Alan Kazdin recently discussed corporal punishment. He’s against it.
Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment in the schools. But so far, we have shown ourselves unwilling to extend that debate beyond the schools and into the ideologically sacred circle of the family. Where the argument against corporal punishment in the schools has prevailed, in fact, it has often cited parents’ individual right to punish their own children as they, and not educators acting for the state, see fit. The situation is different in other countries. You may not be surprised to hear that 91 countries have banned corporal punishment in the schools, but you may be surprised to hear that 23 countries have banned corporal punishment everywhere within their borders, including in the home.
… Practically nobody in America knows or cares that the United Nations has set a target date of 2009 for a universal prohibition of violence against children that would include a ban on corporal punishment in the home. Americans no doubt have many reasons—some of them quite good—to ignore or laugh off instructions from the United Nations on how to raise their kids. And it’s naive to think that comprehensive bans are comprehensively effective. Kids still get hit in every country on earth. But especially because such bans are usually promoted with large public campaigns of education and opinion-shaping (similar to successful efforts in this country to change attitudes toward littering and smoking), they do have measurable good effects. So far, the results suggest that after the ban is passed, parents hit less and are less favorably inclined toward physical discipline, and the country is not overwhelmed by a wave of brattiness and delinquency.
… We have so far limited our national debate on corporal punishment by focusing it on the schools and conducting it at the local and state level. We have shied away from even theoretically questioning the primacy of rights that parents exercise in the home, where most of the hitting takes place. Whatever one’s position on corporal punishment, we ought to be able to at least discuss it with each other like grownups.
I find this very interesting. He thinks we should ban completely ban spanking. He thinks we should punish parents who spank their children. Maybe he thinks that we should take the children away if the parents continually defy the law.
I’m sure many prominent lefties would support his argument. And, yet, how many of those same people would support an effort to criminalize abortion and punish parents who seek abortions? Isn’t this a double standard? How can you be willing to outlaw spanking — to punish parents who hit their children — but not be willing to outlaw abortions — punish parents who kill their children?
How is that a just standard?
It is a very good point you make re: the consideration of banning spanking but not abortion. But I just cringe every time I see or hear someone using the phrase “lefty”.
I’m a life long conservative Republican who has voted for the last 26 years and I still don’t know what point someone is making when they use that term except that it is meant to be derogatory. It is used like a dirty word.
I know that our country is a diverse mix of people from one extreme to the other, but I have always prided myself on being respectful of other opinions. I believe the Pledge of Allegiance when it says “United we stand, Divided we fall.”
When I’m reading I’m hoping to learn something I didn’t know before and it has so much more credibility when there is no name calling involved.
Thanks for letting me comment.
Here, here, Berash! The term is meant to be nothing but derogatory. I agree with you 100%, and I also agree with Mr. Martin’s original point about spanking and abortion. I am not sure, however, that the term “United we stand, Divided we fall” appears in the Pledge. It was once used by Patrick Henry, and appears in a 1776 song called “The Liberty Song”, but there are actually references to the term as far back as Aesop.
The issues are separate. We might as well argue that “why stop Priests from sodomizing boys, but allow abortion?” or any other issue you wish to insert, if you believe that a four-celled fertilized egg is a complete human being with all rights. The issues in abortion are, at what point does a fertilized egg/fetus become a human, and at what point does it inheret human rights and perhaps US citizenship? This question is not so easy to answer. Even the most anti-abortion folks seldom hold a complete funeral for a miscarriage, but all might do so for a very late term fetus. We all agree that children are human beings, however, and as such should be protected from abuse and should have basic human rights. The question here is, what human rights should they be granted? I have come to believe after much study that it is never good to hit a child, by anyone, for any reason. I have mixed feelings on abortion and understand all sides and nuances, but it is a separate issue from school paddling, home spanking, sex abuse, rape, or any other issue that seems less or more to some people. It should be considered separately as teh arguments for or against either one are based on completely different things.
By the way, the New Testament does not advocate that anyone hit anyone, even a parent to a child, let alone school teachers and such. Also interestingly, in light of the fact that it seems to be the overwhelming focus of so many Christians today, the New Testament does not say a word about abortion either. There are a few Old Testament passages from the secular King Solomon that advocate hitting children, and there is likewise an Old Testament passage that indicates that a fetus was not considered a human being, where if two men are fighting and they injure a pregnant woman, if the woman dies, then it is “life for life,” but if the fetus dies, then it is a civil fine. Of course Christians are prohibited from following even one verse of the Old Testament in the book of Galations and elsewhere, but we sure have a lot of religicized issues that the New Testament is silent on.
Jeff, I’d be interested in hearing your opinion on when a “four-celled fertilized egg” transitions from mere issue to human being. And why you do you apparently think that it’s better to err on the side of the mother’s convenience and not on the side of protecting life? I still find it inconceivable that you could balk at causing pain to a child but not balk at ending (potentially, according to you) a child’s life.
I truly like how you diminish King Solomon — who even God called the wisest of all men — down to merely a “secular” ruler, who should be ignored. And Galatians does not prohibit Christians from following even one verse of the Old Testament. That’s a pretty ludicrous view. Galatians tells us not to depend on our good works to justify us. That’s a pretty far cry from prohibiting us from doing good works.
Joe, I did not express any opinion on abortion, approval or disapproval, but merely stated I could see both sides. What I did state is that the issues of any type of child abuse and abortion are different and are based on different premisis — and also that even the most strident anti-abortionists that I have known are somewhat inconsistent as well, such as not having a full funeral every time someone miscarries, which if the fetus at any stage is a full human with full rights should be necessitated. Also I pointed out that the New Testament does not teach anyone to hit anyone and also does not say anything specifically about abortion. As far as Solomon, the Bible itself records him as an Idol worshipping Despot, and so corrupt that he alone was the very reason God had to divide and conquer Israel. (I Kings 11.) Solomon may have asked for “wisdom,” but whatever that wisdom became, he in no place does ever claimed to speak for God, nor does any other writer attribute that to him. Even if you think he was a prophet, however, and did speak for God, he is “Old Testament.” The “Old Testament” was never once given to Gentiles, and even if a Christian today were Jewish from birth, the “Old Testament” is completely forbidden to be followed today even for him. (Galations 3:10 and many other places). No part if it should be followed, even something as benign as religious circumcision, or else the entire New Testament is made void, and the person must live by the entire law. The issue in abortion is not child abusel but rather at what point does an egg/sperm, fertilized egg, fetus become a person with human rights? I did not attempt to answer that question, but point out it is distinct as an issue from whether children should be raped, beaten, or sodomized by priests, and etc., and confusion over this issue should not be an excuse to allow known child abuses. If you are an “Old Testament Christian” and you believe it to “apply today,” the law, which Moses does claim inspiration from God in delivering, clearly does consider a fetus to be less than a person in the “two men fighting and injuring a pregnant woman” passage. If the woman dies, it is “life for life,” but if the fetus only dies, then it is a money fine. Personally I think contraception is a good thing, but some think even that is a sin and is preventing a baby that could be made. I also have less problem with an early term abortion than a later one. I don’t think a 10-year-old girl raped by her father should be forced to carry the baby to term, as recently happened in Mexico, and I do not like to see late term abortions performed “for convenience,” and yet possibly there could be medical considerations where this could be the least bad outcome in some cases. What many “pro-life” parents often fail to do is what I did do and what Sarah Palin did do also — let your child know early that if she does get pregnant she can keep the baby and I would help raise it — which is what I told my daughter at age 13 or so. Fortunately I did not have to deal with it, but she knew she could talk to us if it did come up. The issues of abortion and “CP” sometimes converge with “good christian” parents often threatening a beating or kicking out of the house if a girl gets pregnant, so she seeks a secret abortion, legal or otherwise. Also I know of a Christian school that kicked out any girl that got pregnant, but of course in practice if a girl got an abotion she could stay in school and be the validictorian. I found this hypocritical at best, and their actions certainly contradicted their words.
Jeff, you’re radically misinterpreting Galatians 3:10. It says “For all who rely on works of the law”, not “For all who follow the works of the law”. There is a clear difference. Christians are forbidden to put their faith in the law, not forbidden to obey the law.
You cannot simply cut the Old Testament out of the Bible. Jesus and Paul both quoted it extensively. James specifically commands us to do good works to demonstrate our faith and devotion.
I’m not arguing that we need to follow the entire Mosaic law. I don’t believe that. I do believe it’s important and that it’s plain wrong to just write off the entire volume. If “no part of it should be followed”, how should we best ignore the commandments against murdering, lying, coveting, and committing adultery?
Baulk! Baulk! that is a strange word. If you are to use the word baulk to describe a sincere hope that parents will communicate to their children with respect and love and peacefulness ,we can surely turn the table and see how many parents baulk at their children. But I’m not about to play your game. Its a lose lose. You need a loser, you’re probably an abuser.
People that have no problem hitting children immediately point out the consequences that will be put on parents that do hit their children. Instead of agreeing that children shouldn’t be hit, they point to the law and consequences for the parents that DO hit. This makes them do a comparison in their mind: well if a parent would go to jail for hitting a child, what about going to jail for abortion. They skip right over the part that they agree with hitting children.
Forget about King Solomon for a second and try to be wise yourself.
Are you advocating hitting children? or are you just against laws criminalizing hitting children? And how many spanks a day is okay from your end? how many bruises is okay? What does constitute abuse to you? I mean beating a bare butt blue isn’t the same thing as being aborted. Breaking legs isn’t as bad as being aborted. Mania and trauma isn’t as bad as being aborted. At what point is the law supposed to work for children? is it EVER okay to tell a parent to straighten things out or give up your child? The conversation is OLD from the start.OLD!!! More than 20 countries have banned spanking from schools and the home. Why baulk about it. Ban spanking already. its 2008. Parents need a clear line. It is helpful for the parent. Parents need boundaries and a loving country to guide them. Being a parent isn’t easy, but from supportive individuals and firm laws about abuse, parents will have an easier time finding their way with their child.
While we are on the subject of religion, do you think churches are best the way they are: baptist, catholic, methodist, Church of God, Church of Christ, Latter Day Saints? Do their differences personalize them or segregate themselves from one another? Just a thought. I know much unifying has been done with many churches. Obama belongs to a unified church.
On the topic of science and religion: Jesus nor Paul quoted science, or even told us any useful information about the planets. (I’m not trying to blaspheme or be atheistic, I’m just pointing out a fact ) You can’t cut science out of your life either…next time you get your tooth drilled just remember that the dentist probably took quite a bit of biology courses, and that drill machine needs physics etc… More to the point, we are living in a totally different age. Jesus saved us from the law, Paul helped the early churches reassemble their beliefs. On many occasions rules were told to the churches based on what was going on at the time. James specifically commands us to do good works. What I am saying is that a good work for this time and place is to put our past behind is, celebrate what God has given us, and help our children learn the love that helps build strong supportive communities. I cannot work in the spirit and in faith while having to protect children from the malicious lies, greed, pride, and hatred passed down from the two past generations. If I must fight your old generation plus my generation you might as well hang me on a cross. You have fought the next generations as if we were Satan itself and have left our morals shattered. One thing everybody seems to agree with is killing 4 year olds with a shotgun is bad. That’s about the best I see right now in our society. If we move the age to 12–some might ask…well what did they do? move the age to 15, they should’ve been at church, they deserved it.
Sympathy and empathy is a good work to be done. Children generally have a lot of both. They are young and bounce back fairly well. Typically more concerned about their parents needs than their own, we betray them with our jealousy, rage, and selfishness.
Children should not be hit. Whether you agree with jailing parents that do hit, it would be nice if the majority of people would at least agree that it is no way to raise a child.
Many morals stem from this one moral. For instance, a society that treats children well also treats employees well. They are more prepared to help the wayward from age 2-100.
Only fools use the Bible to divide and depress the nation.
May God show mercy on the children of the USA, and may he correct our attitudes and our petty disagreements. Amen.