You're still Jewish – even if your mother isn't
Judges rule that London school's strict admissions policy is in breach of Race Discrimination Act
AP
The Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest site. A British school has been told it cannot bar a boy because his mother is not Jewish
Britain's Jewish faith schools may have to revise their admission policies after the Court of Appeal ruled that the widely used criteria for selecting pupils breached the Race Discrimination Act.
In a far-reaching judgment, three judges found the well known JFS (formerly the Jews' Free School) in Brent, north-west London, racially discriminated against a 12-year-old boy by denying him a place at the school because his mother was not a recognised Jew.
The ruling was immediately attacked by the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sachs, who said he supported an appeal to the House of Lords to try to overturn the judgment so that Jews could "be true to the Jewish faith" by upholding the existing criteria for membership of the Jewish religion.
The boy's father is Jewish by birth, but his mother is Jewish by conversion conducted at a Progressive rather than an Orthodox synagogue and therefore not recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR). It is a basic principle that a child is not recognised by the OCR and other bodies as Jewish unless his or her mother is Jewish.
JFS argued that its admissions policy giving preference to Jewish children when the school was oversubscribed was lawful because it was based on religious and not racial criteria.
But the judges said that "the requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or by conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act".
The discrimination against the boy, referred to as M, was direct discrimination and therefore could not be justified, said Lords Justices Sedley and Rimer and Lady Justice Smith.
Even if it had been indirect, "we consider its purpose to be selection on the basis of ethnicity and therefore not to constitute a legitimate aim".
After the judgment, solicitor John Halford, representing the boy's father, said: "We welcome the strong statement by the court that the fundamental right to equality before the law, regardless of race, applies to the admissions criteria of a faith school."
He added: "We have never sought to interfere with the right of Orthodox Jews to define for their own religious purposes who they do or do not recognise as Jewish. However, it is unlawful for a child's ethnic origins to be used as the criterion for entry to a school. Such a practice is even more unacceptable in the case of a comprehensive school funded by the taxpayer."
Many other Jewish schools across the UK are believed to operate a similar policy and will be directly affected by the court's decision.
Faith schools in general are allowed to give preference to children of their own faith if they are oversubscribed – so long as the process is not based on ethnic origin.
The sticking point: Who is a Jew?
The traditional, Orthodox view is that a Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother or who is a convert to Judaism. Some other denominations now also accept the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother as Jewish when the child is raised as a Jew. In Britain, not all Jewish conversions are recognised by the Office of the Chief Rabbi (OCR). All branches of Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism tend to uphold the principles following matrilineal descent.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
Is the Jews' Free School privately owned and privately funded, or is it funded by taxpayer money from the civil government?
Myself, I find it baffling that religion-based schools get State funding. It's completely wrong.
To spell it out: that a religious institution uses religious criteria for accepting members is one thing (and the judgement in the article regards how to apply such criteria), for a state school that is supposed to be for everyone to deny someone entrance on grounds of religious practice is really another.
So many Jewish intellects have been dedicated to the reduction of discrimination in race-relations.
How ironic that discrimination should be perpetuated in faith-relations.
Three UK judges have decided that a requirement for entry into a Jewish school, of a mother who is Jewish, is racist and, therefore, cannot stand.
Their intention is to regulate fair entry to the state-funded religious schools Tony Blair created. The Race Relations Act does not allow for this kind of exclusion.
So, what seems not to have registered?
This school's requirement is nothing new: it is an ancient, and central, tenet of Judaism. To call the school policy racist is to call Judaism a form of racism.
Judaism has walked a tightrope on this subject for many years: claiming protection as a religion when the accusation of racism arises, and then claiming to be a race (Semites) when criticism, or the issues of conversion and/or Israeli citizenship arise.
So, now that Judaism is recognised as a racism in British law I'd like to know how the authorities are going to square that with that other Blair invention: The Incitement to Religious Hatred law.
Are we allowed to oppose racism that calls itself a religion, provided we don't get too worked up about it?
And how do Tony Blair, the Labour Party, and the Department of Education, now justify funding racism?
(Personal disclosure: I disapprove of ALL religions and master race fantasies, and wholeheartedly agree with France's attempts to create a secular state in which children can develop, free of the intellectual constraints demanded by these misrepresentations of reality.)
Some are not jews but they are jewish my testing DNAs.
Testing for race, via DNA, would be selecting a particular race and that is illegal as it would constitute racism.
Anyway, though the Jewish belief of Jewishness being passed down the maternal line is form of racial selection this belief has not succeeded in maintaining a genetically pure maternal line. There are thoroughly ethnically European, Russian and Ethiopian Jews aside from the Semitic ones.
Also, the Semitic Jews are indistinguishable genetically from the Arab Semites of the same region.
All of us we are humans,we are not born with religion written on our forehead, it is forced on us.
Aren't we strange?
We are born to segregate!
If this isn't stopped now, they will soon be telling me that I can't publish and teach Getting To Know Jesus. www.gettingtoknowjesus.org
Since when? Ever since society learnt from the Papacy and the Spanish Inquisition the cost of letting a religion have unfettered freedom and political power. You might not know it but their favoured form of torture was waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning that Western society was free of until reintroduced by a religious fundamentalist: George W. Bush.
It was a long slow process to drag Europe out of the Dark Ages, and much of the work involved fettering and moderating Christianity. This involved educating the population against the excesses of the superstitious and those opportunists that use poverty and gullibility to achieve political power.
A few examples of what the superstitious have been prevented from believing:
That you can tell if a woman is a witch based on whether or not she floats.
That possession by 'evil spirits' explains adolescents' mood swings.
That they had the right to kill homosexuals
That they had the right to kill any intellectual that used scientific research to discredit any cherished superstitious explanation of the world in their special book.
That they had the right to control society through a combination of violence, superstition, a death cult, body parts in jars, and the prohibition of the translation of their special book.
Right now Pakistan is fighting a war against the Taliban for exactly the same reason.
First, everything you cited, with the exception of a misinterpretation of blaming George Bush for waterboarding, is of history and not representative of today's main stream of Christianity.
Have you ever read the Gospels and learned how God loves all people and wants to have an intimate and personal relationship with you? I presume from your comments that you have either been taught a negative view of Christianity or you have been hurt by someone who was a Christian. Either way, you owe it to yourself to find out what the New Testament really teaches before you engage too deeply in attacking Christians.
Our Constitution clearly states that the government should stay out of regulating religious beliefs. However, the First Amendment was never written, intended or practiced to keep Christianity or any other religion out of government.
Every President, with the pending exception of Barak Obama, has recognized God as the supreme governor of the United States. Each one has shown great respect for the Bible and for the influence Christians have had in our nation's founding and heritage.
I would encourage you to first read the New Testament and see what the value system that most Christians are trying to live by. I believe that if you compare Christianity with every other religion in the world, you will find none that teach us to love one another or have a leader who died for our sins, rose from the dead and can give us eternal life.
No other person has changed the world for the better or impacted it as strongly as Jesus Christ has. Efforts to destroy the Church that Christ founded through the Apostles have resulted in destroying the destroyer. The Church has outlasted every government that has ever lived. No power will ever overcome the positive influence that Christianity has on people's lives.
I would like to invite you to do a more open-minded investigation of Christianity before you attack it any further. I will pray for God to show you His love, mercy and grace in your search for the truth.
God bless,
The likes of In god we Trust on your currency and one nation under god in your pledge of allegiance were additions from the 50's.
There was separation of church and state in the US for exactly the reasons stated above.
The Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson, declares that "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..." and we are "...endowed by our Creator (God) with certain unalienable rights..." Mr. Jefferson was not an atheist, as you have supposed. He was not big on organized religion, but had considerable respect for God.
The Bill of Rights to the Constitution of the United States declares in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This document first recognizes God and the importance of Christianity in our nation. It is not to prohibit or restrict Christianity, but to keep government out of meddling in the affairs of the church and prevent the government from declaring one denomination as a "national religion" as other nations had done. This amendment gives freedom, not restriction and control.
Our nation was founded and influenced strongly on Christian teachings. No other nation on earth has the freedom we have. No other nation on earth has prospered like we have, advanced technologically or equaled the per capita output that we recognize. No other nation has been as generous to others in need around the world as the United States. This all comes from the influence of the Bible and our Christian heritage.
I'm very sorry that you and sebmel seem to be anti-Christian. I don't know what has happened in your past that has made you so fearful of Christian values. I do hope and pray that you will be open-minded and read the New Testament. Consider its claims and recognize that all Christians, like everyone else, are a work in progress. Christianity is a relationship with a loving God who sent His Son to die for your sins. It is not a religion of hate and does not condone the murder of those who are not Christians like some other religions advocate.
Getting To Know Jesus is a Bible study of the life and teachings of Jesus that will acquaint the student with what Jesus really taught and did. www.gettingtoknowjesus.org
God bless America or there will be no America for God to bless.
The Bible is full of many unpleasant acts represented as virtuous: Genocide, Racism, Xenophobia, Rape and Child Abuse to mention a few.
As for it's morality there is absolutely nothing original in it. Christians are only capable of claiming virtues as being Christian due to their insularity and unfamiliarity with other cultures. The central virtue proposed by the Bible, that of 'Doing unto others as you would have done unto you', is so common it is virtually universal. The Christian version of this virtue is one of the least virtuous forms as it encourages a selfish motive as opposed to Buddhist versions which stress selflessness (a virtue which Christianity never expounds as the promise is always of a personal return in heaven).
There is nothing inaccurate in blaming George W Bush for resurrecting water-boarding.
Unfortunately, Obama IS an Evangelical Christian.
The Founding Fathers of the US did not enshrine respect for the Christianity in the Constitution of the US they actually worked to ensure the reverse.
The Founding Fathers on the whole were Unitarians, or Atheists, and not Christians as you would recognise them.
Having said all this I have no doubt that it won't have the slightest influence on Christians. The problem all religious (superstitious) people is that they have abandoned rational investigation as the route to understanding of what is around them. That method is replaced by a faith in their own prejudices, with which they have become habituated and psychologically dependent.
That usually does no harm until they are called upon to exercise some form of authority over other people at which point their insular, prejudiced method (rather than an outward looking investigation) causes harm proportional to the influence they wield. As evidenced by Iran, the Taliban, and the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
Personally, I'd prefer to see *all* faith-based schools disappear.
They cannot stone women for wearing trousers (as the Bible incites them to)
They cannot stone people for adultery (as the Bible incites them to)
They cannot stone you for eating crustaceans (as the Bible incites them to)
Tanzanians cannot kill albinos for their body parts
Jews do not own all land they walk over (as Deuteronomy tells them they do)
Moslems cannot cut the heads of everyone who does not submit to Islamic control (as the Koran instructs)
It is essential that the courts tell the superstitious what they cannot believe because history shows that the extent to which they are capable of pious criminality is beyond belief.
Which brings up a further thought. How many Christians who say they live by the Bible's strictures eat lobster?
The same is true of killing someone for adultery.
The current topic is Judaism and racism. This is a topic from which the West has hidden. Much like forced marriages and honour killings.
The British do not say to new immigrants from the North of Pakistan: It's fine for you to believe that it is right to kill your daughter if she falls in love with someone of whom you do not approve... just, please don't do it here.
We do not say to Moslems: We entirely respect your right to teach your children that Allah wants them to kill all Kafirs who do not submit to Islamic rule, as it says in the Koran, just please don't do it. We tell them to sort out what they are teaching and that that is a treasonable offence.
Unfortunately, the fashion for cultural relativism and political correctness has suggested that all beliefs have equal value and ought to be respected, ignoring the fact that intrinsic to some of the belief systems is total disrespect for the others and a demand for violent dominion.
The only universal system of thought is science. It is the only system that produces consistent, reproducible results without political ambition.
This boy has a Jewish father and a mother who converted to Judaism, and has been brought up in the Jewish faith since birth. I have a Christian father (though he does not, as far as I know, attend church) and an Atheist mother, and while I was christened and attended church-linked primary schools I count myself as an Atheist with leanings toward Buddhism.
Yet according to that statement above, if I were to go to an Orthodox synagogue and convert to Judaism the OCR would view me as more Jewish than a child with Jewish parents who has been living that life from day 1?
On a side note, can the child not "convert" at an Orthodox synagogue and therefore become eligible for the school? At this point I would guess it wouldn't matter as the school is already oversubscribed and he would be joining mid-term, which an oversubscribed school would not allow regardless of the religious matter.
They are NOT exclusive to Jews, therefore, they are not 'markers' and they cannot be used for identification.
