Commentators

Showers (AM and PM) 5° London Hi 10°C / Lo 5°C

Christina Patterson: A tale of bleeding hearts and bleeding backs

If parents have the right to believe what they like, children have the right to be taught that certain things are wrong

Saturday, 30 August 2008

Where I live, you can tell the different tribes of children from their clothes. The African children, marching nicely behind their parents, are kitted out in little suits and frilly satin dresses, like some kind of Strictly Come Dancing for tiny tots, except that the show is Strictly Come to Church or Mama Will Give You a Big Wallop. The Muslim children look as though they've stepped straight out of a nativity play, in long robes with little lacy caps (for boys) and little head-scarfs (for girls). And the Hasidic Jewish children, whey-faced and dark-eyed, look like extras from Fiddler on the Roof.

For the children on the council estates – white, black and mixed race – there is one choice only: the track-suit bottom, unisex, universal, uni-size, accessorised with a hooded top. And then there's the biggest tribe of all, or at least the one that makes its presence most acutely felt. These are the yawning, whining, screaming little Lord Fauntleroys, with long curls and long shorts, sipping mango smoothies and scattering the crumbs of their banana muffins on the floor; while their parents hone their novels and their blogs.

You can't tell everything from clothes, of course. You might guess that the little Jewish boy with the ringlets and the skull-cap had his fore-skin removed a week after his birth, and his first ceremonial haircut at three. You might guess that the little black girl in the frilly dress is made to say her prayers before she goes to bed and that the little boy in the long shorts is warmly encouraged to eat his organic broccoli. And you might guess that the boy in the long robe and the lacy cap has been learning to recite the Koran. What you probably wouldn't be able to guess, however, is whether he has been told to flog himself with sharp, curved blades on a bundle of chains.

This is what happened to two boys in Manchester earlier this year. At a Shia ceremony in a community centre to mark the death of the Prophet Mohammed's grandson, a 44-year-old warehouse supervisor, Syed Zaidi, handed the zanjeer (yes, this handy religious instrument is mass produced and has a name) to a 13-year-old boy and his 15-year-old brother and told them to use it. "This is part of our religion," he said. "It was an emotional time and the children were happy."

Actually, the children were slightly less happy by the time they got home, with serious bleeding and multiple slash wounds, and by the time they were taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary. Their mother wasn't too happy either and the result – a British legal first – is that Zaidi was convicted on Wednesday on two counts of child cruelty. "This," said Carol Jackson of the Crown Prosecution Service, "is a very unusual case."

It may be an unusual case, but it's hardly the first time that extreme religious belief has resulted in cruelty to children. Now that the "misery memoir" has become a cliché of contemporary publishing, it's worth remembering that many of the most significant accounts of childhood misery have been associated with religious repression. One of the first, and still one of the best, is Edmund Gosse's account of his evangelical childhood, Father and Son. Here, among many descriptions of his parents' attempts to control every aspect of his life – including a funny, but poignant incident with an "idolatrous" Christmas pudding – one of the saddest is his simple assertion that "I had not the faintest idea how to 'play'."

The hardships that Gosse endured did not, however, involve physical violence. In Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's Purple Hibiscus (a novel, but based, she has said, on the stories of people she knew) the charismatic Catholic patriarch actually breaks his children's bones. And in Memoir, one of hundreds of books chronicling brutal Irish Catholic childhoods, John McGahern writes of a life in which sudden physical blows were followed by sudden instructions to bow down in front of a crucifix (a fetishisation of extreme violence if ever there was one) and pray. "Authority's writ ran from God the Father down and could not be questioned," he says. "Violence reigned... in the homes as well."

We live in a country in which the proliferation of schools established only to impose particular sets of religious prejudices on young children unable to know, or seek, better is encouraged. Like everything else, it's about "choice". If a bleeding heart in school assembly is the price that little Chloe pays for her straight As, then so be it. Her bleeding-heart-liberal parents can treat it as a joke. And if little Mohammed is taught about jihad, and that unveiled little Chloe is a slut, well, that's just up to the parents, isn't it?

No, it isn't. In this country – whose state religion, incidentally, rarely did anyone any harm, except a bit of boredom on a Sunday morning – we should do better. If parents have the right to believe what they like, their children have the right to an education that teaches them that certain things are wrong, and that, as Edmund Gosse says in Father and Son, it is "a human being's privilege to fashion his inner life for himself".

c.patterson@independent.co.uk

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

16 Comments

Nobody has tackled Ivan's fallacies yet. They are possibly too inane to be worth the effort but anyway.

Atheism is a belief? OK, I will scream the following:

NOT COLLECTING STAMPS IS A HOBBY!

