Corn bread will work too!

My parent attending church doesn't affect my ethnicity.

His mother converting in an Orthodox ceremony or a Masorti ceremony doesn't affect his ethnicity. But that is what affected the decision.

If the court went with the decision that a kid considered Jewish by any mainstream denomination would be considered Jewish, then any kid raised in a Jewish household from the age of 7 or younger would be considered Jewish, since that's the definition the Liberal movement uses.

The school is claiming someone is not Jewish (implicitly for ethnic reasons) and then discriminating against them. That is ethnic discrimination whether the judgement is right or wrong. If the Duch Orthodox church decide a white person was Black and refused to admit them for that reason, the wrongful identification of ethinicity would not keep it from being discrimination. If you are excluding people based on a definition of religious identity base on what their parents did before their birth, that is ethnic discrimination under UK law. What ethnicity you actually are is a separate issue.

If you are excluding people based on a definition of religious identity base on what their parents did before their birth, that is ethnic discrimination under UK law.

But then why is it OK to exclude people based on a definition of religious identity based on what their parents did after their birth?

I'm taking a poll. If you were getting a meal of chilli, would you prefer corn muffins or crackers with the chilli?

Always the crackers, you freaks! (Not just on Cincinnati chili; on Texas chili, too.)

Corn muffins. Sheesh.

(I like corn muffins, but with apple butter on them. Nom.)

Here's where my main issue with the ruling is:

Applying this reasoning to the present case, it appears to us clear (a) that Jews constitute a racial group defined principally by ethnic origin and additionally by conversion, and (b) that to discriminate against a person on the ground that he or someone else either is or is not Jewish is therefore to discriminate against him on racial grounds.

So a Jewish school is allowed to give preference to Jewish students, but is not allowed to give preference to Jewish students? There was a girl in my middle school who was Catholic, but came to synagogue a lot because some of her friends were Jewish and she wanted to hang out with them. (There was also a Jewish girl who frequently went to the Catholic church for the same reason, but she's kind of irrelevant to this.) This girl was still Catholic. If she had this level of synagogue attendance and also volunteered as a camp counselor at the JCC (or whatever the British equivalent is), she might qualify as Jewish under the new rules. She had no intent of converting, but I can easily see her wanting to go to this school because that's where her friends were going, and her parents probably would have said OK. (This school is considered VERY good academically.) So if the rule is that Jewish kids get preference, because they want to give Jewish kids the first chance at Jewish education, what is the reasoning for giving her preference?

So if the rule is that Jewish kids get preference, because they want to give Jewish kids the first chance at Jewish education, what is the reasoning for giving her preference?

I'm pretty sure on this ruling there is still a belief test. Attending Synagogue does not make it if you are not a believing Jew. (If she claimed to be a believer, that would get her into trouble with the Catholic church). Also she does not have to be allowed to attend Synagogue. It is specifically schools and secular institutions that can't discriminate. The Dutch Orthodox Church is allowed to discriminate as to who they allow to attend Church. And Jewish groups can still discriminate as to who they allow to attend Synagogue.

I'm pretty sure on this ruling there is still a belief test.

No, there isn't. You can see the form here: [link] It's synagogue attendance, prior Jewish education, and volunteering at a Jewish communal organization.

OK, I was looking at the ruling. The court still allowed the Rabbi to set definition, within the bounds of the ruling. This does meet the ruling requirements. And it would be a very rare non-Jew who met these requirements. As I said, I look forward to Catholic Schools being required to give women admission to priestly training on a non-discrimantory basis.

And it would be a very rare non-Jew who met that requirement.

However, there would also be plenty of people who are unquestionably Jews who do not meet it. People who stick more to the home observances, people who just haven't found a synagogue nearby that they feel comfortable with, people who don't have the free time to volunteer. I haven't gone to synagogue in months, because the one within walking distance has too many stairs and the one without stairs is too far away to walk. (The one with the stairs is Orthodox, which I'm not entirely comfortable with, but it's really nearby, so I was going there on a "it's good enough" basis until the stairs got too difficult. The one far away without stairs is an independent minyan which I like a whole lot better.) The more kids a family has, the less likely it is that they're going to get any of those kids to synagogue regularly.