An illiberal and ignorant judgment

Dan

Excellent article Melanie.
It is a shame that the Jewish community in the UK is not strong enough to opt out of the state sector and provide free Independant schools to Jewish families.

Dan
matisyahu.co.uk

just Louise

I'm not Orthodox,but I'm absolutely appalled at this decision for the reasons you so cogently state, Melanie. I applaud Rabbi Bayfield for his stance, and regret that of most of the Liberal movement. I sympathise with the child involved, but surely his mother was told, by the Masorti authorities when she converted through their movement, that the conversion would not be recognised by the Orthodox. Surely she was told that, and was content with it at the time. The JFS is a very old and venerable school, and I feel it was mischievous and selfish to being the case against it. The ramifications are huge, so much bigger than the "rights" of individuals. (I assume that the Lord Phillips involved in the Supreme Court judgment is the same Lord Phillips who sprang the surprise - on a Muslim gathering in the not too distant past - that his roots are Jewish, something not, apparently, generally known even to Jews until that sudden disclosure; if so, I mourn his verdict all the more).
Having said that, perhaps there is a silver lining: perhaps conversion to Judaism through an Orthodox Beth Din, traditionally so very difficult in this country, will become just a little bit easier, for the sake of K'lal Israel.

Jez

.... the state will not accept their own decision about who is or is not a member of their own community but uniquely stigmatises them for doing so.

Welcome to the club Melanie.

sebastian

Forgive me for stating the blindingly obvious, perhaps, but this does seem to illustrate the difficulties of defining what is and what isn't a "race" even though a certain Jewish law is, itself, quite clear what "race" isn't. Here, "race" seems to have been saddled with the rather vague meaning that has been foisted on society by the multiculturalists and the anti-racists who see "racism" behind every tree and under every bush.
It's indeed unfortunate that the religious definition of Jew - as applied by orthodox Jewish law and which is quite specific - was shouldered out by a more secular, social version which is, in my view, ill defined and general. I'm wondering now if this precedent - which I assume it'll be - will make legally formal the latter concept: "race" can also mean "religion". Discrimination on grounds of ethnic origins or on grounds of creed become one and the same.
If so, what are the possible implications for that most segregationist and discriminatory religion of all? Muhammedism.
Test case anyone?

Trumpeldor

From JFS site http://www.jfs.brent.sch.uk/admissions.aspx

UPDATE ON JFS ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 2010

In view of the recent Court of Appeal ruling, JFS will no longer be able to give priority according to Jewish status. Instead, the School will give priority to those who meet a religious practice test based on guidelines from the Chief Rabbi. The basis of that test has now been agreed with the Schools Adjudicator. Those applicants wishing to be considered as priority applicants for available places will need to obtain a certificate establishing religious practice, based on the child's synagogue attendance, Jewish education and/or family communal activity. This includes siblings and external applicants for Sixth Form places. The form of that certificate can be seen by clicking here. It will be seen that only synagogue attendance as from 1 September 2009 will be relevant. Applicants are strongly advised to contact a synagogue as soon as possible to establish what they need to do to be able to demonstrate attendance and get the certificate signed.

The School wishes to make it clear that it is making this change only because it is advised that legally it has no option in the light of the judgement of the Court of Appeal but to abandon the principle of giving priority to those children who are Jewish according to the religious principles stated by the Chief Rabbi. The School very much hopes that the Supreme Court will allow its appeal, so enabling the School to revert to the admission policy which the School considers to be appropriate, proportionate and necessary for it as an Orthodox Jewish school: that is, to give priority to those children who are Jewish according to religious principles stated by the Chief Rabbi, irrespective of the extent to which the applicants and their families practise their Judaism. It should be noted that the certificate of religious practice does not confirm that the child is Jewish in accordance with Jewish law.

It is called '' tit for tat'' and reformists will not be accepted in an ORTHODOX jewish school and this a good reaction

Harvela

I'd be interested to see how the Haredi community accomodate this ruling .At the time of the original ruling they were on record as being quite content with the decision as " in any case ,our entry criteria is based on strict religious observance and knowledge ".
It would be interesting to put that to the test by their reaction to a hypothetical situation whereby a Masorti /reform convertee with the required level of observance and knowledge sought to gain entrance to a Haredi school. Methinks the application would be swallowed up in a Haredi version of the Bermuda Triangle .
That aside the mother ,a teacher at the school would have been absolutely aware of the schools admission policy . Why did she choose a Masorti conversion knowing full well it was unacceptable to the school. I understand she is a religious woman and an orthodox conversion would have been a mere formality.This is obviously a crusade for the woman .
Jewish lineage is passed down through the mother for the simple reason that a mother will always know her own child whereas a Jewish man could never be certain if that child was his .That is what has kept us together and maintained our identity for some 3500 years .Our identity will continue long after this court and its ruling is relegated to the footnotes in a history book.
Neverthe less a sad and disturbing day for the Jewish community.

Liz SA

The JFS is a state secondary school. To quote their website "Our students reflect the very wide range of the religious spectrum of British Jewry." If the school or the parents minded about Orthodox Judaism that much, they'd send their children to strictly religious schools. One of the things the JFS was going to do before this judgement, was to ask each family to fill in a form (to be verified by the community Rabbi) each time their child attended a shul service. It was to work on a points system One point for a once a year attendance and so on. If they had to ask parents to do this, it really begs the question how committed to religious Judaism most of the families are anyway. As much as I find the ruling objectionable, because the woman concerned has blatantly used her child as a pawn in her battle with the school, I do wonder whether there isn't rather a large dollop of humbug involved in all this.

simone Bacchini

A question from the Gentile perplexed:

Melanie states that "there is no doubt that the Jews are an ethnic or racial group"; but what about Jews from - say - Ethiopia or other countries. Doesn't this show that Jews are ONE racial or ethnic group, but can come from all backgrounds?

Thanks.

Trumpeldor

This supreme court decision is stupid
It will prevent Halakhic but non practicing Jews to attend this great school which is shameful
How can a non religious jury decide who is an orthodox Jew ?
After the outrageous suit against Mrs Livni, England shifts to insanity

phil

I hesitate to ever disagree with my very valued fellow contributor Just Louise and in fact Melanie ,but on this most emotive issue I feel it is necessary to say my bit (what,s new :)).

My attitude is if someone wishes to be Jewish it is between them and God and not man and that in the end that God will be the final judge of one,s sincerity ,not a Rabbi !-- His job I see as one which impels him to teach Judaism to anyone who wishes to become Jewish , and will go through the extensive teaching that is required Surely nobody thinks a person would try to become a Jew unless there was a good reason .excluding mere convenience .In this case was there a hidden desire just to get into a better school ?and I think I can discount an early decision to marry an orthodox Jew:)

The very fact that the mother wishes her child to be educated in the Jewish way of life albeit at an orthodox school speaks volumes to me ,would anyone think it is right to send the child to a Catholic school for instance where it could not participate in religious instruction because of its belief in Judaism and would cause problems to the conscience of any priest who had to teach that child .

In fact I ask how dare we condemn this child to an education outside the families wishes .We all know how difficult the Rabbi,s make conversion to orthodox Judaism and if the person who wishes to change is not very bright it is an immense task to do so ,never mind the physical problems attached to it. I was blessed with parents who were married in the synagogue as orthodox and I was brought up as an orthodox Jew but one who was also taught to use my own conscience and whatever brain God had given me .Both of those tell me that these exclusions are wrong and that our God will not think kindly of us for blindly following the interpretations of man .

It is our tradition to argue about everything but sometimes I wish our host would not condemn everyone who disagrees with her vision of life -I know well how she defends our culture and I have great admiration for her courage and tenacity ,but sometimes she should realise that she can be wrong .,even though I respect she has every right to conclude that I am wrong in this matter ,but please with calmness and a good heart .

MikeF

According to the Daily Telegraph Trevor Phillips said: “This is an important verdict. The commission believed that it had to intervene in order to preserve the same protection against racial discrimination for Jews as for anyone else – not least at a time when anti-Semitic groups are active across Europe.

“The decision of the court achieves that end; and it confirms that no school will be allowed to discriminate based on the ethnic origin of an individual.”

So he is saying that non-Orthodox Jews need to be protected against Orthodox Jews, whose actions are vaguely equated with those of "anti-semitic groups".

The bottom line in this is simply that the EHCR and the law are aiming to eradicate all forms of self-definition that do not accord with multi-culturalist dogma. In this instance Phillips could,of course, have put it rather more pithily by borrowing the words of Dr Karl Lueger: "I decide who is a Jew."

phil

Trumpeldor is this truly our Jewish way of life ----------"it is called '' tit for tat'' and reformists will not be accepted in an ORTHODOX Jewish school and this a good reaction "

Sometimes I have to wonder whether I am a Jew or something from outer space who accidentally got circumcised and had a Barmitzvah ,laid tefillin and said Kaddish for two incredible human beings .What road are we drifting down when the kindness and morality that I saw as a child has led an orthodox Jew to say such things ,you may be angry but you are wrong!!

Pot Head

No school that excepts public money should be able to discriminate on the basis of religion. If you want to push religion down the throat of your children pay for it yourself.

Harvela

Playing devil's advocate ,one really must question the advice given to the governors of JFS in the first place . Surely they should have recognised the seriousness of this womans intent and its potential to harm both school and community after the opening shots and well before it turned litigous.It was a one off and the child should simply have been quietly accepted. Not great I admit but a darn sight better then the mess the community finds itself embroiled in now .

ahad ha'amoratsim

"Lord Phillips thus appears to have laid down that religious criteria do not determine who is or is not a Jew." Or to put it another way, he ruled that any valid religious criteria must use a Christian-centric definition of religion.

Two further absurdities in the majority's approach.

1. The student could become Jewish by converting in a valid Orthodox conversion -- an outcome that would be impossible if this were a case of ethnic or racial discrimination.

2. Orthodox Judaism teaches that this student's mother did not validly convert, and that the mother and student are, as a consequence, not Jewish. If the student rejects this belief, the student has by definition rejected a basic belief of Orthodox Judaism. Yet the court seems to say that the school must admit this child because of the child's supposed belief in the Jewish religion --- depsite the student publicly rejecting the beliefs of that religion. L'havdil, that is a bit like saying that a student who denies the infallibility of the Pope speaking ex cathedra is nonetheless Catholic and must be considered so by a Catholic school, or that student who does believe in papal infallibility is nonetheless Anglican.

Lord Coke reports a case of a Jewish man whose will left a large sum of money in trust for a yeshiva (which the decision called a "jasuba"). The court declared that because yeshivas teach a non-Christian religion, the gift was void as against public policy. But, said the court, the testator intended to benefit religion, which was a worthy cause. Accordingly, the court reformed the gift and gave the money in trust to train Jewish orphans in the Christian faith, and patted itself on its collective back for upholding the testator;s intent. Lord Phillips' supposedly enlightened decision is every bit as hostile to Jews as the decision reported by Coke.

Greg D

phil - no turning the other cheek here, I'm afraid.

ahad ha'amoratsim

Phil, "My attitude is if someone wishes to be Jewish it is between them and God and not man and that in the end that God will be the final judge of one,s sincerity ,not a Rabbi !"

Phil, with all due respect, your views as to what Judaism should or should not believe are largely irrelevant. It is beyond dispute that what Orthodox Judaism DOES believe is that the mother's conversion had no validity and that the student accordingly is not Jewish. If the family does not like that belief, they are free to enroll the child in a non-Orthodox school. It is basic to human liberty that secular courts cannot dicate what beliefs a religion can and cannot hold. It is a short step conceptually from this case to a case ordering a congregation to hire a "Rabbi" who has accepted Christianity.

Greg D

Phil, December 16th, 2009 4:19pm

That tripped me over, phil! I know you find it hard to believe me, but I found your words here genuinely interesting - and, I admit, not altogether unwise. I never thought that I would or could write that.

Carl Gardner

I agree with you in essence, Melanie: it seems to me Lord Rodger's is clearly the best-reasoned judgment. The majority is I think misled and their reasoning perhaps clouded by too much focus on the way some abstract aspects of discrimination law were analysed in past cases - instead of looking at this case from first principles.

You're quite right, too, to remind people of Lord Phillips's absurd (for the President of the Supreme Court of a leading democracy) defence of sharia family law. How does he see JFS as effectively racist, yet fail to see that as sexist? That needs a subtle mind.

Anyway, here's my reaction to the ruling:

http://www.headoflegal.com/2009/12/16/r-e-v-jfs-something-has-gone-wrong/

Augustus

Isn't it the case that converts,
or Jews by choice, because conversion requires a real commitment, often end up knowing more about Judaism than many of those born into the faith? So is there such a thing as a Jewish race, or Jewish blood? Jews are a people, a religion, a family if you will,
but are they really a race in the strict legal interpretation
of the word? I would say that saying so only helps those who possess a negative agenda towards Jews. After all, it was Hitler who really popularised the idea of a Jewish race, where even if they had a relative several generations back their fate was sealed. If they are seen as a race then how could those in the Bible, such as Ruth, have been able to convert to Judaism. But it is certainly difficult for a non-Jew to completely understand the workings of an orthodox mind that does not teach that all humans are equally God's children.

DW

It's hard to imagine a better advertisement for a US-style separation of church and state than this case.

This ruling is not really "illiberal": It simply highlights the inherent contradiction of publicly funded religious schools in a liberal, multi-faith society.

