Subject: Spanking (was Scary religion)
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:02:20 +1000
From: Robert Davidson 
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Graeme Hunt wrote:
> You kow Robert, this is one of the weird things about your arguments.
> Who said I was not bothered?

You did a couple of posts ago.  To quote you:

“It doesn’t really bother me, you 
are free to believe or disbelieve like any 
other person. I often marvel at the hardness 
of unbelievers who reject this truth because 
if they are wrong they have taken an awful 
chance by their rejection. An endless eternity 
is the lake of fire is an awful prospect, only 
experienced by those who have rejected God’s 
gracious offer and provision for escape from it.”

> Where do you get such a fantastic idea?

>From the post I just quoted and from several other earlier posts.

> You are forgetting something. The Bible mandates parents to bring
> their children up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. Do you
> think parents do not have that right?  How about the teeming millions
> of Muslims in the world. Are you going to tell them the have no right
> to bring their children up in the Muslim faith? Get real.

I would go against that freedom if they 
were telling their kids they would go to 
hell if they didn’t believe certain 
strict dogmas yes.

> Every parent should be allowed to spank its child if it needs it.

Nonsense.  It is a form of physical abuse, 
and is now illegal in a large part of Europe 
(Holland, Germany, France, Sweden, Norway, 
Spain).  Children have rights as well as 
parents, and the right to freedom from 
assault overrides religious freedom.

> Once
> again, the Bible warns that to spare the rod means to spoil the child.

There are different views on that from some 
evangelical Christians (see William Sears’ 
The Baby Book for example).  The bible may 
not mean what you think there.

> One of the big problems witn society to day is that fewer and fewer
> young people have any respect for authority and they end of not being
> able to disicpline themsleves when they leave home.

They’ll have a lot less respect for 
authority if it’s tied to physical 
abuse.  Many studies have shown that 
discipline is much more effective if 
corporal punishment is completely left 
out of it, and trust is instilled instead.

> I spanked my
> children when they needed it and if I had my time again no government
> would tell me how to bring up my children, I’d do it again.

You can be excused, as it was the 
general opinion thirty years ago that 
spanking was a good idea.  Now we know 
better as a result of many studies.  
If you did it again in Europe, you’d 
be going against the law.

> Two of my
> boys later said to me when they were away on their own and in another
> country that I was right so far as my discipline was concerned, so
> don’t give me that anarchist rubbbish about not spanking children.

Don’t argue with me, argue with 
the governments of Europe and almost 
every child discipline expert and worker 
today.

> We also had corporal punishment in schools those days and
> there was order in the school. Nowadays schools are madhouses of
> anarchy with little or no order and discipline.

Actually, it is my impression that 
schools are on the whole more organised 
and disciplined than they were in 
recent decades,  according to teachers 
I know with an interest in the history 
of education (but I don’t know that 
much about this)

> Unsubstantiated? Who says so? You?

You yourself have said so.  There is 
no rational compelling evidence for 
religious doctrine, as it requires 
faith.  This is fine of course.  But 
it is personal.  Is is fair to compel 
kids to believe doctrine which is 
claimed on the basis of personal faith?  
Isn’t it better simply to present 
Christian ideas to kids and say “we 
believe this, but it’s our personal 
belief and other people believe so and 
so.” If the gospel is powerful 
enough, can’t God be trusted to 
convict kids personally without them 
being indoctrinated?

> Who are you to say they are
> unsubstantiated?

Well there’s no evidence apart 
from faith.

> Do you think you are God?

Of course not.

> You make assumptions about
> things like this from your own reasoning. Who says your reasoning is
> right? Only you!

No, the scientific method, reason 
etc.  There is no compelling evidence 
for the doctrines of Christianity, or 
they would be generally accepted as 
the theory of gravitation is accepted, 
or that electricity consists of 
flowing electrons.  There is compelling 
evidence for that stuff, but not for 
the doctrines of the Bible.

> >which restrict them from
> >exploring
> >other models of the world
>
> No Christian kids I know of have ever had such restrictions. What you
> are asking is for parents to be forbidden to obey the mandates of
> their own faith as laid down in rhe Bible, just so it will please your
> majesty!

I have no problem at all with kids 
being presented with the teachings 
of Christianity.  In fact, it would 
be negligent in the societies of 
Australasia to omit this part of 
education.  But too often, I’ve 
seen kids of fundamentalist Christians 
indoctrinated and told that beliefs 
are facts etc.  This is hardly fair.

> Seems?  Seems?  Why is it that over the centuries so many have been
> happy in their Christian faith handed down from their parents?

It’s easy to be happy when you 
don’t know of any other options.  
Sort of like the sub epsilons in Brave 
New World.  Surely Christian belief 
is more valuable if it is based on an 
informed choice?

> >Christianity should be taught to kids as a model, but the truth of it
> >left for them to decide.  Instead, kids are often taught Christian faith
> >as if it were the only truth possible.  Shouldn’t they have the freedom to think
> >for themselves?
>
> Who says they haven’t? All the Christian kids I know have the freedom
> to think for themselves.

Excellent.  That is very commendable.  
Too often I have seen something other 
than freedom with conservative 
Christian kids however.  Haven’t 
you?  I used to teach music to a kid 
from a Christian school and there were 
no biology books in the school library 
because they talked about evolution.  
This is not freedom of thought, but 
enforced ignorance and negligence of 
education.

> What you would like is for the Christian
> faith to be banned. Some “freedom” of religion you believe in!

I hardly would argue for the banning 
of Christian faith - this is a straw 
man argument.  I simply argue for 
basic human rights to override 
religious freedom where there is a 
conflict.

> The Christian faith is always subject to the laws of the land - Romans
> 13. You have no argument.

Would you support a gay person 
winning in court if he or she sued 
a minister for preaching against his 
rights then?  This is the law of the 
land in much of the world.

> >and the rights of homosexuals not to be
> >treated with discrimination, come before freedom of religion.
>
> Who says so?  Robert Davidson? How do you suppose  a Christian must
> deal with the fact that the Bible condemns homosexuality?

Not only Robert Davidson says so, but 
most of society.  A Christian should 
present his or her beliefs, but state 
that they are personal.  If someone 
goes around saying niggers are lower
 on the evolutionary scale because 
their religion says so, do you think 
they should have the freedom to state 
that widely in public?  Can you see 
how many people see this as the same 
as statements made about gays on this 
newsgroup?

> Human rights, as it has been developed since the second world war is a
> total farce. it sounds good but in reality it is an instrument of
> tyranny. As I have said before, in NZ the “human rights” forbids me
> from advertising  for a Christian employee. That is not human rights,
> it is a curtailment of freedom. I should be able to use my own money
> to hire whom I like.

You are not a law unto yourself, but 
a member of a society with both 
responsibilites and rights.  If 
everyone did what they liked, equity 
would be very much reduced.

> Intenational law? Rubbish! In other words, you would like the world to
> be giverned by international law from the United Nations.
> Internationalism is condemned by the Bible. It is a restriction on
> freedom, it removes the sovereignty from nations and compels them to
> comply with collectivist ideas. Stalin had that idea too.

There should be some international 
standards to protect those living 
under unjust regimes.  If a nation 
is torturing its citizens, those 
citizens should have recourse to 
justice provided by the international 
community.  I never argued for 
international law to replace national 
law, but it should override it in 
certain cases.  Of course, groups 
like Amnesty make do without the 
need for international law, replacing 
it with activism, and that is another 
useful model.

Not everything Stalin stood for was 
wrong.  There had to be some good 
ideas for him to be hooked by, as he
 wasn’t completely dumb.  Just 
grossly misled and misleading, mainly, 
I believe, because he was so dogmatic.  
It was the unbending nature of his 
ideas which caused him to act so 
ruthlessly, not very different from 
how the church acted towards heretics 
not so long ago.  Beware of certainty.

> Are you a communist Robert?

No.  I lean slightly towards the left, 
but communism is to my mind a terribly 
oversimplified view of things, and has 
little understanding of how humans 
actually behave.

> On what grounds do you say that? Are you saying that because I adhere
> to my belief in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality? I believe
> homosexuality is unnatural and degradation. Am I not allowed to hold
> such views? Are you suggesting that I should not be allowed to think
> for myself but to submit to your thinking that such depraved activity
> should be treated as normal?

How on earth does the behaviour affect 
you?  What harm is it doing to you?

> Are you a homosexual Robert?

No, it seems I’m pretty much 
straight.  I have many gay friends, 
and have had the typical gay phases 
as a teen etc, like most of us, 
being attracted to male friends at 
14 etc.  I very occasionally find 
myself attracted by a particularly 
good looking man.

> >I believe I do know what you think Christianity is.  The mainstream of
> >Christianity would find your version quite extreme.
>
> Mainstream?  That is a term used very loosely. How do you know what is
> mainstream? There are millions of Christians in the world today with
> the same fundamental views as myself, and I am sure most of them would
> share my views about homosexuality.

Mainstream meaning the majority of 
numbers of those in the church.  
Fundamentalism is not typical of 
churchgoers (I know you’d 
dismiss them as nominal or not even 
Christians).  Millions can be wrong.

> Just because some of the
> hiercarchy of a few “mainline” churches have thrown over the teaching
> of scripture and supported this perversion does not mean that most
> Christians go along with it.

Just give it a little time.  What’s 
the bet that homosexuality will be 
completely acceptable even amongst 
the most conservative in a century’s 
time?  I give it a high chance.

> Are you going to go to the Middle East and preach to the Muslims that
> they should accept homosexuality?  I hope you get back with your head
> intact.

It would be a risk, but it should be 
done.  It is a great shame that a 
certain minority element of Islam is 
so violent.

> Your version of extreme is anything you don’t agree with.

No, I’m using the word in a 
purely descriptive way.  If you did 
a survey of those involved in 
churches in Australia and NZ, you’d 
find that fundamentalism is a 
minority position, and considered 
extreme by the majority.  Check out 
some church surveys if you don’t 
believe me.

> True Christianity is fundamentalism. It adheres to the teaching of
> scripture. Not all  “Christians” are truly Christian, just as Paul
> warned that not all Israel are of Israel. The misrepresentation is in
> your thinking only.

This is again a dispute over the 
simple meaning of words.  Let me 
say then that you misrepresent the 
churchgoing public, who would find 
your position a minority position.

> But you have no tolerance my my “human rights.” I choose to believe
> the Bible, that is unacceptable to you.

Only when it conflicts with more
basic human rights.

> And by the way, I have never
> committed any restriction or violent act upon any homosexual, or even
> tried to have laws passed against them.

Good.

> My “sin” in your eyes is to
> even have the views about that perversion that I do.

You can have your views, but it 
would be best to keep them to 
yourself. 

Gay people would take great 
offence at your postings.

> You accuse me of
> hate!  You don’t know what you are talking about.

It’s just that your anti-gay 
postings resemble hate very strongly.  
I concede that you may not hate gays.  
But many gays would take away that 
message from your postings.

> >The “biblical viewpoint” is what I object to.
>
> And your suggestion that I may not hold such views is what I object
> to. Your hypocrisy is that you only want it your way.

I never said you couldn’t 
hold such a view.  But opinions 
must be subject to human rights 
if you are to live in a civilised 
society.

> Inaproproate to whom? Who says so? Again, do you think you are God?

I can have an opinion can’t I?

> Have I come along to you and told you that you _have_ to accept my
> belief? In your eyes anything that is unacceptable to Robert
> Davidson’s self-righteous standards is “inappropriate.”

It was only an opinion Graeme, 
an alternative to your authoritarian 
laying down of the law. Don’t 
get too worked up about it.

> That’s your right - and your responsibility. Just don’t tell me I have
> to agree with you.

I don’t.

> Seems? Seems? A lot of things “seem” to you. I happen to disagree with
> you on this one too. Should I ask your permission to disagree?

Seems is all we can ever have in 
my opinion.  I don’t believe 
in certainty.  You can disagree, 
but I can argue with you about it.  
Why do you have to see everything 
in terms of authority?

> No you have not. In the first place you said you were not a Christian,
> then you say you are.

I still maintain I am a Christian.  
I said I wouldn’t use the word 
with you if you like as you have a 
specific meaning for the term which 
is different from the meaning I 
assign to the term.  I have not 
pretended anything.

> You admitted that you were not a Christian in
> the sense of believing but you attached the name because you believe
> that you live in a Christian society. In other words, you are not a
> Christian, yet you continue to say you are.

Just a dipute over definitions of 
words.  Hardly a basis for accusations 
of fraud.

> How do you know that your ideas are the will of the people? You don’t.

Just by what it seems to me to be 
the case.

> All you know is that what has been legislated by our government is
> perceived to be the will of the people, but it isn’t necessarily so.
> Our governments have very readily added to national legislation what
> has come right out of the United Notions [spelling deliberate].

Fair enough.  I have some sympathy 
for your views here.

> Pressure groups, mainly left-wing, have been responsible for these
> sick things becomeing enshrined in law as they have lobbied on behalf
> of the socialist UN. There was no referendum. Interestingly, in a
> truly socialist society there is no will of the people, it is the will
> of the state that is “god.” This is what you are implying.

I agree this is undesirable.  Freedom 
is not won by any body having such 
overriding powers.  I hesitate to 
legislate against ideas or speech.  
But shouldn’t there be protection 
against such things as racial 
vilification etc?

> And all along you have assumed that I am violating the rights of
> others, and all along you have not the slightest basis for saying
> that.

Andy Beardsly has shown conclusively 
that I do.

> Yes, I can see you are a programmed parrot. Homophobia is something I
> have never been gulty of but it is a handly label for such as yourself
> with an agenda and no facts.

Ok, sorry I forgot you don’t 
accept that term.  Anti-gay 
discrimination then, or anti-homosexual 
sentiment.  I’ve never been 
completely satisfied with that term.  
We really do need another one.

> If you are not a Christian that is exaclty where the Bible says you
> will end up. You should be thanking me for warning you, not taking
> exception to it.

Belief in the bible is a personal 
opinion though.  Don’t expect 
me to lie back and take it.  Nothing 
wrong with arguing.

> Freedom of expression should be governed by honesty.

I have never been less than honest 
on this ng.

Can we call a truce?  This is not really 
going anywhere.  You know where I stand.  
I won’t take you apart for 
anti-homosexual sentiment again, but 
will complain when it comes up as my 
contribution to defending people’s 
rights.

Robert Davidson