[ICTHUS]

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/c...an_child_abuse

Discuss. Is the commentary on that blog fair to say about Christian culture? Why or why not?

[bobthecockroach]

Um no. This is rambling.

First, the title references "Christian" child abuse, when it's clear the author isn't referring to all Christians, and even within the ill-defined group the author selects, she later says the post doesn't even apply to most in that group. So a few bad apples within some subset of Christianity mean Christian culture is child abuse?

"He is a Republican, raising the chances to "high" that he's an evangelical Christian." Seriously? And even if this is a valid probability, you can't just run with it.

In the next sentence, the author equates "evangelical Christian" with "Christian right," and still doesn't pin down either term to any real group.

James Dobson's opinion automatically reflects the opinion of everyone in the "Christian right," whatever that is? Seriously?

"Pretty much all right wing Christian child-rearing manuals are paens to beating your children." Citation needed.

"Fundies." Now we've brought in yet another term for a vague group which probably includes whoever the author feels it is convenient to include and no one that would be inconvenient. Since I don't thinking beating your children is right, I'm clearly out, even though I attend a baptist church. See "No True Scotsman."

"Now, that doesn't mean that all or even most fundamentalist Christians whip the ____ out of their kids like this guy did. However, once you've created a cultural expectation that abusing your children is not only acceptable but expected, you can expect people to take it to the next level." So in other words, this may not even be happening, but since the author can see a slippery slope, it may as well be. Seriously?

"Christian right ideas about family hierarchy and paranoia that the government is coming to take away their "spanking" rights (I hate calling it "spanking", which allows people to equate it with painless bottom pats, which I still think aren't such a great idea but can't be meaningfully compared to whippings in any way)." The author gets to decide what other people mean when they speak? If a Christian says "spanking", *you* get to decide what they meant by it?

[thesteve]

I find spanking a 16 year old to be pretty odd. That being said, I think the author's jump from "this guy is a Republican and therefore a Christian, and Christians often defend spanking therefore they all spank in this manner" is a bit far reaching. I realize the author even states, "Now, that doesn't mean that all or even most fundamentalist Christians whip the ____ out of their kids like this guy did. However, once you've created a cultural expectation that abusing your children is not only acceptable but expected, you can expect people to take it to the next level." I just disagree with the place of blame here.

Often, I think the "Christian right"'s (as he terms them) defense of "spanking rights" has more to do with autonomy of parenting than a bunch of people sitting around saying, "oh man, the government isn't going to let me beat my kid anymore."

All this being said, I thought this article is trying to take a singular case and say, "this is normal", or at least "this might not be normal, but it's a good talking point. Let's assume this this might possibly be what is going on in a lot of Christian homes."

That being said, does this happen? Sure. Is this a "Christian" thing (i.e. something built into the subculture)? I'd say no. I know that my wife and I were both spanked as children, but have made the decision that we aren't going to spank our daughter. I think the "spare the rod" mentality that goes along with "switching" or "belting" a child or even hand-spanking is something that's rooted more in traditionalism than it is in Christianity.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/c...an_child_abuse

Discuss. Is the commentary on that blog fair to say about Christian culture? Why or why not?

I think there's probably something worthwhile to be said about corporal punishment in that particular cultural context but she definitely did not achieve that. When you cite "Stuff Christian Culture Likes" to make a serious point then you're kind of undermining your own authority. Just saying.

[Chrysostom]

"Reach Millions of Liberals Daily"
"advertise with Liberal Prose"
"ADVERTISE LIBERALLY"
"The BMW Mission To Drive Sales Event"

Case closed.

Edit: I.e., the question is answered: " Is the commentary on that blog fair to say about Christian culture?" Of course it's not, any more than something on Fox News offers fair commentary about any of those it demonizes. The blog exists to provide straw man scapegoats.

[Ax]

the video was terrible but the article was worse.

[doulos14]

and at the bottom of the comment box, it says blaspheme next to preview, I would have preferred an enter button.....

Interesting people indeed

[Bryan]

not sure what the whole website is about, but the author of the blog clearly just wanted to bash Christians. he really has no informed position.

[Ted Logan]

The author clearly has no intent of fairly representing James Dobson, either, since he constantly qualifies his advocacy of corporal punishment. Dobson says
-It's inappropriate before 15 months and rarely, if ever, appropriate after 10 years
-It should be used only for clear, deliberate misbehavior/defiance, and only when the child receives at least as much encouragement as correction
-It should be used to reinforce other types of discipline (so, for instance, start with a time-out, and the spanking should be used if the child defies the time-out)
-Should always be administered in private to avoid child humiliation
-Should always be a planned action, never a reaction, never out of anger, and should involve one or two spanks to the buttocks
-Should leave "only transient redness of the skin and should never cause physical injury... If properly administered spankings are ineffective, other appropriate disciplinary responses should be tried, or the parent should seek professional help. A parent should never increase the intensity of spankings." *
-Dobson also suggests that a parent should seek to shape the will of a child without "breaking the spirit." The goal is to teach the child self-discipline, and in a young child with a defiant streak a mile wide, that requires parents to "win decisively" when the child decides to have a contest of wills (a frequent occurrence in our house). Beating a child into submission is about as far from Dobson's approach (as far as I have seen it in his books) as I can imagine, and only a person who a) has never read him, b) has never had a child, or c) has no interest in honesty would characterize him that way.

The idea of connecting careful, love-based, never-in-anger, corporal punishment with the type of abusive behavior seen in the video is unfortunate. This is not corporal punishment, plain and simple. It's abuse. Now, Ryan, as an evangelical who runs in evangelical circles, who has lived on the Gulf Coast of Texas, I can tell you that this sort of behavior would not be recognized by anyone I know as appropriate child-rearing or corporal punishment, and would be recognized as child abuse. The guy should be arrested.


*The quotes are from Dobson's book, The New Strong-Willed Child.

[Chrysostom]

Wow, I didn't notice the "blaspheme" button. The site's purpose is to reinforce a particular identity by branding the self against the other, so for it to be fair would contradict its very constitution. It would be like if Stephen Colbert didn't make jokes.

If you go to the main page there's another ad that says, "When you're right there's nothing too radical." Let's take that in for a second. Okay, first off, of course there's a kernel of truth in there. If something absolutely must be done there's nothing wrong with stepping up and doing it. But that's not what the slogan is about! That's why it doesn't say, "If something absolutely must be done," it says, "When you're right." Again, the purpose of the site is to reinforce an identity. You are branded a "radical" and "you" are "right." The issue isn't *what* is right; the issue is that *you* are right.

It suggests to us that "nothing is too radical." One wonders how, with a slogan like this, it can define itself over against Christians who are supposed to be inherently violent. Isn't this precisely the justification for all kinds of crazy things? For militias, abortion clinic bombing, and on down the line? As I recall, the most revered acts of "radicalism" from 20th century American history involved staying seated on a bus and being murdered for having a dream -- hardly the kind of extreme self-expression the slogan would justify. (Presumably it doesn't want to bring up the slaughter of over a hundred million people in the 20th century by those who were so convinced they were "right.")

Oddly enough, despite championing a supposed "radical" ethos the link follows the banal path of consumerism: the "nothing" that is too radical is apparently the extreme act of spending $20 on a t-shirt. So that you can brand yourself with a specific identity. Way to fight the oppressive capitalist system.

A slogan like this appeals to precisely the kind of person in the ad -- 19 and from a privileged sector of the middle-class -- because it asks nothing of you. You're right, end of story, so you do what you want, end of story, and you're righteous, end of story. Nevermind that the great injustice you're fighting by buying uninteresting clothing consists of nothing more than electrons to you. It's not something you have to deal with concretely, in the real world, and so there's no commitment. All the narcissistic gain, none of the sacrifice -- precisely what the adolescence of consumerism wants.

The ultimate failure of such a slogan is in its adherence to nothing but abstract principle. This is what gives it the appeal of righteousness without sacrifice, but it's also what makes it worthless. There is a more powerful testimony -- in fact, a burden imposed -- by character, and with it judgement. Character gives meaning and power to the one singular stand. You spend an entire life cultivating the kind of character that allows you to do what is right when it is right because it is right. It's not something in the abstract that you fight with a $20 identity reinforcement; it's something concrete that you know personally in and out, something that you respond to face-to-face. Character is the rest of the iceberg; the stand is one tiny moment is an entire life.

But character includes with it judgement. Judgement is the reason that the one stand has any meaning. If you're writing this blog, you're "taking a stand" every day against some new giant injustice. "Taking a stand" every day against an abstraction is meaningless. True character develops those concrete relationships and then, when the moment is just exactly right -- once in a lifetime -- it takes a stand. Judgement sifts through all your life and finds one thing that is worth taking a stand on at one moment. The rest of the time it doesn't log in to the web and trumpet its great stand for justice; it evaluates, considers, learns, loves, works, knows. Judgement means knowing that plenty of the people in both camp x and camp y are good, plenty of them are bad, and all of them are a mix of both. "You're right" aims at absolutism: no interplay of black and white, no gray, just one late adolescent who is "right." Who is just.

But the better way takes a long time. The better way requires a committed relationship to what is local, what is concrete, what is right in front of your face. The better way demands decades spent cultivating character, virtue, spending time actually *laboring* rather than buying t-shirts. The better way exercises judgement -- often wrongly, but always seeking better judgement -- and acts according to *what* is right.

Now, there is another radical act mentioned: Kim Kardashian's sham marriage. Apparently she did a brilliant, righteous thing by making a mockery of marriage, as the "blushing bride" archetype is oppressive to women. But she could hardly play the madonna in the first place, as her celebrity exists solely because of her sex tape! A real act of "radical transgression" would have been a long, truly loving marriage -- the witness of true commitment and faithfulness, of a local, concrete, face-to-face relationship that spent decades aging in character and exercising judgement.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Oddly enough, despite championing a supposed "radical" ethos the link follows the banal path of consumerism: the "nothing" that is too radical is apparently the extreme act of spending $20 on a t-shirt. So that you can brand yourself with a specific identity. Way to fight the oppressive capitalist system.

There is no red pill; there is no blue pill. The only thing we have is the relationships we form with each other and with God in Christ. Once I got that through my head, the rest became a lot easier.

[Bryan]

this a terrible story, what's more terrible is he won't face any charges: Texas judge caught beating his daughter won't face charges, police say - Crimesider - CBS News

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by Bryan

this a terrible story, what's more terrible is he won't face any charges: Texas judge caught beating his daughter won't face charges, police say - Crimesider - CBS News

In one of the interviews I watched, the daughter claimed that she was aware of this at the time of releasing the video and did it in order to bring his misdeeds to the public rather than have him punished through the legal system. Not that her intent makes it any better.