, then that is unlawful.

Again, could someone explain more simply why I’m wrong?

“So why would they send their kids to a RELIGIOUS school?”

But it is NOT areligious school if, as Jonathan admits, they would admit an atheist family as long as the mother was ethnically Jewish. Can’t you see that this is the sticking point.

I have no objection to them limiting their intake to religiously observant Jews exclusively. This I have actually said more than once.

You seem to think that I want an atheist to go to this school. I don’t. I am however intrigued to know why they would accept an atheist under the current rules.

AND – and this is the crux of the matter – the only reason I am persuaded over to David T’s position is *because* they will accept an ethnically Jewish atheist.

If they’re a ‘faith’ school then *faith* must be at the centre of their acceptance policy. The fact that they have other rules not relating to faith means that the confusion between race and faith they now lament is entirely of their own making.

JFS’ actual policy:

JEWISH SCHOOLS ADMISSIONS – COURT OF APPEAL

Judgement was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 25 June 2009 in the case of E V JFS and others.

The case went against JFS. The Court of Appeal held that, although Jewish schools (whether independent or voluntary aided) can select by faith when oversubscribed, the criteria they may use cannot be based on membership of the Jewish faith. That is because the Court decided that, since the test of who is a member of the Jewish faith is based on descent or conversion, it is a racial test. Applying such criteria was therefore held to be direct racial discrimination. JFS disagrees with the Court’s judgment and intends to ask for permission to appeal to the House of Lords.

Since any criteria based on membership of the Jewish faith has been held by the Court to be unlawful, JFS is now carefully considering what changes may be required to its admissions criteria.

JFS has always sought to provide a Jewish education to members of the orthodox Jewish faith so that all Jewish children may be provided with an orthodox Jewish education, so that they can learn about and practice their faith.

We do not yet know how this judgment will affect this year’s admissions (2009).

The attached briefing note/Q & A has been prepared to explain in broad terms the case and the judgment. The following is the text of a press statement issued by the School: “JFS School is very disappointed with the judgment and believes it will seriously undermine the Jewish ethos of the School. We believe that the decision of the Court of Appeal is wrong and intend to seek leave to appeal to the House of Lords. At this stage we have no further statement to make.”

Link to briefing note/Q & A

http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/default.aspx

JFS Q&A in the matter:

http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/media/45613/media%20briefing%20250609.pdf

My point is principally that: an Orthodox Jewish school, whether in the state sector or no, should have every bit as much right to choose whom it educates, based on its, conventional, understanding of whom is eligible upon the basis of its criteria, in order to maintain the intended environment in which there is an underlying and guiding religious ethos

Even if it contravenes English law in some other resepect? Let’s leave aside the specifics in this particular case; your comment above has no qualification. Even if it were indisputably demonstrated that a particular fath school’s admissions policy contravened race legislation, you think it should be allowed to carry on regardless?

Remarkable.

You diminish yourself, and not Judaism by your passing sneers

Judy, should re-read your own contributions to most debates that take place here. The condescension you exhibit to your intelocutors is sans pareil on this blog. I think you must have a PhD in Patronization of the Gentile.

I suspect other faith schools prefer candidates both of whose parents belong to the requisite faith group.

From the JFS Q&A:

Court of Appeal Judgment
in Re. E v JFS and others
A1 What is the case about?
The case concerned a judicial review brought by E of the lawfulness of the JFS Admissions policy on the basis that the criteria are racially discriminatory.
A2 What are the facts of this case?
E is Jewish by birth and his former wife is Jewish by conversion (under the auspices of an independent Progressive synagogue). E applied for their son, M, to be admitted to JFS.
The JFS admissions policy is when over-subscribed to give preference to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR) or are following or undergoing an OCR-approved conversion course.
JFS was over-subscribed when E applied on behalf of his son M in 2007. E did not provide material to enable the OCR to confirm that his son would be recognised as Jewish and E’s application was refused.
E appealed on the basis that the JFS admission policy is unlawful because it is racially discriminatory.

A3 What did the Court of Appeal decide?
The Court held that any selection criteria (whether schools admissions criteria or otherwise) that gives a priority to a person who is Jewish in orthodox terms, whether by matrilineal descent or conversion, is a decision that is based on the ethnicity of the person and is, therefore, direct discrimination on racial grounds.
The Court of Appeal held that discriminating between “Jewish” and “non-Jewish” children is permissible if done on religious grounds but unlawful if done on racial grounds.
A4 Why do we consider that the Court of Appeal’s decision is wrong?
The School argued (supported by the United Synagogue) that the admissions policy of JFS is based on a religious and not a racial or ethnic view of who is a Jew, and is therefore lawful. That argument was considered by the lower court and accepted.
The flaw in the direct discrimination finding is the incorrect assumption that people who are Jewish under Jewish religious law are also of Jewish ethnic origin for the purposes of the Race Relations Act.
The two groups overlap but they are not equivalent or identical groups.
Any person of any ethnic origin can convert to Judaism and once converted a person is Jewish, and a female convert will pass Jewish status to her future children.

http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/media/45613/media%20briefing%20250609.pdf

Judy wrote, citing me first:

Me: It’s legit to claim that this judgement came in the context of the government’s wish that faith schools widen their criteria for entry. Some already do. I’ve worked in CofE schools in Tower Hamlets that have at least ten per cent Muslim kids.

Judy: I can’t really credit that Michael Rosen is as ignorant of the history of Christian schools in this country as these comments suggest–

and then she goes on to tell me how and where my father was educated.

Judy, I was talking about present-day dispensations and attitudes. I think you’ll find that there have been several briefings over the last year or so – possibly from Ed Balls, possibly from a select committee – I forget which – making clear that this government wanted to widen the selection procedures for faith schools. I then simply cited a present-day example of CofE schools in Tower Hamlets admitting Muslim kids. Not because it was new but because it was contemporary. As it happens, the reason why the example from 1930 (re my father) is cock-eyed is that all the criteria for admission were different ie all non-CofE children were, I believe admitted on a ’scholarship’. I think the local authority paid a fee for each child who won this scholarship. Strictly speaking Davenant wasn’t the kind of school that exists today.

However, as a post after our altercation makes clear, faith schools (depending in part on whether they’re voluntary aided or voluntary controlled) have very different methods of choosing children from a faith (or no faith) other than their own. This is what the government is on about (rightly or wrongly) and I will go on suggesting that this is the context for the CA’s judgement.

z., I suspect quite the opposite. My experience of working in faith schools when they’re CofE or Catholic is that they’re hot on what happened to the child at birth, and what happens on Sundays, Easter and Christmas. If one of the parents is not an adherent, I doubt if it need come up as it’s bound to be the parent who is the adherent who will present at the school. Assuming the parents are talking to each other, you can assume that the non-adherent will be a willing party to the child going to that school. In fact, now I think of it, I know of several people who are eg CofE/Catholic and have sent their children either to one or the other denomination school. No problem. Sorry to disagree with as close a friend as you.

But it is NOT a religious school if, as Jonathan admits, they would admit an atheist family as long as the mother was ethnically Jewish. Can’t you see that this is the sticking point.

Well, yes, I can see that – and I do understand your objection on this point.

Bu,: it does seem as though you are:

(a) overriding a faith community’s right to define whom its (actual or potential) membership are;

and, moreover

(b) applying essentially “Christian” criteria for membership of a faith community (which it may well be appropriate to apply with regard to a Christian school) to one that simply does not operate on that basis (and which, in part, but no means solely, or, I think even principally, because of its opposition to general proselytism, would object to operating on such a basis).

I really think if we go very much further down this road we are getting into “Judaism is inherently racist” territory.

Tbh my post at 2.39 pretty much sums up my objections to this argument.

Zhakarya

“Actually non-Muslims “revert” to Islam, because Islam is humanity’s natural state, as it were.”

But this notion that “all halachic Jews have an inner spark, however, tiny and invisible, that’s capable of being kindled” is precisely the same as the Islamic claim about the natural state of mankind. It is merely limited to orthodox halachic Jews.

Judy

No, there is no such thing as a “patrilineal” Jew in Judaism.

You’re wrong. I have looked at the Reform definition, for example, and they are clear that a patrilineal Jew is “presumptively” Jewish, if they formally adhere to Judaism.

Brett

I have no objection to them limiting their intake to religiously observant Jews exclusively. This I have actually said more than once.

I have an objection to religious tests being applied by clerics, to whom are delegated the task of distributing public benefits. We’re talking about a state funded school here, not a state funded church or synagogue. We wouldn’t support a “Jewish Hospital” only giving treatment to halachically Jewish Jews, surely!

It looks to me that E applied for M to enter JFS, and was rejected, within one academic year (2006?), in which time he also decided to prosecute. That hardly seems sufficient time to have submitted M on a course of conversion.

It is not clear he has submitted M for an OCR course since.

I am not saying this isn’t tough on the kid. But conversion to orthodox Judaism isn’t a cakewalk, and his father knew that.

Why couldn’t the child and mom convert to orthodox Jewdaism?

I have heard JFS is already over subscribed for Orthodox Jews, why could JFS just said we have no space rather then saying he can’t be accepted as he isn’t orthodox – something just doesn’t make sense.

The JFS admissions policy is when over-subscribed to give preference to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR) or are following or undergoing an OCR-approved conversion course.

It’s interesting that the JFS say that as that is not the Court of Appeal’s findings in the case. They found that children were only admitted after or exceptionally very near the end of their conversion course, something that E (M’s father) only found out during the admission process. I suggest that if the JFS admitted children who were in the process of an OCR-approved conversion course then this case would never have been brought.

Michael, I already pointed out that historically all the schools in present day Tower Hamlets, including all CofE schools, such as the primary schools, which did not have scholarships, admitted large numbers of Jewish children. They also ensured that they encountered and took part in various forms of Christian practice, even if their parents withdrew them from lessons labelled “religious education”. Some RC schools also took in Jewish children, although usually they did not simply because the professing RCs filled the available places.

Thus I attended a state nominally secular school in Stepney in the 50s which provided Jewish religious education lessons from a visiting rabbi, but still required me to attend daily assembly in which I had to say the Christian Lord’s prayer, sing Christian hymns (and carols at Christmas time) and be involved in the annual takeover of the curriculum by Christmas celebrations.
My secondary school was voluntary aided (actually the same one Michael’s mother attended a couple of decades earlier) and was nominally CofE–it had various CofE clerics on its governing body. It provided a Jewish assembly, religious classes (content and finance from the Orthodox London Board of Jewish religious education) and kosher meals; but nevertheless we still had to attend a “general assembly” once a week at which we sang Christian hymns, but leaving out any verses which specifically mentioned the name of Jesus, and we had to take part in the Christmas celebrations and the Carol service (though of course omitting the verses in the Carols that specifically used the word Jesus or Christ). And of course we had to learn specifically Christian songs and hymns in our music lesson– but we were excused from singing the words Jesus or Christ. Utterly barmy. But utterly consistent with the heritage of the Roman empire.

Such schools of course exist to this day. My daughter went through an almost identical series of rituals at the posh school she attended on a scholarship.

Balls’ statements on the contribution of the current government to the practices and policies of schools, particularly faith schools, sometimes match his surname.

“We wouldn’t support a “Jewish Hospital” only giving treatment to halachically Jewish Jews, surely!”

I obviously have a principled objection to faith schools per se. What I meant there is “within the scope of this discussion…”.

Brownie

PhD in Patronization of the Gentile.

That is an outrageous thing to say. She is patronising to me as well.

Michael R

If one of the parents is not an adherent, I doubt if it need come up as it’s bound to be the parent who is the adherent who will present at the school. Assuming the parents are talking to each other, you can assume that the non-adherent will be a willing party to the child going to that school.

Here is my objection in a nutshell

I had a colleague who was Catholic, married to a Turkish Muslim. The only good school in the area was Catholic. She was required to attend church with the family for a year before admission. When she missed two weeks, the parish priest dropped by to tell her that this would affect the chances of her kids going to the school, and so she better improve her attendance.

In other words, a priest was using his power to allocate state funds, in order to bully a woman into going to Church.

I have another colleague, who is a devout Catholic, who is also obliged to keep attendance at church up, in order to get his kids into the good school. He would go to church in any case. However, quite rightly, he objects to this sort of misuse of public funds.

I’m afraid this post is muddled and plain wrong. The court’s decision by contrast is crystal clear, and right.

It is a precondition for being allowed to to practise as an Orthodox Jew that you are ethnically Jewish. It is probably also a precondition for Liberal, Progressive etc Judaism that you be ethnically Jewish , albeit the test applied may be a different one. It doesn’t matter what the test is, where it is derived from, who pronounces on it, whether its origins lie in the Talmud; it is a test of ethnicity. This is completely commonplace: everyone knows it is so.

JFS are completely open about it. They don’t impose a test of religious observance; all they require is that the child is ethnically Jewish.

I’m surprised Munby J made such a meal of the case and got it so wrong.

zkharya 29 June 2009, 4:01 pm
It looks to me that E applied for M to enter JFS, and was rejected, within one academic year (2006?), in which time he also decided to prosecute. That hardly seems sufficient time to have submitted M on a course of conversion.

That’s exactly the point, E took the JFS admissions policy at face value and believed that the fact that M had started an OCR-approved conversion course was enough to make M eligible for admission to JFS. He then found out in October 2006 that was not the case, which then left no time for M to undertake the conversion course. In fact if you read the High Court case, this was his primary gripe against the school – they had said one thing and then acted differently.

I disagree, Michael. I suspect two faith parents is preferred to one. That was my experience from teaching in state Roman Catholic schools. That doesn’t mean the other doesn’t happen. But there are a lot more state CofE and Catholic schools in this country.

I certainly can see why JFS would prefer it so, especially if over subscribed, as they were.

I’m sorry you’re sorry. But I do not regard you as a friend, to be honest.

David, you’re entitled to think orthodox Judaism insufficiently evangelical, inclusive or however you wish to call it. Perhaps you’re right, objectively speaking: it certainly used to be, 2000 years ago, or so. I am not sure how one can tell, objectively. Its criteria became more rigorous for all kinds of historical reasons.

“He then found out in October 2006 that was not the case, which then left no time for M to undertake the conversion course.”

He should have done his homework.

“‘The JFS admissions policy is when over-subscribed to give preference to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR) or are following or undergoing an OCR-approved conversion course.’

It’s interesting that the JFS say that as that is not the Court of Appeal’s findings in the case. They found that children were only admitted after or exceptionally very near the end of their conversion course, something that E (M’s father) only found out during the admission process.”

At the time of application, M was not on such a course. Had he been so, that might have made a difference (I do not know). But October 2006 is less than one year to the year of entry, September 2007.

If the OCR course is a year or more, that is insufficient time, and E should have checked. Perhaps he could have aimed for the following year.

If JFS is prepared to accept children currently on a course, M wasn’t on one. Which is his father’s fault.

What is more, it isn’t immediately obvious that E has put M on a course since.

JFS are completely open about it. They don’t impose a test of religious observance; all they require is that the child is ethnically Jewish.

No, the requirement is *halachically* Jewish. A child of a Jewish by descent father and a wife who had a halachically Jewish by descent father would not be Jewish if she had a non-Jewish mother and had not undergone a conversion. A child of “Messianic Jewish” ie Christian parents who may have been originally halachically Jewish would not be admitted. A child of ethnically Jewish parents who had converted to Islam would not be admitted.

zkharya 29 June 2009, 4:15 pm
“He then found out in October 2006 that was not the case, which then left no time for M to undertake the conversion course.”
He should have done his homework.

He had done his homework, you kindly posted this yourself:

zkharya 29 June 2009, 3:44 pm
The JFS admissions policy is when over-subscribed to give preference to children who are recognised as Jewish by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR) or are following or undergoing an OCR-approved conversion course.

What does undergoing mean? To me, and I suggest to any normal person, undergoing means started but not yet completed. There was plenty of time to start M on a conversion course. But then JFS sent E a letter telling him that they would only accept a child who was undergoing an OCR-approved conversion course in exceptional circumstances and only then if the child was very near completion of the course.

Judy, you’re muddying the waters. Firstly, you misunderstand how religious education has worked in non-voluntary aided, non-voluntary controlled state schools since 1944 and revived under the 1988 act, whereby state schools were compelled to provide a daily act of worship (clarified in 1988 as being largely Christian in content), and compelled to provide Religious Instruction. However, there was no statutory compulsion to attend. Very few parents know this. However, all you have to do as a parent is send a letter saying that you do not wish your child to attend (with no compulsion to provide a reason) and your child can withdraw from either or both, assuming that suitable provision can be given re care. I have done this both as a pupil and as a parent. In both cases the schools concerned were ignorant of the legislation, until it was looked up. If you attended that worship and neither you nor your parents wished you to, it was their and your mistake that you didn’t get released from the obligation to attend.

I know what you said before re Tower Hamlets schools. And a) not all dispensations re the structure of schools are the same and b) I was referring to the present context, not a previous one.

What Balls says may be balls, but I was simply saying that he (or was it his predecessor) is in the process of moving the goalposts on entry to faith schools. I think Barry Sheerman (Shearman?) may have commented on it too. This is nothing whatsoever to do with the peculiar nature of eg Davenant School or Central Foundation School for Girls in the 1930s. These were old charitable foundation schools with money stowed away in their coffers, for dishing out to the deserving poor. In the public sector of education, these kinds of foundation schools have to divert those funds into special bursaries and the like, as there are no fees for the education itself. But all this is irrelevant and beside the point which is that there is a permanent dispute between Jews (not between the State and ‘the Jews’) over what is a Jew. A family self-defined as Jewish (and to Jewish to the satisfaction of at least one kind of synagogue), disagrees with the criteria of entry to a Jewish school. People here keep trying to find logic and illogic in the way the family behaved and in the way the CA behaved. Of course, both or either may be illogical, but saying so or even proving so will not make the central problem go away: some Jews disagree with some other Jews bout some doctrines including the matrilineal qualification one. Usually, this doesn’t make much difference, but when it comes to the allocation of state money and education, it does make a difference. But that’s only because a Jewish family said it made a difference. Not, originally the state.

Brownie, you know the rules. If you’re not Jewish, you can’t comment on this. Leave the room.

“are following or undergoing an OCR-approved conversion course.”

ARE following. Not about to follow or can only follow a course that perhaps only begins the next school year e.g. would mean M could have begun to follow an a course only in September 2007, or a course that will only be completed at the beginning of or after has started the next school year.