As I said: the Semitic Jews are genetically indistinguishable from Arab Semites of the same region.
One needs to be very wary of poor science done with political motives. That applies especially to Israeli genetics and archaeology.
I suspect its to limit the cross-link between Jews and Arabs. Prophet Abraham had two wives, Sarah (first wife) and Hagar (second and younger wife). Abraham and Sarah we unable to have children for a very long time, then prophet Abraham married Hajar (an Egyptian servant). She gave him a child called Ismail. Later Sarah had his second son called Issac.
In their travel from Sumeria (now Iraq), God, knowing the strong jealousy between Sarah and Hagar, instructed Abraham to leave Hagar and new born Ismail in a place the desert of Arabia (that place is now called Mecca), whose desendants became the Arabs of Arabia. Prophet Abraham and Sarah moved on to Cannan. The children of Issac became the Jews.
If the mother dependency is perserved then the Jewish family line then stops at Abraham/Sarah and the the link with Abraham/Hagar is dismissed. This "mother" link rule must have been initiated long after prophet Issac to remove the link with Hajar for political or racial reasons.
A DNA test is no different from a maternal test: It is Racism and that is Illegal!
Does anyone still doubt that these people need to be told what they cannot do by the courts?
Yes, the Jews do believe they are a race AND a religion.
Yes, their beliefs are racist, as the British courts have ruled.
I do not think the problem is in the definition of what a religion can be but, rather, in religion itself. The simplest way to explain the problem with religion it thus:
Science is the peer reviewed distillation of the cross-referenced results of the empirical analysis of research into reality by millions of people over billions of working hours.
Religion is the political result of the wearing out of the knees of many pears of trousers while tuning into the hackles on the back of the neck.
One method produces consistent results independent of the culture in which they are achieved.
The other produced the Taliban, the Spanish Inquisition, the Jonestown suicides, Scientology, Voodoo and Brazil's largest multi-national the Igreja Universal (which does a roaring trade in prayers for money).
Clearly, the most charitable thing you can say about the religious method of tuning into your hackles is that it doesn't produce a consistent message. However, it does produce a consistent result: an anti-intellectual organisation with political ambitions, opposed to some science and not averse to violence.
UK is not secular like France, thank God. Although, modernity makes it feel that way.
Whenever someone says that I remember my youth, trying to work out what people meant by God:
What religion's God do you believe in? I'm a Christian.
Catholic? No, Protestant.
Oh, Anglican? No Evangelical?
I see... Methodist? No, Presbyterian.
Loosing track of the subdivisions:
Oh, that church over there? No, don't agree with the pastor. Mine's in Notting Hill.
So, if I ask the Pastor of your Presbyterian, Evangelical, Protestant, Christian Church what God is he can give me a good sense of what that means? Well, I don't agree with him entirely, but I like the music.
So, who do I have to ask to understand God? Me.
That fantasy imagined as transmitted through the hackles produces a fractured reality... a fractured humanity.
The scientific method produces a consistent, testable result, independent of culture or location.
So what lies outside science, God? No, what lies outside science are the uncertainties science is currently working on. There is no need to replace that uncertainty with Thor, Woden, Ra, Dreamtime or any other God.
Why? Because to replace that uncertainty with a God is to throw away the method that gave you science and replace it with irrationality.
It is illogical to believe that a schizophrenic reality based on two incompatible methods of analysis is possible. There would be no science, and no modern civilisation, if scientists dropped their method, and tuned into their hackles, the moment they didn't understand something.
At what point does one throw reason to the wind? Every year, as science extends it's knowledge of the world, that boundary, at which the religions wish to take over, is pushed back.
It is no accident that the Taliban attack education, and the Evangelicals in the US produce pseudo-science, like Intelligent Design, third rate Universities and museums to superstition. They wish to draw back inwards the boundary at which their superstitions can take hold of the imagination. They wish to turn the clock back, repress women, repress homosexuality and revisit the Dark Ages.
As Richard Dawkins correctly states: It is moderate religious people that make fundamentalism possible. Without moderates excusing Koranic, Toranic and Biblical calls to violence; excusing Abraham's schizophrenic attempt on his son's life; justifying rape in the Book of Job; and ignoring Deuteronomy's assertions that anything the Jews walk on is theirs; fundamentalists would be seen as members of violent cults.
There is a little module in your brain called "the God module". In some people its active and they sense God. For others, that part of the brain is dormant, they sense nothing.
Simple as that, its a gift of faith. Everyone is given a different level of this sense. For many its zero.
That is fantasy, borne of habituated prejudice. There is absolutely no evidence for what you assert: not one iota. At the moment of your doubt you replace rational thought with divining and come up with the above.
Provided that no one in a position of authority, or significant responsibility, adopts that method then the trains still run, plane's fly, cars start, medicines function and surgeons have statistically consistent outcomes.
The moment people in authority adopt the above method, to determine their actions, surgeons put down their scalpels and advise you to go out and eat an albino.
Of course, evolutionist will say its a mechanism for survival - yeah rite.
Culture exists; tribalism exists; wars exist. What surprises you about the need for a collective rationale?
Imagine a society without cohesiveness being attacked? You see no advantage for society in believing one thing?
Consider religious persecution. Is it done privately or publicly? The Taliban execute in public... the Romans has the amphitheatre... Briton had the stocks and it's public burnings. All to demand cultural cohesion. Why do you think the Roman Emperors abandoned the Roman Gods in favour of one God with the Emperor/Pope as his earthly mediator? Social cohesion and political power.
Suppose you reply: Why doesn't science take the place of this collective rationale, religion?
Well, first of all it has to exist in a fairly complete form (which historically it didn't)... and then is has to be simple enough for everyone to understand (which it isn't).
The point I am trying to make is that each individual either has a sense of God or not. Its as simple as that.
Science is an observation of the construct of life. Science and religion go hand in hand (although they may not be compatible in some religions). Looking at your thoughts, they appear mixed up. But most of these things can be explained rationally. Also, you are associating the media centric versions of a religion with the greater religion, cf, the Taliban do not represent the Muslims of the world. They are a bunch of people who follow their own little twisted version of Islam - and the world things the Taliban are Islam. And so on for the Roamn empire, they followed a pagan religion called Mithraism (from ancient Persia - the previous superpower) and mixed it with the Islam of Christ and called it Roman Christianity - you correctly point out that they did this for political reasons to prop up a dying empire.
But the importatnt thing is my first statement, you got God or you aint got God - simples.
B] If they claim that they don't accept the OCR's definition of "who is a Jew" since when can a secular court, or a court made of people from a different religion give a decision that is not in their realm of study or venue? If someone who saw several "doctor/hospital" movies go to court to demand professional recognition by the British Medical Society claiming they are unfairly discriminating against him, would the court honor such a request? No, they wouldn't. They would that the BMS is the deciding forum with its traditional criteria. If someone came forth a demanded that a Bantu Shaman be admitted as a priest in a protestant or catholic church would the court dare rule on this? No, they would quickly throw it out of court.
Other groups have their own conversion process, which has been sidelined so far.
Anyone can convert into Judaism, regardless or race, according to all of the feuding sects of Judaism.
However, Judaism, much like smaller middle eastern cults, is wary of proselytizing since it is prompts violence in the middle east. Competition is not allowed, ask any slain Christian missionary minister in the middle east.
This is a secular court intervening in Jewish politics, asking who the hell put the black hats in charge of the gates of Judaism. and why would secular state establishments adopt their criteria exclusively. Fair question.
More importantly M1 kids protected their Jewish mom provided their parents were married. Nazi respected that gentiles subject to the draft or serving in the Werhrmacht love children a Jewess had born them, but they discriminated male products of 'geschuetzte mischehen'. My cousin Ernst happened to serve in the Austrian army as the Nazis took over. Like most high-school graduates he did his duty before enrolling at a University. As a mutt he could not be trusted to carry arms and was drafted into the paramilitary Organisation Todt. Their mission was to mend bridges and rebiult roads partisans blew up in occupied territory. Wearing German uniforms in noman's land the guys risked to be shot from either side.
Ernst luckily survived, settled in Saxony, married a Schiksa and sire 2 sons.
they don't.
jewsagainstzionism.com/articles/Jakubowi
nkusa.org/aboutus/index.cfm
judaism is a RELIGEON. if you CONVERT, you are jewish.
if you don't believe in yaweh then you are NOT JEWISH.
there are make fake jews out there who THINK they are jewish...!
indeed "those that say they are jews, but do lie"..