Welcome to another week as we take a look at a fascinating 2011 case in which a judge ruled that religious practices may be deemed harmful to a child’s welfare.
In the case of Re N, a judge has ruled that certain forms of religious practice may be harmful to children. Judge Bellamy concludes in a judgment published in August 2011, that practices by Jehovah’s witnesses, including social isolation from individuals who are not of the faith, immersion in the faith itself and a commitment to ensuring the conversion of a child as required by the faith could potentially be harmful to the well-being of that child.
Here are some key phrases from passages within the judgment:
“Though the mother’s right to choose and practice her religion is not in doubt, the extent to which she is entitled to allow or encourage N to share in her religious beliefs and practices is less straightforward.” – Judge Bellamy
“The relevance of the religious difference relates to the impact in all the circumstances of the case on [S’s] welfare of the respective beliefs of the parents and thus of their respective lifestyles and attitudes based thereon. This is an exercise that can only be carried out in all the circumstances of a given case…’ – Quote from relevant case mentioned in the judgment
“I have greater concern with the proposed recital set out in the mother’s draft order that she ‘may teach the child her Christian beliefs as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses’. I note that on this issue, too, the mother’s draft does not include a like provision that the father should be entitled to ‘teach’ N his Christian beliefs.” – Judge Bellamy
“In terms of the living out of one’s faith in daily life I accept that it could be said that one teaches by example. I see nothing inappropriate in that. However, another meaning of ‘to teach’ is to instruct or to give lessons in. That is what one would expect to happen in a classroom. So far as concerns these parents, given the potential for conflict, I have profound reservations about the appropriateness of either parent ‘teaching’ their Christian beliefs to N in any formal sense, by ‘instructing’ or ‘giving lessons’. In my judgment it is both proportionate and in N’s best interests to restrict the parents’ right to ‘instruct’ or ‘give lessons’ concerning their Christian beliefs.” – Judge Bellamy
Our question to you, is simple: do you agree with Judge Bellamy?
Thank you to Dana for sharing this case with us.
Researching Reform 
As an agnostic myself (I don’t know why we are here or who if anyone put us here or whether there is life after death and frankly I don’t care !), I think it outrageous that any judge (especially Bellamy who makes more blunders than most) should interfere between parent and child exchanging beliefs.Apart from knocking on front doors at awkward times Jehovah’s witnesses do no harm to anybody and as far as I know, have never practiced any for of jihad ! I am sure he would not have forbidden a moslem mother from instructing her son all about the 24 beautiful young virgins and other delights to be found in the afterlife as a reward for slaughtering a few infidels !
LikeLike
No.
Its clear discrimination against one christian religion.
LikeLike
My Grandson is in care, against his and the families wishes, and he is in a placement with Jehovah’s witnesses. How does this ruling affect him?
LikeLike
Hi, this ruling is an awkward one because the judge hides behind the conflict between both parents and cites this as the galvanising reason behind his decision, rather than the mother’s religious practice. He is essentially saying that because the parents are both from different religious bents, there is likely to be a lot of arguing between them given that they are angry with each other, and that this is the reason he has to curtail their ‘teaching’. It’s not a great judgment because it’s confusing and does tilt towards religious immersion as being harmful, for its myopic and socially exclusive stances, but to actually confirm that’s what he meant, which the judge will never do, would be to open up a very large battle against parents and religious groups everywhere. I think unless your grandson can show he’s being indoctrinated against his will, there is probably little that can be done. I’m sorry.
LikeLike
Hi Natasha, One could say ALL forms of religion are harmful to both children & adults alike.
Religions came about as a guide from God on how to live their lives but became a way for feudal lords to keep the masses in order and to take taxes in one form or another!
If there is only one God you would think he /she /entity would make it clearer but over time Man has certainly muddied the waters!
All religions from the middle east have their roots in Abramic texts and came from Abram (Abraham, the father of religion) and are spin offs of the Abramic religion but have been corrupted over time.
Later religions, Mormons 1820, Johova Witnesses, 1872, Scientogy 1911-1986 have their followers despite being invented around 200 years ago or less.
I haven’t gone into the far eastern religions of Hinduism, Buddhism etc but all religions are preaching a way of life and are not just a religion.
It appears that some religions are more acceptable, on the face of it, like Christianity for example, but an awful lot of Christian figures were involved in the systemic abuse and deaths of children for decades. Some may say it’s always been there but never publically exposed, but was known and hushed up by the hierarchy. Abuses would not have been restricted to just one religion but would have been edemic in all.
The Islamic religion actually promotes sex with children as Mohammed was married to Aisha a 6 year old and commenced sex at 9 years old. Other religions also promote sex with children. Incest and polygamy feature in religion too. Just because it’s not deemed acceptable today in Western society doesn’t mean that the thinking changes as seen in Rochdale for example.
Certainly cruelty has always been an underlying thread in all religions. It seems that religion can be reinvented to be whatever one wants. The proletariat pick and choose what bits they want and disregard the rest.
Religion has always been a catalyst for war! How many have been harmed through wars? It’s not just soldiers who are maimed and killed but civillians and their children too! Governments wind people up and off they go to fight for their beliefs!
The State has always interfered with peoples beliefs but to single out just one religion is really hypocritical! Most people would say a child who cannot make their own decisions should be protected when it comes to life or death situations. That is not just “no blood transfusions” but should include other life and death situations and all other religions.
All religions take the “we are the true religion” stance. We know all religious zealots are dangerous to themselves and others but unless you bar all religions where do you draw the line? Taking their children away from them is not the answer! Re-education might be but then that may become just another man made religion!
Richard Dawkins believes that forcing your child to be indoctrinated to your religion is tantamount to child abuse. Judge Bellamy clearly agrees, so long as your a Jehova Witness!
LikeLike
You really believe your dribble. Who cares about Richard Hawkins it is not his kid. There is no child abuse in what she wants to do. Freedom of and from religion is the right according to the constitution. There is no sex in her request, there is no torture, no a abuse physical or mental.
With you argument we need to stop sending kids to public school with all the national indoctrination that takes place there. What a shame. I had all of this out in the divorce decree so it was no question later.
LikeLike
Hi Tim, are you talking about my dribble?
LikeLike
I can assure you all that when it comes to the Jehovah Witnesses, I can say that I consider my self an expert, I know all there is to know about their beliefs, inner workings, financial practices, hierarchy, conversion tactics… the lot! I was involved with them for 30 years, and have attended court to offer my expertise.
Now, coming to the point, and I presume that I have total freedom of the use of the written word here there will be no slander just the facts and my opinions… knowing what I know, I would not advise anyone to become involved in the JW sect, not if they were to know the truth about them. However, after saying this, I believe that every human being has the freedom to choose their own religion, and what is more, the freedom to teach that religion to their children, that is an opinion that goes opposite to Bellamy’s it would seem, going by the drivel he has stated in this case. Judges are not there to pontificate over religions, as to whether parents should be allowed to pass on their religious teachings to their children, of course they are! Bellamy’s judgement is tantamount to saying that he is some kind of secular Pope, can say that he trying to protect children from harm by using family law, this is nonsense!
We are all thinking one thing here, but most of us would be afraid to state it… it is this… and do not accuse me of racism.. If Bellamy were to pull this one with a strict Muslim, (which of course he would not dare to) there would be Islamic protesting on the streets burning effigies of his image. That is the truth! The thing here is that Bellamy must be rather dim to involve himself in the religious minefield of what society at large can and cannot teach their children, it is NOT for him to decide, because parents have been doing exactly that for generations in all the mainstream religions. Is being a Jehovah Witness part of a religion? Of course! We may not agree with them or their philosophy, as I don’t and on firm grounds, but I would back them all the way to have the right to teach their kids that religion, just as the Islamic faith does, but with them I believe their right to apply this could be even more damaging to society. In the end let people choose their faith and how they apply it, otherwise the likes of Bellamy are only going to get lost in a pit of whose religion is the right one good enough to be passed on to children. For me… None of them! But I will give my life to fight for the one you want to believe in!
LikeLike
I can assure you all that when it comes to the Jehovah Witnesses, I can say that I consider my self an expert, I know all there is to know about their beliefs, inner workings, financial practices, hierarchy, conversion tactics… the lot! I was involved with them for 30 years, and have attended court to offer my expertise.
Now, coming to the point, and I presume that I have total freedom of the use of the written word here there will be no slander just the facts and my opinions… knowing what I know, I would not advise anyone to become involved in the JW sect, not if they were to know the truth about them. However, after saying this, I believe that every human being has the freedom to choose their own religion, and what is more, the freedom to teach that religion to their children, that is an opinion that goes opposite to Bellamy’s it would seem, going by the drivel he has stated in this case. Judges are not there to pontificate over religions, as to whether parents should be allowed to pass on their religious teachings to their children, of course they are! Bellamy’s judgement is tantamount to saying that he is some kind of secular Pope, can say that he trying to protect children from harm by using family law, this is nonsense!
We are all thinking one thing here, but most of us would be afraid to state it… it is this… and do not accuse me of racism.. If Bellamy were to pull this one with a strict Muslim, (which of course he would not dare to) there would be Islamic protesting on the streets burning effigies of his image. That is the truth! The thing here is that Bellamy must be rather dim to involve himself in the religious minefield of what society at large can and cannot teach their children, it is NOT for him to decide, because parents have been doing exactly that for generations in all the mainstream religions. Is being a Jehovah Witness part of a religion? Of course! We may not agree with them or their philosophy, as I don’t and on firm grounds, but I would back them all the way to have the right to teach their kids that religion, just as the Islamic faith does, but with them I believe their right to apply this could be even more damaging to society. In the end let people choose their faith and how they apply it, otherwise the likes of Bellamy are only going to get lost in a pit of whose religion is the right one good enough to be passed on to children. For me… None of them! But I will give my life to fight for the one you want to believe in!
LikeLike
Thank you for all your thoughtful comments.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
This is a prejudiced and discriminatory decision by Judge Bellamy. He is supposedly a `Trier of the Facts’ yet I see no facts. Where is the evidence of abuse and/or exploitation of the child. In cases of genital mutilation of children of both sexes by certain religious organisations and cults, there is physical evidence of such abuse and the perpetrator could be readily identified, but indoctrination cannot, at times, be separated from socialisation of a child. There are similar disagreements between parents in matters of childhood vaccinations, with both parents having grounds for believing the child will be harmed by being vaccinated and by not being vaccinated – judges usually err on the side of ordering the child to be vaccinated, despite contradictory medical opinions.
It worries me greatly that so many children are now removed from parents on the grounds of `emotional abuse’ when very often there is no concrete evidence of this occurring, only (highly questionable) opinion evidence.
In short, Judge Bellamy should stick to being a trier of fact, and not meddle in matters which contain such highly subjective elements.
LikeLike