http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/world/europe/08britain.html
(note: thread title is intentionally hyperbolic)

Apparently the British gov. funds religious schools, and they have a regulatory process that defines when a school can reject a person of a different faith. There is a case where a kid who grew up as a jew, but is not ethnically a jew as defined by some Jews (mother is a jew), and was rejected from a jewish school on this grounds. HIs father (a real jew) filed a lawsuit.

Quote :

"Britain has nearly 7,000 publicly financed religious schools, representing Judaism as well as the Church of England, Catholicism and Islam, among others. Under a 2006 law, the schools can in busy years give preference to applicants within their own faiths, using criteria laid down by a designated religious authority."

It looks like their take on separation of church and state is a bit different than ours too... could you imagine if the gov. here funded islamic schools that were allowed to reject non-muslims? The Christians would flip (and other people would flip in the opposite situation).

Quote :

"In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one’s mother is Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was “benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,” the court wrote, “makes it no less and no more unlawful.” The case rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M’s mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism. “The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”"

This also signifies a problem with their approach though, and why perhaps religions and gov. should stay separate... you now have the gov. re-defining a (in my opinion antiquated) Jewish belief.

11/9/2009 10:24:56 AM

ibt "it's england who cares"..

Quote :

"you now have the gov. re-defining a (in my opinion antiquated) Jewish belief."

Not really. You have the government defining rules of discrimination in publicly funded schools. They're not saying that the Jews' beliefs are wrong for not liking gentile-mothered jewboys. It's just not legal to discriminate (in Britain) based on ethnicity (who your mom is) if you're getting funding from the gov't. Seems reasonable.

That they do allow discrimination based on religion for publicly funded schools is horseshit. But luckily it's in England, so who cares?

11/9/2009 12:19:14 PM

Quote :

"That they do allow discrimination based on religion for publicly funded schools is horseshit. But luckily it's in England, so who cares?"

It's not horseshit. It's a very good idea. If you want to go to a religious school that encourages your faith well then you have that option. If you don't you also have that option. Sounds like freedom to me. Unless of course you think taking away a persons freedom of religion in public schools is truly 'freedom'

And if you aren't part of that religious group why would you want to go to that particular school? (not in reference to the article)

11/9/2009 12:27:00 PM

Quote :

"Unless of course you think taking away a persons freedom of religion in public schools is truly 'freedom' "

Not paying for religious shit in public schools != "taking away a persons freedom of religion". I'm against a single tax penny going toward any religion, so the very idea of having religious public schools is horseshit.

But in this case, Britain is just being consistent. You can't get a pass on being bigoted assholes just because you're a "religious" school. Well, you can if you can prove that it's religious bigotry instead of ethnic bigotry. I happen to think that religious bigotry is wrong, which you obviously don't.

For instance, we're talking about public schools here. What if you live in a neighborhood where you have 2 public elementary schools: non-religous one with poor funding, poor scores, and poor teachers and a religious one with better funding, better teachers, and a kick ass computer lab. Why should you not be allowed to at least try to get your child into the religious school since you're paying for both?

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2009 12:53:50 PM

^I'm not taking about anything that uses tax payer dollars in terms of 'here' in the US. Taking away a persons freedom of religion inside a public school is just wrong. You don't have to go to the extreme of having separate schools but the choice should be there to those that wish to pray in school, read their religious books, meet before or after school in religious clubs etc.

This is America...I thought they were trying to spread freedom to all?

Quote :

"But in this case, Britain is just being consistent. You can't get a pass on being bigoted assholes just because you're a "religious" school. Well, you can if you can prove that it's religious bigotry instead of ethnic bigotry. I happen to think that religious bigotry is wrong, which you obviously don't."

There is nothing wrong with these schools wanting a closed community. You aren't required to attend these schools and there are plenty of other schools you can attend. Why force yourself into their closed community if you don't belong to it?

I grew up in a private British school over seas in Abu Dhabi and while the school was not allowed to discriminate against muslims, we had very few that attended because they have their own schools where religion is taught in addition to everything else. And those that did enroll would attend a 'study hall' when the rest of the school had to attend church service on days like Memorial day, Harvest Day, etc. It worked well and I'm perfectly ok with this.

