December 16, 2009, - 3:34 pm

Never With a Muslim School, Though

By Debbie Schlussel

While Great Britain continues to be overrun with sundry Muslims of every variety and consistently panders to their every extremist whim, it’s entirely another story when it comes to Judaism, specifically Orthodox Jews.  The UK’s top court is now deciding Judaism for the Jews, and it’s a dangerous precedent on so many levels.

britishsupremecourtjustices

UK Supreme Court: Funny, They Don’t Look Like My Rabbi

It’s interesting that a religion that just wants to be left alone and free to worship–Judaism–has the British courts interfering into its religious tenets and private schools, while it doesn’t ever get involved in deciding anything for the most invasive and forcefully imposing religion–Islam.  I guess the Jews should have attacked the London subway and tried to bomb the Glasgow Airport.  Only then, I suppose, the Brits would keep their judicial noses out of Judaism.

It’s a basic tenet of Judaism in its most accurate form–Orthodox Judaism–that a person is Jewish based on the religion of the mother.  If she is Jewish, so is the child.  If she converted, Orthodox Judaism only recognizes Orthodox Jewish conversions to Judaism, not the watered down kind of the other sects.  Similarly, Conservative Judaism generally does not accept conversions by Reformed Jewish rabbis.  But the British high courts are interfering, in a dangerous mix of church and state.  Suddenly, the British courts are the “Supreme Rabbis.”

A gentile reader who sent me this article comments on this story, “Never With a Muslim School Though.”  And he’s right on target.  They’d never do this to Muslims in Britain (or anywhere in the West). Or there would be riots like you’ve never seen. But in anti-Semitic Britain, anything goes against the Jews.

Britain’s top court was accused of interfering in religious matters after it ruled on Wednesday that a Jewish school was guilty of discrimination by refusing entry to a boy whose mother was a Jew by conversion, not birth.

The Supreme Court said the policy employed by the popular JFS school in London broke race laws by using ethnicity to decide which pupils to admit. . . .

They said the ruling, passed by five votes to four, would affect not only on Jewish schools but the whole community, as it meant judges were in effect deciding who was or was not Jewish.

“Essentially we must now apply a ‘non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish’,” said Simon Hochhauser, president of the United Synagogue.

The case was brought after the school refused to admit a boy, known as M, whose father was a practicing Jew and whose mother had converted to Judaism at a non-orthodox synagogue. . . .

British faith schools are allowed to select pupils on grounds of religious belief, but the Supreme Court decided that JFS had breached the Race Relations Act as it had failed to demonstrate that its ethnic-based policy was proportionate.

Russell Kett, chairman of the school’s governors, said it had wanted its test of ‘Jewishness’ to be based “solely on orthodox Jewish religious law, rather than on a series of factors which themselves have no relevance under Jewish law but which seem to support the notion of a test of Jewish practice required by the English legal system.” . . .

Of Britain’s estimated 300,000 Jews, about three-quarters are affiliated to orthodox synagogues, the rest to progressive ones.

Today, the British judges decide who is a Jew. Tomorrow, perhaps they’ll decide who is a Catholic.

But, mark my word, they’ll never dare decide Islamic law, though the British courts often allow Muslims to substitute their own sharia courts for court decisions applying British law.

Like I always say, per George Orwell’s Animal Farm, all of the animals in the barnyard are equal. But some are more equal than others.

And now the Jews can’t even observe their own religion that is thousands of years old free of the new “British Supreme Court” as rabbi.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

37 Responses

The Brits are done for. As Mark Steyn says, their demographics and lack of national character are working against them. Jews there need to keep one hand on the eject lever. I don’t think a 1930s-style Nazi Germany is far away.

JLin on December 16, 2009 at 4:06 pm

If you mean an Islamic Britain, you’re right. Steyn did note some years ago the fastest growing population group up and down the spine of the UK are Muslims. And native Britons are near zero in population replacement level. Its only going to be a generation before the change takes place.

NormanF on December 16, 2009 at 4:13 pm

Incidentally, the Reform and Conservative groups that welcomed the ruling themselves are going to be extinct in a generation. Jews will survive them and the bone-headed UK High Court decision.

NormanF on December 16, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Chilling precedent. What’s coming next is crystalnacht.

DS_ROCKS! on December 16, 2009 at 4:23 pm

Sooner rather than later your going to see the Euro’s pull a Balkans on steroids. The BNP is scarring the hell out of the establishment and it should. The rest of Europes left, center coalitions are falling apart, the wrath of the people is now coming to fruitation, and the powers don’t know how to deal with it and by the time they come to gripes, it will be too late. Hence history repeats.

Drakken on December 16, 2009 at 4:25 pm

” But in anti-Semitic Britain, anything goes against the Jews.”

It’s an anti-Semitic Government, not an anti-Semitic country, Debbie.
Please don’t make the mistake certain other US writers do and damn us all.

Some of us are working for change.

Un:dhimmi on December 16, 2009 at 4:30 pm

The British courts simply don’t like Jews. Earlier this week they issued an arrest warrant for Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1260447437715

As for Sharia law in Great Britain, Debbie hit it right on. In addition to Sharia courts handling more than simple family issues, The Archbishop of Canterbury has actually called for integrating British law with Sharia law.

I_AM_ME on December 16, 2009 at 4:38 pm

Million of Jews would have escaped the holocaust, if Britain had followed the League of Mandate for a Jewish homeland. The British media (BBC etc.) are the worst liars about Jew and Israel. These liars should be arrested and tried for promoting genocide if they ever come to USA.

madman on December 16, 2009 at 6:23 pm

How about the Brits also rule on splitting up the muzzies into two separate mosques. One would be for those who would commit jihad, and the other one for those who might commit jihad.

Jarhead on December 16, 2009 at 7:10 pm

This issue is very important and the question of who is Jewish is a big one (especially in Israel). Many people do not understand that is you equated Christian churches to Jewish denominations, then roughly Orthodox=Fundamentalist/Catholic, Conservative=mainstream Protestant –Methodists, and Reform=Unitarians.

You can therefore see that the Orthodox would have an issue with a Reform Woman “Rabbi” who does not follow the Kosher Laws being the same as an Orthodox Rabbi.

The issue is also important for the Chrisitans too. For example, the Catholic Church is run by Canon Law and as a Catholic you must either abide by it or else. A good example is that many Liberal “Catholic” politicians are not in communion with the Church (mainly due to the issue of abortion).

Is the British Court now going to say that since they were born and raised Catholic, then they are in communion with the church because they say so ??

jimmyPx on December 16, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    @ JimmyPX:
    Bingo- we already have this same sort of thing rearing its head in the states- example is Nancy Pelosi’s diatribes on the Catholic Church’s beliefs on abortion. She spoke on the subject to marginalize the church’s stand and history on abortion (and it was total crap) and to bolster her own totally apostate political postion on the subject. Too bad the Pope didn’t excommunicate her. Givern enough of this trend, and the political climate driven by the atheistic, first amendment hating lefties, she’ll be elected to the Primacy of the “Church of the Immaculate Deception” someday.

    Mistress_Dee on December 16, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    jimmy, you’re close on the equation but what’s missing from your logic is the fact that no one is “born” a Catholic but from the Jewish point of view, one is Jewish either by conversion or birth or they’re not. Pelosi wasn’t “born” catholic, she was born, unfortunately, Italian American. This, as Debbie points out, is determined by the status of the mother. If the mother is halachically (according to Jewish law) Jewish, the kid is Jewish. You can be a practicing atheist but if your Mom is Jewish, well, you’re a Jew. You’re simply an apostate one.

    mk750 on December 17, 2009 at 3:58 am

The Spectator’s Melanie Phillips (author of “Londonistan”) notes from the ruling the majority judges insistence they “were not suggesting for a moment that the JFS [Jewish Free School] was ‘racist’ or had anything other than the most noble of motives in practising racial discrimination. This is therefore surely the first case of non-racist, noble and elevated racial discrimination on record.”

These, by the way, are the same judges that refuse to allow the deportation of radical Islamic activists back to their home countries because “they might be tortured”.

Raymond in DC on December 16, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Please, as has already been pointed out, don’t call the general population of the United Kingdom anti-Semitic. It quite simply isn’t true. Elements of the government, to the disgust of many, are indeed, but they do not reflect the views of the populace as a whole.

The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t speak for everyone either. He is not as widely-respected a man as many of his predecessors.

I, along with many people, are alert and wary to the possibility of Sharia law being allowed to take over in any real way in this country. I have to say that, in reply to the “Never in a Muslim school” header… I’ve been trying to think of Muslim schools over here (as opposed to those attached to mosques for strictly religious education), and I can’t think of more than one or two. We DO have a far larger Jewish school representation.

