Today's News | Christian Views
| Home | Community | WorldMagBlog | Commentary | Previous Posts | Podcasts | Contact Us | Subscribe |
On our turf
Experts say the threat of domestic terrorism is growing
FULL STORY
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration
Bitter pill: GOP senators swallow hard as judicial nominee David Hamilton is confirmed
Just friends: Obama’s Asia agenda steered clear of any tough talk on human rights abuses 
If Massachusetts lawmakers have their way, parents will be banned from spanking their children. Of course, you can imagine the kind of controversy such a bill is creating.
What’s your position on the issue?
All original content Copyright © 2009 WORLDmag.com and may not be reproduced without permission
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
Click to Print
Include Comments
back to top87 Comments to “Spare the rod?”
I think that discipline should take many forms, not just a paddling. Corporal punishment should be reserved for serious breaches of respect (rebelliousness) or endangerment of others. It should also begin to cease as a child gets older. Other forms of discipline will be far more effective as a means of communicating what is acceptable behaviour. Discipline should also be moulded to “fit the crime”. Paddling a toddler for childish irresponsibility (spilling his drink) is not acceptable.
I think if certain guidelines were understood, and discipline used in a proper manner, we’d have lot less trouble in our country.
We have to accept that since parents are sinful, they will misuse their responsibility. There will be some who fail utterly, and there will be others who rise to the occasion, and others who will do an exemplary job of being parents. I don’t think the solution to some people’s failure is to hamstring all parents by throwing them in prison for disciplining their child.
Report comment to moderator
But I bet adults are allowed to spank each other there, right in the street.
Report comment to moderator
Bianca,
Well, sure.
“Consenting adults” and all that.
Report comment to moderator
Fortunately there is strong opposition to this bill and it probably won’t pass…for now. But it is only a matter of time. Government is on a long slow march to the left, acquiring more and more power over the rearing of the next generation of taxpayers.
The modern alternative to handling unruly children is doping. Government, in league with drug companies, will become the opiate of the people.
This is part of increasing intrusion of government into the family in the name of caring and concern for the children. Hillary Clinton’s book “It Takes a Village to Raise a Child” encapsulates this thought, that government knows best when it comes to raising children. As a lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund she fought for children’s rights, which meant the right for children to sue and even divorce their parents.
“In Mrs. Clinton’s world, there will be a children’s rights bar, legal counselors in the junior high schools, a growing library of legal treatises on juvenile rights, five-part Supreme Court tests for determining which parental decisions “significantly affect” children’s futures, Ivy League law-review essays on youthful self-esteem and the due-process clause, and bipartisan congressional initiatives to enforce the latest judicial emanation on the entitlements of children.”
“The state will have a basis for wanting to know more about the family life of children, third parties will be encouraged to intrude more quickly, and parental authority will be eroded as such practices as corporal punishment and restrictions on social relationships are questioned through well-publicized lawsuits.”
National Review 1992
Report comment to moderator
Until recently, we were seriously considering moving to New Zealand. (Primarily, do dodge the draft for our kids, a la Mel Gibson’s dad and Australia.)
Their recently-passed smacking ban (”smacking” being Kiwi for “spanking”) was the final deciding factor.
Here’s the details: NZ parents can still “smack” their children to prevent them from harming somebody else, to prevent them from damaging property, to prevent them being disruptive, etc. But NZ parents are absolutely NOT allowed to “smack” their children as a means of correction or discipline.
In NZ, Mass. & elsewhere (CA is looking at some sort of spanking ban, also), this amounts to the usurpation of God-given parental authority by the State, plain nand simple.
Caesar will have no gods (or God) before him. God-fearing people must do all they can to reign Caesar in from this idolatry.
Report comment to moderator
Amen – Caesar has no right to call unlawful that which God has already declared lawful in his Word and vice versa.
Report comment to moderator
I wonder how many of these “lawmakers” have nannies?
Report comment to moderator
Xion (4): The modern alternative to handling unruly children is doping. Government, in league with drug companies, will become the opiate of the people.
Frank: Correctamundo, Mr. X. Let’s not forgot President Bush’s “New Freedom Initiative” — positively orwellian, dontcha think? — which proposed “comprehensive” (NewSpeak for mandatory) mental health screening of all children.
And by jingo, Big Pharma is right there to rake in the tax money … er, to help address any mental disorders found in the screening.
Report comment to moderator
I have no problem with spanking if it is part of a systematic preset program of nurture and discipline, if it is administered calmly and consistently.
Verbal abuse can be far more damaging. Many parents use words to whip their children. Are there laws against that?
Report comment to moderator
The proper use of spanking is effective and short lived. It is a basic stimulus response form of training. I’m no expert, of course, but I had all seven of my kids sleeping through the night by eight weeks (this was with a proper use of scheduling not spanking) and by two very little spanking needed to be done except for the instances MIM mentioned. By five it was the very rare moment. From a year to two years “spanking” could be described as more of a pop on the diaper. The mother bear cuffing her cub. A mother older and wiser than me taught me to train early. She said if obedience is expected, repect not demanded, but earned through calm consistency the later years are much easier. Thank God He sent me this woman. My kids are older now, but it was never really much trouble to take four kids under five to the grocery store or to a restaurant when they knew what was expected and can obey simple commands.
Report comment to moderator
I also wonder how many of these guys would be first in line to prosecute a parent who was unable to prevent their undisciplined child from running out in front of a car.
Make it man, your advice sounds pretty good and very like the parenting class I took at church. We were told that spanking should be used rarely and only in cases of rebellious and defiant behavior. I asked the instructor what you should do if rebellious and defiant behavior were not rare. He didn’t have a real answer.
Report comment to moderator
Adios, I’m squirming a little in my computer chair. I congratulate you on compliant children sleeping through the night at eight weeks, but please don’t imply it is standard. None of my nurslings could have done that . . . even though yours could. Thinking such sleep patterns are standard is causing problems for the mother of my nine-week old grandson.
MIM’s outline of when to spank was very helpful when I was raising my children. I’d stop and ask myself what I was dealing with and then respond accordingly. Willful disobedience was punished by a spanking, everything else required rummaging through the “think creatively” discipline kit. But like Adios’s family, we did little spanking after five or six.
And Amphipolis’ comment about verbal abuse is well taken–even at 51, I shudder when people start to raise their voices in anger.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, if Adios had only one child it could be interpreted as an anomaly. She had 7. There’s something to be said about her method.
We only had 3. I can tell you that they all had different personalities, but in some ways they were very much the same. Patterns and consistency work with most children. While there may be an exception to the rule, if every child is an exception then the that’s the rule.
By eight weeks most children can sleep through the night. It is often more of a training of the parents than a training of the child.
Report comment to moderator
Advocates here say that spanking is a conditional and inadequate technique that has limited use during one stage of development:
It should also begin to cease as a child gets older. Other forms of discipline will be far more effective . . . — MAKE IT MAN #1
The modern alternative to handling unruly children is doping. — XION #4
. . . it is part of a systematic preset program of nurture and discipline . . . — AMPHIPOLIS #9
The proper use of spanking is effective and short lived. — ADIOS #10
These posters make a case against spanking while advocating for it. Spanking is only one technique in a varied repertoire. Everybody except PHOENIX admits that spanking can be bad if it is “misused.” But even PHOENIX seems to concede that spanking is the lesser of two evils when he says spanking is preferable to “doping.” MAKE IT MAN avoids the question of how the “advantages” of spanking over alternate forms of behavior modification outweigh the admitted harm that comes from incompetent spanking.
Notice, the spankers seem to be more concerned with their God-given prerogatives than with the consequences. They’re making a claim about philosophy, not behavior. They want to teach their children that authority legitimates violence.
Report comment to moderator
Since we already have laws about abuse, this is not needed. It will clog courts with unnecessary nonsense and punish parents and harm children by taking them away from parents who are not really harming them. It can be too abused by social workers, teachers, divorced spouses, bad neighbors etc. Just because we advocate as little spanking as possible, does not mean it should never be used or is a bad method in itself, which is what this legislation will say. I don’t advocate raising one’s voice either, but I would not want to see it illegal. It can be as harmful or more so than spanking. I do agree with MIM and Adios, that used sparingly and effectively in the young, it is seldom needed out of the toddler stage. There are usually much more effective means of correcting and teaching a child, which is the point. Drugs teach nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Whooh-boy, this is another one of those issues where I am of several minds:
1. “Hitting” is human nature. It’s a natural reaction to another human doing something we consider wrong or don’t like. It’s a way of expressing our displeasure of their behavior.
2. “Hitting” is also primitive and violent. Surely we can do better than that. Over time we humans have evolved in the way we treat each other. We’ve become less violent and less barbaric (most of the time anyway). We need to continue down that path.
3. Parents do not have an unfettered, absolute right to do anything they want to a child. You can’t put your child in the stocks. You can’t burn your kid with a cigarette. Society is constantly evolving in what we consider acceptable in our treatment of other people, especially children.
4. There are far too many parents and adults who don’t treat children right in this country. A visit to your local Family Court will bear this out in living color. Neglect and abuse are substantial problems, which our social and legal services are forced to deal with on a continually increasing basis. I see the proposed legislation as being born out of this frustration.
5. There are many parents who do love and care for their children properly. A parent who gives their kid a swat on the rear because they are throwing a tantrum or hitting their brother or sister is not the end of the world.
6. There are a minority of parents who consider their children to be “property” to do with as they please, without any government interference at all. I’d label these parents as “scary” and worth keeping an eye on.
7. Children need protection. They are our fellow human beings and they are vulnerable. If we hit another adult the way we hit children, we would be criminally charged. Why should a child be afforded less protection?
Bottom line is, we’ve got too many parents who aren’t doing right by children. What are we going to do about it?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop:
Any form of discipline can be misused. A prearranged consequence to specific bad behavior is not violent – it is non-injurious and it is not for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing. If you mean inflicting pain, then it is no more violent than any other form of discipline that involves emotional in lieu of physical pain and the consequences may be more benign.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop writes:
“Notice, the spankers seem to be more concerned with their God-given prerogatives than with the consequences. They’re making a claim about philosophy, not behavior. They want to teach their children that authority legitimates violence.” [bolding mine]
Yes Scroop. That’s exactly it. Not. Try again.
There are plenty of laws against drunk driving too. Shall we take cars away from everyone because some people abuse chemicals?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir:
Children need discipline as much as they need the things you cite. When children are defiant, what is to be done?
I see many parents allowing bad behavior with no consequences, be it spanking or whatever. They aren’t doing right by children either.
Hitting is a scare word. We are talking about a non-injurious pat on the bottom as a known consequence for bad behavior, not a punch out of the blue. Let’s cut out the straw men please.
Report comment to moderator
Nanny State. What Nanny State?
“It’s for the Children.” This is just the latest way to use their liberty sucking nose poking under the tent whenever they have the legislative/executive power which allows them to reveal their true agenda.
Report comment to moderator
Real violence has one constant companion – disregard for authority.
Show me a neighborhood where there are few intect families nurturing and disciplining their children, and I will show you a neighborhood plagued by violence.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – sorry, somehow I missed your point 5, we are mostly on the same page.
Report comment to moderator
Spanking is most effective if it is incorporated early and consistently.
Because we were willing to spank, we almost never had to. We used to watch the screaming kids in stores and restaurants as their parents issued idle threats that meant nothing. We never threatened. We made it clear to our kids that there was a proper way to behave which they understood completely.
And so, while the other parents fought with their unruly screaming children, we could sit and have wonderful family conversations in restaurants and elsewhere. Frequently older adults would come by and give the kids money and comment on how well behaved they were and asked what our secret was. We simply said we believed in old fashioned discipline. They would give an approving nod.
Centuries of conventional wisdom demonstrates that the rod of correction applied lovingly to the seat of learning is the most effective means of child rearing. And “surprise!” the Bible already told us that. To observe scripture in action, just take a little walk around Walmart.
Prov 29:15 The rod of correction imparts wisdom, but a child left to himself disgraces his mother.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, point 7, If you tried forced an adult into a time out or took away their bike or told them what to wear or kept them prisoner in your house against their will (grounded) you would also be criminally charged.
Report comment to moderator
Minorities are the new power players. It took only one little indian to kill a school play.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, but I still disagree–yes, seven children proves a trend in Adios’ family and probably in yours, but no, it is not the norm for all. We can do damage when we describe what works well for us and imply it is the norm for all. As you said, children need to be looked at individually.
I have a friend with nine children who insisted her first child could learn to sleep through the night within weeks of birth–he nearly died of malnutrition. So, the next eight were nursed on demand and allowed to find their own timing to sleep through the night.
If I had heard Adios’ story when I was an insecure young mom, I would have become convinced I was a failure as a mother when my children didn’t sleep through the night until much later. That’s my point. What works well for some isn’t necessarily the best plan for others.
Similarly, I suppose, we spanked the older children more than the later ones–the example of their siblings taught the younger ones how to behave. Also, some didn’t need to be spanked as much as the others–their natures were not as rebellious, thanks be to God.
And for Anlir, controlled disciplined spanking is not the same thing as hitting. Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t know that.
Report comment to moderator
Two comments:
1) Liberals like Scroop and Anlir speak so piously about protecting the vulnerable children from a smack on the wrist from their mothers yet in the next breath will turn around and advocate for that same mother’s right to murder her child by abortion. Sorry, guys, but you’re not hiding your hypocrisy very well today.
2) Even if spanking is “wrong” to these liberals, do they really think it’s proper for government to impose that morality on everyone? Again, their hypocritical silence on this point is deafening.
Report comment to moderator
We all have our theories/ideas. And then there’s reality.
When I’m in the bookstore and a kid is screaming at the top of his lungs because he wants a book his mom won’t let him have, I want to walk over and smack him on his rear and say “shut up!”
Then I pick up the newspaper and there on the front page is a story about a 2 year-old girl in Texas who’s mom threw her against the wall, beat her, and killed her.
And I think, what can we do with these parents and adults who mistreat children? As far as I’m concerned, I think we have too much violence, too much mistreatment, too much neglect in this country.
You know, it was one thing when the vast majority of parents did right by their kids. Yeah, they spanked them occasionally, but they raised some good children. Now we’ve got too many parents who either let their kids do anything they want, or they go to the other extreme and mistreat them and abuse them.
I’m not sure outlawing spanking is the answer, but I understand where it’s coming from, and I’m sympathetic to it.
Report comment to moderator
Xion – “Spanking is most effective if it is incorporated early and consistently.”
. . . And only as a last resort.
Spanking will probably never be required more that a couple of times IF the parents have the courage to regularly and consistently discipline and teach proper behavior orally, while using eye contact, and body language from a very early age. Children are smart and once they learn that they’re on the wrong track and see that Mom and Dad are not happy with them, they can directed to acceptable action. Conversely, when they learn that Mom and Dad will eventually capitulate to their behavior – by allowing them to have their way in most or all situations – they will regularly and progressively test those waters to see just what will happen this time and/or if they can get what they want. As the child ages and learns of things they want and like better than others – candy instead of vegetables – the opportunity for the parents to successfully redirect and avoid a tantrum resulting from any attempt at redirection will become less and less possible.
Sin and bad behavior is innate. Proper behavior and civil interaction with others must be taught and learned by regularly and consistently discouraging the natural tendency.
Report comment to moderator
David L:
Good points! Especially number 2. Libs rail against Christians for imposing morality on others and yet that’s exactly what they are advocating here using the power of the state to back them up.
Other countries have already banned corporal punishment and it’s just a matter of time before it happens in the good old US of A. Also, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will ban corporal punishment if the US becomes a signatory. Currently the US and Somalia are the two lone countries that have not signed on to this document but you can expect that to change if Dems take control in ‘08. Libs will work to ban corporal punishment primarily BECAUSE it is advocated in the Bible. Let’s just say its their way of “sticking it to the Man.”
Report comment to moderator
“You know, it was one thing when the vast majority of parents did right by their kids. Yeah, they spanked them occasionally, but they raised some good children. Now we’ve got too many parents who either let their kids do anything they want, or they go to the other extreme and mistreat them and abuse them.”
Well now that’s very interesting… Even you admit there’s been a decline in good parenting. To what do you attribute that?
Report comment to moderator
#28 “Now we’ve got too many parents who either let their kids do anything they want, or they go to the other extreme and mistreat them and abuse them.”
Anlir,
Those two tendencies tend to lead to each other. Parents who have established no boundaries don’t know what else to do in a bad situation except hit their kids. And parents whose parents hit them in anger for sometimes very minor infractions decide that they won’t have all those silly rules and won’t ever hit their kids, but don’t know what to do when their kids get in trouble.
My parents were very permissive, for the most part. They had both had very strict parents, in my mother’s case actually abusive (nightly spankings “just in case” she had misbehaved), and they were determined to let their children make their own decisions. Of course, they didn’t always like our decisions, such as when my sister decided she’d rather watch TV than set the table as she had been told to do. So then my father would lose his temper and lash out, which was very scary and taught me nothing except to run and hide.
My husband and I, like others here, used spanking for only deliberate disobedience after other measures had been ignored, and in cases of imminent danger (like running into the street with a car coming). We disagreed sometimes on whether it was appropriate in a particular situation, but a wise grandmother I know advised me that as long as spankings were done based on consistent rules and not in the heat of anger, it was better for our son to deal with a spanking I thought might not have been deserved than for us as parents to have conflicting standards for him to meet.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth (14): Everybody except PHOENIX admits that spanking can be bad if it is “misused.”
Frank: To oversimplify for you, “Spanking can be bad if it is ‘misused.’”
To unpack it a bit, there is a fundamental difference between Bible-based child discipline (which should include spanking and is motivated by the parent’s love for his child) and child abuse (which is driven solely by anger).
I reiterate: spanking is not child abuse.
Scroop Moth (14): But even PHOENIX seems to concede that spanking is the lesser of two evils when he says spanking is preferable to “doping.”
Frank: Forgive me if I gave you the wrong impression; let me say it more clearly:
Bible-based child discipline (which should include spanking) is in no way “evil,” but is rather the righteous duty of Christian parents.
Scroop Moth (14): Notice, the spankers seem to be more concerned with their God-given prerogatives than with the consequences.
Frank: Piffle, drivel and swill. Christian parents are more concerned with obeying God in the raising of a godly seed.
As re. the consequences, God’s word is clear:
Biblical child discipline does not physically endanger the child, but rather teaches him that disobedience carries consequences.
And disobeying God carries the worst consequence of all.
Report comment to moderator
Well, word did leak out on here yesterday about the “VLWC” (Vast Left Wing Conspiracy), and our attempts to set Mrs. Clinton up as Supreme Leader of the World. And you know what she thinks about raising children.
Part of our VLWC agenda is to get all children declared as property of the UN, jail all the parents, and outlaw spanking. Each child will be under UN protection with their own personal blue helmeted soldier.
So run and hide, with your children in tow, because we, the VLWC, are out to get you!
America should be proud to stand with Somolia, the most lawless country on earth, against the UN. Not.
Report comment to moderator
Part of our VLWC agenda is to get all children declared as property of the UN, jail all the parents, and outlaw spanking.
I know you mean that as satire, Anlir, but you’re not very far from the truth!
Report comment to moderator
This is another example that proves it is only the left that wants to remove your rights – because only they know what is right. No state in the USA bans paddling children – no not one. It is only a small group of lefties that think they can raise your children way much better than you can.
There are already hundreds if not thousands of child abuse laws on the books to protect children from abusive children – but this is not enough for the all controlling left who knows you are an abuser no matter what the thousands of laws on books say. They don’t even trust you to know the difference between abuse and paddling – just like they think putting underwear on an Ossama bin Laden’s head if captured and in prison – is somehow torture. They are insane and I advise all to pay no attention to them, unless you want and are bound and determined to turn your brain to mush.
Report comment to moderator
In some circles it can seem as though spanking is the cure for all parenting ills.
Spanking is one (important) tool among many. It is important to develop other methods as the children get older, including letting them fail so they can learn consequences of bad behavior from others.
Defiance comes in waves. It is vital that you don’t get swept away by it. Deal with it promptly and systematically. When the wave passes, make sure to provide plenty of opportunities for positive individual attention, not as a reward or consolation but as part of your overall nurturing. That helps.
Discipline is but one aspect of a nurturing environment. Parenting should consist of a lot more than discipline.
Report comment to moderator
What’s your position on the issue?
Why, bent over the knee, of course!
Seriously,
this is a lot like gun control, in that it’s going to hurt those who use it responsibly, and do very little to stop actual child abuse. Massachusetts has its collective head up in a dark place.
Report comment to moderator
I admire the way Anlir resorts to satire when he realizes his arguments suck. You go, girl!
Report comment to moderator
Oh David L., my arguments don’t suck at all. But sometimes people say things that are just so outlandish that one must resort to satire. I stand by everything I’ve said on here, in it’s entirety. Present me some good points on this issue and I’ll be happy to reply.
Report comment to moderator
Assorted unconnected thoughts…
1. Corporal punishment should be administered in a very consistent and dispassionate way, making sure the child knows exactly why it’s being given and learns the right lesson from it. It must always be about what the child did, never about the parent’s feelings about it. The message shouldn’t be “Dad hits me when he’s mad.”
2. Since I was going through a period of poorly-controlled anger when my children were young, my wife and I agreed early on that I was banned from spanking, though she was not. I eventually got things under control myself, but by that time the kids were too old for spanking to be very effective. Recognize your weaknesses and adjust appropriately.
3. The statement “It takes a village to raise a child” got an unfortunate bad rap because of where people believed Ms. Clinton was taking it. I think it does take a village to raise a child well. That might take the form of a neighborhood, an extended family, or a church. They can wonderfully help and advise parents, and provide accountability that could reduce abuse. This doesn’t take away from the parents’ primary authority and responsibility in child-raising.
The problem with Ms. Clinton’s use of the proverb was that people interpreted it (rightly or wrongly, I didn’t read her book) as “It takes a government to raise a child.”
4. I don’t assume that the left necessarily intends to gradually have the state usurp all child-raising authority, but to guard against that possibility we should stand up for parental authority early and often.
Report comment to moderator
Nobody in 40 comments (!) has explained how using some other form of behavior modification besides physical pain “harms” the child. Most posters in fact suggest that spanking is a relatively infrequent punishment when administered “responsibly.” They say other interventions are more “educational.” Therefore, it seems counterintuitive to me that such an infrequently applied technique would be indispensable to your child’s development.
News from utopia: Your children are all of our children. You don’t get to do what you want with “your” kids. They are a trust, O.K.? They don’t “belong” to you. Your house, your S.U.V., yes. But you have to answer to US for the kids. Nobody has shown how the benefit that comes from “Godly” spanking by some skillful parents outweighs the harm of epidemic child abuse. We don’t want our kids beaten with rods.
DAVIDL #has poisoned his mind with his desire to punish abortion. He knows we have never advocated for the “right” to murder. He also knows that not all killing is murder. And he knows that many good, admirable and thoughtful people don’t consider the fetus to be a person, to a moral certainty. So why does he persist in accusing us of countenencing murder? For his own mental health, he needs to rethink his rhetorical strategies.
Report comment to moderator
I think some minor corporal punishment is necessary. Banning it will not avoid any of the abuse and will undermine those who would use it well.
Report comment to moderator
“News from utopia: Your children are all of our children. You don’t get to do what you want with “your” kids. They are a trust, O.K.? They don’t “belong” to you.”
That’s exactly what we thought you were saying…
Hang it on your beak pal.
Report comment to moderator
My children are not YOURS. They are MINE. They are my responsibility to care for, nurture and discipline, and I’ll thank you VERY much to butt out of my responsibility…
Report comment to moderator
I might as well lob this one. It’s late in the day.
If you can’t control your children without smacking them you’re not a very good parent.
There. It has been said.
…ducking for cover.
Report comment to moderator
“control?” Hmmm
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth (42): News from utopia: “Your” children are all of our children. You don’t get to do what you want with “your” kids. They are a trust, O.K.? They don’t “belong” to you. Your house, your S.U.V., yes. But you have to answer to US for the kids. … We don’t want our kids beaten with rods.
Frank: Thus the secular humanist mindest.
“‘Your’ kids really aren’t your kids. They’re ours.
“… And we have the State to back it up.”
Scroop Moth (42): Nobody has shown how the benefit that comes from “Godly” spanking by some skillful parents outweighs the harm of epidemic child abuse.
Frank: I think I can safely say that most of us here think the burden of proof is on you to demonstrae that spanking is child abuse.
I repeat: Spanking is not child abuse.
(Oh, and I loved the gratuitous use of the adjective “epidemic.” Nice touch.)
Report comment to moderator
No more spanking in Massachusetts? Gosh, I hope this doesn’t mean that Barney Frank is going to have to move.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop #42,
Perhaps not all killing is murder, but abortion is. Just because “many good, admirable and thoughtful people don’t consider the fetus to be a person” doesn’t make it so. Many good, admirable and thoughtful people DO consider the fetus to be a person “to a moral certainty” (whatever that means).
If my mind is poisoned by wanting to stop people like you from promoting the death of babies in utero, what’s your mind so poisoned by?
I accuse you of countenancing murder because babies in the womb are exactly like babies outside of the womb genetically and physically. And “doctors” get paid big money to stop their heartbeats, shut down all their organ and brain functions, and throw their battered corpses into the garbage.
That’s perfectly fine to you, but if I want to spank my kids you get all righteously indignant? How disgustingly absurd.
Report comment to moderator
Has anybody noticed that the vast majority of today’s homes are controlled by the children? Parents have conceded control of the home to the children, with no greater punishment in the bag of tricks than time out. When time out doesn’t work, parents are left threatening, with nothing to threaten about.
Spanking is God’s approved method to lovingly correct a child and place him back under authority when he tries to be his own boss. Some children need it a lot; some seldom. Not every child needs it at all.
This is an issue where if the law goes on the books, Christian parents need to obey God rather than man. The law needs to be disobeyed with great discretion, but the needs of one’s children come ahead of the laws of the state. And yes, children’s needs do include proper discipline.
Listen, as a foster parent I am not allowed to spank, and I abide by that which I have promised. But I am limited by my inability to spank. (DC Lawyer, that doesn’t prove that I’m not a good parent. But having children who’ve been trained by another, and who include such things as biting and spitting in their improper responses to authority, is a very hard thing for a parent to correct in a month! The children I’ve mothered would simply never have gone so far in disobedience if their parents had lovingly corrected them, and yes, spanked such extreme behavior.) Natural parents need not have that same limitation as foster parents. And the state has no business in this matter. As others have pointed out, there are already laws against abuse. To define all spanking as “abuse” is downright wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell.
~ Proverbs 23:13-14
This from the god who murdered infants in Egypt and commanded wholesale imperialistic slaughter from his “chosen people.”
But notice dear fundamentalists – you have to use a “rod.” No bare hands mentioned here! No belts either. Maybe just use a cattle prod, cause that’s a kind of “rod.” Most effective, too, I’d imagine.
Report comment to moderator
DavidL #50
I think you misunderstand your enemies, which is bad for you. For a thousand years, murder has been understood as a frame of mind. We punish killing differently, or not at all, depending on consciousness of guilt and wrong. Laura Bush didn’t commit murder when she sailed through a stop sign and killed someone in another car, because she didn’t see the sign, or whatever. Collectively, we execute people because we believe they have no right to live and we have a right to kill them. For me this would be murder, but I don’t call the prison guards “murderers,” for they do what they do with a clear conscience, and probably even with the hope of eliminating murder. You can be right about abortion (I don’t think you are) but you are wrong to say that people who want abortion to be legal have murder in their minds. That’s an argument about criminal responsibility. You can call abortionists “fetus killers” if you like, but not “child murderers,” because that requires you to know more than you can about what’s in their minds. As long as good, rational, admirable people think there is a difference, their minds are simply different than yours. Like everyone, they abhor what they perceive as murder, but their perceptions of abortion are not yours.
Report comment to moderator
You’re not supposed to “want” to spank your kids, DavidL. It’s supposed to hurt you more than it does them, right?
Report comment to moderator
There have been many a parent who have claimed that the Bible gave them cover (instructions, commands, et al) for punishing their child. The court still convicted them of child abuse.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
You’d evidently define all definition out of the word “murder”….
Report comment to moderator
If this passes, MA should use it as part of a branding campaign on license plates, much like New Hampshire’s “Live Free Or Die”. How about
Massachusetts: Where A Man Can Spank His Husband, But Not His Kids.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man — You and I and Common Law probably agree on all definitions of murder except, perhaps, those involving abortion, judicial homicide, and questions of just and unjust war.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, thanks for noting that children are different. Our daughter was hardly ever spanked. A direct word of disapproval was sufficient. Our youngest son is very much the same way. The two in middle, however, have needed it a little more, although the older, now 10, hasn’t been spanked in two years.
I do appreciate what Amphipolus says about positive attention. One of the problem parents often make is thnking that parenting is a basically negative endeavor. I try to remind people of what Peter writes in 1 Pt. 2. 13-14. In speaking of submitting to the governing authorities he notes that the authorities are sent by God for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of those who do good. Parents, as the governing authorities of the home need to reinforce good behavior as well as curb bad behavior.
Report comment to moderator
Massachusetts: Where A Man Can Spank His Husband, But Not His Kids.
Oooh…I kinda like that! It sounds kinky!
Report comment to moderator
Just a couple of weeks ago my graduate class went over the various provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. While there are many good things in the document there also are provisions that would open the door to Big Brother which is why the US hasn’t become a signatory (it would create a political firestorm). My very liberal professor thought it was an outrage that only the US and Somalia were holding out. And she attributed our recalcitrance to the Evangelical community. The left generally supports the effort and if the political climate changes in 08 we can expect to see the issue reappear down the road. This is hardly paranoia. Banning corporal punishment is just one of the concerns Christians should have with this document. According to how the provisions are written, other areas of concern involve home schooling and parents “imposing” their religeous beliefs on their children.
Report comment to moderator
TRR Good point in #38 Seriously, this is a lot like gun control, in that it’s going to hurt those who use it responsibly, and do very little to stop actual child abuse.
How true! Government is generally inept, but left wing government is downright harmful — the cure is worse than the disease.
Report comment to moderator
if the political climate changes in 08??
We, of the VLWC, have things well in hand for ‘08. As soon as Mrs. Clinton is installed in office, the first order of business will be to round up all of the Christian parents. Their children will be sent to “re-education” camps where they will be re-programed as good soldiers for our new World Leader.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is only the beginning. Soon all children will be wearing the blue hats of the UN and joining us to usher in a new World Order. All children will be taught to report their parents if they’re mean to them or yell at them (much less spank them).
No doubt about it, as Glen Beck says, if a Democrat is elected President in ‘08, it’s the end of the world! It might be time to start planning those farewell parties
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
If you are still reading, I’m sorry to have made you squirm. You are right that children are different. I believe most children can be trained to sleep through the night very early, but not all. I have sort of become the “older woman” with some young moms in our church and most are successful once they’ve learned the how-tos. But there are exceptions to every rule and sometimes for inexplicable reasons. No one should feel like a failure just because someone else’s method or advice is not helpful. The good Lord lent us these precious souls for a season and He will teach us. Some people think it is a great feat to have seven kids; I have to give all the credit to the grace of God and coffee–in that order.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop:
At (42) you made several statements with which I agree, but one major error.
“You don’t get to do what you want with ‘your’ kids”? CHECK …
“They are a trust”? CHECK …
But “Your children are all of our children”?
By what legal, social and/or religious theory do you arrive at that conclusion?
Since when does everybody else in the community or nation get to decide that parents may not spank their children?
And one more question: You’re correct to say that children are a trust. But from whom?
Report comment to moderator
Since when does everybody else in the community or nation get to decide that parents may not spank their children? — Frank
Legislatures are allowed to pass criminal and “educational” laws to enhance public safety and protect the vulnerable. There is a great deal of research-based information to the effect that spanking provides no benefit over other techniques and often causes harm, such as depression. Conservative justices uphold laws based on legislative findings about what is reasonable and necessary, under the general welfare doctrine.
The majority of Americans approve of spanking while only about a third disapprove. These were the sentiments in Sweden 20 years ago when spanking was outlawed. Today, however, parents in Sweden overwhelmingly disapprove of spanking. I think an educational law in Massachusetts is good, at least as a first step in quenching the glorification of spanking.
Children are a trust from the genetic pool of humanity, our shared past. It’s amazing to consider that 50K y.a., not many generations past, we were a little band of fewer than 100 individuals. We have evolved a sense of community responsibility for children, which most parents depend upon. So, Frank, your kids are a trust from the artist formerly known as God. Cool!
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth #66
What is your point about Sweden? That parents in Sweden now overwhelmingly disapprove of something that was outlawed 20 years ago proves…what? It doesn’t prove that they’re more wise than anyone else.
Report comment to moderator
The last thing someone dealing with a difficult child needs is a bunch of nosy busybodies looking over their shoulder. It bad enough dealing with Uncle George and the next door neighbor but you really don’t need the state in there with their two cents. Whatever method you use will only work if you are consistent, so you have to feel free to be consistent wherever you are. If you ignore the tantrum in public you should ignore it at home. If you spank at home you should spank in public. You shouldn’t have to look around to see if this crowd is more likely to have you thrown out for disturbing the peace or arrested for child abuse. Like most normal parents I would die for my child, so I think I’m a better judge of what’s best for him. The state would most likely see the lost of him and a few more for the greater good as decent compromise.
Report comment to moderator
Spanking doesn’t work for the child but it does make a parent feel better which is why its a really bad approach.
But I see its the fear of the gov’t thats the real discussion point here. Hint! you and your fellow citizens are the government. Although many leftist claim Bush is a wannabe dictator, its a democracy and people are the gov’t — why does the right fear itself? Perhaps they’ve been taught by the elite that the masses are not to be trusted, that gov’t run by the people is to be feared.
Report comment to moderator
No one has brought up “swats” in upper elementary, Middle or High School. Just an observation. When I got in a shoving match leaving the chorus room in 7th grade, Aaron Bloom and I were sent to the Vice Principal’s office for “fighting.” We both got a swat. It hurt.
I decided I wouldn’t get in a fight again. I didn’t resent it. I didn’t blame Aaron for it. I accepted it and was glad my parents didn’t do anything else about it.
Do you have any idea how much time is spent taking care of fights and shoving matches in schools today? In my school ( I have since retired.) there are three full time “Deans of Discipline” and three full time counselors. All for 1400 kids.
Swats used to have a place in school. No more!
Schools are, for the most part, run by Liberals.
Report comment to moderator
All of you who keep saying, “Spanking doesn’t work”–do you know any families that spank? Because I can tell the difference, generally, between families that spank and families where parents can’t do anything stronger than say “Stop that, pretty please honey, or I’ll put you in time out.”
What are the children in spanking homes like? As a rule they’re happy, sweet, respectful children. They know their boundaries, they trust their parents, and they feel safe. So they respond better to their parents and to the world in general. That’s a whole lot different from what “studies” show, I know–but then, I think most of these “studies” have an agenda, to prove that spanking doesn’t work.
I once saw a TV show that set out to prove that spanking doesn’t work. I remember only one family that it showed. The mother kept saying “Stop that honey,” with a great deal of helplessness in her voice and body language, as her child ignored her. Finally the child got close enough and the mom gave her a swat as she passed. Naturally, it didn’t help anything, so the mother (and the TV producers) could say, “See? Spanking didn’t help.” Sorry, that really isn’t spanking, that’s taking a random slap at a child. Not the same thing at all.
If the studies looked at parents who gave the child a measured number of swats for an action that the child knew would result in a spanking, with the parent not being angry and the parent being willing to hold and comfort the child and forgive him afterward, know what? The studies would show the academics’ great amazement that these children are surer of their parents’ love, happier, less violent, and more respectful and obedient. Just as–ta da–God said.
Again, do you who say “spanking doesn’t work” actually know any families that spank, and do so with such love and care, or are you basing your hearty assertions on what “studies have proven”?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl – 71
I must agree with your comments, you are right.
When I have been out, shopping, kids laying on the floor, screaming, kicking making as much noise as they can ….. I asked one woman who’s friends child was on the floor doing the ‘drama’ why she allowed the child to continue……her answer….. “she lets him do whatever he wants, he’s just plain spoiled” – - – there isn’t much to add –
When a parent allows a child to behave this badly, in PUBLIC NO LESS, they can’t possibly love the child, if they did they would stop the behavior, they would discipline the child, not stand by and wait for the tantrum to end -
Report comment to moderator
72. When a parent allows a child to behave this badly, in PUBLIC NO LESS, they can’t possibly love the child,
Or they could just be afraid someone’s going to turn them in for child abuse. I’m afraid I put up with a bit more in public than I do at home, for this very reason. My son figured out what I was doing and used it, until he realized that my threat that “you are going to get it when I get you home” was real.
Report comment to moderator
Here is a funny ad that offers a different solution for unruly children.
Report comment to moderator
KBells: If your child can’t seem to behave in public, perhaps you should not take that child out in public until they learn to behave!
Report comment to moderator
That’s a good one, Xion!
Report comment to moderator
74 – That ad isn’t funny at all. It’s sad that the useless jerk wasn’t able to discipline his child, and that the solution is genocide rather than loving your children.
How can Christians think this sort of thing is funny?
Report comment to moderator
What are the children in spanking homes like? As a rule they’re happy, sweet, respectful children. — CHERYLD #71
True, and happy cows are from California.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth: no one has yet answered me, so I’ll take that as serious agreement with me and not sarcasm.
Report comment to moderator
#77 Bianca How can Christians think this sort of thing is funny?
Perhaps because I didn’t take the ad seriously. I looked at it like a mother who has had it up to the eyeballs and says, “Why didn’t I think of birth control?” Obviously she isn’t serious. It is a bit of humor to take the edge off.
Ruth Graham was asked if she had ever considered divorcing Billy. She said, “No, never. Murder a couple of times. But divorce? No.”
Now I could fume and ask how a Christian woman could even joke about murder. Or I could laugh with her, since it is obviously a joke. And a pretty good one at that!
Report comment to moderator
#71,79 Cheryl, I mentioned in #23 that people came up to us all the time in restaurants and commented about how well behaved our kids were. I never thought about it or noticed, but apparently others did. To us, we were just having a wonderful time together.
I would like to add to your challenge about whether people notice a difference. I would like to challenge the non-spankers to explain to us how they would handle the boy in the video #74. Would they use idle threats, timeouts or label him ADHD and start him on the meds?
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure how I would know if I saw a difference between the children of spankers and non-spankers. I’ve seen very well-behaved children in public, and very poorly-behaved children, and all degrees in between. But I have no idea whether the parents spank or not.
Among people I know well enough to know whether they spank or not, I have seen parents who spank whose children are only somewhat well-behaved because the parents are not consistent enough in their discipline. Consistency in setting firm boundaries and enforcing them is what is effective, more than the particular means of enforcing them.
Children sense whether adults are really “in charge” or not. Parents who don’t spank because they have been taught they shouldn’t, but who feel helpless to control their children when they get too far out of line, are going to have behavior problems.
My cousin, who is quite a bit older than I, had twin boys when I was a young teenager. She greatly admired Alexander Sutherland Neill’s educational philosophy (even named one of the boys after him). I visited when the boys were toddlers, and was very skeptical when one of them tried to climb on the furniture and she simply told him, firmly, “You MAY get down from there.”
The next time I saw them was at my wedding, when they were about sixteen. I was impressed with what perfect gentlemen they were, not simply well-behaved but thoughtful of the needs and feelings of others as few teenagers are.
So I think the correlation between children’s behavior and how their parents discipline them has a lot more to do with whether their parents are consistent in what they do and comfortable with their own approach, more than in whether they spank or not. After all, to consistently enforce discipline with firmness and love, without giving in to either the “easy way” of letting the child have his own way, or to give in to temper and strike in anger, requires very good self-discipline on the part of the parent. And that good example of the parent teaches a lot as well.
Report comment to moderator
1/2
Some people spank and are fine parents. Some people who don’t spank are fine parents. As usual, people are anxious to present a “formula” that provides the “right” answer for all people and for all situations.
I’ve known many people whose marriages broke up. In some cases, there was clearly a villain. However, sometimes people are just not compatible, or are just a poor combination. In some cases, they just come together at the wrong time in their lives.
I mention this because–heresy for the day–I suspect some children and some parents are not compatible with each other.
When my daughter and her partner graduated from college, they lived with my wife and I for a while. Out of law partner’s first job after college was as a nanny for a professional couple who had adopted a little girl (”open” adoption from an unwed mother).
The couple were professional scientists (both with doctorates). Fairly liberal and secular. They had a birth daughter (about 10 or so at the time they adopted the child) whom they sent to a parochial school because even though they were secular people they thought the education their was better. Their birth daughter was a sensible, well-behaved child.
The child they adopted showed herself as hyperactive and aggressive as she grew up. When they hired Out-of-Law Partner as a nanny, the adopted child was three or four or so and almost completely out of control. Out of Law Partner was already experienced with taking care of children and she was able to set boundaries with the rambunctious child and get her behavior reasonably under control.
The adoptive parents, as intelligent as they were, had no idea how to use simple rule-setting and behavior management to control and guide a difficult child. It was quite ludicrous to see the dramatic difference in the child’s behavior when she was with her nanny and when she was with her adoptive parents.
Yet the same parents were successful with the calmer, more good-natured birth child. I don’t think this difference in results was the product of some subtle bias or difference in the parents’ behavior; I think it was the results of the fact that certain parents can handle certain types of children and not others. The nanny just had more skills in this area.
Report comment to moderator
2/2
Pauline’s comments about consistency points out a big part of what makes some parents successful and others not.
I personally don’t like spanking, but I am not bothered by parents who spank and who also demonstrate good sense and good self-control in how they conduct themselves. I don’t support laws against spanking.
Two serious pitfalls to be concerned about.
1) As I’ve pointed out before, we often send conflicting messages in our behavior. When a parent hits a child for fighting or bullying, that certainly makes the point (just as we do by thinking capital punishment sends an effective message of “don’t murder”).
2) If parents have a natural tendency to using violence inappropriately, the message “spanking is effective discipline” encourages parents who already are heading in a bad direction to head further in that direction.
This link about parental discipline out of control is truly horrifying.
I don’t post this to attack parents who spank. But it should make people uneasy at the least.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/28/child.remains.ap/index.html
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – That was a really rude and inappropriate thing to say to kBells at #75. I think you owe her an apology for that.
Report comment to moderator
Mmacmurray – 85
My post #72 ………..”When a parent allows a child to behave this badly, in PUBLIC NO LESS, they can’t possibly love the child, if they did they would stop the behavior, they would discipline the child, not stand by and wait for the tantrum to end”
Mmacmurray, read Kbells post #73 over again, you might get a different slant.
Outkast post #75……”KBells: If your child can’t seem to behave in public, perhaps you should not take that child out in public until they learn to behave!”
Mmacmurray, do you have a problem with Outkast’s comment? I don’t. Why should parents put themselves in a position to be ‘ruled’ by their children in public, with bad behavior and temper tantrums’ –
Outkast was NOT rude nor inappropriate, just read the comment Kbells wrote in post number 73 –
Better yet, here it is, just so you will know:
Kbells comment………”Or they could just be afraid someone’s going to turn them in for child abuse. I’m afraid I put up with a bit more in public than I do at home, for this very reason. My son figured out what I was doing and used it, until he realized that my threat that “you are going to get it when I get you home” was real.”
Mmacmurray, as you can see Kbells took care of the problem, but not every parent does this, that’s why it is an ONGOING TEMPER TANTRUM ANYWHERE THE PARENT TAKES THE CHILD!
Report comment to moderator
I think there’s a significant difference between the parents who are ruled by their children and are unwilling to or incapable of effectively dealing with tantrums and the parents who are training and disciplining their children but may still have to deal with tantrums in public places.
Three years ago, when my extremely strong-willed then-2-y.o. son was throwing a fit in church every week, a remark like Outkast’s in #75 would have been incredibly hurtful and would have seemed very mean-spirited. Through God’s great grace and consistent, careful discipline, helped by the patience and graciousness of our church family, our son got through that stage and learned to be quiet and to pay attention in church. Now he will behave through both Sunday school and church and during the week often talks about things he hears in the sermons.
From what kBells has posted in the past, I believe she and her husband are training up a strong-willed 4-y.o. boy. Some of the challenges she has talked about are very similar to my own, and I probably took the comment in #75 personally.
If I have misunderstood that comment, then I am wrong about the remark being rude and inappropriate, and I apologize to Outkast.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!