Given that “M” did not have the “ideal profile”, according to the Orthodox perspective, I would hope the school could show patience, tolerance and understand in this regard and help all the family to achieve the status of being “fully converted”.

I wonder if “M” would have choosen this school for himself?

Note: A very low paid and minimally trained (no flashy degrees just worked on the nursing floor for years and years) but a highly skilled, knowledgeable and caring nurse (the head nurse) once told me, Diane, I feel you’ve presented me with a “fairly terminal case for dull philosophers.”

I hope the dialogue will continue even if I have exhausted my limited contributions to the topic. My thanks to both Benjamin and Allison for this wonderful exchange.

I too have been finding these comments fascinating … and have been following these comments all day while approving them.

Just to make this even more fun, try googling “Jewish ethnicity.” By no means do I suggest a Google search is an accurate way of finding the truth, but there’s certainly an argument to be made that, while Judaism is not (in the traditional sense) an ethnicity, it has morphed into one over the years.

This can be supported through requirements of the religion. I am not Jewish but it is my understanding that Jewish children are encouraged or even forced to marry Jewish for bloodline purposes. I have also heard rumours that genetic testing has been done on Jewish ancestry.

Personally, I absolutely see religion as a choice. But I also can’t discount the possibility that there may be a genetic element involved (however small).

Like you, I don’t believe M’s mother tried to intentionally circumvent the process. She had converted through the Progessive movement and in accordance with their standards. She fully considered herself Jewish. One can imagine her indignation when she was informed she was not considered Jewish by Orthodox standards.

Let me pose a poor metaphor, to drive home a point rather than draw precise parallels. A student upon arriving in Canada meets an individual who tells her that he runs a college, and for a couple thousand bucks plus eight months of classes, she can receive a degree as a nurse. She pays the money. She spends eight months with several other students studying. She receives a degree and considers herself a nurse. Imagine her frustration when she applies to the hospital and finds out she was studying at a non-accredited “diploma mill”, and she is not considered a nurse and cannot get a job.

The point is that we accept organizations have certain standards which if not complied with, do not entitle to the position. Good intentions are not the be all end all. I’m sure lawyers can appreciate this, knowing colleagues who have received a degree in the US and then find out they have to begin all over in Canada.

To your main point of genetics. I believe you’re viewing Judaism as an ethnicity rather than a religion. To that effect, I believe the Court of Appeal as well got hung up on that concept, since ethnicity is immutable while religion is arguably not. Ethnicity is a by-product of genetics. Religion is not. Therefore genetics are not indicative of one’s Judiasm.

To further emphasize the point, religion embraces absolutes. Morality is a white and black world. Relative morality, the by-product of an a liberal atheist perspective is the antithesis of religion. Universal morality however, presupposes the existence of a single deity since that would be the only logical basis for a “correct” way. In such a universe there is no room for halves, one cannot be half Jewish and half not. Thus if genetics reveal one is half Jewish, at best it canot be dispositive and we must rely on some other factor to tell us one hundred percent, what one is.

One final note. You mention that you have no doubt that both parents are fully commited to raising their child to practice the Jewish faith. I would add one caveat. To practice their version of the Jewish faith. Far be it from me to say one version of Judaism is better than another, let alone any religion from another. However if they are committed to a certain practice of Judaism, there is no reason why their beliefs should be imposed on another. If they have no desire to practice Orthodox Judiasm, then the school should not be forced to accept them. After all isn’t that the entire purpose of the Equality Act, in giving preference to those of their own faith?

If the “nurse” would say she would abide by the hospital’s rules, does that mean the hospital should be forced to hire her even though she does not have a degree?

(I do apologize for the length of these replies, I find the topic quite interesting)

I appreciate your timely response and communication.

In this specific case, DNA testing was available and my query is why it would not be considered as contributory evidence to the child’s true genetic identity. Isn’t one half of the child’s birthright Jewish if one assumes this is his biological father (DNA testing)? I do think the father’s Jewish birthright is significant, coupled with the mother’s sincere commitment and attempts to convert to the Jewish faith. I find it hard to believe, after what I read about this case, that this mother intentionally tried to circumvent the “correct” processes and/or procedures for her conversion. Is it possible there was a misunderstanding and that, neither she nor her husband clearly understand the absolute necessity to ensure she was “fully converted” (Orthodox perspective) before applying to have “M” enrolled in the school? While an individual can lie about his/her real identity, the scientific community, considers a DNA profile a reliable determinant of the individual’s genetic identity.
I have little doubt that both parents are fully committed to raising their child to practice the Jewish faith properly. I hope he will also grown up with an appreciation for the power of love and the human spirit…I think “M’s” mother and father are good role models for both.

