another try at spanking poll

[Don John of Austria]

Another try at my poll


Massachusetts has a bill in it's legislature which would make all corpral punishment illegal. Does this fall under the Authority of the State( religous issues like Sirach directing corpral punishment will be dismissed here, i'm sure) and if it does should they ban it?

The Bill follows:
PETITION -- HOUSE

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

IN THE YEAR TWO THOUSAND FIVE

An Act PROHIBITING CORPORAL PUNSHIMENT OF CHILDREN.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the

authority of the same, as follows:


Chapter 265 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002 Official Edition is hereby amended by inserting after Section 13J, a new Section 13J 1/2, as follows:

Section 13J 1/2. Corporal punishment of children prohibited; use of reasonable force.

(a) For the purposes of this section, the following words shall, unless the context indicates otherwise, have the following meanings: ­

“Child”, any person under eighteen years of age.

“Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain, including but not limited, to hitting, whipping, slapping, spanking, kicking, biting, striking with an object, pinching, punching, poking eyes, twisting limbs, boxing ears, shaking, “hot-saucing” (putting undiluted Tabasco sauce or soap in the mouth), administering electric shocks, or any other unreasonable use or degree of force.

(b) It shall be unlawful in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for any adult to inflict corporal punishment upon a child.

© The provisions of this section shall not preclude any adult from using such reasonable force as is necessary to protect himself and others from imminent, serious, physical harm, including assault by a child, to divest a child of a dangerous instrument, to prevent injury to property, or to remove a child from a life-threatening or injurious situation.

(d) The provisions of this section also shall not preclude any adult from using incidental or minor physical contact designed to maintain order and control, or other discipline which does not constitute corporal punishment. The provisions of this section are not intended to be used to separate children from their parents or to discourage discipline of children, but are intended to encourage the use of other means than corporal punishment to discipline children, because of the emotional harm and risks of bodily harm associated with corporal punishment of children.

Edited June 14, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

Good it worked this time.

[Circle_Master]

Doesn't the government have authority to whatever the people wish it to do? It had the authority to fillibuster anti-lynching laws several decades ago, why would it not have the authority to ban spanking.

Note: I am drawing on a comparison here - not on the constitution.

[Brother Adam]

"“Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain, including but not limited, to hitting, whipping, slapping, spanking, kicking, biting, striking with an object, pinching, punching, poking eyes, twisting limbs, boxing ears, shaking, “hot-saucing” (putting undiluted Tabasco sauce or soap in the mouth), administering electric shocks, or any other unreasonable use or degree of force."

FIrst of all, only spanking should be a means by which parents punish their children out of all the things on this list (except slapping in some cases). And second, the government can make any law it wants until it finds itself like England with a whole lot of people revolting and overthrowing the government (which IS in the constitution)

[Guest JeffCR07]

lol, my answer isnt up there DJ.

The government "has the authority" to ban spanking, yes, but parents also "have the authority" (and what's more, the duty) to discipline their children in such a way that they feel will raise them into charitable christian men and women. Parental authority takes primacy over governmental authority, provided that neither are demanding the child to disobey the Moral Law.

Thus, in the case of spanking one's children, the parents can still spank their children, regardless of what the government says, because in the order of authority, the authority of the parent, in accord with his/her duty to raise a child as he/she sees most fit, is higher than the authority of the state, which exercises its authority for the purpose of developing a well run and virtuous populous.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Aloysius]

that basically translates to, in simpler terms, it falls outside of the state's authority and in the parent's authority

authority is from God, not the people. that's what the Bible says. non est enim potestas nisi a Deo. so no, the state does not have the authority to do whatever the people wish it to.

[Cam42]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 14 2005, 06:42 AM']lol, my answer isnt up there DJ. 

The government "has the authority" to ban spanking, yes, but parents also "have the authority" (and what's more, the duty) to discipline their children in such a way that they feel will raise them into charitable christian men and women. Parental authority takes primacy over governmental authority, provided that neither are demanding the child to disobey the Moral Law.

Thus, in the case of spanking one's children, the parents can still spank their children, regardless of what the government says, because in the order of authority, the authority of the parent, in accord with his/her duty to raise a child as he/she sees most fit, is higher than the authority of the state, which exercises its authority for the purpose of developing a well run and virtuous populous.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]611199[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with Jeff....

[Aloysius]

so if the authority of the parent supercedes the authority of the state making the law null and void in the moral code, can we not say that the state falls outside its moral authority by making this law?

[Cam42]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Jun 14 2005, 08:03 AM']so if the authority of the parent supercedes the authority of the state making the law null and void in the moral code, can we not say that the state falls outside its moral authority by making this law?
[right][snapback]611227[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

At first thought, yes.....however, keep researching to see if you continue to hold that view.

[MC Just]

The Government is going a little too far now.

[Good Friday]

To begin, let me say that I would likely never spank my children if I had any. I don't agree with it as punishment; I was never spanked as a child, and with a few minor exceptions, I've turned out all right. I don't do drugs, I didn't drink until it was legal for me to do so, I don't talk back to my parents even now that I'm an adult, I don't lie, I don't cheat, I don't steal, etc. So, from my own experience, I see no need for spanking.

With that said, the state has no authority whatsoever to impose this law on society:

[quote]Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative.  The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of [i]subsidiarity[/i], according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good" ([i]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/i], #1883).[/quote]

[quote]Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself.  It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility" . . . Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it.  If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.  In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."  "It is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of responsibility which keep it within its proper bounds.  This is the principle of the 'rule of law,' in which the law is sovereign and not the arbitrary will of men" ([i]CCC[/i], #1902-1904).[/quote]

[quote]The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures.  Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family.  Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family's prerogatives or interfere in its life ([i]CCC[/i], #2209).[/quote]

[quote]Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children.  They bear witness to this responsibility first by [i]creating a home[/i] where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule.  The home is well suited for [i]education in the virtues[/i].  This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery -- the preconditions of all true freedom.  Parents should teach their children to subordinate the "material and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones."  Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children.  By knowing how to acknowledge their own failings to their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them: "He who loves his son will not spare the rod . . . He who disciplines his son will profit by him."  "Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord" ([i]CCC[/i], #2223).[/quote]

[quote][i]Political authorities[/i] are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person.  They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged ([i]CCC[/i], #2237).[/quote]

[quote]The citizen is obliged in conscience to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.  [i]Refusing obedience[/i] to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community: "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."  "We must obey God rather than men" ([i]CCC[/i], #2242).[/quote]

Looking at these passages from the [i]Catechism[/i], I'm not sure how anyone could profess that the state has any legitimate authority to ban the spanking of children. Such a ban would violate the rights of families, particularly the right of parents to educate and discipline their children. Any violation of the families' rights is gravely contrary to both the natural law and the law of the Church, and should be met with civil disobedience. No parent is bound by a law that would ban them from disciplining their children through non-harmful means, and no parent should pay any attention to this law.

I would also point out the irony of a state that allows same-sex couples to "marry" and adopt children telling parents how best to educate and discipline their children. Massachusetts has lost all concept of the institution of the family, the authority of the state of Massachusetts has completely broken down and has resulted in shameful abuse, and now their pronouncements sound like a clanging cymbal. I don't know why anyone would think this law is okay.

[Matty_boy]

I think the Government should encourage people to spank their children (the right way, not out of anger). If more kids got spanked, there wouldn't be so many hoodlums running around.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 14 2005, 06:42 AM']lol, my answer isnt up there DJ. 

The government "has the authority" to ban spanking, yes, but parents also "have the authority" (and what's more, the duty) to discipline their children in such a way that they feel will raise them into charitable christian men and women. Parental authority takes primacy over governmental authority, provided that neither are demanding the child to disobey the Moral Law.

Thus, in the case of spanking one's children, the parents can still spank their children, regardless of what the government says, because in the order of authority, the authority of the parent, in accord with his/her duty to raise a child as he/she sees most fit, is higher than the authority of the state, which exercises its authority for the purpose of developing a well run and virtuous populous.

- Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff
[right][snapback]611199[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Thats a very fancy way of saying NO they don't have the authority, one can not control what another has sovreignty over which is what you are saying parants have over this matter.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jun 14 2005, 06:34 AM']"“Corporal punishment”, the willful infliction of physical pain, including but not limited, to hitting, whipping, slapping, spanking, kicking, biting, striking with an object, pinching, punching, poking eyes, twisting limbs, boxing ears, shaking, “hot-saucing” (putting undiluted Tabasco sauce or soap in the mouth), administering electric shocks, or any other unreasonable use or degree of force."

FIrst of all, only spanking should be a means by which parents punish their children out of all the things on this list (except slapping in some cases). And second, the government can make any law it wants until it finds itself like England with a whole lot of people revolting and overthrowing the government (which IS in the constitution)
[right][snapback]611196[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


First who says that of that list only spanking should be done, I know many people who had there mouth washed out with soap and it never hurt them, just taughtthem about language appropriatness, but lets look hitting with an object, --what about a belt or a switch those are objects. As for hitting well I know alot of men alot of them who remember standing up to there father at about 15 or 16 and telling there father words to the effect of " I don't have to do what you say old man" and preceded to get reminded that thhere afather was a MAN as he quickly and frankly with love gave them a sound beating. None of those men hold anything but respet and love for their fathers and know that it was an object lesson it remembering ones place. It was not abuseive it was proper Fatherly education. Remember Sirach-- A man who does not beat his son, hates him.

Now as to the Government having the POWER to passany law they want, this is of course not in dispute, but having the Authority is quite a differant matter all together.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jun 14 2005, 12:48 PM']

With that said, the state has no authority whatsoever to impose this law on society:
Looking at these passages from the [i]Catechism[/i], I'm not sure how anyone could profess that the state has any legitimate authority to ban the spanking of children.  Such a ban would violate the rights of families, particularly the right of parents to educate and discipline their children.  Any violation of the families' rights is gravely contrary to both the natural law and the law of the Church, and should be met with civil disobedience.  No parent is bound by a law that would ban them from disciplining their children through non-harmful means, and no parent should pay any attention to this law.

I would also point out the irony of a state that allows same-sex couples to "marry" and adopt children telling parents how best to educate and discipline their children.  Massachusetts has lost all concept of the institution of the family, the authority of the state of Massachusetts has completely broken down and has resulted in shameful abuse, and now their pronouncements sound like a clanging cymbal.  I don't know why anyone would think this law is okay.
[right][snapback]611382[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I completly agree. But I do spank my son, other methods do not work on him, and at 2 I can't reason with him about why he can't run in the street, he knows if he runs in the street he gets spanked so he doesn't run in the street, All it taakes is him not obeying that rule once at the wrong time and he is dead, or perhaps simply smashed and cripled I have no qaulms at all about spanking.