If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children
@ http://tinyurl.com/yqmul
-- "..and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American Government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself." Blackhawk 1833 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children
Not the Boston Globe, apparently it was the CANADIAN Supreme Court!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking UPDATED AT 1:47 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004 Top court sets limits on spanking By KIRK MAKIN From Saturday's Globe and Mail Parents can spank or use force on their children provided it is minimal and not the product of frustration or rage, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday. While the majority of judges were unwilling to prohibit the use of force altogether, they declared corporal punishment off-limits for children under the age of 2 and for teenagers. And they outlawed the use of objects such as rulers or belts, as well as slaps or blows to the head. Teachers can no longer use any form of corporal punishment, the court added, although they may restrain pupils to gain compliance with their instructions. The judgment went a long way toward meeting the concerns of critics of spanking, while at the same time leaving intact a Criminal Code defence that can be used by parents or teachers charged with assault who establish they used "reasonable force" on a child. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the defence will apply only in cases of "sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour. Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected." Chief Justice McLachlin said that had the court foreclosed the defence altogether, teachers could potentially be dragged off to jail and parents forced into the criminal justice system, "with its attendant rupture of the family setting." Opponents of spanking had argued that any exemption is an open invitation to assault and blatantly discriminates against children. They expressed disappointment yesterday that the court did not go all the way. "If they were going to reduce the defence to these limits, one has to ask why they didn't just strike it down," said lawyer Paul Schabas, who represented the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law in the case. Mr. Schabas speculated that the judges may have been worried that striking down the law would precipitate a renewed attack on their judicial activism. "Today is a sad day for child rights, and we are extremely disappointed that spanking is not regarded as abuse," said Rita Karakas, executive director of Save the Children Canada. "Children are routinely physically abused in almost all societies, which has come to be regarded as an acceptable response to a child's behaviour." Her view was shared by two judges, Madam Justice Louise Arbour and Madam Justice Marie Deschamps, who said the exemption is too broad to protect such a vulnerable group. In another split, a member of the majority, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie, said the exemption should apply to parents, but not to teachers. "The logic for keeping criminal sanctions out of the schools is much less compelling than for keeping them out of the home," he said. Queen's University Professor Nicholas Bala, an expert witness who testified for the federal government, said the court majority carefully avoided endorsing or advocating the use of corporal punishment. "I think the majority correctly recognized that parents and teachers need to have a certain degree of discretion," he said. "We don't want the state — particularly criminal law — to be intruding into the family in an overly intrusive way." The constitutional challenge alleged that the exemption under the Criminal Code charge of assault allows children to be harmed in a way that adults cannot be. The court heard social science evidence showing that physical punishment produces no beneficial outcomes for children apart from short-term compliance. During the appeal, Mr. Schabas cited several assault acquittals in recent years that were based on the vague defence, including a man who bound his 16-year-old sister-in-law naked to a post while "babysitting" her and then struck her 10 to 12 times with a wooden paddle. Ranged against the challengers were teachers and the Department of Justice, arguing that judicious use of corporal punishment can play an important role in the school setting and in the home. They said parents can currently slap lightly or move an erring child, but no more than that. Yesterday, Chief Justice McLachlin said the exemption is based not on a devalued view of a child's worth, but in a concern that charging parents with assault can ruin lives and break up families — "a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process." While children need a safe environment, she said, they must also depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect them from harm and to promote their healthy development within society. "The force must have been intended to be for educative or corrective purposes, relating to restraining, controlling or expressing disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting from the correction," Chief Justice McLachlin said. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking POSTED AT 1:16 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004 Corporal punishment deep rooted By MARK HUME From Saturday's Globe and Mail The corporal punishment of children is so widespread and so deeply rooted in history that spanking might be called the slap heard 'round the world. It is practised from Alaska, where the Inupiaq people have believed for thousands of years that a quick slap is better than a harsh word, to schools in Botswana in Africa, where teachers argue the way to stop students from drinking is to whip them publicly. The physical disciplining of children by parents is endorsed by most religions and has been found in scriptures since the Old Testament, which advises: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son." That sentiment found popular expression as early as the 1600s, when English poet Samuel Butler summed it up with the memorable line: "Then spare the rod and spoil the child." Despite its wide acceptance, spanking has long been debated and is coming under growing attack, with critics from child-behaviour experts to the United Nations questioning the practice. Peter Dudding, director of the Child Welfare League of Canada, said yesterday that "the evidence is clear in terms of the use of physical punishment — it's harmful to children." Scholar George Holden of the University of Texas says in a recent paper, "Parental use of corporal punishment has been a contentious child-rearing topic for thousands of years." Prof. Holden notes that corporal punishment has been outlawed in 11 nations but says he doubts the United States is ready to follow suit. "Parents' belief in their entitlement to use corporal punishment is deeply embedded in American history, beliefs about the privacy of the family and personal freedoms, and attitudes about children and how to rear them." He says the reasons underlying parental use of the practice are complex, including "an instrumental religious reason, an impulsive reaction, or a lack of knowledge of alternatives." Cultural practices are a large part of the reason parents spank their children. In Alaska, the Inupiaq philosophy includes the belief that a quiet form of correctionis the best way to discipline a child. It might be summed up as: Speak softly, but be ready to slap. A historical Inupiaq cultural profile states. "Yelling at a child too much would make the child 'deaf' to talk or reasoning as time went on. "It was also disrespectful to the name and being of the child. A spanking when necessary was looked on more favourably. A spanking 'hurt the skin', but constant yelling 'hurt the spirit.'." In Botswana, the independent daily newspaper Mmegi recently reported on a debate over the appropriate way to deal with a student drinking problem. "Our culture is there and we have to be proud of it. Let the whip crack," said Lesego Koketso, the head of Pastoral Theology at Mogoditshane Senior Secondary. Nadine Block, writing in the Humanist, the magazine of the American Humanist Association, said corporal punishment is a divisive subject. It's one "that often pits generation against generation and family member against family member." Director of the Center for Effective Discipline in the U.S., Ms. Block is campaigning to have spanking outlawed around the world. "The strongest and most enduring support for the practice comes from the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Many fundamentalist, evangelical and charismatic Protestants use Scripture to justify their use of corporal punishment to develop obedience and character in children. Their position is that God wills and requires it in order to obtain his blessing and approval; to not physically punish children for misbehaviour will incur God's wrath," she writes. On the website of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tennessee is the observation: "Spanking or whipping is biblical discipline. And, it is not necessarily the choice of last resort. It is the linchpin of all biblical child discipline." Many religions recognize the right of parents to discipline their children but urge them to find non-violent means. Buddhism teaches that it is counterproductive and the Hindu religion does not sanction spanking at any age. The United Nations is among the organizations that think corporal punishment should not be used against children under any circumstances. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, states that "legal and social acceptance of physical punishment of children, in the home and in institutions, is not compatible with the Convention." It is illegal for parents or anyone else to spank children in Austria, Germany, Croatia, Israel, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Norway and Sweden. But in most countries, it is acceptable. Over the past two decades, surveys have found that in Britain 75 per cent of mothers admitted to smacking their babies before the age of 1; in Korea 97 per cent of children had been physically punished by parents; in India 91 per cent of male and 86 per cent of female university students said they'd been physically punished as children; in Chile 80 per cent of parents said they used physical punishment on their children. Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004 Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision that allows parents to spank their children under certain circumstances? Yes 13516 votes (83 %) No 2691 votes (17 %) Total Votes: 16207 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking TODAY'S PAPER Part of our culture By GERALD R. HALL Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12 Nanoose Bay, B.C -- The decision by the Supreme Court to allow parents to spank their children under certain circumstances was the correct decision, and has heartened responsible parents across this country. The traditional family has been and continues to be under attack in subtle and not so subtle ways, and concerned parents must be prepared to fight for their children's future. The family is and always has been the basic unit of society, and it logically follows that the strength of the nation is directly related to the strength of our families. Parents need to ensure that our elected representatives understand clearly where the majority stand on these important social issues, and vote for those who will uphold and defend their views. By KENNETH J. ZUCKER Psychologist-in-Chief, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Toronto Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12 Toronto -- The Supreme Court ruling on spanking makes brilliant developmental sense. Why the lower boundary of two? To combat the terrible twos, of course. Why the upper boundary of 13? Well, by puberty, the kid will be big enough and strong enough to strike back. Brilliant. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children
Toronto, Ontario paper
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children
And one recent US poll admitted that 94% of parents admit to spanking their
kids at one time. Of course, I predicted that the Supreme Court of Canada could not disempower parents nor families by removing the option of spanking. After all, the Justices had probably ALL been physicially punished at one time. If not at home, possibly at religious school. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to AllowParents to Spank Children
(Greg Hanson) wrote:
.... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...spankingPOSTED AT 1:16 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004 Corporal punishment deep rooted By MARK HUME From Saturday's Globe and Mail The corporal punishment of children is so widespread and so deeply rooted in history that spanking might be called the slap heard 'round the world. I'm snipping much of this interesting article, to get at one section of it which is outrageously wrong. Given even one reference which is so grievously in error, it makes one wonder about the credibility of the entire article. It is practised from Alaska, where the Inupiaq people have believed It is indeed practiced in Alaska, even by Inupiat[1] people. However, it was brought to Alaska by Europeans. To my knowledge *none* of the Native cultures in Alaska, and most *certainly* not the Inupiat, traditionally spanked children. [1] Inupiaq is the language they speak, or refers to one single individual, while Inupiat is the plural which refers to them all as a group. for thousands of years that a quick slap is better than a harsh word, to schools in Botswana in Africa, where teachers argue the way to stop students from drinking is to whip them publicly. I can't speak to Botswana Africa. I've never been there. But let me tell you from personal experience that Eskimos simply did *not* traditionally believe in either harsh verbal or harsh physical interaction with a child, and for much the same reasons. My personal experience is that my children and grandchildren are all very traditional Yup'ik Eskimos. (I am the only non-Eskimo in my immediate family.) Cultural practices are a large part of the reason parents spank their children. In Alaska, the Inupiaq philosophy includes the belief that a quiet form of correctionis the best way to discipline a child. It might be True. summed up as: Speak softly, but be ready to slap. False. A historical Inupiaq cultural profile states. "Yelling at a child too much would make the child 'deaf' to talk or reasoning as time went on. True. The same is true of hitting children. An *absolute* no no! "It was also disrespectful to the name and being of the child. A spanking when necessary was looked on more favourably. A spanking 'hurt the skin', but constant yelling 'hurt the spirit.'." Bull****. It's just like hand shaking. The typical Western concept of an "honest" hand shake is a "firm" grip, perhaps even squeezing the other person's hand enough to demonstrate superior strength. Eskimos find that to highly insulting, because it is a demonstration of disrespect. The same would be true of spanking a child or yelling at a child. The difference, however, is that the *child* is someone you *must* respect if you, and the child, are to be able to function in a real world! The "real world" to an Eskimo has a very complex social structure that is engaged constantly with a very complex spiritual structure. Harmony between the two is necessary for even the most simple daily needs, such as obtaining food to eat (never mind the long term needs, such as good weather, good health, etc. etc.). Each child is special, and is named after a recently departed person whose memory the parents wish to preserve. In a way, the child becomes the embodiment of that person. They are treated as if they *are* that person. Hence, unless they would have hit old grandpa Mike for being feeble and spilling his milk when he was 92 years old and dying, they sure the heck aren't going to be slapping his spirit that, in their mind, exists in their child named Mike. They don't holler at him either. And they don't play games with who has the strongest grip with him either. Instead they treat him (and he is expected to act) as if he is as old and as wise as 92 year old Mike was. It is a *wonderful* way to raise children. The child grows up feeling responsible for his own actions... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children
"Greg Hanson" wrote in message om... Not the Boston Globe, apparently it was the CANADIAN Supreme Court! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking UPDATED AT 1:47 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004 Top court sets limits on spanking By KIRK MAKIN From Saturday's Globe and Mail Parents can spank or use force on their children provided it is minimal and not the product of frustration or rage, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday. While the majority of judges were unwilling to prohibit the use of force altogether, they declared corporal punishment off-limits for children under the age of 2 and for teenagers. And they outlawed the use of objects such as rulers or belts, as well as slaps or blows to the head. Teachers can no longer use any form of corporal punishment, the court added, although they may restrain pupils to gain compliance with their instructions. The judgment went a long way toward meeting the concerns of critics of spanking, while at the same time leaving intact a Criminal Code defence that can be used by parents or teachers charged with assault who establish they used "reasonable force" on a child. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin said the defence will apply only in cases of "sober, reasoned uses of force that address the actual behaviour of the child and are designed to restrain, control or express some symbolic disapproval of his or her behaviour. Degrading, inhuman or harmful conduct is not protected." Chief Justice McLachlin said that had the court foreclosed the defence altogether, teachers could potentially be dragged off to jail and parents forced into the criminal justice system, "with its attendant rupture of the family setting." Opponents of spanking had argued that any exemption is an open invitation to assault and blatantly discriminates against children. They expressed disappointment yesterday that the court did not go all the way. "If they were going to reduce the defence to these limits, one has to ask why they didn't just strike it down," said lawyer Paul Schabas, who represented the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law in the case. Mr. Schabas speculated that the judges may have been worried that striking down the law would precipitate a renewed attack on their judicial activism. "Today is a sad day for child rights, and we are extremely