JFS loses appeal
Henry Goodman
admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Fiona Abrahami
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>
> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to decide
who is Jewish.
Fiona
Dermot Goldstein
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
>http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
This apparently only applies to state-aided faith schools.
Steve Goldfarb
I thought you said goy isn't a race?
Should whites be allowed to decide who is white?
--s
--
Fiona Abrahami
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>>>
>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>>>
>>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>
>>This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
>>decide
>>who is Jewish.
>
> I thought you said goy isn't a race?
That's right, goy isn't a race. Neither are Jews as far as I'm conserned,
however, for the purposes of English law, Jews do qualify as a race. Ergo,
for the law to determine that someone who is not a Jew according to Jewish
law (halachah) is in fact Jewish according to English law is racist.
State intevention in matters of ethnic identity is the very epitome of
racism (e.g. the Nurenburg laws, Aparthied, etc.) and once a state takes
upon istself the right to determine who is or is not a member of which race
there is only one the slope goes.
Fiona
Steve Goldfarb
>That's right, goy isn't a race. Neither are Jews as far as I'm conserned,
>however, for the purposes of English law, Jews do qualify as a race. Ergo,
>for the law to determine that someone who is not a Jew according to Jewish
>law (halachah) is in fact Jewish according to English law is racist.
>State intevention in matters of ethnic identity is the very epitome of
>racism (e.g. the Nurenburg laws, Aparthied, etc.) and once a state takes
>upon istself the right to determine who is or is not a member of which race
>there is only one the slope goes.
Not sure I follow/agree with your first paragraph, but think you're making
a good point in the second. In my view, the state should be entirely
colorblind.
I'm not sure about whether non-state entities ought to be allowed to
discriminate, though - there's a libertarian argument that says yes,
people should be allowed to serve or refuse to serve anyone they like for
any reason they like, including because they don't like Jews or blacks or
whatever.
Further, while it seems reasonable to say that a Jewish school should be
able to deem non-Jews ineligible just as a Catholic school should be able
to deem non-Catholics ineligible, is there anything special about
religion? Can't a school declare itself a "white school" and declare
anyone non-white ineligible? I don't see a difference there - but maybe
they should be allowed by law to do that, where one would hope societal
pressure rather than legality would try to discourage it.
But, even if it's reasonable for this private entity to discriminate, in
this particular case we're talking about state support for that entity. So
now the state is no longer color-blind, because it's directly supporting a
discriminating entity, thus by extension the state is discriminating.
So, I certainly don't think that the state has any imposing rules on
Catholics regarding who they must allow to take communion, for example, or
even if they should be forced to allow women to serve as priests. BUT I'm
not quite as confident about allowing that discrimination in non-religious
matters, e.g., if they run a business or even a school - I can see both
sides there.
But once the state is supporting you, then I think you have to abide by
the policies of the state including non-discrimination.
--s
--
sheldonlg
> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote
>> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>>> This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
>>> decide
>>> who is Jewish.
>> I thought you said goy isn't a race?
>
> That's right, goy isn't a race. Neither are Jews as far as I'm conserned,
> however, for the purposes of English law, Jews do qualify as a race. Ergo,
> for the law to determine that someone who is not a Jew according to Jewish
> law (halachah) is in fact Jewish according to English law is racist.
Fiona, you would be absolutely correct IF, and here is the problem,
there were univeral acceptance by ALL Jews as to what determines who is
a Jew. That is obviously not the case. So, your statement should have
read:
======
Ergo, for the law to determine that someone who is not a Jew according
to what some/most Jews consider Jewish law (halachah) is in fact Jewish
according to English law is racist.
======
That statement would not be correct. To omit the added words is to
argue in circles. You are saying
O,C are subsets of Jews
O,C goes by Rule X, the rest go by Rule Y
O,C in their state-funded school claim the right to determine ALL Jews
by Rule X.
The government says it can't because there is no univeral rule among
Jews so using X violates the rights of the rest in the admission criteria.
You now claim that the government is racist. It just doesn't hold water.
>
> State intevention in matters of ethnic identity is the very epitome of
> racism (e.g. the Nurenburg laws, Aparthied, etc.) and once a state takes
> upon istself the right to determine who is or is not a member of which race
> there is only one the slope goes.
See above.
Steve Goldfarb
>Fiona, you would be absolutely correct IF, and here is the problem,
>there were univeral acceptance by ALL Jews as to what determines who is
>a Jew. That is obviously not the case. So, your statement should have
>read:
I'm not sure that's essential - even if all Jews agreed as to who was or
wasn't a Jew, if that definition included the notion of ancestry then it
would probably still be "racist" by this definition.
Thought of example, though - what if it was specifically a school for
Ashkenazi Jews? Their mandate was to preserve Ashkenazi Jewish culture and
traditions specifically, and thus they had a policy that no students with
Sephardic ancestry would be permitted. Can that case be differentiated
from the JFS case? I don't think so - but I think it's much more clearly
"racist."
--s
--
sheldonlg
> In <KZ6Wm.61507$mQ3....@newsfe06.ams2> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> That's right, goy isn't a race. Neither are Jews as far as I'm conserned,
>> however, for the purposes of English law, Jews do qualify as a race. Ergo,
>> for the law to determine that someone who is not a Jew according to Jewish
>> law (halachah) is in fact Jewish according to English law is racist.
>
>> State intevention in matters of ethnic identity is the very epitome of
>> racism (e.g. the Nurenburg laws, Aparthied, etc.) and once a state takes
>> upon istself the right to determine who is or is not a member of which race
>> there is only one the slope goes.
>
> Not sure I follow/agree with your first paragraph, but think you're making
> a good point in the second. In my view, the state should be entirely
> colorblind.
>
> I'm not sure about whether non-state entities ought to be allowed to
> discriminate, though - there's a libertarian argument that says yes,
> people should be allowed to serve or refuse to serve anyone they like for
> any reason they like, including because they don't like Jews or blacks or
> whatever.
If there is no state funding, then the school should be allowed to
choose who they want to admit. It that criterion is 'halachically
Jewish", then so be it. Of course, I am applying the US standard of
separation here.
>
> Further, while it seems reasonable to say that a Jewish school should be
> able to deem non-Jews ineligible just as a Catholic school should be able
> to deem non-Catholics ineligible, is there anything special about
> religion? Can't a school declare itself a "white school" and declare
> anyone non-white ineligible? I don't see a difference there - but maybe
> they should be allowed by law to do that, where one would hope societal
> pressure rather than legality would try to discourage it.
A religious school teaches subject related to that specific religion to
the exclusion of others. What subject is specific to "whites"? No, I
can't agree there. If, OTOH, the religious school only taught secular
subjects and their admission was restricted to that religion's members,
then I find it not acceptable.
>
> But, even if it's reasonable for this private entity to discriminate, in
> this particular case we're talking about state support for that entity. So
> now the state is no longer color-blind, because it's directly supporting a
> discriminating entity, thus by extension the state is discriminating.
Valid point.
>
> So, I certainly don't think that the state has any imposing rules on
> Catholics regarding who they must allow to take communion, for example, or
> even if they should be forced to allow women to serve as priests. BUT I'm
> not quite as confident about allowing that discrimination in non-religious
> matters, e.g., if they run a business or even a school - I can see both
> sides there.
If a church owns a business (as the Mormon church once owned United
Airlines), that business is treated the same as any other by the state
(the US, at least).
sheldonlg
Good question. I don't know. I'll have to think about it.
Steve Goldfarb
>> I'm not sure about whether non-state entities ought to be allowed to
>> discriminate, though - there's a libertarian argument that says yes,
>> people should be allowed to serve or refuse to serve anyone they like for
>> any reason they like, including because they don't like Jews or blacks or
>> whatever.
>If there is no state funding, then the school should be allowed to
>choose who they want to admit. It that criterion is 'halachically
>Jewish", then so be it. Of course, I am applying the US standard of
>separation here.
So a private school should be able to have a "no Jews" or "no blacks" or
"no Irish" policy? As I said I can see that argument but not sure I buy
it.
>A religious school teaches subject related to that specific religion to
>the exclusion of others. What subject is specific to "whites"? No, I
>can't agree there. If, OTOH, the religious school only taught secular
>subjects and their admission was restricted to that religion's members,
>then I find it not acceptable.
The school doesn't teach only religion. But what's so special about
religion? Why can't a school teach from a "white culture" point of view,
and therefore want to teach only white students? Bottom line is people
have indeed done exactly that, so it's certainly not a far-fetched
example. I don't believe in white culture - but I don't believe in
religion, either. It's not about what I believe but about what the parents
and school board believe - so now you're in a position where you, as the
state, need to make a value judgement on these beliefs - that belief in
Catholic supremacy is OK, but belief in white supremacy isn't. How can you
do that?
>If a church owns a business (as the Mormon church once owned United
>Airlines), that business is treated the same as any other by the state
>(the US, at least).
Isn't a school a business?
--s
--
Herman Rubin
Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>Fiona
No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
use belief and religious observance as criteria.
I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Fiona Abrahami
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote
>
> I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
> to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
How so in the "literal sense"? Jewish is not a race, the fact that halachah
allows conversions is proof of this.
Fiona
Amitai
The question is whether discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin can
be regarded as racism.
This is as good a point as any to introduce a perpiheral comment:
The JFS case is a beautiful example of a topic that we have been
discussing on another thread:
"Justice minister wants Israel to follow religious law." The issue
there is the "activism" of the Israeli Supreme Court under its
recently retired President, Aharon Barak, as against the "strict
constructionism" of Barak's severest and most articulate critic,
Richard Posner.
The appeal was rejected because the admissions policy of the JFS
breached the Race Relations Act, which prohibits discrimination on
grounds of ethnic origin.
Speaking for the dissenting minority of four, Lord Rodger said: “The
majority’s decision leads to such extraordinary results, and produces
such manifest discrimination against Jewish schools in comparison with
other faith schools, that one can’t help feeling that something has
gone wrong.”
AIUI, he is implying that the Race Relations Act is obviously
inapplicable to the case at hand. so "let's use our common sense and
ignore it".
Lady Hale, speaking for the majority of five, conceded that there may
be a good case for allowing Jewish schools to adopt criteria “which
they believe to be required by religious law even if these are
ethnically based. But if such allowance is to be made, it should be
made by Parliament and not by the courts’ departing from the long-
established principles of the anti-discrimination legislation.”
Here we have four "activists" just barely overruled by five "strict
constructionists", confirming the Aramaic truism: "sadna d'ar`ah `had
hu" (Literally: `The foundation of the earth is one', used
figuratively in the sense:`Human behavior is the same everywhere').
Amitai
TT Arvind
> This apparently only applies to state-aided faith schools.
Although the school in this case was state-aided, the court's
reasoning is not confined to state-aided schools. It is grounded in
the court's reading of s. 17 of the Race Relations Act, which applies
to admissions decisions by any school, whether state-aided and
independent schools. In other words, Jewish schools in the UK cannot
avoid this judgment by ceasing to accept state funds - it will still
apply.
The decision, for those who would like to read it, is already
available online:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2009/15.html
The Race Relations Act 1976, under which the decision was made can be
read online here:
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2059995
The relevant sections are s. 1 and s. 17.
As Amitai rightly points out, this decision is the result of a very
literalist reading. One of the judges (Lady Hale, at paras 69-70 of
the decision) points out that they are not expressing any views as to
whether it is _desirable_ that Jewish schools should be allowed to
make admissions decisions based on halakhah. It may, she says, indeed
be desirable for their survival as a people to let this happen.
However, the statute as worded - she holds - does not permit them to
use the halakhic criteria. The way to remedy this - she goes on to
say - is not judicial creativity, it is Parliamentary action. She
even helpfully suggests a currently pending Bill which could be used
for this purpose. But at the end of the day, she points out, this is
an issue of policy, and issues of policy should be decided by
Parliament, not the Courts.
Make of that what you will.
regards,
Arvind
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Dec-2009, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7....@newsfe07.ams2>,
> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>
> >> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> >> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
> >> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>
> >This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
> >decide
> >who is Jewish.
>
>
> >Fiona
>
> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
Meaning that THEY get to decide what Judaism is, yes.
>
> I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
> to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
Except for the fact that NO ONE uses ONLY decent
in determining all the ways someone can be Jewish.
Susan
Don Levey
> On 16-Dec-2009, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
>> In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7....@newsfe07.ams2>,
>> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>>>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>>> This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
>>> decide
>>> who is Jewish.
>>
>>> Fiona
>> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
>> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
>> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>
> Meaning that THEY get to decide what Judaism is, yes.
No, it means that the school can't use Judaism as the criterion for
admission. It doesn't mean that the state is determining what defines
Judaism.
>> I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
>> to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
>
> Except for the fact that NO ONE uses ONLY decent
> in determining all the ways someone can be Jewish.
>
However, descent, in and of itself, can be the determining factor in a
person's Judaism according to halacha, no?
But your statement does demonstrate that the government isn't
determining who is a Jew, only which criteria may be used for admission.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Dec-2009, TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 12:39�pm, dgoldst...@charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote:
>
> > This apparently only applies to state-aided faith schools. �
>
> Although the school in this case was state-aided, the court's
> reasoning is not confined to state-aided schools. It is grounded in
> the court's reading of s. 17 of the Race Relations Act, which applies
> to admissions decisions by any school, whether state-aided and
> independent schools. In other words, Jewish schools in the UK cannot
> avoid this judgment by ceasing to accept state funds - it will still
> apply.
>
> The decision, for those who would like to read it, is already
> available online:
> http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2009/15.html
Interesting.
Some of the Lords get it - some are pretty stupid.
One says (WTTE): "His mother converted under
auspicies this school does not reecognize, but
this boy is Jewish under their definmition because
his mother is Jewish." Um, WHAT? He didn't even
realize that he contradicted himself - in the terms
they are all discussing - i.e., the school's.
Another says:
"As I have already indicated, E is not really seeking to prevent JFS from
adopting oversubscription criteria which give priority to Jews but rather is
asking for JFS to define Jews more expansively than Orthodox Jews in fact
do."
[end quote]
Susan
mm
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7....@newsfe07.ams2>,
>Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>
>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
>>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>
>>This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to decide
>>who is Jewish.
>
>
>>Fiona
>
>No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
>deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
>use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>
>I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
>to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
Do you think those who use use descent to decide who is British to be
racist in any meaning of that term?
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Herman Rubin
<fla...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On 16-Dec-2009, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7....@newsfe07.ams2>,
>> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>> >> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>> >> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>> >> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>> >This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
>> >decide
>> >who is Jewish.
>> >Fiona
>> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
>> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
>> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>Meaning that THEY get to decide what Judaism is, yes.
No, it does not. They set criteria for a "faith based"
school, and not on any other point. The school can
require strict observance of halakhah, but not any rules
based on the correctness of the conversion of a parent.
>> I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
>> to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
>Except for the fact that NO ONE uses ONLY decent
>in determining all the ways someone can be Jewish.
To a considerable extent, the Orthodox do. The school
did not find any problem with the practicing of Judaism,
but with the previous conversion of the mother.
Herman Rubin
>>>"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>>>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>>>Fiona
Of course. The criterion of being born in a country,
even if the mother is illegally there, is due, in the
US, to the hastily designed and passed 14th Amendment.
In Britain, the Parliament can pass whatever legislation
it wants to define who is British; there is no Constitution.
The right of British subjects to carry arms, wrested from
the King in 1689, was canceled by a simple act.
mm
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>In article <hrnii5t6e3olodqpc...@4ax.com>,
>mm <mm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:19:10 +0000 (UTC), hru...@stat.purdue.edu
>>(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>
>>>In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7....@newsfe07.ams2>,
>>>Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>
>>>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>>>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
>>>>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>
>>>>This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to decide
>>>>who is Jewish.
>
>
>>>>Fiona
>
>>>No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
>>>deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
>>>use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>
>>>I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
>>>to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
>
>>Do you think those who use use descent to decide who is British to be
>>racist in any meaning of that term?
>
>
>Of course. The criterion of being born in a country,
>even if the mother is illegally there, is due, in the
>US, to the hastily designed and passed 14th Amendment.
But nonetheless, almost all Americans accept that the 14th Amendment
decides that descent is decides who is born an American. And before
the 14th, most white people born in the USA were citizens of the US
because their parents were. You accept both of those things too,
don't you? Is that you didn't vote for any of those laws enough to
keep you from being racist?
>
>In Britain, the Parliament can pass whatever legislation
>it wants to define who is British; there is no Constitution.
>The right of British subjects to carry arms, wrested from
>the King in 1689, was canceled by a simple act.
--
Meir
Abe Kohen
news:3ecfec9a-3f08-41e2...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Here we have four "activists" just barely overruled by five "strict
constructionists", confirming the Aramaic truism: "sadna d'ar`ah `had
hu" (Literally: `The foundation of the earth is one', used
figuratively in the sense:`Human behavior is the same everywhere').
Amitai
----------------------------------------------
Similarly for the US Supreme Court. Currently a 4-1-4 split, or 4-5 split.
Now pray tell who are the activists and constructionists on the Israeli
Supreme Court?
Happy Hanuka,
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hgb3hb$hua$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> Isn't a school a business?
Ask the IRS.
While schools are often run as businesses, many file Form 990s, while others
claim exemption even to filing a 990 by being a "church."
YU filed 990s (naming Madoff!)
OTOH, an UES MO house of worship and its affiliated school, greatly impacted
by Madoff, claimed church exemption.
Happy Hanuka,
Abe
Amitai
> "Amitai" <chr0...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote in message
The US Supreme Court has nine members, who are appointed for life and
sit together, so it is quite easy to characterize them according to
their judicial philosophy. The Israeli Supreme Court has 15 members,
with a mandatory retirement age of 70, plus a few temporary
appointees, so the replacement rate is rather high. Moreover, they sit
sometimes singly or in variously composed groups of three to nine or
even eleven. Except in the case of well known figures who have
expressed themselves on the subject of judicial activism, (e.g.,
Landau and Eilon on one side, the late Haim Cohen and Barak on the
other), one would have to study their history prior to their
appointment as well as their voting record in the cases on which they
sat. As you are the one who claims that all of the members of the
Barak's court shared his "activist" philosophy, the burden of proof is
on you.
Go to it! When you do, you might find it a bit more difficult than
you think. For example, Ayala Procaccia and Edmond Levy were appointed
together in 2001 as part of a deal. Procaccia, the liberal secular
Askhenazi sabra, was spposed to be the counterweight to Levy, the
Orthodox Sephardi conservative. As it turned out, in the matter of
following the letter of the law, he is more of an "activist" than she
is.
Amitai
> Happy Hanuka,
> Abe
sheldonlg
Yes, it depends. When I worked for the Jewish Day School, I was
enrolled in a 403B. When I worked for the Charter School, it was a 401K.
Steve Goldfarb
>Yes, it depends. When I worked for the Jewish Day School, I was
>enrolled in a 403B. When I worked for the Charter School, it was a 401K.
That's all well and good, but seems to me it doesn't mean that a school
isn't a business, just that it's a particular type of business. Seems to
me that if you're exchanging goods or services to the public for money,
you're engaged in business. If the service you're providing is education,
then you're a school. If you agree to reinvest all profits and/or pay them
out as salaries, rather than paying a dividend to shareholders, then
you're a non-profit business. If you're only doing business with members
rather than the general public, then you're a club, which probably isn't a
business, it's a parallel category.
But the point is, if there's a rule that applies to businesses, seems to
me it would also apply to schools, unless they were specifically exempted.
--s
--
Yisroel Markov
<ttar...@hotmail.com> said:
[snip]
>As Amitai rightly points out, this decision is the result of a very
>literalist reading. One of the judges (Lady Hale, at paras 69-70 of
>the decision) points out that they are not expressing any views as to
>whether it is _desirable_ that Jewish schools should be allowed to
>make admissions decisions based on halakhah. It may, she says, indeed
>be desirable for their survival as a people to let this happen.
>However, the statute as worded - she holds - does not permit them to
>use the halakhic criteria. The way to remedy this - she goes on to
>say - is not judicial creativity, it is Parliamentary action. She
>even helpfully suggests a currently pending Bill which could be used
>for this purpose. But at the end of the day, she points out, this is
>an issue of policy, and issues of policy should be decided by
>Parliament, not the Courts.
>
>Make of that what you will.
Personally, as a non-strict constructionist, I agree with Lady Hale.
Let them fix the law itself.
Parenthetically, the old rabbi who used to run one of the Habad
schools here in Boston once complained to me about the halakhically
non-Jewish children he felt he had to accept into the school because
he didn't want to alienate their Jewish fathers. The rabbi who runs it
now doesn't complain, but doesn't like it any more than the old one.
Still, the school accepts those kids and AFAIK makes no distinction
between them and the halakhically Jewish ones. But it doesn't have to.
Fortunately, US law, while prohibiting racial and ethnic
discrimination, still permits religious schools to not accept those
who do not fit religious criteria.
--
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for a sober analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Henry Goodman
news:1anki5ltdc1raihdc...@4ax.com...
Are you sure that is the case? We thought that was the law in England until
this particular family brought a test case. Has there been a similar case in
US courts?
--
Henry Goodman
henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
mm
Yes, a week or two ago there was an announcement in the Washington
Post listing a bunch of private schools, Allen? C.? Smith and one
other Jewish school included, which belonged to two different
asssociations of private schools, in which, for some reason, they made
a public announcment that they did not discriminate on the basis of
race, national origin, and a couple other things, but not religion.
Abe Kohen
Amitai
-----------------------
For the US Supreme Court, most people would agree with the following
classification (and numbers):
4: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito - Conservatives (Constructionists)
1: Kennedy - Moderate; Swing voter
4: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer - Liberals (Activists)
Of the 15 Israeli Supreme Court jurists can you please tell us what you
think are the numbers for each side?
(No proofs - just numbers!)
Thank you.
Happy Hanuka,
Abe
Abe Kohen
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:hgedjo$eem$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
>
> Are you sure that is the case? We thought that was the law in England
> until this particular family brought a test case. Has there been a similar
> case in US courts?
In the USA, unlike England and Canada, religious schools are NOT state
funded. The issues are hence different.
Happy Hanuka,
Abe
Yisroel Markov
<henry....@virgin.net> said:
>"Yisroel Markov" <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
>news:1anki5ltdc1raihdc...@4ax.com...
[snip]
>> Parenthetically, the old rabbi who used to run one of the Habad
>> schools here in Boston once complained to me about the halakhically
>> non-Jewish children he felt he had to accept into the school because
>> he didn't want to alienate their Jewish fathers. The rabbi who runs it
>> now doesn't complain, but doesn't like it any more than the old one.
>> Still, the school accepts those kids and AFAIK makes no distinction
>> between them and the halakhically Jewish ones. But it doesn't have to.
>> Fortunately, US law, while prohibiting racial and ethnic
>> discrimination, still permits religious schools to not accept those
>> who do not fit religious criteria.
>> --
>
>Are you sure that is the case? We thought that was the law in England until
>this particular family brought a test case. Has there been a similar case in
>US courts?
Here's what I could find:
January 28, 2009|Maura Dolan
SAN FRANCISCO — After a Lutheran school expelled two 16-year-old girls
for having "a bond of intimacy" that was "characteristic of a lesbian
relationship," the girls sued, contending the school had violated a
state anti-discrimination law.
In response to that suit, an appeals court decided this week that the
private religious school was not a business and therefore did not have
to comply with a state law that prohibits businesses from
discriminating. A lawyer for the girls said Tuesday that he would ask
the California Supreme Court to overturn the unanimous ruling by a
three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal.
The appeals court called its decision "narrow," but lawyers on both
sides of the case said it would protect private religious schools
across California from such discrimination suits.
Kirk D. Hanson, who represented the girls, said the "very troubling"
ruling would permit private schools to discriminate against anyone, as
long as the schools used their religious beliefs as justification.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/28/local/me-school28
And here's a list of recent related cases:
http://www.clsnet.org/center/litigation
Henry Goodman
news:hgevbl$o0h$1...@harrier.steinthal.us...
I am sure the issues are different but it would seem that the law in England
would not allow such discrimination in private (i.e. not state-aided)
schools either but the particular case concerned the JFS which is state
funded. The private Jewish schools are generally very orthodox; it is legal
to select on the basis of religious observance.
mm
Yisroel's post is very interesting. Maybe a comment later.
Well, now that I've read it again, my example isn't really relevant to
your question. It's about a public university. Still, it's a new,
that is borderline, church-state issue, so I'll post it.
I brought the first section of the Washington Post upstairs 9 days
ago, and was going to try to find the same story on the web rather
than retype the whole thing. Then tonight, when I wanted to answer
you, I almost couldn't find it.
But here it is
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120703716.html
and here is the AP story that was in the Post a day earlier
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/07/AR2009120701708.html?sub=AR
Like a lot of issues, the government is more likely to get involved
indirectly (like some current heatlth care proposals and abortion).
Here the issue is funding via student activity fees at a public
university, in California, of groups that discriminate on grounds
normally not permitted by the state government. Here it's a campus
Xian group that bars gays and non-believers from membership, and is
now not recognized by the school which means being barred from using
campus meeting space, or getting a share of the student activities
fee, which is collected solely to partially fund campus groups
unrelated to scholastics. This would I think include Hillel Houses or
I'm guessing a kosher dining club (no free food but maybe there are
some administrative costs.)
Anyhow the school said no recognition. It doesn't say what the lower
court held but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the school,
but in a simliar suit the 7th Circuit ruled differently in a case
involving Southern Illinois U. There will probably be a decision by
June. The recent case at Hastings College of the Law (probably very
litigious people) is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 08-1371.
Amitai
> Of the 15 Israeli Supreme Court jurists can you please tell us what you
> think are the numbers for each side?
>
Berakhot 18a (Soncino translation): "If you have read [ My post _A.H.]
once, you have not repeated; if you have repeated, you have not gone
over a third time; if you have gone over a third time, you have not
had it explained to you. "
So I will.
In my post, I tried to make three points:
1. As you are the one who claims that all of the members of the
Barak's court share/d his "activist" philosophy, the burden of proof
is on you, not on me.
2. Due to the larger number of judges in Israel's SC, their more rapid
turnover, and the way the Supreme court operates - in which there
rarely is a face off between the same advocates of the two approaches,
it is harder by an order of magnitude to characterize them as
"constructionists" or "activists" than in the US Supreme Court. IMO it
would be an interesting subject for at least a Master's thesis in a
law school. I wouldn't have taken it on even if the burden of proof
were on me, which it isn't.
3. The comparison between Ayala Procaccia and Edmond Levy, which I
based primarily on information gleaned from Wikipedia, was meant to
illustrate two points:
a. The difficulty of labelling any particular judge as subscribing to
a specific ideology.
b. That the appointment process is such that - unless there is a
consensus in the appointments committee about a particular candidate -
a deal is made to appoint two candidates wih different viewpoints. In
an earlier post I cited a similar deal, by which Elyakim Rubenstein
(Orthodox constructionist) and Edna Arbel (secular activist) were
appointed together. [These two are easy to characterize on the basis
of their conduct in their respective previous positions as Attorney
General and State's Attorney.] It is therefore nonsense to claim
that Barak always got what he wanted.
> (No proofs - just numbers!)
>
> Thank you.
>
You're welcome
Amitai
> Happy Hanuka,
> Abe- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fattush
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:19:07 +0000 (UTC), "Henry Goodman"
>
> <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote:
> >The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> >admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
> >http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>
It still sets a very bad precedent. It disrespects well establshed
Jewish law. A decision like this can open the door to more bad
decisions.
Fattush
> In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7.22...@newsfe07.ams2>,
>
> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >"Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote
> >> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> >> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
> >>http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
> >who is Jewish.
> >Fiona
>
> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
This is problematic. So if a person and his kids have been Muslim
their whole life wake up one day and the parent decides decides he
wants his kids to attend the Jewish school because it is a good school
and it is affordable and convenient, all he has to do is tell the
people in the school that during the past two weeks and and his kids
believe in G-d (not Allah), keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, etc.?
Henry Goodman
news:9a2379cf-bf74-42c6...@s19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
____________________________________________________________________________
What is happening is that the school now requires a letter about the family
from a Rabbi.
Henry Goodman
______________________________________________________________________
It applies to all faith schools, not just state-aided ones.
Henry Goodman
news:63b8625a-dfd5-4a8c...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
_________________________________________________________
Shavua Tov
You may find this article (by a non-Jew) in today's (Shabbat) Telegraph of
interest.
Fiona Abrahami
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
> "Fattush" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote
> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote
>
>> >> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>> >> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>> >>http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>> >This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
>> >decide who is Jewish.
>>
>> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
>> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>
> This is problematic. So if a person and his kids have been Muslim
> their whole life wake up one day and the parent decides decides he
> wants his kids to attend the Jewish school because it is a good school
> and it is affordable and convenient, all he has to do is tell the
> people in the school that during the past two weeks and and his kids
> believe in G-d (not Allah), keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, etc.?
> _______________________________________________________
>
> family from a Rabbi.
And as JFS (the school in question) is aligned with the United Synagogue and
the London Beth Din, they could, and probably will in years to come, insist
that the Rabbi giving the OK is a US or other Orthodox rabbi.
Though JFS is ostensibly an Orthodox school (albeit middle-of-the-road) it
has a tradition of taking a quota of 'non-aligned halachically Jewish kids
from secular families in an attempt to keeps such families connected to the
community. The new rules will mean these kids can no longer get a place at
JFS because the halachic justification for giving them places has been
undermined.
So once again the blunderbuss of Reformism fails to achieve its goal (the
weakening of Orthodoxy and the establishment of a Reform hegemony) but
manages to hurt others who merely watched from the sidelines.
Fiona
Amitai
> "Fattush" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:63b8625a-dfd5-4a8c...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 16, 7:39 am, dgoldst...@charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:19:07 +0000 (UTC), "Henry Goodman"
>
> > <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > >The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> > >admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
> > >http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>
> > This apparently only applies to state-aided faith schools.
>
> It still sets a very bad precedent. It disrespects well establshed
> Jewish law. A decision like this can open the door to more bad
> decisions
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Shavua Tov
> You may find this article (by a non-Jew) in today's (Shabbat) Telegraph of
> interest.
>
>
The author makes some good points, but the JFS verdict is too rusty a
nail to hang them all on. Even the majority of the judges agreed that
the law by which they ruled is flawed and should be changed. When it
is and the next appeal is won, or a suitable rewording of the
admissions policy eliminates the need for another appeal, all that
will be left is the bad taste. For the same reason, it will not be
much of a precedent.
Amitai
sheldonlg
*This* case that brought the decision, at least as much as I have read
about it, was about a mother who converted under C (or whatever is like
that in the UK), kept kosher etc., raised the child indistinguishable
from observant Orthodox, and is now having the child denied because SHE
didn't convert under O(and the O want to restrict that decision making
ability to themselves). That is not about "weakening Orthodoxy" nor
"establishment of a Reform hegemony", nor even anything at _all_ to do
with Reformism. But, go ahead and blame Reformism for it all. It seems
to satisfy you.
Fiona Abrahami
Oh, sorry, wasn't I pedantic enough for you?
As far as I am concerned Masorti (= UK C), Reform, Liberal, Recon, etc. etc.
are all the same thing, and to me they all come under the title of
Reformist,
the fact that they may dislike each other as much as they dislike Orthodoxy,
and
thus cannot stand being mistaken for each other, is of no concern to me.
Fiona
TT Arvind
<snip>
> Fortunately, US law, while prohibiting racial and ethnic
> discrimination, still permits religious schools to not accept those
> who do not fit religious criteria.
English law does this as well, and the decision which is the subject
of this discussion does not change that. What it says, however, is
that whilst Jewish schools are permitted to reject applicant who are
not Jewish on the basis that they are not Jewish, they cannot employ
halakah to decide whether an applicant is Jewish or not: schools must
use practise-based criteria, rather than descent-based criteria. This
obviously affects any non-proselytising religion (e.g. Indian
Zoroastrians), but in the UK as far as I can see it only affects
Jewish schools.
I personally find the ruling to be quite extraordinary. Lord Rodger
sums up the problems with the decision quite well in his dissent, and
I don't need to repeat them. I'll put the question this way: Could it
really have been Parliament's intention to single out one single
religion, and require *only* schools associated with that religion to
adopt the criteria of another religion? I personally it quite hard to
believe that Parliament really intended to do this, and I agree with
Lord Rodger's dissent.
regards,
Arvind
Fiona Abrahami
"sheldonlg" <shel...@giganews.com> wrote
Oh, sorry, wasn't I pedantic enough for you?
As far as I am concerned Masorti (= UK C), Reform, Liberal, Recon, etc. etc.
are all the same thing, and to me you all come under the title of Reformist,
the fact that you may hate each other as much as you hate Orthodoxy, and
TT Arvind
> The author makes some good points, but the JFS verdict is too rusty a
> nail to hang them all on. Even the majority of the judges agreed that
> the law by which they ruled is flawed and should be changed. When it
> is and the next appeal is won, or a suitable rewording of the
> admissions policy eliminates the need for another appeal, all that
> will be left is the bad taste. For the same reason, it will not be
> much of a precedent.
Three responses:
(a) It is not a given that the law will be changed.
(b) In any event, until it is, Jewish schools in the UK will not be
able to discharge the goal - which they have set themselves - of
bringing children from non-observant Jewish families to observance.
(c) Because the decision involved interpreting s. 1 *and* s. 17, its
findings could in principle apply to any Jewish institution engaging
in activities of the type covered by the Act, not just schools. The
extent to which this remains a precedent after an amendment in the law
depends on what form the amendment takes. If the amendment is
specific - to s. 17, for example - the finding that the halakhic rules
on who is a Jew constitute racial discrimination will stand, and will
potentially apply to Jewish institutions other than schools. A
synagogue might, for instance, find that it had difficulty rejecting
applicants for posts on the basis that they were born to non-Orthodox
converts and hence were not Jewish in Orthodox eyes.
All this is, in my view, a step too far in regulating religion, and it
is a step that the Supreme Court should not have taken.
regards,
Arvind
sheldonlg
*THIS* case was about a child who practiced Judaism the same as the
Orthodox and whose mother did the same. The ONLY difference was that
HER conversion was by an non-O rabbi.
Conclusion that I reach from this: This is about O rabbis trying to be
the SOLE deciders as to who is admitted to the fold -- regardless of the
merits of the applicant and how well they may follow the O line. It
seems they would rather take someone who professes the O line, and years
later starts eating unkosher food, than take someone whom they would
have been proud to have admitted if the application had been made to
them. This is about retaining all the power.
Fiona Abrahami
Parroting... wow, that's creative
> *THIS* case was about a child who practiced Judaism the same as the
> Orthodox and whose mother did the same. The ONLY difference was that HER
> conversion was by an non-O rabbi.
That's right, a conversion that wan't according to halachah, and they don't
practice "Judaism the same as the Orthodox" they are members of a Masorti
shul (i.e. a reformist shul), the husband/father married a woman who is not
Jewish - that is not "practicing Judaism the same as the Orthodox". They
practise like Masorti (Conservative).
> Conclusion that I reach from this: This is about O rabbis trying to be
> the SOLE deciders as to who is admitted to the fold -- regardless of the
> merits of the applicant and how well they may follow the O line. It seems
> they would rather take someone who professes the O line, and years later
> starts eating unkosher food, than take someone whom they would have been
> proud to have admitted if the application had been made to them. This is
> about retaining all the power.
No, it's about respecting the halachah, something you would know nothing
about. The Orthodox would rather take someone who knows they are breaking
halachah but continues to do so knowing they don't live up to the standard,
or even someone who doesn't know what the halachah is in the first place,
than someone who says the halachah should be changed to fit their
proclivities.
Fiona
Fattush
> >>> "Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote
> >>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> >>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
> >>>>http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
> >>> This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
> >>> decide
> >>> who is Jewish.
>
> > That's right, goy isn't a race. Neither are Jews as far as I'm conserned,
> > however, for the purposes of English law, Jews do qualify as a race. Ergo,
> > for the law to determine that someone who is not a Jew according to Jewish
> > law (halachah) is in fact Jewish according to English law is racist.
>
> Fiona, you would be absolutely correct IF, and here is the problem,
> there were univeral acceptance by ALL Jews as to what determines who is
> a Jew. That is obviously not the case. So, your statement should have
> read:
>
> ======
> Ergo, for the law to determine that someone who is not a Jew according
> to what some/most Jews consider Jewish law (halachah) is in fact Jewish
> according to English law is racist.
