Jonathan Romain 2014-03-16T07:23:31-04:00 Jonathan Romain Copyright 2008,, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Jonathan Romain Good old fashioned elbow grease. What the Quenelle Is Going on With Anelka and the FA?,2014:/theblog//3.4575494 2014-01-10T19:00:00-05:00 2014-03-12T05:59:01-04:00 Jonathan Romain
This begs a big question about what the English Football Association (FA) is doing about Nicolas Anelka, the West Bromwich Albion player who recently unleashed a furore when he scored a goal and then made the quenelle gesture in celebration, which was broadcast live on television.

The quenelle is widely regarded as a Nazi salute in reverse and is the trademark of Dieudonne, whose wife has gone so far as to trademark it. Moreover, many people reckon that he is a very unfunny comedian in view of his anti-Jewish jokes, his five convictions for incitement to hatred, and being a close friend of Jean-Marie Le Pen, former leader of the racist and anti-semitic party, Front National.

Given all this, should not Anelka be facing charges of misconduct? Particularly as the FA has had a high profile campaign to eradicate all forms of racism, has adopted a zero-tolerance policy called 'Kick It Out', with racist chants from the fans subject to prosecution, and footballers punished too. Chelsea's John Terry was banned for four games for a verbal assault on a coloured player and Liverpool's Luis Suarez, missed eight games for using the term negrito

Yet nothing had happened to Anelka. He himself says the quenelle was not meant as anti-semitic but purely as a gesture of support for Dieudonne who is a personal friend of his. But as only anti-semites use the quenelle that is a hard one to swallow.

Luis Suarez said that when he used the word negrito he did not mean to be racist, but his defence was dismissed because lack of intent to be offensive - even if true - does not alter the fact that he uttered racist remarks. Otherwise you could paint a swastika on a synagogue wall and claim it was pretty shape you happened to like. If a word or symbol is known to be racist or anti-semitic, then the user is guilty of it.

So far the FA has refused to reveal any details of its investigation - such as what form it is taking, who is conducting it and how long it might last - while West Brom have defended Anelka and said criticism's of him are "absolute rubbish".

Could it be that Terry and Suarez are punished for racism and Anelka is excused for anti-semitism?

At the very least, his club should have issued a statement saying something like: "We appreciate the controversy Anelka's gesture has generated and we regret any offence that it has inadvertently caused. Both he and the club oppose all forms of anti-semitism, and so as to remove any doubt, neither he nor any of our players will using the quenelle in future".

That would be the decent thing to do... but the nature of the problem is that decency is a quality that seems to be in short supply in certain parts of France and England.

True, Anelka's gesture is a one-off, and we should not make a mountain out of a molehill - but we do need to keep an eye on that molehill and ensure that, like cancer, it does not grow and spread.]]>
Ignore the French and Legalise Brothels,2013:/theblog//3.4355221 2013-11-28T19:00:00-05:00 2014-01-28T05:59:02-05:00 Jonathan Romain
True, this might seem odd coming from a rabbi - "aren't you clergy supposed to be against sex outside marriage?" - but it is a matter of social reality not pious theology. The question is not do we wish the sex trade did not exist, but how do we best deal with it?

It is not for nothing that prostitution is known as the oldest profession. Those who read the Bible in full - as opposed those familiar just with the selected readings chosen for services - will know that it is there right in the beginning in the Book of Genesis, with the patriarch Jacob spending time with one (it turned out to be a case of mistaken identity, but that is irrelevant to the fact that the trade was clearly well established).

In the much quoted story proving how wise was King Solomon - having to chose between two women who both claimed to be mother of the same child - the crucial detail that both were prostitutes is often conveniently omitted in children's versions of the Bible.

Of course, there are also verses condemning prostitutes, but the fact that the latter continue to appear throughout both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament indicates that those injunctions were often ignored.

The reasons are no doubt the same as today - a mix of some men wanting sex in a way that they cannot have with their spouses, and other men not having any partners in the first place.

Little has changed for the women (or the male prostitutes) over the centuries: with the vast majority being forced into it either because of poverty, or variant forms of slavery, or the additional problem today of the need to pay for drug addiction. What also has not changed is that they can be subject to mental or physical abuse, and liable to life-threatening disease.

