A parliamentary "committee rejected a proposal by National MP Chester Borrows for a different compromise which would have defined, and allowed parents to use, limited reasonable force.It would have allowed light smacking that did no more than cause "transitory and trifling discomfort" and did not cause bruises, welts, skin cuts or broken bones."
This makes it
obvious that the bill is outrageous and not an anti-child abuse measure. It actively seeks to undermine the authority of parents in the raising of their children and provide for further government intrusion. I wonder how many years away the US is from enacting something like this. I am sure we will see something first in the Socialist Republic of San Francisco or activist judges in Massachusetts. I shudder at the thought.
The bill will change the Crimes Act to remove the defence of "reasonable force" that parents can invoke if charged with assaulting a child.But the select committee that approved the bill yesterday has forced a compromise which will permit parents to use reasonable force to exercise necessary parental control.This would include restraining a child to prevent it from harm, or from causing others harm, or to prevent it engaging in disruptive behaviour.This may include, for example, stopping a child from running across the road, or forcibly removing one from a supermarket. But the law will say that such force cannot be used for "corrective" purposes.
Akin to hate crime legislation in the US (but I imagine enlightened New Zealanders have enacted similar laws) this is merely another step in a broad (though not conspiratorially conscious) campaign to destroy biblical influence upon society and the family in general. Just look at Elton John's " ban all religion" or Richard Dawkin's New Atheism.
Proverbs 13:24 ESV Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.
Of course you could take this verse out of context and say it advocates beating your child black and blue, but it does nothing of the kind. Rather it refers to discipline which may include spanking (it does not have to, but the option should be there because sometimes it is what works).
~Matt
--
"A room without books is as a body without a soul." -Cicero
2 comments:
Exodus 21: 15, 17
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Great. Wonderful. Let's all return to Biblical values, shall we?
Yes, I like biblical values. I do not say that the government should mandate spanking because of the Bible. I say because of the Bible I know it can be a good thing. I place the Bible before all worldy wisdom. It is the inspired Word of God.
First of all those particular verses were never advocated in America or Western European culture so we can't go back to that attitude. The principle of effective discipline has a long tradition so we could return to that. (Just as America cannot "go back" to being a Christian nation because it never was one)
Secondly those verses that you quote are laws given to the Hebrew nation after they came out of captivity in Egypt. Not all instructions from this era are still valid. In the New Testament Jewish believers were instructed that certain foods were no longer to be considered unclean (but many modern Jews still eat Kosher).
You should remember that the system set up by God in the Old Testament specifically linked faith and government. In America the two are separated, and I believe that is the approach recommended by the New Testament. Jesus DID NOT advocate overthrowing the Roman government. He said to give to Caesar what was Caesar's and to God what belonged to God. His was a Kingdom of Heaven, not of Earth that his followers should revolt (see Ben-Hur for an excellent fictional portrayal of this dilemma).
I do not advocate a theocracy for America, in fact I shudder at the thought. I believe that it would be corrupted by men and that it would corrupt the Church. I would rather have a government that honestly refrains from respecting the establishment of one religion (atheism and humanism are religions more than neutral points of view) rather than one that mistakenly tries to squash Christianity in a mistaken belief in "separation of church and state."
I want the government to keep out of family life except where strictly necessary. The article reported that even inflicting "transitory and trifling discomfort" which did not cause any damage (including bruising) was unacceptable. There is clearly no child abuse when there is no damage and it is only transitory discomfort--it is a reminder.
Look, I don't advocate beating children. Spanking should never be the first or only option exercised in anger. It is done to help instill a spirit of obedience in children and is done out of a sense of love. You want children to develop into healthy adults that aren't a danger to themselves and to others--so you restrain them and train them up in a proper lifestyle. In the course of this training it may be necessary to spank to help reinforce certain lessons.
I don't have my Bible here to examine, so I cannot address your point more fully, but I hope what I have said here gives you something to think about.
Post a Comment