The dad did not check the courses, how long they were, when they began etc. He simply applied to JFS in September or October 2006 for the next school year and assumed that would allow enough time. He was wrong. He didn’t check. And instead of admitting he’d made a mistake, and putting his son on a course for the next school year, perhaps, he chose to sue.

“What does undergoing mean? To me, and I suggest to any normal person, undergoing means started but not yet completed. There was plenty of time to start M on a conversion course.”

“undergoing” means already begun, andy, which M had not done at the time of application.

“But then JFS sent E a letter telling him that they would only accept a child who was undergoing an OCR-approved conversion course in exceptional circumstances and only then if the child was very near completion of the course.”

If that is so, andy, then JFS is manifestly contesting M’s entry on religious grounds.

Zkharya, E had not enrolled M on a conversion course at the time of application, because JFS had told him prior to E applying that being on a conversion course wasn’t sufficient. You can hardly blame E from not bothering with something that the JFS had told him would not help.

Having been on the inside of school and teaching criteria, I recognise some of this. It’s the language of application and course deadlines, of academic and school years.

OCR has set dates, like the beginning and end of the school year. October 2006 is too late to begin, likely, for school year 2006-2007. E left it too late. He should have applied earlier. He should have checked in what circumstances JFS would accept those on such a course. He didn’t. He fails the deadline for application. That’s it.

He should have recognised that, and sought to be better prepared for the following year. But he didn’t. He resorted to law.

“Zkharya, E had not enrolled M on a conversion course at the time of application, because JFS had told him prior to E applying that being on a conversion course wasn’t sufficient.”

Where? And, no less importantly, when?

Give me a precise breakdown of the timeline of events, please.

“You can hardly blame E from not bothering with something that the JFS had told him would not help.”

When did E apply and when did he enquire? The only date I have is October 2006. That’s too late for just about everything.

I think JFS behaved perfectly reasonably. I think the father simply refused to recognise he’d screwed up, and blamed the school.

Also, re. “exceptional circumstances”. It would have been perfectly reasonable and honest for JFS to say that, in an oversubscribed year, M’s chances of acceptance, even after a conversion course, would have been slim.

The question, it seems to me, is not so much whether it is legal to discriminate against a non-orthodox child of a non-orthodox mother, but whether JFS is entitled to discriminate in favour of children of two Jewish parents (the norm) or a Jewish mother (the exception), for whatever reason, not least of which is that the children may be more likely to come from a more religious home.

In a year of oversubscription, discrimination against is also discrimination in favour.

zkharya 29 June 2009, 4:56 pm
“Zkharya, E had not enrolled M on a conversion course at the time of application, because JFS had told him prior to E applying that being on a conversion course wasn’t sufficient.”
Where? And, no less importantly, when?
Give me a precise breakdown of the timeline of events, please.

You have been quoting from the High Court decision so I assumed you did have a timeline as it’s laid out there but because you claim not to be able to see it then I’ll outline it here

4 October 2006 E was told by Rabbi Rashi Simon of the OCR that the OCR would recognise only conversions preceded by a course of study, religious instruction and observance which took several years, and that it would only be on completion (or very rarely at the very end) of this process that the OCR would even consider recommending a child for JFS.

October 2006 (date not given but after the 4th) E applied for M to be admitted to JFS for the academic year 2007/08.

17 November 2006, having been informed of JFS admissions policy, E wrote to JFS objecting to the request for information concerning M’s mother’s halachic status and saying “Please note that my son is a member of the Jewish faith and a member of our synagogue.”

13 April 2007 the Headteacher of JFS wrote to E informing him that “we are not able to offer [M] a place at JFS” on the ground that:
“because the School has not received evidence of [M]’s Jewish status it would not be possible to consider [M] for a place unless and until all those applicants whose Jewish status has been confirmed have been offered places. It follows from this that, as the School is likely to remain heavily oversubscribed, [M]’s position on the offer list will almost certainly be very low and the likelihood of being able to offer a place is very small.”

15 April 2007 E notified JFS’s Admissions Appeal Panel that he wished to appeal.

10 May 2007 he gave formal notice of appeal.

4 June 2007 he sent revised grounds of appeal

5 June 2007 further grounds of appeal.

11 June 2007 the Appeal Panel dismissed E’s appeal “as the grounds for your appeal appeared to be based on a challenge to the Admission criteria of JFS … it was outside the remit of this Appeal Panel to deal with this, where the Panel took the view that there was no evident unlawfulness in the criteria in question, and that therefore you must take this issue through other channels.”

17 August 2007 E sent a pre-action letter to both the Governing Body and the Appeal Panel.

10 September 2007 E applied for judicial review.

I must admit that I am conflicted about this ruling. The clear truth is that JFS were applying a religious standard rather than an ethnic/racial standard to the definition of who is a jew. Indeed most Orthodox jews would not see Judaism as a race, and would recoil from such a definition. On the other hand, I also think that Jews of all flavours do want to see anti-Semitism included in anti-racism legislation.

I will attempt to prove that matrilinial descent is a religious rather than racial definition of who is a Jew.

My wife is ethnically Indian, born in Singapore whose mother was born Muslim and herself converted to Roman Catholicism. Before we got married my wife converted to Judaism through an Orthodox Bet Din (religious court). Having done so, irrespective of her own ethnic and religious origin, having converted “halachically” she is fully Jewish, as are all her children.

So the criteria of who is a Jew (in Orthodox circles) has naught to do with genetic origins (race) and is exclusively about religious status.

Having said that, at being Orthodox affiliated myself, as long as the religious curriculum of the school meets the OCRs mandates, I fail to see why the JFS should refuse any students who want to identify as Jewish. On the other hand, I also wonder why non-Orthodox parents would want to send their children to an Orthodox school, unless they want their children to get an Orthodox education.

I’ll say it again: why is zkharya more critical of the father’s perceived lack of of homework as regards the JFS admissions policy than he is the actual policy itself, which includes (but is not limited to) a race test?

Quite bizarre.

I’m astonished that this judgment is generating such a lot of hot air: all the JFS has to do is to change its criteria for accepting someone as Jewish to use religious not racial factors and they will be within the law. Easy.

OK. Exactly. October 2006 was far too late to begin any conversion course ending by September 2007. The father had done no research up that time, which was incredibly late as it was.

By April 2007 (!), E had not even told JFS M’s mother was not orthodox Jewish by birth or conversion. It looks like he didn’t tell them before even appealing!

This he would have had to do if he had wanted to take advantage of the clause which allows candidates in exceptional circumstances to enter JFS while undergoing conversion courses.

So, not only is M not undergoing any conversion course, he hasn’t even informed JFS he needs to. He hadn’t even asked the school (even anonymously?), look, my son is XYZ, what does he need to do to stand a chance of entry in September 2007?

Why wouldn’t JFS refuse entry, oversubscribed or not?

“because the School has not received evidence of [M]’s Jewish status it would not be possible to consider [M] for a place unless and until all those applicants whose Jewish status has been confirmed have been offered places. It follows from this that, as the School is likely to remain heavily oversubscribed, [M]’s position on the offer list will almost certainly be very low and the likelihood of being able to offer a place is very small.”

By April no evidence regarding M’s Jewish status had been offered. For other candidates it had. Too late for entry September 2007.

That’s it.

E has said he wanted to take advantage of JFS’ policy on conversion. By the time of application or consideration he had done nothing in that direction whatsoever.

Brownie, the answer to your question re z., (’bizarre’, your word) may be found on what happens when I go to see Arsenal play. When an opposing player kicks an Arsenal player but the ref doesn’t blow for it, I shout, ‘Ref! Foul!’. When an Arsenal player kicks an opposing player, I say nothing.

By and large all the above argument is about United’s Orthodox Jews defending the JFS line and/or claiming that there’s something wrong with the CA judgement and everyone else being at the very least quizzical about JFS policy.

Interesting what people say about a ‘fully’ converted woman under Orthodox rules. I know someone from Satma (he describes himself as ‘Hassidic’) who married a woman who had no Jewish forbears. She converted. Under normal rules she wouldn’t be allowed to do all sorts of things on the sabbath, but because she is a converted Jew, he told me that she could. This has absolutely no bearing on any of the above, but I just thought people might want a temporary rest from the fray and contemplate the rich tapestry of difference that exists under the word ‘Jew’.

I think the rule that a child of a halachically Jewish mother is automatically Jewish (with the exceptions that Judy mentioned) is more similar to a nationality rule than a racial one. Presumably this is because Judaism was founded as a national religion (like most other religions in the ancient world), which was only meant apply to the Jewish nation (as, say, the ancient Egyptian religion applied to the Egyptian nation). Judaism certainly has a large universalistic component as well — ethics, for example — but it’s not like Christianity and Islam, which are missionary religions.

It’s natural for a Christian school to welcome children of other religions — it’s an opportunity for conversion. It’s not because they’re oh so tolerant and multicultural. Christians may be happy for Muslim children to attend their schools; I doubt that they’d be so happy if it were the other way round.

If people are interested to know the educational context for this judgement – take it or leave it that it had any bearing on the matter – then it’s all here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3736225.ece

If you want to follow Judy’s line of thinking that plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose, then don’t read it.

zkharya, how early should E have started enrolling M on an OCR approved conversion course to be acceptable to you?