disappointed that spanking is not regarded as abuse," said Rita Karakas, executive director of Save the Children Canada. "Children are routinely physically abused in almost all societies, which has come to be regarded as an acceptable response to a child's behaviour." Her view was shared by two judges, Madam Justice Louise Arbour and Madam Justice Marie Deschamps, who said the exemption is too broad to protect such a vulnerable group. In another split, a member of the majority, Mr. Justice Ian Binnie, said the exemption should apply to parents, but not to teachers. "The logic for keeping criminal sanctions out of the schools is much less compelling than for keeping them out of the home," he said. Queen's University Professor Nicholas Bala, an expert witness who testified for the federal government, said the court majority carefully avoided endorsing or advocating the use of corporal punishment. "I think the majority correctly recognized that parents and teachers need to have a certain degree of discretion," he said. "We don't want the state — particularly criminal law — to be intruding into the family in an overly intrusive way." The constitutional challenge alleged that the exemption under the Criminal Code charge of assault allows children to be harmed in a way that adults cannot be. The court heard social science evidence showing that physical punishment produces no beneficial outcomes for children apart from short-term compliance. During the appeal, Mr. Schabas cited several assault acquittals in recent years that were based on the vague defence, including a man who bound his 16-year-old sister-in-law naked to a post while "babysitting" her and then struck her 10 to 12 times with a wooden paddle. Once again, we see the extreme being carted out to justify a very illogical opinon. An incident such as being bound to a post, naked, and then spanked... spanked?...hardly fits what most perceive a spanking to be. Spanking, in the case cited... seems to prevail over being bound to a post and stripped naked. Of course, in the minds of anti-spankers there is nothing so important as spanking. bobb Ranged against the challengers were teachers and the Department of Justice, arguing that judicious use of corporal punishment can play an important role in the school setting and in the home. They said parents can currently slap lightly or move an erring child, but no more than that. Yesterday, Chief Justice McLachlin said the exemption is based not on a devalued view of a child's worth, but in a concern that charging parents with assault can ruin lives and break up families — "a burden that in large part would be borne by children and outweigh any benefit derived from applying the criminal process." While children need a safe environment, she said, they must also depend on parents and teachers for guidance and discipline, to protect them from harm and to promote their healthy development within society. "The force must have been intended to be for educative or corrective purposes, relating to restraining, controlling or expressing disapproval of the actual behaviour of a child capable of benefiting from the correction," Chief Justice McLachlin said. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking POSTED AT 1:16 AM EST Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004 Corporal punishment deep rooted By MARK HUME From Saturday's Globe and Mail The corporal punishment of children is so widespread and so deeply rooted in history that spanking might be called the slap heard 'round the world. It is practised from Alaska, where the Inupiaq people have believed for thousands of years that a quick slap is better than a harsh word, to schools in Botswana in Africa, where teachers argue the way to stop students from drinking is to whip them publicly. The physical disciplining of children by parents is endorsed by most religions and has been found in scriptures since the Old Testament, which advises: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son." That sentiment found popular expression as early as the 1600s, when English poet Samuel Butler summed it up with the memorable line: "Then spare the rod and spoil the child." Despite its wide acceptance, spanking has long been debated and is coming under growing attack, with critics from child-behaviour experts to the United Nations questioning the practice. Peter Dudding, director of the Child Welfare League of Canada, said yesterday that "the evidence is clear in terms of the use of physical punishment — it's harmful to children." Scholar George Holden of the University of Texas says in a recent paper, "Parental use of corporal punishment has been a contentious child-rearing topic for thousands of years." Prof. Holden notes that corporal punishment has been outlawed in 11 nations but says he doubts the United States is ready to follow suit. "Parents' belief in their entitlement to use corporal punishment is deeply embedded in American history, beliefs about the privacy of the family and personal freedoms, and attitudes about children and how to rear them." He says the reasons underlying parental use of the practice are complex, including "an instrumental religious reason, an impulsive reaction, or a lack of knowledge of alternatives." Cultural practices are a large part of the reason parents spank their children. In Alaska, the Inupiaq philosophy includes the belief that a quiet form of correctionis the best way to discipline a child. It might be summed up as: Speak softly, but be ready to slap. A historical Inupiaq cultural profile states. "Yelling at a child too much would make the child 'deaf' to talk or reasoning as time went on. "It was also disrespectful to the name and being of the child. A spanking when necessary was looked on more favourably. A spanking 'hurt the skin', but constant yelling 'hurt the spirit.'." In Botswana, the independent daily newspaper Mmegi recently reported on a debate over the appropriate way to deal with a student drinking problem. "Our culture is there and we have to be proud of it. Let the whip crack," said Lesego Koketso, the head of Pastoral Theology at Mogoditshane Senior Secondary. Nadine Block, writing in the Humanist, the magazine of the American Humanist Association, said corporal punishment is a divisive subject. It's one "that often pits generation against generation and family member against family member." Director of the Center for Effective Discipline in the U.S., Ms. Block is campaigning to have spanking outlawed around the world. "The strongest and most enduring support for the practice comes from the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Many fundamentalist, evangelical and charismatic Protestants use Scripture to justify their use of corporal punishment to develop obedience and character in children. Their position is that God wills and requires it in order to obtain his blessing and approval; to not physically punish children for misbehaviour will incur God's wrath," she writes. On the website of the Antioch Baptist Church in Tennessee is the observation: "Spanking or whipping is biblical discipline. And, it is not necessarily the choice of last resort. It is the linchpin of all biblical child discipline." Many religions recognize the right of parents to discipline their children but urge them to find non-violent means. Buddhism teaches that it is counterproductive and the Hindu religion does not sanction spanking at any age. The United Nations is among the organizations that think corporal punishment should not be used against children under any circumstances. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, states that "legal and social acceptance of physical punishment of children, in the home and in institutions, is not compatible with the Convention." It is illegal for parents or anyone else to spank children in Austria, Germany, Croatia, Israel, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Norway and Sweden. But in most countries, it is acceptable. Over the past two decades, surveys have found that in Britain 75 per cent of mothers admitted to smacking their babies before the age of 1; in Korea 97 per cent of children had been physically punished by parents; in India 91 per cent of male and 86 per cent of female university students said they'd been physically punished as children; in Chile 80 per cent of parents said they used physical punishment on their children. Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2004 Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision that allows parents to spank their children under certain circumstances? Yes 13516 votes (83 %) No 2691 votes (17 %) Total Votes: 16207 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...query=spanking TODAY'S PAPER Part of our culture By GERALD R. HALL Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12 Nanoose Bay, B.C -- The decision by the Supreme Court to allow parents to spank their children under certain circumstances was the correct decision, and has heartened responsible parents across this country. The traditional family has been and continues to be under attack in subtle and not so subtle ways, and concerned parents must be prepared to fight for their children's future. The family is and always has been the basic unit of society, and it logically follows that the strength of the nation is directly related to the strength of our families. Parents need to ensure that our elected representatives understand clearly where the majority stand on these important social issues, and vote for those who will uphold and defend their views. By KENNETH J. ZUCKER Psychologist-in-Chief, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health Toronto Monday, February 2, 2004 - Page A12 Toronto -- The Supreme Court ruling on spanking makes brilliant developmental sense. Why the lower boundary of two? To combat the terrible twos, of course. Why the upper boundary of 13? Well, by puberty, the kid will be big enough and strong enough to strike back. Brilliant. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children
Floyd wrote....
It is a *wonderful* way to raise children. The child grows up feeling responsible for his own actions... Probably the most important sentence ever..."The child grows up feeling responsible for his own actions..." and so often over-looked. It should be repeated over.. and over.. and over. bobb -- Floyd L. Davidson http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parents to Spank Children
absolutely!
Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision that allows parents to spank their children under certain circumstances? Yes 13516 votes (83 %) No 2691 votes (17 %) "nospam cpswatchlive.com" familyfree@ wrote in message ... @ http://tinyurl.com/yqmul -- "..and that you may never experience the humility that the power of the American Government has reduced me to, is the wish of him, who, in his native forests, was once as proud and bold as yourself." Blackhawk 1833 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Poll Results:Boston Globe--->Recent SC. Decision to Allow Parentsto Spank Children
Fern5827 wrote: And one recent US poll admitted that 94% of parents admit to spanking their kids at one time. And what was the recent time, and what was the poll? How do you define recent? Did you read the poll? Of course not. You are spouting what you seem to remember from a ng post. Of course, I predicted that the Supreme Court of Canada could not disempower parents nor families by removing the option of spanking. Fern, the omniscient! If we could only get you at the race track! After all, the Justices had probably ALL been physicially punished at one time. Well, there you go. If the Justices had "probably ALL been physically punished at one time" there is no reason to expect anything different. Hitler had also been physically punished. Hmmm.....do you like his accomplishments? (Grin) If not at home, possibly at religious school. Oh, at a religious school. That makes it all better, Fern. And this is a woman (?) who wants credibility in discussing the treatment, educating, and and parenting of little children. We can celebrate the loss of her children, and pray they were raised by individuals smarter, kinder, and with more parenting skills than Fern has exhibited in the last five years of her involvement on this ng. LaVonne |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | General | 444 | July 20th 04 07:14 PM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Spanking | 11 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |
New common sense child-rearing book | Kent | General | 6 | September 3rd 03 12:00 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |