British court rules that Jewish school is Jew-Supremacist
last_per...@yahoo.com
From article:
"In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school
admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one’s mother is
Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was
“benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,” the court wrote,
“makes it no less and no more unlawful.”
"The case rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was based
on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which
would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it
concerned the status of M’s mother rather than whether M considered
himself Jewish and practiced Judaism. "
---------------
Evidence pretty clear that the Jews were racist bigots.
I'll Always Be 08/11/09
<2b731335-0b1f-49a7-baed-e7706d090d8c@m1
6g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
last_per...@yahoo.com wrote:
So you are comfortable publicly
demonstrating that you do not know the
difference between discriminatory or
supremacist?
Patrick Keenan
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
| From article:
You just might want to look up the definition of "supremacist" and re-read
the article. The Court did not find that the school was supremacist, it
found that its admission practices are discriminatory.
Those two words do *not* mean the same thing.
You really should consider education, but in the meantime, thanks for
demonstrating that ignorance underpins most hatred of Jews.
-pk
Joe Bruno
>
> - Show quoted text -
Judaism is not a race.
last_per...@yahoo.com
> <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>
> | From article:
>
> You just might want to look up the definition of "supremacist" and re-read
> the article. The Court did not find that the school was supremacist, it
> found that its admission practices are discriminatory.
>
> Those two words do *not* mean the same thing.
Might want to browse through the Talmud, KKKosher KKKornhole.
Patrick Keenan
news:2655ea70-83ed-499a...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
This is true, but a key part of the school's criteria is whether the
student's mother was Jewish.
And if "race" can't be based on familial connections, it has no basis
whatsoever.
Patrick Keenan
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c8dcff8-40b4-4135...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Again, you might want to look up the definition and re-read the article.
As it is, you're just demonstrating your ignorance.
Hope this helps.
-pk
Joe Bruno
> "Joe Bruno" <joebr...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jewish law says a person is a Jew if
1)His Mother is a Jew, or
2)He is a convert to Judaism
It isn't racial Judaism accepts converts.
Race is purely genetic.
Patrick Keenan
====
And genes are transmitted by mothers. Even if the student were
agnostic, the issue of the mother's Judaism is a key determinant for the
school.
That said, the problem for the school is not that it discriminated, it's
that it accepted public money. Because of that, its policy of determining
Jewishness based on whether the student's mother is Jewish or not, is not
acceptable under British law. If the test were based on level of ritual
observance, the decision might have been different.
The school's legal problem would probably not exist if the school had not
taken public funds.
And of course, regardless, the clear act of discrimination, which would be
legal except for the funding issue (Christian and Islamic schools frequently
discriminate in similar ways) does not necessarily mean that the school
supports "supremacism" of any kind, as the OP mistakenly asserts.
-pk
Joe Bruno
That's completely Irrelevant.Jewish law does not require any ritual
observance for anyone to qualify as a Jew.
What the hell are you talking about?
You are displaying your own ignorance of Jewish law.
I'll Always Be 08/11/09
<2655ea70-83ed-499a-81f4-e4b0e5abbb19@k1
7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 10:22�m, I'll Always Be 08/11/09
Have you ever read a post and understood
the point being made?
Stewart
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the wretched goyim from
attending.
Patrick Keenan
news:hd7m42$pqv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> <last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>>
>> From article:
>>
>> "In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school
>> Jewish - was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was
>> "benign or malignant, theological or supremacist," the court wrote,
>> "makes it no less and no more unlawful."
>>
>> "The case rested on whether the school's test of Jewishness was based
>> on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which
>> would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it
>> concerned the status of M's mother rather than whether M considered
>> himself Jewish and practiced Judaism. "
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>> Evidence pretty clear that the Jews were racist bigots.
>
> Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the wretched goyim from attending.
Christians schools often have similar restrictions. The only legal issue
here is that the school in question accepted public funding, and in so doing
lost its right to use any admittance criteria that differ from any other
publicly supported British school.
As to ethnicity, the school's test for Jewishness is whether or not the
mother is Jewish, but anything past the mother is not considered. Quite
similarly, some Christian schools require that at least one parent "in the
household must genuinely acknowledge a relationship with Jesus Christ
through the process of a family interview". (Taken from
http://maryvillechristianschool.org/330698.ihtml)
last_per...@yahoo.com
> "Stewart" <gortamu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hd7m42$pqv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Which of course is in no way based on 'blood' you dimwitted KKKosher
KKKlan
ass kisser.
Gary Renzetti
> <last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>>
>> From article:
>>
>> "In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school
>> Jewish � was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was
>> �benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,� the court wrote,
>> �makes it no less and no more unlawful.�
>>
>> "The case rested on whether the school�s test of Jewishness was
>> on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which
>> would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it
>> himself Jewish and practiced Judaism. "
>>
>> ---------------
>>
>> Evidence pretty clear that the Jews were racist bigots.
>
> Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the wretched goyim from
> attending.
>
>
Here you are prattling about "wretched goyim" when fifteen minutes ago
you were accusing an OP of being a hater. Perhaps you should take a good
look in a mirror.
Patrick Keenan
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1952c8f2-1524-41a6...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Ah, so you don't understand that a familial relationship is the most basic
expression of "race" or "blood".
And you show us, again, that when you have no substative response, you reach
for a smear.
And by the way, discrimination is not the same as supremacy.
Thanks for playing.
-pk
last_per...@yahoo.com
> Stewart wrote:
> > <last_permutat...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>
> >> From article:
>
> >> "In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school
> >> Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was
> >> “benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,” the court wrote,
> >> “makes it no less and no more unlawful.”
>
> >> "The case rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was
> >> based
> >> on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which
> >> would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it
> >> himself Jewish and practiced Judaism. "
>
> >> ---------------
>
> >> Evidence pretty clear that the Jews were racist bigots.
>
> > Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the wretched goyim from
> > attending.
>
> You're quite the self-righteous little hypocrite aren't you, Stewie?
> Here you are prattling about "wretched goyim" when fifteen minutes ago
> you were accusing an OP of being a hater. Perhaps you should take a good
> look in a mirror.
Talking reasoning to a ZioNazi turd is as effective as bringing
in a 1000-lb marlin with a cane pole. Stewie Boi hates goy
because he throws like a girl.
last_per...@yahoo.com
I do understand it dimwit, _you_ don't.
> And you show us, again, that when you have no substative response, you reach
> for a smear.
You are a proven KKKosher KKKlan ass kisser. The posts say it all,
dimwit.
Patrick Keenan
news:427a0556-e55c-4a16...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Then why on earth would you claim that parentage isn't familial?
> And you show us, again, that when you have no substative response, you
> reach
> for a smear.
| You are a proven KKKosher KKKlan ass kisser. The posts say it all,
| dimwit.
Thanks for playing.
-pk
Stewart
"Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
news:8287f$4af7751b$d8fe9dcb$11...@PRIMUS.CA...
> Stewart wrote:
>> <last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>>>
>>> From article:
>>>
>>> "In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school
>>> was
>>> �benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,� the court
>>> wrote,
>>> �makes it no less and no more unlawful.�
>>>
>>> "The case rested on whether the school�s test of Jewishness was
>>> on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which
>>> would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it
>>> himself Jewish and practiced Judaism. "
>>>
>>> ---------------
>>>
>>> Evidence pretty clear that the Jews were racist bigots.
>>
>> Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the wretched goyim from
>> attending.
> You're quite the self-righteous little hypocrite aren't you, Stewie?
You are not qualified to judge anyone.
> Here you are prattling about "wretched goyim"
So what? You are one of them.
>when fifteen minutes ago you were accusing an OP of being a hater.
Am am allowed to apply a double standard if I so choose to do so.
> Perhaps you should take a good look in a mirror.
Unlike you, I am quite content with what I see. Now give dear Liz my
best.
Stewart
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eea40a13-6ab1-4307...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Yet you whine like a little bitch.
Stewart
<last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1952c8f2-1524-41a6...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Neither is being Jewish. Anyone may convert.
Gary Renzetti
> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
> news:8287f$4af7751b$d8fe9dcb$11...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> Stewart wrote:
>>> <last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>>>>
>>>> From article:
>>>>
>>>> "In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school
>>>> was
>>>> �benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,� the court
>>>> wrote,
>>>>
>>>> "The case rested on whether the school�s test of Jewishness was
>>>> on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which
>>>> would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it
>>>> himself Jewish and practiced Judaism. "
>>>>
>>>> ---------------
>>>>
>>>> Evidence pretty clear that the Jews were racist bigots.
>>> Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the wretched goyim from
>>> attending.
>> You're quite the self-righteous little hypocrite aren't you, Stewie?
>
> You are not qualified to judge anyone.
>
>> Here you are prattling about "wretched goyim"
>
> So what? You are one of them.
>
>> when fifteen minutes ago you were accusing an OP of being a hater.
>
> Am am allowed to apply a double standard if I so choose to do so.
>
>> Perhaps you should take a good look in a mirror.
>
> Unlike you, I am quite content with what I see.
answer.
Now give dear Liz my
> best.
remarried since. We last talked in (I think) 2003.
>
>
>
>
Gary Renzetti
Stewart
No, you silly twit.
Stewart
> Stewart wrote:
>> "Gary Renzetti" <liz...@connection.com> wrote in message
>> news:8287f$4af7751b$d8fe9dcb$11...@PRIMUS.CA...
>>> Stewart wrote:
>>>> <last_per...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2b731335-0b1f-49a7...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
>>>>>
>>>>> From article:
>>>>>
>>>>> "In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing
>>>>> school
>>>>> is
>>>>> was
>>>>> �benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,� the court
>>>>> wrote,
>>>>> �makes it no less and no more unlawful.�
>>>>>
>>>>> "The case rested on whether the school�s test of Jewishness was
>>>>> on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity,
>>>>> which
>>>>> would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it
>>>>> himself Jewish and practiced Judaism. "
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Evidence pretty clear that the Jews were racist bigots.
>>>> Absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the wretched goyim from
>>>> attending.
>>> You're quite the self-righteous little hypocrite aren't you,
>>> Stewie?
>>
>> You are not qualified to judge anyone.
>>
>>> Here you are prattling about "wretched goyim"
>>
>> So what? You are one of them.
>>
>>> when fifteen minutes ago you were accusing an OP of being a hater.
>>
>> Am am allowed to apply a double standard if I so choose to do so.
> Is English not your first language, Stewie?
>>
>>> Perhaps you should take a good look in a mirror.
>>
>> Unlike you, I am quite content with what I see.
> Just don't ask it "Who's the fairest one of all" - you wouldn't like
> the answer.
The "fairy-est" would be your case. As for me, I don't much care for
fairy tales.
> Now give dear Liz my
>> best.
> That would cause a major firestorm. We divorced in 2001 and have
> both remarried since. We last talked in (I think) 2003.
I wonder if your current wife knows you still use your previous wife's
name as part of your reply to address.
>>
>>
Joe Bruno
<aussies_s...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <2655ea70-83ed-499a-81f4-e4b0e5abbb19@k1
> 7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
Most of the time, your posts are meaningless trolling.
Just like that one is.
That's why I rarely read them anymore.
I'll Always Be 09/11/09
<d7dd72ab-f677-44c0-a075-d77bc11e3d1f@z4
1g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Joe Bruno <joeb...@usa.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 3:19�m, I'll Always Be 08/11/09
> <aussies_s...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2655ea70-83ed-499a-81f4-e4b0e5abbb19@k1
> > 7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
I wasn't asking if you read my posts. I
was asking if you understand the posts
you respond to. Thank you for proving
you don't.
ZuLu
Something zionazis ignore.
ZuLu
WE know well the tricks used by zionazis to switch the accusation of racism.
The bottom of that point is very clear. The state of Israel is based on the
discrimination by the genetic "origin" at the moment of giving the Israeli
citizenship - in that case, the presumed origin of the mother - which is the basis of
the racism.
BTW, It is amazing to observe that under that racist point of view the criteria used
by nazis were more tolerant concerning the belonging to the "jewish race" than the
zionazis ones. The zionazis are much more restrictive than the nazis when the
question is to admit a person as a jew.
The last polemic which have involved the last book of Shlomo Sand with the violent
reaction from zionists to his thesis establishing evidences to the "invention of the
jewish people".
Moreover, it is evident that there is a desperate hard work on genetic research by
zionists to find the supposed "evidences" that the alleged "jewish people"
constitutes a reality. The hidden utopian objective of all that work is to find
finally a specific "jewish gen". It is their particular Quest for the Holy Grail.
Google genetics + Ashkenaze to be convinced of it, that gives 191.000 hits!
In fact, the only scientific evidence found on the matter is that Palestinians are
genetically closer to genuine ancestral jews than all those imported impostors so
called "jews" who are mere descendants of various converted peoples all along the
history including the most important one: the Kahzars.
A thing is evident on that matter: it is the invention of the word "antisemitism"
which was genuinely a racist concept.
If "jews" were not a race from the point of view of racists and zionists, that word
shouldn't have any consistence. In fact, if the definition of "jew" would be "to
belong to the judaic religion" as it should be, then the word defining a strong
aversion for jews would be "anti-judaism" just like anti-christianism or
anti-islamism and no other implication.
The truth is that the mere use of the word "antisemitism" constitutes a basis to the
construction of the racism context regarding jews.
ZuLu
NOPE. Anyone who was once christian can perfectly renounce to belong that religion.
Then that person is not christian anymore. He/she can be atheist like me, muslim or
even a jew by conversion. His/her descendants will have no relation with christianism
through him/her.
However, I don't know a lot of people who have a jewish mother and who renounced to
follow the judaic religion (atheist or others) who don't see themselves as "always
jews"... Why so?
The answer is simple: they thinks they belong to that hypothetic people called
"jewish people" seen as a "race" and coming from the same origin. Unfortunately, the
history says that such idea is a mere invention. The mythic exodus from Israel never
took place so, the only descendants of the genuine "jewish people" are mostly the
Palestinians and the descendants of jews who never abandoned that region.
Patrick Keenan
|That's completely Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant at all, but I'm sorry you don't understand the issues.
The school is only in court because they took public funds and base the
determination of Jewishness on the mother. This basis for determination is
legally discrimination based on descent, and that's just not acceptable
under British law.
| Jewish law does not require any ritual
|observance for anyone to qualify as a Jew.
For the most part that's right (in the case of conversion, one must
demonstrate some sort of observance, and circumcision can most certainly be
called a "ritual observance"), but the familial or ethnicity requirement -
that the mother is Jewish - is just not acceptable under British
anti-discrimination law, if the school is to accept public funds.
If they don't accept public funds their admissions can be as restrictive as
they like.
|What the hell are you talking about?
I'm talking about the underlying issue that caused the school's problems,
which is that admissions based on being Jewish through the mother - which is
a form of racial or ethnic discrimination - are not acceptable to British
laws if the school is to take public funds.
The school wouldn't have been in court at all if it hadn't taken public
money *and* required that the student's mothers be Jewish.
|You are displaying your own ignorance of Jewish law.
Actually I'm displaying the incongruence between Jewish and British laws.
But I guess you don't understand the issues under the story.
-pk
someone-who-knows
> WE know well the tricks used by zionazis to switch the accusation of racism.
> The bottom of that point is very clear. The state of Israel is based on the
> discrimination by the genetic "origin" at the moment of giving the Israeli
> citizenship - in that case, the presumed origin of the mother - which is the
> basis of the racism.
(sigh)
Race has nothing to do with it. Everyone who converts to Judaism is
Jewish, period. You're *so* stupid.
ZuLu
What about a former jew who becomes atheist?
RabbiJoekerr
> someone-who-knows escribió:
>
> > In article <4afc7...@news.x-privat.org>, ZuLu <Z...@gloogloo.com> wrote:
>
> >> WE know well the tricks used by zionazis to switch the accusation of racism.
> >> The bottom of that point is very clear. The state of Israel is based on the
> >> discrimination by the genetic "origin" at the moment of giving the Israeli
> >> citizenship - in that case, the presumed origin of the mother - which is the
> >> basis of the racism.
>
> > (sigh)
>
> > Race has nothing to do with it. Everyone who converts to Judaism is
> > Jewish, period. You're *so* stupid.
>
> What about a former jew who becomes atheist?
still Jewish
ZuLu
>>
>>> In article <4afc7...@news.x-privat.org>, ZuLu <Z...@gloogloo.com> wrote:
>>>> WE know well the tricks used by zionazis to switch the accusation of racism.
>>>> The bottom of that point is very clear. The state of Israel is based on the
>>>> discrimination by the genetic "origin" at the moment of giving the Israeli
>>>> citizenship - in that case, the presumed origin of the mother - which is the
>>>> basis of the racism.
>>> (sigh)
>>> Race has nothing to do with it. Everyone who converts to Judaism is
>>> Jewish, period. You're *so* stupid.
>> What about a former jew who becomes atheist?
>
> still Jewish
Thanks, That is what I wanted to demonstrate.
Patrick Keenan
news:4b04...@news.x-privat.org...
The same claim can be made by the Catholic Church.
ZuLu
NOPE. as an atheist I am not catholic anymore.
Patrick Keenan
Is that the Church's position? Have they actually excommunicated you, or
are they just waiting for you to start attending Mass again?
It's not like you have to show up at Easter to renew membership. You're
likely just regarded as 'lapsed'.
ZuLu
Position of what? What the fuck has the church to do with my life?
> It's not like you have to show up at Easter to renew membership. You're
> likely just regarded as 'lapsed'.
It's like I don't believe in any god so, I am not really interested of what could be
the position of one or other religion about atheism.
Patrick Keenan
I'll take that to mean that you may never have been a Catholic.
>
>> It's not like you have to show up at Easter to renew membership. You're
>> likely just regarded as 'lapsed'.
>
> It's like I don't believe in any god so, I am not really interested of
> what could be the position of one or other religion about atheism.
Thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand the problem with your
assertion. A lapsed Jew is still considered a Jew *by others*, a lapsed
Catholic is still considered a Catholic by others, including the Church.
_ G O D _
news:8LqdnXinqLpcB5TW...@supernews.com...
>
>
> .... A lapsed Jew is still considered a Jew *by others*....
Those *others*, do they really have such a powerful
need to consider someone as something he is not?
--
_____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
Malakh
"Patrick Keenan" <te...@dev.null> wrote in message
news:KcadnYGwwcu6b5jW...@supernews.com...
>
> The same claim can be made by the Catholic Church.
Nobody was discussing the Catholic church.
>
>
>