February 8, 2004 / Volume 8, Issue 6
Supreme Court "Upholds" Spanking Law
 Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada "upheld" a piece of legislation enacted in 1892, permitting reasonable force to be used in the discipline of children. Challengers of the law claim that it is a violation of the child's constitutional rights. The Ontario Supreme Court (2000), Ontario Court of Appeals (2002) and now the Canadian Supreme Court (2004) have ruled that parents ought to have the freedom to use corporal punishment in child-rearing. I am thankful that the justices have not bowed to the will of the ungodly in this regard. However, with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling, some recommendations are cause for concern. The Court advised:
physical discipline for children under 2 and above 12 should be ruled out;
an instrument (ie. ruler or belt) should not be used to exercise discipline;
corporal punishment by teachers is unacceptable.
The justices are to be commended to the degree that they stood for parental rights with regard to physical discipline, but in these recommendations, some wearisome results are on the horizon. Consider very briefly:
The first two years of a child's life are crucial in developing and training them. With this age stipulation, the young mother who taps Johnny on the wrist for reaching out to grasp a breakable vase from grandma's coffee table is considered a criminal.
The Court would outlaw the use of anything but the bare hand in applying discipline. I am not absolutely opposed to the use of one's hand in corporal discipline, but, the fact that the Proverb writer so often speaks of the "rod" impresses me. It was the tool of discipline. The hand then, is left as the instrument of comfort.
Though physical discipline is primarily the responsibility of the parents, the same right ought to be reserved for others who are in charge of the child. In most school boards today, restrictions have already been in place for several years regarding physical discipline of students. When I was in school, misbehaving students were unacceptable and the strap was an acceptable tool of discipline. Today, corporal discipline is unacceptable and the misbehaving students have become the accepted norm. Sad!!
Advocates for the abolishment of this parental right (and responsibility) make no distinction between corrective discipline and abuse. Blind guides who lead our society further into the ditch of immorality!! There is a world of difference between the two. Discipline comes from a loving parent, who, with control and concern, corrects a misbehaving child with a spank, slap to the hand, or such. Abuse is the product of uncontrolled anger, and seeks to aggressively harm, not correct. What blindness has overtaken our society that we cannot distinguish between loving parents and horrid monsters?
It may be that in the future, our government will outlaw corporal punishment, and in the process, clog our prisons and courts with loving parents. We need to pray for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-4). But regardless what may come, those who are concerned with the well-being and appropriate upbringing of their children must consider what God's word says about physical discipline. Consider:
"He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly." (Proverbs 13:24)
"Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction." (Proverbs 19:18)
"Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6)
"Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will drive it far from him." (Proverbs 22:15)
"Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs 23:13-14)
"The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother... Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul." (Proverbs 29:15)
To the ungodly mind, perhaps the wording of the Proverb writer might seem harsh. The intent is to mold the life of the child. Parents need to be parents, and children need to be children. In the godly home, it ought to be evident who is who. In too many homes today, the children are in control, and the parents are "captives" of their young. The fact is, they are captives of their own decision not to exercise Biblical discipline.
I fully understand and freely admit that some have been victims of cruel abuse, which perhaps was labelled as discipline by the giver. It has happened, it does happen, sadly, it will continue to happen. But it is wrong to lump parents who use sound, love-driven discipline in with these bad apples. The objection is voiced that physical discipline does not teach children to be obedient and respectful to authority, but rather to view authority with contempt, to live in fear, and perhaps even causes the "victim" to become violent themselves to others. Really??? There are countless people who have been properly disciplined in their younger years, and have grown up thankful for the spankings they received. The Hebrew writer penned, "...no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." (12:11) Whether we are speaking about the Lord's discipline of His people (as the context of Hebrews 12), or the discipline a parent uses with a child (which the Hebrew writer uses as a comparison to the Lord), if consistently used, and motivated by love, good will come.
Sources:
(1) http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/spanking/
(2) http://www.nospank.net/n-h93.htm
Click here for this week's Answering The Atheist
Was Keturah Abraham's wife or concubine? Genesis 25:1 says "wife", but 1 Chronicles 1:32 says "concubine". Is there a contradiction?
| |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