If religious authorities want to discriminate against children on the grounds of some irrational atavistic tradition, they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to subsidize them to do it
After all, who decides what religious schools get to be subsidized? What about, say, a madrassa that teaches violence against non-Muslims? An institution (the Roman Catholic church) that systematically discriminates against women at all levels and is guilty of appalling complicity in child abuse in some countries?

just Louise

Phil, 'im at 'ome said exactly the same as you have! There's merit in the argument, I fully admit.
The entire issue of matrilineal descent is in fact rather interesting. Traditionally, as we know, Jewishness is determined by the status of the mother, yet Kohanite and Levite status are conferred via the paternal line. Is there not an inherent contradiction here?
Perhaps there's merit in the crusade made some 25 years ago by the distinguished American Reform rabbi Alexander Schindler, that patrilineal as well as matrilineal descent should be recognised generally in Judaism (as I think is now the case in the Reform movement in the USA, but not, of colurse, in Orthodoxy). It would certainly keep our numbers buoyant. What's the real reason for matrilineal descent only, when all is said and done? I don't think it was operative until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Perhaps someone on here who's knowledgeable in these things could explain why conversion to Orthodox Judaism is so very difficult in Britain - I've heard it said that this was the trade-off between Manasseh ben Israel and Cromwell ("Yes, you can resettle in England, but don't make converts") but this might be a myth. I've also heard it ascribed to Jewish fears of falling foul of the the Blashphemy Act of about 1693. Bevis Marks broke ranks in the late 19th century, and began admitting converts, though. Otherwise, the usual practice was for intending converts - to pop over to Amsterdam.

phil

Greg D
December 16th, 2009 5:29pm perhaps greg -you know the phrase -goodness and mercy shall etc -is beginning to get through to you and that you will realise that there are many Jewish people who have not been hypnotised by thousands of years of adhering to stories from the bible alone and that they use their God given senses to know right from wrong .I write what I believe in my heart is right and fair using the influences that have been instilled in me by my Jewish upbringing -I am not here to knock other JEWS if they disagree with me ,I just hope I might influence some of them to think again .

phil

Dear Louise I am going to watch the football and will answer you later or tomorrow depending on whether I will be smashing the house up if my team loses :)

C. Gee

just Louise:

"What's the real reason for matrilineal descent only, when all is said and done?"

When all is said and done, "it is a wise child who knows its father".

That may be a part of the orthodox reasoning - but I am not a scholar of Judaism.

Liz SA

Just Louise, I guess the reason conversion to Orthodox Judaism is difficult (everywhere) is because the Rabbis require the convert not only to understand the many and complex laws associated with Shabbos, the Festivals, Laws of Family Purity etc, but also because the convert has to promise, at their mikvah, to obey Jewish Law to the best of their ability and with a sincere heart. This obviously requires knowledge and committment - neither of which come easily to anyone. In other words, you can't commit to something if you don't know what you're committing to. And yes, most converts do know a whole lot more than most Jews. I believe the issue concerning the JFS hinges on hypocrisy and the school espousing a luke warm 'traditional' orthodox approach and yet refusing to admit a family whose general level of observance is probably no better or worse than most other families whose children attend the school.As I said before, any family who wanted their child to have a genuinely religious education would not send their child to JFS.

just Louise

C. Gee, sure, but if that was fundamentally their reasoning they would hardly entrust Kohanite and Levite status to paternal descent.
Liz, I understand all that, and many thanks for your reply, but it doesn't appear to explain why Britain has always made conversion so difficult compared with, say, Holland.

Sorry about my spelling of Blasphemy above - shome mishtake shurely.

phil

just Louise
December 16th, 2009 6:59pm You have a wise and good mensch at home feed him well .:)

phil

AUGUSTUS"But it is certainly difficult for a non-Jew to completely understand the workings of an orthodox mind that does not teach that all humans are equally God's children." It is equally difficult for an "orthodox" Jew, if that is what I am because of my parents marriage,to understand .If you are not Jewish you have no idea what these guys get up to everday arguing amongst themselves who is the most observant and becoming so detached from reality -MOST ARE GOOD AND DECENT MEN make no mistake about that ,but wordly? ,forget it .

Trumpeldor

@Phil,

I am not saying I am right.
On a daily basis,I notice the demise of Jewish couples,lives and education wherever I turn my sight on !
The only exceptions are Orthodox and Hareidi families where the flame of the Thorah burn on
Reformed judaism is an abysmal failure which just seeds dissent among us
Had the involved mother converted in the orthodox way, this tragical judicial comedy would not have occured
If she really wanted her kid to be raised in that peculiar orthodox school,she had to follow the orthodox rules !
Thanks to her selfishness ,many halahic jewish families will struggle more to put their children in that school

Simon Denis

An extraordinary judgement from our "supreme court" - oh, for the days of the House of Lords! I can add nothing to this excellent article but my support. The ruling is deeply sinister. Not only does it represent an arrogant trespass upon questions of Jewish identity, it typifies the advance of the state at the expense of free standing institutions. The old, hard, bitter, know-it-all left - that left which so many thought dead at last in 1989 - is rearing its many ugly heads all over society. Democracy, Britain's independence, the public schools, the freedom of the universities, the freedom to articulate conservative moral attitudes, even - are all under mortal threat to an extent unimaginable at the start of Labour's latest bout of power. I can only hope that supporting the Conservatives when the time comes - inadequate and imperfect though they be - will do something to undo foolish and reckless decisions like this one.

J.S.

The National Post in Canada also published an article about the (then) upcoming UK Supreme Court decision about "Who is a Jew?" Now that the court decision has been reached, it appears that Gentiles are now to dictate to the Orthodox "who is a Jew." As others note, that, in itself, is a racist attitude. (The UK, imo, grows increasingly worrisome, illiberal, and inhospitable to Jews.)

botogol

"Orthodox Jews from giving preference in their schools"

But it's not their school. It's a government school

Barbie

Just another example of the State interfering in matters which should not concern it. The Jewish community should be allowed, as it has done for many years, to determine who they consider to be Jewish for the purpose of entry to JFS. As others have commented it is discriminatory, but if a school is oversubscribed there has to be selection by some means. If the school did not have the best results in Brent I doubt the case would ever have arisen. The parent knew the rules of admission before the application was made. it would be of more benefit to all if the State raised the standard of education in all its secondary schools to that of JFS. JFS was never oversubscribed when its results were similar to those of other State schools.

London Calling

I respect your judgment on this Melanie and understand the complexity of the situation. Viewing it from all angles the point is, it is discriminative criteria to reject siblings of non Jewish mothers on the logical basis that no female line could possibly hereditarily claim pure Jewish roots going back five thousand years. And on that basis a deep prejudice has arisen.

To uphold the law within a democracy based on one’s religious belief’s and practise has to work within the framework of those laws. In which case the JFS would never been allowed to discriminate in the first place unless the criteria for admissions recognised
That it was in breach of human rights based on inequality, in which case Orthodox Judaism schools would have had to accept mothers who were converts to Judaism.

I am baffled as to how the JFS has been allowed to discriminate for so long and that it has taken until 2009 to question the justification of that prejudice based on ethnical religion.

On a lighter note it reminds me of the Harpo Marx Joke, when he took his daughter to a swimming pool and was refused entry because he was Jewish. Harpo remarked humorously “My daughters only half Jewish, can half of her go swimming?”

Yes Melanie it’s baffling…

Leslie

simone Bacchini @3:58 pm

"Melanie states that "there is no doubt that the Jews are an ethnic or racial group"; but what about Jews from - say - Ethiopia or other countries. Doesn't this show that Jews are ONE racial or ethnic group, but can come from all backgrounds?"

You are right to be confused. British people use the term 'race' too freely I think. Jews are not a race. They are a tribe or a group of tribes. So, Judaism should be considered a tribal lineage, not a race. There are Jews of all races.

The British court has made clear their opinion of Judaism really. They believe that Halachic law is 'racist'. They don't like the idea that Judaism doesn't conform to Christian or Muslim standards. In Britain's never-ending quest towards 'equality', it is 'racist' to consider oneself chosen or special. Particularly to be born special is a grave sin.

It should make no difference weather this school is funded by the state. If it's a Jewish school, Jewish law should decide who's Jewish.

Maybe Israel should start deciding who they consider to be a real Christian or real Muslim. None of their business? Exactly.

C. Gee

just Louise:

No women were allowed to hold religious office or perform priestly functions. This was handed from father to son. Blood for Jewish descent, gender (not usually problematic) for "class".

Again, I am guessing. I would love to know the correct answer.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

I like orthodox Jewish because they are real, they fellow the religion from heart G*d bless them, the liberals some of them orthodox too and some are up to believing contemporary political believes like doing yoga or they don't bother going to Beit Knesset to pray and to study, some British Jewish are not respecting the culture and the religion and there are fewer British Jewish in Britain today then 20 years ago G*d save the British Jewish and I hope they practice their believes like the orthodox

David Regarp

A lot of bloggers have missed one of the points. The Supreme Court's ruling does NOT affect only state-aided schools, but also private faith schools. A so-called offence against the law is an offence whether committed against pupils of JFS or any other small private Jewish Orthodox school.
How interesting that this "decree" was issued during Chanukah - maybe this is a wake-up call to UK Jewry?

Tom Brown

Pot Head - interesting point - I too believe in pay as you go education. Is this what Michael Gove's Swedish style reforms herald? Basically parents are given a grant of 5-10K per annum payable per child which can be spent at the school of their choice - and topped up with private contributions if you want junior to go to Eton or Fettes. Faith schools should be free to admit whom they like. Naturally they will only be licensed if they purvey curricula which includes Shakespeare, 1066, principles of democracy and free speech. This to be worked out by a headmasters conference in conjunction with parents - anyone but the pc bureaucrats currently denuding our schools of serious intellectual inquiry and free thinking. Lots of competitive sport and terms which begin and end at the same date across Britain

just Louise

Phil, you try cooking for a man who won't eat eggs or egg products!

C. Gee, yes, I'm sure you're on the right track. But in that case they're prepared to trust the apparent paternity. Some people point out that maternal descent ensures that children born as a result of rape, for example during pogroms, are assured of Jewish status. But that's a chicken-and-egg situation (strange metaphor in the circumstances, I know!)because the matrilineal descent thing is rooted in antiquity. I think the prophet Ezra pronounced "the son of the heathen woman is not thy son", or words to that effect (I haven't got time to google, as I should) which consequently banned marriage with non-Jewish women. The answer might lie with that. (Any passing rabbinical scholar, please enlighten me!)
Oh, I do so love a bit of pilpul!

IfYouTickleUs

Just imagine this was a decision of the Israeli Supreme Court and the religion in the dock was Islam. And now imagine the Guardian's headline of the next day.

Oy Vey!

daniel maris

My previous attempt to post didn't succeed. I'll try again. My view is as follows:

1. We should not be funding religious state schools. They are divisive and corrosive of
social cohesion.

2. We should be promoting the secular ideal of a common citizenship in schools, not religious supremacism (of any type).

3. Jews are defined as a race in British law (or rather as a result of case law interpretation of the law). I have never heard of the Chief Rabbi or any other leading religious Jew protesting at that. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. To that extent the Jewish authorities cannot have their cake and eat it.

4. I consider orthodox Judaism to be an extremist religion in terms of the pressure brought to bear on young people with respect to outmarriage and anything else deemed deviant. One cannot have state funded Jewish schools without state funded Islamic schools, and I don't want to see those either.

mostly harmless

If you want a faith based school - fine, just don't ask me to fund it.

phil

Trumpeldor
December 16th, 2009 9:34pm There is a reason why people are moving away and I am sure it is the attitude engendered by the ultra orthodox .There are so many who wish to practice their Jewish religion but in a way more appropriate to modern times and they are being excluded by men from thousands of years ago .who feel it is necessary to argue about how many eggs should be boiled before you can eat one ,rather than decide that a child wishing to learn its faith can do so.

It is not for me to say who is a JEW BY LINEAL DESCENT ,BUT IT IS MY RIGHT TO SAY WHO CAN PRACTICE A JEWISH FAITH and go to a Jewish school to be taught that faith. Do you really think that many who light candles and "bensh licht" on a Friday night ,go to shule and observe their faith should be excluded from Jewish schools because their mother has not been converted in a manner seen fit by these men . Many of those people are far from perfect as you will have noticed from time to time and yet they deem themselves fit to sit in judgement on others who live an exemplary life .Decisions on blood lines is one thing but exclusion is quite another .

I am a Jew as you know fully qualified by these men ,not observant by their standards ,and yet any children that I had ,could go to their school ,but a child who is totally observant and sincere cannot .,tells me they are living in Alice in wonderland and it is time they woke up to it .You probably saw on Newsnight the most arrogant of rabbi,s debating with a sincere and gentle Jewish man -I know whose ideas represent my way of being a Jew and it was not the rabbi ..I respect you may have a different opinion but I also hope I may change it -shalom

PS for my respected friend Just Louise .I hope this answer suffices for my promise to write to you last night and I can report that I did not bust the furniture :)

TomTom

It used to be possible to live life and honour traditions without the All-Seeing Eye of State Power having an opinion on every facet of life.

Schools used to be community based and local rather than run as adjuncts of the prison system like a National Education Service accountable to Whitehall.

Now we have the absurd situation of a so-called Supreme Court interpreting Jewish rites and ritual to its satisfaction by defining matters in terms which fit its own template. Frankly I cannot see how the Judiciary can presume to enter this area without undermining its own raison d'etre.

