For anyone following the "what is a Jew" controversy in England

october010bride

The high court in England just ruled on J.F.S.'s appeal...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/world/europe/17britain.html?_r=1&hpw

Essentially it says that the historical and traditional way of ruling if someone is Jewish (based on the mother) is discriminatory in the modern Jewish religion.

I wonder if this will really impact anything, or just be disregarded by the religious authority.

And whether or not I agree with the idea of "who is a Jew" I still find it shocking that a civil court would rule on a religious matter.

Rachiemoo

This makes me feel a bit ill.

silversparks

Grrr...
The British court has no authority to determine Jewish law. So they can force a change in school policy, but the chief rabbinate of England will never accept their definition of "who is a Jew". This is a major jurisdictional issue and the court was WAY out of line (IMO).

2dBride

Honestly, I do not find the decision shocking.  The court never purported to decide who is a Jew--that was just the New York Times's interpretation.  Instead, it was ruling on whether a state-supported school could impose an admissions test based on ancestry rather than practice.

In this regard, it is not that different from our own Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. United States (1983).  That decision dealt with the tax exemption of a fundamentalist Christian university.  The tenets of the religion prohibited interracial dating.  In furtherance of that policy, the university initially refused to admit African American students at all.  Later, it started admitting only those African American students who were married to other African Americans, and finally it admitted any African American, but enforced strict rules against interracial dating.  It argued that even if denial of tax exemption could be applied to nonreligious schools that discriminated according to race, it should not be applied to religious schools that discriminated for religious reasons.

The Supreme Court did not purport to rule on the question of whether the religion could prohibit interracial dating.  Instead, it said that tax exemption was in effect a government subsidy of an organization, and should not be provided when the organization acted in a way contrary to an established government policy.

The British government has taken pretty much the same approach.  JFS, although a Jewish school, is financed by the government.  The British court did not say that JFS could not make its own determinations of who is a Jew.  Rather, it said that if such determinations were based on ancestry rather than religious practice, JFS could not accept state support.

JFS can at this point decide to adopt an admissions practice that is based on religious practice.  It can continue to treat those students who are not Jewish under Orthodox interpretation as nonJewish students.  (Remember that even in the past, it has admitted nonJewish students, but has simply given priority in admissions to Jewish students, so such a policy would not violate any religious tenet.)  Alternatively, JFS can decide to admit only those students it considers Jewish, and to decline government funding.  In either event, the court is not deciding who is Jewish, but merely who must be admitted to a government-financed school.

Rachiemoo

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_jewish-weddings_anyone-following-jew-controversy-england?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural Wedding BoardsForum:399Discussion:f99c1e38-046d-4e23-a675-83f4729accaaPost:cd975de4-aea9-4170-ac2c-fc3c2362c335">Re: For anyone following the "what is a Jew" controversy in England</a>:
[QUOTE]The British court did not say that JFS could not make its own determinations of who is a Jew.  Rather, it said that if such determinations were based on ancestry rather than religious practice, JFS could not accept state support. JFS can at this point decide to adopt an admissions practice that is based on religious practice.  It can continue to treat those students who are not Jewish under Orthodox interpretation as nonJewish students.  (Remember that even in the past, it has admitted nonJewish students, but has simply given priority in admissions to Jewish students, so such a policy would not violate any religious tenet.)  Alternatively, JFS can decide to admit only those students it considers Jewish, and to decline government funding.  In either event, the court is not deciding who is Jewish, but merely who must be admitted to a government-financed school.
Posted by 2dBride[/QUOTE]

This is simply not true according to The Jerusalem Post:  "Starting with the 2011/12 academic year, Jewish schools (whether they receive state aid or not) will employ admissions guidelines based on religious practice, not ethnicity."
 
<a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260930895175&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260930895175&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull</a>

(the article is very interesting btw).

lacebride

Yes, I live in London and I think the decision is shocking. The whole thing is fuelled by the media, parents lamenting that their kids are excluded, that they themselves attended JFS and would like their kids to do the same. I'm sorry if I sound bigoted but to me it's not that hard: a person is Jewish only if their mother is Jewish or if they undergo an Orthodox conversion. It is clearly possible, albeit difficult, to convert. This cannot be a race issue if anyone in theory may convert.
Frankly, it has long been the case that the school functions under the auspices of the United Synangogue, which is England's orthodox movement. Other schools are allowed to refuse entry because of faith (Muslim and Catholic schools) but this is different only because of the (in my opinion incorrectly construed) race issue.

