Bible and Spanking Children

[Stig]

Loki wrote:

Let me quote again what Stig wrote:


If Stig has said "I have never physically punished her for anything she has done" your comment would be warranted. Stig didn't say that. He said she has never been punished physically.

This simply cannot be true. Let me give 3 specific reasons why this is not true.

1- If she has ever been with other kids, and she was hit, pushed, stepped on, biten, punched, scratched, etc. by any other kid because of any action she did, she was punished phisically. (the most common example is when fighting over a toy)

2- If she was ever running too fast or not right or any other motion that when against the laws of phisics (with regards to her physical proctection) and she fell, bumped into something. She was punished phisically for her actions (it hurt her phisically to violate these laws)

3- If someone else was in motion and she was not aware of how to avoid contact. She was also punished phisically. Just like you or I would be *punished* if we ran a red light without paying attention and got into an accident.

You have really screwed up here. You have taken the argument completely out of context. The discussion is about hitting your child. Not "Your child falling over by accident and learning from running too fast"

What a poor argument

Stig

 

[Christian]

Stig wrote:
The discussion is about hitting your child. Not "Your child falling over by accident and learning from running too fast"

Ok, let's see if I can explain the connection here. By the same principles that a child learns when hurting herself by running too fast, we can use corporal punishment. This is the argument.

I hope you will at least listen to the argument before stating it is poor.

 

[Valmorian]

Stig wrote:
The discussion is about hitting your child. Not "Your child falling over by accident and learning from running too fast"

Ok, let's see if I can explain the connection here. By the same principles that a child learns when hurting herself by running too fast, we can use corporal punishment. This is the argument.

I hope you will at least listen to the argument before stating it is poor.

I don't think anyone is denying that corporal punishment WORKS. That's not the issue.

The question is whether it is justified.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

(Loki wrote) :Are you saying that *you* believe that corporal punishment is
1. the preferred method for disciplining a child?
2. approved and encouraged by the bible?

2 is correct.

(Mossi wrote): What is acceptable? Is it the biblical rod?

Yes, the rod is correct.

Just wanted to be clear - you have unambiguously stated that beating a child with a rod is (a)acceptable and (b) approved and encouraged by the bible. You add the qualifier that such an action is okay only if the degree of beating matches the 'crime' - if the beating goes "too far" then it becomes abuse. I don't see that I can add much to this, Christian - your basic stance is so far removed from my own personal experiences that I doubt we have much common ground here (again!).

However, I'm interested to hear your justification for why a beating with a rod is suitable discipline. I hope there's more to it than "the bible says so" - perhaps you should explain the "methodology of how Christians should administer corporal punishment", and how exactly this methodology has been derived and tested?

One question - at what age is a beating with a rod applicable? Four? Two? Six months?

Oh, and pure curiousity forces me to ask - why is a hand not suitable?

I don't want to think you are giving all these explanations to justify your insults. But I will explain further.

If someone said. "No, man has ever touched my penis". And someone else said "this is not true". The correct response to that, would be to ask why not or how so not true.

The person saying not true wants to create an a Socratic effect of, "I see what you mean after the response.

You have blown it completely out of proportion. And have not let me explain why I say this.

The point Christian is that this is a common trait of your posts - you make short statements that declare something (often apparently controversial) and offer *no* explanation whatsoever. A response (often angry) is then posted, and only then do you bother to explain. There seems to be three main possible explanations for this style of posting :

1. You are deliberately seeking to provoke a response. You make a short statement that you believe you can back up, but you choose not to offer the explanation. You wait until the 'bait' is taken before you spring your trap. If this is what you are doing, it is self-defeating, since often your explanation actually involves changing the nature or 'tone' of the conversation.

2. You do not realise that your short comments can be taken as an insult. I guess this is possible, since you seem to have a worldview that occasionally differs greatly from the majority of posters here.

3. You assume that the explanation you have in mind is either obvious or well lnonw, and therefore doesn't need to be stated. Again, given the sometimes vast differences in worldviews I'd advise you to stop assuming that everyone else knows what you mean.

Children in some instances must experience physical pain.

I would dispute this from purely personal experience, but I admit that there's always a danger in trying to generalise. My children are never forced to suffer physical pain for misbehaviour.

One thing I would add to your comments - I believe that hitting a child sends *two* messages. The first is "my behaviour has brought me pain". The second is "physical force is a valid solution to (some) everyday issues". It's the second that I have real problems with - I certainly don't want my daughter to grow up believing that any man in her life has the right, under any circumstances whatsoever, to use physical force against her. I think you tread a *very* fine line when you seek to send the first message but not the second. But I guess that's where you assume the "methodology" comes into play, right?

 

[Paradox]

Very much so. Children in some instances must experience physical pain.

That is fundamentally sadistic, no matter which way you twist it. (Unless you're using that nifty 'must' word again when you really mean 'will'. )

Paradox wrote:
Um...I may be reading this wrong (feel free to correct me if I am)...are you saying that you don't consider any study on corporal punishment not done by a christian to be fruitless/unobjective (to you)?

No, I'm not saying this. The incorrect assumption is that children are like animal in the sense that they cannot make a mental construct of the why.

You contradict you position here. By saying they are capable of making a mental construct, it is even more the reason to defer to verbal explanations for mistakes, rather than abuse (aka spanking, if you actually fancy a difference between the two).

Paradox wrote:
In this case, by virtue of having been a kid, everyone is at least partially informed. If no one has, according to you, as of yet provided 'specific points', what would these be?

The methodology of how Christians should administer corporal punishment.

Are you saying that christians are/should be permitted to castigate their children in ways that would otherwise be considered abusive?

Paradox wrote:
Methodology of what? The studies? Of spanking itself?

Of corporal punishment.

Well, which is it? First it's chrsitians', now it is 'in general'.

Paradox wrote:
For what reasons? Are you saying you would feel inadequate to raise a child without spanking at your disposal? Are you saying the same holds true for everyone?

Correct on 1. Not true on the second.

Concerning 1, You don't see the as a shortcoming of yours? That other parents can raise perfectly healthy children without corporal punishment does not interest you in the least? It sounds like you prefer spanking for reasons other than disciplinary.

Paradox wrote:
We each deserve the respect we earn. Making presumptions about people's lives and, in effect, calling them liars to their faces is not the best way to go about amassing it.

Please sir, be decent and admit you were wrong.

That I was wrong or not shall be weighed by how many people interpreted your idiocy as the rude presumption it was. I need not admit to an error I didn't commit because your delusional notions have perceived it as such. I'm pretty damn sure you are alone on this.

I don't want to think you are giving all these explanations to justify your insults. But I will explain further.

If someone said. "No, man has ever touched my penis". And someone else said "this is not true". The correct response to that, would be to ask why not or how so not true.

Play ring-around-the-rosey with the your reconstructions of previous insults all you want. You're fooling no one.

If someone said. "No, man has ever touched my penis". And someone else said "this is not true". The correct response to that, would be to ask why not or how so not true.

The person saying not true wants to create an a Socratic effect of, "I see what you mean after the response.

You have blown it completely out of proportion. And have not let me explain why I say this.

You had your chance to explain it. I didn't buy your reasoning. Not that any of this really matters. What does matter is whether Stig was offended by your nonsense. If that is the case, it is to whom who you owe an apology.

I may be wrong in my views, but physical pain is central to the reason why I believe in corporal punishment. The specific example with other kids is also central in my justification. If you do stick around, we will probably get to that.

That you require pain as a tenet for child upbringing is disturbing. In any case, I may not get the chance to reply until later this evening, but I will still be following the thread.

Hey, maybe it is just that you have a very low tolerance for me, and any hint of impropriaty (spelling) generates from you the harshest response.

Actually, that is not the case. I just had never encountered so insulting a comment as yours, whatever intentions you desired or not aside. I could as easily construct such alibis for the words I used.

For instance: (hypothetically) ~When I used the term '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊' I was actually referring to the anatomical thing...as in, we all have one, of course. This, being directly related to the buttocks region, expressed, in a clever double entendre, my displeasure with spanking.~

Why it's not true no man has touched the penis. The doctor did when he was him out when he was born.

Then it seems I was on target when suggesting that you were setting a semantic trap. Unless one intends to provoke such hostility, one does not leave such otherwise obvious insults in plain view.

The person that gets the response understands that what they are telling him is that he overlooked a piece of information, not that he was being a liar.

In this case, the piece of information Stig was missing is central to the whole case for corporal punishment.

I fail to see how your pitfall in any way relates to the issues at hand, although I'm sure you'll find ways to string them together. If you could avoid intentionally setting mousetraps at the feet of the posters in the future, I'm sure it would do wonders for the progress of the debate.

Paradox wrote:
I'm sure this may not have occured to you, but that argument collapses when 'nature' is not considered a sentient entity

Cause and effect is the perfect teacher regardless of being sentient or not. Corporal punishment is a tool to teach just as bump on the head from a solid object is a teacher.

Again, you argument is one-dimensional. You decry the mental processed of the children when they suit your position, but you don't consider them to be sufficient enough that spanking is not necessary. You see (I feel almost silly having to explain this to you), 'cause and effect', 'the laws of physics' do not have voices. What they impart, they firstly do so without intent (something you cannot say for yourself), and they do so out of lack of any other alternative (something you also cannot say for yourself). Characterising inanimate forces with human desires is silly! Even more silly is the moral parallel you espouse between the indifferent acts of nature and those you may feel free to do! Hurricanes kill hundreds of people...I suppose, by this logic then, that Tim McVeigh had morality on his side?!

 

[Ed]

First off, negative reinforcement is a short term learning tool

Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Third: this quote

Proverbs 13:24(KJV): "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

Proverbs 13:24(AMP): "He who spares his rod (of discipline) hates his son, but he who loves him diligently disciplines and punishes him early.


"rod" in this case refers to the male genitalia and has been used by generations as a justification for pedophilia

Ummmmm are supposed to kill witches?

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
You add the qualifier that such an action is okay only if the degree of beating matches the 'crime' - if the beating goes "too far" then it becomes abuse.

No, this is not what I mean. The use of the word *beating* is loaded. I pefer to use corporal punishment (CP). There is no degree in the CP, CP is the same in all instances it is administered. When to use CP depends on the offense.


Loki wrote:
However, I'm interested to hear your justification for why a beating with a rod is suitable discipline. I hope there's more to it than "the bible says so" - perhaps you should explain the "methodology of how Christians should administer corporal punishment", and how exactly this methodology has been derived and tested?

It is a consequence of a particular *crime*. Dobson's "Dare to Discipline" explains it fairly well.

Loki wrote:
One question - at what age is a beating with a rod applicable? Four? Two? Six months?

CP is aplicable from age 3 to 8.

Loki wrote:
Oh, and pure curiousity forces me to ask - why is a hand not suitable?

1) The hand is not a neutral object.
2) The use of a specific object asures that the method will be correct
3) The ritual is the most important part of CP. The rod is part of this ritual.

Loki wrote:
The point Christian is that this is a common trait of your posts - you make short statements that declare something (often apparently controversial) and offer *no* explanation whatsoever. A response (often angry) is then posted, and only then do you bother to explain. There seems to be three main possible explanations for this style of posting :

1. You are deliberately seeking to provoke a response. You make a short statement that you believe you can back up, but you choose not to offer the explanation. You wait until the 'bait' is taken before you spring your trap. If this is what you are doing, it is self-defeating, since often your explanation actually involves changing the nature or 'tone' of the conversation.

2. You do not realise that your short comments can be taken as an insult. I guess this is possible, since you seem to have a worldview that occasionally differs greatly from the majority of posters here.

3. You assume that the explanation you have in mind is either obvious or well lnonw, and therefore doesn't need to be stated. Again, given the sometimes vast differences in worldviews I'd advise you to stop assuming that everyone else knows what you mean.

I'm trying to establish were exactly I have a disagreement, showing a point of focus. But fine, this is easely fixed. I'll take note of the observation for future posts.

Loki wrote:
One thing I would add to your comments - I believe that hitting a child sends *two* messages. The first is "my behaviour has brought me pain". The second is "physical force is a valid solution to (some) everyday issues". It's the second that I have real problems with - I certainly don't want my daughter to grow up believing that any man in her life has the right, under any circumstances whatsoever, to use physical force against her. I think you tread a *very* fine line when you seek to send the first message but not the second. But I guess that's where you assume the "methodology" comes into play, right?

Yes, this is were methodology comes into play.

Paradox wrote:
That is fundamentally sadistic, no matter which way you twist it. (Unless you're using that nifty 'must' word again when you really mean 'will'. )

It is not sadistic, no loving parent feels pleasure in this.

Paradox wrote:
You contradict you position here. By saying they are capable of making a mental construct, it is even more the reason to defer to verbal explanations for mistakes, rather than abuse (aka spanking, if you actually fancy a difference between the two).

Mental understanding is equivalent to verbal skills. This same argument could be used for thieves, don't you think? Instead of throwing them in jail, why don't we just give them motivational speeches?

Paradox wrote:
Are you saying that christians are/should be permitted to castigate their children in ways that would otherwise be considered abusive?

No.

Paradox wrote:
Well, which is it? First it's chrsitians', now it is 'in general'.

You lost me here.

Paradox wrote:
Concerning 1, You don't see the as a shortcoming of yours? That other parents can raise perfectly healthy children without corporal punishment does not interest you in the least? It sounds like you prefer spanking for reasons other than disciplinary.

No I do not. Many parents do, and that would not be inconsistent with my views on CP. CP depends on the type of child one has.

Paradox wrote:
That I was wrong or not shall be weighed by how many people interpreted your idiocy as the rude presumption it was. I need not admit to an error I didn't commit because your delusional notions have perceived it as such. I'm pretty damn sure you are alone on this.

I can see now that you are fond of this type treatment. If this is one of the way you use to feel superior, I can understand that. Yes Paradox, please forgive me for being and idiot. I was not blessed with your intellect or education.

With all the comments you have made, I have now understood the errors of my ways. I will not do it again, you have taught me a valuable lesson.

Ed wrote:
First off, negative reinforcement is a short term learning tool

Yes, this is why the whole penal system all over the world uses it.


Ed wrote:
Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Paradox, will you defend me too or do you think I deserve everything that's coming to me.

Oh, one quick question. When does my punishment become abuse? Or any transgression (you perceive) warrants whaever your heart desires.

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Actually, that is not the case. I just had never encountered so insulting a comment as yours.

True or not Stig, I apologize.

 

[Mossy]

Just to avoid potential confusion: Mossy is not dimossi

Mossy wrote:
Can you explain what you believe the difference between corporeal punishment (we're talking about parent->child here, not child->other child) and abuse is?

Abuse implies going beyond the limit. The fine for running a red light is $500 (assume). Abuse is to be fined $2,000.

Corporeal punishment is appropriate in certain instances. This punishment administered for the wrong offense is abuse, just as getting thrown in jail is abuse if you violation is being parked in a restricted area.

The granularity I was hoping to get to with this question was: specifically when does it become abuse (who defines that limit)? Do you believe that under some circumstances it would be okay to leave bruises on your child? Under some circumstances, would it be okay to make them bleed?

If these questions sound absurd to you (I'm honestly not sure if they do), then please take it as my attempt to get you to elaborate on what, specifically, would consitute abuse.

You have stated to Loki that CP is only appropriate for children between 3 and 8 years old. Two quick questions: how did you determine these ages - there is nothing in the Bible that limits CP to only 3-8 year olds, so why not with a newborn infant, or a 12 year old? Who set these limits?

Again, I'm attempting to get you to draw some clear lines. I can't pretend to draw any, because I don't see any difference between the varying degress of violence (other than the obvious, "one isn't as bad as the other" - which isn't exactly an advocacy).

Mossy wrote:
Then where do you draw the line?

Where do you draw the line of 90 days in jail versus 1 year in jail. There is specific criteria used here. The purpose of physical punishment is to create an effect. This effect can be created without any abuse involved.

Who defines the specific criteria concerning the difference between child abuse and "legitimate" corporeal punishment?

What is this specific criteria?

Mossy wrote:
What is acceptable? Is it the biblical rod?

Yes, the rod is correct.

You believe it is okay to hit a child with a stick (if you have a different/biblical definition for "rod", please clarify)? So apparently when you are talking about a specific criteria (above) and using analogies about other legal situations and punishments, you aren't implying that you agree with the legal definition.

Is there any legal definition of child abuse that excludes hitting your child with sticks?

-Ed

 

[Ed]

Ed wrote:
First off, negative reinforcement is a short term learning tool

Yes, this is why the whole penal system all over the world uses it.


sorry, I miss the point. Are you talking about incarceration or beating?


Ed wrote:
Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Paradox, will you defend me too or do you think I deserve everything that's coming to me.

Oh, one quick question. When does my punishment become abuse? Or any transgression (you perceive) warrants whaever your heart desires.

my belief is that an adult hitting a child is loathsome, regardless of imagined pretext.

It is about on a par with a husband chastizing his wife with a beating.

It illustrates a failure on the part of the parent/husband.

What ever happened to turn the other cheek, or does that refer to methodology.

 

[Paradox]

It is not sadistic, no loving parent feels pleasure in this.

If it doesn't give you pleasure to do it, and it is not fundamentally necessary, what is forcing your hand?

Mental understanding is equivalent to verbal skills. This same argument could be used for thieves, don't you think? Instead of throwing them in jail, why don't we just give them motivational speeches?

Do I really have to deconstruct an argument that parallels a child's mistake with crimes perpetrated by crooks?!

Paradox wrote:
Are you saying that christians are/should be permitted to castigate their children in ways that would otherwise be considered abusive?

No.

Okay. your reference to specifically christian instances confused me.

Paradox wrote:
Well, which is it? First it's chrsitians', now it is 'in general'.

You lost me here.

See above.

No I do not. Many parents do, and that would not be inconsistent with my views on CP. CP depends on the type of child one has.

Do you believe certain children are genetically predisposed towards 'naughtiness'?

I can see now that you are fond of this type treatment. If this is one of the way you use to feel superior, I can understand that. Yes Paradox, please forgive me for being and idiot. I was not blessed with your intellect or education.

With all the comments you have made, I have now understood the errors of my ways. I will not do it again, you have taught me a valuable lesson.

Do I take you seriously at your word this time, or do I try to dig for your actual intent as before? My purpose with this issue was not to be 'superior' in any way. I was concerned that a poster was assailed by what seemed to be a blatantly unfair remark. It is my opinion (although I may be wrong) that the way your worded your comment, it was near impossible not to take insultingly. Basic intellect and education would be able to pick this out. I have made no claim about mine.

I could care less if I 'win' or lose this sub-debate. I felt compelled to mention what I thought was a rude comment to a poster who had seemingly done nothing to deserve it. If you're telling me you honestly meant no ill by what you posted, I will trust your word. Do you at least see how easily those words could have been interpreted as offensive?

Ed wrote:
Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Paradox, will you defend me too or do you think I deserve everything that's coming to me.

No I don't think you 'deserve everything that's coming' to you. Although I don't think Ed's comment was necessarily directed at you. If you said, for instance "I love my child." and someone retorted with '◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊', I would have a problem. I'll admit that I would have a hard time reconciling said 'love' when pain is made an acceptable part of the relationship, but I would accept your sincerity.
I don't normally react that extremely, but I think it is evident what my reasons were.

Paradox wrote:
Actually, that is not the case. I just had never encountered so insulting a comment as yours.

True or not Stig, I apologize.

Taking for granted, then, that you honestly intended no insult to Stig, I apologize for the comments I made. I made careful notice to mention that I felt that particular comment of yours was what had prompted my reaction (not anything else). Although I did/do not agree with your position concerning the debate, I personally don't consider that to be an excuse for attacking someone. If your intent was not negative in the first place, then the comments don't even apply anyways. In any case, I extend my apologies.

Hopefully we can continue this discussion with, perhaps stern (considering the topic) but not hateful, sentiments.

 

[Smalso]

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son..."

So, if I don't beat the ◊◊◊◊ out of my son from time to time with a rod for crying out loud (whatever a "rod" is) then I hate my son. Interesting.

I note also that the quoted verse refers to father-son. Nothing is said about father-daughter, mother-daughter, or mother-son. And it certainly does not address teacher/principal-student.

If I come home from work tomorrow and smack the wife around, then tell the judge, "I was just expressing my love for her," I wonder how that would wash.

Sorry, but I just can't see how beating the crap out of somebody can be an expression of love. Seems sick to me.

 

[Stig]

Paradox wrote:
Actually, that is not the case. I just had never encountered so insulting a comment as yours.

True or not Stig, I apologize.

No worries. I may have taken what you meant the wrong way, but you must be careful how you word things sometimes. It is easy to misunderstand the written word at times....

Stig

 

[Christian]

I have a question.

This is directed to all non-Christians.

If you already know (in case you did not know) that the Christian position is that CP is correct. Why bring the subject up and insult Christian parenting?

I didn't bring the subject up. But these are the comments:
And please note that these are comments on a discipline practice that is done by Christian all over the world. (not that that makes it right or wrong) but that enough people practice it as to warrant a more respectful stance than the following.

Sorry, but I just can't see how beating the crap out of somebody can be an expression of love. Seems sick to me.

my belief is that an adult hitting a child is loathsome, regardless of imagined pretext.

Second, would any adult on this board justify inflicting violence on a child? Really? If you feel you have to strike, your parenting skills suck.

Now, if the matter is so clear cut and you have already decided on it. What is the purpose of bringing the subject up? Specially if it is known that it is a practice performed by most Christians.

Because of the strict adherence to protocol and respect in the thread, I would have to exclude the possibility that it is only brought up as bait so to have the excuse to insult and ridicule the practice thus insulting anyone who does practice it.

And again, I repeat, no atheist poster has demonstrated that they have a working knowledge of the Christian practice, principles involved, etc.

And with the comments to my attempt to make an introduction to the subject, I only get biased and pejorative remarks.

Before I go any further, I'm will discuss with posters that have the sincere purpose to first understand or can show respect for parents that do believe in this practice. I will ignore all other posters (besides, to them is so clear and evident that why would they even want to bother with the subject)

 

[Smalso]

While you're at it, you may as well ignore all the non-Christians who like to smack their kids around. I disagree with them, too. And no matter how many quotations from the Bible you want to throw in, I can find quotations from other books with a lot more credibility than the Bible. While you're at it, why not quote Ex. 21:15, Lev. 20:9, and Dt. 21:18-21; which command that disobedient and disrespectful children be put to death? That would REALLY show your love for them.

 

[Paradox]

I have a question.

This is directed to all non-Christians.

If you already know (in case you did not know) that the Christian position is that CP is correct.

I did not know this. Is this actually the case? Do all sects of christianity openly espouse this view? Certainly it's crazy to say that, definitely, all christians do.

Why bring the subject up and insult Christian parenting?

If any portion of 'christian parenting' supports the use of a dubious method of discipline, it should be appropriately criticized. This goes for parenting of any description.

Now, if the matter is so clear cut and you have already decided on it. What is the purpose of bringing the subject up? Specially if it is known that it is a practice performed by most Christians.

The point of any debate, IMO, is to think about why things the way they are, and whether current standards happen to be logical if not simply decent. An argumentum ad populum does not credibly support the sensibility of a position.

Because of the strict adherence to protocol and respect in the thread, I would have to exclude the possibility that it is only brought up as bait so to have the excuse to insult and ridicule the practice thus insulting anyone who does practice it.

It may seem that way. You have to realize you are dealing with a very volatile and sensitive issue. A lot of people do not distinguish between abuse and spanking. Their position may very well be justified. Would you be surprised to see potentially aggressive reactions to people who condone slapping their spouses as ways to solve arguments? Even if you personally don't consider the parallel to be acurate, others may.

Simply put, violence in any fashion is disturbing. This is especially the case if it involves children.

And again, I repeat, no atheist poster has demonstrated that they have a working knowledge of the Christian practice, principles involved, etc.

This is entirely irrelevant. Unless you condone such judgments as the one described in the "Girl Gang-Raped by Order of Pakistani Tribal Jury" thread in the Politics and Current Events board. Considering the decisions there were made within the confines of certain cultural mores (and/or religious ideas) this should be a permissible means of discipline, no?

Whether the bible directly and specifically tells you to beat your children or not is absolutely unimportant to the issue of whether it is a satisfactory method of either discipline, or of plain behaviour at all.

And with the comments to my attempt to make an introduction to the subject, I only get biased and pejorative remarks.

For the same reason that someone advocating any sort of violent behavior would be. Take a meander over to any of the 'death penalty' threads that come up. It is not bias towards you so much as it is distaste for the methods you espouse.

Before I go any further, I'm will discuss with posters that have the sincere purpose to first understand or can show respect for parents that do believe in this practice.

First, I think, it should be determined if such actions warrant respect in the first place.

I will ignore all other posters (besides, to them is so clear and evident that why would they even want to bother with the subject).

Sure, maybe someone not seemingly willing to change their mind about something may not be open-minded (assuming that sensible arguments criticising their position have even been proposed in the first place), however that doesn't mean this person cannot still contribute information to the discussion.

As with most other debatable claims, what will be ascertained is the logic, or lack thereof, of a certain position. This will not show who has changed their mind or not...but it will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
did not know this. Is this actually the case? Do all sects of christianity openly espouse this view? Certainly it's crazy to say that, definitely, all christians do.

