Family Life

Jehovah’s Witnesses love their families. They believe that God created the family arrangement to be a source of happiness and fulfillment. They also believe that the Bible contains timeless wisdom that can assist them to build strong family ties and to train their children to become balanced adults and model citizens.1 They teach their children values that Japanese society as a whole also values: honesty, diligence, consideration, and respect.

Jehovah’s Witnesses see their children as precious gifts from God and take seriously their responsibility to care for their children’s physical, emotional, and spiritual needs. The religious teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses include Bible principles to help parents make their children feel loved and secure. Witness parents educate their children and teach them moral values, with a view to equipping them for adult life and preparing them to be happy and productive members of society.

Education authorities from around the world confirm that Jehovah’s Witness parents are caring and loving parents and that their children are model students. The following are just a few of many such examples.

“… All Jehovah’s Witness parents who have children in our school are dedicated and constantly collaborate with the staff of the teachers for the education of their children. … Children who support the faith of their Jehovah Witness parents are exemplary and with excellent results.”—Principal, Tirana Primary School, Albania

“The parents take an active role in the education of their children, ensuring the children complete their homework, attend school events such as parent/teacher meetings and support the school’s initiatives. In all cases, the parents have been emotionally nurturing and caring, maintaining a stable dynamic in the home.”—Headmaster, ISF Waterloo International School, Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium

“… anyone who has taken a closer look at the actual life of the “Witnesses” knows that the upbringing of the children of “Witnesses” is not only non-violent, but on the contrary, takes place in a loving and caring manner … The children of “Witnesses” are guided by a high ethos. … Jehovah’s Witnesses live, as far as they possibly can, in accordance with their values on education, and peacefully, and are politically neutral. This is exactly the opposite of extremism or of manipulation.”— Professor Emeritus Dr. Werner W. Ernst, Institute of Political Science, University of Innsbruck, Austria

“… we can say with certainty that Jehovah’s Witness students are exemplary students, ready for classes, ready for help and collaboration. Both children and parents are respectful and educated, not entering in conflicts of any kind. … The parents of these children are always open to collaboration, they are interested in their children, in their successes, always taking care of them … From experience we state that it is a pleasure to collaborate with children and parents who belong to the religious community of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”—Headmaster, “Mihail Sadoveanu” Public School, Cupcini, Edinet, Moldova

“My experiences with this group have been consistently positive. I have found that those I have encountered over the years have been diligent in their studies, achieved good results, and have been pleasant in their interactions with me as their teacher … they contribute to a positive atmosphere among their classmates and are appreciated by other teachers and staff at the faculty.”—University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden

The ECHR has repeatedly confirmed that it is entirely lawful for parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses (and, by extension, parents belonging to other religions) to provide their children with religious education. In Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia,2 the ECHR ruled:

“As long as there is no evidence of abuse, violence or unlawful coercion, decisions about whether to give a child a religious or non-religious education, whether to involve him or her in sports, science, arts or music, whether to provide unstructured free time or a strict daily routine, and whether to keep company with like-minded people, are to be made exclusively by the child’s parents or, as the case may be, the custodial parent. Such decisions fall within the sphere of the private and family life which is protected from unjustified State interference. It follows that what was taken by the Russian courts to constitute impermissible involvement of minors was in fact a manifestation of the parents’ beliefs in their private lives in the sense protected by [freedom of religion].”

Courts in Japan and around the world have reached the same conclusion.

“… We live in a tolerant society. There is no reason at all why the mother should not espouse the beliefs and practice of Jehovah’s Witnesses … Many families bring up their children as Jehovah’s Witnesses and the children are good members of the community …”—Court of Appeal, Britain (1981)

“The courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, have not found the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses negative to the public or to the government (see Roncarelli v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, 16 D.L.R. (2d) 689 [Que.]; Saumur v. Quebec (City), [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, 106 C.C.C. 289, [1953] 4 D.L.R. 641). Nor have courts found that the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses cause actual harm to children. Specific examples abound.”
—Newfoundland Supreme Court (Trial Division), Canada (1988)

“The U.S. Constitution flatly prohibits any court from evaluating the merits of religious doctrine or defining the contents of that doctrine.… While activities like celebrating birthdays and holidays, saying the Pledge of Allegiance, and participating in extracurricular activities are considered by most people to play an important role in the socialization of children, ‘we need to separate the value judgments implicit in the so-called norm from any actual harm caused by these practices.’”—Court of Appeals of Nebraska, USA (1995)

“… it cannot be said that [the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses] will be harmful to social life, and since it is for the children themselves who decide whether or not to adopt the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it cannot be said the [mother] is unfit to be the guardian of the children simply because she is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”—Nagoya High Court, March 11, 1998, no. 1997 (Ne) No. 299, Japan

“… discrimination between parents on the ground of their different religion … cannot be accepted: the differences in parents’ ideology cannot be of prejudicial consequence for either of the parents, and should not be evaluated neither to their advantage nor to their detriment.”
—Supreme Court of Hungary (1997)

“… a parent’s affiliation with Jehovah’s Witnesses is not a criterion for deeming them unsuitable for sole custody. It is incompatible with the fundamental right of freedom of belief and confession to deny a parent the suitability to exercise parental care solely because of their religious affiliation.”—Higher Regional Court of Koblenz, Germany (2000)