Quote :

"Why should you not be allowed to at least try to get your child into the religious school since you're paying for both?"

Sounds like you're addressing the wrong issue. Why is the other school not as good if they're both public? Why is the religious school getting more funding, or is the extra boost in funding from private donations? In which case...tough luck.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2009 1:14:44 PM

Quote :

"Taking away a persons freedom of religion inside a public school is just wrong."

I'll agree with this, as long as you define "freedom of religion" as practicing your religion in a way that spends 0 publicly funded resources. The instant you start using public money to fund religion you are in fact inhibiting freedom of religion by endorsing one over others. You need to realize that "taking away freedom of religion inside public schools" is actually preserving freedom of religion in our society and preventing us from becoming a theocracy. (well, at least it's stemming the tide a bit).

Quote :

"There is nothing wrong with these schools wanting a closed community. You aren't required to attend these schools and there are plenty of other schools you can attend. Why force yourself into their closed community if you don't belong to it?"

What Britain is saying is that if you accept public funding then there are rules against discrimination. Why do you have a problem with this?

Quote :

"Sounds like you're addressing the wrong issue. Why is the other school not as good if they're both public? Why is the religious school getting more funding, or is the extra boost in funding from private donations? In which case...tough luck."

Except "tough luck" doesn't fly when you're talking about publicly funded schools. Or at least it shouldn't. I can understand practical reasons why my child would be able to go to a particular publicly funded schools (overcrowding for instance). I don't want my tax money going to fund bigoted assholes.

And keep in mind I'm not defining all religious people as "bigoted assholes". "Bigoted assholes" are ones that would deny a child from going to their school because the child's mother is a gentile.

11/9/2009 1:48:06 PM

Quote :

"What Britain is saying is that if you accept public funding then there are rules against discrimination. Why do you have a problem with this?"

because I don't have a problem with this?


sounds to me like you have a problem with Jews.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2009 2:01:44 PM

Quote :

"sounds to me like you have a problem with Jews."

stop

11/9/2009 2:09:38 PM

Quote :

"sounds to me like you have a problem with Jews."

How many times do I have to say what the fundamental problem is? Tax money going to religious school. Britain is just saying if you want money you have to follow the rules against discrimination. It's dumb that they don't count religious discrimination as discrimination.

Quote :

"because I don't have a problem with this?"

Quote :

"It's not horseshit. It's a very good idea."

Does not compute. You don't have a problem with rules against discrimination, but you think discrimination is a "very good idea".

11/9/2009 2:13:39 PM

Quote :

"stop"

hammer time.

11/9/2009 2:28:51 PM

Quote :

"Why should you not be allowed to at least try to get your child into the religious school since you're paying for both?"

because some people have personal values that they will not spend for expediency. For instance, I will never ever send my kid to a catholic school. i dont care how academically sound it is. I won't send him to a private religious school of ANY sort.


as for the jewish school issue, the problem here is that jews themselves define "jewishness" as BOTH a faith AND an ethnicity. (hence you can be a "secular jew", or a "jewish athiest")

Judaism is a racist religion, plain and simple.

it's also the reason why they have survived, relatively unchanged, for 4000 years despite numerous attempts by various global powers to eradicate them.

11/9/2009 2:37:08 PM

Quote :

"Does not compute. You don't have a problem with rules against discrimination, but you think discrimination is a "very good idea"."

No, I don't have a problem with funding for religious schools.
And I don't have a problem with 'using our money, use our rules' which the case in question might be violating because its not a religious discrimination thats the issue, its an ethnic one.

^oh man you just angered the macdanger...he's going to post another 'stop'!

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2009 2:39:31 PM

Joe, we're talking about religious *public* schools though, which thankfully don't exist in our country to my knowledge.

And the Jewish definition of "jewishness" isn't a problem. The problem is that they are discriminating based on this. They can define turnips as rutabagas for all I care. If they're accepting public money and there are rules against discriminating based on ethnicity, then they need to follow these rules. They don't get an out because of their religion.

Quote :

"No, I don't have a problem with funding for religious schools."

