Logically, morally, humanely and scientifically, the debate on spanking is dead

10 Saturday Sep 2011

Posted by  in Child Abuse

≈ 2 Comments

IN PUBLIC FORUMS on the internet, we have lively debates over whether Hitler was a hero or whether or not the holocaust ever occurred. We could also probably find a debate over whether slavery ever existed in the United States. We might even get an argument that the Earth is flat and always has been. And, given what has also yet to become common knowledge, we can still find arguments in favor of hitting young children as a form of punishment.

For example, those who developed through their formative years having adopted as a part of their belief system that adults hit children as an acceptable practice will take on this treatment of children as a belief not dissimilar to the religious beliefs they’ve adopted during this same stage of development. And, these are beliefs that tend to become deeply ingrained.

Those who happen to overcome and evolve beyond such irrational belief systems seem to be the exception to the rule. Sadly, it would seem that few children are able to avoid early childhood brainwashing to a particular religion or orientation. Typically, our little ones will buy into what we feed them lock, stock and barrel.

Herein lies the problem of change in the face of overwhelming evidence. Let’s liken this change to telling a grown man that his name is actually Archibald instead of Joe. Lot’s of luck. It’s going to take awhile, no doubt, and repeated efforts are in order.

So, once again, let’s try driving home the facts that carry with them the hope of breaking through just a few more of those bigoted obstacles still standing in the way of social progress.

To begin with, I feel it’s most important to make it very clearly known to any and all concerned that the debate on spanking within the scientific and academic communities is dead and has been for a number of years. The most substantial indicator of this development is evidenced by the fact that virtually every professional organization in the U.S. and Canada concerned with the care and treatment of children has taken a public stance against the practice of spanking.

Based on the overwhelming accumulation of research conducted over the past 50 plus years linking spanking to a number of risk factors, the professional consensus against this practice has grown to world-wide proportions … even to the extent that Sweden, Finland, Austria, Norway, Croatia, Denmark, Hungary, Israel, Cyprus, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Germany, Latvia, Iceland, Romania, Greece, New Zealand, Venezuela, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Uruguay, and Ukraine have all legislated total bans on spanking … with Italy, South Africa, Scotland, Canada, and Ireland apparently in the process of following suit. It should also be noted that every industrialized country in the world has banned spanking in schools. The evidence is in, and the evidence has found against the practice of spanking in a compellingly conclusive manner.

Just as one might find supportive views toward spanking being promoted (typically) on web sites sponsored by fundamentalist Christian sects, so can one find supportive views promoting Homophobia, Racism, Misogyny, and other “hate group” propaganda. Because the actual agendas of these sites are often deceptively disguised by organizational titles such as “Family Council”, “People’s Choice”, “Rights and Freedoms”, etc., people are forced to exercise a highly judicious discernment of the information being made available on the Internet. Some web surfers have had to learn the hard way that the Internet abounds with persuasive presentations of “facts and figures” that can prove to represent nothing more than religious, political, or philosophical attempts to spread self-serving misinformation.

Having spent over 30 years examining and evaluating the research on spanking children, I am able to state with a high degree of confidence that there has never been a peer-reviewed study that has been able to establish the efficacy of spanking as a means of long-term behavior modification; as an effective teaching modality; as an effective punishment or as a means of instilling self-discipline. Nor has there been published research findings in peer-reviewed professional journals that served to refute previous research. This previous research found spanking to be associated with a risk for undesirable emotional consequences; a risk for physical injury; a risk of counter-productive behavioral outcomes; a risk for the onset of dependence on external controls and a proclivity toward authority-directed behavior. Moreover, there has never been research data finding that spanking carries no risk to the quality of the parent-child relationship (and I should add that conservative editorial reviews of previous research findings do not constitute actual research, as is sometimes claimed to be the case).

Nevertheless, there are some spankers who will find reasons to dismiss, ignore, or discount the research findings of field conducted experimental studies related to the Social Sciences. It is especially these folks that I’d like to address concerning alarming new research findings which represent the most severe consequences of physical punishment yet discovered … while doing so in the form of documented scientific proof.*

These revelations have come through studies in brain research having provided Cat Scan images showing an abnormal lack of brain development (within the portion of the brain responsible for emotional functioning) in children who had been subject to spankings as a punitive measure. For the sake of sample homogeneity, the researchers chose subjects for their study that had been categorized as “abused” children. Common sense tells us that this does not eliminate the possibility of a lesser degree of brain damage occurring to spanked children who are subjected to a lesser degree of non-injurious violence. In other words, it would be ludicrous to assume that a child must first suffer bruises, cuts, or welts (or other injuries), before brain damage can take place as a result of the physical punishments. Rather, it is much more logical to deduce that acts of physical aggression toward young children can disrupt or prevent the optimal conditions necessary to facilitate a normal process of healthy brain development.

As far as I’m concerned, this new area of research (apparently not yet freely available on the Internet) represents the most compelling, undeniable reason that has yet been discovered to persuade parents to stop (or never start) striking their children as a punitive measure. And I hope any pro-spankers reading this feel the same way. It’s difficult to imagine any parent who would be willing to treat their child in a way that might carry even a remote risk of causing a measure of brain damage to their child.

