Ah, In England, You See....

When is discrimination a good thing? When one muses over whether an action is justified on the basis of its merits? Most certainly not when an individual is demerited when he/she lacks some substance or attribute that the host deems a requirement for inclusion in their refined institution. Or, perhaps not. It's a mind-teaser, a real puzzler.

When you start with a religion's basic premise that one is considered, say, a Jew, through matrilineal descent it seems straightforward enough. But wait! What about conversion, what about when a thoughtful, intelligent (presumably) individual makes a profound decision to adopt a religion other than that which they may have been born into, or introduced to in their familial circumstances?

Does this not qualify them for representing as a Jew? Even if Judaism does not evangelize? It does, after all, in its various manifestations, permit non-Jews to pass the test by teaching them the tenets of the belief.

In effect, a Jew is a Jew is a Jew. There are extremely fundamentalist Jews who believe implicitly in every word of the Old Testament and for whom pilpul, Talmudic study, is their reason for existence. And there are those who practise a far more relaxed version of Judaism, and of course those who remain Jews but who are secular in the nature of their non-belief in the Divine. Ah, and there are the converts.

The fanatically orthodox have little use for all those other categories and they hold Jews in fairly low esteem who do not practise orthodoxy of religion; that is their privilege, even if it does represent a failure in humanity's ability to rise above factional ideologies. So a religious school in Great Britain, one of 50 such religious-parochial schools discriminated against an orthodox Jewish family on the basis of matrilineal descent of the child.

This is a religious-social aversion, a quite unpleasant circumstance where the devout make certain choices which are more detrimental to themselves in actual fact as human beings, than those whom they discriminate against. There are always other avenues open to those insistent on belonging where they are not welcomed. But this family chose to seek litigious action and the state became involved in a religious matter.

There's just something about Judaism that rankles and resists British even-handedness. The low-lying slight of anti-Semitism is never very distant from relations in a broad sense in that country which claims to value the contributions of their Jewish compatriots, but all too often demonstrates that value by all-too-obvious slights, misgivings and quasi-slander emanating from government sources albeit denied, and the courts, also denied.

A 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court of Britain concludes that the London Jewish school erred on the side of illegal discrimination in refusing entry to their establishment of a young student wishing to engage in studies there. "One thing is clear about the matrilineal test; it is a test of ethnic origin. By definition, discrimination that is based upon that test is discrimination on racial grounds" Lord Philips, president of the Supreme Court made clear.

Two of the four dissenting jurists presented fully dissenting opinions where they stated the school's policy was strictly religious and as such did not constitute discrimination along an ethnic base. "The ruling represents a definitive end to six decades of exclusion of children who are devout in their Jewish faith, but considered by some to be not quite Jewish enough to enjoy the benefits of their community's leading faith school" huffed one of the family's lawyers.

And isn't he precisely correct? And why would that family wish to pursue that tactic, why would they even want to be associated with that particular school other than that it is a prestigious one? Of course, they place high value on their right, as practising Jews, to be considered eligible for their son to attend the school, and they're right there, too. Nothing, however, will alter the indomitable insistence of the rigorous, righteous orthodox.

And the fact that Britain's Supreme Court sought to become involved in this issue, and to find the school wanting in its legal requirements is another sad issue; one of gross interference in one particular religion's school system. One in which the Supreme Court of the country set itself up as an arbiter of the last word as opposed to 3500 years of doctrinal acceptance. Because it is seen as 'inconsistent' with British law.

This is actually an inter-faith argument, one in which the law of the country should not be seen to intrude, because in applying that law as it has been done, unevenly, it represents gross interference in a religion's right to practise its faith as it sees fit. Or at least one segment of that religion, since liberal Jews would find great difficulty in supporting the actions of the orthodox school.

The issue did not merit the interference of the state. Which attempted to have it both ways; acknowledging that the school's test did represent a legitimate religious test; nonetheless polarized to British law. For the school administration itself points out that its mission is to teach all Jewish children regardless of their observance; the issue was their right to apply the ancient test of Jewish inheritance, which they did.

In the final analysis, however, this is a classic case of a pox on both sides. With the unfortunate potential of vastly complicating issues for the Jewish community and their parochial, religious schools; an interference whose true purpose is questionable, and the fall-out of which may be deleterious to all faith-based schools funded by the state.

For the secular it's a case of religious indoctrination being unrequired and intrusive in the life of an individual, complicating free-will. Yet on the other hand there is also a moral issue here one that is incredibly complex and unfortunate.