Marge, apart from venting your prejudices about Christians, do you have any evidence that, say, a CofE school in Tower Hamlets has an agenda of converting Muslims? Or the equivalent? Or is this something you just jotted down on an envelope and thought you’d share with us? I’ve worked in CofE schools that admit high numbers of Muslims and I didn’t spot any of that. In fact, if I had, I have no doubt the local Imam would have spotted it too, and he would have voiced concerns. It might just be that some people (perhaps not all) who run some CofE schools (perhaps not all) might have figured out this multicultural malarkey…

As for the Muslim school analogy, it’s pretty hypothetical, isn’t it? How many Muslim state schools are there? Are any in mixed neighbourhoods?

some Jews disagree with some other Jews bout some doctrines including the matrilineal qualification one. Usually, this doesn’t make much difference, but when it comes to the allocation of state money and education, it does make a difference. But that’s only because a Jewish family said it made a difference. Not, originally the state.

Of course, the Jewish community will never be able to bring that sort of pressure to bear.

I will attempt to prove that matrilinial descent is a religious rather than racial definition of who is a Jew.

My wife … converted to Judaism through an Orthodox Bet Din (religious court). Having done so, irrespective of her own ethnic and religious origin, having converted “halachically” she is fully Jewish, as are all her children.

Yes but (and if I’ve got this wrong please shout – this is unfamiliar territory for me) if I understand the situation correctly, if your wife’s daughter became a practising satanist, the JFS would still accept her as Jewish. And if her daughter was a practising satanist, ditto. And if they produced a long line of many generations of practising satanists, all the children whose descent was from your wife on the maternal line would be Jewish as far as the JFS was concerned.

If I’ve got that right it doesn’t look much like a “religious definition” to me…

“zkharya, how early should E have started enrolling M on an OCR approved conversion course to be acceptable to you?”

Acceptable to be considered for JFS entry? Ask JFS. E didn’t. But acceptable is not necessarily to be accepted.

zkharya 29 June 2009, 6:14 pm

“zkharya, how early should E have started enrolling M on an OCR approved conversion course to be acceptable to you?”

Acceptable to be considered for JFS entry? Ask JFS. E didn’t. But acceptable is not necessarily to be accepted.

I’m not asking them, I’m asking you seeing as you’re the one who thinks that it would have been fine if E had done things properly. Say more or less than 10 years?

Brett 3.29 / Judy 3.22

I mean activist atheist. Not passively atheist.

Sure an Israeli who is not religious might well send their child to a Jewish school

But they are not so to speak a ‘proselytising’ atheist

A Dawkins-following – albeit halachically Jewish – parent (if such a person exists) would not send their child to a J school, on the other hand

I come back to my point – this thread is not abut the merits of faith schools – it is about the muddle headed argument of these Judges

know someone from Satma (he describes himself as ‘Hassidic’) who married a woman who had no Jewish forbears. She converted. Under normal rules she wouldn’t be allowed to do all sorts of things on the sabbath, but because she is a converted Jew, he told me that she could.

Maybe your informant was having you on, or maybe he’s invented some “laws” he believes in because they’re convenient. Or possibly it was a misunderstanding about a woman’s status before the conversion process was completed.

It’s a core concept of halachic Judaism, accepted by all orthodox Jews, that there must be absolutely no difference made between halachically approved converts and halachically born-Jews. In fact so stringent is this rule that it’s counted a heinous sin to allude to a convert’s conversional status or even hint at it by some obscure allusion which would alert listeners to the fact that the person was a convert. So the idea of any Jew not being subject to the Sabbath laws is out of the question. The laws of the Sabbath may be and should be broken to save life, and for no other reason.

A Dawkins-following – albeit halachically Jewish – parent (if such a person exists)

Of course they do. I am one. I am sure there are plenty of others.

would not send their child to a J school, on the other hand

I would send my child to any reasonable school for which he or she expressed a strong preference. In fact, I have done so, against my own preferences.

Almost true, Judy. The only exception I can think of is they are referred to as Bat-Avraham etc on their documents (have I got this right?), and such document e.g. marriage certificate can be perused.

Other than that, the poster or their informant is taking the piss.

Jews are legally a racial group ergo it is unsurprising some criteria for membership are also so classfied.

The question is whether those who so belong are to be favoured as to JFS entry over those who do not, given routine oversubscription.

(the particulars of the E and M case notwithstanding)

The CA in this case it seems says not.

Michael, according to you, JFS has been fouling since its inception. Since its criteria are a lot like those of orthodox Judaism…

Hitherto JFS has merely been following US guidelines, which are those of the chief rabbi of Great Britain and all Ireland.

“nominally secular schools alike can be and often are quite saturated with religiously specific forms of teaching and cultural practice–the extended Christmas observances and their impact on the curriculum are a case in point.”

Well, I’ve got stacks of children all of whom went, or still are going through, the state non-denominational system and the amount of religious ed they got outside of assemblies and RE lessons was minimal. Sure they ‘did’ Christmas, but they ‘did’ a lot of other festivals as well. The fact is, if you want to opt out, you can. The scandal is that it’s well-kept secret, not that state schools are intent on teaching Christianity. Most teachers I know are unbelievers.

So help me, I was baited by Rosen.

Z., my analogy about ‘foul’ was about partisanship not about fouling. Sorry for the confusion.

Chris-
If I’ve got that right it doesn’t look much like a “religious definition” to me…

Well, you are wrong. It’s very much a religious definition. The fact that a religion doesn’t recognise ‘defection’ from the religion is a religious concept.

There is something vaguely similar in Islam – the concept of ‘reverting’, and indeed the concept of apostasy. There was even something similar in medieval Catholicism, IIRC.

Now, you may detest this principle, but it’s still a religious one.

I don’t know, Andy. I doubt it would be as long as 10 years. All we have is E’s version of what OCR said. “several years”, is what he says.

es but (and if I’ve got this wrong please shout – this is unfamiliar territory for me) if I understand the situation correctly, if your wife’s daughter became a practising satanist, the JFS would still accept her as Jewish. And if her daughter was a practising satanist, ditto. And if they produced a long line of many generations of practising satanists, all the children whose descent was from your wife on the maternal line would be Jewish as far as the JFS was concerned.

Most definitely not. Satan worship counts as idol worship and or false-gods worship in Judaism. An adherent would definitely not be admitted, nor would the daughter of a practising satanist, even if she was originally born halachically Jewish. Same status as someone who was either herself or the daughter of a Roman Catholic.

In my view, this is more evidence that JFS and traditional halacha is not in breach of the race relations legislation. Ethnicity is not something you can shed, discard or cancel out because of some arbitrarily conflicting practice. But in orthodox Jewish law, you can shed your halachic Jewish status simply by converting to another religion.

Chris C,

The answer to your question is complicated, and possibly outside my specific expertise. Thus I am giving you my informed opinion, rather than any actual statement of halacha.

In theory every Jew is obligated to observe Jewish halacha, and their is no opt out clause. Nevertheless, in practice, if a family ceases to identify themselves as Jewish (via matrialineal descent) then they loose their “tradition” of being Jewish. If a person cannot definitively state that they are descended from Maternal Jewish lines, they are presumptively not Jewish and require a conversion to join the faith (again).

Additionally, if the family participates in a religion that involve idolatry, I suspect (although I cannot be definitive) that in fact they too require to reconvert to rejoin the Jewish community. Thus I think your satanist, in adopting a pagan religion has disassociated herself from monotheistic religion and actually ceases to be Jewish. Although, I am on shaky grounds here.

If however, the individual adopts a monotheistic religion (Islam, Protestantism), then they have not “cut themselves” off, and may rejoin without any halachic fuse.

zkharya, okay, we can just say several years (by the way, that might be E’s version of events, but if it was disputed by JFS, the judgment would have mentioned that).

Is putting your kid through a several years long conversion course to be completed before the kid turns 11 not an unreasonable criteria considering that if the kid’s mother was born Jewish he wouldn’t have had to have even been to a synagogue?

This is becoming very confusing. Is Judaism a race or not?

There is no such thing as a ‘race’.

Judaism is a nation or ethnicity with its own historical religion.

You seem to be saying that someone who is racially Jewish (according to the halachah definition) can be declared not to be Jewish because of doctrinal conviction.

No idea what this means – please explain.

So surely, Judaism can not be a race as defined by law?

See above.

Is putting your kid through a several years long conversion course to be completed before the kid turns 11 not an unreasonable criteria considering that if the kid’s mother was born Jewish he wouldn’t have had to have even been to a synagogue?

Religions are not ‘reasonable’. Live with it.

Andy you are describing an exception to the rule. JFS is routinely oversubscribed, there must be some kind of discrimination.

Zkharya, read the case. If you can’t be bothered finding out what the case is actually about why are you arguing about it.

Joe: No, you forfeit halachic Jewish status even if you simply confess belief in the divine/prophetic status for you of Jesus or Mohammed and don’t join a Christian religion or formally convert to Islam. Here’s a summary from another source:

“This brings us back to our original question: What can a Jew lose by embracing Christianity? The answer is everything. Christianity negates the fundamentals of Jewish faith, and one who accepts it ejects the very essence of Judaism. Even if he/she continues to keep all of the rituals, it is the same as if he/she abandoned Judaism competely. The Talmud teaches us, ‘Whoever accepts idolatry, denies the entire Torah’. A Jew who accepts Christianity might call himself a ‘Jewish-Christian’, but he/she is no longer a Jew.”