While modern scientific knowledge may seem to question the basis for certain beliefs, there are practical reasons why certain religions focus on the birth mother. For example, prior to the emergence of DNA testing, there would be little way to know for certain who was the father of a child. Thus it would seem pragmatic to focus on the religion of the mother for certainty.

To respond briefly to your points: No one debates that both a father and mother are instrumental in the process of conceiving a child. Unless sex ed has changed recently, I think this is quite common knowledge. The fact that the father’s sperm helps decide the gender of a child is quite beside the point, that a child is the by-product of two parents. Thus we return to the basic question of when thw two parents are of different religions, what religion is the child.

I take it your answer to this question is that religion should follow the father since his sperm decides the gender of the child. But why should this purely biological process have any bearing? Counter arguments abound that the mother, who arguably has a greater nurishing effect, and whose values are likely instilled in the child, should be decisive. While I am happy to debate the theological reasons for this choice, my point is simply that to determine the child’s religion based on biology is fallacious. All the more so when you consider that religion is a concept of the spirit, and not solely of the body.

Alternatively, your point may be that if any parent is Jewish, so should be the child. However – ignoring the gender of the parent for the moment – if one parent is Catholic and the other Jewish, the child cannot be both. The religions are diametrically opposed theologically and from any perspective one cannot be both. So much for Chistmakkuh.

Each biological parent contributes half of the genetic make up to the baby. The female or mother is genetically XX. The female gives an X to the baby. The father of the baby is XY and gives either X or a Y. It is pretty clear it is the father’s sperm that decides the gender of their biological baby.

In this case, the father is Jewish by birth and therefore, basic biology does not support this religious argument that a child is Jewish only if his mother is Jewish.

Thank you for your insightful comments. I was not aware “M” had been admitted to JFS, and I defer to your knowledge of other incidents of state interference with Jewish religious practice in the U.K. That being said, I would like to comment briefly on each of your points. First, the fundamental difficulty is in Orthodox Judaism’s perceptions of religion and ethnicity being intertwined. While you mention that the board could presumably have rejected his admission on his parent’s religious practice, I find it difficult to see how the two differ. If, hypothetically speaking, Orthodox Judaism required as one of its basic tenets of religious practice immersion in a body of water in accordance with certain specifications, and one did not adhere to such practice, I agree that they should fail the religious practice criteria. So too if the immersion, which forms part of the process of conversion, is not carried out according to those specifications, the conversion process fails as not meeting the religious requirements. The argument could be made that “ethnicity” flows from a religious failing, and thus any distinction is at its basis, a religious one.

As to your second point, it all depend on perspective. From an Orthodox Jewish perspective if one is born Jewish, they remain Jewish, whether they practice according to Reform, Conservative principles or not all. To profess, is to affirm belief in. There is no doubt that the Conservative Jews affirm believe in Judaism. However to an Orthodox perspective, the practice of those beliefs are not the “proper” practices. Hence insofar as the practice of religion, they are “separate religions”.

Finally, while a state’s intrusion into the religious sphere may often be mandated by important social objectives, one must tread cautiously. One must examine the underlying social goals to be advocated to be balanced against that intrusion. For example, if a religion advocated murder society would be justified in its intervention. The fact that there are historical precedents to such intrusion does not in itself justify it. For extreme example, you can look back to the 13th century to King Edward I expelling all Jews from England. While this may be a historical precedent one can hardly condone such state’s actions. A line must be drawn somewhere, and courts should be chary of crossing it.

Canada may treat religion as a constructively immutable characteristic, but presumably it also accepts voluntary mutation – so if the boy’s mother in the English case had converted by the Orthodox method here, she and the boy would have been recognized as Jewish here (assuming there were some legal reason to characterize someone by his or her religion, which is not clear) – though the law would have recognized her immutable status as Christian/Hindu/pagan/whatever she was before, up to the moment of conversion.

The fewer times our legal system has to get into this mystical discussion, the better, in my view. But of course it does from time to time – to determine who is authorized to perform marriages, who qualifies for tax benefits as a religion, and so on. Sometimes the Supreme Court’s test, which is essentially that of Linus van Pelt – it doesn’t matter what you believe, so long as you’re sincere – isn’t really good enough for drawing the appropriate lines.