So why do we not solve many of the problems by legalising brothels and making sure that some basic controls over safety and hygiene are implemented (but without monitoring activities too closely and thereby discouraging usage of them).

The religious disquiet over this type of sex will remain in some quarters, but there is a hierarchy of religious values, and the fact that lives will be bettered should take precedence over moral misgivings.

There will also be concern over the message this gives to society about the casualness of sex and relationships outside marriage, but in fact it is the other way round. The message has long been coming from society about a more relaxed attitude, and it seems daft to ignore practical steps for the sake of theoretical principles.

Of course it would be better not have men sexually frustrated in the first place, and certainly far better not to have women forced to use their bodies as income support, but if it mean prostitutes can operate in a way that is safer and certain backstreets are less dangerous, then these advantages would justify it. It may also provide an exit route for those desperate to change their situation.

The Religious Right Makes an Unexpected Comeback in British Jewry,2013:/theblog//3.4262728 2013-11-13T19:00:00-05:00 2014-01-23T18:56:26-05:00 Jonathan Romain
According to figures just produced by the community's representative body, the Board of Deputies, marriages within the strictly Orthodox (Charedi) community are expected to account for more than half of all Jewish marriages in the UK within ten years.

This is a result of the high birthrate amongst Charedi families - who are a small proportion of British Jewry, yet are producing at least four out of ten Jewish children born today. The Board expects strictly Orthodox births and marriages to outstrip those within the rest of the community within a matter of decades.

It is astonishing for two reasons. First, that not so long ago, the ultra-Orthodox were such a small percentage within British Jewry that it was assumed they would fade away with time.

A remnant had survived, some seeking refuge in the UK, but it was assumed that in the brave new world of pluralism, with people of many races and faiths inter-mingling freely, they would be like the Amish, a curious throw-back to a previous era. Never did anyone think they would re-energise and start heading towards a position of dominance within British Jewry

In part, this was precisely a reaction to the Holocaust. There was a sense of mission to replace the six million Jews who had been murdered. Large families were encouraged, and because this coincided with more assimilated Jews having a lower number of children, the effect has been rapid ultra-Orthodox expansion at a time of contraction amongst other Jews.

The other reason for surprise is because, until now, the rest of British Jewry has generally been a highly integrated within society at large. Its members have kept up their Jewish identity and traditions, but have also been thoroughly immersed in wider life.

They range from comedian David Baddiel, to broadcaster Vanessa Feltz, to actress Maureen Lipman, to historian Simon Schama, to politician Ed Milliband, to TV doctor Robert Winston, to businessman Alan Sugar, to jockey Sam Waley-Cohen. They have managed to live in two worlds simultaneously, and see no conflict between their Jewishness and Britishness.

By contrast, most Charedi Jews have tended to be engaged primarily in their own internal affairs. Some exceptions stand out, such as Paul Reichmann, who developed Canary Wharf in East London, and a few who have become involved in civic affairs as local councillors for their areas.

Still - looking at what has been happening in other faiths - perhaps it should have been expected, with a revival of the 'religious right' occurring in Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Not that the progressive wings within both Judaism and other faiths have given up their principles. They are still active and have been campaigning vigorously for liberal goals such as female clergy, gay rights and mixed-faith weddings, and often achieving them. But whereas it was assumed that the forces of Orthodoxy were on the retreat, it is clear that this may be a misjudgement, certainly within British Jewry.

As for the consequences, it will mean change for everyone: liberal Jews will have to take account of the numbers shift and share communal structures with the ultra-Orthodox, even though their lifestyles are radically different. The ultra-Orthodox will have to play a more public role - within Jewry and wider life - if they are to step up to the responsibilities that their growing size will give them. The British public will develop a new perception of Jews, or rather a more diverse one, not only the anglicised unbearded Lionel Blue, but also the bearded Charedi with black hats and gabardines.

But while appearances may vary, the underlying values will be the same - 'Love your neighbour as yourself' (Leviticus 19.18) - which not only unites different types of Jews, but also unites people of many different faiths and belief-systems.]]>
For the Sake of Faith, Remove Face Veils,2013:/theblog//3.4217178 2013-11-05T19:00:00-05:00 2014-01-23T10:52:24-05:00 Jonathan Romain
As a Jewish person living in Britain, I belong to a minority group and I am well aware that I am fortunate to be in society which values tolerance and seeks to accommodate differences.