If religion is to face such intrusion by the courts the ability of religiously observant groups to uphold belief in the political structure becomes difficult and the modus vivendi seems to be in peril.

Many criticise Pope Pius X for his accommodation with the Nazis after a concerted campaign of harassment against the Catholic Church in Germany; but would they really believe The Pope should have called for all out resistance to the German Government instead ?

phil

Simon Denis
December 16th, 2009 9:58pm with respect Simon I think you have missed the point ,there can be no doubt of JEWISH IDENTITY ,we are talking about exclusion from school to people who wish to be educated in the Jewish faith and claim that they wish to learn that faith in a Jewish school ,They are being stopped from so doing because someone says their mother is not Jewish ,That mother has converted but not in a way suitable to that somebody .

I do not wish to say anything to support Ed Balls or his party but I have to tell you he does not agree with the verdict either so it is not a political problem .It is a problem engendered by men from thousands of years ago who refuse to see that this world has moved on and that people may well have a better idea of Gods wish for decency on this earth

IfYouTickleUs

Phil, forget about schools for a moment. I am sure you will agree that orthodox jews have a right to be orthodox and have privatly funded institutions which conform to their creed. But according to this ruling they would be acting against the law.

A synagogue that will accept as members only those whose mother is jewish or who has converted in an orthodox beth din would be breaking the law since according to yesterday's ruling the criteria is ethnic not religious.

Surely this is matter of freedom of religioin and I am surprised I have not heard the ECHR bandied about.

Peter from Maidstone

From a Christian point of view it seems to me like my starting a school for children of my particular Christian tradition, and then the Supreme Court (I hate that phrase) telling me that Methodists are more or less the same as my own tradition as far as they can tell and I must allow Methodists to join the school if they want.

This particular teacher who has taken the school through the courts must have absolutely known the requirements and chose not to follow them. There are other schools. She is not being prevented from educating her child.

Where is the freedom to discriminate? We need it back. Outside of monopoly situations it is the mark of an advanced society. The idea that a civil court can set itself up as the arbitor of religious belief is disturbing but only a symptom of the fact that the state believes it is right to arbitrate on all aspects of our lives.

Green Specs

I agree with ‘London Calling’, ‘Phil’ and others about the issue of matrilinearity. Firstly its clear that it was not an issue in biblical times – witness the number who married non-Jews: Judah married a Canaanite, Joseph an Egyptian, Moses a Midianite and an Ethiopian, David a Philistine, and Solomon women from a number of backgrounds! I don’t think that any of these women were expected to convert, or that their offspring were considered anything but Jewish. (by the way, following London Calling’s line of discussion, what would be the situation if the Chief Rabbi could trace his line back to eg Solomon?).

The present day presents the matrilinearity argument with even greater problems. What is the situation if a non-halachically-Jewish mother turns out to be infertile and has an egg implant from a ‘correctly’ Jewish woman? Is the subsequent child considered Jewish?

phil

just Louise
December 17th, 2009 9:33am

Phil, you try cooking for a man who won't eat eggs or egg products!

hope its not because he would have to boil three to eat one in order to know it was kosher :)

phil

IfYouTickleUs( GREAT NAME ) ;)

December 17th, 2009 11:21am -Of course they have every right to be religious ,but the law has become an ass and has been aided and abetted by the stubbornness of these people ,when 9 law lords are split5/4 there is certainly confusion and it never needed to happen .

As a youth I remember a Christian friend coming regularly to our schule because he wished to practice as a Jew ,there was never a discussion about it ,he was made welcome and respected ,perhaps we had a rabbi who had some common sense ,I do not know as it never came up .

Blinkered views do not belong in the modern world especial when it is obvious to all that can reason ,that they are unkind ,uncaring and in my own very personal view immoral ,and as a JEW I am appalled at the apparent lack of sensitivity that accrues to us because of them .I suppose that some of my" frum "friends will see me as a heretic ,well so be it ,I will face my maker with a clean conscience .

phil

PETER "This particular teacher who has taken the school through the courts must have absolutely known the requirements and chose not to follow them. There are other schools. She is not being prevented from educating her child " The lady of course knew ,but she saw it as wrong and acted accordingly and bravely .no doubt knowing the aggravation she would suffer .I applaud her courage .

IfYouTickleUs

Phil, but what if that Christian youth wanted to become a member of the shul?

Blinkered or not they have a right to define themselves as they see fit. You accept that they have a right to be religious yet you will not allow them to define themselves according to their own beliefs.

As for the stubborness bit, well Moses said it first several thousand years back, so nothing new there.

IfYouTickleUs

Green Specs: So say matrilineality is not biblical but was dreamt up by some rabbis in about 500 CE and has been followed for 1500 rather than 3000 or whatever years. Does that justify preventing orthodox jews from following their beliefs?

Can we now expect a judgement that circumcision is GBH? Following yesterday's ruling it may even be racially aggravated!

Austin Barry

Way off topic, but on a lighter note and epitomising ineffable Jewish humour, a friend in Toronto, which has a large and prominent Jewish community, formed a barbershop quartet, much in demand at Barmitzvahs, which he called "The Four Skins".

Liz SA

Several people on this blog have moaned in the past about 'multi-culturalism' and the damage it's doing to Britain - yet, when Orthodox Jews (observant ones, that is) uphold their faith and live by Halacha, they're looked down upon as fanatical or backwards. I totally agree with David Regarp. Let's hope this issue causes people to think long and hard about their Judaism and reflect on whether simply calling oneself a Jew will be good enough to see the community through the next 3,000 years.

just Louise

A light note is certainly welcome in these bleak times, Austin.
Phil, I take your point, and I suspect that the lady in question tried first to convert to Orthodoxy but was given the customary (and arguably counterproductive) cold shoulder, so turned to Masorti as the "next best thing". In attempting to get their boy into the JFS the parents were demonstrating their commitment to a "rightwing" rather than "leftwing" strand of Judaism, and from an Orthodox standpoint that's in their favour.
However, surely the point is that a secular court has intruded on what has always been and surely must always be a decision for the Jewish community itself to decide; the court's ruling has struck at the heart of Halachah, and while some non-Orthodox Jews may be jubilant (sadly, I can just imagine some of the Liberal firebrands chortling), this non-Orthodox Jew (little old me) is anything but, for I believe it's shameful.

Peter from Maidstone

phil, I have to say that it does not strike me as being as positive as it does to you. It seems a form of entryism, which I rather loathe. I would not think of joining the local Methodist Church to subvert it and take it over for my own tradition, evenif I thought there were defects in Methodism. Yet this is what this mother appears to have deliberately set out to do - subvert the practice of the Jewish faith within a group she disagrees with. Her criticism may be right or wrong, but the means she has used to advance her own opinion seem entirely wrong.

just Louise

Carl Gardner: "You're quite right, too, to remind people of Lord Phillips's absurd (for the President of the Supreme Court of a leading democracy) defence of sharia family law. How does he see JFS as effectively racist, yet fail to see that as sexist? That needs a subtle mind."

Great point, Carl - one that the judge should be asked to explain, should anyone get the chance!

phil

IfYouTickleUs
December 17th, 2009 12:47pm

Phil, but what if that Christian youth wanted to become a member of the shul?

Do not know the answer to that but he was made welcome and not asked to leave -in fact as far as I know it was never discussed .
The opposite has occurred here the child was banned ,can you imagine the trauma that may have caused .You may laugh here but as a 3 year old I was correctly sent home from kindergaten because I was coughing(probably whooping cough) and I have never forgotten it-I do not know how old this child is but I am sure it will never forget what has happened .

phil

just Louise
December 17th, 2009 2:50pm I had hoped that I had made the point that I do not disagree with the decisions that are made regarding who is a Jew by bloodline ,what I am disagreeing with is the banning of this child because its parents want it brought up and educated as a JEW -it will finish up as neither fish nor fowl and an object of revenge for those that decree its mother was not meguyed ?(cant spell check that:)in a way suitable to them .Listen to im indoors sounds like an erlicher mensch to me :)----do you know of a Yiddish spellchecker?

You know sometimes I wish Kate A was still with us she always talked so much sense and with a real soul ,and I wonder what our friend ADAM B thinks about all this .

phil

Peter from Maidstone
December 17th, 2009 2:55pm -well its a view Peter and I respect your thoughts ,I cannot add to what I have said but I will absorb what you have told me and thanks for taking the trouble .

David Lindsay

As Jews trace themselves through mothers, so Catholics trace ourselves through Fathers in God, i.e., bishops. If the Supreme Court can decide who is nor is not a Jewish mother whose children are therefore entitled to be admitted to oversubscribed Jewish schools, so it can also decide who is or is not an episkopos, as all Protestant presbyteroi claim to be, entitling his or her spiritual children to be admitted to oversubscribed Catholic schools. Watch that space.

Peter from Maidstone

phil, thanks for taking what I said as my opinion and not as a personal attack - which of course it never was.

How far do YOU think a group should be allowed to preserve its own culture and integrity?

phil

mostly harmless
December 17th, 2009 9:47am
"
If you want a faith based school - fine, just don't ask me to fund it."

well first of all I apologise to everybody else for what may be seen as
rude ,but send me your address and I WILL REFUND ANYTHING YOU MAY FEEL
YOU HAVE WASTED ON US

Loli

"There is no doubt that Jews are an ethnic or racial group." No proof of this, Judaism is a religion.

Peter from Maidstone

Of course faith based schools are funded by Jews and Christians as well as atheists and agnostics. The point is not that your money is being spent on faith schools, but that a proportion of the money that is paid in taxes by people with faith is being spent on provision of education in accordance with that faith.

If you don't want to fund faith schools then Jews and Christians should get a rebate on all the tax they have paid for secular schools.

phil

Peter from Maidstone
December 17th, 2009 4:23pm peter you do not ask easy questions ,but I think what came to my mind was ,just so long as they do not hurt others by exclusion ,I could easily be persuaded by argument as I have not thought very deeply about this .

daniel maris

I think we have to be pragmatic.

Twenty years ago not many of us would have heard of JFS and if we had not many of us would have cared about its admissions policy. But now we have 2.5 million followers of a religion in the UK that really is difficult to distinguish from a totalitarian movement. In that situation we can see that any concession to Judaism is going to be matched by concessions to Islam - and that IS of real interest and concern, because the vast majority of people in the UK want to see absolutely no advancement of Shariah. Most people understand what we are up against with Shariah - instinctively we understand it is a potent form of totalitarianism.

I am afraid Orthodox Judaism, though far less offensive than Islam in its ambitions, will have to be constrained in order that we do not engage in a wholesale surrender to Shariah. The same goes for other religions as well of course.

EC

Phil: "send me your address and I WILL REFUND ANYTHING YOU MAY FEEL YOU HAVE WASTED ON US"

Most generous Phil! Is this an exclusive offer, or will you be including Patricia too?

"US?" I thought that we were all British.

Cromwell

If I was the judge I know who I'd ask. Jackie Mason! If he doesn't know what a jew is nobody does!

Happy Hannukkah!
Peace to all people!

Green Specs

IfYouTickleUs: no of course it doesn’t prevent orthodox Jews from following their beliefs. But then I’m not the one invoking Biblical precedents for a set of beliefs that seek to exclude others when they themselves cannot conclusively demonstrate adherence to that set of beliefs. I wonder if even the Chief Rabbi can do that? If not, he is in a weak position when it comes to asking other to follow that line of observance.

David Lindsay: I think this gets to the nub of the problem – any faith school that uses religiously-based selection criteria has to justify its stance within today’s legal framework. As soon as that’s done it opens the way to challenge – one that may end up in court.

Liz SA

Just Louise. "I suspect that the lady in question tried first to convert to Orthodoxy but was given the customary (and arguably counterproductive) cold shoulder, so turned to Masorti as the "next best thing".
Why should the Orthodox Rabbinate compromise just because someone finds Orthodox conversion difficult? There's no cherry picking in law. It's either right or it's wrong. Frankly, I'm delighted that those who convert are expected to observe Jewish law to the letter. How else could you trust their kashrut? This isn't a matter of PC soft and fuzzy feelings. This is a matter of the law of G-d.

Peter from Maidstone

Is there a good introduction to Orthodox Jewish belief? I mean a good written introduction in English.

I would like to visit my local synagogue. I am not at all supportive of inter-faith ecumenics - but I do believe in having an interest in people and what they believe, and my own Christian Tradition is very strict and exclusive in some sense - in the sense rather like this school in question, we know what we believe and you are more than welcome to join us, but on the understanding that this is what we believe and this is what membership requires.

Trumpeldor

@Phil,

Law is law and Halacha is our law
If a goyim jury decides who is eligible to enter an ORTHODOX school,I would call it an outrageous infringement
Guess what would have hapened should lord philips have decided for a muslim school?
Now with that point system,the involved masorti or reform mother will not be able to register her son anyway
About practice,I attended once a Shabbat in a reformed synagogue and I felt it was an absolute disgrace to our faith
By the way,i was told that reformists criticize a lot our tiny homeland ,especially during cast lead....
Pure coincidence ? I doubt it .

mostly harmless

phil
December 17th, 2009 4:28pm

'I WILL REFUND ANYTHING YOU MAY FEEL YOU HAVE WASTED ON US'

I don't get it phil, who is US?

just Louise

Daniel, since Judaism is not a proselyting religion, surely Orthodox Judaism has no 'ambition' that needs to be contained. And Lord Phillips, who's now President of the Supreme Court of course, declared back in July 2008 at the East London Mosque that he'd welcome some measure of sharia law for Muslims in this country, so I don't think your implication (if that's what you intend, for I might have misinterpreted your meaning) that with this decision against the JNF (and in effect halachah) a message is being sent by the court to Muslims is valid.
Liz, you appear to have misunderstood me: I meant by "cold-shouldered" the fact that I doubt the Orthodox authorities were very warm towards a notice of interest in converting; I didn't mean that she'd given up because she found keeping the law too difficult, but that (if she did approach them before she approached Masorti, and I'm only speculating) she probably wasn't given the chance to be put to the test in the first place.

Edward McLaughlin

Pot Head

'Excepts' v 'Accepts'. You need to sort it out.

daniel maris

Well done Trumpeldor, I think your display of prejudice, contempt for our law and religious supremacism just lost the argument for the JFS loyalists.

anglicus

The laws they lobby and push for with their mate Trevor Phillips have crept up and bitten them on the arse.
As Jez said, Welcome to the club Melanie.

Liz SA

Peter from Maidstone. In answer to your question re informative books about Judaism - there's 'What Do Jews Believe?' by David S Ariel, or 'To Be A Jew' by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin. There are many other books, of course, but perhaps those two are a good starting point. Enjoy!

Lee Jakeman

I'm not Jewish, but I've always understood that Jewishness is a dichotomy of "People and Religion" - i.e. that the Jewish RELIGION is inseperable from the Jewish PEOPLE.

But then, the establishment in this country has become obsessed with all things to do with race - they probably even believe that it was a liberal and enlightened decision.

just Louise

Trumpeldor, please don't tar all non-Orthodox Jews with the same brush. Despite a residue of yekke-type "non-Zionism", some of the most robust and splendidly outspoken defenders of Medinat Israel are members of non-Orthodox congregations. I acknowledge, however, that some of the Liberal rabbis in the UK have behaved equivocally (one or two, I would say, disgracefully), both on this JFS issue and towards Israel's current struggle to survive.

George

Peter from Maidstone,

Try "This is my God" by the novelist Herman Wouk.

Peter from Maidstone

Liz SA, thanks for the suggestions. They look a bit basic though. I am wanting something fairly detailed that describes Orthodox Judaism comprehensively. I have a background in theology and church history so I am not afraid of something meaty about Orthodox Judaism. Any ideas?

Liz SA

Peter from Maidstone, Um...To Be A Jew is about as comprehensive as one can get for the lay reader. Otherwise, there's always the Shulchan Aruch written by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi or the Mishnah Beruruah, which are both codes of Jewish Law. I think the MB is about 25 volumes. Not really sure what you're looking for, so perhaps your best bet would be to phone a Jewish bookshop and ask for recommendations. Sorry, can't advise which one as I don't live in England any more.

phil

Cromwell
December 17th, 2009 7:42pm he would say I was too Jewish to make observations on Judaism :)happy channukah to you and in fact everyone .I will leave mostly harmless out in case he felt insulted .

phil

Liz SA
December 17th, 2009 7:50pm .Liz from all you write I cannot doubt your sincerity but in fact some do find it difficult to do the learning part but that should never exclude them from communing with their God and in the faith that they choose .Some have the talent for Oxbridge and others only for secondary school,do you really think the latter should be excluded ?In any case it is probably apparent that I believe mans only contact with his maker is on a one to one basis and that I do not believe that all the laws we have were given to us through human contact ,but through our own spiritual connexions (I do not mean ghosts )and the ethical teachings of those we have respect for .In my case my influences have been my "Jewish"family and friends and also by some incredibly good Christians .Some rabbonim have touched my soul with their innate goodness and some have appalled me ,so after this long winded diatribe you will realise that my faith is rather on a cumulative basis .I wish you well whatever you believe .

just Louise

Peter, you might try the classic Penguin, "Judaism", by Rabbi Dr Isidore Epstein - it dates from the '50s, I think, and has been reprinted several times.
There's also Rabbi Dr Louis Jacobs' tome "The Jewish Religion", which is in encyclopaedic format. If you google Dr Jacobs you will find a list of his other books. A formidable scholar, he was Orthodox and yeshivah-trained, but in the early 1960s fell foul of the Chief Rabbi in a renowned case; the Masorti movement (to which the mother of the child in the JNF dispute belongs) evolved out of "The Jacobs Affair".

phil

Trumpeldor
December 17th, 2009 9:13pm I think with respect we are losing track here ,the child was trying to learn how to be an orthodox Jew and may well have gone on to be converted in an orthodox manner and has now been stopped from that ,other of course from having to attend a rabbi etc .

The behaviour of some of those at a reform schule has no relevance ,you will have noted bad behaviour in an orthodox one too ,I certainly have .Many of our so called orthodox set no example for us to follow ,they are human beings with all the same faults as the rest of us but allied to a total belief that all they say is right .I have of course spent time with some of the finest examples of human beings who are rabbis but you only have to read the papers to see that there are other kinds too .My point really is that we were given our own brains to use and we should do so .I will continue to boil one egg instead of three although I prefer them fried unlike "im indoors " the mensch that belongs to Just Louise :)

Trumpeldor

@Just Louise,

Thanks for your comment
I am relieved to read that Non Orthodox Jews still support our nano state (25000 sq km With Yehuda and Shomron, equivalent to Wales,far too much for arabs and leftists...)
In France,You should know that a reformist female rabbi criticized our soldiers whereas their behaviour made me proud of being a Jew !
Hag Hanuka Sameah ve Shabbat Shalom

phil

Lee Jakeman
December 18th, 2009 7:45am Lee that is a shrewd analysis but is no different to being a British Jew -we are fiercely patriotic and Jewish ,and British people have many different ways of interpreting what being British is and as you can see here so have we Jews at what being Jewish is .Confused ?so am I :)

Trumpeldor

@Phil,
Thanks for your answer
I see your point and I agree there are nice people and morons in all our subsets of faith
Hag Hanuka aSameah and Shabbat Shalom,

Liz SA

Hi Phil, I hardly see what Oxbridge has to do with Orthodox conversions. As I understand it, the convertee (new word?) is expected to learn enough Hebrew so they can daven and are expected to learn Kashrus and the Halacha of Shabbos and the Festivals, Laws of Family Purity etc. If someone is totally sincere about becoming a Jew, is this really so much to ask? After all, the point is to become educated. Anyway, it's probably not the learning that's the problem for many - it's the adjustment to their social lives. I'm sure Rabbis can tell the difference between (and make allowances for) someone who's a bit intellectually challenged but sincere, and someone who is only becoming Jewish to satisfy some motive of convenience. I totally agree that everyone's path to G-d is their own business - but if one wants to be an Orthodox Jew, then one must observe the Laws and not just pick and choose the bits that suit them at any given time. That is not Orthodox Judaism and should be called something else. Unless people are committed to observance, there will be nothing to leave our grandchildren but tales of pogroms, shtetls and pretty Shabbos candles.
Anyway. May I wish you and your family Gud Shabbos.

just Louise

Trumpeldor, some of the most stirring pro-Israel sermons you could ever wish to hear come from John Levi, Rabbi Emeritus of Temple Beth Israel in Melbourne. He has been a lifelong lover of Zion, has a deeply ingrained sense of history, and his sermons are truly inspirational.

Shlomo from USA

As mentioned by some earlier comments here, state funding of a school always comes with strings attached. Can you reasonably expect otherwise? Can British judges be expected to cut through the halachic knot of Jewish ethnicity and religious identity?

2nd, must a Chief Rabbi be Orthodox? Why not elect a Masorti rabbi to lead Britsh Jewry? He would likely have resolved these problems in a more pragmatic way.

phil

Liz and Trumpeldor its good to see that some of us Jews can agree to have different opinions and still remain civilised .I know my opinions on this subject will not be welcome in orthodox circles but they are sincere and do come with the admission that I could be wrong;) I am touched by your good wishes and as they say in Spain, egualmente y recuerdos

Edward in the USA

The solution is to end all governmental funding of religion based schools. Each community should provide funding for their own schools.

Similarly end forced governmental funding of media outlets like the BBC. Let the readership/viewers of the BBC fund the BBC.

Leandro Oliveira

Great article!

C. Gee

daniel maris:
December 17th, 9:40am

"1. We should not be funding religious state schools. They are divisive and corrosive of
social cohesion."

We should not be funding any state schools at all. They are educating children poorly and they are not inculcating the young with any sense of "social cohesion". (There is no sense of social cohesion in society at large.)

"2. We should be promoting the secular ideal of a common citizenship in schools, not religious supremacism (of any type)."

Multiculturalism, the state's prime pedagogic idea, promotes valuing other cultures above the British. Common citizenship is a mirage, as the polls taken of Muslims suggest. The question of what it is to be British is far more difficult to answer than what it is to be a Jew, or a Muslim for that matter. Except that Judaism and patriotism for Britain are not ideologically or doctrinally contradictory.

"3. Jews are defined as a race in British law (or rather as a result of case law interpretation of the law). I have never heard of the Chief Rabbi or any other leading religious Jew protesting at that. I may be wrong, but that is my understanding. To that extent the Jewish authorities cannot have their cake and eat it."

The history of British law and the Jews is not a proud one for Britain. The legal definition of Jews as a race in the blood-tie sense, rather than as a "people" in a national sense, has never been good for the civil rights of Jews. They are, in fact, not the beneficiaries of post WW2 laws and social stigma against racial hatred or "stereotyping". Blacks and Muslims are.

If Jews are defined as a race, then how can anyone become a Jew by conversion? The state's definition is highly restrictive, more exclusionary than the Jews' own. For Jews, the convert is properly a Jew - is adopted into the "race". The process of proper conversion should not be cognizable by the British civil courts. From the secular point of view, it is a process of learning about Judaism and Jewish practice. If an orthodox school is going to teach children about orthodox practice, they can prefer their own conversion ritual to that of other Jewish groups.

I do not see how the Jews are having their cake and eating it too. They are not demanding racial privilege and equality simultaneously. They accept the privilege of being able offer a Jewish education to Jews, and wish to treat born-Jews and converted Jews. If the conversion is improper, but the state tells them their conversion criterion is wrong, then they are being forced to treat gentiles as Jews.

It is the British state that is keeping their Jews as a protected racial group, but telling them they cannot say who is Jewish. The state is simultaneously offering and destroying privileged status. By defining Jews' as a race, Britain can hold that Jews are "racist" - which of course is a deeply held conviction of the British, among others. No doubt this case will be a useful precedent against Jews and Israel in international courts. Israeli citizenship law is directly analagous to the JFS entry rules.

"4. I consider orthodox Judaism to be an extremist religion in terms of the pressure brought to bear on young people with respect to outmarriage and anything else deemed deviant. One cannot have state funded Jewish schools without state funded Islamic schools, and I don't want to see those either."

Who has indoctrination rights over the child - parents or the state - is a separate issue. While religious indoctrination is permitted, it appears that Jews, being a race, can indoctrinate what they like but must do it to everyone who asks for it, or else be deemed racist.

Greg D

Trumpeldor, what did you mean by your employment of the word 'goyim'? It was obviously spoken with contempt; shall we therefore suppose that it carries the usual connotations? I reserve my judgement, for I have been subject to a similar witch-hunt before: but please clarify yourself immediately, to still my beating heart (I have a condition, really; doctor’s appointment on Monday).

I recommend all readers not familiar with the term 'goyim' to google it, and to take the context of Trumpledor’s comment into account when doing so.

Peter From Maidstone. You might also like to try the late Israel Shahak's 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3000 Years'. It will give you a balanced reading of the topic from one of Israel’s foremost human rights activists who, incidentally, survived Belsen and then studied Torah in Israel. A fascinating man, a fascinating book.

Greg D

A small clarification of my previous post: see Trumpeldor's comment of December 17th, 2009 9:13pm.

Greg D

'Daniel, since Judaism is not a proselyting religion, surely Orthodox Judaism has no 'ambition' that needs to be contained.'

Surely you are aware of Chabad, JL? Not quite the same, but Education Day USA was still a victory for the Rebbe's idea of enlightenment.

Gary

And what relevance does this have to the British people?

None.

This is the equivalent of moaning about the packaging of food at supermarkets.

Yuval B.

I'm sorry Melanie, but this is one of the rare cases where I can't agree with you. It's not about who determines whether someones Jewish. It's about whether a school has a right to say "we don't let non-Jewish kids here". Let's assume for the sake of the argument that clearly non Jewish parents would like to enroll their kid in a Jewish orthodox school, willing to accept all bylaws of the place. What right does the school have to reject this kid?
Why such rejection is not racism?

Adam B.

Greg D, aren't you the one who refers to Jewish people as "Israelites"?

Lupus Lungfish

Its not an inhospitable place for Jews around at my house.

Lupus Lungfish

This country has gone to hell in a handbasket Melanie. Its really quite embarrassing. My Grandfather will be spinning in his grave over this.

Gil

Gary D, I for one am disgusted by Trumpeldor's comments and think that no one should debate him. Please ignore him.

NKH

"To those outside Judaism, the issue is arcane, complex and doubtless baffling."

Quite. And after reading your article and a selection of comments, I have to admit that I still find it difficult to untangle the religious arguments from the racial ones.

Perhaps I only demonstrate my ignorance even further by asking the following question but would the child in question be permitted to settle in Israel (ie under Israeli law) as a Jew?

Greg D

Gil, December 19th, 2009 6:50am.

Although Trumpeldor's comment is disturbing, I'm not sure that we should leap to conclusions. Nor should he be shut out of debate simply on account of this. Rather, it would be nice to hear some words from the horse's mouth, especially as to the theological reasons he might find such a 'goyim jury' so offensive. I'd also appreciate it if he could let us know his thoughts on the word 'sheqetz'.

Given the audience and the particular addressee (phil, a religious Jew), it seemed likely that he did not expect his commentpatriots to react negatively to his words. For the most part, they haven't (daniel maris being a very honourable exception).

I am glad that you are aware of and disown the connotations that the term 'goyim' carries, Gil. But would you have said anything had I not flicked the switch? Your words are a little late to be heartfelt.

And, sadly, your professed disapproval does not seem to be shared by Trumpeldor's other associates. Just Louise, for example, feels compelled to beg Trumpeldor not to 'tar all non-Orthodox Jews with the same brush' but she has nothing to say a propos his derogatory term for non-Jews.

Adam B. falsely claims that I refer to all Jews as 'Israelites'. I did use this term in conversation, but in a different context - as my various posts on that thread (03/12/09 18:27) make clear. Adam is attempting to paint me as an anti-Semite in order to distract attention away from Trumpeldor's comment. Given that he prefers to sling mud at me personally rather than commenting on the actual content of the challenge I posed to Trumpeldor, we may assume that he wholeheartedly agrees with the pejorative use of 'goyim' as a term for non-Jews and accepts all the baggage that such a term carries.

Further, given the old saying that 'you can tell a man by the company he keeps', don't Trumpeldor and his friends tell us all something about the author of this blog?

I'd be happy to reassess my position on all of these matters were my commentpatriots willing to provide good reasons for my doing so.

Greg D

Oops - it appears that I have leapt to conclusions in some sentences. Please read 'apparent' or 'seeming' where appropriate.

phil

Greg D you make mistakes by the bucketload here .the word goy is merely a word that describes a person who is not Jewish -I would have preferred the description non Jewish in Trumpeldors post but you are assuming negatives ,as it seems is a regular thing for you .If I had thought he had been insulting I would have said so .
-------
Where you got the word sheket from I do not know but it means "shut up" and seems a most appropriate word in this case -If you were mistyping and using a similar word I would tell you we have the same control over ignorant and abusive people as no doubt you have -none ! There are no people more tolerant and anti -racist than us ,but that does not mean we do not produce the odd yobbo .
-----
For your info and only because you obviously do not read carefully what is written ,I am not religious ,but merely born to orthodox parents rather than reform .There has been a healthy debate here with a notable exception or two ,your pal mostly harmless and you .Many of us are still somewhat confused as to what is "proper" so maybe with a little luck you will leave us to sort it out amongst people who have a high regard for Jewish morality rather than your usual style of sniping .What your purpose here is beyond a simple mind like mine (oh hell here comes Wilhelm again),so if you want to say something interesting why not tell us the answer .

Adam B.

Yes of course Greg D, it is you who has become the victim. And after your personal attacks against phil, it's interesting to see that you have such a glass jaw.

I'm not painting you as anything - you've done that all by yourself. How else is one to interpret "you Israelites"? You know you let the mask slip, now you're trying to undo it (without of course admitting you got it badly wrong).

Greg D

‘Greg D you make mistakes by the bucketload’

Oh really, phil?

‘GOY: A derogatory term meaning gentile, goyim is the plural, and goyisher is the adjective.’ Taken from www.sbjf.org (‘The First Words You Learn: Selected Yiddish Words and Phrases - impress your friends and family’)

According to Leo Rosten in “The Joys of Yiddish”, the term ‘goy’ has two related meanings:

1. A Gentile; i.e. anyone who is not a Jew;

2. Someone who is dull, insensitive, heartless.

You’ve said on several occasions that you speak Yiddish, phil. Did you just forget to mention the second meaning of the term ‘goy’ or, as I suspect, are you once again indulging in dishonesty? The second meaning of ‘goy’ seems to fit Trumpeldor’s post like a glove; his fist is obviously clenched, as are his teeth. Your inability to recognise this seems to confirm that you sympathise with his apparent attitude towards non-Jews.

I mentioned the term sheqetz as a signpost for others, as it helps to understand why the term ‘goy’ may be considered offensive. ‘Sheqetz’ or ‘shegetz’ is a Hebrew-based synonym for goy (www.thefreedictionary.com/goy), which is why phil may not understand it. According to the Meggido Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary, published in Israel, sheqetz is defined as: ‘unclean animal; loathsome creature; abomination; wretch; unruly youngster; Gentile youngster.’

I know you want me to shut up, phil – but I won’t.

Trumpeldor? Just Louise? Liz SA?

Any comments?

just Louise

Greg D, Peter asked for books about "Othodox Judaism", not for a jaundiced political polemic.
The reason I didn't chide Trumpeldor for his "derogatory" term is because, as Phil has already indicated, it is not derogatory. Antisemites - of course, you're not of their number, perish the thought! - have spread the poison that "goyim" means "cattle" and goodness knows what else. In fact, it means nothing of the kind. It denotes "the [other] nations". It's no more sinister than "gentile", denoting "[other] peoples".

Yuval, the JNF is an Orthodox school. Its admission policy is based on a religious criterion. I fail to see how that can be considered racist.

NKH, non-Orthodox Jews (including proselytes) are eligible to settle in Israel under the Law of Return. However, there is discrimination against non-Orthodox Judaism there, owing to the power wielded by ultra-Orthodox parties who are necessary to political coalitions.
So far, demands by ultra-Orthodox rabbis and parties that non-Orthodox converts should not be recognised as Jews have been thwarted, but the issue rears its head every so often.

daniel maris

C. Gee -

"We should not be funding any state schools at all. They are educating children poorly and they are not inculcating the young with any sense of "social cohesion". (There is no sense of social cohesion in society at large.)"

The idea that there is no social cohesion in UK society at large is nonsense. The issue is whether it is being eroded by various forces at work in society.

State schools have not been doing that brilliantly it's true. But someone else pointed out on another thread that 21% of the prison population are Catholics (way above their percentage in the population at large) - most of those will have been to religious schools.
Similar Muslims, who probably attend religious observances far more than any other group in society are also grossly over-represented in the prison population.

Religious affiliation is not a guarantor of good behaviour.
"Multiculturalism, the state's prime pedagogic idea, promotes valuing other cultures above the British. Common citizenship is a mirage, as the polls taken of Muslims suggest. The question of what it is to be British is far more difficult to answer than what it is to be a Jew, or a Muslim for that matter. Except that Judaism and patriotism for Britain are not ideologically or doctrinally contradictory."

Taken literally I would say most religions are in conflict with the notion of legal supremacy in the UK. However, fortunately, most people don't
take their religions too literally.

Democratic secularism is opposed to multi-culturalism.

"The history of British law and the Jews is not a proud one for Britain. The legal definition of Jews as a race in the blood-tie sense, rather than as a "people" in a national sense, has never been good for the civil rights of Jews. They are, in fact, not the beneficiaries of post WW2 laws and social stigma against racial hatred or "stereotyping". Blacks and Muslims are.

If Jews are defined as a race, then how can anyone become a Jew by conversion? The state's definition is highly restrictive, more exclusionary than the Jews' own. For Jews, the convert is properly a Jew - is adopted into the "race". The process of proper conversion should not be cognizable by the British civil courts. From the secular point of view, it is a process of learning about Judaism and Jewish practice. If an orthodox school is going to teach children about orthodox practice, they can prefer their own conversion ritual to that of other Jewish groups.

I do not see how the Jews are having their cake and eating it too. They are not demanding racial privilege and equality simultaneously. They accept the privilege of being able offer a Jewish education to Jews, and wish to treat born-Jews and converted Jews. If the conversion is improper, but the state tells them their conversion criterion is wrong, then they are being forced to treat gentiles as Jews.

It is the British state that is keeping their Jews as a protected racial group, but telling them they cannot say who is Jewish. The state is simultaneously offering and destroying privileged status. By defining Jews' as a race, Britain can hold that Jews are "racist" - which of course is a deeply held conviction of the British, among others. No doubt this case will be a useful precedent against Jews and Israel in international courts. Israeli citizenship law is directly analagous to the JFS entry rules."

The point is this: if Jewish people found being defined as a race so repugnant to them, why did they and their spokespeople not protest it? I can only surmise that they saw some benefit in terms of legal protection. Incidentally Sikhs have also been defined as a race.

Anyway, it's rather a moot point now, since religious and racial equality legislation is converging.

"Who has indoctrination rights over the child - parents or the state - is a separate issue. While religious indoctrination is permitted, it appears that Jews, being a race, can indoctrinate what they like but must do it to everyone who asks for it, or else be deemed racist."

I'm not responsible for the law being an ass.

Greg D

Perish the thought indeed, just Louise!

If I am really talking such nonsense, can you please enlighten me as to why daniel maris and Gil might feel that Trumpeldor's comments were improper? Are they anti-Semitic (as far as I can tell, Daniel is Jewish but anti-Orthodox, and thoughtfully pro-Israel; I've never seen Gil comment here before)?

Further, are Leo Rosten and the entire Santa Barbara Jewish Community really anti-Semitic?

Why is sheqetz considered a relative of the term 'goy'?

On which ground do you classify Shahak's book as 'jaundiced political polemic'? Or is this a rhetorical tarring of the same type from which you requested Trumpeldor to refrain?

phil

Greg D you make mistakes by the bucketload’

Oh really, Phil? ----Absolutely Greg ,I find you comical and disgusting at the same time viz;
----------
"According to Leo Rosten in “The Joys of Yiddish”, the term ‘goy’ has two related meanings:"

1. A Gentile; i.e. anyone who is not a Jew; --OUR INTERPRETATION AND USAGE AND TOTALLY RESPECTFUL.

2. Someone who is dull, insensitive, heartless.---YOURS, AND FOR YOU MOST APPLICABLE.
---------------
AND FROM YOUR FREEONLINE DICT ---
"Noun 1. goy - a Christian as contrasted with a Jew
non-Jew, gentile
Christian - a religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination "" --so as usual the untruths emanate from one source only and that is you .
---------------------
As for any disgusting terminology you wish to find it would be the language of those like you ,sick minded people who do not represent Jewish or Gentile thought in any way .If you wish to be seen as a SHEGETZ as described in any book you wish to find, so be it ,that's ok with me but please do not suggest it is anything to do with your religion assuming you have one of course . Your words are from a bygone age as is your message and went out of print with the demise of Der Steurmer .You still have not told us why you are on this thread ,one that Jews (on the whole )are hanging out their innermost worries regarding the ethics of our faith ,helped by righteous Gentiles and harassed by whatever you wish to describe yourself as ,2 above seems very apt .Even so I have no idea what this stupid attack on us has to do with the topic in question other than what I have no doubt is apparent to all ,both Jew and Gentile
------------
It is for DAVID to decide what is acceptable here but if you keep up your unpleasant remarks ,you will be answered vigorously ,so I hope he will understand why I have found it necessary to reply to you in this manner and frank what I believe are the thoughts of virtually everyone who has posted here .

Jez

Chill out everyone!

These threads are priceless.

There are opinions from each sector of all (similar) communities that are being squeezed- right now, as we speak.

This is something that (collectively) all here contributing are being by denied access to (via mainstream news suppliers).

This is the fact;

Things are changing for all here in the UK.

(i'm hoping at least that one's ok to get in)

George

Greg D,

Sheqetz and shegetz (shaygetz is a better transliteration) are two different words in two different languages meaning two different things.
Sheqetz is biblical Hebrew (see Leviticus Chapter 11) and indeed means detestable or loathsome. It refers to those types of birds and insects that cannot be eaten.
Shaygetz is Yiddish and is a derogatory way of referring to a male non-Jew. The female equivalent is shiksah.

The use of the word goyim as Trumpeldor used it is in no way derogatory or insulting.

Trumpeldor

@To all,

I am very sorry if I shocked people by using the word "goyim" which in Hebrew mean "the Nations",relating to non jewish people
I never meant to insult anyone
I just wanted to imply that Halacha is the ultimaste decisionner for whom is Jewish or not.
Even if the school is state funded,this is an ORTHODOX school and in my humble opinion, a non jewish jury is not entitled to deliberate on that very very touchy issue given the numerous feedbacks .

Shavua Tov, a very pleasant week to everyone

Greg D

George -

Sheqetz refers to shellfish, too, I believe.

Perhaps the use of the term ‘goyim’ is not offensive for some Jews (especially those who have grown up with the term without realising its historical use), but for some gentiles and indeed some Jews things are little different.

Can you say exactly why Trumpeldor’s statement was innocuous? Or do you believe that simple assertions are suitable substitutes for evidence/argument? And why can Trumpeldor not reply for himself?

I strongly recommend that any interested persons unfamiliar with this debate to visit the following site to gauge the truth of the matter for themselves:

www.frumsatire.net/2008/06/16/is-the-word-goy-offensive

It offers a wide spectrum of opinion on the matter and seems, on the surface, to be unbiased.

Contrast and compare the tone and opinions expressed in posts # 47 and 61 (heimish in bp) with the one made by Trumpeldor on December 16th, 2009 9:34pm.

phil

George
December 19th, 2009 6:29pm -where did you acquire your yiddish spellchecker ?:)I am at a disadvantage with our man greg .
-----------
I did in fact have an exchange with him last week which included the word yam he would not explain what he meant and I am sure he did not know what my phrase meant either, mine was G K O YAM :)but he unfortunately didnt.:)
----------
You of course are right there are slang words that are used by ignorant people just as others in every language use insulting words ,most of us have been referred to as sheeny and yid from time to time but we do not blame a whole society for the rubbish amongst them ,that is the role of this writer even though he poses as the fourth son at Passover.Trumpeldor is obviously a sincere and orthodox man who is being taken advantage of by this opportunist ,and has said nothing out of place .

Greg D

George -

Perhaps the use of the term ‘goyim’ is not offensive for some Jews (especially those who have grown up with the term without realising its historical use), but for some gentiles and indeed some Jews things are little different. I do not believe that Trumpeldor, knowledgeable as he is in things Jewish, was unaware of this.

Similarly, I believe that good folks such as yourself, phil, Adam B., just Louise, et al., are knowingly telling porky pies when you proclaim that ‘goyim’ is a completely neutral term. This is plainly false, as anybody who has googled the term can see.

I recommend that any interested persons unfamiliar with this debate to visit the following site to gauge the truth of the matter for themselves. It offers a wide spectrum of opinion on the matter.

www.frumsatire.net/2008/06/16/is-the-word-goy-offensive

Contrast and compare the tone and opinions expressed in posts # 47 and 61 (heimish in bp) with the one made by Trumpeldor on December 16th, 2009 9:34pm.

One should then be able to understand why the Supreme Court ruled against JFS.

just Louise

Leo Rosten also wrote the hilariously enjoyable "The Education of Hyman Kaplan", about an immigrant to New York's creative tussles with the English language at night school. It's not too long and it's very gripping; fun, and good reading for a train journey.
Getting back to the JNF, it had its genesis in the years between Trafalgar and Waterloo. It could never be accused of inculcating "separateness" as some faith schools are - it always encouraged pupils to integrate fully into British life, and was quick to have a branch of the Jewish Lads' Brigade later in the 19th century, to encourage patriotism. There's a history of the school by Gerry Black, should anyone be interested.

Greg D

My apologies for the double-posting.

phil... yam ha-melah = sea of salt

just Louise

Greg, I didn't recognise myself at first as the JL of your query re Chabad. I don't know what point your trying to make. They try to bring "lapsed" or "diluted" Jews back to Judaism. I know a person with a non-Orthodox background who davened with them and was taught to lay tephillin by them when they visited the large shopping centre in a Jewish neighbourhood where he worked; he enjoyed their regular visits to his shop, but he was comfortable with his brand of Judaism (a committed non-Orthodox Jew and - dare I say it, Zionist) and so did not join the Lubavitcher movement. Many people do join, of course, and there's nothing sinister about that; members of the movement are drawn from all walks of life, including such presumably "rational" persons as scientists. ;~)

George

Phil,

Yam hamelach is the Hebrew name for the Dead Sea. The literal translation is indeed "sea of salt".

Greg,

Don't put words in my mouth and then accuse me of lying.

phil

George
December 19th, 2009 10:10pm thanks George at least now I know which sea I sent him too -I am not swimming there anytime soon :)
-------------
This has been an amazing column the only time I can ever remember anyone accusing me of being dishonest ,It is possible the odd girl has said "you little fibber,you said---":), but I am confident those that I have regard for here will not think I was being untruthful I will leave that to greg if it gives him comfort ,by hell he needs some .
---------Trumpeldor the only apology that was required here was from greg and that we will not get and who cares anyhow ? You are a mensch my friend even if we do not agree on this subject .Shavua Tov to you too .

Greg D

'The use of the word goyim as Trumpeldor used it is in no way derogatory or insulting.'

'Don't put words in my mouth and then accuse me of lying.'

My apologies, George - it appears that I have indeed put words into your mouth. You never claimed that 'goyim' is a neutral term.

However, if it is the case that you believe that the term 'goyim' can in fact be used pejoratively, what reasons underpin your statement that Trumpeldor is innocent of racism?

I have provided my own reasons for an opposite conclusion previously; you are yet to provide yours, despite my request.

'I never meant to insult anyone
I just wanted to imply that Halacha is the ultimaste decisionner for whom is Jewish or not.'

Why then, Trumpeldor, did you not use either 'gentile' or 'non-Jewish' to express your meaning? You are obviously familiar with these terms; why didn't you use them?

There seems to be a darker shadow standing behind your words which explains why you used this type of language.

Adam B.

What an absolute joke - Greg D, why did YOU use the term "you Israelites" instead of Jews?

Dark shadow? You're standing next to it.

Reb Shlomo Silverstein

Surely I'm not the only Orthodox Jew who reads Melanie's excellent blog? I've been waiting for someone else to answer these questions but no one has so I guess it's left up to me.

Goy means nation in Hebrew. There are many examples but I believe the first occurrence is in Parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis 12:2) when G-d tells Avraham that he will be the father of a "goy gadol" (a great nation). "The Jewish nation in the daily tephila (Jewish prayer) is also referred to as "goy echad" (one nation) and "goy kadosh" (holy nation) in the Tachanon prayer so in that sence it is a neutral term. However two thousand years of persecution by "the goyim" (the nations) upon the Jewish people have kind of put a negative connotation on the word. It really depends on the way it is said or the context it is used in. Certainly an Israeli would use it in everyday language to denote the nations of the world with no derogatory intention at all.

Regarding who is a Jew. Halacha is clear. Mesechet Yevamot 45b states that a child born from a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father is 100% Jewish. A child born from a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother is 100% not-Jewish. See Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Biah), Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer) for actual halchic ruling. This has been the law since we stood at Mount Sinai.

Although the Jewishness of the person is determined by the mother, the child's "yichus", (the tribal affiliation, tradition, customs and nusach of prayer) are determined by the Jewish father. We see this is several places:

The Torah source for this is found in Devarim 7:3-4. Rashi on the pasukim explains that if the son of a gentile will marry your daughter he will turn away your daughter's son. From this we learn that your daughter's son whose father is a gentile is considered Jewish. But regarding your son's son who is born from a gentile woman the pasuk does not say "your" because he is considered her son, that is, the gentile woman's son and therefore the child is not Jewish.
We see that in Varikra 24:10-23 that the man born from a Jewish mother but an Egyptian father has no tribal affiliation. His mother makes him Jewish but he has no rights to her tribal membership.
In BaMidbar 1:4, the census categorises each person according to their father's family house. We learn from this that each Jew’s traditions go according to his or her father’s family.
I hope this has cleared up some misunderstandings.

Jez

@ Reb Shlomo Silverstein

"Regarding who is a Jew. Halacha is clear."

And in this country the small group of unelected officials placed into power are clearer;

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/

The rest of the UK have had this since the late 60's.

Unfortunately this PC liberal-elitism has caught up with the British Jewish community now.

just Louise

Reb Shlomo Silverstein, very many thanks indeed for the trouble you have taken to explain all that; you've clarified so much.

phil

Reb Shlomo Silverstein
December 20th, 2009 8:11am Thank you for the clarity you have given to the interpretation of the word Goy -I doubt it will suffice for our meshuganah but it will do for most of us ,and maybe now we can continue with the soul searching that this thread has caused , and ignore the nonsense from him.

Greg D

Mod - what gives?

‘Goy means nation in Hebrew. There are many examples but I believe the first occurrence is in Parshas Lech Lecha (Bereishis 12:2) when G-d tells Avraham that he will be the father of a "goy gadol" (a great nation). "The Jewish nation in the daily tephila (Jewish prayer) is also referred to as "goy echad" (one nation) and "goy kadosh" (holy nation) in the Tachanon prayer so in that sence it is a neutral term. However two thousand years of persecution by "the goyim" (the nations) upon the Jewish people have kind of put a negative connotation on the word. It really depends on the way it is said or the context it is used in.’

Thankyou, Reb Shlomo Silverstein, for sharing your knowledge and, importantly, for being honest (but I assume that this is part of your modus vivendi in any case). It’s interesting that just Louise, George, phil, Adam et al. have been proved wrong on the point of ‘goy’-as-non-insult, but nonetheless they refuse to issue an apology. Indeed, phil continues to refer to me as a lunatic.

Now, Trumpledor’s use of the contested term in context: ‘Halacha is our law . . . If a goyim jury decides who is eligible to enter an ORTHODOX school, I would call it an outrageous infringement’.

There are several things we should note about Trumpeldor’s post and its close relation to Melanie’s piece:

1. In reference to Reb Silverstein’s comment, we are not in Israel. This debate is taking place in English, in the United Kingdom. Further, Trumpeldor’s context makes it clear that he is not referring to ‘the Nations’ of the world but to the English people and specifically their judiciary; in the sentence immediately following the offending passage he asks what Lord Phillips would have done had the school been Muslim.

2. Trumpeldor is obviously angry; hence the term ‘outrageous’ and the rhetorical questions regarding Lord Phillips and Muslims (a connection first developed by Ms Phillips). His words fit the general tone of Melanie’s piece, epitomised in her statement: ‘what astounding - and sinister - arrogance for a judge in an English court of law to presume to strip Judaism of its ability to define itself in religious terms.’

3. Trumpeldor believes that the rights of Jews have been curtailed (e.g. the ruling is an ‘outrageous infringement’); he seems to agree with Melanie that Britain ‘has become an inhospitable place for Jews’. In other words, both Trumpeldor and Melanie seem to believe that Jews are being persecuted in the United Kingdom. According to them, the ruling is outrageous, illiberal, sinister (e.g. persecutory; see Reb Silverstein’s comment) and ignorant, complex, and baffling for those outside of Judaism (see Rosten’s definitions of ‘goy’).

Given this context, one must push the boundaries of reason and common sense to deny that Trumpeldor’s comment was anything other than hostile toward the JFS ruling and the ‘goyim’ who made it. As such, logic suggests that Trumpeldor’s decision to use the term ‘goyim’ was because he holds non-Jews, and the decision they made a propos the JFS, in contempt.

The fact that Trumpeldor and his associates have no problems whatsoever in talking about Gentiles amongst themselves, on this site, in the very same way that a Southern gentleman might refer to Jews and others at the yearly (think alliteratively forward and backward at this moment) Klan gathering is, in my opinion, highly offensive. That they have attempted to whitewash the linguistic history of the term ‘goyim’ is equally troubling. My claim has been vindicated by Reb Silverstein and yet I receive not an apology or acknowledgement from these folks but rather insults.

Finally, the fact that these people are often enough the first and foremost defenders of almost everything Melanie says a lot about her, and I implore every rational Jewish and non-Jewish reader of Melanie’s work to always keep this in their minds when gauging her truths and her aims.

*Adam, I'm not going to engage with someone who condones the term "goyim". It says all we need to know about you - and yes, it is hateful. If only you were honest about your hate.

A spoonful of your own there, sugar daddy.

Yuval Berger

Just Louise,
There is very little room for interpretation here. The fact that the criterion is religious doesn't mean it is not racist. If you exclude someone on grounds of birth to a certain group (here gentiles), regardless of this person's potential or individual performance than you're racist.
If a school in the UK would accept only kids born to non Jewish mothers wouldn't you call it racist?

Carl

Greg D. Are you really surprised at so many racist comments from regular contributors and sucker fellow travellers? It is what drives them.

Reb Shlomo Silverstein

Dear Yuval Berger,

I think it’s a common misconception that you have brought up. I'll do my best to explain.

We Jews look Russian, Asian, Indian, Scandinavian, and African, in fact you name it we have it. All are part of the Jewish people according to halacha (Jewish law).

Unlike many religions and cults who say that unless you accept our way life then you will go to hell, Judaism's message to the whole world is to love G-d and live a moral life and there will be a place in heaven for you. However, what if a goy has this urge inside their heart to join the Jewish people?

Although Judaism does not seek converts, we welcome those who are sincere with open arms and accept them as full members of the community.

It is not an easy process but any goy (gentile) who wishes to accept upon himself (or herself) the entire Taryag mitzvos (the special commandments only reserved for the Jewish people), by taking upon themselves the responsibility of living a life close to G-d and being an example to the goyim (the nations of the world) then they are accepted as if they themselves stood at Mount Sinai along with all of us. Moreover they become an inspiration to the whole community with their enthusiasm and love for Torah.

The problem comes (and this is related to Melanie's article) when certain organizations claiming to represent authentic Judaism, offer a service to convert someone who may genuinely feel an inclination to be part of the Jewish people but is completely ignorant as to what it entails.

After a short period of superficial study, they give the goy a certificate and put them through a mumbo-jumbo ceremony and then tell them that they are now Jewish. The potential convert has been told nothing about making a commitment to believe in G-d, to believe that we received the Torah at Mount Sinai from the hands of G-d and to observe all His commandments in their daily lives. They have simply been conned.

Then when they inevitably have their first contact with Orthodox Jews and are told that they are actually not Jewish, they feel insulted. In fact they ought to feel anger towards those organizations that lied to them.

Joseph

Getting back to the main debate...

While we intuitively discern that a religious school may set its own standards for admission, as the saying goes: he who pays the piper calls the tune. The fact is that any institution that accepts government funding forfits its autonomy, and should know this at the outset. If this was really such a grave relgious offense to JFS it would decline future funding of this nature. The fact that the school was willing to accomodate the court ruling so readily indicates clearly that the dispute between the Orthodox and Non-Orthodox movements has far more to do with politics (specifically internal Israeli politics) that religion. After all, theologically speaking Chassidism is far further removed from Orthodox Judaism than is Reform Judaism, yet the Orthodoxy accepts it because the Chassidim in turn accept Orthodox rabbinical authority. Then too, there's the question of the Israeli government's funding of Orthodox institutions, funding which would have to be shared if the Non-Orthodox movements were to be officially recognised...

And by the way, the term "Jewish law" is thrown around pretty fast and loose around here. Note that Orthodox halacha is not Jewish law but a particular rabbinic REPRESENTATION of Jewish law, one on the tenets of which not even Orthodox rabbis are always able to agree. But different streams of Jewish thought have always managed to exist side by side in peace, and there is no good reason why Reform representation of the law should be denied its right to exist...until one takes into account the political factors at play.

just Louise

Yuval, I take your point, but the example you give isn't truly analogous. This case is sui generis, owing to the halachic definition of "Who is a Jew". Personally, I feel there is an excellent case for Jewish identity to be allowed via the paternal line as well. But the nub of the issue here is that a secular court has denied a school that is Orthodox of its right to base itsintake upon the definition - the religious criterion - which has underlain Jewish identity for some 3,500 years. A secular court has abrogated to itself a right to strike at the heart of what defines a Jew according to Halacha, which is in my opinion an outrage. Had the conversion of the mother in question - whether she be ethnic British, Danish, Ghanaian, Japanese, whatever - been carried out under Orthodox auspices, the case would not have arisen. The child (and like Phil I've every sympathy with him) is not being excluded because his mother was born a non-Jew, but because she converted through a non-Orthodox authority. And its not as if the JNF is the only Jewish school around; there are non-Orthodox options.
Greg, with respect, you're becoming what in the vernacular is politely termed a "nudnik" ;~) - Trumpeldor has apologised for any offence given, and if, as I suspect, he's an Israeli, then the word you dislike would come naturally to him, with no derogatory intent, as Reb S. has suggested.

Reb Shlomo Silverstein

Dear Yuval Berger,

I think it’s a common misconception that you have brought up. I'll do my best to explain why this is not racism.

We Jews look Russian, Asian, Indian, Scandinavian, and African, in fact you name it we have it. All are part of the Jewish people according to halacha (Jewish law).

Unlike many religions and cults who say that unless you accept our way then you will go to hell, Judaism's message to the whole world is to love G-d and live a moral life and there will be a place in heaven for you. However, what if a goy has this urge inside their heart to join the Jewish people?

Although Judaism does not seek converts, we welcome those who are sincere with open arms and accept them as full members of the community.

It is not an easy process but any goy (gentile) who wishes to accept upon himself (or herself) the entire Taryag mitzvos (the special commandments only reserved for the Jewish people), by taking upon themselves the responsibility of living a life close to G-d and being an example to the goyim (the nations of the world) then they are accepted as if they themselves stood at Mount Sinai along with all of us. Moreover they become an inspiration to the whole community with their enthusiasm and love for Torah.

The problem comes (and this is related to Melanie's article) when certain organizations claiming to represent authentic Judaism, offer a service to convert someone who may genuinely feel an inclination to be part of the Jewish people but is completely ignorant as to what it entails.

After a short period of superficial study, they give the person a certificate and put them through a mumbo-jumbo ceremony and then tell them that they are now Jewish. The potential convert has been told nothing about making a commitment to believe in G-d, to believe that we received the Torah at Mount Sinai from the hands of G-d and to observe all His commandments in their daily lives. They have simply been conned. Then when they inevitably have their first contact with Orthodox Jews and are told that they are actually not Jewish, they feel insulted.

In fact they ought to feel anger towards those organizations that lied to them.

Linda Smith

Race is determined by physical characteristics, genetically transmitted. As a human being can become "halachically" (legally)Jewish via adoption or conversion, Jews are not a race. They are a self-selecting ideological group.

I recall that some years ago the British government determined that in order for people born in Britain to claim British nationality, their parents had to be British.

On the basis of the JFS ruling, the British government is also racist.

As ever, the law is an ass.

phil

"Indeed, phil continues to refer to me as a lunatic" greg d,s quote - sob sob
-----------
ok greg I apologise if I did for flattering you,your latest effort has proved me wrong ,you are not as clever as that .BTW Adam isn't Jewish !! he is a RIGHTEOUS GENTILE in fact a GOY ,as described by the Rabbi,and proud of it as we are of him .
-------------------
I think Melanie will survive your hopes ,she well knows we disagree with her from time to time even if you dent ,its called debate .look it up in your variety of dictionaries
-----
You have provided a little sport for us but you are becoming rather boring now ,why not take a trip to the yam and take the advice I gave you earlier whilst you are there ,be polite and post warnings .

phil

Carl
December 20th, 2009 10:25pm
carl we have missed you ,been away with patricia by any chance ?
If not gregs on his way to the sea for a holiday and I am sure he would be happy to have you,, for company of course :)

Alan Lothian

I don't know if a Scots Presbyterian dare stick his head into a complex discussion between intelligent and argumentative Jews -- is there any other sort? I've only known a few score, so it may not be a representative sample :) -- but I'll risk it. Looks to me as if Melanie Phillips has the right of it. I have deep misgivings about any sort of religion-based school (I grew up in sectarian Glasgow, which was ravaged by the things) but that isn't the real point; indeed, it's an entirely separate argument.
How dare NuLab's fatuous "Supreme Court" tell Jews who can be Jews and who can't? Wedges, thin ends, and all that. I could be next. It's none of the court's bloody business (wise dissenting judgements duly noted, mind you) and the woman who brought the case should be ashamed of herself. But then, I'm only a meddling Christian, so I will leave you chaps and chapesses to get on with your wars in peace. Shalom.

Jez

Stick and stones...

I've only ever read the word Goyim (via mainstream) in a comment in The Times (which i made a thing of- with an avalanche of clever replies after).... and you've got to say;

Who cares?

It's a name.

So what?

Let's grow up and debate the (pretty important) issue at hand.

Unreal.

This ruling is the first blow to the Jewish community's independance. It's been made possible through creeping PC dogma. This comes 'bit by bit'- and (for an instance) the final result will probably be the surrounding UK social situation that is 21st century Britain.

Now that fact *is* offensive.

DavidL

I find it interesting that both of the Scottish Judges were in the minority here. Scottish judges have more experience than English Judges of education divided by religion. If you accept catholic and protestant state schools as a "good thing" (which regrettably we do up here) it is not obvious why even a state funded school should not set these sort of criteria. I will be interested in the implications of this judgement for CoE schools in England. As I understand it they require parents to pretend a faith many don't have by attending church. If these religous criteria are not allowed as a basis for differentiation why should the church schools get away with it?

Zing

Back to basics. This case was all about school admissions, not "who is a Jew".
By law chools are all prohibited from discriminating, with the specific exception that faith schools can discriminate on the grounds of faith. Faith schools exist so that parents can have their kids educated in the family's beliefs. This is one area where JFS immediately failed. They were accepting children whose parents did not practise Judaism at all but simply wanted a school with good exam results; and turning away children whose families were devout in the faith.
Parental choice is the reason faith schools are allowed to discriminate. The Orthodox definition of "Jewish" is actually irrelevant. The government does not fund schools here in Britain so that the school can prioritise any child who is born, through maternal descent, possessing a "Jewish soul", which is exactly what the Orthodox definition seeks to define. The idea is that the school should cater to parental need. A child should not have a better chance of a good schooling simply because of ethnic lineage. I think the Supreme Court's ruling was absolutely the correct one in the circumstances. There are schools which genuinely teach Orthodox judaism to Orthodox Jews (such as Hasmonean) and they are not affected by the ruling because the demand a high level of observance to be given faith priority.
The Orthodox Jewish definition of who is a Jew is non-racist and is absolutely fine for many purposes - for example anything to do with synagogue life - but is completely unlawful for use in school admissions.

Many people here also seem to be confusing two cases. The woman teacher in question actually did have an orthodox conversion. The boy was a different case. His mother had had a non-orthodox before he was born and although he was willing to embark on an Orthodox conversion himself, he was told that his schooling would likely be over by the time he finished. The family were given no other real option but a court case. They were completely frozen out.

dominic lennon

Excellent article Melanie and I speak as a Catholic.

John Duckham

There should not be any Sharia or any Jewish Laws in Britain. All should abide by the laws as laid down by Parliament without reference to anyone else's judiciary. Where British Law has taken account of special laws for Muslims or Jews or anyone else these laws should be recinded. Any law disallowing a child entry anywhere to any institution or business or anything else in Britain on the basis of race or religion should be illegal. Everyone wishing to enter any school, club, library, should be allowed to do so. Special courts and rulings on ethnicity should be taboo in a democracy.

daniel maris

Alan Lothian -

Stop being hysterical.

Judges already rule who is black and who is white. Who is Muslim and who is not. Who has a right to reside in the UK and who does not. Who is a British citizen and who is not.

Why shouldn't they determine who is a "Jew" and who is "not"?

HT

Alan: How dare NuLab's fatuous "Supreme Court" tell Jews who can be Jews and who can't?

The court isn't doing this. It's telling the school that it has to comply with racial discrimination legislation when making admissions if it wishes to continue receiving taxpayers' money.

If the school wants to pursue a discriminatory admissions policy, it can do so with its own money. I wish all religious schools would follow this example.

Edward in the USA

This issue with a secular court deciding whether an Orthodox Jewish school can reject a student sounds familiar.

How is it that class-conscious Britain accepts social divisions?

If an "Upper class" person wants to marry someone out of their class, someone from the "Lower class", it it discouraged. If they do marry, they are shunned, the children of than union are frowned upon, not given the same respect, the same privileges as a child from the same Upper class klan.

See the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.

The Orthodox Upper class is given the right to set their own rules, without interference from supposedly "classless" courts.

Why not hold "Upper class Public schools" to the same standards of non-exclusivity as is demanded of Jewish religious schools?

Yuval berger

Dear R. Shlomo Silverstein (& Linda Smith)
I'm quite familiar with what you have written. As you can see from my name I am Jewish too. My argument is not about the correct conversion procedure. It is about the fact that the school in question does not accept pupils born to the "wrong" group. Whether it should be referred to as "racism", or a specific term coined for this type of discrimination, and whether the kid's mother converted properly is besides the point. The point is that a kid was discriminated against because of being born to a certain group.
I ask you this - if a clearly gentile couple would like to register their kid to a Jewish orthodox school, willing that their kid would respect all school bylaws whilst there, would the school have the right to reject the kid?

Greg D

Carl – no, I’m not really feeling surprised. More vindicated. But I do want others to be aware of the hidden nastiness of Melanie and her pets.

Just Louise – regarding ‘nudniks’, at least Socrates would be proud of me. I’d rather him than the Lubavitcher or - God forbid - gerphil.

By the way, your argument that ‘Trumpeldor has apologised for any offence given, and if, as I suspect, he's an Israeli, the word you dislike would come naturally to him, with no derogatory intent’ is extremely weak. Please reconcile it with Trumpeldor’s earlier comment of Dec 16 4:00pm:

‘This supreme court decision is stupid
It will prevent Halakhic but non practicing Jews to attend this great school which is shameful
How can a non religious jury decide who is an orthodox Jew ?
After the outrageous suit against Mrs Livni, England shifts to insanity’

A lovely little haiku of spite. Why did he not use the term goyim here, in his earlier post, if it is so natural to him? And note his obvious disgust for Englanders. Further, it is not only I who dislike this term. daniel maris and Gil do not find it particularly tasteful either.

Jez – Can you not see the point I have been trying to prove? The fact that the people who are furious at this decision speak about non-Jews with race-based derogation proves that the Supreme Court's point. Please, Jez, read the links.

Finally, I see that Reb Silverstein has decided to rub some salt into the wounds in spite of the controversy I have raised.

Reb, we are not in Israel. You, yourself limited the non-offensive use of the term goy to everyday Hebrew usage in that country. We use ‘gentile’ in English, not goy – yet you seem to make a point of doing the opposite. Why not dispense with the brackets and use the neutral terms alone? But not to worry, let’s follow the path of the Old Testament.

Can you, Reb Silverstein, please provide some exegesis for all of Devarim 7 (or Deuteronomy, as it is commonly known in English) given that it is a source of inspiration for the Torah on the issue of Jewishness?

I provide the context for everyone (King James Version):

DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 7

1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:

3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.

6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.

.......

Others can read the rest for themselves. But I do think Deuteronomy: 25 - 26 have something to do with the story of the poor shaygetz who didn’t make it into the JFS:

25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold that is on them, nor take it unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it is an abomination to the LORD thy God;

26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: but thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.

Brian Moshe

Due to on-going computer problems preventing me from reading this thread properly before now, I realise that this topic may have run its course - it is after all nearly a week old and the last comment was made yesterday. Also, I am uncertain if an attempt by me to comment was successfully sent or not, so I am re-writing and aplogise in advance if my earlier post subsequently appears.

First, I'd like to say that I fully agree with one poster, Joseph, who correctly states that if the Orthodox authorities recognised the validity of Reform and other non-Orthodox strands of Judaism they would, in Israel, have to share funding from the Israeli government with such movements. (They would also have to share much else including their monopoly of religious power.)

What I find disquieting is that several regular Jewish posters on here appear to have accepted without question the deeply offensive description of Reform and other non-Orthodox conversion by Reb Shlomo Silverstein.