> ======
>
> That statement would not be correct. To omit the added words is to
> argue in circles. You are saying
>
> O,C are subsets of Jews
> O,C goes by Rule X, the rest go by Rule Y
> O,C in their state-funded school claim the right to determine ALL Jews
> by Rule X.
> The government says it can't because there is no univeral rule among
> Jews so using X violates the rights of the rest in the admission criteria.
>
> You now claim that the government is racist. It just doesn't hold water.
If I understand the court rulings, it creates a mess. A person is
Jewish depending on how much they practice Judaism, not their birth.
That is very impracticle. How is a religious school or a court going
to judge that? What if a Jewish person hardly attends shule during
the year and attends shule on Rosh HaShana and Yoko Kippor; is that
enough? What if they don;'t keep strictly Kosher?
Fattush
> In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7.22...@newsfe07.ams2>,
>
> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> >> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
> >>http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
> >This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to decide
> >who is Jewish.
>
> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>
> to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
IMO, it is not racist. It is logical and practicle.''
Abe Kohen
So I will.
Amitai
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Amitai,
Stop with the polemics. I gave you the numbers for the US Supreme Court.
Most people would agree on them. No Master's thesis required.
Just give us 2 (or 3) numbers between 0 and 15 for the Israeli Supreme
Court. Don't worry about shades of gray. No proofs. No claims. NUMBERS
please.
Did you teach mada-ei ha-ruach (tartei mashma) or Physical and Theoretical
Organic Chemistry?
(Nu, and what does the E. stand for?)
Shavua Tov,
Abe
Fattush
> "Fattush" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Then that's even worse.
Fattush
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, my. I mean "Yom Kippor." Sorry.
Amitai
There were no polemics in my last post, just facts.
You gave me numbers that I didn't need, because everyone knows them,
and I explained in great detail why the numbers that you asked for
require more research that I am prepared to do. If you need them so
badly, do it yourself.
> Just give us 2 (or 3) numbers between 0 and 15 for the Israeli Supreme
> Court. Don't worry about shades of gray. No proofs. No claims. NUMBERS
> please.
>
I mentioned 4: Rubinstein and Arbel as Constructionist and Activist
repectively, and Levy and Procaccia as being somewhere in between.
The only others that I would label as definitely activist
are Beinisch and Orr. A few other judges that I don't have to look
up: Heshin was unpredictable, Tirkel was religious right but not
clearly A or C; Dorner was a no-nonsense judge, strong on civil rights
but otherwise not characterizable as one or the other.
If you are genuinely interested in the Israeli Supreme Court rather
than just looking for amunition for biased generalizations, I
recommend the following web page, which I have read, and the
references therein - which I do not have either the time or the
inclination to read.
http://wapedia.mobi/he/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%98_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F?t=7.
> Did you teach mada-ei ha-ruach (tartei mashma) or Physical and Theoretical
> Organic Chemistry?
>
As you have evidently been looking at my web page you must have seen
that I carried out research in Physical and Theoretical Organic
Chemistry and taught it, as well as other branches of Chemistry. I had
nothing to do with "mada`ei harua`h" either "`had- or tartei
mashma`". Talmud was a hobby as was (is) music and one or two others
that I took less seriously.
> (Nu, and what does the E. stand for?)
>
(The fact that I just give the initial means that I prefer not to use
the name, though if you take the trouble to google me, you will
probably find it.)
Amitai
> - Show quoted text -
>Shavua Tov,
>Abe
sheldonlg
>> the year and attends shule on Rosh HaShana and Yoko Kippor; is that
>> enough? What if they don;'t keep strictly Kosher?- Hide quoted text -
>
> Oh, my. I mean "Yom Kippor." Sorry.
do you suffer from Beatlemania :-) ?
sheldonlg
Yes, it creates a mess. No doubt. Now if there were universal
acceptance among all Jewish groups as to what constitutes a Jew, that
would be one thing. However, that is not the case and the school, which
is ostensibly open to Jews, is discriminating against people whom many
Jews classify as Jews. So, they have had to do the fallback position of
how they practice Judaism and that has had bad consequences. It would
have been MUCH simpler had they simply seen whether or not they would
have accepted the child as Jewish if THAT child had applied for an O
conversion, rather than dismissing the child out of hand because the
mother had a Masorti conversion. Put the onus where it belongs.
Fattush
> >> "Fattush" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote
Perhaps I missed something. I thought the problem was that the mother
converted AFTER the child was born. The child may have been exposed
to Jewish religious practices, but technically was not Jewish.
Fattush
> "Fattush" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:63b8625a-dfd5-4a8c...@21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 16, 7:39 am, dgoldst...@charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 10:19:07 +0000 (UTC), "Henry Goodman"
>
> > <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote:
> > >The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> > >admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>
> > >http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>
> > This apparently only applies to state-aided faith schools.
>
> It still sets a very bad precedent. It disrespects well establshed
> Jewish law. A decision like this can open the door to more bad
> decisions
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Shavua Tov
> You may find this article (by a non-Jew) in today's (Shabbat) Telegraph of
> interest.
>
>
> --
> Henry Goodman
> henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
The op ed piece is interesting, and so are the comments. The essay
sparked a heated debate.
Henry Goodman
___________________________________________________________
Well that's what Charles Moore wrote in the article I posted yesterday but I
don't think that is right.
I think it was some sort of Progressive conversion, either Masorti or
Reform, I'm not sure which, before the parents married.
cindys
> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1anki5ltdc1raihdc...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:55:31 +0000 (UTC), TT Arvind
> > <ttarv...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>As Amitai rightly points out, this decision is the result of a very
> >>literalist reading. One of the judges (Lady Hale, at paras 69-70 of
> >>the decision) points out that they are not expressing any views as to
> >>whether it is _desirable_ that Jewish schools should be allowed to
> >>make admissions decisions based on halakhah. It may, she says, indeed
> >>be desirable for their survival as a people to let this happen.
> >>However, the statute as worded - she holds - does not permit them to
> >>use the halakhic criteria. The way to remedy this - she goes on to
> >>say - is not judicial creativity, it is Parliamentary action. She
> >>even helpfully suggests a currently pending Bill which could be used
> >>for this purpose. But at the end of the day, she points out, this is
> >>an issue of policy, and issues of policy should be decided by
> >>Parliament, not the Courts.
>
> >>Make of that what you will.
>
> > Personally, as a non-strict constructionist, I agree with Lady Hale.
> > Let them fix the law itself.
>
> > Parenthetically, the old rabbi who used to run one of the Habad
> > schools here in Boston once complained to me about the halakhically
> > non-Jewish children he felt he had to accept into the school because
> > he didn't want to alienate their Jewish fathers. The rabbi who runs it
> > now doesn't complain, but doesn't like it any more than the old one.
> > Still, the school accepts those kids and AFAIK makes no distinction
> > between them and the halakhically Jewish ones. But it doesn't have to.
> > Fortunately, US law, while prohibiting racial and ethnic
> > discrimination, still permits religious schools to not accept those
> > who do not fit religious criteria.
>
> Are you sure that is the case? We thought that was the law in England until
> this particular family brought a test case. Has there been a similar case in
> US courts?
---------------
There are Jewish schools in the USA which discriminate against
halachically Jewish children whose mother doesn't cover her hair or
whose family owns a TV or has internet access.
The _Bamboo Cradle_ is the true story of a Devorah Schwartzbaum, a
Chinese girl, who was adopted by non-O Jewish parents back in the
1960s (IIRC). The family had been living in Taiwan, and when they
returned to the USA, they settled in Virginia and wanted to enroll
Devorah in the Jewish school. They were not permitted to enroll her
because she either hadn't had a conversion or had had a non-O
conversion. The family approached O rabbis about performing an O
conversion, but the rabbis would not perform the conversion because
the family was not willing to be shomrei mitzvos. Ergo, Devorah could
not be enrolled in the Jewish school. The family did ultimately become
ba'alei teshuva, and Devorah went to Jewish schools. She is currently
a rebbetzin living in Baltimore. She has seven children.
But my point was that in the USA, it is perfectly legal for Jewish
schools to refuse enrollment not only to halachically non-Jewish
children, but even to halachically Jewish children whose home life
doesn't meet certain standards.
The policy of our local community day school is that they are willing
to accept any child whose synagogue considers him/her to be Jewish.
So, our community day school includes children who are Jewish by C or
R standards even if they are not Jewish by O standards.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
<chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
>> For the US Supreme Court, most people would agree with the following
>> classification (and numbers):
>>
>> 4: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito - Conservatives (Constructionists)
>> 1: Kennedy - Moderate; Swing voter
>> 4: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer - Liberals (Activists)
>>
>So would I. It is common knowledge.
I think it's far too early to know about Sotomayor. Has even one SC
ruling been announced since she joined the court? One can't take
seriously the summaries made by her opponents, and if you look at
individual examples, they often don't live up to what the "summary"
says.
For example, several made a big to-do about her usage of "a Latina
woman", but I'll bet everyone of them time has touted the greatness of
people from their state, their part of the state, their city, their
part of the city, their college, their religion, their country of
family origin, the South, the West**, or their own family, yet when
Sotomayor (or any minority group member they don't relate well to)
does the same thing to a group of Latina students, like she was, to
inspire them, in that case they think it's bad. (It's a shame no one
made this argument against them. I'll bet examples would be easy to
find where they gave speeches to people like themselves touting their
own kind.)
G-d forbid a Jew would express pride in being a Jew in front of one of
those people, or express pride in the accomplishments of Jewish judges
or any Jews.
**I don't hear many people citing the greatness of the East, for some
reason, or of the North (Here, maybe we're still being considerate of
the feelings of those in the Confederate states. I"m serious. The
South brags about being the South, Southerners brag about being from
the South, because of a tradition that arose some time after but
because of their subjugated status as a defeated country/territory
with a defeated army and an occupation government. Southerners thought
of themselves until recently and probably many still do as an
oppressed minority in the US.
In addition, the Supreme Court has different responsibilities and
powers from even lower appellate courts, and also many judges outlook
seems to have changed after they joined the SC.
>> Of the 15 Israeli Supreme Court jurists can you please tell us what you
>> think are the numbers for each side?
Maybe some day I'll be reading an Israeli paper every day and know
detail about Israeli judges.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
mm
This part is very interesting too.
>1960s (IIRC). The family had been living in Taiwan, and when they
>returned to the USA, they settled in Virginia and wanted to enroll
>Devorah in the Jewish school. They were not permitted to enroll her
>because she either hadn't had a conversion or had had a non-O
>conversion. The family approached O rabbis about performing an O
>conversion, but the rabbis would not perform the conversion because
>the family was not willing to be shomrei mitzvos. Ergo, Devorah could
>not be enrolled in the Jewish school. The family did ultimately become
>ba'alei teshuva, and Devorah went to Jewish schools. She is currently
>a rebbetzin living in Baltimore. She has seven children.
She lives in Baltimore! Dang. I missed hearing her speak once. I
didn't know about it until afterwards. I've been waiting for her to
come back, but she's here already. This probably increases the chance
I'll be able to hear her talk some time.
If you read the book, don't stop at the original version. Later
editions have a 10 or 20 page comment by her. Also very interesting.
That's why I think a talk by her would be too**.
They're short enough you can read them both in one night, and well
worth it.
**In her father's book he writes about taking her to Chinese cultural
events of all sort when they came to town, or when they went
somewhere, from the time she was old enough to take to anything. In
her appendix, she talks about it too. At some point, a while after she
was old enough to figure out why her parents were doing all this
Chinese stuff, she says to them, roughly, "You know, you don't have to
take me to all these Chinese things. I don't have any difficulty
being Chinese, but being a Jew is enough for me. [As long as we do
the Jewish things, I'm happy.]"
Henry Goodman
news:0ff1a294-350f-40f5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
______________________________________________________________________
There are Jewish schools in London which discriminate against
halachically Jewish children whose mother doesn't cover her hair or
whose family owns a TV or has internet access.
That is legal. What the courts have decided is that faith schools may favour
more observant candidates over
less observant ones. That happens all the time with Christian schools. What
they do not allow is discrimination depending on descent, e.g.. whether the
mother is halachikly Jewish, since such discrimination violates the Race
Relations Act.
cindys
snip
>
> **In her father's book he writes about taking her to Chinese cultural
> events of all sort when they came to town, or when they went
> somewhere, from the time she was old enough to take to anything. In
> her appendix, she talks about it too. At some point, a while after she
> was old enough to figure out why her parents were doing all this
> Chinese stuff, she says to them, roughly, "You know, you don't have to
> take me to all these Chinese things. I don't have any difficulty
> being Chinese, but being a Jew is enough for me. [As long as we do
> the Jewish things, I'm happy.]"
--------
This happened to me too (with our older son). There is a Korean
cultural camp in our city (maybe other cities too) called "Camp Chin
Gu," which is aimed at adopted Korean children and their non-Korean
siblings (where applicable). The idea is to give the children a Korean
culture experience. When my older son was around 4 or 5 years old, I
thought he might really enjoy going to Camp Chin Gu, so I made what I
thought was a really great sales pitch to him about it. He wasn't
saying too much, just sort of staring at me and taking it all in.
Then, at the conclusion of my rather long-winded shpiel, I said "So,
what do you think? Wouldn't you like to go to Camp Chin Gu?" And he
responded, "Well, ema, I'll go to Camp Chin Gu, if you weally want me
to, but I would weally wather just go to Gan Iswael."
I spent years trying to talk about Korea to my older son. I had a
catalog from a company that sold all sorts of Korean books and other
stuff. I was constantly encouraging him read books about Korea, see
Korean travelogs, go to cultural events that might include something
Korean or whatever. He was never interested. I would ask him if,
someday, he would like to take a trip to Korea. The answer was always
no. When he reached a certain age (maybe 11 or 12?), he finally told
me that all of this was really unnecessary, that he identified as an
observant Jew, and really did not feel any connection with Korea at
all.
I think my younger son feels slightly more connected with Korea. He
sometimes likes to use his Korean name and has learned the Korean
alphabet, but that's kind of where it begins and ends. He doesn't have
any interest in Korean culture or traveling to Korea either.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Fattush
Yes, I do!
Abe Kohen
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:42lsi5th24j44rodm...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Amitai
> <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>
>>
>>> For the US Supreme Court, most people would agree with the following
>>> classification (and numbers):
>>>
>>> 4: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito - Conservatives (Constructionists)
>>> 1: Kennedy - Moderate; Swing voter
>>> 4: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer - Liberals (Activists)
>>>
>>So would I. It is common knowledge.
>
> I think it's far too early to know about Sotomayor. Has even one SC
> ruling been announced since she joined the court? One can't take
> seriously the summaries made by her opponents, and if you look at
> individual examples, they often don't live up to what the "summary"
> says.
In Mohawk Industries, Inc. vs Carpenter, Justice Sotamayor introduced new
terms to the Supreme Court: "undocumented immigrants" and "undocumented
workers." Used to be called "illegal aliens." What's next? Life termination
technicians?
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-678.pdf
Best,
Abe
cindys
> "cindys" <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
snip
> There are Jewish schools in London which discriminate against
> halachically Jewish children whose mother doesn't cover her hair or
> whose family owns a TV or has internet access.
> That is legal. What the courts have decided is that faith schools may favour
> more observant candidates over
> less observant ones. That happens all the time with Christian schools. What
> they do not allow is discrimination depending on descent, e.g.. whether the
> mother is halachikly Jewish, since such discrimination violates the Race
> Relations Act.
------
And your question was if the same policy is true in the USA (that a
Jewish school could not discriminate against someone whose conversion
was C or R). I can guarantee you that any Jewish school in the USA who
rejects students on the basis that their family owns a TV set is not
going to enroll a student who is not halachically Jewish.
But now let me tell you why the question doesn't make any sense to me
(and this supports what Fiona said): Any C or R family who is so
machmir (strict) that the wife covers her hair and they shun TV sets
and Internet, and they are so scrupulously observant as to be
indistinguishable from their O neighbors is not going to stay C or R
for very long. They will invariably seek and likely be granted O
conversions, and this is the reason why (if not for anything else,
from a purely pragmatic level):
As soon as a C family starts to develop a certain level of frumkeit
where they don't want to drive on shabbos, they don't want to eat
vegetarian in restaurants, they can no longer eat at their friends'
homes, they won't daven with a minyan that counts women etc, they no
longer fit in at their C synagogue. So, then, they go to the O
synagogue to be with other people who share their worldview and
observance level, except for one problem: If their conversions or
their children's conversions were C, they will not be accepted in the
community and will find it impossible to establish relationships with
other people in the community because no one will eat in their home,
they will not be considered Jewish. So, they will invariably seek out
O conversions, and probably will not have any problems making this
happen as long as the entire family is frum.
So, my point is, that the likelihood of finding a family where the
family had conversions not acceptable to O (and is not currently in
the process of seeking O conversions) yet lives a Jewish lifestyle
that is so strict and rigorously observant that the wife covers her
hair and the family refuses to have TV or the internet in their home
is nil. So, I can't see how that particular argument would ever come
up in an American court. I think the reason it was able to be raised
in the JFS situation is because the school does not require a
particularly strict level of observance.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Fiona Abrahami
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote
>
> So, my point is, that the likelihood of finding a family where the
> family had conversions not acceptable to O (and is not currently in
> the process of seeking O conversions) yet lives a Jewish lifestyle
> that is so strict and rigorously observant that the wife covers her
> hair and the family refuses to have TV or the internet in their home
> is nil. So, I can't see how that particular argument would ever come
> up in an American court. I think the reason it was able to be raised
> in the JFS situation is because the school does not require a
> particularly strict level of observance.
You are absolutely right, it is precisely because JFS does/did not have a
particularly strict requirement for observance level (deliberately, as
explained previously) and relied on halchahic definition of Jewishness that
this case could be brought. In the long term JFS will, I predict, refocus
and make affiliation to an orthodox a the criteria for school places. As a
result halachic non-Jews like M will still be denied a place, and
non-observant halachic Jews (as long as they are members of orthodox shuls -
and there are many) will get a place. The result will be exactly the same as
now, only the filtering will be done at shul level.
Fiona
Henry Goodman
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
You are right in that the extreme O schools in Britain have not had this
problem.
JFS has always had a policy of accepting Jewish children however secular the
family with the hope that the next generation will be more religious. They
have in the past only accepted children who are Jewish with the approval of
the Chief Rabbi's office which means that if the mother has had a Masorti or
Reform conversion (as in this case) the child would not be considered
Jewish.
Are there schools like JFS in America and if so have they had this legal
problem?
cindys
Well, I cited the case of Devorah Schwartzbaum (the adopted Chinese
girl in _The Bamboo Cradle_). This was back in the 1960s or 1970s, and
the story was in the book that she was not accepted into the Jewish
school in Virginia because she did not have an O conversion (and as I
recall, I don't think she had actually had any conversion at all at
that point), and her family was too secular to qualify for her to have
an O conversion. I don't know if she would have been accepted with a C
or R conversion or not. IIRC (and I am open to correction on this
point), the reason the family originally embarked on the path to
become ba'alei teshuva was so that their daughter could qualify for an
O conversion. IIRC, the observance level of her parents was not a
factor in the school's decision. She was rejected specifically because
she was not Jewish even though her parents were Jewish.
In the year 2009, the community day schools in the USA will generally
not limit themselves to children who are halachically Jewish. The
stated policy of the Jewish community day school in my city is that
they will accept any child who is considered Jewish by the standards
of the family's synagogue. So, if the family are members of an R
synagogue with a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, the child can
attend the school. Truth be told, I don't know how strict the school
is when it comes to even these guidelines. They may be willing to
accept a child with a Jewish father/non-Jewish mother, even if the
family is not affiliated with a synagogue.
The Orthodox school that my sons attended will (at least sometimes)
allow children to enroll if they are in the process of preparing for
halachic conversion. I think it's decided on a case-by-case basis. If
a child with a C or R conversion or an R child with a non-Jewish
mother wanted to attend the school, and they were not pursuing
halachic conversion, I don't know what the answer would be. Most C and
R are not interested in a yeshiva school for their children (unless
they are in the process of becoming ba'alei teshuva), and to the best
of my knowledge, this issue has never arisen at that school.
There is a Jewish girls' high school in my city. The first year the
school opened, there was an Orthodox family who had adopted a daughter
whose conversion (Orthodox) was not yet final. The girl was 13 or 14
years old at the time. In that situation, the school would not allow
the girl to enroll until she had completed her conversion, which she
did within a few months' time, and then she was permitted to enroll. I
don't know if that is still school policy or not or if the situation
ever arose again.
So, in answer to your problem, to the best of my knowledge, the JFS
situation has not arisen in the USA for three reasons:
1. Non-orthodox are generally not interested in attending yeshiva
schools, so it wouldn't come up there. There are MO schools in other
cities. I don't know if this situation has arisen there or not, but if
it did, I've never heard anything about it.
2. The "community day schools" tend to be liberal and pluralistic, and
they do not insist that the students be halachically Jewish.
3. In order for the JFS situation to arise, a family needs to initiate
a legal proceeding. If a school tells a parent "you're child can't
come to our school without a halachic conversion," most people are
passive and will say "oh, okay," and go to plan B. So, you need to
have a family that opts to litigate. Very few families will generally
do this.
I don't know what would have happened if Devorah Schwartzbaum's
parents had brought a legal action against the school in Virginia.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 16-Dec-2009, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
> > On 16-Dec-2009, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7....@newsfe07.ams2>,
> >> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
> >>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> >>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
> >>>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
> >>> This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
> >>> decide
> >>> who is Jewish.
> >>
> >>> Fiona
> >> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
> >> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
> >> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
> >
> > Meaning that THEY get to decide what Judaism is, yes.
>
> No, it means that the school can't use Judaism as the criterion for
> admission. It doesn't mean that the state is determining what defines
> Judaism.
Except that the *entire point* of the school is "We only take Jews".
So, what does it then mean when they take someone who isn't?
> >> I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
> >> to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
> >
> > Except for the fact that NO ONE uses ONLY decent
> > in determining all the ways someone can be Jewish.
> >
> However, descent, in and of itself, can be the determining factor in a
> person's Judaism according to halacha, no?
*Can* be, yes - but it is never the *only* one.
And, in fact, when the father's "race (as defined
by the British)" is automatically discounted***, then
it *can't* be a racist decision.
>
> But your statement does demonstrate that the government isn't
> determining who is a Jew, only which criteria may be used for admission.
See my first response to you, above.
Susan
*** Please note I said "when", and not "should be",
if only for pruposes of this discussion.
mm
<henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>You are right in that the extreme O schools in Britain have not had this
>problem.
>JFS has always had a policy of accepting Jewish children however secular the
>family with the hope that the next generation will be more religious. They
>have in the past only accepted children who are Jewish with the approval of
>the Chief Rabbi's office which means that if the mother has had a Masorti or
>Reform conversion (as in this case) the child would not be considered
>Jewish.
>Are there schools like JFS in America and if so have they had this legal
>problem?
I'm 99.9% sure that Beth Tfiloh, Pre-K to 12, was like this (and still
is or would be but another non-O day school, or one that goes to grade
12, has opened, and it is draining off some of the kids from non-O
families that would have gone** to Beth Tfiloh. I'll bet BT still
has students from non-O families. They call themselves a community
school. This is the congregation which was one of few O congregations
in the US which had no mechitza, and what happened was, the children
of members who went to the shul's day school would refuse to go to
shul with their parents because there was no mechitza! So they put
in a mechitza.
So, like I say, they've only changed, if they have, because of
competiton from other schools, and not because of the government.
I don't see how a law like the one in Britain would be constitutional
here. But I can't prove it, or even express it well.
They have had trouble in a couple states with state laws that say that
if a food product is marked kosher, it must be kosher. When I got to
NYC in 1971, such a law already existed. One could tell just by
looking at supermarkets what the law said. IIRC somewhere near the
front door of most supermarkets, certainly the one right by me, was a
sign that said "Kosher and non-kosher products are sold here" Then in
the meat case were iirc two signs next to each other on the back rail
of the case. One said kosher (meaning from that line to the end of
the case, iirc, and one said nonkosher, meaning to the end of the case
in the other direction, iirc. For a long time in NYS and then
Maryland and maybe Pennsylvania, they had such a law and kosher meant
O kosher. The C, not worried like they should be about opening a can
of wornms, complained iirc, the law was overturned in court, either in
NYS or both NYS and Maryland, because it excessively involved the
state in a religious matter for it to decide that O Jews were the only
ones who could decide what was kosher and what wasn't.
(IIRC, the law also applied to hotdog carts which iirc someone was
willing to call kosher even when the kosher dogs sat in the same water
as the treif dogs. On the notion IIUC that the dogs themselves were
"kosher dogs". That's what the vendor bought and he sold what he
bought, regardless of what putting them in the treif water did to
them. Not sure about this, and not essential to my post)
After the law was overturned, it took a while to write a new law -- I
think I heard Nate Lewin, an O lawyer who has asserted or defended
Jewish rights in quite a few big cases including this one -- speak
about this 15 years ago. The new law says that where it says the
restaurant or grocery or hotdog cart is kosher, it must say who says
so, and not sure, maybe some details about him can be / must be given,
where he was ordained? Surely, except for hotdog cars, this info
was posted anyhow, so now I'm not so sure of what changed.
Maryland proponents copied their law from the successful new NYS state
law, but it didn't pass the first 2 or 3 times it was introduced,
because of one or two gentile squawkers in the legislature who kept
insisting it was a violation of church/state. I'm not sure if it has
been passed yet. But unlike NY, here the number of restaurants is
small enough everyone knows all of them, and I don't think any hotdog
cart claims to be kosher, even though some do say they sell kosher
hotdogs.
I describe it in words, but I see a big difference between this kosher
law, put forth under the notion of truth in advertising, and telling a
school it can't use an O definition of who is a Jew. Maybe because,
the school already has a brochure that says it is O and probably
saying who their dean of religious education is, a rabbi, and any
other rabbis on staff. And the C and R schools, which iirc only go
through grade 8, and one non-O high school do the same thing.
>--
>Henry Goodman
>henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
>
--
mm
Maybe. I agree that they probably won't be taking any non-Jews, but I
thought now they accepted Jews who didn't go to O shuls, who weren't
very obsservant and it seems like that will have to stop until the law
is, we hope, amended.
Is anyone planning to give a hard time to non-O Jews who are enrolled
already, who went there last year? That would be the next step, but
I hope it's either impossible or not one tries it.
>
>Fiona
mm
<abek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:42lsi5th24j44rodm...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:58:26 +0000 (UTC), Amitai
>> <chr...@techunix.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> For the US Supreme Court, most people would agree with the following
>>>> classification (and numbers):
>>>>
>>>> 4: Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito - Conservatives (Constructionists)
>>>> 1: Kennedy - Moderate; Swing voter
>>>> 4: Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer - Liberals (Activists)
>>>>
>>>So would I. It is common knowledge.
>>
>> I think it's far too early to know about Sotomayor. Has even one SC
>> ruling been announced since she joined the court? One can't take
>> seriously the summaries made by her opponents, and if you look at
>> individual examples, they often don't live up to what the "summary"
>> says.
>
>In Mohawk Industries, Inc. vs Carpenter, Justice Sotamayor introduced new
>terms to the Supreme Court: "undocumented immigrants" and "undocumented
>workers." Used to be called "illegal aliens."
First off, it's only words. It doesn't determine the decision.
Second, the term "undocumented workers" has been around for decades.
Third, on whose word do you know that she *introduced" new terms? Do
you know how many liars and distorters there are out there? For
example, if the litigants in the case or more likely their lawyers
used those terms, isn't the proper thing for her to do to at least use
them at least one time in her decision. And how do you know she
introduced new terms and not the lawyers for the litigants?
And fourth and most important, if it were Jews who were sneaking into
the country, and the policy of the government were to kick them out**,
would you be calling them illegal aliens if you could find a phrase
that sounded better? I hope you wouldn't. I hope no one in this
newsgroup would. I wouldn't. And I don't criticize others for
something I myself would do in a second if I were in their shoes.
And would it make you a liberal if for your own people, you used a
better-sounding word?
Let me give you a clue, which you could have noticed yourself if you
were interested in judging her fairly: Only a few screens down:
"541 F. 3d 1048, affirmed.
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,C.
J., and STEVENS, SCALIA, KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ.,
joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined, as to Part IIC. THOMAS,J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment"
So, SEVEN other justices concurred with her and joined with her in the
opinion she wrote, and even Clarence Thomas concurred in part. But
from this you conclude she's a liberal. ROTFLOL
**Whether they only came in the 80's and 90's for better jobs, or if
they came in 1943 and the US governmet wanted to send them back to
Germany or Poland, either way.
> What's next? Life termination
>technicians?
LOL
>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-678.pdf
>
>Best,
>Abe
Fiona Abrahami
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote
That's what I was saying, JFS currently accepts non-observant Jews on the
grounds that they are halachically Jewish, the court ruling now forbids
that, saying it is "racist" to accept non-observant Jews on the basis that
they are Jewish by Jewish Law while denying seemingly-observant-Jews who are
not Jewish by Jewish Law. English law has inserted itself between Jewish law
and the Jewish people to say that a Jewish school cannot select its pupils
according to Jewish law.
> Is anyone planning to give a hard time to non-O Jews who are enrolled
> already, who went there last year?
I doubt that, the school is a school, and teachers the world over are
generally committed to wanting their pupils to achieve the best results they
can.
Fiona
Henry Goodman
______________________________________________________________________
I think the difference here in London is that there are no Jewish schools
that will accept pupils that are not halachikly Jewish so the parents didn't
have an alternative. Reform and Liberals are not much interested in Jewish
schools and Masorti are too small and recent to have established any. There
are some Jewish schools in provincial cities that cannot get enough Jewish
pupils so accept some non-Jewish pupils.
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Dec 20, 6:24 pm, "Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote:
....
>> Are there schools like JFS in America and if so have they had this legal
>> problem?
>---------
>Well, I cited the case of Devorah Schwartzbaum (the adopted Chinese
>girl in _The Bamboo Cradle_). This was back in the 1960s or 1970s, and
>the story was in the book that she was not accepted into the Jewish
>school in Virginia because she did not have an O conversion (and as I
>recall, I don't think she had actually had any conversion at all at
>that point), and her family was too secular to qualify for her to have
>an O conversion. I don't know if she would have been accepted with a C
>or R conversion or not. IIRC (and I am open to correction on this
>point), the reason the family originally embarked on the path to
>become ba'alei teshuva was so that their daughter could qualify for an
>O conversion.
I don't remember the details but, yes, they did all this for their
daughter. It is a love story. The story of a couple's love for a
little girl, and of their love for the Jewish people, whcih brought
them to a love of Judaism.
>IIRC, the observance level of her parents was not a
>factor in the school's decision. She was rejected specifically because
>she was not Jewish even though her parents were Jewish.
>
>The Orthodox school that my sons attended will (at least sometimes)
>allow children to enroll if they are in the process of preparing for
>halachic conversion. I think it's decided on a case-by-case basis.
Accepting them might be a good idea, but maybe there have been
problems when someone intends to convert and changes his mind. I
think Chelsea Clinton met her Jewish fiance in that way. He was going
to day school and she was in the process of converting, and even
though she didn't complete it, they still want to get married. Okay,
I just made this up, but they did meet in the Friend's school when
they were iirc in junior high school I think, so that illustrates one
problem with having those converting attend when they might change
their mind and not convert.
>
>
>2. The "community day schools" tend to be liberal and pluralistic, and
>they do not insist that the students be halachically Jewish.
I describe Beth Tfiloh, they describe themselves as a community school
but I think by that they are tring to encourage non-O children but
still Jews by O standards to attend. I'm sure of it. Okay, the
webpage doesn't go into this. I suspect they are being tactful. There
is a form to request admissions information, and for some reason, it
has one of those "type in image to make sure you're not a robot"
boxes.
>
>3. In order for the JFS situation to arise, a family needs to initiate
>a legal proceeding. If a school tells a parent "you're child can't
>come to our school without a halachic conversion," most people are
>passive and will say "oh, okay," and go to plan B. So, you need to
>have a family that opts to litigate. Very few families will generally
>do this.
>
>I don't know what would have happened if Devorah Schwartzbaum's
>parents had brought a legal action against the school in Virginia.
I know you read the book and they were nothing like that.
BTW, she was only a couple days old when they found her. When he found
her, literally, in a basket alone in the train station, on his way to
work. it took them years before it occurred to them that their
daughter should convert, and years more before they had examined the
options and chose Orthodoxy.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
Steve Goldfarb
>There are Jewish schools in London which discriminate against
>halachically Jewish children whose mother doesn't cover her hair or
>whose family owns a TV or has internet access.
>That is legal. What the courts have decided is that faith schools may favour
>more observant candidates over
>less observant ones. That happens all the time with Christian schools. What
>they do not allow is discrimination depending on descent, e.g.. whether the
>mother is halachikly Jewish, since such discrimination violates the Race
>Relations Act.
Exactly. An earlier poster suggested that it'd be impossible to come up
with a valid definition for "religious enough," e.g., what if they just
went to shul on Yom Kippur, but that's not the point - the school can set
whatever standards it wants. It might choose "attended a synagogue on at
least 2 out of the last 5 Yom Kippurim" or it might say "family lives
strictly according to halacha, with no TV and no newspapers." Whatever -
as long as it's not based on descent.
There's even a work-around if they want to accept children of families who
are "on the path" but not yet fully observant - although it's a little
trickier - just make it contingent on the family demonstrating a
commitment to ultimately become some level of O or whatever, which could
include having an O conversion if needed.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>So, my point is, that the likelihood of finding a family where the
>family had conversions not acceptable to O (and is not currently in
>the process of seeking O conversions) yet lives a Jewish lifestyle
>that is so strict and rigorously observant that the wife covers her
>hair and the family refuses to have TV or the internet in their home
>is nil. So, I can't see how that particular argument would ever come
>up in an American court. I think the reason it was able to be raised
>in the JFS situation is because the school does not require a
>particularly strict level of observance.
Right, exactly, I should have read further before posting. In fact, you
could argue, I think, that the fact that this school does not require a
particularly strict level of observance suggests that they were, in fact,
discriminating - that it's more about keeping certain people out, rather
than including certain people in. Because if you don't care whether or not
they actually follow halacha, then why care if they're halachically Jewish
or not?
If one is to argue that it's not that they don't care about following
halacha, they simply want to allow people who are not yet "there" to
attend, then what Cindy wrote above still applies - if they are truly
sincere about eventually becoming fully O, then there ought to be ways for
them to demonstrate that commitment which would render the issue of a
non-O conversion moot.
But if they don't actually want to bring students up to a certain level of
halachic observance, but instead simply want to avoid having to provide
services to people they don't consider Jewish, well, that is in fact
discriminatory, isn't it?
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>That's what I was saying, JFS currently accepts non-observant Jews on the
>grounds that they are halachically Jewish, the court ruling now forbids
>that, saying it is "racist" to accept non-observant Jews on the basis that
>they are Jewish by Jewish Law while denying seemingly-observant-Jews who are
>not Jewish by Jewish Law. English law has inserted itself between Jewish law
>and the Jewish people to say that a Jewish school cannot select its pupils
>according to Jewish law.
That's correct, but is that necessarily wrong?
The court is correct, I think, that the behavior is "racist," using the
legal definition of that term (it's defined in the opinion, and includes
discrimination based on ethnicity, etc.)
Seems to me we're discussing two related but distinct questions - whether
this behavior cannot be considered discrimination because it's religiously
motived, or whether it can be considered discrimination, but even so
should be permitted because it's religiously motivated.
Basically the court seems to have ruled that the former is not true, even
though it's religious behavior it's still discriminatory (a ruling I agree
with), but all of them seem to suggest the latter as well, that racial
discrimination should be permitted if it's religiously motivated (that is,
Parliament should carve out an exception).
I disagree with that, in my view if we as a society think it's wrong to
discriminate (and one can argue that point) then there's nothing special
about religion that warrants an exception. If religion is a valid reason
for discriminating (and one can argue that it is) then that option should
be available to everyone, for whatever reason. There shouldn't be a
carve-out or exception - should be the same rule for everyone.