Rabbi Kaplan refers to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Avodat Kochavim 2:5 in support of his statement. Here Rambam states “adayin hoo lo yisrael” (he is no longer a Jew). See also Maimonides, Hilchot Mamrim Perek 3, Halacha 1-3.

It was clearly spelled out by one of the former Chief Rabbis of Israel:

“They are Christians in every way — the minute they believe in Jesus — even if they don’t officially join another faith.”

E could have married a Jewish woman and had children by her. He could have converted his children from a young age. He chose otherwise. Why should Jewish couples or parents be discriminated against for their choices?

Andy, get stuffed.

@Me
You’ve admitted that it’s an unreasonable rule, an extra burden which is imposed purely because M’s mother is not Jewish (in the OCR’s eyes). That is pretty much the definition of racial discrimination. The Court of Appeal found correctly.

Well, you are wrong. It’s very much a religious definition. The fact that a religion doesn’t recognise ‘defection’ from the religion is a religious concept.

I don’t think you’ve understood the judgment. The fact that a largely ethnic test is motivated by religious considerations does not stop it being an ethnic test, and therefore illegal in accordance with race relations legislation.

Consider a school which said that in order to gain admission applicants had to demonstrate their maternal descent from someone who was a UK resident and citizen prior to 1950. Regardless of the motive or intention of such a test, its effect is to discriminate on racial grounds as it would be far more likely that you would pass the test if you are white British than if you are anything else. The JFS test is caught by the same principle.

Almost true, Judy. The only exception I can think of is they are referred to as Bat-Avraham etc on their documents (have I got this right?), and such document e.g. marriage certificate can be perused.
Other than that, the poster or their informant is taking the piss

Correct–the terminology would be “bat Avraham Avinu”, which is a specifically conversion indicator–daughter of Avraham Our Father, ie the original Abraham of the Bible, but such documents are not usually shown about, and it would be regarded as as heinous to refer to it if one had seen it as to take someone’s medical record and stand reading it out in the middle of Trafalgar Square.

Judy,

I was very careful in my wording. If a person remains a monotheist then I don’ t think they disavow their Judaism, or their halachic obligations. I think RAMBAM specifically includes Islam as a monotheistic religion, but exlides Catholicism. I think most Orthodox Jewish authorities today would recognize Protestantism as monotheistic aswell.

Of course the Trintiy fails the monotheism test

Erm, but ALL mainstream Protestants believe in the Trinity every bit as much as Catholics. (I’ll grant you that their approach to Mary is different).

Joe, read the extract I quoted above. It quotes Maimonides, a mediaeval commentator and legal decisor whose views on this subject are accepted as binding for all streams of orthodox Judaism.

As for Islam, there are explicit bans (including if I remember either expulsion from the community or even the death penalty) for following or acknowledging the prophetic status of a false prophet or a false claimant to the status of Messiah, such as Judaism would consider Jesus and Mohammed. In the 17th century, there was a potential Jewish claimant to Messianic status called Sabbetai Zvi who gained huge numbers of adherents amongst the Jews of Europe–he became such a sensation that even Samuel Pepys heard of him and referred to his claims. But he ended up converting to Islam, at which point, he was regarded as an apostate, lost all his followers and was no longer considered a member of the Jewish community. It was a bitter and devastating blow for the Jews of the time.

Erm, but ALL mainstream Protestants believe in the Trinity every bit as much as Catholics. (I’ll grant you that their approach to Mary is different).

Unitarians are the easy counterexample.

My friend from Satma was most certainly not having me on. It was over a matter of what constituted work. It turned out that he could not pick something up or take delivery from me but she could. Quite clear. No pisstaking. And she did collect it or I delivered it to her, I forget which. Meanwhile, Judy the case remains concerning context. Let the camera watching all this pull out and you’ll find that the last few years has seen a very heated debate (I gave you the newspaper reference) about access to faith schools. I think on reflection, there is no way that the CA could have made this judgement without taking some of that into consideration.

If there is one person on HP whose knowledge and intelligence entitles her to be condescending to ignorance and stupidity, Judy is that person.

Basically, the ruling says that Jews cannot decide who belongs to the Jewish faith. That is a direct attack on Jews, despite the denial of this fact exhibited by several posters, and as such it is highly discriminatory. If – and this is a big if, because I don’t believe this is the case and I trust the HL will send this ruling to the wastebin of history where it belongs – if this is what English law provides, then English law is discriminatory towards Jews. That is where deranged and ignorant PC leads.

Ven, I think most Protestants would contest the idea that there is such a thing as ‘mainstream’ Protestantism. CofE contest the idea that they are Protestants. They are English Catholics, it was the Pople who split. Then many descendants of dissenters take a similar attitude to the CofE. The CofE wasn’t true to its ‘pure’ origins or ‘pure’ potential so they had to be. ‘Mainstream’ doesn’t come into it.

Pople = Pope (!)

There is no set time scale for an Orthodox conversion -it depends upon the would be convert’s abilities to learn, adopt and adapt.

“Unitarians are the easy counterexample”

not mainstream, nor arguably any other sort of, Protestantism:

“Unitarians believe in the moral authority, but not necessarily the divinity, of Jesus. Their theology is thus distinguishable from the theology of Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, mainline Protestant, and other Christian denominations which hold the Trinity doctrine as a core belief.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

“Ven, I think most Protestants would contest the idea that there is such a thing as ‘mainstream’ Protestantism.”

Protestantism, wikipedia:

“Major groupings

Trinitarian Protestant denominations are divided according to the position taken on Baptism:

* “Mainline Protestants”, a North American phrase, are Christians who trace their tradition’s lineage to Lutheranism, or Calvinism. These groups are often considered to be part of the Magisterial Reformation and traditionally have adhered to the central doctrines and principles of the Reformation. Lutheranism, Calvinism, and a Zwinglian theology are typically mainline, and as denominations, “mainline” is typically seen as referring to Methodists, Presbyterians, Free Presbyterians and Lutherans, all large denominations with significant liberal, conservative wings.
* Anabaptists were so named from the fact that they re-baptised converts. According to the Edinburg Cyclopedia this name dates as far back as Tertullian, who was born just fifty years after the Apostle John; by about 1600 they were referred to simply as Baptists. Many Baptists do not claim to be Protestant, as this claims a heritage from the Protestant Reformation which came through the Roman Catholic Church, of which the Anabaptists were never a part. Today, denominations such as the Brethren, Mennonites, Hutterites, and Amish eschew infant baptism and have historically been Peace churches. Typically, independent Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations, and the house church movement belong in this category too.
* Certain Protestant denominations do not practise Baptism sacramentally, including the Quakers and the Shakers.[6] These denominations view Baptism as part of a process on ongoing renewal. Antecedents of these beliefs may be found in Strigolniki theology. Normatively, the Salvation Army do not practise Baptism.

There are many independent, non-aligned or non-denominational trinitarian congregations that may take any one of these or no particular position on Baptism.

Some religious movements, such as Restorationists, Nontrinitarian movements, or the New Religious Movements, which share certain characteristics of the Protestant churches, are termed ‘Protestant’ by outsiders, even though neither mainstream Trinitarian Christians, nor the groups themselves, would consider the designation appropriate.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestantism#Fundamental_principles

“CofE contest the idea that they are Protestants. They are English Catholics,”

“The Church of England understands itself to be both Catholic and Reformed:[3]

* Catholic in that it views itself as a part of the universal church of Christ in unbroken continuity with the early apostolic and later medieval church. This is expressed in its strong emphasis on the teachings of the early Church Fathers, in particular as formalised in the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds.[4]
* Reformed to the extent that it has been shaped by some of the doctrinal and institutional principles of the 16th century Protestant Reformation. The more Reformed character finds expression in the Thirty-Nine Articles of religion, established as part of the settlement of religion under Queen Elizabeth I. The customs and liturgy of the Church of England, as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer, are based on pre-Reformation traditions but have been influenced by Reformation liturgical and doctrinal principles.[5]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England

Michael, all I can say is that your friend’s wife is not exempt from the laws of the Sabbath. They may have decided that she is, but they are breaking the laws of the Sabbath. As it happens Satmar Chassidim are usually more stringent in their observance than almost any other orthodox group. I challenge you to find an orthodox rabbi who will confirm that a convert can break the laws of the Sabbath.

I’m well aware of the debates and cases around faith schools and the law over many years, and have published about some of them as well as having researched and taught them as a course leader in Education Studies at university level over quite a long period. I’ve also been a Clerk to Governors to a Jewish school, and a representative to the predecessor of the DCSF of a denominational Jewish body, including making arrangements for and servicing admission appeals cases and writing formal cases for the foundation and admissions regulations of new and existing Jewish schools. And I’ve been an OFSTED inspector leading inspections of schools, including some where I was charged with making assessments of the spiritual and religious provision of individual schools.

There is indeed heated debate about access to faith schools and its supposed impact on equality in education. But this is in fact nothing new. The Labour Party, and particularly its ginger group the Socialist Education Association has been less than happy with the existence of faith schools over many decades; they regarded them as so often the spoilers of the comprehensive ideals they pursued. Tony Blair changed all this by being an open supporter of faith schools and sending his children to RC schools, one of the many things that Old Labour faithfuls found unforgiveable.

The Court of Appeal in my view would have had no business whatsoever in taking that sort of political wishful thinking–let alone abandoned government initiatives such as the dropped 25% non-denominational entry quota into account.

David T @ 29 June 2009, 11:42 am

” I don’t think that clerics should be allowed to set the admissions policy.”

The Boards of Education of the Catholic Dioceses mostly advise both Primary and Secondary School Governors to count the parents and not the applicants attendances at Church. This comes in the form of a circular signed by a Priest who is the Director of Education.

Lots of Secondary Governors count the pupils attendance at Church and not the parents.

Judy, I agree with everything that you say up until that final paragraph. I really don’t see any alternative reading of the law that the Court of Appeal could have used to give judgment in favour of JFS. It’s not political wishful thinking, it’s case law. On the other thread mettaculture was trying to explain why he thought the decision was flawed, but I didn’t get it so maybe you can help.

nominally secular schools alike can be and often are quite saturated with religiously specific forms of teaching and cultural practice–the extended Christmas observances and their impact on the curriculum are a case in point.”

Well, I’ve got stacks of children all of whom went, or still are going through, the state non-denominational system and the amount of religious ed they got outside of assemblies and RE lessons was minimal. Sure they ‘did’ Christmas, but they ‘did’ a lot of other festivals as well. The fact is, if you want to opt out, you can. The scandal is that it’s well-kept secret, not that state schools are intent on teaching Christianity. Most teachers I know are unbelievers.

Yes, that’s exactly what happens. Schools de facto promote a secularised view of Christianity at the centre of a mishmash of tokenised nods in the direction of other religions in the name of Christianity.
All those unbelieving teachers still celebrate Christmas and the vast majority of them observe Easter in some way even if only at the level of getting in some chocolate Easter eggs and going out for an outing.

“Believing in” is at the core of mainstream confessional Christianity, but it’s not in fact an index of religious practice. Much as they’d be horrified at the thought, the supposedly secular lives your non believing teachers lead are saturated with secularised Christian and Graeco-Romano pagan religious practices.

Just like in the time of the Roman Empire, actually. You made your sacrifice or paid your donation to the gods, had the ritual meal and accompanying rituals, maybe gave some presents or had a special party, and that was it.

You may get out of the official assembly and any RE lessons, but as I’ve said before (and I say so on the basis of having inspected over 70 schools as well as having worked as a teacher trainer with about another 200) schools pass on the Christian and associated Graeco-Roman pagan tradition in ways well beyond the scope of the assemblies & RE.

There’s also an element of soft coercion that keeps parents from withdrawing their children from schools’ overt religious education and worship. Parents will not willingly stigamatise their children by having them separated out from their peers for assemblies, and still less do children want to be separated.
That’s the real reason why the number of withdrawals from religious education and worship is so tiny. The only group of parents who always exercise their rights are the Jehovah’s Witnesses. And most schools loathe parents withdrawing their children because it means they have to be separately supervised and provided for.

Of course, it’s well known that the overwhelming majority of secondary schools fall down on their legal obligation to provide an act of worship every day==most do not provide them. But they do do all sorts of soft Christian stuff–secular sermons, charity appeals, anthem like songs and the like. RE is taught as a Cook’s Tour through a whole series of beliefs, but there’s no doubt that Christianity is at the centre of the curriculum, and is what the learners feel most comfortable with.

It helps to spend time in schools which are either non-Christian (such as Sikh, Islamic or Jewish schools) or are Euro-secular (such as in France) to realise how very Christian (albeit secularised Christian) our supposedly secular schools are. Including those taught in by dedicated followers of the SWP.

Judy,

Perhaps we are arguing apples and oranges. I can accept that RAMBAM (please I know who Maimonides was) would have excommunicated any apostate that adopted Islam. Such a person is likely considered an Apikuris. However, I also think that such a person would simply need to do Teshuva to be readmitted into the community, which is far different from conversion.

It seems likely to me that the JFS would reject applications from Jewish Messinaist, for instance. As these “Jews” accept Jesus as the Messiah. Thus despite the aparant conformaty to matrilinal descent, this denomination would be excluded from main Jewish institutions.

On the other hand, if the children rejected their parents messianism, I see no particular reason why they would not be permitted to participate as is (i.e. without conversion).

I plead ignorance on Protestantism. It appears that I had mistakenly believed they rejected the divinity of Jesus.

Two points,

1) Given the family dynamics involved in this particular case, I wonder why the father wanted his son to attend JFS. Having said that, I suspect that one of the reasons that the family did not try to convert their children through the London Bet Din was because they (the family ) likely did not want to practice Orthodox Judaism.

2) Given the family make up, I also doubt that it would be possible for this child to get a conversion through the London Bet Din, while he still lived at home with a mother who did not convert. Although there is no halachic basis for it, most Beti Din will not convert an individual to Judaism if a) their spouse is not jewish and (b) the jewish spouse does not accept Orthodox practice at the same time that their spouse is converting. While I know the policies with a degree of certainty regarding spouses, I suspect that similar policies would exist for children of mixed marriages.

Thus I strongly suspect that the heart of the issue is that both parties want to eat their cakes. The father doesn’t want to be forced into Orthodox Observance, and the Bet Din does not want to compromise what they see as their conversion standards.

Well, you are wrong. It’s very much a religious definition. The fact that a religion doesn’t recognise ‘defection’ from the religion is a religious concept.

Unfortunately for the religious in this case, we live in a country with race legislation and when those laws collide head on with religiously informed selection, it’s perfectly proper that the law of the land holds primacy. Especially when the non-religious are subsidising such institutions, but even if they are not.

There is no such thing as a ‘race’.

Again, this is a problem for you if you live in England. Whether you can make a successful case for this theory on a blog is not something the Court of Appeal need concern themselves with.

If there is one person on HP whose knowledge and intelligence entitles her to be condescending to ignorance and stupidity, Judy is that person.

Quite the reverse. If you are genuinely knowlegable, then retreating into condescension is even more unforgivable.

zkharya, two separate commenters have engaged you in conversation today and neither has abused you or exhibited the slightest rudest towards you. You have called one a “racist” and told the other to “get stuffed”.

You’re not very good at this debating lark, are you?

Judy

A child of “Messianic Jewish” ie Christian parents who may have been originally halachically Jewish would not be admitted.

That seems a terrible shame to me. Why would the system deny the child the opportunity to ‘revert’ if s/he so chose?

I must disagree with Jonathan.I don’t consider the CtAppeal Judgement to be flawed when they concluded that JFS’s entry policy contravened the Race Relations Act. The Chief Rabbi defines a Jew by the ethnicity of their mother regardless of their religeous observation & so excluded the child where the mother converted in Israel or Reform converts where only the father is ethnically Jewish but then admits the child of a lapsed Jewish mother who has intermarried. Not to accept this judgement amounts to being in denial.

אברהם היה אב לשבעה בנים שהיו לו. ושבעה בנים היו אברהם אבא

Judy, Zkharaya, Michael R, DM Andy, Me… you (and any others) are welcome to a guest post on this topic, if you’d like.

“Just like in the time of the Roman Empire, actually. You made your sacrifice or paid your donation to the gods, had the ritual meal and accompanying rituals, maybe gave some presents or had a special party, and that was it.”

Bingo! That’s the system I’m shooting for.

Of course, the Roman Empire didn’t always get it right. If it weren’t for all that fuss over statues in the Temple, the priests wouldn’t have gone bonkers. If they hadn’t gone bonkers, the Temple wouldn’t have been burnt down. If the Temple hadn’t been burnt down (fast forward a couple of millenia) we wouldn’t be in the mess we are all in today!

As Venichka, Judy and have more or less said: this judgment, along with several commenters, applies a Christian concept of “faith” and a pseudo-scientific concept of “race” to Judaism. It fails to take seriously the concepts developed and used by Jews themselves, and this is discriminatory. But it is also a predictable result of accepting state money to run a “faith school”.

Judaism focuses on families in ways that Christianity does not. One may be a Jew in something like the way one may belong to a family: either by birth, or by joining the family in a manner that the family recognizes. To be Jewish is to be party to a shared history and destiny. Thus someone who is born to a Jewish mother but is non-practising is still Jewish from a halakhic point of view, because he or she is still party to the shared history and destiny of other Jews. Faith and practise are highly valued of course, but they are not required for membership, just as caring about the family and its values is not a requirement for being a member of the family into which one is born. On the other hand, someone who wants to convert to Judaism is asked to demonstrate commitment and practise — how much is controversial — just as someone who wants to join a family may have to prove him or herself.

In Judaism, the equivalent of what Christians call faith is commitment to the family, its values, its history and its destiny. This is why the Jewish declaration of faith is the Shema, which is addressed, not to God, but to Israel, i.e., to Jacob the first father of a “Jewish” (to speak anachronistically) family. It affirms the continuity of commitment to both the particular relation between Jews and God (”the Lord is our God”) and to the universal relevance of God to all (”the Lord is one”).

Whether active atheism or conversion to another religion suffices for the loss of Jewishness is halakhically tricky and depends on many factors. (Some say that Maimonides himself was forced to convert to Islam by the Almohades, but as far as I know such people weren’t required to convert to Judaism, only to “return”. There is a lot of rabbinic literature on this, and much depends on the specific religion to which one converted as well as on the circumstances.) However, I think it’s clear that there are circumstances in which one could forfeit one’s Jewishness in virtue of one’s practice, and this too should make clear that the mere involvement of matrilineal descent does not make JFS’ definition of Jewishness non-religious.

