TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

British father banned from taking his son to church as his mother is Muslim

BaconCatBug

March 27, 2016
262 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3511018/Judge-bans-British-father-taking-son-church-mother-Muslim.html#ixzz445QimTn6
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title British father banned from taking his son to church as his mother is Muslim
Author

BaconCatBug

Upvotes 262
Comments 40
Date March 27, 2016 9:19 PM UTC
(10 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4c7968/british_father_banned_from_taking_his_son_to/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/british-father-banned-from-taking-his-son-to.953165
https://theredarchive.com/post/953165
Top posts by BaconCatBug

'Game Of Thrones' star Kit Harington forced to apologize for saying men can be victims of sexism

5445 upvotes
November 1, 2017
/r/MensRights

Just another feminist being a lying hypocrite. In other news, today is a day ending in y.

3620 upvotes
April 14, 2021
/r/MensRights

Magdalena Skipper (Nature EIC): what did it take for her to start caring about suicide?

2185 upvotes
May 29, 2021
/r/MensRights

Just a reminder, in Canada women can legally rape 14 year old boys if they "think" they are 16.

2153 upvotes
January 8, 2018
/r/MensRights

Suicide attempts by teen girls spiked during COVID-19 pandemic: CDC - The spike of successful suicides by teen boys unimportant

1934 upvotes
June 14, 2021
/r/MensRights

Hillary Clinton: "If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, would that end racism? Would that end sexism?"

1784 upvotes
February 17, 2016
/r/MensRights

Actual Gawker quote: "If men actually count as people".

1758 upvotes
July 13, 2016
/r/MensRights

Men consistently outperform women in Oxford exams. Solution: ban exams

1700 upvotes
September 23, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]jdksn5 110 points111 points112 points 10 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

The order bars the father from taking the boy to any religious event. It decrees he must provide only Halal food and reassure the child he is 'an ordinary Muslim boy following Muslim rules'.

Wow. In the UK the state can literally force you to raise your child as a certain religion. This is like some medieval shit. "You must raise your son as a good protestant and never mention the catholic faith!"

I'm pretty sure this must violate a whole bunch of human rights legislation.

[–]Revoran 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The UK is a country which not only has a state religion (Anglican Church), but the Anglican leaders get to vote in the government and pass laws for everyone else in the country. It's fucking medieval.

The weirdest part here is they are forcing him to be raised muslim.

At any rate, this is why we need separation of church and state. This is why we need the men's rights movement.

I feel like this could be challenged under EU human rights laws, though.

[–]Lethn 37 points38 points39 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Definitely illegal, he could probably bring this up in a human rights courts, you can't force somebody to worship one religion over the other.

By the way, I think people should take note this is not necessarily to do with religion itself.

A British father has been banned from taking his son to a church after the boy's Muslim mother won a controversial court order preventing the boy from attending.

Note how it's the mother they automatically sided with despite this court order being a blatant violation of human rights. She's doing this to get back at him, it really isn't much to do with religion. Just another in the long list of ways women can use the court systems to get back at men because of the bias.

If these two were Athiests, you can bet there would be some other bullshit reason invented over it, like for instance. Which school the child would be allowed to go to and so on, it's a petty squabble being taken into the court system. If it were me I'd seriously consider reprimanding both these idiots for not leaving the child alone to make his own mind up of what religion or beliefs he wanted to grow up with.

What if he turned out Athiest because of their bullshit? It wouldn't surprise me, their entire argument is going to look like a massive contradiction in his eyes.

[–]thehenkan -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This isn't the court deciding arbitrarily how the child is raised, but the mother making that decision and the court ordering the father to follow her decision. IANAL, but we don't get any information on the reasoning behind the decision. My guess is that the mother is the primary caretaker while the father only has visitation rights. This means she decides everything about the child's upbringing, which may to some extent include what the father is allowed to do during his visits.

That said I don't agree with her decision, however the article says very little of the legal aspect and focuses only on the morality of the decision, which tells me it's trying to angle the event, maybe in order to pander to islamophobes, but certainly to generate lots of clicks. This is the Daily Mail after all.

[–]jdksn5 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter why the government is forcing this guy to raise his son as a certain religion. It's still wrong.

P.S. "Islamophobe" is a made up word.

[–]thehenkan -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That doesn't matter if he isn't the caretaker, because he's not the one raising the kid, so they're not forcing him to raise his son at all; the opposite, actually. You can disagree with him not having those rights, but if the case is that the mother is the caretaker, that's just the way it is.

I'm just trying to explain that morally wrong doesn't always mean illegal, and that we don't the full story.

All words are made up. Islamophobe is certainly an overused buzzword, much like lots of people like to throw "racist" around a bit too often, but there definitely exists people who hate/strongly dislike muslims indiscriminately.

PS. jdksn5 is a made up name.

[–]jdksn5 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How dare you. My father and my father's father were both named jdksn5.

[–]jtaylor73003 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Why does the state have a say how the child is raised when the parents are divorced, but no say when they are married?

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]jtaylor73003 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Yet their already laws for any disagreement that would lead to abuse. The state not only willing interferes, but does so in damaging way. If you take this issue we see that state should have said it is none of their business. Father can take kid to any church he wants and the mother can do the same. The only time the state would need to get involve is when one the parents behavior becomes abuse of the child. Paternal alienation is codified as abuse.

[–]JebberJabber 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The court appears to take the view that because the boy's primary guardian is raising him in a hard-line Muslim lifestyle where she has shunned her former Christian friends, it will put undue stress on the boy to allow him to be put in the middle of a tug-of-war over religion.

This is not unusual. Courts try to shield the children from conflict. In the extreme, if that requires telling one parent to cease all contact until 18 because their involvement is doing more harm than good then they will do that.

My sympathies are with the father here but he has to comply with the ruling.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yet their already laws for any disagreement that would lead to abuse.

Its not just abuse its about custody which is often disputed and is the fairest(in theory) way to come to a conclusion but obviously these courts are weighted heavily in the woman favor.

If you take this issue we see that state should have said it is none of their business. Father can take kid to any church he wants and the mother can do the same. The only time the state would need to get involve is when one the parents behavior becomes abuse of the child. Paternal alienation is codified as abuse.

I agree with most of what you have said but you have changed the subject I was responding to you asking why the courts have a say at all after a divorce.

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn't say he didn't. I merely pointing out that if these two were married and had the same conflict the state would not get involved so we know it has nothing to do with best interest of the child. I already pointed out that the state has set guidelines for what abuse is.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It does not have to reach the level of abuse for the family court to provide a ruling on a major decision if asked, and it was asked. Parents fight over school choice and other lesser matters through the family court, I imagine they can do that while still married.

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yes if they were still married the court would have no say, so why do we allow a court a say when they get divorce?

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The parental alienation angle is a good point but I think the court would say the non-custodial parent (if he does in fact not have the right to share the decision on religion etc), is alienating himself as well as abusing the child.

If the non-custodial father does have the right to be involved in major decisions (as would normally be the case in my country) the court can still arbitrate the decision and it is sensible for the custodial parent's choice to be given priority.

I don't imagine courts would normally agree with preventing the other parent from exposing the child to other religions but this is a very "special" religion and the boy will ACTUALLY GO TO HELL if his father pollutes him with Christians.

Possibly it would be the mother's duty to kill the boy if his soul becomes impure.
Each religion has its own way for dealing with apostates, I understand that death is the penalty in some Muslim sects and the family are compelled to carry it out.

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You misunderstand me. The court doesn't interfere with a matter like this if they were married, yet we all them to do so when they are divorced. I do not believe the court should get involved unless there is abuse of the child. Paternal alienation would be one parent refuses to allow child to see the other.

[–]JebberJabber 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I thought parental alienation was also where one parent undermines the relationship with the other parent.
Making an allegation of sexual abuse that is not backed by evidence is a common issue. The mother may be convinced the father is unsafe with the child but unless the court agrees, she can lose custody if she persists in making that allegation to the child. This can be an awful situation both when the allegation is true, and when it is not.

I don't know whether conflicting teaching about non-compatible religions normally amounts to abuse but this particular one might.

We don't know whether the court considered it to be abuse;
or it just arbitrated because it was approached to do so;
or whether it is just enforcing the rights of a parent with sole rights over that decision.

Is family court dispute resolution only available after divorce? I don't know.

[–]jtaylor73003 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was giving a general opinion.

[–]Ultramegasaurus 22 points23 points24 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Gynocentrism/misandry meets Islamophilia

[–]Paladin327 20 points21 points22 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But remember, women are second-class citizens in the west with literally 0 rights!

[–]qoppaphi 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And Muslims.

[–]TyrrTheWook 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The father, who cannot be named for legal reasons

I wish I would see this more

[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They're not naming the father because it would identify the child, not because they give a rat fuck about the fathers privacy.

[–]nrjk 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Solution: father converts to Islam. Throws acid on wife and gives her 40 lashes for disobeying a man. State ok with it because tolerance and progressive Western values that hold multiculturalism in high regard.

/s

[–]leftajar 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a subset of the modern idea that men don't really own their children.

The children are property of the mother, and if the father behaves himself and never misses a support payment, he may be granted the privilege of visitation.

[–]NijjioN 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Any other source than Daily Flail?

[–]gprime 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

In all honesty, I don't think this is a men's rights issue, as much as it is a political correctness issue. Government entities in the west are so afraid of being accused of Islamophobia that most will routinely bend over and accommodate even the grossly unreasonable requests of their Muslim minorities. So I think the impetus for the absurd ruling here is not so much a matter of gender inequity in the British courts, though obvious that is a real problem which routinely manifests itself, but a desire to be seen as tolerant and multicultural.

[–]Ultramegasaurus 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I cannot imagine a kid being prohibited from going to Church if his mother wants it though. It's a combination of political correctness and the usual divorce court misandry.

[–]JebberJabber -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, in the case of Christian denominations or atheism.

This case involves a hard-line Muslim branch which forbids contact with Christians, which is not a comparable situation.

I see zero evidence here for gender being relevant. If you want to claim it is relevant because of outside evidence, then it can be claimed without referring to this post.

[–]TalonX1982 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wait, I thought that only worked like that if the father was Muslim? That's which way the wind blows on that kind of thing. I didn't know it went to the mother's religion as well.

[–]Doriphor 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh wow that's even more ridiculous than parents deciding their children's religion.

[–]Proteus_Marius 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this, in all actuality true?

[–]JebberJabber -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The mother has primary custody and the father sees the child every second weekend.

I don't know British law or common practise but it may be that decisions on major things like religion, choice of school etc are shared equally between the parents, or it may be that the parent with primary custody makes those decisions. If it is the latter then the non-custodial parent has no right to subvert those decisions.

If for most ex-couples major decisions are shared, that does not mean they are in all cases. Where parents have strong disagreements and can not compromise effectively it would be in the child's interests to have the input of one parent extinguished, because the actual choices are less important than that the choices are consistent and that the parents are not constantly at war.

I'm very sympathetic to the father here but the court either has recognised the matter as one to be decided by the primary parent; or else they are on equal footing and the court accepts the boy is Muslim, his particular branch of the Muslim faith is extremely hostile to contact with other faiths, and that the boy will receive undue pressure if contact with Christians is allowed.

This is not a matter of father's rights, the court is only allowed to consider the interest of the child.

[–]thehenkan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is the truth. People can downvote and disagree with Mr JJ here all they want, and system too for that matter, but this is how the world works at the moment. The primary caretaker has final say in all decisions regarding the child, if nothing else is agreed upon.

In this case the court sees the mother and the child as the family, while the father is just a person who happens to have biological ties to the child, as well as visitation rights. The court sees him as a disruption in their family peace, since he is trying to undo the mother's fostering.

I dislike the fact that the father doesn't have shared custody just as much as the next guy, but for some reason we are unaware of, he doesn't. Therefore he doesn't necessarily have a say in how his son is raised, unfortunately.

Please stop it with the conspiracy theories, people. Everything cannot be controlled by Muslims, Jews, Illuminati and the Freemasons at the same time.

[+]Krissam -21 points-20 points-19 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Or maybe the judge banned it because he feels every child should be banned from going to church.

[+][deleted] 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]-er 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Suicide bomber in the making.

[–]dominotw 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea seems asinine to take your kids to some garbage indoctrination centers. But I guess thats besides the point.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Both indoctrination centres should cancel each other out.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter