Bible and Spanking Children

[Paradox]

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

According to some catholics, the church's position "is not as obvious or immediate." A view on CP by a christian:
http://www.nospank.net/popcak.htm

In addition, it appears not to be supported at all by Methodists...
http://www.indcatholicnews.com/methodists.html

..and although this particular issue revolves specifically around the allowance of such practices in schools (not necessarily in the home) you can also feel free to add:
"Anglican; Apostolic; Assemblies of God; Associated Churches of Christ; Baptist; Brethren; Congregational; Churches of Christ...New Life Churches; Presbyterian; Salvation Army; Religious Society of Friends"

to the list of denominations who seem to have at least some problem with the issue.

http://www.socialissues.godzone.net.nz/submissions/smedcorp92.htm

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

The position, yes. As it should be if it merits such responses. So long as the position is being attacked, and not the person. (Although, the irony of this is, that, applying this idea in general, those who do support CP should not feel bothered by being punished for their positions! It is an acceptable form of discipline, after all! )

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

If you want to talk strict shop, your's is just an uninformed opinion, a poor one at that. Jurisprudence is not on your side. It is your views that are seen as extremist or radical, not mine.

That 'widespread', commonplace notion is dwindling year after year.

http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/components/7266b.html

Seems 'my' 'extremist or radical' views are gaining popularity, and it is you who are (or at least, if trend follows, will be) in the minority.

If the Supreme Court of the US agrees with my position, I think I have a fair handle on the issue.

Even using the U.S. Supreme Court as the pillar for an appeal to authority won't strengthen your argument. Just in case you wanted to rely on this, though

"Mrs. Sweaney appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the theory that qualified immunity was not applicable because of the deputy's conduct violated an alleged parental right, under the U.S. Constitution's Court and Fourteenth Amendments, to inflict corporal punishment upon the parent's child. Mrs. Sweaney predicated her theory on federal court cases which deal with various aspects of parental rights under the Constitution but none of which specifically consider the right to strike a child without being the subject to criminal investigation and charges. The Court of Appeals refused to find that more general parental constitutional rights- such as the right to bring the children or a right to privacy- clearly establish a federal constitutional right in parents to corporally punish their children." (emphasis mine)

http://www.stophitting.com/laws/legalNews.php

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

I thought we were abandoning the arguments of popular opinion...?

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

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

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

As seen above, the law is not necessarily on your side.

We don't have wonder about the validity of these types of ridiculous comparisons (I'm sorry, this is not my view, it is the view in your country).

I've deconstructed your repeated references to popular opinions, either in this country or not, to the point of irreducibility. Not that they provided anything solid in the first place. However, if you fancy these majority opinions so much, why don't I make a poll as to how many posters here would consider that 'ridiculous' analogy to be actually ridiculous?

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

What my government sees as irrelevant IS irrelevant. We are speaking of what 'ought' to be, not what is. The anaology was not meant to specifically draw parallels in the degree of 'punishment', but the reasons that a punishment is allowed in the first place. If you were not able to see this, "it is your shortcoming".

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

No, we have not determined that the legal system has a 'very specific standard' at all. Even if it did, you're still using the same tired argument. For pete's sake, segregation and slavery used to be supported by legal systems and popular opinion. That you rest the brunt of your case on the infallibility of the modern judicial system is sad.Particularly the case, when studies focused not necessarily on the detriments of spanking, but the positives of non-spanking seem to show such methods as more fruitful:

http://silcon.com/~ptave/straus3.htm

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

Clearly.

2 points for witty rebuttal, -8 for substance.

 

[Smalso]

This just in:

Two Texas Christian preachers loved an eleven-year-old boy so much that one held him down while the other beat him with what could be considered a "rod" causing severe damage to the boy's kidneys. Warrants have been issued for the arrest of the two.

Film at eleven.

 

[Smalso]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47187-2002Jul9.html

 

[Mossy]

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47187-2002Jul9.html

Wonderful:

"My son would've used a thin switch, that I'm positive of," he told the television station. He added: "My policy would've never been on the back like that ever. It would've been on the bottom."

Well that's nice, isn't it? Beat him? Sure that's fine, just do it somewhere that won't leave him in a hospital. That makes it okay.

This is the problem, Christian, both you and the men in this story use the same biblical justification. Specifically, it sounds like you're saying that you agree with the father who I quoted above.

If you don't want to continue the discussion with me, because I find this morally (yes, morally) nauseating, that's your choice. I won't pretend to "respect" the rights of these men, or their father that taught them "a thin switch... on the bottom" is a good teaching tool. A thin switch leaves bruises, it can sometimes leave blood - is that okay? You never answered my questions earlier and haven't provided the specific line between CP and abuse:

(in the context of CP)
Is it sometimes okay to leave bruises on your child?
Is it sometimes okay to cause bleeding?

Do you honestly now want to use the current American legal standard as the definition of what is "okay" (let's ignore, for a second, the fact that the current legal standard is dramatically changed from where it was just 30 years ago)? The difference between morality that evolves with society, and morality sent down from God is that men can learn they were mistaken. Happens all the time. Can I beat my slaves now? Oh wait, I can't even OWN slaves now, why? Because man's law has evolved, become more humane. Human morality can do that. God's law only changes when the men interpreting change.

I won't pretend, even for a second, to respect anyone (yes, I'm addressing the person now) who believes it is okay to hit a 3-8 year old child with a stick to teach them the error of their ways.

Rather than be indignant with us for pointing out the cruelty and hypocrasy in the position, defend your position.

If my puppy ◊◊◊◊◊ on the carpet, can I legally hit him with a stick to the point of causing pain? No. Don't believe me? Try it. Will he learn if I do hit him with the stick? Certainly, but who cares? Of course cruelty is an effective way to teach, but is it a humane way? Is it there not a better way?

Now, if I can't legally hit my puppy with a stick (with the intent of causing pain), then why should I be allowed to hit a child?

-Ed

 

[Christian]

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

This is mere speculation on your part with regards to the rod. *Reasonable* is a clear legal standard that is considered understood by any normal person. I didn't make this up. A third party (this case a judge) will intervene if there is a dispute over what is reasonable.

And we don't have to guess what the judge's elements of judment will be. They are clear and objective.

Loki wrote:
That's the issue under discussion here - what does society consider 'reasonable', and why.

Only if you are ignorant of the standard. If you are not, the discussion can also include a critizism of the standard.

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

1) US laws does not allow any distinction of extremes, the standard is clear and objective
2)There is no somewhere between extremes in US law.
3) I believe there is a right to privacy that allows me to use CP as long as I don't violate the standards of Law.
4) My justification is that it works. It is a positive effective tool in child rearing.

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

I use a paddle.


In case you are wondering about the standard, this is the US standard:

The factors usually taken into consideration to determine whether a punishment is excessive are:

1) Whether a mark is left and the length of time the mark remains after the punishment.
2) Whether the physical force was applied out of anger.
3) The age of the child.
4) Whether the punishment had a traumatic impact on the child.

In addition, section 273d of the California Penal Code prohibits willful infliction of a traumatic condition by cruel or inhuman corporal punishment. "Traumatic condition" is defined as "a wound or abnormal bodily condition resulting from the application of some external force." People v. Stewart, 188 C.A.2d 88, 91 (1961).

The law appears more concerned with the reasonableness of the punishment under the circumstances, and whether the child is physically injured, than with what is used to spank a child. The likelihood of injury (traumatic condition) is not automatically determined by whether an empty hand or an object is used to spanking a child. A fist can be used to inflict a "traumatic condition" if the blow results in a swollen eye, a cut and swollen lip on a child. See People v. Thomas, 65 C.A.3d 854 (1977).

Finally, although spanking a child in public may result in complaints being filed with Child Protective Services by third parties, there is no state law prohibiting spanking in public.

If you note the standard, the right to privacy is even upheld in public. This is extremely rare and it's a testament to the validity of the practice.

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

I'm not interested or care to debate on CP in schools. It is a non-issue. I believe no one but the parent has the authority to administer CP on a child.


Paradox wrote:
So long as the position is being attacked, and not the person.

I'm going to be nicer to you than you were to me, and say that it should be obvious to you that by attacking the position, you are attacking the practitioners of the position. You are insulting them when you compare them to rapists or wife beaters.

From your link:

In terms of actual practice, studies generally show corporal punishment (especially spanking) to be widely used, with some 90% of parents (or children) reporting having used it at least once.

So according to your link, 90% of parents in the US are comparable to rapists and wife beaters.

Paradox wrote:
As seen above, the law is not necessarily on your side.

Yes, it is. Your link clearly shows that.

Paradox wrote:
if you fancy these majority opinions so much, why don't I make a poll as to how many posters here would consider that 'ridiculous' analogy to be actually ridiculous?

They are ridiculous whetever you see it or not. And that is the softest word at the risk of offending you. The penalty for rape in some states (Massachusetts e.g.) is 20 years in prison. In your link a mother stricking a child with a belt 6-7 times was considered a possible misdemeanor and after admitting to it was acquitted. This meaning that the jury and judge agreed that these actions did not constitute even a misdemeanor.

Paradox wrote:
What my government sees as irrelevant IS irrelevant.

Please forgive if I disagree with you. Who said that the debate will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.

I for one, am very interested in what my government considers relenvant or irrelevant. They have the powet to throw in jail if I don't agree to abide by its rules.

Paradox wrote:
That you rest the brunt of your case on the infallibility of the modern judicial system is sad.

This is a strawman. I have never said that modern judicial system is infallible.

The only reason why I have brought all these facts out is bring down the pejorative tone from your side.

I think it only has served as a buffer. And I think it is working, now posters are starting to concentrate on the pros and cons of the practice in an objective way. With a loaded atmosphere it is impossible to bring out the positive aspects of any subject.

Paradox wrote:
Particularly the case, when studies focused not necessarily on the detriments of spanking, but the positives of non-spanking seem to show such methods as more fruitful:

Now we are on to the right track. I very much like to discuss the pros and cons. As I said at the beginning: Methodology. I assure you, if you have an open mind you will find the ideas interesting and educational. Not that you are not or can't be fully knowledgable in child rearing but, I mean the Christian perspective of child education.

Paradox wrote:
2 points for witty rebuttal, -8 for substance.

Coming from you, this is the highest compliment . I prefer this much better than anus

 

[Christian]

Mossy, I'm trying (very hard) not to ignore you. I think in my last post I responded to some of your questions in my responses to Loki and Paradox.

I really want to continue on to methodology if we can get passed this.

 

[Martin]

I for one, am very interested in what my government considers relenvant or irrelevant. They have the powet to throw in jail if I don't agree to abide by its rules.

Argumentum ad Baculum?

 

[Mossy]

I really want to continue on to methodology if we can get passed this.

Regardless of my distaste for the position you hold, the methodolgy is exactly what I'm trying to get at. You have stated:

- The Bible does advocate spanking children with an object (for you, you interpret this to be a paddle).
- The appropriate age range for CP is 3-8 years old.
- The current American legal standard supports your right to discipline your children using this method (as long as you don't inflict a traumatic condition).

The specific questions I'm asking, in an attempt to get a better idea of what this exactly means to you is:

- Are there certain circumstances that make it okay to leave bruises on your child (which paddles have been known to do)?
- Are there certain circumstances that make it okay for you to draw blood (which switches and rods have been known to do)?
- How did you ascertain the ages 3-8 as the appropriate ages (it says nothing about this in the Bible, unless I am mistaken)? Why is it not okay to paddle a 2 year old child or a 9 year old child?
- Since you have used to the current American legal standard: if that standard continues to change as it has been over the last thirty years, will you change your position? If the courts decide that spanking is abuse, will you discontinue your practice of it?

-Ed

 

[Christian]

Martinm wrote:
Argumentum ad Baculum?

Interesting you mention this. A fun fact in jurisprudence is that the State is the only sanction authority that can *legally* coerse anyone.

 

[Christian]

Mossy wrote:
Regardless of my distaste for the position you hold, the methodolgy is exactly what I'm trying to get at.

I think I need to explain this a little further. When I say methodology, I don't mean CP methodology, I mean child rearing methodology. CP may constitute 5% of the methodology. Once you understand how it fits in the whole structure then you can ascertain its effectiveness.

Oh by the way, I'm sorry for having confused you with another poster.

Mossy wrote:
Are there certain circumstances that make it okay to leave bruises on your child (which paddles have been known to do)?

No.

Mossy wrote:
- Are there certain circumstances that make it okay for you to draw blood (which switches and rods have been known to do)?

No.

Mossy wrote:
- How did you ascertain the ages 3-8 as the appropriate ages (it says nothing about this in the Bible, unless I am mistaken)? Why is it not okay to paddle a 2 year old child or a 9 year old child?

To answer this question properly we need to get into methodology. Then, the answer will make more sense.

The Bible is a guide. It gives us principles. A book on general human anatomy will not be as precise as a specializes book on the heart.

Mossy wrote:
Since you have used to the current American legal standard: if that standard continues to change as it has been over the last thirty years, will you change your position? If the courts decide that spanking is abuse, will you discontinue your practice of it?

I don't think the standard has changed that much. Remember school CP is not comtemplated anywhere in the Bible. Throughtout history up till today, the right to parenting is a cornerstone of the right to privacy in most States in the world.

But, I will humor you. I suppose if I lived in Denmark where it is not allowed, the Bible teaches that I must obey the laws of the land.

 

[Paradox]

I'm going to be nicer to you than you were to me, and say that it should be obvious to you that by attacking the position, you are attacking the practitioners of the position. You are insulting them when you compare them to rapists or wife beaters.

I don't want to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to determine who is or is not at fault for the way arguments are attacked. Simply, I cannot control what positions you choose to espouse. If I find the notion of dowsing to be preposterous and infantile, this does not mean I am attacking dowsers. I find it hard to balance the debate in such a way as to not censure my opinions (which I shall endeavor to substantiate at every turn), yet at the same time not performing an act you have delineated as insulting (to yourself and to CP practitioners). I don't find violence necessary ever and my comments about CP may very well showcase this. At least, for the puspoes of civility in the debate, if you would understand that, at least to me, there is a clear line of permissibility between attacking a position and attacking a person, it would be appreciated. (I think I may just have spent an inordinate amount of time with this...*sigh*...figures!)

So according to your link, 90% of parents in the US are comparable to rapists and wife beaters.

No...according to the link, "70-90% (a bit generous, if not selective, in highlighting the higher extreme, maybe...weren't you?) of parents believing it is sometimes "necessary to discipline children with a good, hard spanking".

Now, if you were making mention of how you thought I intepret this, as per my analogies, no. According to the link, in my point of view, 70-90% of parents commit acts of violence which they consider excusable.

Yes, it is. Your link clearly shows that.

Did you miss the part that dismisses your supposed 'standard'? Here it is again:

"The Court of Appeals refused to find that more general parental constitutional rights- such as the right to bring the children or a right to privacy- clearly establish a federal constitutional right in parents to corporally punish their children."

They are ridiculous whetever you see it or not. And that is the softest word at the risk of offending you. The penalty for rape in some states (Massachusetts e.g.) is 20 years in prison. In your link a mother stricking a child with a belt 6-7 times was considered a possible misdemeanor and after admitting to it was acquitted. This meaning that the jury and judge agreed that these actions did not constitute even a misdemeanor.

1) You've, again, missed the point I was trying to make with said analogy, but since my explanations of it don't seem to be working, I'll just let it go as far as that aspect is concerned.
2) That it could even be considered a 'possible misdemeanor' is enough to provide reason for generous introspection.
3) That it was acquitted or not...or found to be a misdemeanor or not, do not, still, say anything as to whether they should be.

Please forgive if I disagree with you. Who said that the debate will show who abandons said logic in order to retain their views.

Are you saying an appeal to authority is a logical form of debate?
Can the government be 'wrong' about something? If it can, then using their supposed support as a method by which to strengthen an argument is pointless. We are here to debate if CP is an appropriate method of child-rearing, not if the government currently espouses such ideas. In this respect, it is as pertinent to the discussion as whether L. Ron Hubbard espoused CP.

I for one, am very interested in what my government considers relenvant or irrelevant. They have the powet to throw in jail if I don't agree to abide by its rules.

Argument from adverse consequences? Wasn't it the claimed messiah of your religion/spirituality that defied the law of his time (at the expense oh his life) to further a cause? Not to say that the first person to martyr themselves for a position concerning CP will automatically grant victory for his/her 'side', but that my government can jail me for something STILL does not establish if it is logical and sensible. If I had a bit more energy right now, I'd pick out some of the references to 'Silly Laws' (a thread in banter) to showcase some nonsense that I can be jailed for, which would be ludicrous to agree with.

This is a strawman. I have never said that modern judicial system is infallible.

True, you didn't. However, your continued references to it's claimed support of the position lead me to believe you consider it to be a boon to your cause...inferring, indirectly, that it must indeed be 'right' about it's position, for no reason other than that it is the judicial system/government.

The only reason why I have brought all these facts out is bring down the pejorative tone from your side.

In that case, in hopes that you feel this 'tone' is no longer disparaging to the point of fruitless debate, can we dispense with irrelevant 'facts' and get to the issues?

I think it only has served as a buffer. And I think it is working, now posters are starting to concentrate on the pros and cons of the practice in an objective way. With a loaded atmosphere it is impossible to bring out the positive aspects of any subject.

So long as everyone is starting to feel more comfortable and less personally threatened, wonderful.

Now we are on to the right track. I very much like to discuss the pros and cons. As I said at the beginning: Methodology. I assure you, if you have an open mind you will find the ideas interesting and educational.

Are you suggesting that if I don't agree with your ideas and/or find them educational or interesting, I don't have an open mind? Can we forego (as you suggested earlier) the comments concerning what the opposition 'is' if they don't agree with the 'other side's' position, and just try to present the points in favor of each view?

Not that you are not or can't be fully knowledgable in child rearing but, I mean the Christian perspective of child education.

Okay. Call it a pet peeve of mine, but let's start by clarifying what it is you're debating. My position, is, simply, that:

CP is an unecessary and antiquated form of discipline. It is an accepted form of violence...one that isn't even prompted by an initial act of violence (it's not defensive). There is no reason why a competent parent should have to resort to CP. I think it healthier for all parties involved if child-rearing is performed sans CP.

Now, what exactly are you saying? Are you supporting the reason for which CP is acceptable, period? Are you supporting why it is logical for christians to espouse this view? Your switching from 'christian' examples to general ones is confusing me as to what your basic point is. I would appreciate it if you could clarify which (if any) you are supporting and, if necessary, we'll separate the topics into two (or more, as necessary) sub-discussions.

Coming from you, this is the highest compliment . I prefer this much better than anus

Noted...and agreed. On a side note, does this mean you ocassionally do prefer 'anus'..."jelly or syrup"?

(Disregard comment if you are unfamiliar with the comedy routine to which the comment refers...and maybe also in case you find it, for some reason, to be repulsively offensive.)

 

[Ed]

Am I the only one to find this thread bizarre? Here we have a christian espousing violence against children and at least one atheist that finds it repugnant. How curious.

So, the bottom line is that a 160 pound man is justified in beating a 35 pound child. And perform such beatings as the result of considered judgement. And the bible justifies this.

I find it sick. Perhaps some classes in effective parenting might be in order.

 

[Christian]

Paradox wrote:
Are you suggesting that if I don't agree with your ideas and/or find them educational or interesting, I don't have an open mind?

You are good for my communication skills. I could have worded that better.

Paradox wrote:
Now, what exactly are you saying? Are you supporting the reason for which CP is acceptable, period? Are you supporting why it is logical for christians to espouse this view? Your switching from 'christian' examples to general ones is confusing me as to what your basic point is. I would appreciate it if you could clarify which (if any) you are supporting and, if necessary, we'll separate the topics into two (or more, as necessary) sub-discussions.

According to Christian teaching, CP should be used rarely, but it is a necessary tool. The less it is used, the more effective it is. With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is.

There are specific guideliness for CP. Let me give you 2 important ones.

1) The only instance where CP should be used is when there is defiance from the child in your presence. Defiance is the specific time when a child disregards with full intention your authority in your face and challenges you.

2) CP must never be used for any spontenous misbehavior in presence or absense of parent.

 

[Paradox]

According to Christian teaching, CP should be used rarely, but it is a necessary tool. The less it is used, the more effective it is. With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is.

This brings up an important question, IMO.

Do you believe certain children are genetically predisposed to being 'naughty'?

 

[Paradox]

Am I the only one to find this thread bizarre? Here we have a christian espousing violence against children and at least one atheist that finds it repugnant. How curious.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

In the limited time available at the moment I have not been able to find any info that the Catholic or Anglican churches in Australia actively promote/teach CP as a parenting style. I have never heard of this before, and can't find any 'official' support - but that doesn't mean it isn't so, so I'm going to drop it for now (I doubt you or I are all that interested in pursuing this?).

This is mere speculation on your part with regards to the rod. *Reasonable* is a clear legal standard that is considered understood by any normal person. I didn't make this up. A third party (this case a judge) will intervene if there is a dispute over what is reasonable.
...
1) US laws does not allow any distinction of extremes, the standard is clear and objective
2)There is no somewhere between extremes in US law.
...

You misunderstand my point in regard to 'extremes'. I agree that as far as the law is concerned, CP is not a 'range' of behaviours. What I was trying to convey is that there is a range of possible behaviours that a parent can choose from - from "no CP" to "beat the child unconscious". The current US law is a line somewhere in that range - as you point out, there are guidelines to establish what this is. My point is simply that this line moves, and is moving. Why does it move, and in what direction should it move?

I'm not interested or care to debate on CP in schools. It is a non-issue. I believe no one but the parent has the authority to administer CP on a child.

Once again, you put yourself at odds with the established christian churches. The only direct support for CP from the major Australian churches that I can find relates to their belief that CP is "valid and acceptable" within private schools. This position is clear, and the practise has only been stopped since specific laws were passed to prevent it. The Catholic and Anglican church organisations in Australia are still unhappy about this, and are actively trying to get an 'exemption' from the law. You believe they are wrong, and that they have no right to administer CP.

Okay - a non-issue then, since you and I both believe that CP is inappropriate in schools. But again, you should note that the Catholic and Anglican churches disagree with you (and I).

This thread is really about 'biblical support for CP', and we see that :
(a) you claim biblical support for parental CP,
(b) the major Australian christian churches claim biblical support for school CP (which you reject).
This seems to demonstrate a key point - the inherent dangers of biblical interpretation to establish acceptable behaviour.

When I say methodology, I don't mean CP methodology, I mean child rearing methodology. CP may constitute 5% of the methodology. Once you understand how it fits in the whole structure then you can ascertain its effectiveness.

And here's the irony - I suspect that you and I might agree on as much as 95% of your 'child rearing methodology' (well, maybe 80%?). But no matter how string a disciplinarian you wish to be as a parent, CP is *not* necessary.

The only instance where CP should be used is when there is defiance from the child in your presence. Defiance is the specific time when a child disregards with full intention your authority in your face and challenges you.

Been there, and didn't use CP to resolve it. I read the 'summary' on Amazon for the book you suggested Christian ("Dare to Discipline"). This is exactly the example given there - a child openly defying the mother. The author paints a picture of two possible appraoches - CP, or the mother capitulating. It's a false dilemma. There are any number of alternatives that will produce the same positive outcome but minus the side effect of the implied "initiating violence can be acceptable" message that CP sends.

My daughter has done this, and I can assure you that (a) CP was not needed and (b) the lesson was learned (by her) that she loses far more than she gains through such behaviour.

(From Paradox) : CP is an unecessary and antiquated form of discipline. It is an accepted form of violence...one that isn't even prompted by an initial act of violence (it's not defensive). There is no reason why a competent parent should have to resort to CP. I think it healthier for all parties involved if child-rearing is performed sans CP.

Perfectly summed up Paradox - 100% agreement.

(Edited to correct the spelling of 'Paradox')

 

[Ed]

According to Christian teaching, CP should be used rarely, but it is a necessary tool. The less it is used, the more effective it is. With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is.

I can see that, violence is effective. Ask any terrorist

There are specific guideliness for CP. Let me give you 2 important ones.

Guidelines for beating? There is a Christian book on beating children? OMG

1) The only instance where CP should be used is when there is defiance from the child in your presence. Defiance is the specific time when a child disregards with full intention your authority in your face and challenges you.

A ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ 3 year old?

"Go to bed" "no" Beating
"eat your peas" "no" beating


Good lord, what kind of parenting is that?
Are you that hung up on authority?

My child just called mt a "poopyhead" cuz I told him to put my chess set back on the board. Shall I beat him? (inciidentially, he did it, properly, with no beating)

Remember, consistancy is the key to behavior mod. So, you beat every time? Also, it is not "CP" (though an acronym might make you feel better) it is beating.



2) CP must never be used for any spontenous misbehavior in presence or absense of parent.

suppose the kid is spontaniously defiant? Smacko?

Were you beaten as a child? I understand that that is often the justification.

 

[headscratcher4]

The only instance where CP should be used is when there is defiance from the child in your presence. Defiance is the specific time when a child disregards with full intention your authority in your face and challenges you.

What if the "definence" is based on a child's honest belief that the parent is mistaken, or the parent is in fact mistaken?

Example:

Parent: "You were horsing around in the livingroom when I told you not to. You broke the table. Now, go to your room and think about what you've done..."

Child: "That's not fair, I was nowhere near the livingroom, I didn't even know the table was broken,,,"

P: "Go to your room now! Are you defying me!"

C: "But dad, you are wrong! I didn't do anything!....I won't go to my room for something I didn't do"

P (To the room crowded with other siblings, spouse, relatives): "Do yo see this, this child is defying me! I hate to do this but the bible allows me to beat you know...."

Simplistic, sure, but it is easy to see where one parent's vision of an act of defience, is a child's worst nightmare -- lack of belief and trust. How does a parent, using CP, distinguish? When is defience real, vs. petty and giving? When is defience real, vs. an honest belief in an injustice? Are parents who practice CP incapable of an act of injustice? When is an "act of defience" a convient excuse for shutting down an argument that the parent perfers not to deal with rationally and calmly and without hitting?

Can a parent really loose their self-respect if a 4 year-old defies them? How about ignoring the 4 year-old rather than beating them?

Just looking for clarification on how a 4 year old can be so defient as to require that they be hit....

P.S. In all of the representations of Jesus and his ministry that I've seen -- including the modern statues being sold of Jesus playing football with the kids -- I've never seen one of Jesus hitting a child, or (again, the modern take) Jesus standing "spiritually" behind a parent as they beat a child.

Do you think Jesus, while he walked among us as a "man" ever had cause to hit a child?

In his 33 year life, for example, was there ever a time when he was left watching the children of his brother James, or other brothers (while they were out in the carpentry shop), and one of the little nephews or nieces defied him, do you think Jesus spanked little Bar-James? Or, maybe he told James...."Brother James, Little James here defied me while you were away, I fear you must spank them..."

I only pose this, because I am interested in how you think Jesus might have acted in the very human situation where a small child "defies" a parent....

 

[Mossy]

According to Christian teaching, CP should be used rarely, but it is a necessary tool. The less it is used, the more effective it is. With some children, it is never warranted, with some children it is.

There are specific guideliness for CP. Let me give you 2 important ones.

Christian,

Just a quick point of order, and perhaps one that is generating some confusion (or repulsion, depending on how you look at it) on my part. There aren't "specific Christian guidelines" regarding CP - there may be rules that you follow, or guidelines that a specific book (other than the bible) recommends, but these are hardly the guidelines that all Christians espouse.

I am willing to avoid attacking strawmen, but you need to stop putting me in a position where I need to. Specifically, if you are arguing "Christian guidelines", and then I am responding with arguments against various "Christian guidelines" that perhaps don't apply to you (for example, the men in the news article posted earlier) - it may be seen as me attempting a strawman attack.

If there are specific rules that you follow, that is good - please present them, but to suggest that these are the Christian guidelines puts me in a position where I'll need to point out the error/hypocrisy/cruelty in the application of those guidelines (and again, this might not apply to you), and then you'll be offended at my accusation and in turn ignore me.

-Ed

[edited because I finally learned how to spell hypocrisy]

 

[Mossy]

I only pose this, because I am interested in how you think Jesus might have acted in the very human situation where a small child "defies" a parent....

I agree with what you're saying here, but just wanted to point out that Jesus wasn't above violence. He pulled out the whip when people were selling things in the Temple - so perhaps he might have grabbed a rod and "trained" little Bar-James.

-Ed