I think it's so incredibly important to uphold what our faith is and its determination of who is Jewish, and I hate all this pandering to the press. Want your child to attend a Jewish school? Marry a Jewish woman. 

Sorry I sound so militant about this but I am so angry about this decision. People think they can twist religion to suit them, and pull out the 'discrimination' card. It sickens me.

Rachiemoo

Lacebride, I certainly do not view your statements as bigoted.  Everything you said makes perfect sense to me.  As Jews, it is important that we uphold halacha and the Torah, which was given to us by Hashem. 

MoFree

Lacebride,

I am a Jew by Choice, converted under the guidance of a Reform rabbi, so I do not fit your narrow definition of Jewish.  I would have been Jewish enough to be sent to Auschwitz by the Nazis yet do not meet your narrow criteria.  I find your comments very offensive since you exclude a large number of people who live very committed Jewish lives.

tenofcups4me

I'm sorry if I sound bigoted but to me it's not that hard: a person is Jewish only if their mother is Jewish or if they undergo an Orthodox conversion.

That's just the Orthodox definition though; I know that's not the definition used by reform Jews and I don't know about conservative.

Having said that, while I don't at all agree with that definition, I do strongly believe they have the right to define a Jew any way they want without government interference.

silversparks

As a Conservative Rabbinical school student I find the idea that only Orthodox conversiorns are valid to be unpalatable (generally speaking, I think that denominational labels are not helpful in determining much about individual observance and belief, including the validity of conversions, as too much depends on the rabbi who is officiating and the individual undergoing conversion).
That being said, my problem with the English decision is that I think it is inappropriate for there to be a civil definition of who is a Jew. It's a religious question and should be left up to Jewish authorities, including the individual schools and other agencies in accordance with their beliefs and processes.
I disagree that allowing the British courts to define who is a Jew for admission purposes is simply the cost of accepting public financial support for Jewish schools. Does this also give the government the right to negotiate food services with a treif company to serve in the school's cafeteria? Choosing general studies curriculum, absolutely I agree it's their job. Interfering in any way with setting religious policy is not.

2dBride

The point is that the court did not define--and did not attempt to define--who is a Jew.  What it did was to interpret the Race Relations Act, which prohibits, among other things, discrimination based on ethnicity.  Unlike similar legislation in the United States, the Race Relations Act does not have exceptions if the purpose of the discrmination is benign.

The court therefore determined that if the sole criterion for being Jewish is having a mother who is Jewish, then being Jewish is an ethnicity, and discriminating in school admissions based on it is impermissible under the Race Relations Act.  The school could give preference based on following Jewish practices or belief in Judaism, but could not give preference based on a factor that was determined solely by who one's mother was.

Thus, the court's decision has absolutely nothing to do with determining who is a Jew for any religious purpose.  Nor would it interfere with any decisions on whether to serve treif in the cafeteria (which would be a matter of practice, not ethnicity).

It may be that there should be a religious exception to the Race Relations Act.  However, the court said that that is a matter of policy for Parliament.

You can agree or disagree with this decision to the extent that it interpreted existing law, and you can agree or disagree on whether existing law should be changed.  However, to claim that the court was determining who is a Jew is simply factually incorrect.

Rachiemoo

[QUOTE]IThat's just the Orthodox definition though
Posted by tenofcups4me[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is the Orthodox definition - and this is an Orthodox school.  The mother did not convert Orthodox, the article states she converted in a "progressive" shul.  Her child would have most likely been easily accepted at at the equivalent of an American Reform or Conservative Jewish day school, like Solomon Schecter or other Jewish community day schools.  If it was important to the student's parents that their child attend an Orthodox school, the mother should have converted Orthodox imo.

Also, in the article it states that the student is already an Observant Jew, if this is true then it certainly would not be hard or take long at all for the student to have an Orthodox conversion.  Because of this, I feel like these parents just did this to make a statement.

Tenofcups, I know that you don't agree with the court's decision, however I think it is important to realize that it makes perfect sense for an Orthodox school to use the Orthodox definition of who is a Jew.

tenofcups4me

Rachiemoo, I understand that completely and already said I agree that I think the school has the right to decide who is a Jew by their standards (even though I don't agree with their standards). The post I was responding to was lacebride's who said, as if this is a fact for all of us:

I'm sorry if I sound bigoted but to me it's not that hard: a person is Jewish only if their mother is Jewish or if they undergo an Orthodox conversion.

Maybe I misunderstood, but she didn't appear to be summarizing the school's position, but stating that definition as if it was an accepted fact for all of us. And obviously it's not.

tenofcups4me

2nd bride, I don't think any of us think that the court is making a determination about who is a Jew for religious purposes. My objection to their decision is that THEY have decided that the school can give preference based on Jewish practices, but not on parentage. And that is actually a Christian way of determining who follows a religion, not a Jewish one. To me, there's an inherent discrimination and lack of understanding embedded within their decision. (And again, this is coming from someone who actually agrees with the court! But I don't think the court has the right to make that decision.)

Rachiemoo

[QUOTE]Lacebride, I am a Jew by Choice, converted under the guidance of a Reform rabbi, so I do not fit your narrow definition of Jewish.  I would have been Jewish enough to be sent to Auschwitz by the Nazis yet do not meet your narrow criteria.  I find your comments very offensive since you exclude a large number of people who live very committed Jewish lives.
Posted by MoFree[/QUOTE]

So you believe that the Jewish people should be defined by the Nazis?  I really do not understand how they view us is relevant to Jewish law.

silversparks

The "how everyone else categorizes us" (particularly those who want to kill us) and interpreting Jewish law is precisely why the Law of Return is causing such a mess in Israel. Yeesh. But that's a topic for a totally different post.

I'm sorry if the following sounds harsh - my frustration is not really directed towards anyone here,

2d Bride, I understand your point about interpreting the Race Relations Act - but to me that's a technicality and as Tenofcups4me pointed out, the application of Christian values and definitions is inherently discriminatory, and I would argue in this case there was a purposeful advancement of misunderstanding.

Rachiemoo, I just want to re-iterate that I think often people's individual practices and definitions defy denominational labels. Especially since I think it's normal for people to change their practices and affiliations (to some extent) over the course of their lifetimes. Saying that someone who has already converted isn't quite Jewish enough and so the child needs to convert again can be extremely offensive. In fact, it is actually against basic halacha to question a person's conversion, but how and why that has become so problematice in the past 100 years I will not go into detail about here.

 I will add though, that in England (and Israel) where there is a chief rabbinate under Orthodox auspices, either the rabbi who did the mother's conversion was remiss in not explaining to her that a "progressive" conversion was not likely to be recognized by mainstream Jewish institutions in that county, or the mother at that time believed her conversion was sufficient and was willing to take the risk that her conversion (and the status of her children) wouldn't be recognized in the future.

Wow, I'm really sorry, I will get off my soapbox now

2dBride

the application of Christian values and definitions is inherently discriminatory

Actually, the UK has no guarantees against religious discrimination.  Quite the opposite, in fact--a Christian religion (Church of England) is the official religion in the UK, is supported by the government, is taught in the public schools (other than the ones run by other religious authorities), and carries out certain governmental functions.  For example, anyone can get married in the Church of England, even if they are not a member of the Church of England.

Whether that should be the case is another matter.  I have a general concern about state-sponsored religion, which extends to the State of Israel (which also has no guarantees of neutrality regarding religion).  However, you cannot expect a British court to apply US standards of freedom of religion.  Indeed, the US Constitutional amendment guaranteeing the separation of church and state was a rebellion against the then-existing situation in England.

2nd bride, I don't think any of us think that the court is making a determination about who is a Jew for religious purposes.

Actually, the OP said,

"I wonder if this will really impact anything, or just be disregarded by the religious authority.

And whether or not I agree with the idea of 'who is a Jew' I still find it shocking that a civil court would rule on a religious matter."

deborahandsteve said,

"the chief rabbinate of England will never accept their definition of 'who is a Jew'."

Clearly, at least some people believed that a civil court decided "who is a Jew."

2d Bride, I understand your point about interpreting the Race Relations Act - but to me that's a technicality

That is not a technicality--it is the substance of the decision.  The court stated its own view that discriminating against Orthodox Judaism was bad policy.

"the Jewish law has enabled the Jewish people and the Jewish religion to survive throughout centuries of  discrimination and persecution. The world would undoubtedly be a poorer place if they had not. Perhaps they should be allowed to continue to follow that law.

70. But if such allowance is to be made, it should be made by Parliament and not by the courts’ departing from the long-established principles of the anti-discrimination legislation."

The UK does not have a written constitution like ours.  The documents they would refer to as their constitution are subject to modification by any law passed by Parliament. The job of the courts, therefore, is entirely to interpret the existing laws, not to determine whether such laws are constitutional.

Also, in the article it states that the student is already an Observant Jew, if this is true then it certainly would not be hard or take long at all for the student to have an Orthodox conversion.

The student is an observant Masorti (equivalent to Conservative) Jew.  He is not an observant Orthodox Jew.  Thus, it could indeed have been hard and taken long for him to have an Orthodox conversion.