|
Okay, I certain that if anyone is reading this anymore, I will get grilled for this one. No doubt the article above is written to tell of a father abusing his child. However, it seems to me that the real story here is the government’s constant attempt to extend it’s domain.
I am not necessarily saying that whipping a boy with a belt to the point where he cannot sit is good parenting. At the same time, and here is where I will likely get grilled, I am not sure that it is not. Parenting, and anyone who has done it knows this, is a complex task. What work in one situations does not work in another, and what works with one child does not work with the other.
And so here is my point. Let parents parent. Don’t get me wrong, if there is obvious abuse of a child that was done for no other reason than the mental perversion of the parent, throw the crooks in jail. But where there is any doubt, the parents should be given the benefit of that doubt. Government in a extension of parenthood, not the other way around. They only reason government has power is because is has been given to them by parents. All authority starts in the family and exists apart from their only by their consent. We seem to have forgotten this and assume that government has the right to do whatever it wants.
Was this man right to use a belt on his child? I am not sure.  But I do believe he has the right to parent without the ever-watchful eyes of the government micromanaging his parenting. It is his job to protect and bring up his child, not the government’s.
First, I am not a fan of corporal punishment. It seems a bit archaic, and there are so many ways to equip parents with more positive, less traumatic and possibly more effective discipline measures. It broke my heart as a kindergarten teacher when a student of mine was spanked by his parents for wetting the bed because they thought he was just being lazy.
With that said, I can tell you that I grew up in a house with one parent who believed in it (sparingly) and one parent who didn’t. We got the occasional pop on the bottom, but usually we just got time-outs. I can’t remember if we got threatened with a belt or not. Anyway, I can tell you that there was a lot of easily expressed love in my family, and I don’t feel traumatized at all by the way I was disciplined.
I remember one time in particular when it was quite effective: I was a teenager with a sassy mouth, and I was in an argument with my dad. I let out a big “Jesus Christ!” (and not in a praying way) and before it was completely out of my mouth I got slapped across the face. It was infuriating and humiliating and I am so glad that it happened. I was at the “go ahead, ground me” phase, and I love that my parents took a huge and immediate stand to let me know that was not OK. (Of course, if it’d been used frequently, it wouldn’t have been effective.)
Ok… to pull this around to the actual topic instead of flipping through the less pleasant moments of Jaime’s childhood, I agree with you, Phil, that the government seems to be going too far. I’ve seen billboards that say “Hitting your child is always abuse” or something like that, and I don’t agree.
With that said, as a mandated reporter in my current job, I would’ve called CPS if a kid told me they couldn’t sit down due to a whipping. I think a *lot* about exactly what would be reportable, and if the parent has inflicted physical injuries that make the kid unable to participate in daily activities, I think that crosses the line.
Rather than tossing someone in jail, though, I think a more appropriate response would be mandatory parenting classes that A) equip parents with strategies for discipline that don’t involve physical punishment and B) give them guidelines for when physical punishment crosses the line. The guidelines seem very gray and subject to interpretation, but there are a few.
Jaime,
Actually i am glad you incorporated your own stories into your post – it is a reminder that we are shaped by our past, past experiences, present experiences, etc.
And like you, I do agree with Phil that the government as gone too far at times.
However, Phil I think when you use this particular story with the argument you are setting up (which I agree with a lot of it) it becomes problematic for me because in this case it seems that the parent has crossed the line. Whether the government should have been brought in or if there was another way to remedy the situation…i don’t know. When a child can’t sit down because of being punished…there is something wrong.
I do agree, though, that parenting is complex and what works with one child doesn’t with another. And yes, parents need to have the ability to be parents and when there is moments of doubt then at least initially give the parents some slack instead of assuming that the parents are horrible and vindictive, etc. But i think, in this case…the parent did cross the line…and he moved, at least for that instant into bad parenting (which we all have been guilty of).
I’d like to proudly state that I’ve never been guilty of bad parenting.
(still waiting for kids at this point in our lives 🙂 )
I did pick this story for a reason. I believe it is just the kind of story where no deference is shown to parental authority. The assumption is that of abuse. Lest we forget, the scriptural parents were the first given the authority to execute capital punishment by God. When we draw the line, who decides its location? Here again, I give that right to the parents unless the action is not related to chastisement for bad behavior. If they beat because they are drunk, or had a bad day, that is abuse. If they use a belt on a kid who has resisted other forms of discipline, they have that right. I may disagree with their choice, but it is their child, entrusted to them by God.
Phil,
I guess I don’t see where the assumption is: the boy said he could not sit down because his father used a belt on his backside. I am not saying it’s “abuse”, but then again we don’t know in what mindset the father disciplined. You are assuming yourself in your last post that “other forms of discipline had been resisted” we simply don’t know that. What we do know…is that a young child, that cannot defend himself was beat to the point he could not sit down.
Again, government has gone to far….but Paul tells us that every government has it’s authority given by God and with that authority they have the right to tell us to do or not do some things. And yeah….when lines are drawn not everybody likes the location….and government has drawn some pretty silly lines to be sure. I too believe it is the parents rights to be able to “discipline”…but perhaps that is the key…do i beat my child with a belt until he can’t even sit down to “discipline” my child? Or is that more “punishment”…the two are different.
Does the father have the right to spank? Sure. But we (and goverment) have a responsibility as well to speak out on behalf of those who really are unable to speak out for themselves…whether they be children, the disenfranchised, the poor, etc.
btw,
i would honestly discipline my children if they started to like OU however….that is totally unacceptable and, perhaps, unforgiveable.