AOL File Library: 4,701 to 4,800/aol-file-protocol-4400-4701-to-4800.zip/AOLDLs/Social Issues & Comments/Corporal Punishment/CORPORAL.rpl

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 13KB | 196 lines

"OGRE'S VIEW" OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

After reading the upload on Corporal Punishment (c.p.) I had a few immediate
reactions to it that were a result of fear and aggravation toward this point
of view.

To those who are familiar with the United Nation's declaration regarding the
"Rights of Children" and the proclamation of the "Year of the Child" it would
be well to note that this document's ideology as well as that ideology
reflected in the text by Mr. Bell can, and no doubt will, eventually be used
to erode the already battered rights of us as parents to raise our children
free of the state's scrutiny.  The writer sets standards that only perfect
parents can follow.  A pop psychology theme today states that ALL people come
from a dysfunctional family background of some kind or another.  With all of
the families being labeled as 'dysfunctional' it would not be too difficult to
imagine what this ideology buried deep within the Clintons' medical care plan
would do to the family.  While the writer never comes out and states it, it is
not very difficult to hear the whispers in the background saying "Who will
police the family?, Who will stop the parents from doing this shameful thing
to their children?".

In the article the same tactic is used that appeared on an ABC 20/20 broadcast
sometime last year regarding this same subject.  Several couples were brought
before the cameras to represent the various philosophies behind discipline in
the home and, as one would expect from the news media, the parents that used
c. p., the ones used to represent ALL of us parents who use c. p., were
repeatedly displayed slapping their children's hands or buttocks until one
would think the child's hand would soon skitter across the floor or surely
some serious physical injury would occur to the child's lower extremities.
The cameras displayed in painful detail the parents as they struck their
children not merely a couple of times but six, seven, nine and ten times for
each infraction.  Well BEYOND what common sense would dictate.  This is what
the media was holding up to the viewing public as 'normal' c. p.

"Rather than discipline causing your children to question your love it
confirms your love" says the Rev. Charles Swindoll in his tape on discipline
and c. p. entitled "Shaping the Will With Wisdom" (Insight for Living, P.O.
Box 69000, Anaheim, CA 92817-0900).  Prov.  13:24 states that "he who spares
the rod HATES his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently". One
of the greatest quotes in this tape is his quote of a friend that said
"children never forgive their parents for not disciplining them".

I, personally, can remember when, after having been without my father for over
six years due to his death when I was 13, my step father literally stepped
between myself and my mother when I was in a particularly violent adolescent
mood.  He, though c. p. was not used at the time, threatened to 'diligently
discipline me' should I ever threaten my mother again.  Had my own father not
been a strong disciplinarian and believer in c. p. from when we were very
young until shortly before his death I would no doubt have laughed in the face
of this man who was truly trying to do me more good than any harm he could
have ever threatened or actually carried out.  I do know that my stepfather
would have decked me before I would have ever lifted a hand against my mother,
his wife.  However, what has struck me as significant ever since I calmed down
and realized the error of my behavior was the fact that I felt more secure and
cared for after that incident than if either of them had simply walked away
from me at the time.  Handling children with kid gloves at all times is like
giving them a diet of candy throughout their formative years.  Children, on
average, are incapable of respecting unenforced boundaries simply because they
can't recognize delineations that they can not actually see and the ones that
they can are an automatic challenge to their psyches.

Parents have the opportunity for a brief moment in their children's lives to
impress upon them the unnatural program of discipline.  This 'natural program'
that needs to be replaced is part of what the Christian faith calls "original
sin".  There is a great difference between abuse and discipline.  Again taking
from the Rev. Swindoll's talk he uses some adjectives to describe the
difference between abuse and proper use of discipline, especially when it
includes c. p.:
       abuse:                         discipline:
     unfair                         fair and EXPECTED
     degrading                      upholds the dignity
     demoralizing                   held under control
     extreme                        leaves no lasting scars
     lasting too long               healthy, grateful memories of it
     inappropriately harsh          guides toward self-discipline
     torturous                      strengthens self-esteem
     leaves lasting scars           doesn't crush the spirit
     results from hatred            (as in Prov. 15:13)
     creates terror, not respect    shapes the will
     damages self-esteem            builds confidence

Susana Wesley's 21 rules that she called her "Plan of Education" helped shape
England in the 'Great Awakening'.  She advocated the early dealing with the
willful defiance that naturally occurs within us all from the day of birth.
This need to get ahead of the game may have been intensified by the large
families that couples had then and up until modern times; but it is also
applicable in our day with only one or two children and especially in single
parent families.  It has been documented that a child learns about its
surroundings even while in the womb.  If this is the case what better time to
begin the artful, loving shaping of its will than, at the very latest, one
year of age.  By that time any parent can testify to the fact that their
child, long before, had demonstrated its desire to satisfy and follow its own
will to the best of his or her ability.  Connecting pain and discipline is
done at this early age because the communication between parent and child has
not progressed to the point where language would communicate well enough and
the child's understanding of the world around him/her has not been developed
sufficiently to understand danger and certainly not enough to understand
respect for others.  As a child grows c. p. gives way to verbal reproofs such
as in Prov. 3:11,12 both as a result of the child's ability to reason and
consideration of the pre- and adolescent's need for confidence building and
self-esteem.  As stressful as the world is today the ability for children to
maintain their composure under fire when they are on their own is a lasting
testimony to a successful rearing, a successful parenting of that child. It
signifies the depth of a person's development.

What is most important, however, is the fact that, to the furthest extent of
the ability of the parent and child, the child MUST understand why the
punishment is being meted out.  If it takes thirty minutes after a spanking
has been administered to explain the lesson at hand then by all means take it.
Nothing else is more important than this communication with your child.
Reschedule corporate board meetings and surgeries if you have to but never
administer c. p. without an explanation.  Arriving at the point where a child
is receptive to your council, however, quite often requires the administering
of a slap on the appropriate 'reset button' that Mr. Bell disparages.

This is not to say that there doesn't exist in the world some children that
can reach adulthood (or "old" as in Prov. 22:6 which can be translated 'hair
on the chin' with the idea of reaching the point in age where it is possible
to grow it) without the needed experience of a responsible party's hand or
appropriate instrument striking them at some point in time.  This child is a
rarity indeed and far from being the rule.  As in other articles that
denigrate c. p. as the worst thing since the Nazi death camps of WW II nowhere
do I see consideration given to the fact that we are not all created from the
same clay.  Some kids take to molding easier than others.  I wish I could find
the reference Rev. Swindoll uses when he quotes that 'a very young child
demonstrates his willful nature when he doesn't get what he wants.  When this
happens he seethes with anger that would be murderous if he were not so
small.' This is the will that parents are charged with shaping.  God's help
and wisdom has, indeed, been given to us in His word as denied by Mr. Bell.

I do agree with Mr. Bell on one point, however, and that is the need to
display humility and apologize to our children when undeserved c. p. is given.
Humility is just as important a lesson as discipline and taught best by
example.  Occasional undeserved punishment will inevitably happen since we as
mortal beings are far from the ideal people Mr. Bell seems to view us as.

To say that the Bible does not condone c. p. indicates a need to take at least
a cursory stroll through the book of Proverbs, the venerable book of wisdom
that God, Himself, handed down to us through the Jewish leaders of the Old
Testament.  The references to a "rod" in this short book as used in regard to
an instrument of correction is mentioned no less than nine times.  "Scant
scriptural passages", indeed!  To go even further back in time one finds in
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 the final disposition of rebellious children which, I am
sure, was as difficult to adhere to in that day as it is difficult to even
consider in ours.  But there it is in our own Bible, God's law given by Moses
to the people of Israel.  God takes discipline very seriously.

Jesus' acts of kindness toward children was appropriate for someone that was
not familiar to the child as any visitor would not have been.  What adult does
not take delight in the beauty of a child's simple way of looking at life and
love?  The Saviour was not with these children on a day to day basis but their
parents were and these parents had the words of Proverbs written on their
hearts from when THEY were children.  Jesus' warning of Luke 17:2 is for
anyone who would abuse a child for their own purposes whether it be for
egotism, sexual gratification or any other reason that would deviate from the
task one accepts by becoming a parent or in any other way cares for a child.

Mr. Bell equates the disciplinary views of parents who condone and practice
c. p. with such anti-Catholic ideas as the "denial of the perpetual virginity
of Our Lady, or justification by faith alone".  Such Catholic chauvinism
merits a few slaps on the hand itself.  It displays a subjective and
deliberate ignorance of the Bible's admonitions from the Old and New
Testaments regarding discipline, not to mention the fact that there were
siblings of Jesus mentioned in the Gospels and the very basis for our
salvation has always been our faith in Jesus and His mission in going to the
cross.  There is nothing that we do here on earth that EARNS us salvation or
'bragging rights' in heaven save for our faith and baptism in Him and His Holy
Spirit. The life we lead as a result of that faith has nothing to do with our
salvation but is a result of it.

Mary's divinity is by proclamation of the Vatican, not by God, apparitions,
current and past, notwithstanding. There was the apparition of the Old
Testament prophets at the transfiguration but the Bible doesn't impute
deification to them any more than it does to Mary.  As God has given the
people in the Bible missions and reported on their individual successes and
failures as instruction to us, the benefactors of this wisdom, He did not deny
these biblical characters the joy of family life.  Whether Joseph is never
mentioned beyond the birth of Christ or not is immaterial to the fact that
MARY HAD OTHER CHILDREN.  The act of procreation was not denied this most
blessed above all women even though revisionists in later times have, indeed,
done so.

Mr. Bell also accedes to the authority of 'The Church' that which Christ gives
explicitly to we believers, His spiritual body, here on earth.  Jesus was, if
anything, very anti-liturgical and very anti-religious in His teachings.  His
death and the tearing of the veil in the temple at that time displayed the
fact that God had made Himself available to ALL from that time forward and
that we were not required to come to Him through any other person or
institution save for His only Son, Jesus.  No one on earth can regulate our
access to Christ and He is the ONLY regulatory agency in our access to the
Father - no exceptions.  In the views of the author, then, the idea of living
"independent Catholic lives" is a contradiction in terms that divests the Holy
Spirit of any influence in one's live save whatever may come through the
filter of the Vatican and bureaucracy of 'The Church'.  This applies to any
and all denominations from Jim Jones on up that puts itself between its
members and Christ.