keep your religion to yourself

grandparents told.

In a case that some of the goddites will claim persecution, a judge ruled in favour of a mother’s request that her 4 year old child be kept free from religious influence by the paternal grand parents who belong to the JW cult. The religious beliefs of the mother were not mentioned in the case.

The ruling[pdf]

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

65 thoughts on “keep your religion to yourself

  1. Good for the judge. Freedom from religion is, really, the only way true freedom of religion can exist. Not the thing christians want to hear, but true, nonetheless.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. john zande says:

    Can we all repeat, PRECEDENT! Sing it to the air: PRECEDENT! PRECEDENT! PRECEDENT!

    That is one HUGE leap for mankind.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. carmen says:

    Hi Mak! That case was here in Canada, out in BC. Smart judge and good for him, although there was a precedent to follow – also with another JW case.
    Here in Canada medical staff can overrule the ‘religious beliefs’ of the parents and order blood transfusions, as well.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. carmen says:

    @inspired –

    I tried to comment on your blog yesterday but it got ‘eaten’ — don’t know what happened. Anyway, I wanted to let you know that I slapped the desk on that one, my good fellow! . . .huge grin. .. 🙂


  5. carmen says:

    I also wonder if many people here in Canada view the JW’s as a cult, more so than any other religion. Since I was introduced to this idea at University (suggested by a Philosophy professor), I have often felt that others had this same perspective. For instance, if you look in the papers, the only ‘religion’ you’ll read ads for to get ‘deprogrammed’ is the Jehovah’s Witness. When you start reading their literature, and take a look through their (per)version of the Bible, one wonders.


  6. I like how the principle was expressed that children have a right to beneficial parenting rather than the parents have a right to force their interests onto a child. That’s definitely the opposite perspective of what is in the United States.

    Theoretically it’s possible to get similar rulings here in the States because the standard – the best interests of the child – is similar.

    However, I also think that the result would have been different in the case if it was the parent doing the indoctrinating instead of the grandparents.


    • makagutu says:

      I think I agree with you that the case would be different if the parent was the one doing the indoctrination. Most likely there would be no case

      Liked by 2 people

      • All this reminds me of that case last year involving the Canadian girl who was allowed to move to Florida so she could pursue religious healing. It’s the opposite of the one you linked above. And that case couldn’t have been clearer; the child’s religious beliefs, as imprinted upon her by her parents, got her killed.

        While I’m happy for the little girl being protected from her grandparents, I think there still is a lot more room for improvement in the law on this.


        • makagutu says:

          How do you deal with a case where it is the parent doing the indoctrination? Is it the child’s interest to be fed religion

          Liked by 1 person

          • That’s a very good question, and my understanding of family law is very limited. However, most often courts look at a standard appropriately called Best Interests of the Child. Religion in and of itself is not something that would cause a parent to lose custody. It would require specific practices in order to get custodial arrangements changed.

            The reason why the grandparents weren’t allowed unsupervised visits is because they kept violating agreements with the child’s mother, and they were using the child as a human shield to promote their indoctrination (i.e., “the child wants to learn about it”).

            Furthermore, you’d have to get the parents to disagree on the religious indoctrination. Most often, that’s not going to happen unless the church in question is abusing the child.

            Realistically speaking, it would take a massive shift in how people view teaching religion to the young to get it to be seen as harmful in courts. They’re notoriously conservative institutions, and if they can make any assumption to keep parents with their children, they will.


  7. emmylgant says:

    It seems ludicrous to me that the grandparents have ANY say at all in this.
    As for cults, I agree with Noel, all religions are cults with varying real estate. Christianity (JWs call it Christendom), no matter the denomination, is nothing but a cult of the dead.


  8. lexborgia says:

    Just finished reading the ruling; that’s pretty serious stuff. Frightening – arguing for the right to persecute others with your beliefs. WoW.


  9. shelldigger says:

    I’m with JZ, precedent! We can only hope reason edges out superstitous inanity across all cultures.


  10. […] I’m writing about this because of a question posed by Mak in the comments of this post: […]


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s