Muriel Newman on “The Smacking Debate”
Should parents who smack their children be made into criminals in the eyes of the law, as those who support the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act are proposing? What is your view?
Last week the Body Shop announced that stores throughout the country would be encouraging customers to sign a petition to Parliament supporting the Green Party’s bill to abolish section 59 of the Crimes Act (click here to view the bill).
I feel sorry for The Body Shop. They, along with dozens of other organisations – including Plunket, Barnardos, Playcentre, UNICEF and Presbyterian Support, (click here to view the full list) – that purport to support families and children, have allowed themselves to be used by a radical socialist party to bring legitimacy to a move that will undermine Kiwi families and criminalise parents.
And a poll here :
This week’s poll asks whether you support the abolition of section 59 of the Crimes Act, and for those interested in taking action to prevent the Bill passing into law, it provides a plan of action.
Smacking should only be considered morally acceptable if there are no alternatives available. There are many alternatives to smacking, therefore smacking is not morally permissible.
The following article outlines the issue in a methodical fashion.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3602557/Should-Parents-Smack-Children-by-Brent-Silby
Brent, your comment shows that your thinking is confused. Whether it is moral to smack or not has NOTHING to do with whether alternatives exist. Actually, if there is no God, the objective morality does not exist at all — how can it? Thus it is actually God who determines whether smacking is moral — and the Bible (God’s revelation to us) says that it is.
Good questions “sunny”. We have answered them in this post:
http://christiannews.co.nz/2009/when-should-a-child-be-smacked/
————————————-
Some questions for those people who want to smack children:
How young should a child be when he/she receives their first smack?
How old should a child be before it is considered inappropriate to ‘smack’?
Must a smack hurt to ‘work’? What do you do if the child scoffs at you “That didn’t hurt”?
What do you do if the ‘smack’ doesn’t work? (stop the problem behaviour) Smack harder?
Longer?
And why exactly do Christians point to the Bible to justify smacking little children?
After all Jesus took a whip to money lenders: there is no record of Him either doling out a beating to a child or of receiving one as a child (e.g. when he gave Mary and Joseph the slip and went back to teach in the Temple. Some might even say He gave a bit of lip to Mary when she explained how worried they had been….) One of my favourite word pictures is when kids were jumping all over Jesus and the apostles started getting stuck into them and He said, “Suffer (let) the little children come unto me for such is the Kingdom of Heaven”
[...] a set of questions was posed by “sunny” regarding the smacking of children. I have no idea who “sunny is or [...]
Admin, did you read the article I pointed to in my post?
Your comment presupposes the existence of God, and also presupposes that God is the source of morality. But plenty of people make moral judgments without referring to the bible. In fact, I’d argue that the bible is not a good source of morality. Consider some of the things we find in the bible that we consider morally wrong–for example, genocide, the idea that women are worth less than males, etc.
Now, I know that many people would respond by stating that we can put aside these parts of the bible and focus on the good stuff, but this means that we can independently make moral judgments without the bible, for otherwise how would we be able to choose the good from the bad in that book.
No, I didn’t read it Brent. If I read everything everyone suggested, I would have no time to write these replies.
You are right Brent — I am presupposing the Bible to be true. Have you ever listened to the Bahnsen-Stein debate? I see you call yourself a philosopher — if so, you should enjoy it a lot. It is freely available on the internet in MP3 format.
As you know from philosophy, we all have basic beliefs that are unjustified. I take my unjustified belief to be the Bible; you take yours to be human reason I guess. The problem then as I understand it becomes the old triad/diad issue where if you begin with human reason, you end up not being able to know anything at all. http://www.bethinking.org have a great 3-part audio series on epistemology dealing with this. This ultimately means that you personally can not know ANYTHING at all for certain, including moral values.
As to morality, sure, lots of people say lots of things. But my question to you is this: if God is NOT the source of morality, then to what are you appealing when you make a moral claim? And why should I care anyway? Does your moral source carry some moral authority such that I should care? Where can I find this “moral law”? Is it in the stars? In a book? Please tell me…
Admin, so what about Brent’s comment about bad moral examples in the bible? Do you endorse slavery for instance and if not why not?
Tim, you wrote “…bad moral examples in the bible…”
Sorry, but what moral yardstick are you using to judge the Bible?
Answer that, and I will answer your question.
I would say my innate sense of right and wrong. Where does that come from? I think it comes from my need to live in a society and have companionship. I know for instance, that if I don’t want to be murdered it’s better for my survivability to believe that murder is bad and live in a society that believes it is bad. Call it what you want – utilitarianism perhaps. I certainly don’t get my sense of right and wrong from religions, the bible, or any other religious book – in fact a number of my morals are the complete opposite of biblical morality. One of my key moral values is tolerance, and that seems to be completely absent in all religions.
Do you think other animals are religious? Why do zebra’s on the whole live happily in a herd? Why do chimpanzees pick nits out of each other’s coats? Why do lions hunt in packs and not eat each other? Generally speaking, it’s easier and more efficient for a species to get along, and the need to get along is where most morals come from.
Tim that is REALLY weak.
1. Hitler’s innate sense of right and wrong led him where? My innate sense of right and wrong leads me to believe that smacking provides the best outcome for the least pain.
If all you have is “innate” morality, then you are in a hopeless position. As Ravi Zacharias has said, “in some cultures they love their enemies; in others they eat their enemies. Which one is right?”
2. Tolerance??? Really, then why are you being so intolerant and posting your intolerance on this website? If that is your definition of tolerant, then you should not be criticizing others AT ALL. Problem is Tim, you have the wrong definition.
3. I do not believe we are animals. Yes, that may be the prevailing worldview stemming from Darwinism, but consider where that leaves you re morality.
4. Do you really want to go there re animals? Tom cats rape, but you fail to mention that morality. Lions murder… Ants…. Piranhas…. This is a badly thought out argument you are using!
Admin,
1. Hitler was insane. He was also a christian and made many statements equating god with his actions.
2. You mistake tolerance for acceptance. I disagree with your views but am tolerant of your right to hold them. I don’t understand what debating someone’s views has to do with tolerance.
3. This is not a “prevailing worldview”. This is a conclusion based on overwhelming evidence.
4. People rape and kill including a lot of so-called religious people. So what? Your argument I think is that without god there are no morals and the conclusion of that must be that society would break down and become chaotic. My example was merely meant to show that god-given morals are not necessary for order to exist in a population.
Why don’t you answer the question about slavery?
@ Admin
1) Hitler’s christians beliefs really gave him a strong moral grounding didn’t they… oh right.
2) *rant about someone else being intolerant that completely justifies their claims*
3) We *are* animals, whether you choose to ignore the evidence or not. Where that leaves us is right were Tim said, deciding on morals that benefit ourselves. Not a book of fairytales.
4) Wait, so first, animals and humans: completely different, then, all of a sudden, animals are just like humans, raping and murdering. Which is it?
Pathetic.
1. Have a look at Richard Weikhart’s work. If Hitler was a Christian, the the pope may as well be a protestant. How foolish.
2. ???
3. You are question begging. An assertion is NOT argument.
4. Matthew, I have better things to do with my time than reply to idiotic assertions. Come on, give an argument — or is that too hard?
To judge whether smacking is right: ask yourself “how do I feel?” after the next time you smack your child (I would suggest that most people would feel guilt/regret/self-dissappointment, rather than pride, satisfaction or righteousness) and then ask yourself “how did I feel just before I smacked my child?” (my guess is angry, frustrated, hopeless and out of options, not confident and sure in your parenting). Smacking is the last straw people grab when they don’t know how to cope – all parents need to know what further options there are. Given good options and a sense of confidence as parents, we could lessen the incidence of the emotional storms that lead to smacking. To have a law against smacking sways the majority and leads people in the right direction (it’s a bit like the drinking age, we all know that people a couple of years younger than the legal age will get away with it, so you need to set the age two years above the age you want to restrict – but that’s another whole ball of wax). You have to set the bar high. I suggest that you are not looking hard enough for solutions to your parenting problems.
Sorry, but wrong, wrong and wrong.
We do NOT judge right and wrong by how things feel. I’m sure rapists “feel” good doing their business, and the atheist Stalin probably “felt” is was right to kill millions.
Angry before smacking? Not at all. If you get to the point where you are angry, it is too late, and you will probably lash out.
Last straw? Wrong again. Because smacking is so effective, the last straw is rarely ever reached (I speak from experience). Of course, the Bradfordites will never take up my offer to visit me and see for themselves how screwed up my kids are due to their being “hit” and “beaten”.
Emotional storms? Are you referring to emotional manipulation like “time out”? I have a theory that the reason so many politicians and their ilk are so good at manipulating people is because they were brought up as you suggest. Perhaps they have emotional-manipulation-disorder?
Right direction? Come now Sandra … how could you and I possibly agree upon what is right and wrong. Tell me first how you so easily arrive at such givens.
Cheers.
Leave your response!
Nano-Blog News from around the world
NZ CHRISTIAN BLOGS
NZ CHRISTIAN MINISTRIES
PLACES TO VISIT