Christianity & Corporal Punishment
In Christianity Today, Chris Armstrong wrote that such decisions should be left to parents, but also that many Christians may nevertheless be harsher than is necessary:
Does a biblical view of childhood and parental responsibility require that corporal punishment be part of our child-rearing style as Christians? And related to this, what level of sanction or punishment is necessary to train children up to Christian maturity? The current abuse and extremes in child discipline certainly represent what Christian parenting should not be about.
As Smith puts it, "As the most vulnerable bearers of God's image," children "must be seen not as the property of their parents or guardians, but as individual unique human beings who are themselves responsible to God and who are entrusted to the care of their parents for a time. As such, children must be accorded the dignity which is richly and equally deserved by every human being, created in God's likeness."
Armstrong even quotes from the Calvinist Westminster Larger Catechism (1648), finding that it also counsels caution and concludes:
Parents, the catechism is saying, sin against their children when they "correct them unduly," "provoke them to wrath," or slip into any other "unjust … rigorous … behavior." Are you surprised, as I was, to see the tendency toward parental strictness (which I possess) decidedly not recommended or reinforced by these supposedly strict Calvinists? Frankly, as I read through this section of the catechism, I both said "ouch" repeatedly, and asked for God's grace to come more closely into alignment with the biblical standard.
When Christians quote the Bible to justify harsh actions, they often leave out the many moderating verses which advise that people take care in what they do. It is assumed that the Bible offers a single line of advice and a “one size fits all” methodology. Much of the time, just the opposite is true. This is arguably an important foundation for religious extremism of all sorts: an almost obsessive focus on the harshest, most authoritarian, and most violent aspects of scripture and tradition without any regard for (or even acknowledgment of) any moderating context, verses, or ideas.
Unfortunately, part of the problem lies in religion itself. It's disturbing that Chris Armstrong only seems willing to counsel caution in disciplining children because he is able to find support for it in the Bible and in a Calvinist catechism. With that sort of methodology, wouldn't he counsel harsh and violent discipline for children if that's what he thought he found? There's no limit to the evil that can be committed on the basis of such a principle.
I'd much rather he and others believe in restraint simply because it's the right thing to do and based on the power of arguments derived from verifiable evidence. Such people can be reasoned with and their minds can be changed if they are mistaken. When someone simply proceeds on the basis of "the Bible says it, so I'll do it," they are necessarily beginning from such an unreasonable and un-reasoned position that no serious or substantive discussion is likely to be possible.
Comments
I am an athiest and have two daughters. When they got out of line as youngsters i would resort occassionally to the swat on the rear end to get their undivided attention. If someone wants to call that physical violence i think they are way out of line.
Now my dad used to use a belt or a 2×4 which may fall closer to what people are talking about here, but I see no problem with parents dishing out the occassional swat to kids that have gotten a bit out of control
Of course it’s physical violence. I don’t even believe that’s what you mean — I think you mean it’s not abuse. In my book, abuse is defined my the way aversive contingencies are used rather than by their severity, but under both a painful but not injurious swat applied correctly would not be abuse.
There are problems with punishment generally, but these don’t mean it should necessarily be banned. Some parents simply can’t function effectively without it in our society with very limited parental training. The Bible, of course, is no source of parental training — their advice on corporal punishment is woefully thin and unhelpful. “Spare the rod, spoil the child”, even taken with the kindest possible interpretation, is so vague as to be useless.
I think a strong case can be made from a humanist standpoint for limited and restrained spankings (never administered in anger).
Here is the purpose: establish a consistent standard of obedience to spoken parental commands, with spanking as a last resort. You should only have to actually do it on very few occasions.
Once they know you mean business, kids will respond to your voice.
You should only have to resort to spanking maybe twice a year, if that often. I have three young adult sons who were all successfully raised with this technique.
Also, the spankings stopped completely after 10 or 11 years old. Talking was far more useful at that age. Also, there are other things teens fear far more than corporal punishment.
It never ceases to amaze me how Biblical literalists selectively ignore God’s instructions.
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. — Exodus 21:17
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. — Leviticus 20:9
If these verses can be taken with a grain of salt, does that not put the entire Good Book in question?
Spare the rod, spoil the atheist. -MattB
Carries some humanist weight, does it not?
Leads one to ask…what holds the atheist/humanist to account? himself,societal norms? Where does his moral compass default to?
Matt, is your goal to confirm for everyone here your own stupidity, or is your goal to discredit the entire religious community?
Your quote is, of course, retarded.
Addressing all atheists as “the” is dehumanising, but then that helps you rationalise not treating people decently.
Atheism and Humanism are not synonymous. Atheism is the absence of belief in gods. It does not mecessarily precondition people to respond in a predictable way to may ethical questions.
Humanism, on the other hand, does have a set of values. Many Christians espouse and follow these values, even if they are unaware that they do so. Indeed, most people use Humanist principles in their dealings with other people every day. Christian Humanism has been a powerful force for good in the world.
What holds all people to account, where their moral compass defaults to, is a combination of values they have internalised coupled with societal norms, customs, and laws. This is how all people operate, you included.
When a natural disaster strikes the US Bible-belt, all the Jezuz-luvvers loot the stores. So clearly, rather than acting as if religion bestows any advantages, you should be asking yourself questions about humanity generally, rather than deluding yourself into thinking that regurgitating the religion of your parents confers any special status to you personally.
Corporal punishment encourages belief in the Babylonian skygod
Once again, we have science versus dogma. Read the available research and studies these days on the effects of corporal punishment. Let’s use REAL objective evidence when evaluating the case for/against corporal punishment.
Now Drew, Matt isn’t retarded. He’s a “special” child with gifts all his own.