Indeed, Judaism has been a part of the United Kingdom for a LONG time now to the extent that we also have Jewish courts – a fact which I haven’t seen mentioned up to now. The Beth Din are an active and thriving part of society. However, this means that, if we are to continue to allow them to work as they have to date, then sadly we are compelled to permit Sharia courts to operate along the same lines.

I live in Liverpool, a city which has large representation both of Jews and Muslims. To be honest, we’re probably not representative of the whole country since we are so cosmopolitan, but while there is undoubted friction, it’s not constant and we rarely hear of attacks against Jews. I’m not saying they don’t happen, but they are rare.

Also, I must point out that, for a nation that is supposedly so pro-HAMAS, we also have servicemen and women dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. Please don’t spit on their memories or service.

Alison on December 16, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    Alison.. I think it’s a comfort blanket for some Americans, who don’t necessarily realise how anti-Semitic and pro-Islam their own country is becoming.

    Undhimmi on December 17, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Allison – I don’t know how many Muslim schools there are. However in Great Britain schools schools are required to have mandatory holocaust education. Unfortunately, out of fear of violence from their Muslim students, schools have dropped this.

http://www.forward.com/articles/10544/

How come the courts in Great Britain don’t have anything to say about that?

I_AM_ME on December 16, 2009 at 10:39 pm

I have no idea why the courts haven’t taken action beyond the fact that no case has been presented to them FOR action. The courts cannot act unless directed/requested to do so by a third party. That’s for the Government or private individuals to do.

It seems to me that, by highlighting this and acknowledging it, it opens the door for action to be taken and I most assuredly hope that it is being. Both of my children were taught about the Holocaust among other aspects of WWII. However, my youngest daughter will be 18 next Easter so it was almost ten years ago. I have little insight into today’s classrooms. I DO know, however, that WWII is still taught.

Alison on December 16, 2009 at 10:48 pm

Debbie, I realize the point of your blog entry here and I agree, Britain is cowardly and discriminatory and this is a bad precedent. Agree, agree, agree.

However, do you know anything about the Orthodox Beit Din in Britain? They are definitely guilty of the sin of oppressing the ger. They make impossible demands on proselytes, and the average wait time from beginning studies to going to the mikveh and converting is 5 years! And that’s only if you are one of the precious few to get approved. In the U.S., the average wait time is about one year, just for comparison.

I had a British friend who attempted to convert in her home country and was given one impediment after another. She was finally told point blank by one of the rabbis on the beit din that if she couldn’t afford to move within walking distance of the shul (because the neighborhood was too expensive) something to the effect that perhaps she didn’t have the financial means to become Jewish. When I said I didn’t believe her, she dug out the letter to show me. I was stunned. That was not the only story I have heard about the beit din there. I lived in Israel for 4 years (and am an Orthodox geress myself so follow these issues closely) and met several British citizens who had flown to Israel to do their study and conversion.

This is a separate topic, I know, but somehow I feel it is related. The answer is not for the British government to meddle, but I sure would like to see rabbinic leaders around the world calling these British rabbis on the carpet for their sins. That’s all. How do we know that this boy’s mother has not sincerely tried to work with the beit din there, and has been frustrated?

Batyah on December 17, 2009 at 12:32 am

    Why was my reply here removed? Afraid of the truth, Debbie? If it’s been moved and I missed it, my apologies.

    mk750 on December 18, 2009 at 6:22 am

Alison-
From what info we get on this side of the pond, it seems that Britain’s ‘solid citizens’ are being marginalized by the media. We get the picture of a country that has lost it’s moral compass; of Brits that have redirected their pride and national enthusiasm into football matches, binge drinking and reality shows that that proclaim self-esteem comes from a wardrobe change and botox. The British soldiers are treated as some sort of archaic add-on, somehow respected, but largely incongruent with the politically correct bendoverbackwardsforMuslims mentality. The BBC is a hornets nest of BS, especially concerning the Mideast. We hear that not only the media (save for a few like melanie Philips) but also the school systems are in a sorry state.

Not Ovenready on December 17, 2009 at 12:38 am

How can the JFS have breached the Race Relations Act when everybody involved is of the same race?

Miranda Rose Smith on December 17, 2009 at 2:27 am

Debbie I have a question, my mother was born Orthodox Jew and then converted,would that mean that I would be one as well? Just asking. Thanks for any help you can give.

1: If your mother was born a Jew, then under Jewish law, all children to whom she gave birth, including you, are Jewish. DS

1903A3 on December 17, 2009 at 7:10 am

    Unless she converted prior to their birth, then they would not be considered Jewish under halacha and would have to convert to Judaism themselves to be considered Jewish.

    mk750 on December 18, 2009 at 6:19 am

1903A3 – As long as one is Jewish by birth one cannot convert out of Judaism (You can go through the motions, but it is meaningless). This is for two reasons:

* A person who is born Jewish is always a Jew. Nothing they do or say can invalidate this.
* Judaism does not recognize that a Jew can also be a member of another religion.

I_AM_ME on December 17, 2009 at 8:27 am

    Your two statements are contradictory. Jews who receive Baptism, even infant baptism, to return to Judaism must undergo a conversion process. What may be true in the spiritual realm is not accepted by halachic authorities here on Earth.

    mk750 on December 18, 2009 at 6:24 am

Let me tell you what is wrong with the piece that you have circulated here. I do not want to enter into any level of debate on this misinformation, since I have better things to do and so should you.

However, there is so much nonsense here that you need to be reprogrammed if you think you agree with this article:

1. The background to the case concerns issues of Jewish recognition as they intersect with public, not private law. The school at the centre of this case is JFS, The Jews’ Free School, as it was once known, but which has been a state-sponsored and state-funded school for many generations. No court in the UK has the right to interfere in the manner in which a truly private (fee-paying) school determines its entry criteria. However, if the school is state-sponsored and state-funded, then it cannot have it both ways. So the writer of this article, who refers in the para. appearing underneath the photo to “private” schools, is just plain wrong and misinformed.

Might I point out before moving on that if a public school in the US were to make conditions of entry that revolved around religion, this would also end up in the courts; yet, a yeshiva day school that is wholly privately funded can make whatever reasonable conditions it wishes about its entrants. In other words, the UK and the US are in exactly the same position.

2. There is no point in comparing the position of Jews and Muslims in the UK on this point. On other points, perhaps, but not here. The reason for this is that there are no Muslim schools in the state sector, and the reason for that is that Muslims, unlike Jews, refuse to organise their schools around the UK’s National Curriculum. So there is no basis in a piece of this nature for a supposition that the courts in the UK would never dare to rule in an analogous Muslim case, because there is no analogy at present.

The Muslims would very much like to have state system schools in the UK, since the majority of UK Muslims are born to large families of low-income earners. But the consensus among the Islamic movements in the UK is that they cannot (for whatever reason) accept the National Curriculum, and so they remain free to administer and fund their own educational system behind closed community doors. That is a controversial matter in its own right, but it is not the subject of this discussion.

3. The courts in the UK have often had to take into consideration issues arising from aspects of the “who/what is a Jew” question. This is nothing new. I’ll give you a venerable example. In 1753, the legislation that became known as Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act (it would have applied in the Colonies to 1776, by the way) provided a regime for state control over the means of marriage (in essence, you had to do it in church with a proper vicar etc.). But it expressly provided this did not apply to “the customs and usages of the Jews …”, meaning that weddings in synagogues acceding to all of our usual trappings were expressly sanctioned in UK law. Now, what are “the customs and usages of the Jews”? If an Act of Parliament uses this expression, then it has to mean something in UK law. If I organise a wedding in my house and fabricate a ceremony that involves the chatan hitting the kallah over the head with a tanach and reciting three random verses from the Book of Job and claim that this is Jewish custom, you and I know that is rubbish. However, the “man and wife” that this “wedding” produces might be persuaded that the ceremony stands, and it would be for expert evidence on actual Jewish custom to be brought before a court (a UK civil court) to demonstrate that the form of this so-called wedding was completely invalid. This was in effect litigated in Lindo v Belisario (1796) and Goldsmid v Bromer (1798), two very interesting and surprisingly readable judgments (for lawyer and layman alike – I can get these for you if you want). The facts were not as stupid as my example, but related to things like the edim being brothers or the non-payment of the nadan. In summary, ever since the 1753 Act, halachah on the formal validity of a Jewish marriage has been enshrined in UK law. I know of no other country in the world where halachah has been incorporated into national civil law in this way (not even Israel, and certainly nowhere in the USA).

