Here we go, again! Once more the parents of this land are being maligned, humiliated, and slandered by being compared to schoolyard bullies and street thugs.

Last week the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) called for the smacking of children to be banned. Their argument – smacking a child may lead to greater problems long term. Their particular concern seems to be that smacking a child may lead to mental heath issues.

Naturally, to bolster their claims they cite “research” and the “worst case scenario” that has presented itself in our society – the death of a child. So, what are we to make of this demand, the so-called ‘research’, and the claims that smacking is detrimental? Well, I may just be frazzled at the moment, but the best I can muster is a giant “raspberry”!

This call is just one more Humanist claim from out of the pit. It simply does not stack up when analysed. It is in truth a claim that is contrary to fact, flies in the face of facts, and conveniently ignores related cogent arguments.

As a Christian, I reject this call and the basis on which it is made. I will discuss this in more detail later. At this point, I would like simply to deal with some aspects that should appeal to all Australians.

1. Outcomes: In this current claim, much is centred upon the possible detriment to the child, particularly, in the area of Mental Health. This is the bad. What about the “good”? What about the proven good that has come to our society through discipline, including corporal punishment?

How many generations in this country benefitted from being disciplined? How many people, as individuals, were made into better and more productive members of society through discipline?

2. The Slippery Slope: It was my personal experience to live through the transition of from strap to no strap in the public education system. I know you will find this difficult to believe, but on occasion I found myself on the receiving end of that strap. Subjectively, I may protest my innocence; objectively, I must state that it reinforced the necessity that each man discipline himself for his and society’s betterment.

That to which I can equally attest is the fact – on view for all to see – that the removal of discipline from the public education system and the constant pressure upon families to cease disciplinary action has seen the public education system and the family crumble to the point of being the begetter of plagues that are rife upon our nation.

Teachers have left the system in droves because of discipline issues. I know of some, personally, who have had breakdowns because “the little darlings” have all the “rights” and cannot be disciplined. In the last fortnight, I witnessed a report noting that teachers in Queensland had been paid something like Ten Million dollars in compensation. These teachers had been physically assaulted as well as being mentally abused and slandered through the social media outlets.[1]

Now, let me ask the honest question. If you are 35 years old and above, did you witness this type of behaviour by school children? The honest answer would be, possibly, but it was extremely rare. Is it “rare” today? Now, it is common.

Given this most obvious decline in the standard of behaviour amongst our young, the question must be asked, “What impact has the removal and denial of discipline as a valid societal tool had upon our children and our culture?”

3. Oops: I know it is not much of a title, particularly for such a solemn topic, but it is apt. In the midst of these new claims to once more enforce the “nanny state”, the RACP seem to have overlooked one simple problem – children are currently abused in Government systems and with the knowledge of governmental agencies and those in power do nothing! OOPS!!!!

Let me once more bring to your mind the case of little Daniel Valerio. He was killed by his mother’s boyfriend. Everybody who could know, knew. What did they do? Nothing! This quote from a web article:

The tiny injured face of little Daniel Valerio impacts on your soul and conscience just as devastatingly as it did when this photograph, taken by police, was first published after his violent death at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend in 1990. This photograph was taken by police following ‘an incident’ reported by the child’s mother, Cheryle Butcher. Prior to Daniel’s death, laws in the state of Victoria did not require doctors, teachers, etc, to report suspected child abuse – Daniel was seen by no fewer than twenty-one health workers in the months before his death and yet nobody did or said anything to save him. Daniel’s own brother Ben, who was only four years of age, repeatedly told adults about Aiton’s [mother’s boyfriend] abuse of them. Just days before the child’s death police visited the house and saw both brothers bruised and battered – the brother went and fetched the stick Aiton had used on him and Daniel to prove what Aiton was doing. This child was four years old and trying to get the attention and help they needed; the police instead believed Aiton’s claims that the brother’s injuries were from playing and being ‘smacked by their mother’. Just days later Daniel was dead.[2]

This from another report:

The images of a bruised Daniel Valerio, a child failed by official inaction, were again splashed about in the media.[3]

Moving forward to the now, we have seen little Kiesha Weippeart’s mother , Kristi Abrahams, jailed for 16 years for her murder.

Read this, and genuinely weep:

Court documents have revealed murdered Sydney girl Kiesha Weippeart suffered years of abuse at the hands of her mother, including being bitten and burnt with a cigarette.

Kristi Abrahams has pleaded guilty to murdering the six-year-old, whose remains were found in bushland in Sydney’s west in 2011, eight months after she was reported missing.

Documents released on the second day of her sentencing hearing reveal the Department of Community Services (DOCS) put Kiesha into foster care after Abrahams bit her on the shoulder at the age of 15 months. But the child was given back to Abrahams, who had anger management counselling.

The papers reveal that when she was three, Kiesha told a DOCS worker her mother had burnt her with a cigarette. The papers state that DOCS had received various reports of injuries to Kiesha from neighbours and family members. Education officials went to Abrahams’s home several times because Kiesha was only at school four times in her life.

School teachers and other witnesses had reported bruises on her face and head.[4]

I in no way wish to make light of these tragedies. However, we cannot escape two essential facts. First, both these cases have been used as a justification to “ban smacking” in our society. Second, in both cases the authorities knew of the genuine abuse and did nothing of an effective nature to save the abused.

Pray tell, how do the authors of this new call propose to police a complete ban on smacking when the current authorities cannot police gross cases of abuse? What do these advocates of a “nanny state” propose for the “may”, “might”, and “possible”, when we have seen the incapability of the authorities to save from the actual?

Then there are the questions of proof, the overzealous Social Worker, the definitions of abuse[5], and a myriad of questions beside.

4. Mental Health: I do not hide my disdain for psychology and psychiatry. One of the reasons for that disdain is seen in the justification for banning smacking – possible mental health issues.

This phenomenon has become the excuse of our day. People are no longer evil; people no longer do wrong; people no longer behave badly; people simply have a mental health issue. What, pray tell, is this beast known as a “mental health issue”?

Why is it that mental health issues only cover poor behaviour? When the Boy Scout helps the old lady across the road, the brain brigade does not sit back and say, ‘Oh, that lad has excellent mental health!’ Yet, when a lad knocks over an elderly lady and steals her bag, he has mental health issues that stem from some trauma in the past – something that is not his fault!

Abortion was illegal in most parts of Australia. Yet abortion thrived. Why? Mental health issues. A person says that they do not think they can cope with having a baby – despite hundreds doing it every day – so permission is given to kill the baby.

Again, what is this beast called “mental health”? How many generations of Australians were raised with discipline and respect and yet did not suffer from this monster?

The simple reality is that psychology and psychiatry have given us generations of non-copers and blame-gamers who seek to shift the responsibility for their poor choices in behaviour to someone or something else.

Now, let us cut to the chase. A 23 year old male steals a handbag. Mental health issues! Which of the millions upon millions of interactions in that person’s 23 years is to blame? Was it the fact that his mother did not buy him that ice cream? Was it the fact that he was smacked – say for taking money from mum’s purse? Was it the fact the he received a stern talking to from police for shop lifting? Was it the fact that a complete stranger gave him a lift when his car broke down? Was it the fact that his friend spent many hours helping him to learn algebra so that he did not fall behind? Was it the fact that his pet goldfish, Twinkles, died when he failed to feed it?

Which of these or the many unwritten events becomes the trigger? Maybe, as we have indicated, he simply had a propensity for stealing stuff. Thus, there is no mental health issue, only a distinctly moral one.

5. A Clash of Worldviews: This brings is to the crux of the problem – anthropology. How do we view Man?

As Christians, we acknowledge that Man, although being made in perfection, is now a fallen creature – a sinner. As such, Man is seriously messed up morally. There was a television series titled, Men Behaving Badly. That title sums up Man and his condition.

This being the case, Man needs correction and that correction needs to begin when we are but children. The moral deficiency needs correction in two areas. First, the child needs to be taught morality. They must be taught God’s law so that they know the standard to which they must attain.[6] Thus, parents are told to train their children by the implantation of the right information.

Second, alongside of this mental and inward training, there is also to be practical and external training. This is to be both positive and negative in form. As we have seen, Deuteronomy instructs the parents to train the child in all of life. This does not only mean that they should use experience as a teacher, but that they should model true practice in their own lives. Parents should positively exemplify Godly practice for their children. (None of this “Do as I say and not as I do!” garbage.)

However, it also falls to the parent to correct wayward behaviour. When the individual fails to self-discipline then the one in authority over that individual has both the right and responsibility to impose discipline.

Scripture is very forceful on this point and some may be surprised by the words they are about to read:

He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently (Proverbs 13:24).

Note well, not to discipline your child is the equivalent of hating them! Note also, please, that the rod is clearly mentioned. Whilst it is true that discipline does not always mean “smacking”, the simple reality is that discipline must include smacking or corporal punishment. If you spare the rod, you hate your child and you cannot claim to be disciplining your child. You cannot claim to be operating for their good.

Why should we discipline our children in this manner? We do so because it is commanded by God, but also exemplified by God. This is how God treats us as His children precisely because He loves us:

For whom the Lord loves He reproves, Even as a father, the son in whom he delights (Proverbs 3:12).

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, Nor faint when you are reproved by Him;   For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.”  It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness (Hebrews 12:5a -10).

At the conclusion of this quotation from Hebrews we see that discipline by the rod is for our good. The quotation from Proverbs shows us that the true motivation for discipline is love. Consequently, Scripture claims that this type of discipline is truly necessary and has eternal consequences:

Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you beat him with the rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with the rod, And deliver his soul from Sheol (Proverbs 23:13-14).

If we fail to take heed of the Scripture’s counsel at this point, then we do little more than plunge a dagger through our own hearts:

The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother. … Correct your son, and he will give you comfort; He will also delight your soul (Proverbs 29:15-17).

In opposition to this clear Biblical teaching, we have the modern religion of Humanism and its many faulty doctrines. Humanism does not accept God’s pronouncements concerning Man. Humanism tells us that each Man, deep down inside, is good. Man behaves erroneously only because of external factors or environment. This is little more than the “Noble Savage” concept restated for the modern mind.

As a consequence of denying God’s order, these moderns seek to attribute Man’s known and constant failings to other indeterminable and unquantifiable sources. Thus, instead of “sin” we have “mental health”. As these “mental heath” issues are environmental, these modern crusaders insist that Man’s environment be changed so as to provoke a good and positive response from the individual. However, a pertinent question is, “How far will they go with their demands for a modified environment?” Smacking today, What tomorrow?

The trouble with this nonsense is very simple – their theory is constantly denied by observable fact. Children who have been smacked and disciplined have turned out to be essential and productive members of society whilst those who have been indulged have plunged into chaos. Children who are smacked belong to happy households. Children who are smacked are well adjusted. To have any credibility, these moderns must be able to show that the majority of those who were smacked now suffer from debilitating mental health issues. Equally, it must be observable that the un-smacked are pictures of mental health.

Is this the case? No, it is not. As we have shown, the lack of discipline has caused great harm to our society and the negative impact continues to grow.

The parent who loves his child and seeks his good will discipline him, up to and including the rod. Yet the Humanists want you to hate your child and cause great travail to your own soul. This travail is evident all around us. We have been bullied into giving up on corporal punishment and the travail of souls is all around us as a consequence. How blind these Humanists are and how committed they are to the hatred of God and His standard!

In short, the Humanists and their calls to ban smacking are no different to the kings, princes, and judges of Psalm 2 who have taken their stand against God and against His Anointed. They state, without shame, that God is wrong. In doing so, they show themselves to be of the same rebellious nature as those they seek to excuse. They themselves reject discipline and the constructs that lead to life, so, as per Romans 1, they cheer on the rebels and seek to give them reasoned excuses for their rebellion.

This is the clash of worldviews. Do we believe God’s view of Man or do we believe Man’s view of Man. I would expect the Christians to side with God and His revealed word. For those who are not Christians, I hope that some of the empirical arguments presented may show the fallacy of these regurgitated claims made by the Humanists in regard to smacking.

6. God’s Family: Before leaving this issue, it is absolutely necessary to say something about family. In this article I have cited two tragic cases. What I want to highlight here is that both involved broken homes. Daniel was killed by the mother’s boyfriend. Kiesha was killed by her mother, but the boyfriend (not the child’s father) did nothing; nothing that is except hide evidence and participate in a ruse.

Have you noticed how often these “horror” stories involve fractured families? Rarely do you see such atrocities in families that follow God’s pattern.

Again, the Humanists are not highlighting facts like these. I wonder why? Could it be that all the promoted and enacted libertinism is in fact the cause of our societal decline? These Humanists have caused the breakdown of the family. Now, faced with the consequence of their own doctrine, they must seek to shift the blame – following their own dictates of non-accountability.

7. Morality: This issue must also be touched upon. The case of Daniel Valerio was used to introduce Mandatory Reporting to Victoria. This is Big Brother’s response in a “nanny state”. It is a grab for power and the tyrannical rule of the people.

The question is this, “Why do we need a law compelling us to take action when a child, or anyone for that matter, is being genuinely abused?” Again, libertinism destroyed morality – Humanism threw out God’s standard – and now we need the false god of State to tell us that we need to take action against child abusers. So, so, sad.

God tells us to deal with unrighteousness and injustice. We threw God and His law out claiming it to be passé, but in reality giving rise to our hatred of Him. Now, we are paying the penalty with the lives of our children because Man, being set free from God’s morality, no longer understands that he is obligated unto his neighbour, whether it be child or adult, for his good. The moral man acts to stop abuse. He does not take out his camera, film the violence, then post it to YouTube.

Conclusion:

Man once more seeks to throw off God’s standard. Man seeks to break down the family from yet another angle. Every success Man has in this endeavour brings our society one step closer to anarchy and catastrophe.

We have shown here, in a cursory way, that it is the lack of discipline that is causing so much harm in our families and therefore in our society. Even the abuse is itself a lack of discipline on the part of the abuser. What the abuser needs is restriction, self-imposed preferably, not freedom to create more destruction.

As we have told Man that he is free; as we have told Man that he is accountable to none but himself – and even this is optional; as we have told Man to “just do it”; as we have told Man to, “not get angry, get even”; as we have told Man that morality and absolutes do not exist; so we have spiralled further out of control and found ourselves with more hurt, harm, disillusionment, dysfunction, and despair.

As a parent and a citizen, I am fed up with Humanists blaming parents for all the supposed wrongs within society. If parents are failing, it is because the Humanist have taken away God’s rule book and insisted, nay forced, parents to conduct their parenting by a set of flawed ideas and concepts that will only bring ruination.

You can choose to listen to God the author of life and our Creator – use the rod and raise an honest child in whom your soul will delight or you can listen to the Humanists – spare the rod, spoil the child and pierce your heart with a dagger.

As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord!