Are physical attacks on children a necessary part of Christian parenting? I am no Christian, so I can't claim to be an expert; but I certainly wouldn't have thought so.

This, however, is precisely the line that has been argued in London's High Court by lawyers acting for the Liverpool-based Christian Fellowship School. The school claims the backing of more than 40 similar schools in its challenge to the British laws outlawing corporal punishment in schools. They also claim Biblical backing for the beating of children, and argue that the government is denying them the right to practice their religion. The judge, Mr Justice Elias, has reserved judgement in the case. He will announce his decision within the next few weeks.

During the High Court hearing last week, the school's counsel John Friel drew attention to verses in the Bible that, he claimed, specifically emphasised the necessity of physical punishment. He cited two verses from the Book of Proverbs:
'He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him'

Proverbs 13:24 and
'Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die. Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death.'

23:13

It seems to me that Mr Friel was being rather selective with his Bible quotes. Strangely, he didn't mention Deuteronomy 21:18-21:
'If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son... bring him unto the elders of his city... And all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you...'.

Nor did he invoke Deuteronomy 28:53, which reads like the gospel according to Hannibal Lecter:
'And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.'

Perhaps he thought that calls for capital punishment or cannibalism might weaken the schools' case.

Personally, I see no reason why some children should have less legal protection from physical assault than others. Tony Blair is very keen on 'faith-based' schools. I'm not, and this case illustrates some of the reasons why.

There are plenty of other reasons to be wary of religious schools. Catering to only one section of the community, teaching children that their parents' truth is the only truth, they're socially divisive. Even as an unbeliever, I'd agree that there is much to be said for teaching children about the different faiths that are followed around the world; that promotes understanding of others. However, sectarian education does just the opposite, as recent events in Northern Ireland have demonstrated to a horrifying degree.

I myself went to a Church of England school, and I think it did much to make me into the Godless liberal degenerate you know and tolerate today. Once I realised what a narrow, partisan view of the world I'd been taught to support, I reacted against that view with the anger of one who feels that he's been deceived by those he trusted - in this case, the teachers.

But I don't think that kids should have to go through the same kind of indoctrination followed by disturbing disillusionment that I experienced; and I don't think that anyone should be allowed to beat children black and blue and then blame it on the Bible. I hope that Mr Justice Elias will take the same view.

The relationship between American citizens and guns often tends to be pretty bewildering to those of us on the other side of the Atlantic. But I do think I can understand the psychological undercurrents behind one particular news story this week that might, on the face of it, seem to make little sense.

Recently-published statistics have shown that, since September 11, applications for licences to carry a concealed weapon have soared all over the USA. In October 2001, Colorado officials conducted more than three times the number of background checks for concealed-weapons permits in October 2000. One Colorado sheriff has waived the usual licence fee of $100, and asked applicants to donate the money to the funds for the victims of the September 11 attacks. South Dakota officials have reported that the number of applications has been about 25 per cent above normal, and sizeable increases have also been reported in states such as Texas, Washington and Oklahoma.

This news has, naturally, delighted the National Rifle Association, those tireless defenders of the American way of violent death. Their executive director Wayne LaPierre has commented:
'People want to be safe, and they don't want to be left defenceless, and they want to cope with their fear of an unknown future with protection rather than without.'

He's probably right - but of course, the idea that gun ownership can actually provide much protection from the terrorist threat is sadly deluded. There's something very poignant about this response to the new, more threatening world that we've all had to get used to. Gun control advocate Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed in the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, has observed:
'There's no evidence thus far that this has been a street battle. It's been on the scale of large attacks and, in that respect, I think that this response doesn't match the reality'.

Mr Mauser is, of course, absolutely right. Membership of the NRA wouldn't have helped any of those who were luckless enough to be in the World Trade Centre when the towers collapsed - and a gun can't stop anthrax. But a gun can act as a kind of deadly security blanket, for citizens of a nation whose people can no longer feel quite so safe and confident as they did in that lost age of relative innocence that ended forever on September 11.

One can only hope that no new indirect victims of the September atrocities will be created as a result of these nervous new gun owners with their fingers twitching on shiny new triggers.

First the good news: an element of democracy is to be introduced into the ancient affront to people power known as the House of Lords. Now the bad news: the UK government still doesn't trust us ordinary British mortals enough to let us choose more than one-fifth of the membership of the upper House of Parliament. No matter how much Tony Blair may boast of Britain's 'special relationship' with the United States, it seems that he looks at the USA's two elected national assemblies and thinks: 'Not on my patch'.

To be fair, the government proposals published this week do represent a step in the right direction. They will finally rid the House of Lords of hereditary peers - the people whose 'right' to affect the legislation the rest of us have to live by derives solely from their parentage. That change is very welcome, even if it is about 500 years overdue.

But only 20 per cent of the membership of the new-look Lords will be elected by the public. 60 per cent will be appointed by the major political parties, while the remaining 20 per cent will be 'cross-benchers' with no party affiliation, chosen by a supposedly impartial independent commission. The non-political appointees will include 16 Church of England bishops instead of the current 26, but will also include more representatives of other faiths (though no-one there specifically to represent the views of unbelievers when the bishops preach their dogma. Why not?) The political parties' lists of nominees will have to include a minimum of 30 per cent women, and there are also vague promises of 'far greater representation' for ethnic minorities.

These changes are generally fairly worthy as far as they go. But they're also pretty timid, especially in the matter of the proportion of the members of this House of Parliament that is to be elected by the people. It seems likely that the upper House is going to remain much as it is today: operating to a large extent as a kind of retirement home for elderly politicians who haven't upset too many powerful people.

For non-UK readers, I should perhaps explain that Britain's upper House of Parliament is nowhere near as powerful as the US Senate. It cannot, ultimately, block legislation if the elected House of Commons is determined to override it.

But it can make a nuisance of itself by delaying legislation. It can propose amendments to new laws, and demand that the MPs in the Commons vote on them again up to three times before the will of the Commons finally prevails. In recent years, it has repeatedly thwarted the Blair administration's plans to change UK laws that discriminate against homosexuals, and to make hunting with dogs illegal.

So the composition of the upper House does matter. And while Mr Blair has told us that the current war in Afghanistan is being conducted to defend democracy, it seems that he and his government don't want too much of the stuff too close to home.

The British government's Department for Education and Skills has recently been doing its damnedest to attract more people into the teaching profession. Huge amounts of money have been spent on advertising on television, in magazines and on billboards, trying to bring home the message that teaching is a wonderful and rewarding career - as I'm sure it can be.

But imagine, if you will, the embarrassment that was caused when an official from the Teacher Training Agency, the body responsible for organising teacher training in Britain, looked at a recruitment poster on the London Underground and noticed that it read exactly like this:

'No other profession makes a difference to so many young peoples lives.'

I'm sure that many people's lives were made a misery as the investigation into what happened to the missing apostrophe went ahead. The advertising copywriters responsible for the slogan obviously hadn't listened to their English teachers when they were in school. The posters were hastily withdrawn, at considerable expense.

The Teacher Training Agency receives £400 million in public funding each year. If they'd like to spend a tiny fraction of that sum on employing a proof reader, I'm available.

Ormondroyd

08.11.01. Front Page

Back Issue Page