Shrinking Government By Constantly Trying To Expand The Constitution

Without even coming close to admitting or denying that I have ever popped my kids' backsides, let me assure everyone that I don't feel the need to have the option of spanking my kids enshrined in the Constitution as a basic human right.  I will say that focusing on corporal punishment as the supreme evil that parents can inflict on their children ignores a universe of terrible punishments in which there is never any hitting whatsoever.  Shaming rituals rarely involve beating of any kind, but ISTM that they more clearly constitute abuse than a whap on your kid's butt.

What I will defend, however, is my right to force my kids to attend Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or any other services or events I damn well want, just as I will defend your right to refuse to allow your children to come along.  I'm not "forc[ing] them to believe in a particular god," I'm forcing them to go to church.  Being dragged around by your parents is the natural state of childhood.

As for the treaty itself, having skimmed through it, the only thing that worries me is if conservatives ever read Article 6.1, "States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life" and start to really push through zygote-American bills like the one they just tried in North Dakota. 

Comments

[Glenn Fayard]

As I've said elsewhere (more profanely), it's one of the few failings of liberalism where it doesn't properly appreciate a good whuppin'. See Ghostface Killah.

Not that we necessarily needed James Dobson's manual/gay porn-bait.

[Toast]

my right to force my kids to attend Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or any other services or events I damn well want

As a practical matter, I agree with you. As a philosophical matter, I agree with Dawkins that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse. ;-)

[Stephen]

Ahahaha. Richard Dawkins is as much a worthless sideshow freak as an AM talkshow host. He needs a caring therapist to show him that the public sphere isn't the place to find healing for whatever it is that happened to him in his childhood.

Dawkins hates. The real child abuse is that he's teaching his own kids to share in his hatred.

I look forward to his coming book which deals with how the entire fantasy genre needs to be destroyed because it offends his sense of the deference Science demands. Perhaps then people will realize that the only difference between Dawkins and a religious fundamentalist is the name - not the nature, mind you, the name - of the god they serve.

[litbrit]

Christian extremists, Muslim extremists, and Atheist extremists have one major thing in common: they all believe that THEIR way of thinking is correct, and everyone else is horribly mistaken.

I was pleased--and even a little shocked--to hear Dawkins admit (on Bill Maher's show) that on a scale of 1-10, with 1 being "Definitely believe in God" and 10 being "Definitely certain there is no God", that he would rate his own position as 9. He stated that even though he was quite certain, he wasn't absolutely certain, so he could not in good conscience, as a scientist, confirm an absolute without absolute proof (using similar wording--I'm invoking my extremely good but not absolute memory here, heh.)

Oh, and Stephen, as an avowed non-spanker who will neither confirm nor deny having swatted a butt or two in the heat of a hypothetical moment, you're spot-on. Also, I second your condemnation of shaming as punishment.

RE: religious indoctrination being child abuse--As with almost everything, there is such a thing as nuance. Robert and his brothers being forced to go to Mass and sit quietly through hours and hours of Latin Catholic ritual when they would have rather been playing in the garden, rigging complicated explosive devices to four-story mudpies, well that's one thing. Tortuous for the restless lads, perhaps, but not really child abuse. A teenage girl being raped by elders because their interpretation of the Bible says she's supposed to submit, or some such bullshit? Few would disagree: abusive and criminal.

[Stephen]

A teenage girl being raped by elders because their interpretation of the Bible says she's supposed to submit, or some such bullshit?

Or an abused woman who feels pressured to stay with the abuser, the people who think that hitting a child with a leather strap is ok, the preaches who regularly practice emotional abuse on their parishioners, children, teens and adults - that's abuse.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

At least Hoekstra apparently spelled out more of what the Amendment covers -- the original was so innocuous sounding that I was afraid people would fall for it.

Yes, the problem with "Bible-based baby beating' is real. I did a piece on it, a couple of years ago. It's long (of course, given my wordiness) but most of it is actual quotes from 'Christian child-rearing manuals.'

It's here but don't read it if your stomach is queasy.

Just a sample from the Fugates' WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ... ABOUT CHILD TRAINING (ellipsis in the title), which isn't the worst of them, but comes close.

The child's rebellion against parental authority is what is being punished, and the child may choose to end the pain simply by submitting. "He should be given the opportunity for an honorable but unconditional surrender."

It doesn't break a child's will or spirit to force him to obey, it just makes him choose obedience over rebellion.

Chastisement is not merely humane, it is Divine. Would it be less humane for the child not to learn the proper attitude towards authority and become a "criminal, a drug addict, or a homosexual"?

Let's end with a discussion of suitable size rods to use on children of different ages -- because the hands of a parent should 'symbolize protection, comfort, and beckoning' the Fugates say, apparently without irony. They oppose spanking, preferring to use rods of various sizes. The Fugates maintain that when a rod is used by a parent, the child does not focus on the person using the rod but the rod itself. A child should be, if necessary -- which it shouldn't be since he should be already trained to obedience by eight to twelve -- chastized up until the age of twenty.

From the time the toddler begins to crawl until about 15 months ("age is no real criteria [sic] -- how large and how stubborn the child is will be the real issue") use a blackboard pointer, a balloon rod, or an eighth-inch dowel rod.

Age 1-2 a "tot rod" -- 3/16" by 24" dowel

2-4 "mob control' -- 1/4" by 24"

4-8 "train or consequences" -- 5/16" by 27"

8-12 "the equalizer" -- 3/8" by 27"

12+ "the rebel router" -- 1/2" by 33"
(The last is the length of, and one third the thickness of, an average major league baseball bat.)

and

Starting at birth, "parents will decide when he should eat, sleep, and play" p. 108

"Women have to be taught when to withhold their natural love for their children." p. 124

"Adult sons who have been over-protected … may even become homosexuals. Biblical child training principles can be self-applied by any adult who identifies himself with this type of upbringing." p. 125

"A wriggling six-month-old baby who intentionally refuses to be diapered can be taught the meaning of "no" in one or two simple lessons. When he tries to crawl away during a changing, he can be told "no," pulled back, and held in place for a moment. The next time he tries to crawl away, he should be told "no" once firmly and lightly tapped once or twice on the upper leg with a small switch. The shocked look and tears will indicate you got his attention and that the command "no" has taken on a real meaning. An angry cry and continued squirming may indicate a strong-willed child who will require more pressure in both intensity and frequency." p. 127

"Never give in to a child who is begging for something he wants. … When a child consistently and instantly obeys his parents on command, he has learned the most important standard." p. 130