--s
--
Don Levey
> On 16-Dec-2009, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
>
>> fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>>> On 16-Dec-2009, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7....@newsfe07.ams2>,
>>>> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote
>>>>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>>>>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>>>>>> http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>>>>> This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
>>>>> decide
>>>>> who is Jewish.
>>>>> Fiona
>>>> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
>>>> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
>>>> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>>> Meaning that THEY get to decide what Judaism is, yes.
>> No, it means that the school can't use Judaism as the criterion for
>> admission. It doesn't mean that the state is determining what defines
>> Judaism.
>
> Except that the *entire point* of the school is "We only take Jews".
> So, what does it then mean when they take someone who isn't?
>
Apparently, they can't contravene the first to get to the second.
>>>> I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
>>>> to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
>>> Except for the fact that NO ONE uses ONLY decent
>>> in determining all the ways someone can be Jewish.
>>>
>> However, descent, in and of itself, can be the determining factor in a
>> person's Judaism according to halacha, no?
>
> *Can* be, yes - but it is never the *only* one.
Really? So if a child of a Jewish woman isn't raised Jewish, the child
isn't really Jewish anymore?
> And, in fact, when the father's "race (as defined
> by the British)" is automatically discounted***, then
> it *can't* be a racist decision.
Really? When the "race" of the mother is always considered? That just
makes it sexist and racist, from what I can tell of the law.
Please understand that I trust the judges in Britain to know the British
laws better than we do here. Note that at least one of the judges
released a statement saying that the law *demands* this decision, but
that doesn't mean it's "right" - and should be changed by Parliament.
>> But your statement does demonstrate that the government isn't
>> determining who is a Jew, only which criteria may be used for admission.
>
> See my first response to you, above.
>
> Susan
>
> *** Please note I said "when", and not "should be",
> if only for pruposes of this discussion.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
Herman Rubin
Fattush <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 16, 12:19=A0pm, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article <FO2Wm.55587$Bd7.22...@newsfe07.ams2>,
>> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >"Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote
>> >> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
>> >> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
>> >>http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>> >This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to de=
>cide
>> >who is Jewish.
>> >Fiona
>> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
>> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
>> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>> I find those who use descent to decide who is Jewish
>> to be racist in the literal meaning of that term.
>IMO, it is not racist. It is logical and practicle.''
Again, the ruling states that a faith-based school cannot
use descent to decide who is a member of that faith. The
school can require any kind of current behavior it wishes,
but cannot use a questionable conversion of the mother as
a reason to not admit the son.
I concur in that I believe Judaism needs to be a faith-based
religion, and not a clan. The Orthodox have made it largely
into a clannish version, based on what is now a clearly
mythological origin. I do not mean that it is impossible to
come up with a rationale which is consistent with no discernible
miracles, and which preserves a good part of the behavior
required by those myths; I believe I have done it myself.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Herman Rubin
Henry Goodman <henry....@virgin.net> wrote:
>"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:0ff1a294-350f-40f5...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>On Dec 17, 6:07 pm, "Henry Goodman" <henry.good...@virgin.net> wrote:
>> "Yisroel Markov" <ey.mar...@MUNGiname.com> wrote in message
......................
______________________________________________________________________
This same argument holds in US schools. A school cannot
discriminate on the basis of race; otherwise, religious
schools using descent would have formed in large numbers,
with the religion excluding non-whites in practice.
--
>Henry Goodman
>henry dot goodman at virgin dot net
Herman Rubin
Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote
.....................
>> Is anyone planning to give a hard time to non-O Jews who are enrolled
>> already, who went there last year?
>I doubt that, the school is a school, and teachers the world over are
>generally committed to wanting their pupils to achieve the best results they
>can.
This is NOT true in the US, and is not necessarily true
elsewhere. Few schools and teachers so anything significant
for those who are bright, or even those who want to learn
more than the minimum. Acceleration is only part of the
answer needed.
cindys
I suppose it is conceivable that my younger son (who did not convert
and is now in public school) could have met a (Jewish) girl at the
Jewish day school when he was 10 years old, and someday, when he is in
his 20's, he will marry her, and they will end up with an interfaith
marriage. Anything in life is possible, but get real...
I know you weren't directing this at me or at my son, but I'll play...
Even though my younger son has not converted and does not intend to
convert, from what I see, if someday he ever did meet a Jewish girl
(in college for example) and they decided to get married, I suspect he
would convert if she wanted him to, and even if he didn't convert at
first, he might opt for a conversion once they had children. I don't
envision my son opting for any type of a conversion other than an O
conversion, and his definition of "who is a Jew" is the Orthodox
definition.
Now, here is why a Jewish boy/girl is not going to marry someone he/
she met in day school who was in the process of converting but then
opted not to: First of all, yeshiva schools are gender segregated. In
my older son's yeshiva (as in most, if not all yeshivas), there are no
girls, and a bachur (yeshiva student) can be expelled for even talking
to a girl (that he may have met in some other venue). Similarly, the
girls at the Orthodox girls school are not allowed to go on dates, not
allowed to talk to boys etc.
Now, the other thing is that I said our local O school will sometimes
admit a student who is in the process of converting. In the case of
our family, when the O school opened, we were already well-known to
the rosh yeshiva, and he was already working with us, and we were
already working with a beis din, etc for my older son.
There was another family where the entire family was in the process of
converting whose children were also permitted to attend the O school.
That family had been working with an O rabbi in another city for
several years, and the family's conversion with a beis din was only a
few months away when they moved to our city. There too, the whole
family was actively involved with the yeshiva, and the yeshiva was
assisting them with the transition. So, these are the two cases that I
know about.
If a family were just beginning the conversion process, I don't know
what the school would say. I suspect it's never come up. In my city,
non-yeshiva families, including MO, tend to opt for the community day
school.
>
>
> >2. The "community day schools" tend to be liberal and pluralistic, and
> >they do not insist that the students be halachically Jewish.
>
> >I don't know what would have happened if Devorah Schwartzbaum's
> >parents had brought a legal action against the school in Virginia.
>
> I know you read the book and they were nothing like that.
I didn't say they were like that I was speculating "what if..." I
wasn't saying they were considering it.
>
> BTW, she was only a couple days old when they found her. When he found
> her, literally, in a basket alone in the train station, on his way to
> work. it took them years before it occurred to them that their
> daughter should convert, and years more before they had examined the
> options and chose Orthodoxy.
It's been a long time since I read that book (maybe 15 years ago)?
That's why I kept posting "IIRC" because I didn't remember exactly. I
didn't think they had ever had a non-O conversion for their daughter,
but I wasn't sure.
When I read the book, I remember I was really panicked because I had a
non-Jewish infant (my older son) sleeping in a crib in the next room,
and I started worrying that maybe I wouldn't be able to enroll him in
the community day school (the O school didn't exist back then, and I
wouldn't have opted for that anyway, at the time), so I phoned the
school and was reassured that as long as our synagogue considered him
to be Jewish, he could be enrolled in the school.
We were members of a C synagogue at that time and converted him C when
he was two years old. But IIRC, I don't think the enrollment form
actually asked about any conversions (at least not at that time - I
don't know what they do now). The application form did ask for the
name of our synagogue, but I don't think that synagogue membership was/
is actually a prerequisite for enrolling one's child in the community
day school.
As a conclusion, I will add that it's a reality of life that schools
that are hurting for money or have smaller enrollments are generally
going to be more flexible about who they are willing to admit than a
school that has a waiting list.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Yussel
<fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "sheldonlg" <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote> >>> "Fattush" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
> >>>> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The UK Supreme Court has decided 5-4 that Jewish schools may not base
> >>>>>> admissions on whether a pupil is halachikly Jewish.
> >>>>>>http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/25043/jfs-loses-supreme-court-appeal
>
> >>>>> This ruling is itself racist, because it says Jews are not allowed to
>
> >>>> No, the ruling is that schools cannot use descent in
> >>>> deciding who to admit, that religious schools can only
> >>>> use belief and religious observance as criteria.
>
> >>> their whole life wake up one day and the parent decides decides he
> >>> wants his kids to attend the Jewish school because it is a good school
> >>> and it is affordable and convenient, all he has to do is tell the
> >>> people in the school that during the past two weeks and and his kids
> >>> believe in G-d (not Allah), keep Kosher, observe the Sabbath, etc.?
> >>> _______________________________________________________
>
> >>> What is happening is that the school now requires a letter about the
> >>> family from a Rabbi.
>
> >> And as JFS (the school in question) is aligned with the United Synagogue
> >> and the London Beth Din, they could, and probably will in years to come,
> >> insist that the Rabbi giving the OK is a US or other Orthodox rabbi.
>
> >> Though JFS is ostensibly an Orthodox school (albeit middle-of-the-road)
> >> it has a tradition of taking a quota of 'non-aligned halachically Jewish
> >> kids from secular families in an attempt to keeps such families connected
> >> to the community. The new rules will mean these kids can no longer get a
> >> place at JFS because the halachic justification for giving them places
> >> has been undermined.
>
> >> So once again the blunderbuss of Reformism fails to achieve its goal (the
> >> weakening of Orthodoxy and the establishment of a Reform hegemony) but
> >> manages to hurt others who merely watched from the sidelines.
>
> > *This* case that brought the decision, at least as much as I have read
> > about it, was about a mother who converted under C (or whatever is like
> > that in the UK), kept kosher etc., raised the child indistinguishable from
> > observant Orthodox, and is now having the child denied because SHE didn't
> > convert under O(and the O want to restrict that decision making ability to
> > themselves). That is not about "weakening Orthodoxy" nor "establishment
> > of a Reform hegemony", nor even anything at _all_ to do with Reformism.
> > But, go ahead and blame Reformism for it all. It seems to satisfy you.
>
> Oh, sorry, wasn't I pedantic enough for you?
>
> As far as I am concerned Masorti (= UK C), Reform, Liberal, Recon, etc. etc.
> are all the same thing, and to me you all come under the title of Reformist,
> the fact that you may hate each other as much as you hate Orthodoxy, and
> thus cannot stand being mistaken for each other, is of no concern to me.
>
> Fiona
A. They are not all the same
B. We don't hate each other
C. We don't hate Orthodoxy. We just aren't Orthodox
D. I don't see the virtue in imprecision.
Try reformist without the upper case R and your gross generalization
is less egregious.
j
cindys
Well, I blathered on a lot about nothing. My points above were really
as follows:
Our yeshiva school was willing to allow my sons (and another family's
children) to enroll because the situation was that the halachic
conversions were more-or-less already a fait accompli.
And additionally, I suspect (this is *my own opinion* - I never asked
the school, just counted my blessings that my children could be
enrolled pre-conversion), the school would certainly see this as a
better solution than creating a situation where the children would
have been in either public school or in a pluralistic Jewish school
where they would have first been exposed to other ideas/philosophies/
friendships or whatever for a six months or maybe a year or two, and
then after having halachic conversions, they would have transferred to
the yeshiva school where in addition to having had extensive exposure
to the secular world/ideas, they would have been behind grade level in
Judaic studies.
As far as Devorah Schwartzbaum is concerned, I read the book many
years ago. I thought I remembered from the book that Devorah could not
be admitted to the school in Virginia because she did not have an O
conversion. And she couldn't have an O conversion because her family
at that time was secular. If you say that she had not had any type of
conversion at that time, I believe you. I don't remember. What I do
remember is that I started to panic that my own child would be
rejected from our local community day school, and so, I was prompted
to make a phone call.
WRT your comment regarding Chelsea Clinton meeting her intended at
Friend's school, it illustrates again, why our rosh yeshiva would
never, ever have endorsed my sons' conversions if I intended to send
them to anything other than a yeshiva school after conversion. Not
that anyone on SCJM asked, but some local (non-yeshiva) people in my
city did ask why my younger son couldn't have the conversion but go to
public school? And when I told them that even if I thought that was
okay (which I didn't/don't), the rosh yeshiva would never have
endorsed his conversion and the beis din would never have performed
the conversion if we were planning to send him to public school, the
resultant response was invariably a disparaging remark about either
the rosh yeshiva or the beis din and a statement that this was *so
unfair* and such a *stupid* policy.
My son was actually invited to participate in a makeshift afternoon
Hebrew school. I thanked the woman kindly for her invitation but
reminded her that my son wasn't Jewish. When she told me it didn't
matter, I told her (in a nice way) that if my son were interested in
Jewish studies, he would still be at the yeshiva school. She didn't
like that answer at all.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Fiona Abrahami
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote
> Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote
>>> "Fiona Abrahami" <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote
>
> .....................
>
>>> Is anyone planning to give a hard time to non-O Jews who are enrolled
>>> already, who went there last year?
>
>>I doubt that, the school is a school, and teachers the world over are
>>generally committed to wanting their pupils to achieve the best results
>>they
>>can.
>
> This is NOT true in the US, and is not necessarily true
> elsewhere. Few schools and teachers so anything significant
> for those who are bright, or even those who want to learn
> more than the minimum. Acceleration is only part of the
> answer needed.
I think there I'm trying to understand what you are saying here, but I think
there's a word missing in the second line but I can't figure what it is.
As both my parents were teachers, and two of my grandparents were teachers
(one on each side), and having done a fair amount myself, I find from
personally experience most school teachers are deeply committed to their
achieving the best for their pupils. Maybe university lecturer are more
selfish, but most school teachers I've ever met would teach for free, for
the love of it (that's why cynical governments like UK.gov, can get away
with paying them so little).
Fiona
sheldonlg
Having been there nyself, I would have to agree that most teachers are
committed to helping their students succeed. However, my experience is
in a Jewish day school and a charter school.
However, I think that if they weren't paid you would have 0.01% of the
teachers remaining in teaching. Money still does talk and teachers
still have to pay the rent/mortgage and put food on the table.
I think governments can get away with paying so little is because:
1 - The majority of the teachers are women and the school day fits in
well with their being able to be home with the kids after the kids get
out of school.
2 - There is an entire summer off, plus two or three long breaks during
the school year (again when the kids are out of school).
3 - Being barred by law (in many states in the US) from going on strike.
4 - Good retirement benefits AND tenure/job security.
Herman Rubin
Fiona Abrahami <fiona@NO_SPAM.intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
.....................
For several years in the US, this was definitely not so.
Children whose parents had taught them were really picked
upon by the teachers, who were indoctrinated that it was
ONLY the schoolteachers who could properly teach a subject.
This was the time that the "whole word" method of reading,
which made it difficult or impossible for a majority of the
children to ever read properly, was in vogue. Later, the
teachers could not handle the "new math", and the misguided
efforts to reduce it to what the teachers could handle made
it useless. The only solution for the public schools is to
have academic private schools, which are VERY rare now.
sheldonlg
Thirty eight years ago my daughter was in kindergarten. The teacher
sent a note home to my wife that she wanted her to come in and talk to
her. When my wife arrived, the teacher said that because she was not
staying within the lines when coloring, she was way behind in reading
readiness.
My wife then called our daughter over and handed her a newspaper and
asked her to read it out loud, which she did because she had been
reading for a year already. (She taught herself).
What did the teacher then do? She treated her as a teacher's helper by
having her read to the other children while she attended others.
The point? Those theories are just so much hot air. My daughter
learned the _old-fashioned way_ (with help from some something new --
she learned the sounds of the letters from Sesame Street, a public TV
program), and put them together in her mind into words when I read books
to her at night by mentally matching the spoken word with the letters.
I knew nothing of this until one day when she totally surprised us by
reading the book.
Abe Kohen
point and a mindframe.
Her misdeeds regarding the New Haven di-worsity-case speak volumes, as well.
As a proud refugee and immigrant I find nothing wrong with the term "illegal
alien." It's not about lacking documentation; it's about crossing into this
country illegally.
Best,
Abe
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:m95ui51jfnggnuuua...@4ax.com...
mm
<cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
For the previous post, you're right. I didn't even think of your son
or the possibility my scenario fit him.
>
>As far as Devorah Schwartzbaum is concerned, I read the book many
>years ago. I thought I remembered from the book that Devorah could not
>be admitted to the school in Virginia because she did not have an O
>conversion. And she couldn't have an O conversion because her family
>at that time was secular. If you say that she had not had any type of
>conversion at that time, I believe you. I don't remember. What I do
I remember that he talked to a bunch of people, either 3 people OCR
or, my speculation, he might have summarized everyone he talked to by
the 3 stories he told, but regardless of that, I don't remember what
actually happened first after he talked to people.
The years I'm talking about where they didn't do anything were the
years from zero to 2, 3, or 4, when she woudln't have been going to
school anyhow. It didnt' occur to them during that period that they
had a non-Jewish daughter and they wanted her -- I forget how he
explained it -- to be a Jew.
Do you remember, btw, that he gives credit, in detailed narrative
usually so it's convincing and doesn't just look like graciousness, at
ever step of the way, to his wife?
>remember is that I started to panic that my own child would be
>rejected from our local community day school, and so, I was prompted
>to make a phone call.
>
>WRT your comment regarding Chelsea Clinton meeting her intended at
>Friend's school, it illustrates again, why our rosh yeshiva would
I was wrong about that. It was easy to hunt for info about this
Chelsea met fiance was perfect. One page says they met both in
1993 and in 1996!! and the other says 1996, but they both say the same
place!! "Mezvinsky met Chelsea in 1993 when both teenagers were with
their parents at the so-called "Renaissance Weekend," a Democratic
political retreat in Hilton Head, S.C., and established a close
friendship. When Clinton was choosing colleges in 1997, Mezvinsky gave
her a tour of Stanford University, which he was attending. "
Another page says they met in Washington, but I doubt anything called
a retreat was in DC. (Maybe a cowboy retreat would be in DC but a
political retreat would be in Cheyenne Wyoming or rural Virginia, not
DC.)
So if they really met in 1996, she was 16 or 17 at the time and he was
a HS senior or in college. But they didnt' meet at the Friends'
schoo.
Didn't start dating until 2005 or 2007, depending on which page you
read.
What this means is you [generic you] shouldn't take your Jewish son to
a political retreat if there might be goyish girls there. You
shouldn't take him anywhere. Or maybe it means you have to raise your
Jewish son to want to marry a Jew.
>never, ever have endorsed my sons' conversions if I intended to send
>them to anything other than a yeshiva school after conversion. Not
>that anyone on SCJM asked, but some local (non-yeshiva) people in my
>city did ask why my younger son couldn't have the conversion but go to
>public school? And when I told them that even if I thought that was
>okay (which I didn't/don't), the rosh yeshiva would never have
>endorsed his conversion and the beis din would never have performed
>the conversion if we were planning to send him to public school, the
>resultant response was invariably a disparaging remark about either
>the rosh yeshiva or the beis din and a statement that this was *so
>unfair* and such a *stupid* policy.
But you kept gving them the same answer.
>My son was actually invited to participate in a makeshift afternoon
>Hebrew school. I thanked the woman kindly for her invitation but
>reminded her that my son wasn't Jewish. When she told me it didn't
>matter, I told her (in a nice way) that if my son were interested in
>Jewish studies, he would still be at the yeshiva school. She didn't
>like that answer at all.
Anyone ever tell you, You're a pistol.
Steve Goldfarb
>As a proud refugee and immigrant I find nothing wrong with the term "illegal
>alien." It's not about lacking documentation; it's about crossing into this
>country illegally.
Agreed, not to mention the fact that many illegal aliens are illegal not
because they're undocumented, but because the documentation they have is
no longer valid. That is, someone with an expired student visa is
"documented," they're just "illegal."
I imagine what she's trying to communicate is "do not have valid
documentation," but I don't think "undocumented" communicates that as
effectively as "illegal" does, as the latter term includes people who were
never documented as well as those who were once documented. It's a more
encompassing (and therefore more accurate) term.
--s
--
cindys
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:52:43 +0000 (UTC), cindys
>
> >WRT your comment regarding Chelsea Clinton meeting her intended at
> >Friend's school, it illustrates again, why our rosh yeshiva would
>
> I was wrong about that. It was easy to hunt for info about this
> Chelsea met fiance was perfect. One page says they met both in
> 1993 and in 1996!! and the other says 1996, but they both say the same
> place!! "Mezvinsky met Chelsea in 1993 when both teenagers were with
> their parents at the so-called "Renaissance Weekend," a Democratic
> political retreat in Hilton Head, S.C., and established a close
> friendship. When Clinton was choosing colleges in 1997, Mezvinsky gave
> her a tour of Stanford University, which he was attending. "
>
snip
>
> What this means is you [generic you] shouldn't take your Jewish son to
> a political retreat if there might be goyish girls there.
O the irony of life. Last year, my older son had an opportunity to
attend a five-day program in Washington DC that would have involved
his staying on the campus of George Washington University (in the dorm
with other high school students). He could choose from about a dozen
or so career tracks, but basically it was about touring various
Washington DC landmarks and hearing speeches from high profile guest
speakers (e.g., the Director of Homeland Security and others like
him), a dream opportunity for a lot of people (I wanted to go!!!) .
And the program wasn't cheap either.
At any rate, he was interested in going, and so, I phoned the yeshiva
to ask if that would be okay (because when your son is in yeshiva, you
have to ask the yeshiva's permission for him to do certain things, if
he wants to stay in yeshiva, that is). They said no. They had a big
problem with the fact that he would be staying in the dormitory with
secular kids. Kashrus wasn't an issue (as we could have worked our way
around that), and the date we picked did not impact on shabbos in any
way, and they didn't have a problem with the touring or the speakers.
The issue was the other participants.
The dormitory was sex-segregated and supervised, but it didn't matter.
They thought it would be a very bad idea for him to be interacting
with secular kids in this way (even though the secular kids who would
be interested in a program like this were all probably very motivated
academically - as some of the programs led to college credit and it
was something nice to put on a college application). This was hardly
going to be an opportunity for a bunch of high school kids to go off
and have an orgy. But the yeshiva said no. And my son was (sort of)
disappointed. And my husband and I were both miffed and kind of angry.
But now, I can see their point.
>You
> shouldn't take him anywhere.
Well...I think we can take him some places...He can't spend the rest
of his life in his room. He is going to college next year.
>Or maybe it means you have to raise your
> Jewish son to want to marry a Jew.
I think that's probably the key ;-)
>
> >never, ever have endorsed my sons' conversions if I intended to send
> >them to anything other than a yeshiva school after conversion. Not
> >that anyone on SCJM asked, but some local (non-yeshiva) people in my
> >city did ask why my younger son couldn't have the conversion but go to
> >public school? And when I told them that even if I thought that was
> >okay (which I didn't/don't), the rosh yeshiva would never have
> >endorsed his conversion and the beis din would never have performed
> >the conversion if we were planning to send him to public school. The
> >resultant response was invariably a disparaging remark about either
> >the rosh yeshiva or the beis din and a statement that this was *so
> >unfair* and such a *stupid* policy.
>
> But you kept giving them the same answer.
Yes.
>
> >My son was actually invited to participate in a makeshift afternoon
> >Hebrew school. I thanked the woman kindly for her invitation but
> >reminded her that my son wasn't Jewish. When she told me it didn't
> >matter, I told her (in a nice way) that if my son were interested in
> >Jewish studies, he would still be at the yeshiva school. She didn't
> >like that answer at all.
>
> Anyone ever tell you, You're a pistol.
Thanks, but it hasn't exactly increased my popularity with the
neighbors...
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Susan S
Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com>:
Illegal alien is frequently shorthand for "people whose skin color or
language is different from ours". I've never heard an American use that
term for an "undocumented" person from England or Ireland.
Susan Silberstein
Steve Goldfarb
>Illegal alien is frequently shorthand for "people whose skin color or
>language is different from ours". I've never heard an American use that
>term for an "undocumented" person from England or Ireland.
Possibly true, but so what?
According to something called the "Center for Immigration Studies,"
www.cis.org, they estimate that there are approximately 11.3 million
illegal aliens living in the US. Of those, it would appear that Europe as
a whole accounts for 4%, so England and Ireland are presumably fewer than
that, meaning yeah - overall, illegal aliens ARE in fact people whose skin
color or language are different from "ours." Different from mine, anyway,
don't know who "ours" are exactly.
Haven't studied who this organization is or if their numbers can be
trusted - they seem to be anti-immigration, but even if they're off by an
order of magnitude it doesn't change the result.
But once again - so what?
--s
--
sheldonlg
I have. In fact, in Massachusetts some such illegal aliens hot-topped
my driveway. They were half the price.