That is reinforced by the fact that I am heavily involved in inter-faith dialogue, where one of the pre-conditions is accepting the integrity of other peoples' traditions and not seeking to change them.






So is this simply Islamphobia? Again no, as there is no objection to the hijab, which covers the head but not the face, and allows open communication.

But is this not still dictating religious norms? It is easy to argue that wearing a face veil is not a religious obligation at all - as many Muslim scholars hold - but merely a cultural tradition, which is why many observant Muslim women do not don it.

However, it is probably more honest to say that, yes, it is dictating a norm - on the grounds that tolerance can only be tolerance if there are limits, otherwise it is merely a free-for-all without any boundaries; and it just so happens that the particular case of a face veil crosses a red line that most other religious or cultural rituals do not, by negating the interaction upon which tolerance rests in the first place.

I am aware that some might see opposition to the face veil as an excuse to attack many other rites, but it would be wrong to withhold criticism when it is due for fear of facing it when it is not.

To be fair, there is an argument that the rest of society should make an effort to understand those who chose to wear a face veil - but there is an even stronger one that a ritual developed in other countries where a different milieu exists is not appropriate in a society that operates in a completely different way.

As for the notion of modesty, that is to be respected, but there are many other ways to be modest in dress other than by wearing a face veil. Moreover, modesty should apply to men as well, and should affect not just clothing but also behaviour and speech.

There are additional issues over face veils causing security risks, impeding juries in law courts and women being pressurised to wear them against their will, but the social one is paramount. In a society where we are working hard to create inter-faith harmony, the face veil is seen as a symbol of disengagement and should be abandoned.]]>
Was Anti-Semitism Lurking Behind the 'Daily Mail's Attack on Ralph Miliband?,2013:/theblog//3.4036080 2013-10-03T08:22:42-04:00 2013-12-03T05:12:01-05:00 Jonathan Romain Daily Mail?


Yes, he was a Marxist - and the Mail does not like Marxists - but that was then, not now. It was at a time when many respectable academics were on the far left. Many of them have changed their position in the light of recent history, and it may well have been that Ralph Miliband would have done so too.

But forget about his views, look at his deeds. He chose to live here and bring up his children here. He rejected the option of leaving the UK and going to America. More than that, he fought for this country. He served in the armed forces. He risked his life for Britain.

So, given such flimsy evidence for his apparent hatred of Britain, why is the Mail claiming he was so evil? Three options spring to mind.

One is that it is based on anti-semitism. That is a charge that would be horrendous if true. Moreover, Ralph Miliband was an atheist, so it would have to be anti-semitism on racial grounds rather than religious ones. That would put the Mail in the same category as Hitler who defined a Jew as anyone with one Jewish grandparent - nothing to do with faith and purely according to their birth. I am sure - at least I hope I am sure - that the paper would never wish to be associated in the same sentence as Hitler.

Maybe, instead, their motive was xenophobia and a dislike of immigrants and foreigners. Do they wish to sack half of the Premier League players, many of the London underground staff, thousands of NHS workers? Perhaps they do, but why demonise sometime who has already died and can no longer be repatriated or expelled or whatever it is they wish to do?

The third alternative is that it was nothing to do with Ralph and everything to do with Ed. It was just an attack on the Labour leader by the backdoor and part of a campaign to chip away at his standing, rubbishing not only his policies but also his pedigree.

Not only is this highly unpleasant - attacks should be against a person's political programme, not their family background - but it has backfired enormously.

It has brought back memories of the bad old days - though not that old - when papers hounded individuals or intruded on their privacy in ways that had nothing to do with the public good.

It has also backfired politically - both because it has given Ed Miliband a sympathetic cause in the public mind ('good on him for standing up for his dad') and it has distracted attention from the Conservative Party conference and the Mail-approving message it was trying to convey.

Still, although the most likely explanation is that the Mail simply made an error of political judgement, there is still a dirty smell of possible anti-semitism lurking within that approach.

It might have been a deliberate attempt to promote a narrative that characterises Ed Miliband as not only politically dangerous, but also 'not really one of us' in other senses too.

The Labour leader has never hidden his immigrant Jewish roots - and indeed has openly referred to them as part of his deep love of Britain and what it stands for - but could the Mail have been trying to turn this more negatively and spin an image of a fifth columnist outsider, using subterranean anti-semitic strains to boost its efforts?

Only the Mail can reveal its true motives, but, even if innocent, the fact that it has sailed so close to such a line is to be regretted. Stirring up religious and racial passions is something we associate with the Nazis or the Golden Dawn party. It would be very un-British for the Mail to do that too.]]>
Forget About What They've Called the Royal Babe, How Do You Feel About Your Own Name?,2013:/theblog//3.3638131 2013-07-23T04:17:22-04:00 2013-09-21T05:12:02-04:00 Jonathan Romain
How many know that 'Clive' comes from the Old English word for 'mountain' or that 'Derek' derives from the Gothic for 'ruler'? I suspect many do not realise that 'Susan' is from the Hebrew for 'rose' or that 'Theresa' stems from the Greek for 'farmer'.

There are also names that have very unfortunate meanings and which the excited parents would never have considered for their new child had they understood them. What mother would give their new baby the name 'Cecil' (or 'Cecilia') if they had any inkling it came from the Latin for 'blind'? Nor would many choose 'Claude' (or 'Claudia') - also Latin - meaning 'lame'.

It may also be the case that many an atheist is unwittingly carrying around the name of God with them. This is because they have names that come from the Bible that end with the syllable 'el' - the Hebrew word for God. Thus 'Daniel' means 'God is my judge', while Michael is 'Who is like God'. Raphael and Gabriel are other examples, while for girls the syllable has switched to the beginning of 'Elizabeth', meaning 'God is my oath'.

Still, Biblical names have the advantage of enduring across the passing years and not dating you to a particular decade. Who can tell when a John or Sarah were born, whereas nearly every Lara I have met arrived shortly after their mother had seen 'Dr Zhivago' and was devoted to the theme tune of that name.

There are also plenty of names that immediately indicate that the person's parents had a favourite television 'soap', while others owe their origins to a sporting hero who shone at a particular time, be it a 'Wayne' or 'Tiger', and to which their child is forever tied.

Amongst Jews, there is a tradition to name a child after a relative, but a fierce divide as to how exactly to do that. Thus the Sephardi Jews (largely from the Mediterranean area) name after a living relative so as to honour them in their own lifetime. However, Ashkenazi Jews (primarily from Europe and America) name after a dead relative so as to keep their memory alive.

It can lead to problems. I know of a mixed marriage where the Sephardi father thought it would be good to call his new-born daughter after his Ashkenazi mother-in-law. She took it badly: 'What', she shrieked, 'you want to kill me off already!'

Some names become ruined by the people who bear them. The name 'Adolf' was a popular name amongst Jews in 19th century Germany and remained in use during the early part of the 20th century. However, once Hitler came to power it became associated with the mass murder he unleashed and is tainted forever.

On a less global scale we often shy away from picking names belonging to someone we dislike - that terrible Fiona a few houses away, or that awful Malcolm in the office. It might be instructive to wonder what we do for our own name, and whether people have good or bad associations with it because of us. Do we shame our name or enhance it?]]>
Proposed Church of England Takeover of State Schools Should Ring Warning Bells,2013:/theblog//3.3548276 2013-07-03T19:00:00-04:00 2013-09-02T05:12:01-04:00 Jonathan Romain
However, I am deeply disturbed by the news this week that thousands of secular state schools could be run by the Church of England as a result of an agreement between it and the Government. Officially the schools would remain secular, but they would be run by church-led Academy chains, and it is impossible to imagine that the Church would not wish to influence them in accordance with its own outlook and practices.

The problem with this is two-fold. First, it is a development that has caught everyone by surprise. Why has there been no public consultation - either at local or national level - on such a far-reaching change in education? Instead we have a done-deal between the Government and one of the providers in the education world. It might be viewed with favour by parents or teachers or governors, but equally it might be regarded with horror. The lack of any prior consultation for such a radical move is astonishing.

Second, it influences educational policy in exactly the opposite direction from the path along which it should travel. Every survey shows that the public wants inclusive schools, where children of different faith and ethnic backgrounds mix and meet, not ones where faith is a criterion in the admission of pupils, employment of teachers and content of the curriculum, invariably narrowing down the parameters. Yet now the Department for Education is helping to entrench exclusivity.


This is not some messianic vision, but what many parents currently do, including those of faith who regard communal harmony as enormously important. They see social cohesion as a religious value and regard it as part of fulfilling the command to 'love your neighbour as yourself' (Leviticus 19.18) - which can only be achieved by knowing your neighbour in the first place. It is the same reason why I sent my own children not to a Jewish school but to a community school - so that they could sit next to a Christian, play football in the break with a Muslim, and do homework with a Hindu. It meant my children came to know about them and their ways, those children got to know Jewish children and our ways. Everyone benefitted, and they will all be better citizens because of it.

A multi-faith Britain needs more community schools that bring everyone together, not more faith schools that segregate children and fragment society.]]>
It's Time to Play Fair and End Religious Restrictions for Children at State-Funded Schools,2013:/theblog//3.3390884 2013-06-07T05:44:06-04:00 2013-08-07T05:12:01-04:00 Jonathan Romain
So you would expect fairness to apply especially to the educational system - but instead of that principle being the core value which permeates the school and everything that children learn, it is absent in many state-funded schools which have a religious character, where the picture is not one of equality, but of division.




Yet it happens in state-funded schools, where Voluntary Aided schools can select 100% of pupils on grounds of their faith, with Free Schools able to do likewise for up to 50% of their intake. This is happening in the very institutions that we like to think are preparing young children for a better, fairer, more inclusive society. What sort of message are we giving them?

We find ourselves in this position because of the historic role that church schools played in providing education in this country in the middle ages and onwards when nobody else did. All credit to that role back then, but discrimination is surely no longer appropriate several centuries later.

It is time to admit that the system is morally flawed, and hence the start of the Fair Admissions Campaign to press for a fair admissions policy to be adopted in existing schools and to be made obligatory in all new schools. Schools can still have a particular ethos, but they should be open to all, so that children can attend schools closest to them if they so wish and not face an automatic bar.

It will also mean more children of different faiths and cultures meeting together in the classroom, Monday to Friday, learning about each other and inter-acting together - which is both the right path in principle and will provide a better society in practice.
These changes will take time to implement, but they can speeded up if the main political parties pledge to end discrimination in school admissions and increase inclusion. There is also nothing to stop organisations who control schools with discriminatory policies to modify them with immediate effect.

Meanwhile ordinary people - parents, teachers, members of faith-groups and anyone else - need to speak out in favour of fairness in entry requirements. Whether you are religious or secular, we can all sign up to the educational principle 'Thou shalt not discriminate between one child and another'. It should not just be a slogan, but a reality we make happen.]]>
China's Ancient Jewish Community Is Re-Emerging - But to Unexpected Problems,2013:/theblog//3.3155003 2013-04-26T19:00:00-04:00 2013-06-26T05:12:01-04:00 Jonathan Romain
The joke lay in both the reversal of roles, and the incongruous thought that Chinese Jews even existed. However, that mythical tale could easily be said in earnest today in view of the surprising resurgence of Jews in China as the country at large undergoes a massive economic and cultural shift.

Far from not existing, Chinese Jews can trace their lineage back to the 12th Century, when their ancestors came from the land of Israel along the silk route via Persia and India to settle in Kaifeng.

What is remarkable is the name given to the street in which it was situated: Plucking Sinews Street. 'The people who pluck sinews' is the term by which Jews were known, referring to the Jewish custom - still practiced today - of not eating the thigh-sinew of animals because of a command in the Book of Genesis (32.33). It bemused the local Chinese population and hence became their distinctive description.

In Europe at the time, society was riddled with Christian anti-semitism, based on the negative attitude of the Gospels to the Jews and resulting in persecutions and ghettos. But China had no such bias and welcomed Jewish settlers.

The Jews gradually integrated into Chinese society, took on local customs and inter-married with them. Jewish numbers declined, although some practices remained and were reinforced by the surrounding culture of Chinese ancestor-worship.

Conditions were difficult during the Maoist period when religious life was severely restricted, but have blossomed anew in today's more liberal climate. Families gather together to hold services in their homes, there are plans to restore the ancient synagogue, and books on Jewish life are being imported so as to catch up on lost traditions.

However, there are two curious problems: one is that existing Chinese law only recognizes five faiths (Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Islam and Taoism). It enables them to hold large gatherings, whereas other groups cannot do so. The result is that Jewish services cannot have more than ten people attending, lest they risk being classified as a subversive meeting and invite police attention.

Chinese Jews are currently pressing for the law to be changed, although there is no suggestion that it is deliberately anti-Jewish, being more a reflection of the relatively small number of Jews when the law was framed.

The other oddity is that Jewish descent is generally determined through the matrilineal line, a tradition going back over two millennia. However, as part of the process of acculturation, Chinese Jews adopted the Chinese custom of taking their identity through the patrilineal line.

It means that while Chinese Jews have no doubt about their Jewish origins, according to the rest of the Jewish world they do not have full Jewish standing. They could not, for instance, marry in a synagogue in Israel or England. Until now, Chinese Jews caught in this discrepancy between identity and status, have undergone individual conversion procedures, but as more and more such Jews emerge, it begs the question of whether world Jewry needs to reassess their situation and give them blanket recognition.

Having survived centuries of Chinese warlords, imperial rule, Japanese invaders and the Cultural Revolution, it would be deeply ironic if Chinese Jews now found themselves rejected by their co-religionists.]]>
Benedict XVI's Resignation Undoes the Damage of John Paul II's Final Period,2013:/theblog//3.2665077 2013-02-11T19:00:00-05:00 2013-04-13T05:12:01-04:00 Jonathan Romain








Cameron Should Not Do a Gillard When he Calls the General Election,2013:/theblog//3.2589392 2013-01-31T08:19:51-05:00 2013-04-02T05:12:01-04:00 Jonathan Romain
This the Jewish equivalent of what Australian prime minister Julia Gillard has done in calling a general election for 14 September 14. It falls on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, widely regarded as the most sacred day of the Jewish year.

It is the only time in the year when Jews are expected to spend not just an hour or two in synagogue, as with other festivals, but the whole day; it is also the one time in the year when even the most lapsed Jew will attend services even if he/she is absent the other 364 days.

What makes this even more problematic is that, unlike in Britain, voting in national elections in Australia is compulsory. Failure to do so results in a penalty, which can take the form of a fine or community service.

Of course, if there had been some national emergency that overrode all other concerns, then picking a major religious festival would be justified. However, in this case, Gillard has selected a date eight months away. Surely, with that time gap there would have been other dates available? Moreover, she has departed from the tradition of only giving five or six weeks notice for an election, so she was far from pressurised into having to select a particular date.

Obviously Judaism is not the majority faith in the country, but Jews are certainly part of wider society and play an active role in the national life, so why not try to avoid the one day which would prevent many of them turning up at the polling stations.

The same would apply with regard to all other major religious groups in Australia: yes, it might be hard to take into account the host of minor festivals each faith has, but do not go for their really big one.

It is true that the Yom Kippur date will not prevent Jews from voting completely, as it is still possible to send in a postal vote. But there are still two objections.

One is very practical: that not everyone is sufficiently organised to apply for the right papers in advance and then send them off by the due date. By contrast, election day itself is hard to miss with the media build-up in advance, and it is much easier to nip out - even in between whatever activities one had already planned that day - and cast one's vote in person.

The other objection is more important: as a matter of principle, a prime minister should examine major events within the varying secular and religious calendars before fixing the election - so as to ensure that as many citizens can take part in the democratic process as possible.

It is not a matter of upsetting Jews or any other particular group but the larger issue of inclusivity and engagement for the country as a whole. It well may be that this was not a deliberate snub, but that Gillard's advisers were at fault and simply failed to consult the religious calendar as well as all the other aspects they took into consideration - but this should have been one of the basic checklists.

It is certainly a warning to the British Government not to make the same mistake when it comes to call the next election.]]>
British Jews Don't Need Another Chief Rabbi,2012:/theblog//3.2327979 2012-12-19T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-18T05:12:01-05:00 Jonathan Romain
If the church is still hopelessly divided over women bishops and gay marriages, the Jewish community is also facing major question marks. The biggest one is: do we want another chief rabbi at all?


It started in 1840 when the then handful of independent synagogues - all Orthodox - came together to form the United Synagogue. They were aware of the central role that the Archbishop of Canterbury had in church life and so invented the position of a Chief Rabbi who was to have a parallel role.

Other countries may have a chief rabbi of a town or region, but no national figure (save Israel, where it was imposed by the British military authorities during the Mandate years, mistakenly thinking it was an accepted Jewish practice!)

Still, while the office of chief rabbi initially proved very helpful in unifying the disparate congregations, its continuing existence is now threatened by the fact that British Jewry has changed dramatically.

It is much more diverse, no longer monolithically Orthodox, but with sizable Reform and Liberal movements, who seek to harmonise tradition and modernity and who do not recognise the Chief Rabbi's authority. Several other Orthodox groups have emerged in recent decades who are also beyond his remit.

These long-simmering tensions have come to the fore during the incumbency of Jonathan Sacks and may now be beyond repair.

His leadership has been remarkable for the great contrast between the successes of his external role and the problems surrounding his internal one.

His great communication skills have made him a superb ambassador for Judaism to the country at large, but inside the Jewish world, his policies towards gays, women, Limmud (a cross-communal study programme) and the non-Orthodox have made him a divisive figure.

Many Jews who admire the religious pluralism that Sacks preaches to wider society have been bewildered by his refusal to apply the same principles within the Jewish community.

The result is that he has appeared to many a Jekyll and Hyde character - the liberal intellectual Dr Jonathan and the conservative unyielding Rabbi Sacks - and further weakened his office.

All these factors beg the question of whether it is possible anymore to have a Chief Rabbi - a title that is widely seen as the person who represents British Jewry, even though technically it is only of the United Synagogue and central Orthodoxy. The idea of a single figurehead for such a multi-denominational community is well past it sell-by date.

The person who has emerged as the new Chief Rabbi - Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis - is a competent congregational rabbi, and known neither for being an arch reactionary nor a modernising innovater. The hope is that he will be a safe pair of hands and avoid controversy

However, it is highly debateable whether he should keep the title of Chief Rabbi. The most honest option would be to jettison it entirely because of the way it shackles the image of British Jews as a whole to one type of Judaism.

It might be far better for rabbi mirvis to be called the senior orthodox rabbi and Rabbi Sacks to be known as the last chief rabbi. It would be more realistic for Jews, and much less confusing for wider society.]]>
Religious Reasons for Supporting Assisted Dying,2012:/theblog//3.2269825 2012-12-10T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-09T05:12:01-05:00 Jonathan Romain











Faith Schools: Richmond Opts for Religious Discrimination,2012:/theblog//3.2230019 2012-12-03T04:44:52-05:00 2013-02-01T05:12:01-05:00 Jonathan Romain
It not only rides roughshod over local people's wishes - so much for the power of localism - but it also opts for a school that will judge children by their faith and discriminate against those with 'the wrong faith' or no faith.

The tragedy is that Richmond is a microcosm of what is happening elsewhere in the country, with both this and the previous government encouraging an increase in the number of faith schools.

I am a rabbi. I value faith. However, I am very worried about faith schools and the impact they are having both on the children who attend and on the type of society that will emerge as they grow up.

It would be unthinkable to discriminate over faith in any other public-funded institution. Can you imagine Catholic not allowed to be nurses, Jews banned from the RAF and Muslims from being librarians? Yet we allow schools exactly those powers. And although government ministers proudly tell of how they stand for justice and integrity, how can they condone discrimination at the heart of the educational system? And what message does that give the children?

Even more critical are the social consequences. Most faith schools may be set up with good intentions, but their effect is to segregate the children and create an educational apartheid system.

Some of the better schools attempt to teach about other faiths, but that is no substitute for children from different backgrounds sitting next to each other in class, playing in the break and walking home after school.

Let their religious education or belief system come from the home or after-school classes or church, synagogue, mosque and gurdwara at weekends, but not be used to divide the children throughout the week.

Moreover, faith schools do not just divide the children, but also the parents - who no longer meet outside the school gates, or at sports days and parents evenings. Thus they cut a huge swathe through the social life of local areas.

In this context, it is fascinating to see what is happening in Northern Ireland. The troubles there did not erupt because of faith schools, but there is equally no doubt that separate Catholic and Protestant schools helped perpetuate the divide between the two communities and reinforced the prejudices they had about each other.

Now, though, there is a surge in parents opting for Integrated Schools, which children from both faiths attend and see what they have in common. We should learn from the Province's solutions, not emulate its mistakes.

Britain is a multi-faith society and we do not wish it to become a multi-fractious one. Growing up together and establishing relationships is key to promoting social cohesion. Why does Richmond Council object to that and why is it opting for discrimination over inclusivity?]]>