In spite of having said all of that, we should not need research to end the practice of striking children any more than we needed research to end the practice of striking wives. As a society, there was no need for research findings to convince us of the harmful effects associated with the practice of wives being physically punished.

Instead, when society reached the point of being no longer willing to grant social tolerance to the tradition of husbands physically disciplining their wives, our decision to do so was based on our having progressed socially into the higher morality of a greater humanity. Perhaps, the next step in forward progress should come by way of reaching a decision to begin recognizing children as also being deserving of those same protections against being struck.

No longer do we see any adult members of our society remaining outside the jurisdiction of the protective laws once enjoyed by only the more privileged and “deserving” (namely white males who made the laws), regardless of race, gender, religion, ethnic group or sexual orientation. None of our adult citizens remain legally unprotected from being violated through harassment, threats, defamation, discrimination or being victimized by violence to any degree or form. So, given our heritage of bestowing a greater humanity upon those of a lower social status by welcoming them as our equals in the eyes of the law (in terms of violent treatment), would it be so out of character for us to also shelter the younger, weaker members of our society by allowing them to join those of us already sharing in the security and comfort of safety that is provided under the umbrella of legal protections from violence?

Bringing our little ones into the fold really doesn’t seem all that magnanimous if we keep in mind that we’ve already been willing to share the shelter of our umbrella of assault laws with even the most vicious of hardened adult criminals. After all, children are the very last segment of our shared human collective who still remain as fair game for being subjected to acts of physical aggression. We display a strange sense of priorities when we don’t allow the prison guard to break-out a paddle and start whacking away on the disobedient buttocks of a sociopathic death-row inmate who kills for the rush it gives him, yet we find helpless, defenseless young children deserving of such treatment.

We characterize corporal punishments of prison inmates as Cruel and Unusual PunishmentGuard Brutality and Aggravated Assault. And, should the physical punishments be repeated as a routine punitive measure, such treatment of prisoners would fall under the definition of torture.

Why would a murderous inmate be less subject to physical discipline than a helpless 3-year-old child?

Logically, morally, humanely and scientifically, the debate on spanking is dead … save for those who would object to further social progress.

As we evolve as a society, we have to keep in mind that historically there was a time when it was acceptable to legally own other people; a time when the mentally ill were generally considered to be possessed by evil spirits; a time when men legally shot each other in officiated duels; a time when public hangings were attended as a family outing complete with picnic basket; a time when public floggings were considered acceptable punishment; a time when it was a gentleman’s agreement that husbands should not beat their wives with a switch that was ‘bigger-round than your thumb’ (which later became known as ‘the rule of thumb’); and there was a time when there were no laws against parents severely beating their children (killing children was unacceptable, of course, but an occasional accidental maiming as a result of disciplinary measures was tolerated).

Obviously, we no longer permit these punishments. The time has come for us to further our level of social sophistication by coming to a general agreement that any degree of physical punishment used against children is as socially unacceptable and repugnant as those past violent behaviors we have chosen to put behind us.

by James C. Talbot
Author of The Road To Positive Discipline: A Parent’s Guide
Visit www.positivedisciplining.com

Share this:

Like this:

Be the first to like this post.

Post navigation

2 thoughts on “The Debate on Spanking is Dead”

  1. A powerful and compelling essay. I forwarded to all my social nets. They know by now how I feel about this issue and I have tried many times to express your ideas, but my prose comes nowhere near yours, James.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Enter your comment here…
Gravatar

totanaca: You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. (Log Out)

♣ Subscribe

♣ Archives

♣ Categories

♣ Meta

Enhanced by Zemanta


Parents are at a loss to justify forcing their faith on their children

 

A forum participant writes:
Richard’s original proposition that children are being “forced” by their parents to blindly accept religion has been discounted by multiple participants. If all of those replies don’t at least partially satisfy the question, then the question isn’t legitimately looking for an answer. Or it’s trying to force a particular answer, which makes it something other than a question.
+++++++++++++
I agree that many of the faithful have offered justifications. I assure you I am looking for answers that are more satisfying than the ones offered. We have explained why we say parents are forcing their children to adopt a chosen religion and the mechanisms they use. The temporal justifications really seem to come down to: tradition, the considered legal approval of the state (at least here in the USA), a desire to raise law abiding and respectful children, and the mundane problem of what to do with children while parents participate in their chosen rituals. The mystical dogmatic reasons have absolutely no consequence in a secular society, and like it or not the United States is founded on secular principles. To say one has a strong regard for their religion and that they find it meets all their needs and therefore it is what is right for their children does not satisfy at all. We have elaborated the reasons why children deserve a shot at choosing for themselves. Principally because our laws and doctrines say that important life decisions belong to the person who must live with the consequences. Forcing faith on your children is an anomaly.
I’ll grant you where to park the kids on the day you worship presents problems, but they are maybe not all that insurmountable. Leaving them in the SUV with the windows rolled up would seem unwise, that is for sure. But why not make a reciprocal agreement with another family that has a different day to worship? Just a suggestion. You babysit their kids for them and they do likewise for you. Problem solved! Or, why don’t the institutions provide “religion-free childcare zones” where children can stay for a few hours on-site.
What to tell the children? How about: mommy and daddy are doing adult things right now, you’ll understand when you get older. Same answer you use when you go in the bedroom and lock the door, or refuse to serve them beer. Religion really is an adult pursuit, don’t you think?
If nothing else, I would say this discussion is raising issues and asking people to challenge their assumptions that they may not have done otherwise. If we accomplish just that much, is the conversation not worthwhile? There is always the possibility that a differently configured Supreme Court might reverse some of the decisions that have tilted the balance too far towards the alleged rights of parents. Indeed in the strict language of the law, the very doctrine that parents have parental rights is open to challenge. I have stated why childhood indoctrination is morally abominable if the reason is to insure the continuance of a religious sect.
Instead of the present emphasis on parent’s rights, a new doctrine stressing children’s rights would assign to parents the privilege of making decisions in the interests of their children. Parents would not have an absolute right and the privilege could be revoked when parents abused their position. Same as with a driver’s license. Privilege implies a conditional situation. Note: the words “rights” and “priviledge” have very closely defined meanings in the law.
Demagogues on the right and their radio-mouth echo chambers have lately started blatantly and defiantly proclaiming that children are the property of their parents to do with as they please. Well, no they are not chattel. We managed to free women from the status of chattel, and human rights workers are keen to free children next. For this reason, parents may favorably regard this discussion as a way to understand what may be coming in the future. They may also start looking at the secular countries of Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand for a glimpse of this future. Children should be able to file divorce proceedings against their parents. That is one option for battered wives. Why not for battered brow beaten children?
Enhanced by Zemanta


You cannot end the religious indoctrination of vulnerable children

I was driving through Hamburg when I seen this...
Image via Wikipedia

People argue that parents and religious entities will not cease the practice of preying on vulnerable children to maintain their tribes. Religious indoctrination of children has been going on for centuries and is a universal phenomenon. Like child battering, it is a syndrome protected by an extensive protective meme complex. Parents were most likely indoctrinated, making them excellent practitioners of childhood religious grooming. They know all the techniques and evasions to use on their own kids. Likewise, adults who were physically punished will strenuously defend this cruel treatment and turn around and physically punish their own children.

Changing the status quo may be difficult, but let’s not diminish the power of an idea whose time has come. Women’s advocates met a lot of nay saying when they set out to end violence against women in the home and sexism in the work force. The battles are not completely over, but the status of women has greatly improved over the last several decades.
One factor that has helped is the strategy of encouraging intervention by compassionate witnesses who can see what is happening to a battered wife. The same thing will happen with children who are being forced into a religious practice. An older sibling or a rogue cousin, friend, aunt or uncle, who sees the light, will quietly take the child aside and explain that god is pretend in the same way that Superman, the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause are pretend. After reading them some stories from a book about myths, the child will have some intellectual ammunition. Kids as young as 7 or 8 figure out on their own that the entire religious edifice is a giant house of cards. However, they soon learn not to voice their opinions on what they have been told.
Once the seed of skepticism is planted it becomes harder and harder to maintain a facade of religious belief and the reality that religion is merely a social control mechanism becomes really evident. Just spend some time reading the personal narratives of people who have escaped the trap. Without doubt they all describe a moment of absolute clarity when it all made sense why the answers to their questions were so evasive or stood on such false logical ground. Why there were so many roadblocks to autonomy and self determination placed in their path.
Atheist and Humanist public educational campaigns in public spaces such as public transportation and billboards are also a tactic to reach young children.  The goal is to explain there is an alternative to what they are being sold. Secular people have a moral imperative to spread the truth about childhood religious indoctrination, because no one else will and secularists represent the largest body of people who have examined religion with a jaundiced eye. Secularists possess the knowledge to push back against the fallout that is sure to come. Survey after survey shows that atheists know more about religion than believers.
The taboo against intervening in “sacred” family matters broke down over wife battering, and it will succumb again to advocates working to end child religious grooming. The current practice is grossly unethical and unwise because it can produce mental problems in certain susceptible youngsters. For some children the brutal horror story that lies at the heart of Christianity gives them nightmares. Islam still retains male chauvinism and rigid patriarchy that destroys the self esteem of girls and women not to mention making them sexual slaves.  Fortunately most progressive churches have banished the gruesome crucifixion statues to a dusty warehouse. For shame they ever hung those revolting objects in their auditoriums.
Enhanced by Zemanta


Children as property of parents

Historically, children were considered the property of parents. Under the scheme of patriarchy wives and children are under the control of the family head, the husband of the family. Much of this hoary antiquated thinking is still promoted by far right conservatives and the vestiges of ancient thinking die hard.

Today, children are persons in their own right and modern progressives recognize the personhood of children. Children have the right to grow up free of debilitating dogmatic superstitious thinking. Instead parents and communities must encourage children to think critically and determine their own path through life to suit themselves.

Authoritarian parents view the autonomy of children as threats to their antiquated way of life. Anachronistic groups like the dominionist inspired and led Parentalrights.org want to seal off the family from the state to avoid heretical ideals like children’s rights or the emancipation of women creeping in. They advocate a constitutional amendment to protect what they call parental rights, but are really restraints aimed at the protection of the antiquated system of patriarchy. This is why they emphasize the taboo of non-interference in family matters (a strong meme). The goal is really to keep patriarchy going and ward off any progressive moves that would liberate wives and children.

Enhanced by Zemanta


You have to put your hands together

Charles Darwin (age 33) and his son William (n...
Image via Wikipedia

Pray

We had a lovely gentle chat today,
about being unknowingly led to pray.

“You have to put your hands together,
hold them up like this. Say thank you,
to ..a mystified look.. for the food we eat.”

My son is only four, he does not properly know
how to say the word ‘God’ or ‘Lord’ let alone know
what it means – why ever should he know?

I say to him as he shows to me,
it is just a thing you do in school,
a quiet time. A time to join in,

… but to think for yourself.

Take that time, as I used to in school
to quietly think for myself.

Quietly, calmly – every day.

It tastes insidious. Positively poisonous -

To the loving of all of life …

I tell him about all the dinosaurs, animals, the sharks,
fossils and his poster of the “Tree of Life” topped

by a man … Charles Darwin.

Are we, two-ways, drawing a child’s keen attention
across a forever riven world? So it is and so it is, all ways
given to all – ways of knowing, thinking, deeply feeling

revealing. There is no choice, in truth,
rejoicing, praising, singing …

“Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Praise ‘er Claude!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Praise ‘er Claude!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Praise ‘er Claude!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Praise ‘er Claude!”

“Claude?” I ask, but he does not know …
… he trusts, as he trusts “Bob the Builder” to be
innocent, educating, exuberant and funny, only words.

He does not know.

I explain that ‘some people’ look up to a someone -
a kind of person or man … a “god” – up in the sky.
A man who made everything, who looks down on us
and everything – and who looks after all things.

I tell him his Baba does not agree, or believe in this man,
that he does not need to worry or take it too seriously,

there is no big plan or anyone looking over,
no laws or orders from anywhere other than ourselves.

So, just take that nice quiet time

to think to yourself,

find out,

and think for yourself.

by Gareth Rosser

Thanks Gareth for permission to publish your work. You can read more of this poet’s work here:

http://www.garethrosser.com/

Enhanced by Zemanta


Scientific literature on religion and child abuse

Help us build a reference list of scientific studies linking religion and child abuse. Is there such a thing as religious inspired child abuse? Add the citations below in the comments section, please.

Bottoms, B. L., Shaver, P. R., Goodman, G. S., & Qin, J. (1995). In the name of God:
A profile of religion-related child abuse. Journal of Social Issues, 51 (2), 85-111.

Bottoms, B. L., Shaver, P. R., & Goodman, G. S. (1996). An analysis of ritualistic
and religion-related child abuse allegations. Law and Human Behavior, 20 (1), 1-34.

Capps, D. (1992). Religion and child abuse: Perfect together. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 31 (1), 1-14. [ This paper is available on line and worth study, http://bit.ly/8k8Kwf
Abstract
Religious beliefs can foster, encourage, and justify child abuse, yet religious motivations for child abuse and neglect have been virtually ignored in social science research. In this paper, we compare victims' retrospective reports of religion-related child physical abuse to other reported cases of child physical abuse. We describe in statistical detail the nature and circumstances of the abuse, characteristics of victims and perpetrators, and the spiritual and psychological impact of the abuse. Results indicate that although the basic characteristics of religion-related physical abuse are similar to non-
religion-related physical abuse, religion-related abuse has significantly more negative implications for its victims' long-term psychological well-being

Capps. D. (1995). The child’s song: The religious abuse of children. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press.
Religion and child abu3se1

Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (1997). How the experience of early
physical abuse leads children to become chronically aggressive. In Developmental
perspectives on trauma: Theory, research, and intervention (Vol. 8, pp. 263-288).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Doxey, C., Jensen, L., & Jensen, J. (1997). The influence of religion on victims of
childhood sexual abuse. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 7, 179-186.

Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993). Conservative Protestantism and support for
corporal punishment. American Sociological Review, 58 (1), 131-145.

Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Segal, M. L. (1996a). Do conservative Protestant
parents spank more often? Further evidence from the national survey of families and
households. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 663-673.

Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Segal, M. L. (1996b). Conservative Protestantism
and the parental use of corporal punishment. Social Forces, 74 (3), 1003-1028.

Flynn, C. P. (1996). Normative support for corporal punishment: Attitudes,
Religion and child abu3se2
correlates, and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1 (1), 47-55.

Correlates of multiple forms of victimization in religion-related child abuse cases. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 2, 273-295. [Reprinted in B. B. R. Rossman & M. S.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39,
202-221.

Greven, P. (1991). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the
psychological impact of physical abuse. New York: Knopf.

Hunsberger, B. (1989). A short version of the Christian orthodoxy scale. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 360-365.

Jackson, S., Law, L., Thompson, R.A., Christiansen, E. H., Colman, R. A., & Wyatt,
J. (1999). Predicting abuse-prone parental attitudes and discipline practices in a
nationally representative sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23 (1), 15-29.

Johnson, B. W., & Eastburg, M.C. (1992). God, parent and self concepts in abused
and nonabused children. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11 (3), 235-243.

Kane, D., Cheston, S. E., & Greer, J. (1993). Perceptions of God by survivors of
childhood sexual abuse: An exploratory study in an underresearched area. Journal of
Religion and child abu3se3

Psychology and Theology, 21 (3), 228-237.

Lawson, R., Drebing, C., Berg, G., Vincellette A., & Penk, W. (1998). The long term
impact of child abuse on religious behavior and spirituality in men. Child Abuse
& Neglect, 22 (5), 369-380.

Lynch, M., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). An ecological-transactional analysis of children
and contexts: The longitudinal interplay among child maltreatment, community violence, and
Religion and child abu3se4
children’s symptomatology. Development and Psychopathology, 10 (2), 235-257.

Maurer, A. (1982). Religious values and child abuse. Child & Youth Services, 4, 57-
63.

Malcarne, V. L., & Burchard, J. D. (1992). Investigations of child abuse/neglect
allegations in religious cults: A case study in Vermont. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
10(1), 75-88.

Maxfield, M. G., & Widom, C. S. (1996). The cycle of violence: Revisited six years
later. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 150, 390-395.
.
Nelsen, H. M., & Kroliczak, A. (1984). Parental use of the threat “God will punish”:

Replication and extension. Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 23 (3), 267-277.

Neufeld, K. (1979). Child-rearing, religion, abusive parents. Religious Education, 74
(3), 235-243.

Pagelow, M. D., & Johnson, P. (1998). Abuse in the American family: The role of
religion. In A. L. Horton & J. A. Williamson (Eds.), Abuse and religion: When praying isn't
enough. (pp. 1-12).

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religious coping. New York: Guilford.
Pelcovitz, D., Kaplan, S., Goldenberg, B., & Mandel, F. (1994). Posttraumatic stress
disorder in physically abused adolescents. Journal of American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 33 (3), 305-312.

Quas, J. A., Bottoms, B. L., & Nunez, N. (Eds.) (2002). Linking Juvenile Delinquency
and Child Maltreatment: Causes, Correlates, and Consequences. Special issue of
Religion and child abuse 5

Children's Services: Social Policy, Research, and Practice, 5(4).
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research
in the general population. Journal of Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

Rice, R. R., & Annis, A. W. (1992). A survey of abuse in the Christian Reformed
Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Social Research Center of Calvin College.

Rosenberg, M. J. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

Rossetti, S. J. (1995). The impact of child sexual abuse on attitudes toward God and
the Catholic Church. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19 (12), 1469-1481.

Ryan, P. L. (1998). Spirituality among adult survivors of childhood violence: A
literature review. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 30 (1), 39-51.

Sheshkin, D. J. (2000). Handbook of parametric and nonparametric statistical
procedures (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Shor, R. (1998). The significance of religion in advancing a culturally sensitive
approach towards child maltreatment. Families in Society, 79 (4), 400-409.

Simons, R. L., Whitbeck, L. B., Conger, R. D., & Chyi-In, W. (1991).
Intergenerational transmission of harsh parenting. Developmental Psychology, 27, 159-171.

Straus, M. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American
families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Child maltreatment 1998:
Religion and child abu3se6

Wiehe, V. R. (1990). Religious influence on parental attitudes toward the use of
corporal punishment. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 173-186.


You do not have to take your children to church

{{en|Inside Hillsong Church, :en:Sydney ==Copy...
Image via Wikipedia

There is a presumption that children must be taken to church. This presumption is based on centuries old tradition and the full backing of religious institutions that rely on new converts to keep their faith alive down through the ages.

Morally this is reprehensible because it treats vulnerable children as instruments. Treating others as objects or as instruments to satisfy a desire has been recognized by moral philosophers as repugnant since the days of Kant. Why are children any different? What makes it morally OK to treat children as instruments in a scheme to promote a certain brand of faith?

Secondly, the notion that a child who does not like the faith you chose for them will suddenly recover at age 18 from 15 years of being subjected to a deliberate mind control program is simply risible. There is no reset switch you can press to set a child’s brain back to it’s pristine state at age three. In fact, brain scientists have shown that the brain is actually changed physically by early learning (age 3 to 7). Those changes to the brain are extremely difficult to overcome. Logically, childhood is actually the longest stage in our lives because we retain the memories of childhood for a lifetime.

Do people break the locks on their religious cage? Yes, but usually at great emotional cost. Sometimes people suffer anxiety and depression for years as they break away and recover from religion. Family relations can be stretched to the breaking point.

Personal narratives tell the story of “making up their own minds”. Poignant accounts can be found all over the web at recovery sites established by people seeking mutual aid and comfort. Every faith and sect is represented. The biggest sites look to be for Catholics, Mormons, and Pentecostals.

Is this news to people reading this article and will it shape your thinking about hereditary religion?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Global progress towards banning all corporal punishment of children

A Scary Vintage Postcard
Image by HA! Designs – Artbyheather via Flickr

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/global.html

From End Corporal Punishment official web site. In the following text the hypertext links, italicized, are deactivated. Please visit the web site.

Legal reforms to prohibit all corporal punishment of children – in the family home as well as in schools and other institutions and penal systems – are spreading fast.

In many states the law provides defences for parents, other carers and teachers who use corporal punishment to discipline children: provisions which allow “reasonable chastisement” or “lawful correction”. In addition there may be education laws providing for corporal punishment in schools and laws allowing corporal punishment in penal institutions and as a sentence of the courts.

Law reform to end corporal punishment involves removing any provisions authorising corporal punishment and removing any special defences that may exist, so that the criminal law on assault applies equally to any assault of a child, whether or not it is described as discipline. It is a fundamental principle of human rights – upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 7 and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 26 – that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination.

In some states the law is silent on corporal punishment of children, but nevertheless it is socially and legally accepted and therefore explicit prohibition is required.

Click (active link at the web site) for the latest summary information on progress towards universal prohibition, and selected facts and figures on states pursuing reform and states so far resisting.

Click (active link at the web site) for information of legislation in states which have achieved full prohibition.

Worldwide, corporal punishment in schools has been prohibited in at least 108 states. But at least 78 states have not prohibited corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions for children in conflict with the law, and 43 have not prohibited it as a judicial sentence of the courts for young people convicted of an offence.

Our online global table shows data for all states and dependent territories on the extent of prohibition in three categories: Home; School; Penal system. Listed alphabetically, select from below :

TABLE A-D | TABLE E-H | TABLE I-L | TABLE M-P | TABLE Q-T | TABLE U-Z (active links at the web site)

Also available from the table are individual reports for each state, with details of laws relating to corporal punishment in the home, schools, penal system and alternative care settings, as well as summaries of prevalence research and extracts from recommendations made by human rights treaty bodies. Click here for individual state reports.

Our global and regional tables, available as PDF files (updated August 2009), summarise the extent of prohibition in the home, schools, as a sentence for crime, as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions, and in alternative care settings. Download from here:

[Please visit the web site for latest data]

This analysis has been compiled from information from governmental and non-governmental sources, including reports on implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort is made to maintain its accuracy. Please send us updating information and details of sources for missing information: info@endcorporalpunishment.org.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


James Dobson just has to be responsible for many psycopaths in America

James Dobson.
Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Dobsons advice books have sold millions of copies and even though his prescriptions have been refuted over and over, he contines to reap millions of dollars from sales of his books. This can only be occurring because his buyers are Idiot Americans who have been raised by other Idiot Americans to follow dogma and superstition and avoid reason at all costs.

Advice of violence-prevention professionals compared to advice of James Dobson

Compiled by Eric Perlin
A critical look at the evangelical right’s leading proponent of violent authoritarianism in the family, Dr. James Dobson, through quotes from his best-selling publications. In the following material, Dobson’s admonitions (shown here in green when viewed with Netscape) are juxtaposed for easy comparison to the advice of experts in the fields of domestic violence and child-sexual-abuse prevention. (shown in italics for this post)

Psychologists Ronald Slaby and Wendy Roedell: “(O)ne of the most reliable predictors of children’s level of aggression is the heavy use by parents of harsh, punitive discipline and physical punishment… Parental punitiveness has been found to be positively correlated with children’s aggression in over 25 studies…(P)arental punishment is one important aspect of a general pattern of intercorrelated parental behaviors that influence the child’s aggression.” 1

James Dobson: “Contrary to what it might seem, (a child) is more likely to be a violent person if his parent fails to (spank him), because he learns too late about the painful consequences of acting selfishly, rebelliously, and aggressively.”2

Protect Your Child by Laura Hutton: “Every child should be taught that he has personal rights that should be respected by all adults…’I have the right to say no if someone touches or wants to touch the private parts of my body.’ ” 3

James Dobson: “A spanking is to be reserved for use in response to willful defiance, whenever it occurs. Period!” 4

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “The pain a woman feels cannot be measured by how many bruises she has on her body… Most women report that even if the physical abuse is not severe, the emotional trauma from being abused by someone they love has long-lasting effects.” 5

James Dobson: “When a youngster tries this kind of stiff-necked rebellion, you had better take it out of him, and pain is a marvelous purifier.” 6 “…It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely.” 7

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Many men make statements such as, ‘My partner makes me hit her.’ Blaming the victim is an easy way of denying responsibility for your own behavior…. No matter what your partner does, you don’t have the right to hurt her.” 8

James Dobson: “Some strong-willed children absolutely demand to be spanked, and their wishes should be granted.”9

Protect Your Child: ” I have a right to scream for help even if I am told by a molester to be quiet and obey….l don’t have to obey someone who hurts me or wants to hurt me.” 10

James Dobson: “Two or three stinging strokes on the legs or buttocks with a switch are usually sufficient to emphasize the point, ‘You must obey me.’ ” 11

Suffolk County Women’s Services: “You cannot end the violence by trying to be ‘better’ or by trying harder to please your abuser.” 12

James Dobson: “You can explain (to your child) why he has been punished and how he can avoid the difficulty next time.” 13

The Safe Child Book by Sherryl Kerns Kraizer: “We need to look at the ways in which we teach our children to be blindly obedient to adults and authority figures. Most children do not know they can say no to a police officer, a teacher, a principal, a counselor, a minister, a baby-sitter, or a parent when an inappropriate request is made.” 14

James Dobson: “By learning to yield to the loving authority…of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life — his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers.” 15

Suffolk County Women’s Services: “You have a right to a life free from abuse.” 16

James Dobson: “Most (children) need to be spanked now and then.” 17

The Safe Child Book: “Young children tell me that some of the ways they don’t like to be touched are: kisses on the mouth, getting their shirts tucked in by grown-ups, being picked up, having their hair stroked, having to kiss Grandma and Grandpa or Mom and Dad’s friends… They can be unwanted touch, just as sexual abuse is unwanted touch… It is important to respect children’s preferences. By learning to say no to one type of touching, children learn to say no to the other.” 18

James Dobson: “Minor pain can…provide excellent motivation for the child… There is a muscle, lying snugly against the base of the neck… When firmly squeezed, it sends little messengers to the brain saying, ‘This hurts; avoid recurrence at all costs’.” 19

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Men who abuse do so in order to maintain power and control over their partners.” 20

James Dobson: “A child wants to be controlled.” 21 “… The need to be controlled and governed is almost universal in childhood… It is through loving control that parents express personal worth to a child.” 22

The Safe Child Book: “Private parts include the genital area, the buttocks, and the breasts. It is sometimes easier for parents to say something like ‘The parts of your body that your bathing suit and underwear cover up are special parts of your body. You can touch yourself there, but other people shouldn’t. except if you’re sick or at the doctor. Those same parts of the body are special for other people and it’s not okay for someone older than you to touch you…’ ” 23

James Dobson: “If a parent responds appropriately, on the backside, he has taught the child a valuable lesson…” 24

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: If your partner has to change her behavior in order to keep herself free from your physical or verbal assaults… then she is being abused.” 25

James Dobson: “Corporal punishment in the hands of a loving parent is a teaching tool by which harmful behavior is inhibited.” 26

Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents: “Children who may be too frightened to talk about sexual molestation may exhibit a variety of physical and behavioral signals. …Symptoms (include):..excessive crying…” 27

James Dobson: “Real crying usually lasts two minutes or less, but may continue for five. After that point, the child is merely complaining… I would require him to stop the protest crying, usually by offering him a little more of whatever caused the original tears.” 28

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “Batterers over-personalize their partner’s behavior, perceiving any disagreements as attacks against him.” 29

James Dobson: “When a child has lowered his head and clenched his fist, he is daring the parent to take him on.” 30

Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents: “Other behavioral signals (that indicate a child may have been sexually molested include)…aggressive or disruptive behavior…” 31

James Dobson: “An appropriate spanking from a loving parent in a moment of defiance provides (a) service. It tells (the child)…he must steer clear of certain social traps… selfishness, dishonesty, unprovoked aggression, etc.” 32

Victims Information Bureau of Suffolk County: “When trying to resolve a conflict, look for ‘WIN-WIN’ solutions, where both of you feel that the resolution is acceptable. Don’t make your partner into your opponent. Remember that the goal is to solve a problem, not have the ‘upper hand’.” 33

James Dobson: “When you are defiantly challenged, win decisively.” 34

Notes

1. Slaby and Roedell, “The Development and Regulation of Aggression in Young Children,” in Judith Worell, ed., Psychological Development in the Elementary Years (New York: Academic Press, 1982), pp. 98, 106, 107.
2. Dobson, James, Dare to Discipline, Tyndale House and Bantam Books, p. 41.
3. Huchton, Laura M., Protect Your Child, Prentice-Hall, Inc., p. 71.
4. Dobson, James, The Strong-Willed Child, Tyndale House and Bantam Books, p. 37.
5. Domestic Partner Education Program, Victims’ Information Education Bureau of Suffolk, p. 10.
6. Dare to Discipline, p. 16.
7. Dare to Discipline, p. 23.
8. Domestic Partner Education Program, , p. 7.
9. The Strong-Willed Child, , p. 73.
10. Protect Your Child, p. 71.
11. The Strong-Willed Child, pp. 53-4.
12. Confronting Family Violence, Suffolk County Women’s Services, p. 3.
13. Dare to Discipline, p. 23.
14. Krazier, Sherryl Kerns, The Safe Child Book, Dell Publishing Company, lnc., p. 98.
15. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 235.
16. Confronting Family Violence p. 3.
17. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 63.
18. The Safe Child Book, p. 47.
19. Dare to Discipline, p. 26.
20. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 4.
21. Dare to Discipline, p. 16.
22. Dare to Discipline, p. 39.
23. The Safe Child Book, p. 48.
24. Dare to Discipline, p. 40.
25. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 5
26. The Strong-Willed Child, p.35.
27. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect.
28. Dare to Discipline, p.38.
29. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 9.
30. Dare to Discipline, p. 40.
31. Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: Tips to Parents
32. The Strong-Willed Child, p. 36.
33. Domestic Partner Education Program, p. 17.
34. Dare to Discipline, p. 36.
See Eric Perlin vs. Stephen B.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


UN agency adopted a new general comment in 2006 on corporal punishment

Legality of corporal punishment in Europe {{le...
Image via Wikipedia

In 2006 the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a new General Comment on the issue of corporal punishment

The Committee’s General Comment on Corporal Punishment

At its 42nd session, held in Geneva from 15 May to 2 June 2006, the Committee on the Rights of the Child adopted a new General Comment on the issue of corporal punishment. This is the first General Comment concerning the protection of children from all forms of violence which the Committee resolved to publish following its Days of General Discussion on violence against children in 2000 and 2001. It reflects the Committee’s commitment to address the problem of corporal punishment, which dates back to the early days of monitoring the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and which has consistently informed the Committee’s recommendations to States parties over the years.

General Comment No.8 (2006) on “The right to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia)” aims “to highlight the obligation of all States parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other cruel or degrading forms of punishment of children and to outline the legislative and other awareness-raising and educational measures that States must take” (para 2). As well as being an obligation of States parties under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, addressing and eliminating corporal punishment of children is “a key strategy for reducing and preventing all forms of violence in societies” (para 3).

Definitions
The Committee defines corporal punishment in paragraph 11 of the General Comment:

“The Committee defines ‘corporal’ or ‘physical’ punishment as any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slapping’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with an implement – whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, burning, scalding or forced ingestion (for example, washing children’s mouths out with soap or forcing them to swallow hot spices). In the view of the Committee, corporal punishment is invariably degrading. In addition, there are other non-physical forms of punishment which are also cruel and degrading and thus incompatible with the Convention. These include, for example, punishment which belittles, humiliates, denigrates, scapegoats, threatens, scares or ridicules the child.”

Children are subjected to such punishment in all settings and must be addressed and eliminated in all settings, including within the home and family.

The Committee distinguishes between violence and humiliation as forms of punishment, which it rejects, and discipline of children in the form of “necessary guidance and direction”, which is essential for healthy growth of children. The Committee also differentiates between punitive physical actions against children and physical interventions aimed at protecting children from harm.
Human rights standards

The foundations of the human rights obligation to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment and all other degrading forms of punishment lie in the rights of every person to respect for his/her dignity and physical integrity and to equal protection under the law. The Committee traces this back to the original International Bill of Human Rights – “The dignity of each and every individual is the fundamental guiding principle of international human rights law” (para 16) – and shows how the Convention on the Rights of the Child builds on these principles. Quoting article 19 of the Convention, which requires States to protect children “from all forms of physical or mental violence”, the Committee states (para 18):

“… There is no ambiguity: ‘all forms of physical or mental violence’ does not leave room for any level of legalized violence against children. Corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment are forms of violence and the State must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to eliminate them.”

The fact that article 19 and article 28 – on school discipline – do not specifically refer to corporal punishment does not in any way undermine the obligation to prohibit and eliminate it (paras 20, 21 and 22):

“… the Convention, like all human rights instruments, must be regarded as a living instrument, whose interpretation develops over time. In the 17 years since the Convention was adopted, the prevalence of corporal punishment of children in their homes, schools and other institutions has become more visible, through the reporting process under the Convention and through research and advocacy by, among others, national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

“Once visible, it is clear that the practice directly conflicts with the equal and inalienable rights of children to respect for their human dignity and physical integrity. The distinct nature of children, their initial dependent and developmental state, their unique human potential as well as their vulnerability, all demand the need for more, rather than less, legal and other protection from all forms of violence.

“The Committee emphasizes that eliminating violent and humiliating punishment of children, through law reform and other necessary measures, is n immediate and unqualified obligation of States parties….”
The Committee goes on to note that this approach is mirrored in the work of other international human rights treaty monitoring bodies and of regional human rights mechanisms, including the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Common arguments by governments against prohibition of all corporal punishment are also addressed by the Committee. For example, in response to the contention that a certain degree of “reasonable” or “moderate” corporal punishment is in the “best interests” of the child, the Committee states that “interpretation of a child’s best interests must be consistent with the whole Convention, including the obligation to protect children from all forms of violence and the requirement to give due weight to the child’s views; it cannot be used to justify practices, including corporal punishment and other forms of cruel or degrading punishment, which conflict with the child’s human dignity and right to physical integrity” (para 26). And there is no conflict between realising children’s rights and the importance of the family unit, which the Convention fully upholds. The Committee recognises that some justify the use of corporal punishment through religious faith teachings and texts but again notes that “practice of a religion or belief must be consistent with respect for others’ human dignity and physical integrity” and that “[f]reedom to practice one’s religion or belief may be legitimately limited in order to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of others” (para 29).

You can continue reading the comments here:

http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/hrlaw/crc_session.html

Click the Wiki link below the map of Europe to see the latest data.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


Older Posts »