I can't speak for all Christians, I'm sure it is the position of the Protestant and Catholic church and the US Supreme Court.

Paradox wrote:
If any portion of 'christian parenting' supports the use of a dubious method of discipline, it should be appropriately criticized. This goes for parenting of any description.

To criticizes is one thing, to insult is another. The position is not being criticized, it is being insulted, attacked, chasticed.

Paradox wrote:
The point of any debate, IMO, is to think about why things the way they are, and whether current standards happen to be logical if not simply decent. An argumentum ad populum does not credibly support the sensibility of a position.

You are forgetting one important aspect, as I said before, I'm not using the argument of the masses in this case, I'm stating that the practice is widespread because it is a sanctioned practice not only in Churches but in secular legislation.

This is a US statistic taken from
Statistic on Spanking:

Over 50% believe in spanking---but only a child over 2 years old

If you want to talk strict shop, your's is just an uninformed opinion, a poor one at that. Jurisprudence is not on your side. It is your views that are seen as extremist or radical, not mine. If the Supreme Court of the US agrees with my position, I think I have a fair handle on the issue.

That you don't like it or don't agree with it is just noise on the grand scale of most world's legislation. And this is not an argument of the masses. This is how the law of most countries in the world see it, including the one where you post you live.

US legislation on CP

From there:

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first with the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).

A corollary to this fundamental principle is that parents have broad discretion in the disciplining of their children and are allowed to use corporal punishment. Under California state law, a parent has the right to reasonably discipline a child by physical punishment and may administer reasonable punishment without being liable for battery. People v. Whitehurst, 9 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1050 (1992). In order to be considered disciplinary the punishment must be necessary (i.e. there must be behavior by the child deserving punishment), and the punishment must be reasonable (i.e not excessive). Id. It is important to remember that the reasonableness of the punishment will be judged by a third party and it does not matter if the parent believes the punishment was reasonable.

So as you can see, my initial comparisons to criminal actions was appropriate. The law already imposes criteria including being reasonable or it being necessary.

So, if anybody wants to ask what is reasonable, there is a legal standard. This means people, the are objective elements that determine what is reasonable or when it is appropriate.

The law is on my side in this regards, and it is not a matter of social customs or religious rituals.

Paradox wrote:
It may seem that way. You have to realize you are dealing with a very volatile and sensitive issue. A lot of people do not distinguish between abuse and spanking. Their position may very well be justified. Would you be surprised to see potentially aggressive reactions to people who condone slapping their spouses as ways to solve arguments? Even if you personally don't consider the parallel to be acurate, others may.

We don't have wonder about the validity of these types of ridiculous comparisons (I'm sorry, this is not my view, it is the view in your country). The law already provides us with strict guideliness, whether you like it or not. CP to children is very much legal, CP to wife is not. It doesn't get any more objective than this.

Paradox wrote:
Simply put, violence in any fashion is disturbing. This is especially the case if it involves children.

This is just your opinion, it is not backed up by any legislation in your country. Which means not only are you out of touch with the legal system in your country in this specific issue(anything disturbing to most viewers would probably be deemed offensive thus illegal in your country, if you didn't know this) but the community of judges and appointed guardians of society don't agree with you.

Paradox wrote:
This is entirely irrelevant. Unless you condone such judgments as the one described in the "Girl Gang-Raped by Order of Pakistani Tribal Jury" thread in the Politics and Current Events board. Considering the decisions there were made within the confines of certain cultural mores (and/or religious ideas) this should be a permissible means of discipline, no?

Another ridiculous comparison, your government does not see it as irrelevant either. It makes clear distintions between discipline to children with CP and rape. If you can't see the distinction, it is your shortcoming.

Paradox wrote:
Whether the bible directly and specifically tells you to beat your children or not is absolutely unimportant to the issue of whether it is a satisfactory method of either discipline, or of plain behaviour at all.

The US Supreme Court specifically allows it. So you are right, the Bible is unimportant in the matter of whether it is satisfactory or not.

Paradox wrote:
First, I think, it should be determined if such actions warrant respect in the first place.

Your legal system has a very specific standard of what is decent and what is obscene. Your society as a whole says it warrants respect. And in this case, the argument of the masses is valid.

What this means is that if you were to try to stop a parent from administering CP to his child, the parent could theoretically put you in jail for violating his right to privacy. It does not any more clear cut than this.

Paradox wrote:
but it will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.

Clearly.

 

[Ed]

I am not sure that I understand this.

It is alright to beat a child with a rod because the Bible says so? Is this correct?

An adult can beat a child because the bible says so?

This is a yes or no.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

If you already know (in case you did not know) that the Christian position is that CP is correct. Why bring the subject up and insult Christian parenting?

I was not aware that the Catholic church has an 'official' stance on this - your comments have come as a surprise to me (not for the first time). I will do some investigfatin to see what I think the view might be within the Australian religious community - that is, is there (a) no official postion; (b) an official 'yes'; or (c) and official 'no'. I would expect to find the anser is 'a', but your comments suggest I am wrong. Leave it with me.

On the subject of US law regarding CP...

Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court has stated, "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first with the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).

A corollary to this fundamental principle is that parents have broad discretion in the disciplining of their children and are allowed to use corporal punishment. Under California state law, a parent has the right to reasonably discipline a child by physical punishment and may administer reasonable punishment without being liable for battery. People v. Whitehurst, 9 Cal.App.4th 1045, 1050 (1992). In order to be considered disciplinary the punishment must be necessary (i.e. there must be behavior by the child deserving punishment), and the punishment must be reasonable (i.e not excessive). Id. It is important to remember that the reasonableness of the punishment will be judged by a third party and it does not matter if the parent believes the punishment was reasonable.

You need to note Christian that the law clearly saws that 'reasonable' is *not* the parent's domain - the '3rd party' is the state. And this changes over time. This clearly means that whether *you* consider a 'rod' reasonable or not is immaterial - if the state decides the "rod" is not acceptable, then it's not.

That's the issue under discussion here - what does society consider 'reasonable', and why. One extreme is that the only reasonable level is "none". The other extreme is "anything goes". US law currently draws a line somewhere between these extremes. The line moves over time. Which way should it move, and why? Your position seems clear - the line must never be positioned in such a way that prevents you from administering CP with a 'rod', and you justification for this is that the bible says it's the correct thing to do.

By the way, could you describe what you use as a 'rod' when you administer CP?

 

[Loki]

Christian,

A first quick search has thrown up little information - I suspect this is becasue there is no official church stance on Corporal Punishment within the family, but I'll keep looking (a little). There *is* an official stance in Australia for CP in Catholic private schools :

Catholic Schools In Australia

Catholic schools expect high standards of student behaviour and appearance. It is the partnership between students, staff and parents, plus a common value system, that promote harmony in Catholic schools.
Each school develops a pastoral care policy which encourages positive discipline, involving programs which develop high self-esteem and self-discipline in students. In some cases, the students themselves contribute to discipline policies.
Corporal punishment is not used in Catholic schools.

This is a far cry from my days in a Catholic private school in the 70's - the use of the strap and even the cane was almost a daily event. Times have changed, and the church no longer accepts CP within it's educational institutions.

(Edited to add):

Found this on "religiousTolerance.org". It would appear that the change in the Catholic school position has been taken under duress, rather than willingly.

2000-DEC-12: Australia: Spanking of students being phased out: Prior to 1995, schools in this country were allowed to use straps, canes, or lightweight wooden paddles to hit students as a method of discipline. Since 1995, a new state law has forbidden such corporal punishment. 51 private Christian schools in the state have complied with the law, with some reluctance. The remaining two private Christian schools in New South Wales, Sunderland Shire Christian School and Nambucca Valley Christian Community School, refuse to conform to the law. They state that they are simply disciplining children according to biblical principles, and that state interference outlawing this practice is unacceptable. The government has given Sunderland Shire Christian School until 2001-MAR to comply with the law; the deadline for Nambucca Valley Christian Community School is the end of December. If they do not comply, then they will be de-certified. This would mean a loss in funding and denial of the right for their students to take public examinations. The latter are necessary for students to obtain an official graduation certificate.
Duncan McInnes, heads the New South Wales Parent’s Council. He said that corporal punishment is "... a moral issue and schools should have the right to decide for themselves. There are enough safeguards in the child protection legislation to ensure they are not being abused physically." , Neville Pollard, education director for Christian Community Schools, a state umbrella organization, defended corporal punishment. He said: "If given lovingly and carefully, it’s a very viable method of punishment."