Responding to the death of Victoria Climbié in 2003, the Laming Report stated that cultural differences should never again be a factor in inadequate child protection. Yet since that time there have been further deaths of children involving exorcism and allegations of witchcraft, based in part on particular understandings of Christianity. Situations resulting in forced marriage, cliterodectomy, 'honour' killing and corporal punishment are practices often perceived as arising from religious belief, both by those who defend them and by critics. This article explores practices perceived as grounded in religious belief or culture that conflict with current child protection practice and norms about what is harmful to children. The role of religious education, rights to manifest religious belief and different understandings of adoption are also considered as examples of religious difference in understandings about children. Engagement with religious difference through a defence of children's rights and autonomy are proposed as one means to resolve conflicts between religious worldviews and what it means to protect children. The aim is to identify and foster reflection and debate about different understandings of what constitutes harm, in order to enhance consensus over child protection where views of what is harmful differ radically. 1

The recent judgment in Re Holy Trinity Horwich in Manchester Consistory Court raises some interesting questions about the interpretation of mission in the application of the Bishopsgate questions. Thanks to the tests posed by the Bishopsgate questions, arising from the cases of Re St Helen Bishopsgate and Re St Luke the Evangelist Maidstone, the law governing faculty applications requires that the status quo be preserved in cases of church buildings with ‘special architectural and historical interest’ unless outweighed by the ‘necessity’ of ‘the pastoral well-being of the parish or some other compelling reason’.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract