But it's a Jewish school, and the law says that the decision about who qualifies as Jewish should be made by a Jewish religious authority. I think the school should have accepted these kids as Jewish, because the Liberal and Reform and Masorti movements accept them as Jewish, and a school that's supposed to be for the Jewish community should actually be for the Jewish community and not just for the Orthodox. But that's exactly why I don't like this decision -- it's not just taking it out of the hands of the Orthodox, it's taking it out of the hands of the Jewish community entirely.

Oh msbelle, I'm sorry about the bad night. I'm on AIM if you need to vent or can vent.

I'm slowly eating my way through the freezer. It's not as much fun as one might imagine. But tonight is fettucine alfredo, which is kind of awesome.

One of the other families involved in the case is one where the mother converted in Israel and the Israeli rabbinate still recognizes her conversion as valid, but the London rabbis don't.

You know, as a general rule, I would say that no particular group of religious authorities should overrule another if not defined by the religion, but I think that the rabbis in ISRAEL have a little more cred that an english rabbi.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, every denomination defines a Jew as someone who is either Jewish by birth or by conversion. They disagree on what is meant by "by birth" or "by conversion," but they agree that those are the two general ways that someone can be Jewish. This test -- synagogue attendance, keeping kosher, volunteering with a Jewish communal group, attending a Jewish primary school -- ignores all of that completely. And it's also biased toward the Orthodox, because some of the other denominations don't believe that the rules of kashrut are binding, so it's asking them to prove that they are Jewish by doing something that they don't believe is a requirement of Judaism.

You know, as a general rule, I would say that no particular group of religious authorities should overrule another if not defined by the religion, but I think that the rabbis in ISRAEL have a little more cred that an english rabbi.

General precedent is that rabbis in one place can question the validity of conversions by rabbis somewhere else. What this used to mean was that, every once in a while, you'd end up with somebody who wasn't considered Jewish in one town with really particular rabbis, but was considered Jewish everywhere else. It really didn't happen with any frequency until the past decade or two, and a whole lot of it is because of politics and infighting among the rabbinate -- rabbis trying to discredit other rabbis by "proving" that they performed an invalid conversion.

-t, please tell your DH to stop saying dub-dub-dub. It's just not right.

I'll pass that along.

I see your point, Hil, but I can't see how the court had much choice, given the statutes forbidding preferential treatment by ethnicity.

I see your point, Hil, but I can't see how the court had much choice, given the statutes forbidding preferential treatment by ethnicity.

I'm having trouble seeing it as a question of ethnicity, since this same kid with these same parents could have been considered Jewish by the Orthodox if his mother had converted differently. And he would also be considered Jewish if the rule was that he had to be considered Jewish by some denomination, since the Masorti movement says that he's Jewish. If the rule was "no children of converts," then I could see it as an ethnicity question, but the issue was which converts were OK, and the differentiation between the different groups of converts had nothing to do with ethnicity.

I guess I don't see how saying that all children of converts would be accepted as Jewish would be discriminating by ethnicity.

Here's the lower court ruling [link] and here's the ruling overturning it [link] (I haven't read the second one yet.)

I guess I don't see how saying that all children of converts would be accepted as Jewish would be discriminating by ethnicity.

Because that is choosing by birth, not by belief or practice. Again the problem is that being "Jewish" is both a religion and an ethnicity. But UK law only allows discrimination on religious but not ethnic grounds. The fundamental problem is that UK law can't recognize "son of a Jewish mother" as valid grounds to accept or refuse to accept a student for admission to a school.

But I found a bunch of Christian schools in the UK that say that a kid gets preference if his or her parent regularly attends church.

And I think your definition of "religion" is too narrow. Judaism is a religion, which defines who is a member based on religious law. It makes no sense to say that Judaism is enough of a religion that it can have a Jewish school where they're allowed to give preference to Jewish kids, but not enough of a religion that the religious rules defining who those Jewish kids are don't hold. This is trying to make Judaism fit into laws that were written with Christianity in mind, and it just doesn't work.