danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Does the school that does not allow the women to drive children to school force the students to be there? Isn't that voluntary as well? Since it is voluntary (assumed until I am told otherwise), would there be standing in a court?

when you assume...

In the UK, education is a right. Which school one attends is a choice (and home schooling is an option), but normally by the parents rather than the child. If the school has good cause to exclude a child for a day or longer, then fair enough. Fighting, or other bad behavior by the child would be examples. In that case the LEA and parents would look for alternatives.

There would be standing, on the basis of discrimination by association: barred from school based on what you mother did, which itself is legal but being discriminated against.

Perhaps I was not concise enough. Is this particular school that you brought up as your example voluntarily chosen by the parents of the student with the rules in place?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

bbauska wrote:Thank you in advance for your answer.

Le sigh

We've been over this already, and I thought it was already clear from what I'd written and the sequence of events as in the article.

The parents chose the school, but until recently it DID NOT HAVE THIS RULE. The school sent out a letter to tell parents that the rule was coming in.

(then the letter was sent to the Jewish Chronicle, and then it went across other media, reached an agency that looks at equality issues and after they said it was likely to be illegal, the school rescinded the rule).

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Feel free to disprove it.

Sorry, but I am waiting for you to prove your initial assertions that we treat Islam differently (more tolerantly) than all other religions.

If I find evidence that shows similar issues in Beth Dins or with Orthodox rabbis, that will have disproven your assertion, yes?

But for starters:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 65888.html

Yes, of course. Was the school prohibiting any child before the rule was made (Not that I have read)? Are the parents not allowed to place their child anywhere else (yes)?

I am not trying to be pedantic, but I want to make sure that the school is not doing something wrong legally. If they are, I am all for the legal system cracking on them. If it is a parent who has their nose out of joint because of a rule that people have to abide by to enroll their children at this school, then just move the child to another school.

Heck, it doesn't even need to be a private school. There are many good public schools in Britain, I am sure.

My question is:
What is keeping the families that disagree with the decision of the school banning acceptance of a student driven a female from attending another school if this policy is so egregious?

If a private school's policies not accepted by the public who are financially supporting that institution through enrollment, will it not cease to function?

Everything that I have read about this policy and those who disagree show that the people who are complaining about it are the ones who are not being affected by the policy. What mother of a student at Stamford Hill has brought claim against the policy?

I have read that the Education Dept. of Britain has warned that it is discriminatory.

Sorry to have troubled you by asking a question.

bbauska wrote:Yes, of course. Was the school prohibiting any child before the rule was made (Not that I have read)? Are the parents not allowed to place their child anywhere else (yes)?

They are "allowed" to, yes. But that is disruptive and annoying, even in normal circumstances (and while there is choice, there is also a lot of competition for spaces in schools, meaning switching is not always possible to your preferred choices)

Also, the schools specifically cater to the Belz community, and so leaving the school because of this policy is not simply a consumer choice, it's bound up in the sect's community, it's identity and the families. Thus it was not just about the school rules, it was about using the schools to "enforce" social rules within the community.

Everything that I have read about this policy and those who disagree show that the people who are complaining about it are the ones who are not being affected by the policy. What mother of a student at Stamford Hill has brought claim against the policy?

In the tight knit Belz community, it is not necessarily easy to speak out in defiance of the chief Rabbi or the leadership. But how did the JC get a copy unless an unhappy parent passed it to them?

And you can complain or object to something without launching litigation (well, you can in the UK, anyway).

I have read that the Education Dept. of Britain has warned that it is discriminatory.

And the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

But no legal case will need to be raised as the schools (there are actually two schools, one for boys and one for girls) have rescinded the ban. So no parent need bring a case, and the state did not take any action.

Sassenach wrote:Steve, it's interesting to note that you're quoting somebody who is openly calling for the state to intervene and place a ban on individuals freely consenting to abide by the rulings of religious leaders. You do realise that all sharia courts in the UK are voluntary right ? That they have no standing in law ? As it happens I personally have no issue with the idea but it's odd that you're taking this line since it appears to directly undermine your own arguments.

No, I'm pointing to the difference between "they only handle divorce" to "they actually minimize violence against women."

It's no longer a religious freedom issue when laws are violated. I've been consistent on that.

And, frankly, I don't want pseudo-courts of any kind taking jurisdiction of divorces. It's going to be a creeping process of increasing Sharia law. Where do you draw the line?

But surely this is still just two consenting adults both agreeing to abide by the decision of a supposedly neutral arbiter for religious reasons ? Couples split up all the time without involving the courts, this is just a more formalised process of the same thing. I don't like it any more than you do, but I'm not the one saying that the state should butt out of all faith-based decisions between consenting adults.

So there is no evidence that a parent claimed discrimination?

Until there is, I was say that it is more intrusion on people who should be making choices on there own. Danivon, as this is in your neck of the woods, could you tell us when the person who brought this complaint is identified?

Sassenach wrote:But surely this is still just two consenting adults both agreeing to abide by the decision of a supposedly neutral arbiter for religious reasons ? Couples split up all the time without involving the courts, this is just a more formalised process of the same thing. I don't like it any more than you do, but I'm not the one saying that the state should butt out of all faith-based decisions between consenting adults.

No, I am saying the State should not butt-in to religion. I am also saying they (you) have no business in this school situation. It seems to me the only "crime" was a potential of expulsion from a school you don't much like anyway.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, I'm pointing to the difference between "they only handle divorce" to "they actually minimize violence against women."

Muslim "sharia" organisations don't only handle divorce. But then again, Beth Dins don't only handle divorce either.

It's no longer a religious freedom issue when laws are violated. I've been consistent on that.

Not even laws on equality and discrimination?

And, frankly, I don't want pseudo-courts of any kind taking jurisdiction of divorces. It's going to be a creeping process of increasing Sharia law. Where do you draw the line?

Arbitration in divorce (or before potential divorce) is not new, and not restricted to religions. It's recognised that if both parties sign up to a process and in doing so agree to be bound by decisions, then it can reduce the chances of having to go to law courts later (messier, and more expensive).

One issue is that in the UK we recognise marriages in CofE and some other Christian churches, but not for other religions (Islam included). So couples who want a full legally recognised marriage have to get a civil marriage as well as one from the synagogue/mosque/temple. Often they don't bother, and it's usually fine for most purposes, but of course not when marriages fail and end in divorce.

I would prefer if we allowed extension of marriage recognition to other religions, making them civil as well as religious, and then divorce would have to be done under law (which still allows for arbitration but means there is recourse if it does not follow UK law).

No, I am saying the State should not butt-in to religion. I am also saying they (you) have no business in this school situation. It seems to me the only "crime" was a potential of expulsion from a school you don't much like anyway.

Well, I say that religion should not butt into the state. Our laws include regulation of all education, even if it is a private school. If you want to set up a school in the UK, you have to accept that is the law, and that certain issues are part of the State's purview.

Whether Sass or I like Talmudic Jewish schools or not is not the issue, and never was. You are right that personally I dislike religious schools and also private schools - I find that both are socially divisive, and make it harder to integrate people - it would indeed be better if we were more "melting pot" than we are.

But as the laws allow both private schools and religious schools, I have to respect that. While they operate legally, then fine.

danivon wrote:

It's no longer a religious freedom issue when laws are violated. I've been consistent on that.

Not even laws on equality and discrimination?

No, unless the law establishes a sexual norm, which is not the government's job.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

It's no longer a religious freedom issue when laws are violated. I've been consistent on that.

Not even laws on equality and discrimination?

No, unless the law establishes a sexual norm, which is not the government's job.

Yes it is. We have Laws about pederasty, bestality, polygamy, forced marriage, etc.

If you meant gender norms, then we also have Laws about discrimination based on gender, pay equality, rights to work etc.

Either you agree that people should abide by the laws, or not.

I came to these pages late; a few pages ago:

Orthodox Jews believe that they are Jewish by dint of their heredity

Not just Orthodox Jews but Conservative and Reform Jews as well. In all three branches, if your mom is Jewish then you are Jewish. For Reform Jews if either parent is Jewish, you are Jewish. Conservatives are considering the adoption of that rule as well.

However, in the Hebrew Bible and in ancient Israel, there is some evidence that Judaism is based on the paternal line. There are Jewish sects (e.g. the Karaites) who use the paternal line, not the maternal line.

These can be important issues when considering immigration to Israel.

Once you are Jewish, the faith considers you to be always Jewish. However, for all practical purposes that doesn't stop you from leaving the religion, converting, not telling your children you were born Jewish and so were they, etc. You can check out, but you are always welcome back. If your maternal grandmother was Jewish, you are Jewish.

Dr. Fate:

I'm confident one can still convert to Orthodox Judaism

Yes, it is not encouraged, but it is allowed. The more religious the branch, the more it is discouraged. I believe this is one of the fundamental reasons for the split between Judaism and Christianity a couple of thousand years ago.

Anyhoo, back to your regular discussion.

Ray Jay wrote:I came to these pages late; a few pages ago:

Orthodox Jews believe that they are Jewish by dint of their heredity

Not just Orthodox Jews but Conservative and Reform Jews as well. In all three branches, if your mom is Jewish then you are Jewish. For Reform Jews if either parent is Jewish, you are Jewish. Conservatives are considering the adoption of that rule as well.

However, in the Hebrew Bible and in ancient Israel, there is some evidence that Judaism is based on the paternal line. There are Jewish sects (e.g. the Karaites) who use the paternal line, not the maternal line.

These can be important issues when considering immigration to Israel.

Once you are Jewish, the faith considers you to be always Jewish. However, for all practical purposes that doesn't stop you from leaving the religion, converting, not telling your children you were born Jewish and so were they, etc. You can check out, but you are always welcome back. If your maternal grandmother was Jewish, you are Jewish.

I referred to Orthodox Jews because that is what the Belz are. The Belz are a Hasidic/Chasidic "dynasty", and are bound up in family groups who recognise a particular Rabbinical line (in this case the Rokeach line). Indeed they are proselytising within Judaism and have expanded their numbers greatly since nearly being exterminated by the Nazis in WWII.

But a key to the Belz community - as for many Chasidic sects - is the connection with education. The boys school concerned is a Midrach (same word as the Arabic "madrassa"), and the connection between the Talmudic scholarship in a school and belonging to the community is very deep

Yes, all very interesting. Yes,

proselytising within Judaism

is allowed. Proselytizing non-Jews is not. In fact, they probably confirm maternal lineage before inviting you to Shabbat dinner to make sure.