Just to be clear, you don't have a problem with taxpayer money funding religious schools? You obviously don't like freedom.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2009 2:46:10 PM

turnips, rutebagas, what's the diff?

but then i'm an antituberite.

11/9/2009 3:12:43 PM

Let's be intellectually sloppy and haphazardly call antisemitism

Let's be golovko

11/9/2009 3:31:32 PM

I think their could be some merits of the British method of publicly acknowledging and supporting all religions by allowing to people to "stick by their own" on a something that is a choice for the most part, versus our (Americans) way of claiming to be independent and neutral while one religion is tacitly promoted and supported.

11/9/2009 4:01:11 PM

Quote :

"I think their could be some merits of the British method of publicly acknowledging and supporting all religions"

Oh? How many Hindu churches are there? How many Baha'i churches are there? How many Churches of the FSM are there, may sauce be upon him?

I can't imagine publicly funding any religion can possibly support all religions. Not supporting any religion is the only way to ensure that none is given precedent over the other. The tacit promotion of Christianity in this country is appalling, and Golovko's "taking away a persons freedom of religion inside a public school" is just a reaction to people who aren't willing to put up with that promotion.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 4:07 PM. Reason : g]

11/9/2009 4:06:35 PM

Quote :

"Oh? How many Hindu churches are there? How many Baha'i churches are there? How many Churches of the FSM are there, may sauce be upon him?"

I'm sure there are N>0 of those churches, and I would be willing to bet that there is some formal, general process for a religious institute to apply for funding if it wants it. A belief-agnostic system with regulations is very supportable and tractable, and is probably more robust than trying to create a "white-list" of valid institutions.

It's the best compromise between the people who think all religion is evil, and the people who think nothing can exist without religion.

It's kind of analogous to the gay-marriage debate over here. It shouldn't really matter if the couple is gay or not, just have "unions" that don't care about the sexuality of the couple, and any other traditions are up to the individuals.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 4:12 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2009 4:11:16 PM

I see no problem in the government funding schools that refuse pupils as long as all schools enjoyed the same freedom. The islamic schools would refuse the jews, the jewish schools would refuse the muslims, the christians would refuse both of them, and everyone gets the education they asked for. Now, my child would never attend such schools, but my tax dollars should follow the students, which should also have the right to attend whatever institution they want.

11/10/2009 10:16:32 AM

So you'd be fine with my school banning black kids and getting federal funding? Or it just non-jews that can be discriminated against?

11/10/2009 12:40:50 PM

^ lol

black isn't a religion. Typically, with apparently the exception of Judaism (which is what this court ruling in Britain is dealing with), a person can choose to be of a particular religion or no religion at all, and there will be a school for them (and from the way the article describes it, the religion thing only comes in to play when the school is at capacity, otherwise they can't use that as a discriminating factor).

It's pretty clear how this is distinct from racially based discrimination.

11/10/2009 12:44:32 PM

It's cool that you all think that religion shouldn't be a protected class regarding discrimination.

It's also cool that you think that my tax money should go to bigoted organizations.

11/10/2009 3:28:55 PM

What is happening is your tax dollars would be going to bigoted individuals for use in education. Would you suggest we bar bigots from taking advantage of other government programs, such as food stamps and unemployment insurance? Perhaps they should be prevented from getting drivers licenses so you don't find your tax dollars being used to build roads used by bigots for bigoted purposes.

The fact is, bigots exist and they have rights. To ban bigoted educations would be to infringe on their right to associate freely.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 12:20 AM. Reason : .,.]

11/11/2009 12:16:42 AM

Providing education to other citizens != "using food stamps and unemployment insurance" or "using roads".

Roads being used by an asshole does not make the road an asshole organization. A school being run by assholes is an asshole organization. Are you really that retarded to make this comparison?

Public services provided to citizens should be (and are in our country) non-discriminatory based on religion, race, sexual orientation, or disability. If my tax money is going to a school, my child had better damned be able to attend that school barring logistical reasons not discriminatory reasons. Holy shit am I the only one that thinks this way?

And show me where I said we should ban bigoted organizations. GOVERNMENT FUNDED ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE. If you want to be bigoted and ban gentiles from attending your school then create a private school.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 5:04 PM. Reason : .]

11/11/2009 5:00:18 PM