4. Now we come to two important points. First, there is the matter of a jurisdictional dispute here, not between the Chief Rabbi and the Supreme Court but between the former and the Israeli Rabbinate. The child at the centre of this case was born to an indisputably Jewish male and a female whose Orthodox conversion was administered by a Beth Din in Israel. For some reason, the Beth Din in London determined that this conversion did not deserve to be recognised in the UK, although this was only after the child in question had applied to go to JFS and the issue then became subject to examination. Something which in my view has got to stop is the idea that what a proper orthodox Beth Din in one country does is not acceptable to a Beth Din of equivalent stature in another country. Inevitably it leads to cases like this coming to light, where a secular court is invited or required to dig into the case, and the result is a blatant chilul hashem from which nobody at all emerges with any credit.

5. The second key point here is that actually, this is not a “who is a Jew” question, other than in its simplest or most basic form. The real question is “who is entitled to a Jewish education at the cost of the state?” And this is any person who agrees to operate within the rules by which state education is provided to Jews and Gentiles alike. It seems to me that the result of this case, however desirable, is that in the state context, a Jewish school (there are several such, JFS being the largest and best) needs to provide access to the children of families who live as nominally orthodox Jews and communally associate. If there are Jewish families who are concerned that as a result, JFS’s intake will include children with whom they prefer theirs not to socialise, then they have the option of paying fees to a private school that has its own Jewish selection criteria.

What remains to be seen is how this new settlement will operate in practice. It may be uncharted territory so far as organised orthodox Judaism is concerned, but it is far from being irredeemable. There are greater drivers for intermarriage and assimilation in Britain today than the matter of who one’s teenage school friends happen to be. And it is just as arguable (and perhaps just as likely) that children from homes where Jewishness prevailed in spite of doubts over the mother’s status will end up on the right side of the line in the end (even if it means they have to do something about it for themselves later in life).

6. One final thing. I said above that the position of state sector education in the US and the UK was analogous, in that neither system’s schools can make conditions of entry that are contrary to general law. But actually there is a difference, and it is this. At least in the UK we have genuine Jewish religious schooling that is available within the state system and subject all the same to orthodox curricular criteria. Should we, perhaps, be labelling the United States as “anti-Semitic” because its doctrine of separation of “church” and state prevents genuine Jewish schooling being offered within the confines of public education? I would never rush to such mischievous a conclusion; but at the same time, perhaps the writer of this appallingly misconceived piece should not rush to judgment as to the values of Jewish education within the UK system.

PS – the President of the Supreme Court (front row, third from left) is Lord Philips of Worth Matravers. His mother’s mother was Jewish and he makes no secret of this (apparently, she was a Ladino speaker).

Ruth on December 17, 2009 at 11:55 am

Thank You Debbie & I_AM_ME for clearing that up.I’m honored to be a Jew.

1903A3 on December 17, 2009 at 12:25 pm

Seems like any way you cut it, involving the state with the religion is going to create ‘issues’. If I take Ruth’s comments as true, then what is a jewish school? Which government official controls it? Who decides what religous affiliations that official should have in making this determination? Who is making the learning guides? Seems like teaching the student that is admitted due to this ruling that he is not ‘really’ jewish is going to provoke more ‘issues’.

How does this end?

Regarding Ruth’s comment about what marriages would be relevant in the colonies in 1776, clearly this is another reason for that little rebellion!

Freddy on December 17, 2009 at 4:44 pm

They should let the kid into the school. The mother converted and the father was born Jewish. Look at how the kid feels. What Jews NEED to stop doing is alienating each other. We have enough enemies and don’t need more.

If this kid is not allowed into the school he may then regret being Jewish. What we as Jews wouldn’t want to see this kid renounce his religion and maybe take up Islam. That would bite us in the butt.

spaceship22 on December 17, 2009 at 11:59 pm

British children are being born with the virus of racism. All of them show racism even at nursery level. Muslim children are victim of racism in every walk of life. They are unable to develop self-confidence and self-esteem.. They need state funded Muslim schools right from nursery level. Since they are bilingual, they need bilingual Muslim teachrs as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place foir a non-Muslim child and a teacher in a Muslim school.

There are hundreds of state and church schools, where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools.

Bilingual Muslim children need to learn and be well versed in standard English to follow the National Curriculum and go for higher studies and research to serve humanity. At the same time, they need to learn and be well versed in Arabic, Urdu and other community languages to keep in touch with their cultural roots and enjoy the beauty of their literature and poetry.

A Muslim is a citizen of this tiny global village. He/she does not want to become notoriously monolingual Brit

Iftikhar on December 18, 2009 at 1:30 am

Iftikhar

Perhaps you live in an area where children are generally given racist upbringings from the earliest age, but I assure you there would be very little tolerance for it in my locality, just as much as we don’t tend to go for sweeping generalisations as you did in your reply.

I agree that there is a need for state-funded Muslim schools, but along with state funding comes an obligation for certain state control with regards to the curriculum. Generally, this has not been met with approval or agreement by Muslim leaders and residents. My own daughters attended (the younger one is still there) a Church of England school and there is a fair level of Muslim attendance there with a very high degree of integration.

Oh, and I’m a trilingual Brit.

Alison on December 18, 2009 at 11:08 am

I write as a mother of a child still at this school and a child who left last year. Ruth I’ve read your comments but the bottom line here is this. Whatever the ruling of the Bet Din regarding this particular child (and it takes a long time to convert because Judaism is not a religion encouraginmg conversion of others), the state is now imposing a decision which will mean the school losing its identity over the coming generations and will set a precedent for future generations of Jewish students. I chose this school because of its excellent education and because it was a Jewish environment I ws happy for my kids to be in. Yes of clourse there are many other factors which affect assimilation, but this was not going to be one of them for me. There other schools where education is provided for kids whose parents are Jewish, but Reform or Conservative. JFS school is an OFSTED winner, and achieved the best A level results of any comprehensive school in the UK and my kids went to school with other Jews.I am halachically Jewish and definitely affiliated however I am probably what you would call nominally Jewish.

I was at the school two nights ago for my son’s graduation and the non Jewish MP who stood and spoke was also appalled at the court’s decision.

Ruth you raise a lot of points, some I agree with and some I definitely do not, but in the end it boils down to the fact that we in the UK can no longer have purely Jewish education.
Israeli politicians are wanted as war criminals, supermarkets are being told to boycott Israeli goods, so called do good Baptist Christians held a carol service to raise money for the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign; please! Don’t pretend to be ignorant of the real undercurrent of what is happening here. As Jews we can’t afford to be.

This is also not the US Ruth but the UK and I don’t care who the people in the gowns are. This school was a school for halachically Jewish kids. The courts just ruled no more.

I am not getting into the conversion issue because I am not at liberty to do so, but instead of this becoming a matter regarding whether that particular child can have access to the school, it has become another way for the UK courts to rule in favour of watering down Jewish education. No buts, that is what it is.

And also, there is hardly a plethora of Jewish schools to choose from and now there will be less.

We do not hide form the rest of the world like Muslim schools, we DO teach the national curriculum and we expect our kids to be part of society.

It’s time the UK recognised us Jews as such and started doing more about terrorism and infiltration of our society by extremeists. Now that really is worth thinking about!

Monique Lester on December 18, 2009 at 3:26 pm

Spaceship22, I agree with you — we don’t want to risk creating deep wounds in this child that could come back on the Jewish people later in some form. Haven’t the sages speculated that if Hagar had been treated more kindly, perhaps Ishmael wouldn’t have become an enemy of the Hebrews? Or that if Leah had not been witheld from Esav, he might not have become bitter with his descendents becoming enemies of ours as well?

I think that the school could have handled this issue PRIVATELY and WITH COMPASSION but it sounds like they didn’t. I doubt seriously if the parents of this boy went to all this legal trouble just to be a thorn in someone’s side. I’m sure they are really hurting over this rejection. I’d also like to know if the mother attempted an Orthodox conversion with the British Beit Din. I’m dying to know . . . I’m going to put my money on “yes, she did.”

batyah on December 20, 2009 at 12:42 am

Ruth, I just read your post all the way through. Thank you for illuminating the details of this situation. So the mother already had an Orthodox conversion — in Israel!!! SHE IS A JEW AND HER CHILD IS A JEW!

Debbie, didn’t you know this when you wrote this post?

Go, British Government. I don’t sympathize anymore. The Beit Din of Britain as well as anyone who chooses to follow their decisions deserve what they get. You can’t bring trouble on yourself and then whine about it.

batyah on December 20, 2009 at 12:49 am

Its because nobody likes, respects or cares about the zionist. The Jews should all just go hang themselves :)

Fred on June 1, 2010 at 5:40 pm

Muslims are about 4% of the population of the UK Why do you call this “over run”?

john ryan on June 17, 2010 at 8:59 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field