That atheism is a belief is believed only by people who believe the absurd.

Many people have tried the nasty atheist argument too. Stalin et al espoused particular ideologies almost indistinguishable from aggressive religion. The record for mass murder, though, is still held by the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, a bunch of Christians.

Posted by Aiken | 05.09.08, 19:39 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Ivan, I've got a nasty fairy infection at the bottom of my garden. Can you offer any advice on how I can sort it out?

Posted by Mark | 05.09.08, 19:12 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

this article is not saying we should teach children to be athiests, its saying we should give them an environment that allows them to decide what they want to be for themselves, which i completely agree with. if more children were raised that way, being educated about the options but not forced into any, i think we would have a generation of more tolerant, respectful and well-balanced individuals.

Posted by Lina | 31.08.08, 17:42 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

"The problem is not the belief in a Supreme Being but invented religious doctrine. Everything from the rehashed tale of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish that thousands of points of comparison show is the derivation of Genesis to the invented version of Christian teachings by Paul"

You've been watching too much of Robert Beckford's documentaries...

In case U haven't noticed, he has been using AN AWFUL LOT OF "You know what I think? I think this, I THINK that, I believe this, I believe that..."

There's not much SCIENCE involved in a documentary that is riddled with "I think this, I think that..."

Be wary of "scientists" or "scholars" who use a lot of "I think this, i think that..."

Posted by Ivan | 30.08.08, 18:48 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

The problem is not the belief in a Supreme Being but invented religious doctrine. Everything from the rehashed tale of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish that thousands of points of comparison show is the derivation of Genesis to the invented version of Christian teachings by Paul and there is even very strong evidence,( which many do not acknowledge out of fear) recently collated in Turkey, that the majority of the Hadiths have no historical provenance and were mostly added later. There is no evidence of the apostolic succession, only lots of spin, none of which stands up to scrutiny, and therefore no justification for Papal infallability or the doctrine of contraception or the celibacy of priests, which appears to have been the root cause of distress to so many children. What there does seem to be extensive evidence of, is a campaign,partly supported by a cabal within the Govt. of extreme discrimination, almost to the level of hate against evolutionary science, and the non religious.

Posted by Keith | 30.08.08, 18:17 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Being an atheist I agree mostly with this article but the contention that the Church of England ('state religion' of 'this country' - presumably she means England) was and is some benign force in comparison to other branches of Christianity or other religions is not only false but probably racist (I'm not up on these pc matters).

Posted by NellieF | 30.08.08, 16:42 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Ivan - I do not hate God because he does not exist. If you could provide any evidence to the contrary I'll be delighted and may well become a god-loving queer depending on how fit he is.

Posted by God botherer | 30.08.08, 13:33 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

"We live in a country in which the proliferation of schools established only to impose particular sets of religious prejudices on young children unable to know, or seek, better is encouraged."

ATHEISM is ALSO a BELIEF.

HAVING NO PROOF that "there is no God" - yet choosing to live his/her life as if there really is no God above them - EVERY ATHEIST CAN ONLY BE A BELIEVER.

Every atheist hase made a decision - based on his/her BELIEF that "there is no God".

Posted by Ivan | 30.08.08, 13:28 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

More totally appropriate and very welcome nostalgia for the Dear Old Church of England, in which even regular communicants could believe pretty much whatever they wanted and even Bishops frowned on undue "enthusiasm".

My Irish cousins with their terrifying religious neuroses - the conviction that the Virgin Mary, in particular, kept an eye ever-open to spot female wantonness, for example - had beliefs which seemed appropriate to the Stone Age whenever I met them and they told me about what they were told to believe and what to shun.

This was mixed up with Irish Nationalism and a conspicuously lower standard of living in those days.

Grim punishments awaited sinners on both sides of the grave. Fallen women were turned into industrial serfs in primitive laundries and were shunned, their very existance airbrushed from the family histories.

All of which is to say that Lord Melbourne was right! A little religion is pleasing but too much is a VERY BAD THING.

Posted by Bill Corr | 30.08.08, 13:06 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Sorry Ivan @ 11.06 just a quick comment - I am not your mate.

Posted by Peersrogue | 30.08.08, 12:17 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

16 Comments

Columnist Comments

steve_richards

Steve Richards: Damian Green will soon be forgotten

Cameron’s speech, though good, was upstaged by Brown’s mortgage coup.

matthew_norman

Matthew Norman: A written constitution is the answer

Jacqui Smith is Brown’s lightning rod when it’s the PM we should be frazzling

john_rentoul

John Rentoul: Thanks Queen, but it's about the Budget

The Queen's Speech never has a theme, New Labour has never fabricated one.