THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT DECIDE WHO IS A JEW
JFS have lost their final appeal in the Supreme Court, where judges ruled JFS had directly discriminated by refusing a place to a boy (Child M) whose mother had converted under a non-Orthodox synagogue and was therefore not recognised by the United Synagogue. This has massive implications for all faith schools, who can no longer decide their own entrance procedures. Where do faith schools go now, and is this a matter above the law?
The Supreme Court should not decide who is a Jew
Yes, because... Whatever they rule, it doesn't change who is a Jew
A Jew is a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. We know who is a Jew, judges at the Supreme Court cannot understand that. And thus, we extend Jewish education to Jews. There are only two ways to be a Jew. To be born of a Jewish mother, or to convert according to the stringent standards of the Chief Rabbi. We are not a race, we are a religion. This is the commandment of our religion.
The laws of Halacha go back 3500 years, and the Supreme Court, Jewish schools, anxious parents and politicians cannot change them, not now and not ever.
If Jews are not a race then antisemitism should not be a 'racial' crime.
The Jewish followers of religion of Judaism are separate from the race of the 'Jews'.
To claim that there is no such thing as the Jewish race(the claimed descendants of the Biblical Israelites by maternal blood line) is to absurdly ignore the very prominent Zionist basis of the creation of Israel, scoff at existing racism based laws protecting the Jewish 'race' in the west and denounce the very 'racist' holocaust.
The school was discriminating against students who weren't 'born of a Jewish mother' Jewish(racially)
The court supported the ideas presented in the juxtaposed yes argument in saying, I paraphrase: No Jews do not 'require/need' a Jewish mother and that the school was being racially biased(not accepting Jews by religion, simply because they weren't Jews by race)
Vote on this point: Whatever they rule, it doesn't change who is a Jew
See history of changes to this point
The Supreme Court should not decide who is a Jew
Yes, because... The Court does not represent 21st century democratic values
In Holland, Belgium, France and no doubt other countries too, similar cases occur from time to time. To my knowledge, no local Court ever ruled against the schools. One could derive from that that the anti-discrimination laws in those countries are better worded and/or more intelligently interpreted. Alternatively, respect for religious rules and the freedom to exercise one's religion appear to have reached a higher standard, more commensurate with the rule of law in a grown up democracy. So be it. I feel sorry for M and the likes of M who will attempt to enter a Jewish school. They will be branded as not entirely up to scratch - the parents can already book a season ticket at the High Court. Suggestion: JFS could announce to close the school and inform the local authorities that some 1,000 pupils need to enter one specific Catholic school right after the end-of-year holidays. JFS could also decide to create a special class for non-halachic children. Neither will happen as it means rocking the boat and British Jews aren't very good at that. British Jewry has been at pains to align itself with other religious organisations in its self-imposed struggle for acceptance. One can therefore not blame the Courts to believe that Judaism is a religion like the Church of England while it is absolutely not. Maybe there lies the real problem....................
Fact is, the school was racially biased, since it discriminates on the basis of bloodline.
No school can say 'We only accept WHITE students' why should it be able to say 'We only accept students with a direct blood line of female Jewish ascendants?
Vote on this point: The Court does not represent 21st century democratic values
See history of changes to this point
The Supreme Court should not decide who is a Jew
Yes, because... The Real Problem is the Failure to Recognize that there are many Streams of Judaism
The issue in this case was not whether or not the children in question were Jewish but rather the validity of their mothers' conversions.
There are disparate opinions on the process within the community. Unfortunately the government of the UK has seen fit to establish one stream of Judaism and that is the central problem. It is identical to the religious problem in Israel.It doesn't reflect the reality of Jewish life. It has created what are in effect Jewish recursants who are expected to support Jewish life but not allowed to participate fully.
What the court probably should have ruled is that the mothers' conversions were valid and therefore the children met the Halachic requirements. I believe Ruth converted by saying "Whither thou goest I go. Thy people are my people."
Everything else, is, I believe an elaboration that depending on circumstances (remember that for most of the past 2,000 years,converting people to Judaism could get you killed, so being very sure was a good idea.) may be more or less strict. The attempt to establish a Jewish hierarchy like that of the C of E is just one more attempt to put Judaism into a Christian mold. (The Hasidic dynasties are another-a Jewish equivalent of the Polish nobility.)
See history of changes to this point
The Supreme Court should not decide who is a Jew
No, because... This is a great result for modern Jews
'Orthodox' Jews(the main members of best-news-hearing Jewish community) are not happy with the judgment:
The chief Rabbi did not deem the mothers(and therefore their children) Jewish. Which really means they are not Jewish (They aren't by blood or by the Chief Rabbi's test/discretion)
Judaism is a very selective/discerning/elitist religion; not every Tom,Dick and Harry can be a Jew just because s/he wants to be.
The Children' mothers are not Jewish by blood or by conversion(The chief Rabbi did not accept their conversion) and therefore their children should not be attending Jewish schools.
Catholic/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist schools don't admit non-members-of-their-respective-religions, do they?
The Orthodox community have brought this upon themselves. The Chief Rabbi spends hundreds of thousands of pounds of communal money to prevent three Jewish children getting a Jewish education. This is highly distressing, and final the legal system has forced an end to it.
Progressive Judaism (and by that I mean the religion in general not the organisation) would have been set back years by a decision in favour of JFS. This the best news the Jewish community has had in years.
Vote on this point: This is a great result for modern Jews
See history of changes to this point
The Supreme Court should not decide who is a Jew
No, because... the law prevents racial discrimination
Whilst the judiciary cannot classify which people belong to which religion, they are entitled to find that organisations are acting discriminatorily and disproportionately. Here the JFS failed to show to the court a valid and proportionate reason for not admitting a child into the school on the basis that the mother was not in the blood line but a convert to Judaism. The fact that the admissions procedure was referring to a blood line meant that the conduct fell into disrepute with the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended in 2000 and 2003. Under this Act racial discrimination is classed as applying a criterion which puts some ethnic backgrounds at a disadvantage. That was clearly being applied in JFS and therefore the court had no option but to step in.
Vote on this debate: The Supreme Court should not decide who is a Jew
Point 1. Whatever they rule, it doesn't change who is a Jew
A Jew is a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. We know who is a Jew, judges at the Supreme Court cannot understand that. And thus, we extend Jewish education to Jews. There are only two ways to be a Jew. To be born of a a Jewish mother, or to convert according to the stringent standards of the Chief Rabbi. We are not a race, we are a religion. This is the commandment of our religion.
The laws of halacha go back 3500 years, and the Supreme Court, Jewish schools, anxious parents and politicians cannot change them, not now and not ever.
If Jews are not a race then antisemitism should not be a 'racial' crime.
The Jewish followers of religion of Judaism are separate from the race of the 'Jews'.
To claim that there is no such thing as the Jewish race(the claimed descendants of the biblical Israelites) is to absurdly ignore the very prominent Zionist basis of the creation of Israel, scoff at existing racism based laws protecting the Jewish 'race' in the west and denounce the very 'racist' holocaust.
I am not for or against Israel. But the thing the troubles me about anti-semitism is, how can a Jew claim anti-semitism if the perpetrator does not discriminate against Arabs. Wouldn't that make anti-semitism an invalid claim? Aren't the Arabs semites too?
Jews are NOT a race, but a people. Many conversions took place from Biblical time. The sons of Benjamin were give wives from the nations. I guess that would make most of the tribe of Benjamin, not Jewish. How can Jews be a race when Jews are converts of many nationalities. Europeans are watered-down Jews. Most of them, in the words of my Israeli friend, are "not Jews, but white people from Europe."
How can Jew be a race when they look so different from around the world. It is a people and some of them fail to recognize that they have been scattered and they are all of mixed blood. There were many conversions along the way that mixed the original olive to dark skinned Jews. There is no pure Jew.
Point 2. The Court does not represent 21st century democratic values
In Holland, Belgium, France and no doubt other countries too, similar cases occur from time to time. To my knowledge, no local Court ever ruled against the schools. One could derive from that that the anti-discrimination laws in those countries are better worded and/or more intelligently interpreted. Alternatively, respect for religious rules and the freedom to exercise one's religion appear to have reached a higher standard, more commensurate with the rule of law in a grown up democracy. So be it. I feel sorry for M and the likes of M who will attempt to enter a Jewish school. They will be branded as not entirely up to scratch - the parents can already book a season ticket at the High Court. Suggestion: JFS could announce to close the school and inform the local authorities that some 1,000 pupils need to enter one specific Catholic school right after the end-of-year holidays. JFS could also decide to create a special class for non-halachic children. Neither will happen as it means rocking the boat and British Jews aren't very good at that. British Jewry has been at pains to align itself with other religious organisations in its self-imposed struggle for acceptance. One can therefore not blame the Courts to believe that Judaism is a religion like the Church of England while it is absolutely not. Maybe there lies the real problem....................
Fact is, the school was racially biased, since it discriminates on the basis of bloodline.
No school can say 'We only accept WHITE students' why should it be able to say 'We only accept students with a blood line of direct female Jewish ascendants?
Point 3. The Real Problem is the Failure to Recognize that there are many Streams of Judaism
The issue in this case was not whether or not the children in question were Jewish but rather the validity of their mothers' conversions. There are disparate opinions on the process within the community. Unfortunately the government of the UK has seen fit to establish one stream of Judaism and that is the central problem. It is identical to the religious problem in Israel. It doesn't reflect the reality of Jewish life. It has created what are in effect Jewish recrusants who are expected to support Jewish life but not allowed to participate fully. What the court probably should have ruled is that the mothers' conversions were valid and therefore the children met the halachic requirements. I believe Ruth converted by saying "Whither thou goest I go. Thy people are my people." Everything else, is, I believe an elaboration that depending on circumstances (remember that for most of the past 2,000 converting people to Judaism could get you killed, so being very sure was agood idea.) may be more or less strict. The attempt to establish a Jewish hierarchy like that of the C of E is just one more attempt to put Judaism into a Christian mold. (The Hasidic dynasties are another-a Jewish equivalent of the Polish nobility.)
Point 1. This is a great result for modern Jews
The Orthodox community have brought this upon themselves. The Chief Rabbi spends hundreds of thousands of pounds of communal money to prevent three Jewish children getting a Jewish education. This is highly distressing, and final the legal system has forced an end to it.
Progressive Judaism (and by that I mean the religion in general not the organisation) would have been set back years by a decision in favour of JFS. This the best news the Jewish community has had in years.
The court did not decide who is a Jew because no court has the aim of deciding who is a Jew, that is for the Jewish community to decide. The aim of the court was to decide on who is able to go to this Jewish state school. The school can take on a few people that they do not consider Jewish. The amount of money spent on this case to prevent three children going to JFS is shocking and should have been much better spent. JFS is now left with a bad reputation for discrimination and Jewish practice tests to get into the school.
'Orthodox' Jews(the main members of best-news-hearing Jewish community) are not happy with the judgment:
The chief Rabbi did not deem the mothers(and therefore their children) Jewish. Which really means they are not Jewish (They aren't by blood or by the Chief Rabbi's test/discretion)
Judaism is a very selective/discerning/elitist religion; not every Tom,Dick and Harry can be a Jew just because s/he wants to be.
The Children' mothers are not Jewish by blood or by conversion(The chief Rabbi did not accept their conversion) and therefore their children should not be attending Jewish schools.
Catholic/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist schools don't admit non-members-of-their-respective-religions, do they?
"Judaism is a very selective/discerning/elitist religion; not every Tom,Dick and Harry can be a Jew just because s/he wants to be" Quite how this can be legal in 2010 is beyond me.
"The chief Rabbi did not accept their conversion" Judging by his recent book the chief Rabbi seems to believe in Adam, Eve and a talking snake, so why does his opinion carry any weight ?
Point 2. the law prevents racial discrimination
Whilst the judiciary cannot classify which people belong to which religion, they are entitled to find that organisations are acting discriminatorily and disproportionately. Here the JFS failed to show to the court a valid and proportionate reason for not admitting a child into the school on the basis that the mother was not in the blood line but a convert to Judaism. The fact that the admissions procedure was referring to a blood line meant that the conduct fell into disrepute with the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended in 2000 and 2003. Under this Act racial discrimination is classed as applying a criterion which puts some ethnic backgrounds at a disadvantage. That was clearly being applied in JFS and therefore the court had no option but to step in.