Reb Silverstein states:

December 21st, 2009 6:43am
"The problem comes (and this is related to Melanie's article) when certain organizations claiming to represent authentic Judaism, offer a service to convert someone who may genuinely feel an inclination to be part of the Jewish people but is completely ignorant as to what it entails.

After a short period of superficial study, they give the goy a certificate and put them through a mumbo-jumbo ceremony and then tell them that they are now Jewish. The potential convert has been told nothing about making a commitment to believe in G-d, to believe that we received the Torah at Mount Sinai from the hands of G-d and to observe all His commandments in their daily lives. They have simply been conned.

Then when they inevitably have their first contact with Orthodox Jews and are told that they are actually not Jewish, they feel insulted. In fact they ought to feel anger towards those organizations that lied to them."

Could Reb Silverstein please explain how a Reform, Conservative, Masorti, Liberal or Reconstructionist Jewish conversion ceremony descends into 'mumbo-jumbo'?

I belong to two Reform congregations, one in the USA and one in England. As I understand it a candidate for conversion in the American congregation undergoes at least a year of study under the rabbi (Our rabbi converts about one person a year).

If and when both the rabbi and the candidate agree to proceed after at least a year of study, the candidate if male is either circumscised, or if already circumscised, undergoes 'hatafat dam' performed by the local Orthodox mohel (circumscisor). Whether male or female the candidate is subsequently immersed in a mikvah (again in the Orthodox shul). About a day or two later the conversion ceremony takes place at the Reform shul in a short ceremony conducted by the rabbi.

As soon as the convert recites the Shema the rabbi places the Torah scroll in their arms and declares them a Jew from henceforth.

This is, according to Reb Silverstein, nothing more than a con job; the rabbi has not told the candidate anything except lies and the stages of the ceremony have involved unidentified 'mumbo-jumbo'.

Reb Silverstein is free to decide who in his eyes is a Jew and who isn't, but he has no right to claim that competent Reform (or other Jewish movements') rabbis do not have that right too.

In her article above, Melanie praises Dr Tony Bayfield, the president of British Reform Judaism, for giving his 'wise' approval to the right of JFS to determine its own admissions policy.

I assume that Dr Bayfield doesn't regard Reform conversions as mere invalid 'mumbo-jumbo' - if he did then he would be denying the validity of the movement which he represents, which would be absurd.

Edward in the USA

Perhaps Greg D can enlighten us on the meaning of Kaffir, Kuffar, Kafir, Dhimmi, Infidel, Yahoodi, Crusader.

These words are not used by Jews but by Muslims to refer to non-Muslims or Muslims in poor standing.

C. Gee

Brian Moshe:

The fact that there has been movement from orthodox to conservative to reform demonstrates that each group looks upon its predecessor(s) as containing excessive mumbo-jumbo. Why else bother to reform, or change at all?

In my experience of very reform synagogues in America, it is not only the laws and rituals which have been relaxed, but female rabbis refer to "forces". The one God is gone.

Atheist Jews regard it all as mumbo-jumbo.

Carl

Phil - I doubt that you even know what a Righteous Gentile is. You shame those who are by using the label in such a trite, ignorant manner.

Reb Shlomo Silverstein

Dear Brian Moshe

I'm sorry you found my words offensive. I understand your feelings though. You have been led to believe that reform is just another stream of Judaism and should be accepted by everyone. Unfortunately it is not Judaism.

To start off, please take a moment to realise why they call themselves the "reform" movement. They themselves are admitting that they have reformed and changed the definition of Judaism as practiced in every generation and every place for over 3,000 years. The first reform synagogue in Hamburg which opened its doors in 1851 knew exactly what it was doing. They wished to be part of the gentile society around them and accept their morality and cultural practices yet at the same time, wished to keep some of the "feel good" religious ritual of their childhood. Those Jews who remained loyal to Torah and Judaism became known as Orthodox Jews.

I don't like to take such analogies too far but consider this. Suppose a group of chess players decide that the rules of chess are too restrictive, a product of an old irrelevant generation. They decide to modernize it by allowing, for example the knight to move as many squares in any direction as the player wishes. This makes for a faster, more exciting, almost arcade type game. This new, less challenging game might well appeal to many people, especially those who know nothing about Chess. They buy the chess board and pieces from the official chess club shop and everything looks, at least to anyone who doesn't know chess as if it’s the real thing. The problem comes though when one of these "reform chess" players wants to participate in the national chess tournament. They feel insulted when their registration is rejected. They feel that their chess is just as legitimate as theirs. The problem is that the word "reform" changes it into an entirely different game. You can argue its merits but one thing is certain. It is not chess!

Trumpeldor

@Brian Moshe,

May I remind you the involved school is ORTHODOX and asked for the kids to be orthodox as well ?
A English court is not the proper juridiction to decide about the jewishness status of applicants
This school has supplied the English society with thousand of well behaved and dedicated kids .
Thanks to this masorti selfish mother,this great school won't be maybe able to continue her great mission.
What a huge success for the decaying British society !
Another pillar of sanity has collapsed.

phil

greg d have you seen this film ,you are beginning to remind me of the villain ,another nutter crazed by his vision of the seven deadly sins,and a bible freak .How do you acquire all this "knowledge" and are you as they say, "known"? ,you do sound a very disturbed person and I am relieved that you do not like me ,that could have been very worrying -hope I have not hit the nail on the head there ,I have no intention to mock the afflicted and would be sad if I had .....--------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Seven (stylised as Se7en) is a 1995 American crime film directed by David Fincher and written by Andrew Kevin Walker. The story follows a retiring detective (Morgan Freeman) and his replacement (Brad Pitt), jointly investigating a series of ritualistic murders inspired by the seven deadly sins.

phil

Everybody --we all seem to be losing track of the argument that every human being should be able to make his own arrangements with his God and be allowed to follow the religious path of whichever religion he chooses -
------------------------
I am sorry Rabbi S ,with all the respect that I afford you ,I do not believe Moses spoke with GOD,but I do believe that his soul was filled with the thoughts that he (Moses) brought down to us from SINAI . I also believe that we all make free decisions with the brain and the soul that we were given by GOD -I do not for instance believe that it was GOD,S will to allow the extermination of 6 million of us and countless other poor souls ,it was the will of wicked people who eventually were beaten back by those whose souls and brains told them how wrong the others were -
-----------------------
When our time comes we will have to answer for what we have done on this earth and my own soul tells me that to do ,,what books and stories from 6000 years ago command us to are a mere abrogation of our responsibilities if we do not use our brains .Most of us know right from wrong and I "know" for instance riding a lift on Shabbos which is preprogrammed is wrong -and deciding which of tea or coffee is allowed to brew to be Kosher --did Moses really tell us this ?
-----------------
This may be a long way of saying why I support the child,s right to a Jewish education ,nevertheless I do not believe either that the courts have a right to say who is a Jew,that is a stupidity and gross .

Rabbi S ,I truly believe in the goodness and honesty with which you live your life along with virtually every Rebbe I have ever come across ,one in particular who is the finest human being I have ever been privileged to meet ,but I have not been convinced that our laws are correct and should not have been amended with the passage of time .I hope I have not offended you ,that is not my intention .

Alan Lothian

"daniel maris" tells me to stop being hysterical. I've re-read my post and I am damned if I can see anything "hysterical" about it. This is an issue for Jews, to be decided by Jews, and most assuredly not by me. That is the only position I adopt in this argument, in which I am an interested and fascinated bystander, not a participant. There are clearly at least two defensible and mutually incompatible positions, and it has been most instructive to see how these have been argued intelligently by (the great majority, but not all) posters. I am only responding at all because I really object to being described as "hysterical". I'm an outsider, here, I hope a friendly one, but it's really none of my business. If that makes me "hysterical" so be it. Proverbs, VIII; 13. Unless further provoked, I will remain silent; read, learn and inwardly digest. Hysterical, indeed. Harrumph.

daniel maris

Alan Lothian -

I note you don't address the points I make about judges deciding lots of other equally sensitive identity issues.

Unless you want to say no judge can ever rule on any identity issue (family, disability, religion, race, nationality, gender etc), then your post was indeed unbalanced by giving an appearance of outrage at what is in fact a pretty common occurrence.

phil

Alan Lothian
December 21st, 2009 3:25pm I think you made a sensible and polite contribution with which I agree apart from the your condemnation of the lady. -Daniel always also makes good contributions here and it is healthy debate on a subject that will never be agreed .I no doubt will have stirred up some passions but it is better we say what we think constructively than hear the nonsense and venom from the odd one who only wishes to be objectionable .WE care and that is what is important .

Greg D

Trumpeldor is at it again (see his latest post). Glad to see you hold such a high opinion of the Brits, Trump!

Edward in the USA – I don’t think I need to: ‘These words are not used by Jews but by Muslims to refer to non-Muslims or Muslims in poor standing.’ And they have nothing to do with this thread, which is about Orthodox Jewish (or according to Mel et al, British) discrimination.

Why do you switch the issue away from one form of prejudice toward another? Is Auschwitz any less terrible because there were Gulags?

Do you feel uncomfortable with the idea of Jewish racism, Ed? Your negative view of Muslim derogations suggests that you are uncomfortable with prejudice; does this extend to every religious/racial group or is your idea of human rights borrowed from the animal farm?

Phil - I have seen Seven; great flick. But I take inspiration from Morgan Freeman's character - you know, the sombre book-worm detective who unravels all the threads to reveal an ugly truth.

phil

Reb Shlomo does this have meaning within the context of what I was writing ?
-------------
Since every person's soul is in part divine, we must pity the
G-dly spark that is imprisoned inside an evil person,
and offer it our love."
--- We seem to have been invaded here by one who answers to this description and I am finding it hard to see him as anything but the malchemovitz,and I can offer him neither love nor pity ,am I wrong ?

Rabbi Shmuel Horovitz

phil

Greg D
December 24th, 2009 1:36pm-------
That quote below encapsulates your sickness ,greg you do not understand the evil that courses through your blood -every day you make a fool of yourself with your pathetic accusations, and worse still you bring out the side of me that I am not that keen on ,the ability to show you as that fool.
I feel sure that your daily dose of hate reminds the writers here, most of whom have both morality and education, of the interchanges between BATMAN AND THE JOKER and be sure we do not see you as BATMAN. Morgan Freeman no doubt would be horrified to know that someone roams this earth thinking that he is represented by his character .

You refuse to say where you acquire your "knowledge" but I think we all know .There are many anti-Semitic and fascist sites on the net and to be fair you represent them well .

gregs quote ."

Phil - I have seen Seven; great flick. But I take inspiration from Morgan Freeman's character - you know, the sombre book-worm detective who unravels all the threads to reveal an ugly truth."

Mario Sanchez

Everytime I read stories in British newspapers about life in Britain no matter what the topic, I always come away breathing a little bit easier than I was lucky enough to be born in the US

Greg D

Phil –

I’m sorry you have to see me as a daimon of one sort or another. As for my ‘knowledge’: here are the sources I have used to unravel this thread.
- Santa Barbara Jewish Community
- Free Online Dictionary
- Leo Rosten
- Meggido Modern Hebrew-English Dictionary
- Israel Shahak
- Frum satire
- Reb Shlomo Silverstein
- Trumpeldor
- Just Louise
- Adam B
- Melanie Phillips
- You
- The Old Testament

As you can see, the majority of my sources are from the Spectator website which, last time I checked, was not thought of as neo-fascist (although Patricia Shaw might disagree with me here).

You believe that I harbour general anti-Semitism; you are mistaken, phil. If you read my comments with care, rather than jumping at every shadow that they seem to conjure, you might see that our positions on this issue are not really opposed. Further, you might see that I sometimes make good points; I have often seen you praise the posts of other commentpatriots whose positions are fundamentally the same as mine whilst hurling abuse towards me.

Contrary to your opinion, I have no problem with ‘THE JEWS’; in fact, I find the idea of a single Jewish ‘race’ rather absurd. Jewish history is fascinating and inspiring. No less, I do believe that deep ethical problems are rooted in Orthodox Judaism and I am very concerned about the effects that some Orthodox sects have inside Israel, the Diaspora and, as such, the world at large. I don’t think that I should be torn to shreds for holding that opinion. Neither do I appreciate being likened to a fictional psychopathic murderer. Stop defaming me, phil, or I will report your comments.

phil

Greg D
December 24th, 2009 5:12pm
I see that you feel pain and do not like being shown up ,there are countless others who you insult that feel the same pain ,when you stop hurting those people I will listen to your concerns .Meanwhile I will continue to say it as I see it ,report away ,if you left your full name and address you could be defamed but we do not know who you are greg do we?.I suggest for the sake of your health and your innermost feelings that you start to be nice ,stop all the negative remarks about us and you life will become a lot happier.

Gaby Charing

Melanie: Jews (like Sikhs) benefit from protection under the Race Relations Act as a racial group. The whole structure of the Act is to outlaw both negative and positive discrimination, with a few exceptions. Since practising the faith presupposes that one is ethnically Jewish, it follows that to discriminate in favour of religiously observant Jews is to discriminate in favour of Jews as an ethnic group, and this is unlawful. The judgment is plainly right. The solution is to lobby for an amendment of the law. However, what amendment? If some schools are allowed to discriminate in favour of Jews, others must be allowed to discriminate against them - which takes us back to the days of Jewish quotas and the rest. The truth is, we can't have our cake and eat it. We have gained so much from the judgment in Mandla v Lee (which defined Sikhs and Jews as ethnic groups) and this Suprem Court decision is the price we have to pay.