“… we cannot accept that a parent would take advantage of the other’s membership to “the Jehovah’s Witnesses” to accept de plano that their common child should be removed from the influence of such other … deciding otherwise would be tantamount to allowing that individuals, acting alone or as a pressure group, to call any minority group within a religion or philosophy a “sect” … such an approach would, consciously or not, lead to totalitarianism that would threaten the freedom of conscience of a minority.”—Court of Appeal of Montpellier, France (2001)

“… In a multicultural and “liberal” society such as the Italian one in the years 2000 it must admitted that there are increasingly widespread minorities refusing to be culturally standardized; there are individuals, who because of their religious creed or their secular principles, may not be interested in playing football, may disapprove the merrymaking atmosphere of some annual festivals and so forth, or, like in the case of other religious groups, celebrating Christmas (Orthodox), New Year (Confucians), fasting for a month (Muslims) on days other than those established by the Gregorian calendar, or who require either for religious or secular reasons special eating habits (vegetarians, vegans and gatherers) without this having to harm a minor’s growth.”—Court of Appeal of Naples, Italy (2018)

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, both ratified by Japan, also guarantee that parents have the right to provide their children with a balanced religious education.

For example, Professor Zermatten explains that Articles 5 and 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child confirm the primary role of parents in providing education (including religious education) to the child, according to the child’s developing capacities: (Annex 2, pp. 7-11)

“… Article 5 CRC [Convention on the Rights of the Child] … deals with respect for the rights and duties of parents and their responsibility to guide and advise their children. Parental rights are therefore geared towards the realization of children’s rights and the development of their capacities. … the parent-child relationship is at the heart of Article 5 CRC … a conception of parenthood based on respect for children’s progressive capacities, on parent-child collaboration and thus on mutual trust. Parents are no longer considered as holders of exclusive rights over their child, but as holders of duties towards their child, respecting the enjoyment and exercise of their rights as children as set out in the CRC.

Secondly, Article 18 CRC, which deals with parental responsibilities (and not parental rights), establishes the equal responsibility of the child’s parents for the upbringing and development of the child. This norm complements Article 5 CRC by directly conferring on parents the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child, emphasizing that parental decisions must always be made with the child’s best interests in mind. … Article 18 CRC does not prioritize the rights of parents’ rights over children’s rights, but instead asserts the primacy of “parents and other primary caregivers” over the State, not over the child. In so doing, the CRC bestows an obligation on States to respect the role of parents by refraining from arbitrary interference in exercising parental responsibility.”

“It is important to note that this right … parents are seen as shapers of the child’s visions and identity. Their participation in the construction of the child’s religious personality is essential.”

“To go further in the relationship between children’s rights and parents’ rights, we need to link Article 14 CRC to Article 18.4 ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], which provides that the States partiesm “… Undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.” For my part, I read Article 14.2 CRC and Article 18.4 ICCPR as a kind of continuum. They are not mutually exclusive but complementary. We could also speak of the rights of children and parents being in a relationship of principal right to accessory right …”

Professor Bielefeldt reaches the same conclusion concerning the right of parents to provide religious education to their children, as guaranteed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All of this is also guaranteed by Articles 14, 20, and 28 of the Constitution. Professor Shibutani explains in his expert opinion: (Expert Opinion by Heiner Bielefeldt, pp. 3, 5-6)

“Article 26 of the Constitution clearly stipulates only the duty of parents to educate their children. However, even without such a provision, it is a natural law obligation, so to speak. On the other hand, parents have the freedom to educate their children in accordance with their own educational policy, and this freedom is a natural assumption even if the Constitution does not mention it explicitly. … In Japan, Article 820 of the Civil Code clearly states this point: “The person who exercises parental authority has the right and the duty to take care of and educate the child for the child’s benefit.””

“The parents have the right to educate their children according to their own educational policy as described above. The education provided by parents to their children has the aspect of economic freedom in the sense that it imparts knowledge and skills for the children to become economically independent in society. However, it also has the aspect of psychological freedom in the sense that it imparts ways of seeing and thinking for the children to become mentally autonomous in society. In the end, additionally, it is the parents’ responsibility to provide their children with the education they need. In other words, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that it has a “truly compelling interest” in restricting and intervening in the process.

Furthermore, parents have the constitutionally guaranteed right to their children’s education in the first place, and the government (the national government) has only the authority to assist and in some cases supplement this right in the second place.”

Likewise, Professor Ravitch concludes that in violation of Article 20 of the Constitution, the Q&A Guidelines “tramples directly on parents’ rights to raise their children.” With respect to international law, Professor Ravitch refers to the 2015 report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief, which explains the rights of parents under international law to provided religious education to their children, and concludes that “the Q&A guidelines … violate almost every principle set forth in the UN Special Rapporteur’s report.” (Expert Opinion by Frank S. Ravitch, pp. 20, 24)

Accordingly, the Constitution, international treaties, and decisions from courts worldwide all confirm that Witness parents, as with all parents, have the right and responsibility to share their beliefs with their child, all the while taking into account the child’s developing capacities.

The results of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Japan—A Quantitative Study confirm that Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach that parents should allow “children to freely express their point of view” and should adjust “to their children’s changing needs as they mature”.

In summary, the evidence and jurisprudence amply show that the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses are entirely lawful and consistent with a child’s best interests.