It’s pretty obvious why matrilineal descent came to be the indicator of being born into a Jewish family: it was almost always knowable, whereas patrilineal descent wasn’t. I can imagine the criterion changing, but (a) this is tricky because, if it is not a change accepted by all Jewish communities, it creates a schism with horrendous personal consequences (which doesn’t seem to have bothered some non-Orthodox groups), and (b) it isn’t up to the state or the judiciary to make this decision for the Jewish community.

The Jewish people is not a race, but this does not or should not mean that it cannot be the target of racism from those who think it is a race.

In brief: Matrilineal descent is a religious concept, as long as one allows that Judaism is a religion and does not apply inappropriate concepts to it; the judgment is anti-Jewish in effect if not in intent; and religious communities put themselves in peril when they accept state money.

I’d be happy to put that up as a guest post Mendel.

There were, in fact, conversions practiced in the US by a group of rabbis from various denominations – was there not? – which seemed to bridge the great divide in a pragmatic and sensible manner. Who knows – it might well have led to a flourishing of Judaism as some converts moved from Reform practice to full Orthodoxy. Given that the actual practice (and often beliefs) of of a huge bloc of nominally Orthodox Jews approximates pretty closely to certain aspects of Reform Judaism, it wouldn’t have been such a big deal.

But, oh no, the rabbinate in Israel (IIRC) was having none of that.

Judy, you dig so deep and so far into society’s norms in order to prove that it’s really ‘christian’. At the level you speak, everything you or I say is doused and soused with Christianity. Our phraseology is affected by the Latin translation of the Christian version of the bible, unconscious and semi-conscious ways of talking about self-sacrfice and redemption, our notions of heroes as saviours and so on. I thought you were trying to make a more significant point than that. My mistake. But what you’re saying is that going to school in the UK is like going to school in the UK. It’s soooooooo British. Yeah. It is.

By the way, Judy, how interesting that in your pursuit of the truth, you think it’s OK to use my parents’ education as part of the argument but not your own parents’. Funny that, eh? Especially as it wasn’t relevant anyway. Funny that, eh?

I think it has more to do with the Chief Rabbi’s interpretation of who is a Jew ie th epoint of view of the United Synagogue who he represents. Remember there was a second family involved in the original High Court Case that chose not to go to the Court of Appeal. This was a family where the mother had converted in Israel which only accepts orthodox conversions. The Chief Rabbi who effectively decides the entry policy for JFS chose to reject the child . I think the grounds provided was that they hadn’t kept up the level of religeous observation since moving to England.
I know of couples in mixed marriages where perhaps one child goes to an Anglican school & the other to JFS and the father married in the Reform Synagogue.
The term Halachlicaly Jewish is often bandied about by orthodox rabbi’s but when asked to refer to the sources by which such rules were derived you find them struggling. They almost resort to the argument -”well this is the custom- this is the way it has always been”. In answer I think that the Orthodox establsihment wish to retain their monopoly upon defining who is a Jew regardless of the welfare of the child and apart from contravening the Race Relations Act – it seems to contravene Jewish ethic & morals.

“Basically, the ruling says that Jews cannot decide who belongs to the Jewish faith.”

It doesn’t. If the ruling ’says’ anything, it says it to some Orthodox Jews who happen to run a state school. In fact, it would be accurate to say that ‘Jews cannot agree who belongs to the Jewish faith.’ If they could, there wouldn’t have been this row.

One of the more bemusing about this whole thread and its previous ones is the number of times, posters try to slip this conflation of ‘the jews’ or ‘jews’ with ‘the Orthodox Jews who support and administer JFS’. The two are not synonymous. Z., will wheel out percentages of Orthodox versus the rest as if this proves that Orthodox wins the day. All it proves is that there is diversity amongst adherents. It’s religion. What’s new?

‘bemusing’ = ‘bemusing things’

And yes, people are incredulous about my Satmar friend’s wife and the fact that she was allowed to accept a delivery from me on the Sabbath but he wasn’t. I seem to remember it was explained to me at the time, that at some level or another she wasn’t the full article. She was someone who had converted and she was allowed to do that work. I did make a joke about him having married the shabbes goya and he laughed. I am not making this up. It was in about 1994 or 95.

“It helps to spend time in schools which are either non-Christian (such as Sikh, Islamic or Jewish schools) or are Euro-secular (such as in France)”

I do. I have done. I will go on doing. I visit over 30 schools a year and see hundreds of teachers in teacher conferences and workshops. I know pulling rank seems to come naturally to you – you were a loathed and unnecessary Ofsted inspector after all – but perhaps you could leave that to your professional life.

i don’t think the comments made alleging that pupils from families of jewish extraction that had converted to satanism, catholicism, islam etc would not get into jfs are accurate.

all you have to do is show them your parents’ jewish marriage certificate and you’re in. you don’t have to fill in a series of tickboxes about your religious beliefs! the same goes for messianic jews, i reckon they’d be admitted because they’d easily be able to prove their jewish origins.

As Venichka, Judy and have more or less said: this judgment, along with several commenters, applies a Christian concept of “faith” and a pseudo-scientific concept of “race” to Judaism. It fails to take seriously the concepts developed and used by Jews themselves, and this is discriminatory.

In brief: Matrilineal descent is a religious concept, as long as one allows that Judaism is a religion and does not apply inappropriate concepts to it; the judgment is anti-Jewish in effect if not in intent;

Look, I can accept that to Jews, or some types of Jew, this *is* a religious concept. But it also happens to flout race legislation when it is applied as selection criteria for admission to schools (whether state-funded or otherwise). The issue is what happens when those religious concepts collide head-on with the law of the land in which we live.

You think the judgment is anti-Jewish in effect. My view is that any other judgment would amount to a dispensation afforded to one religion or strand thereof to flout race relations legislation and represent an abandonment of a fairly significant principle. If opposing discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity renders one “anti-Jewish”, then I can live with that.*

*Of course, I reject this entirely. It’s like saying support for the repeal of the Act of Settlement makes you anti-monarchy. As it happens, I do and I am, but it doesn’t have to be so.

Basically, the ruling says that Jews cannot decide who belongs to the Jewish faith.

I think it rather more likely that the ruling refuses to enter the debate about who is a Jew. There is no distinction in the RRA between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews. Nor anywhere else I know of in English law.

It would seem that the solution for JFS is 1) for the school to follow the lines established by charedi schools in London and restrict admission to very defined communities; 2) for the US to bite the bullet and declare that all those who practice some form of Judaism other than charedi or US has converted to another religion so that, say, Julia Neuberger is a non-Jew and therefore so are her children; 3) for the US to refuse to cooperate on the Board of Deputies, CST, Israel appeals etc with non-Orthodox “Jews”. Because of the RRA’s refusal to distinguish between Jews, it seems opportune for the US to take this action, so there will no longer be any question of any Reform, Progressive, Liberal or Reconstructivist Jew being admitted; they are simply non-Jews whether or not they have a Jewish mother.

Judy, how interesting that in your pursuit of the truth, you think it’s OK to use my parents’ education as part of the argument but not your own parents’. Funny that, eh? Especially as it wasn’t relevant anyway. Funny that, eh?

Er, relevance? The issue was the presence or otherwise of Jewish children in Church and voluntary aided schools in Tower Hamlets, where you wrote as if this was an innovation related to the policy initiatives of the current government. Both your parents and I were educated in such circumstances in such schools decades ago, and I pointed out that this was historically typical and given you must have had the knowledge of your father’s educational history–which he published on, it was an extraordinary statement. If my parents had also been educated in Stepney, that would have been relevant. As they were refugees, they were’nt educated in this country anyway. In fact my father only had about three years of schooling in his life in his Polish shtetl. Of course, he did work in a cellar under the Lutheran church in Alie Street in Stepney, but I didn’t see the relevance of that to your point or any other point on this thread. Why so touchy about mentioning your parents’ experience? They both seemed to me to have been very proud of it. Your mother wrote a superb piece about her 1930s experience of our school in the school magazine when I was about 12; it mentioned the extent to which it tried to reconcile Jewish and Christian cultures and hinted at her political journey.

I know pulling rank seems to come naturally to you – you were a loathed and unnecessary Ofsted inspector after all –

Dear, dear. I see how you and possibly those of similar political outlook feel. I outlined my experience because you seemed to feel it necessary to explain to me what the legislative changes in the education system related to religious observance were, plus some more recent policy initiatives.

No real Satmar Chassid would claim that converts were exempt from any of the laws of the Sabbath. It’s no different from claiming that converts are free to eat pork.

God i am prophetic i said all this on the thread below.

I also said it would be a boon to racists.

DM Andy said that was a stupid argument.

QM Andy hello?

Judy
A child of “Messianic Jewish” ie Christian parents who may have been originally halachically Jewish would not be admitted.
That seems a terrible shame to me. Why would the system deny the child the opportunity to ‘revert’ if s/he so chose?

Judaism permits people to convert to Judaism. But to gain admission to a Jewish school, you have to have been converted first (or at least to have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the rabbinical authorities that you no longer hold non-Jewish religious beliefs, and that you are actively seeking to conform with Jewish religious laws. Someone professing that Jesus is the messiah is a Christian and is not eligible for entry to a Jewish school. They are however eligible for entry to a Christian school, where they may be taught something about Judaism. Jewish schools aren’t there to convert Christians or any other group–it’s forbidden to attempt to do so under Jewish law.

David,
By all means, use my comment as a guest post.
Thanks!

Me said: “Basically, the ruling says that Jews cannot decide who belongs to the Jewish faith. That is a direct attack on Jews, despite the denial of this fact exhibited by several posters, and as such it is highly discriminatory.”

Nonsense. The ruling says that as some Jews decide who are Jews based on the ethnicity of their mother, they cannot use that definition to discriminate against non-Jews without breaking the racial discrimination laws.

mettaculture, I fear you’re slightly twisting my words. Yes, this judgment is a boon to racists, I can’t argue with that. But do we stop applying the law based on if racists like it or not? The concept that the Court of Appeals should have looked at the case, realised that it convened race relations legislation and then ruled in favour of JFS so as not to give anti-semites ammunition is the bit I find stupid.

Here’s how I see it as someone who deals with discrimination law (albeit mainly Disability Discrimination):

Was M given less favourable treatment by JFS – Yes, his application was placed in a category which meant that he was extremely unlikely to be allowed to attend the school.

Was the reason for this less favourable treatment by JFS based on faith – Yes, the JFS preferentially selects applicants who are Jewish according to rules laid down by the Office of the Chief Rabbi. JFS is allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. [this is as far as Justice Munby in the High Court got]

Did the religious test indirectly racially discriminate – Yes, because it is based on a racial factor (the faith of the child’s mother). There is the ability to convert, but the court found that this placed an obstacle that a child in the same circumstances but with a different racial background would not have had to face.

Just like in disability discrimination law, you have to ask, if it wasn’t for the fact that the person was a different race would that person have been accepted. If the answer to that is yes, then there has been discrimination. That does not mean that JFS knowingly set out to discriminate, just like in the Mandla case, the rule the school had that pupils had to have short hair wasn’t introduced with the intention of excluding Sikhs, but it was still indirect racial discrimination. Some people on this thread have to accept that the JFS have unknowingly done something wrong. JFS can change their admission policies to keep the Jewish character of the school and keep within the law, and I hope they focus on that rather than approach the Court of Appeal judgment with the expectation that it’ll be overturned in the House of Lords.

Michael Rosen

Your 11:37pm ad hominem comment is gratuitous and unnecessary and belittles you

D M Andy – I don’t think I could have put it better – especially your conclusion. I would be astounded if the Chief Rabbi’s office were foolish enough to take this case to the House of Lords. The reality as one leading light in United Synagogue put it (in different terms) – with an oversbscribed school & all the places being filled – it doesn’t matter what the Judicial outcome is since the school will not comply with the letter of the law. The Court of Appeal may have ruled in favour of the family in question – but their child will not get a place.

Nonsense. The ruling says that as some Jews decide who are Jews based on the ethnicity of their mother, they cannot use that definition to discriminate against non-Jews without breaking the racial discrimination laws.

Nonsense is right. Orthodox Jews decide who is a halachic Jew based on two criteria, one of which is the inherited religion of the mother – who could well be an ethnic Chinese. Racial discrimination laws are not applicable.
This is a direct attack on the right of members of the Jewish religion to decide who belongs to their religion. The more I think about it, the more abomnable it becomes.

I visit over 30 schools a year and see hundreds of teachers in teacher conferences and workshops. I know pulling rank seems to come naturally to you – you were a loathed and unnecessary Ofsted inspector after all – but perhaps you could leave that to your professional life.

Rosen pulls rank. Rosen accuses others, in a loathsome (and stupidly ignorant) personal attack, of pulling rank.
Just an ordinary day in Rosen’s sad life.

Brownie,

“zkharya, two separate commenters have engaged you in conversation today and neither has abused you or exhibited the slightest rudest towards you. You have called one a “racist” and told the other to “get stuffed”…You’re not very good at this debating lark, are you?”

A. This is not a matter for debate. Orthodox Judaism is not a matter for debate. It is not for lapsed Catholics to tell orthodox Jews how to run their schools.

B. The fact that you have to tell me I’m not very good at debating tells me all I need to know about your debating skills.

C. Rudeness is sometimes in the eye of the beholder e.g. see A.

JFS’ selection criteria are only racist if you think orthodox Judaism’s membership criteria are racist. The state has not intervened in either since at least 1958 when JFS reopened as an orthodox state school after its being bombed in the blitz.

Oona Stannard, chief executive of the Catholic Education Service, warned that it set a dangerous precedent.

“I am really extremely disappointed by this ruling,” she said. “It is highly regrettable that this has happened because it says that the state is interfering in what constitutes membership of a church and religious group. It is a highly regrettable situation and I hope the Jewish community will be successful in appealing this.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5640295/School-ruling-will-cause-admissions-chaos.html

Respect to Oona Stannard

“JFS’ selection criteria are only racist if you think orthodox Judaism’s membership criteria are racist.”

Actually…if you think the chief rabbi is racist, since it is his office that decides whether a candidate is halachically Jewish, and it is to the judgment of his office that JFS defers.

Also, what Balls said in 2008:

“The education secretary, Ed Balls, disagreed that the JFS had a racist admissions policy. In a written submission Balls said most religions were “disproportionately represented” among certain racial, ethnic or national origins and underrepresented among others.”If it was unlawful to advantage those of particular racial, ethnic, or national origin by giving preference in admission arrangements to children of particular religions, this would apply to many if not most schools with faith-based oversubscription criteria.”"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/mar/05/schools.uk2

From Sedley:

“A person who honestly believed, as the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa until recently believed, that God had made black people inferior and had destined them to live separately from whites, would be able to discriminate openly without breaking the law”, Sedley pointed out, in another comparison that will probably not be welcomed by Jewish groups.”

That is absolute guff, and is entering, I think, into Jewsthinktheyarechosenpeople=Jewsthinktheyaresuperiorand/orareracisttowards everybodyelse territory.

Jews are an ethno-racial as well as religious group, and an orthodox Jewish school as a community must at some level reflect that fact (non-Catholic Catholics like Brownie’s thinking orthodox Jews should receive no state funded education notwithstanding).

An orthodox Jewish school’s selection criteria must at some level conform to orthodox Jewish membership criteria.

“The education secretary, Ed Balls, disagreed that the JFS had a racist admissions policy. In a written submission Balls said most religions were “disproportionately represented” among certain racial, ethnic or national origins and underrepresented among others.”If it was unlawful to advantage those of particular racial, ethnic, or national origin by giving preference in admission arrangements to children of particular religions, this would apply to many if not most schools with faith-based oversubscription criteria.””

There’s a difference between faith school admissions criteria that benefit a specific racial, ethnic or national origins by dint of their historical ties with particular religions, and the applciation of a racial test as part of the selection process.

So whilst children of Irish descent might be disproportionately represented amongst the intake of the local Catholic school, it is not nearly the same thing as said school employing selection criteria that discriminate against non-Irish children.

Actually…if you think the chief rabbi is racist, since it is his office that decides whether a candidate is halachically Jewish, and it is to the judgment of his office that JFS defers.

I couldn’t give a rat’s ass what rules clerics employ to determine who can and cannot join their church. I do, however, care about schools in England discriminating against some applicants by dint of their racial heritage. More so when the school happens to be paid for out of my pocket, but even when it is not.

An orthodox Jewish school’s selection criteria must at some level conform to orthodox Jewish membership criteria.

And it must conform to the law of the land in which the school stands. If one must fall, it sure as hell shouldn’t be anti-race discrimination law.

“I do, however, care about schools in England discriminating against some applicants by dint of their racial heritage.”

Of course you do. When it comes to Jews, people like you always do.

Scream and shout, Brownie. It won’t make any difference.

Orhodox schools will be run on orthodox criteria.

Feel free to ‘bate that with yourself.

It’s not remotely the same thing, Brownie, because the criteria for being a Catholic has nothing whatsoever to do with origins or ethnicity. (And, from the example you give: being Irish by ancestry doesn’t automatically imply a closer association with any particular region.

The point is, as Zhkarya and Judy and others have made clear countless times, the religious grounds for determining who is to be regarded as (the type of) Jew that JFS is intended to provide an education for are not the same that would be used by any kind of Christian school.

So – yes: it is the so-called “anti-race discrimination” law that is at fault, and it is indeed that which must fall, or be amended, or permit an exception.

(And this is even before we get into other consequences of that sort of legislation – such as granting official recognition to the nonsense of the vile and false concept of “race”; or implying that “discrimination” is in itself a bad thing, when it is clearly in reality nothing of the sort)

It is no business whatsoever of the state to tell religious bodies what criteria they should use to define their membership.

This is a fairly basic matter of liberty, and a distinction that may reasonably be made between a broadly free state (such as the UK likes to think of itself as being) and a tyranny.

So called “equality” legislation in this country becomes more Orwellesque with every passing day.

“religion”, not “region”, of course.

Short response as on mobile. I don’t think the Chief Rabbi is racist, but you don’t have to be racist to implement a policy that has the side effect of discriminating on the basis of race. Clear?

“I do, however, care about schools in England discriminating against some applicants by dint of their racial heritage.”

Then you have a beef with all orthodox Jewish schools. So try to close us down.