The recent legal ruling regarding Jewish identity in the UK is really interesting (see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/03/judaism-chief-rabbi-jonathan-sacks) with the Court of Appeal ruling with regard to the Jewish Free School's (JFS) refusal to allow a child into their school because they felt he was not a Jew in accordance with Jewish rules - because his mother his mother was not a Jew, despite converting to and practicing Judaism. I have particular interest in this because my position is the same to some extent - my mother was not born a Jew but converted to Judaism, to please my father's mother before their marriage. The difference for me is that I have never practiced Judaism at all, preferring to live my life as a practicing atheist. In a similar situation to this child, however, when I married my first (Jewish) wife 25 years ago, my ex-father-in-law-to-be (what a great title) checked with the then Chief Rabbi whether I was a Jew and would therefore be allowed to marry in an orthodox church. He ruled I was a Goy (not a Jew), and we married in a trendy reform synagogue in Knightsbridge. Anyway, the appeal court ruled that such a 'qualification' to be a Jew (having to have been born a Jew by a Jewish mother) is a qualification of race rather than religion, and therefore the decision JFS to refuse the boy entry into the school was therefore in breach of the UK's race laws.
The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Saks is up in arms, hating that he (and the Jewish religion, as he puts it) can be called racist - but he shouldn't be. The fact of 'being Jewish' has long been decided by others - by anti-semites, by racists. The Nazis never cared about strict hebraic qualification rules, they defined a Jew any way they wanted. Those racists here in France attacking Sarkosy for being a Jew don't care either about Judaism's own religious/racial rules. The Jews have historically (and perhaps understandably) tried to maintain the 'tribe of israel', and have opposed marrying 'out' as they put it, and it is clear to anyone with a modicum of sense that if you define any group of people by a familial/linear method you are defining a 'race'. It is not really something you can argue about. It may be that you are doing it because of a rule defined by religious texts, but why was that rule set? Surely to maintain the Jewish purity of the tribe. No?
This has not ever been anything often challenged by anti-racists throughout the world (nor anti-semites), nor (when it comes down to daily life) by most Jews. Most Jews have a strong sense of their identity which is not defined by religion, but by history. This is a landmark ruling that I hope gets upheld at the High Court, the House of Lords and all the way to Europe - it could have a major impact upon the Jewish community in the UK and beyond.
Why is this important? OK, take myself, and take this young boy trying to get into JFS,(I am still amused by the Free in Jewish Free School) and many other people throughout the western world who might define themselves as Jewish, or even HALF Jewish, by race rather than by religion, knowing that racists define them as a Jew, and Orthodox Jews define them as non-Jews. When we live in a world where racial hate exists, we, the half-Jew/Jew/non-Jew want to know who will protect us and who will not, who is on our side, and who is not - and thus being a 'half Jew' is not a comfortable identity to hold.
It is perhaps time for the Jewish community to grow up, and open its arms. I have no problem with other people identifying me as a Jew, it is only the Chief rabbi and his ilk who seem to have that problem. I think the Court of Appeal is righjt. It is a view that IS racist.
