RSS

Anti-spanking is anti-Christian, and anti-freedom-of-religion

15 Feb

Anti-spanking busybodies in Canada never tire of pushing their agenda; trying to get it enacted legislatively, and also trying to convince others that spanking is wrong.

Now, they’re promoting the idea that it should be banned on the basis of public health.  (Hat Tip: The Angry Dad)

This is such obvious bullshit.  It’s actually the exact opposite; NOT spanking kids who need to be spanked, ruins them.

The Word of God backs up such common-sense observation:

Proverbs 13:24

He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

Proverbs 19:18

Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying.

Proverbs 22:15

Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

Proverbs 23:13-14

Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

Proverbs 29:15

The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

(All quotations from the KJV.)

The Bible not only sanctions corporal punishment, completely; it actually warns against NOT imposing it on children who deserve it.

Since faith is for all of life, not merely Sunday morning worship, and the Bible a guide for us on how we should live, those busybodies and politicians and so-called ‘experts’ who would ban parents from spanking their children, are opposed to religious freedom, at least for Christians (and, for that matter, also for Jews), who wish to live their lives in accordance with the wisdom teachings of Proverbs.

We really should make this a religious-freedom political issue, because it truly is.  Let all see those who hate us, unmasked for the anti-Christian bigots they are.

 
 

60 responses to “Anti-spanking is anti-Christian, and anti-freedom-of-religion

  1. Svar

    February 15, 2012 at 11:59 am

    My dad would beat me whenever I was out of line. Thank God he had the balls to do so.

     
  2. Will S.

    February 15, 2012 at 12:17 pm

    Exactly.

    My parents never spared the rod, either. And I’m glad of it.

     
  3. Svar

    February 15, 2012 at 12:44 pm

    I would have turned out horrible if I wasn’t beaten. It toughens you up-look at Ancient Sparta.

     
  4. Will S.

    February 15, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Exactly.

    For thousands of years, parents in all cultures, have spanked their children, without ill effect (apart from the few who go beyond punishment into actual abuse); in fact, society has steadily advanced all through that period, particularly in the West. But once again, moderns think that everything we used to know is completely wrong and needs to be overturned…

     
  5. Cranberry

    February 15, 2012 at 3:03 pm

    Doctor Spock loved the teachings of Freud, and laced his childcare advice with it. Did you know, for example, that the reason my three year old climbs into bed with us each night, just for a few minutes before nodding off, is because she desires her father and is jealous of me for being the one to sleep next to him? Or that social isolation works better than yelling, spanking, or immediate corrective lecturing to get a child to stop negative behaviors?

    Until I read his book, I didn’t know any of that. I still think it’s mostly bunk. According to Spock, kids who are spanked grow up to be rebellious, fearful of their parents, and abusive to others. They tend to not have feelings of sympathy, not be generous, and have no instinct to protect. In short, they become sociopaths.

    Abused kids may become sociopaths. Spanked kids just learn when and how to keep their asses in line so said asses are comfortable sit-upons for the rest of the evening. I willingly confess that I have smacked my older daughter’s hands when she touches something she shouldn’t. I isolate her when she whines, which is sufficient for now. You don’t have to spank, but when the usual motivators for good behavior/deterrants for bad behavior stop working, you have to find other means to get the kid to listen. And it is indeed for their own good; running headlong into a busy street without looking will get a child killed; a spanking for not listening (for the 100th time) at least preserves the kids life, even if his dignity is temporarily bruised.

     
  6. Will S.

    February 15, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Yeah, Dr. Benjamin Spock has a lot to answer for – as do the people who took his advice…

     
  7. Simon Grey

    February 15, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    I’ve addressed the subject here. The long and short of it is that there is no way to establish the causality the researchers assert. Correlation is obviously established, but as anyone who has ever taken a basics stats class knows, correlation is not causation. FWIW, I think spanking is one of the most effective weapons in a parent’s arsenal; I certainly benefited from it. Maybe God was on to something after all…

     
  8. Fidelbogen

    February 15, 2012 at 6:19 pm

    Off-topic.

    @Will S:

    I don’t see any contact addresses here. Can you pop over to my blog, and click on the e-mail link? I’d like to discuss some things.

    Cheers!

    ~Fidelbogen~

     
  9. electricangel1978

    February 15, 2012 at 11:25 pm

    @Svar
    “I would have turned out horrible if I wasn’t beaten. It toughens you up-look at Ancient Sparta.”
    Um, weren’t the Spartans all Sodomites? May not wish to use those guys to back your line of thought. Unless you wish to use corporal punishment to turn out Sodomites, that is. Also, what sort of artistic or philosophical legacy have the Spartans left us, cowering as they constantly did at the thought that their oppressed slaves would revolt and kill of the lot of them?

    As to corporal punishment, I am adamantly opposed. Mostly because it is not done with any sort of rule or eye towards Justice. Were every parent to agree that it would be administered only after some sort of family “court” proceeding with judgment meted out corporally AT A TIME WHEN THE PARENT IS NO LONGER ANGRY from the original offense, you start to have an acceptable situation. I hold one exception to this which agrees with the commenters here: any time a child is, say, wetting a finger and sticking it in an electrical outlet, a slap on the hand is providing only a minor version of the shock that would otherwise obtain; a swat on the behind to a child that runs out unsafely in the street is not punishment, but stimulus-response.

    Recall: an eye for an eye also means NO MORE than an eye for an eye. The problem with revenge in humans is that people never seem to follow the OT wisdom of keeping it at the level of the original harm, but always escalate. (I’d cite the psych article for the research that proves this but have lost it in the mists of time. Trust me on this one.) Washing out a child’s mouth with soap for foul or blasphemous language is appropriate; 30 lashes with a cat’o’nine tails is not.

    @Will S.: since we are approving hitting dependent people smaller than we are, can we do so up to age 18, the age of majority? I am almost hoping I marry a Christian woman in the future with a 17-year-old stepdaughter for me to appropriately punish. Clearly I would not do so to a 17yo son: he might kick my ass in return. Have I internalized the rules on when initiating violence is OK? Do unto others who cannot do unto you?

     
  10. electricangel1978

    February 15, 2012 at 11:27 pm

    @Cranberry:

    My all-time favorite bumper-sticker: Freud, Marx, Darwin: Two Down, One to Go.

     
  11. electricangel1978

    February 15, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    Oh, and as for Proverbs 23:13-14

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/pastor-corporal-punishment-advice-scrutinized-child-deaths-160004793.html

    Excerpt: In their self-published book, To Train Up a Child, Pearl, 66, and his wife Debi, 60, recommend the systematic use of “the rod” to teach young children to submit to authority. They offer instructions on how to use a switch for hitting children as young as six months, and describe how to use other implements, including a quarter-inch flexible plumbing line.

    Yeah those 6-month-olds can really take a lesson and internalize it well. Advanced reasoning capabilities and all that. You guys cannot agree with nuts like these.

     
  12. Chris

    February 16, 2012 at 2:32 am

    Banned here.

    A petition with about 70% eligible voters asking for an appeal was ignored. It is for the chillun, if we stop normal parents from disciplining then wicked parents won’t torture their children.

    SInce the ban came in, the rate of child abuse has not decreased: some years, in fact, it is higher.

     
  13. Svar

    February 16, 2012 at 7:22 am

    Proverbs is proverbs, ElectricAngel. It says what it says. It also happens to work. And of course we don’t agree with corporal punishment for infants, lets not get hyperbolic here.

    The Spartans were not sodomites because of what they did to their sons. All Greeks were sods. Bad argument.

     
  14. Will S.

    February 16, 2012 at 8:03 am

    @ Fidelbogen: Sure, I’ll be by, later today hopefully

    @ ElectricAngel: There’s a huge difference between child abuse and corporal punishment. The first is immoral and outrageous, and unconscionable; the second is proper, and Scripturally supported. I go with Scripture, and since it permits it – and yeah, any child, not yet an adult, living under his/her parents’ authority, can be corporally punished, IMO – I trust that God knew what He was doing, when He permitted it, and in fact, said those who fail to administer it when it would be a good idea, do their kids a disservice. I go with Scripture; not modern psychology or ways of thinking of the world.

     
  15. Will S.

    February 16, 2012 at 8:05 am

    @ Simon Grey: Good blog post. The world has simply gone astray on this point.

    @ Chris: Interesting. Most dismaying, too.

     
  16. Will S.

    February 16, 2012 at 10:38 am

    @ ElectricAngel: And yeah, those Pearls are obviously loons. But I don’t hold that the extreme outliers invalidate the normal middle.

     
  17. Svar

    February 16, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    I guess according EA’s logic, corporal punishment is going to make me a total sod. My dad never spanked me; that’s gay. He used the belt instead of the rod, but I feel they have the same results. I’ve seen the offspring of those who don’t use corporal punishments. They tend to be spoiled pussies.

     
  18. electricangel1978

    February 16, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Ok, Svar first. the Spartans were a bit like those species of ants that do not do their own food gathering. In fact, all the ants in these colonies are created as warriors. The ants regularly raid the nests of other species to secure larvae that will then grow up to serve as the slave class to feed and care for the warrior class that runs the hive. the Spartans were critically dependent on their Helots who did all the agriculture, and had the Helots ever revolted, the Spartans would have starved and their society ended. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helots

    Now, the tight control maintained by that society required a number of things. strict, non-family based raising of children (nothing Patriarchal there, amigo) was one of them. weak infants were exposed to the elements. corporal punishment was paired with homosexuality to both have young men conform to authority, and bond them to each other more strongly than to wives or family. the Spartans fought excellently; no one ever wanted to retreat and leave his buddies behind. homosexuality and pederasty and corporal punishment were of a piece, necessary to a society that venerated the state above the family. you cannot separate out one element from the rest. Be careful where you choose your allies and examples.

     
  19. electricangel1978

    February 16, 2012 at 2:48 pm

    Now, Will. as a man of Scots heritage, I know you appreciate and venerate and honor a good bottle of the water of life. but there are some who cannot handle alcohol, and become what we call alcoholics.

    Do you agree with Alcoholics Anonymous that those people are better off abstaining completely?

     
  20. Will S.

    February 16, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    @ EA: Certainly, I agree. But that doesn’t mean, by extension, that everyone else should abstain, too, or be forbidden, by the State, to consume. (As you know, drinking alcohol is Biblically permissible; only drunkenness is forbidden.)

    The same principle applies to corporal punishment. Some loons like those Pearls, take it way too far, into abuse territory. Oh well! Shouldn’t mean other, more sane parents, shouldn’t have the right to smack their kids, angry or not – as long as they maintain some semblance of self-control, and don’t go overboard.

    Any argument that no-one can reliably carry out corporal punishment without going too far, is as absurd as any argument that everyone who drinks will automatically become an alki.

     
  21. Svar

    February 16, 2012 at 3:12 pm

    The other Greeks were sods. Many of the ancient races tolerated some homosexual acts. It isn’t tied to corporal punishment.

    There is no doubt that corporal punishment toughens boys up. Sparta was just an offhanded example I used, but all races used corporal punishment. The Romans allowed patriarchs to kill any member of their clan for any reason. Still created a great civilization.

     
  22. Svar

    February 16, 2012 at 3:14 pm

    @ Will

    It’s as ridiculous as the gun control arguments.

     
  23. Will S.

    February 16, 2012 at 3:33 pm

    @ Svar: Indeed.

     
  24. Svar

    February 16, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    Sooo, Will. Your dad hit you. My dad hit me. When are we going to start to be raging faggots? I have no doubt that CP makes men out of boys. My dad NEVER spanked me but he was an ace with a belt.

    I wish I knew what he was doing at the time.

     
  25. Dreadpiratkevin

    February 16, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    I’m sorry, but anyone who equates spanking a child to ‘violence’ or assault is an idiot, or just completely clueless about parenting. Parenting, like most of life, is about relationship, in this case between a parent and child, Swatting a child on the behind lets the child know that they have done something that harmed that relationship and they need to put it right by acting differently. Suddenly mom or dad, usually a source of comfort and security, is causing discomfort: it very effectively shakes up a child[s world, and gets them to examine their actions and seek to make it right. It’s not about hitting or causing pain, it’s about demonstrating in a concrete way that the relationship with mom or dad is damaged, and needs to be made whole. And frankly, most kids, especially when they are little, fall down and hurt themselves far more seriously than any spanking ever should, and bounce back up and get on with playing. Obviously a belt or other object doesn’t fall into this category, but since the topic is spanking, not abuse, we’ll leave it at that.

    It’s not violence, hitting or any of the other scare terms the ninny anti-spanking folks use to emotionally manipulate the issue. In my experience, few of these folks have kids, and the ones that do have them have unbearable little brats who are far more likely to come to bad end than any child who is disciplined.

    As to spanking older kids, if you correctly discipline them when they are small, you simply don’t have to. They will respect you enough to be able to be disciplined effectively in other ways, If you find yourself needing to spank a 14 y,o., you’ve done something very wrong, the relationship is already broken, and you need to seriously re-examine your parenting.

    electricangel1978: spanking and absolutely zip to do with justice of any kind, it has to do with discipline, teaching a child how to act appropriately, it is completely corrective, not punitive.

    “Were every parent to agree that it would be administered only after some sort of family “court” proceeding with judgment meted out corporally AT A TIME WHEN THE PARENT IS NO LONGER ANGRY from the original offense, you start to have an acceptable situation.”

    That is possibly the worst idea I have ever heard. You don’t have kids, do you? A child needs to KNOW that Dad, or Mom is THE AUTHORITY to be obeyed then and there, period. Any child who does not grow up with this baseline understanding will be fearful, insecure and undisciplined, and will never learn to respect themselves or anyone else. As an example, look at children growing up in a household without a father. No authority to measure up to= no self respect or security later in life.

     
  26. Ulysses

    February 16, 2012 at 10:13 pm

    We’ve spanked, but we rarely do now. Like Cranberry, we didn’t get good results. Other things, like isolation, are more effective.

    In our house, the metaphorical rod works. It’s still punishment. The bigger issue is that kids be disciplined and not reasoned with. That’s where many fail. Kids can be reasoned with, but not when they are refusing to listen.

     
  27. Kathy

    February 16, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    I have to agree with you Will and Svar.. There is nothing wrong with giving your child a smack on the bottom.. Mostly it acts as a deterrent to the child.. I remember once, when I was a child getting the strap from Dad.. Only ever got it that once.. Didn’t want to get it again.. The reason? I was skylarking about and ran across the road.. Didn’t even look .. Could have been hit by a car.. Dad had told me never to go across the road without either he or Mom.. I never did it again I can tell you..

    This is not abuse.. It’s discipline.. Sometimes it’s hard to get through to a four year old child the reasons why they should not do something that is potentially dangerous. A smack on the bottom acts as a deterrent, and is physically harmless.

     
  28. Svar

    February 16, 2012 at 10:21 pm

    Ulysses, Cranberry said that it is effective but not always necessary.

     
  29. Ulysses

    February 16, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    Running into the street is of a different kind than not throwing pajamas in the laundry basket. I’ve found that reserving spanking for egregious moments, and using other methods of discipline for smaller infractions, is more effective on my kids.

     
  30. Ulysses

    February 16, 2012 at 10:46 pm

    Svar, I’m not arguing against spanking in totality. I’m just pointing out that it’s not a magic bullet. Unfortunately. Instead, it’s just the bazooka in the arsenal. One cannot always use the bazooka. There is no finesse.

     
  31. Svar

    February 16, 2012 at 11:39 pm

    Good point, Ulysses. It is true that you can’t always use the bazooka.

    I was hell as a kid, so my dad had to use the bazooka all the time. If my sons are anything like their father, they’ll be needing a good dose of the belt and the rod.

     
  32. samsonsjawbone

    February 17, 2012 at 12:04 am

    Now, they’re promoting the idea that it should be banned on the basis of public health.

    Oooh, baby, don’t get me started on “public health”! If you don’t know, you should, that “public health” officials and other health professionals are some of THE WORST promoters of nanny-state busybodyism. Doctors are some of THE WORST and it makes me sick to be associated with them.

    We’ll see if this proposal gains legs.

     
  33. Will S.

    February 17, 2012 at 1:36 am

    @ Samson: Yeah, they really are. For bright people, they have great trouble thinking “outside the box” – same as scientists and engineers, IMO… (Full disclosure: I work in science; I’m thinking of people I’ve known.)

     
  34. electricangel1978

    February 17, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    OK, I have a lot of replies to write. Before I do, I feel obligated to state a few ground rules that we all ought to agree on, as Patriactionaries.

    I am a Thomist, meaning that I follow the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, such as I know and understand it. Thomas taught that truth is in fact Truth, that there is no truth in contradiction with another truth. Truth is consistent. Following Aristotle, whose thinking he helped fuse with Church doctrine, he showed that you can conclude anything when reasoning logically, if you start from a false premise.

    The Protestants split off from the One True Church hundreds of years after Aquinas, and probably not in reaction to his thinking. I will assume you all agree with Thomas on the nature of truth: it is whole and non-contradictory. (My favorite example of the opposite mode of thinking: the press conference where NJ governor McGreevy stated that “my truth is that I am a gay American.” That might be the anti-Patriactionary gold standard.) To quote Ayn Rand, “Contradictions do not exist. Check your premises.”

    That having been said, I will set about answering. The Jesuits remind me that it is not simply enough to say no to a proposal; I must also constructively bring forth my own. I will post that in a couple of days.

     
  35. electricangel1978

    February 17, 2012 at 10:53 pm

    Oh, one other ground rule. We ALL agree that the worst form of abuse one can inflict upon a child is to neglect discipline. We may disagree on methods, but raising a child in the path of righteousness is hard work and the parent’s un-usurpable job.

     
  36. Will S.

    February 17, 2012 at 11:07 pm

    @ EA: “I will assume you all agree with Thomas on the nature of truth: it is whole and non-contradictory.”

    Certainly; and “my truth” statements like the one you cited are absurd.

    “We ALL agree that the worst form of abuse one can inflict upon a child is to neglect discipline. We may disagree on methods, but raising a child in the path of righteousness is hard work and the parent’s un-usurpable job.”

    Of course.

    “The Protestants split off from the One True Church hundreds of years after Aquinas”

    Or the RCC changed from what it was in the days of the Early Church Fathers, sufficiently departed from that, that certain otherwise loyal and faithful sons felt that recovering what the church was in Augustine’s day was necessary, and more or less set out to do that, to re-form the church in line with its earlier form. 🙂

    Of course, here at Patriactionary, we choose not to argue over / focus on, such things. It might be helpful for all if we simply accept it as a given that Protestants and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don’t believe all the same things, about the Church and in specific doctrines, though are all agreed on the fundamentals of the Apostles’ Creed. And it might also be helpful, having laid out our differences already on what we respectively hold is or isn’t the One True Church, to avoid re-invoking such terminology any more than necessary, as it is a distraction, and it is already known anyway that Catholics hold to such doctrine (and that Protestants believe otherwise), obviously. 🙂

     
  37. electricangel1978

    February 17, 2012 at 11:57 pm

    OK, let me see if I have the argument correct for the people who do not oppose corporal punishment (I have to assume no one LIKES it, but most feel it necessary as a part of discipline. Those who LIKE hitting children, kindly, in the words of our Lord, get up, pick up your mat, and GO.).

    A man (since we’re talking Patriactionaries here) may (note that a number of you seem to think “MUST”) use violence (first definition pulled off of Google: “Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt”) against the body of his child (by the way, I disagree with none of the preceding words in the non-parenthesized paragraph so far) as a form of punishment (Google: the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense). The permission to engage in this act imbues in him due to his God-ordained position as the head of the family as outlined in the Bible. The child must submit to the (some would prefer to leave out or ignore the following word) just authority of the parent.

    Have I, in Thomist fashion, stated your argument in terms that are more precise than you used and that are correct?

     
  38. electricangel1978

    February 18, 2012 at 12:05 am

    @Will

    (please excuse my lack of both commas and use of blockquoting. My comma key is broken and the angle bracket is on that key.)

    “Of course, here at Patriactionary, we choose not to argue over / focus on, such things. It might be helpful for all if we simply accept it as a given that Protestants and Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don’t believe all the same things, about the Church and in specific doctrines, though are all agreed on the fundamentals of the Apostles’ Creed. And it might also be helpful, having laid out our differences already on what we respectively hold is or isn’t the One True Church, to avoid re-invoking such terminology any more than necessary, as it is a distraction, and it is already known anyway that Catholics hold to such doctrine (and that Protestants believe otherwise), obviously.”

    I did mention I can be sneaky about the jibes. I do not know if Prots accept Aquinas and the inclusion of Aristotelian logic into Christian Doctrine or not. I will be using Thomism; that is Christian Aristotelianism. I just want to make sure it’s not off the reservation.

     
  39. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 12:10 am

    “Have I, in Thomist fashion, stated your argument in terms that are more precise than you used and that are correct?”

    Sure.

    (BTW, I myself am not one who holds to ‘must’, but following Proverbs, I hold that failure to do so in situations where it could save his life or prevent grievous harm would be unwise. And that the State therefore ought not to interfere, by passing legislation that interferes with the parental prerogative, to choose to use such means.)

    Have at ‘er! 🙂

     
  40. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 12:14 am

    “I did mention I can be sneaky about the jibes. I do not know if Prots accept Aquinas and the inclusion of Aristotelian logic into Christian Doctrine or not. I will be using Thomism; that is Christian Aristotelianism. I just want to make sure it’s not off the reservation.”

    We may agree with some of Aquinas’ positions, but not others. (We don’t completely go against Natural Law type arguments, and are fine with any logic, really, though of course we reason from the Scriptures as our starting point. Of course, there are some Protestants who say, “What hath Athens to do with Jerusalem?”, but not all of us do; I certainly don’t. But I digress…)

    Regardless, you are giving your personal opinions here, based on your worldview, so one could hardly expect you to not argue according to your own principles. Have at ‘er! 🙂

     
  41. freebird

    February 18, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    The State knows best how to handle it’s property!

    No child can serve two masters?

     
  42. Will S.

    February 18, 2012 at 9:16 pm

    Ha! 🙂

     
  43. electricangel1978

    February 19, 2012 at 11:37 pm

    @Will

    So you have agreed with Thomist method and my restatement of the position you originally outlined. To whit: a man may use violence against those under his authority in his family to maintain order and enforce discipline.

    Recognizing the need for consistency, on what grounds do you object to an official of the State, which is an authority according to Romans 13 that we must submit to, using violence or the threat of violence to dictate to the family? It seems you agree fully with the principle but just who gets to use it. You gave away the idea of Justice, and are now arguing in the realm of Power. On Earth, that is generally NOT in the hands of Christians.

    There is a method of punishment that DOES reflect Godly Justice; I just posted about it. I will be interested to read your reaction to it.

     
  44. will

    February 20, 2012 at 12:58 am

    The problem using the rod is. That kid is so gonna hate the parent that inflicts it and ends up bashing that parent for all that shit.

     
  45. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 1:35 am

    @ EA: Hang on; I didn’t say I agreed completely with the Thomist method, only that I accept that you employ it.

    I don’t object in principle to the State employing violence in a family circumstance; let’s say a policeman gets a call about domestic violence happening, and arrives to find that someone – never mind who – is in danger of losing his / her life, because the one individual has taken up a weapon against the other, and is about to deploy it: in such a scenario, the police officer would be well within his right to use whatever methods are at his / her disposal to prevent said murder from happening, including violence.

    I’m not a libertarian; I don’t object to the State ‘bearing the Sword’, as we Calvinists say.

    When did I give away the idea of Justice? Not in the least! The State has the right to administer justice within society; the parents have the right to administer it in the family with respect to their children, and the patriarch with respect to his wife. ‘Sphere sovereignty’, we Calvinists call it.

    Anyway, yeah, I just saw that you had posted; I will be reading it, tomorrow sometime if not tonight.

     
  46. Will S.

    February 20, 2012 at 1:35 am

    @ will: That is a danger, of course, if over-used.

     
  47. David Collard

    February 21, 2012 at 7:07 am

    Oh, I thought you meant spanking women. That is the foundation of civilisation.

     
  48. Will S.

    February 21, 2012 at 7:19 am

    Funny thing; a man may spank a woman playfully in foreplay, and that’s fine, but if he slaps her face, he can get thrown in jail. Whereas a woman may slap a man with impunity, and we expect it, because of Hollywood movies from the earliest days, showing women upset with men doing so. Of course, in those earliest days, a man might slap a woman back for having slapped him. Not any more.

     
  49. Svar

    February 21, 2012 at 10:04 pm

    “Oh, I thought you meant spanking women. That is the foundation of civilisation.”

    Haha, spanking women is the foundation of civilization?

     
  50. Will S.

    February 21, 2012 at 11:45 pm

    I thought agriculture was the foundation of civilization, esp. growing barley to make beer, and grapes to make wine. 😉

     
  51. infowarrior1

    December 9, 2012 at 9:11 am

    @Svar

    I know of a person that got slapped when he was out of line but he became even more stubborn and angry.

     
  52. Anymouse

    December 9, 2012 at 5:27 pm

    I have to agree with most of what you say, Svar and Will S. The only caveat being that we are definitely not friends with the creepier types out there. (Some of whom are in fact basically sodomites.) The Parenting with CP Today types are quite annoying in my book, and I have had a few run ins with them. They are also very “Politically Correct” in their own special way.

     
  53. celita

    January 7, 2013 at 10:17 am

    the “rod” (or electrical cord, shoe, lamp, whip: whatever my mother could get in her hands then on our bodies) was NEVER spared in my house. it was also even used preemptively, in the event we were thinking about doing something she felt was wrong. all it accomplished was my hating my mother. i never spanked either of my children, neither did my brother. my younger brother never had children. he’s never been out of jail long enough to sire children.

     
  54. Will S.

    January 7, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    Corporal punishment can certainly be abused, as in overdone. There are ditches on both sides of the road to be avoided, IMO; one has the right to use corporal punishment, but it shouldn’t be the only resort; there are alternatives

     
  55. Will S.

    June 15, 2013 at 12:14 pm

    A would-be commenter writes:

    Spanking is hitting plain and simple, as a Christian myself I view spanking as a violation of the golden rule! This is not a religious freedom issue, unless you want the freedom to assault someone. As far as Proverbs and the use of the word rod these passages are grossly misrepresented and distorted from their context! People will read these passages with a western mentality but they are written in a near eastern context. It is a shepherding culture and the rod is used for protection and direction of the sheep not to beat them. Also there are no examples of children ever being spanked in the Bible. I would say that your position is not only polemic but based on poor Bible study.

    No, it is you who is conflating spanking with what we call beating; there is a distinction between the two. Now, if you look at the link in my last comment, you will see we do hold there are alternatives, if one wishes. But that shouldn’t mean that spanking needs be forbidden. And a simple spank is not a violation of the Golden Rule for me, as I do not consider myself to have been wronged by being spanked, and I therefore have no problem meting out the same thing to children, if they need it; I have done so, in babysitting, and been thanked by the parents for acting in loco parentis. You assert that I distort the passages from Proverbs, but you provide no explanation of just how I read them wrong; the onus is on you to explain just why I’m wrong; I’m unimpressed by bald unsupported assertions; show me just how my Bible study is poor, and how my exegesis is incorrect. Oh, and shepherds carried both a rod and staff, a staff with a hook to pull sheep back from danger, and a rod to goad them on – just how do you think they did that? By poking or striking them, to move them forward. Even shepherd dogs use violence, nipping at the heels of the sheep to move them forward. So you can take your hippy-dippy mainline-esque liberal Christianity somewhere else; we’re not interested in reopening an old thread to argue. (What is it with you people who troll blogs looking for old posts to get up on your hobbyhorse about? Sheesh; get a life!)

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s