Important News Items
Bill Haymin
October 20, 2006
Attorney Sees Pro-Islam Bias in Religious Indoctrination Case Rulings
By Chad Groening
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - A spokesman for a Michigan-based law center that defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians says a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an Islamic indoctrination case indicates that Islam is "in" and Christianity is "out."
The Thomas More Law Center represented the parents of the California seventh-graders who were subjected to an intensive, three-week indoctrination in Islam at school. The students were forced to become Muslims, in effect, and were not allowed to say anything critical about the religion.
The original trial court and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the indoctrination as constitutional. And now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal, the Ninth Circuit's ruling will stand.
Edward L. White III, trial counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, says the Byron Union School District in Contra Costa County, California, simply went too far with this school assignment. "The parents in this case objected to it," he explains, "not because Islam was being taught in the school, but because the school had crossed the line and started to teach the religion."
In other words, the school, "instead of teaching about the religion, started teaching the children to become Muslims," White says. "And the parents had never been told beforehand what was going to go on." But the problem of insufficient parental notification is only one of a number of issues of concern.
The pro-family attorney has serious questions about why the court would allow a school to compel students to become followers of Islam as a school exercise. That is particularly problematic, he suggests, when the court would almost certainly have rejected a similar exercise involving other religious faiths as obviously impermissible.
"Everyone knows if Christianity, for example, had been taught the same way as Islam had been taught in this class, that the ACLU would have been in federal court within minutes," White asserts, "and the same judge who ruled against us would have ruled in favor of the ACLU and not allowed a class on Catholicism."
The Thomas More Law Center spokesman doubts such a class would make it out of court -- if it even managed to get a hearing. "Even if you wanted to call it cultural education or just fun, it would never happen," the lawyer asserts. "So if we know it's not going to happen with Christianity or with Judaism, for example, it shouldn't happen with Islam," he says.
"If you're going to uphold the Establishment Clause, then the Establishment Clause has to be applied equally," White adds. But apparently, he observes, while the Ninth Circuit is perfectly willing to rule "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, Muslim indoctrination is perfectly okay with the court.
Chad Groening, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
Read all of our current headlines
German Court's Decision May Bode Ill for U.S. Home-Schooling Families
By Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - An official with a pro-family organization is shocked at a recent decision by a European court, which upheld a German ban on home schooling. However, he suspects the ruling may be an indicator of an unfortunate anti-family trend in courts worldwide.
The case in Germany centered on Christian families who objected to lifestyle indoctrination in public schools in the form of sex education. The matter was sent on appeal to the European Human Rights Court, which sided with the German government.
Larry Jacobs, vice president of the U.S.-based World Congress of Families, says European families are under attack by a bureaucracy and court system that are decidedly not pro-family. "It's clear that there is an anti-Christian bias and an anti-family bias throughout much of the court system in Europe," he notes, "and as we even see in our own country as abortion and other family issues have been brought before the courts."
One of the key reasons for concern about court decisions worldwide now, Jacobs says, is the "unfortunate tendency" of many courts, including America's own Supreme Court, to cite international law and international rulings when ruling on domestic cases.
And now, in the wake of the German court's ruling on home education, the pro-family leader has a dire prediction for American home-schooling families. "We can expect that liberal judges who don't like home schooling will be using this decision in cases in the U.S.," he says, "so that brings it close to home."
Jacobs points out that Germany's ban on home schooling was originally instituted when the Nazis were in power. Today, the total number of home-educated children in that nation of some 80 million inhabitants is estimated at around 500, but the practice of home schooling remains illegal.
As one European official, Belgian Member of Parliament -- and a home-schooling mother -- Alexandra Colen, observed last year in an article on the case in Germany, the parents involved in the matter are Christians who claim the right of mothers and fathers to educate their own children. The MP remarked on the fact that these conscientious Christian parents are not only opposed by their government but also lack the support of the official, state-funded churches in their country.
"Six decades after Hitler," Colen noted, "German politicians and official church leaders still do not seem to understand what true freedom implies: that raising children is a prerogative of their fathers and mothers and not of the state, which is never a benevolent parent and often an enemy."
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
Read all of our current headlines
Appeal Filed Defending Montana Church's Right to Free Speech
By Allie Martin
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) are filing an appeal of a federal judge's decision to restrict the free speech of a Montana church.
In 2004 Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church of Helena was accused of violating state election law because it did not report to the government when it spoke out on the state's proposed marriage amendment, which was eventually approved by 66 percent of the voters. Recently, a U.S. district court ruled that the church did indeed violate Montana election law.
Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel with the ADF, argues to the contrary, however. "Churches obviously, throughout our history, have had a crucial role in discussing and changing the social fabric of our country," the attorney says. "That's part of what churches do is speak out about important social issues."
Responding to a complaint filed by the now-disbanded Montanans for Families and Fairness, the state's commissioner of political practices asserted that by demonstrating support for the amendment, the church "became an incidental political committee under Montana law, with corresponding reporting obligations."
Schowengerdt describes Montana's law as "particularly restrictive" and one that "needs to be challenged." He puts it this way: "The law is so extreme that it can be triggered by 'anything of value' -- even a penny spent on the church electric bill." The ADF attorney is optimistic about the outcome of the appeal being filed.
"We think that we stand a very good chance of overturning the trial judge's opinion," he says. "It's counter to Supreme Court authority and even Ninth Circuit authority on that exact issue, so I think we're hopeful that the Ninth Circuit will overturn the decision."
Schowengerdt maintains the complaint filed against the church was nothing more than a politically motivated attack designed to muzzle supporters of traditional marriage.
Allie Martin, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
Read all of our current headlines
Pastor Presses On Toward Potential Partnership with Moderate Muslims
By Ed Thomas
Part 2 of 2
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - A Florida pastor who was dropped from political appointments by Governor Jeb Bush and Attorney General Charlie Crist for statements against Islam now says he wants to work together with peace-loving Muslims to oppose Islamic extremism. Dr. O'Neal Dozier says clarifying his beliefs about Muslims is an important step in the proposed alliance.
Dozier, pastor of Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, says he did not mean to include moderate, peace-loving Muslims in his criticism of Islamic extremists who promote violence. Islamics whom Dozier says also believe in freedom, tolerance, and human rights are who he wishes to work with at the grassroots level to name and renounce terrorism. (See earlier article)
"It was never my intention to include [moderate Muslims] as being a part of the problem regarding radical Islam," the pastor says. He says he has made the offer of working together to the Council on American Islamic Relations and anyone who will publicly make a written condemnation of the known terrorist groups.
Dozier still considers the radical theology of Islam as cultic -- but despite his theological disagreements with much of the basic Islamic faith, he now says his approach has been modified to one that is more useful for helping find a solution for Americans and Muslims to live in peace together.
"This is why I am reaching out to the moderate Muslims to come up with a strategy -- a strategy that would work; a strategy that would eradicate radical Islamic extremism," he states.
The Florida pastor continues to oppose the building of a mosque on land in a neighborhood in which he says his city previously promised low-income housing. But he says he believes the most practical way for Americans to live in peace with those of the Islamic faith is to join together with those who are moderate and help them promote elimination of violent applications of their religion.
Ed Thomas, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
The Right Frame of Mind
Visiting An 'Old-fashioned Woodshed'
By Rev. Mark H. Creech
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - According to a recent article in USA Today, there is one thing the nation's most successful CEOs have in common -- they received their share of spankings as children.
Although the article stated that "[m]ost CEOs believed spankings played little or no role in their success," the CEOs also acknowledged that the practice taught them valuable life lessons. David Haffner, chief executive officer of Leggett & Platt, said the spankings he received as a child made him "disciplined, detailed and organized." Joe Mogolia, with TD Ameritrade, said he learned from his parents that "tough love is better than soft love."
Also cited in the article is a recent study by sociologists Eve Tahmincioglu, titled: "From the Sandbox to the Corner Office: Lessons Learned on the Journey to the Top." Chapter One of the book is called "Less Carrott, More Stick." And in the book, Tahmincioglu contends spanking taught the 55 executives she interviewed "to respect authority." "They feared their parents, but loved them as well. Their parents would follow through with a spanking when the children misbehaved. Today there is no follow-through," she argued.
Fans of the Andy Griffith Show may remember that delightful episode, "Opie and the Spoiled Kid" -- the one where a spoiled boy moves to Mayberry and tries to run all over everybody, including Andy and Barney, the town's local law enforcement. When Andy impounds the boy's bike for his misbehavior, the boy's father protests until he discovers his bratty son would rather he end-up in jail than for him to lose his bike. This prompts the father to sell the bike and accept Andy's advice that the boy needs a good visit to an "old-fashioned woodshed." Hmmm ... don't believe that would fly on any modern national television broadcast.
USA Today notes that modern child psychologists "wince" at the idea of administering corporal punishment. Dr. Robert Fathman of the Ohio-based group End Physical Punishment of Children (EPOCH-USA), says, "If you bring a child up and you're spanking them, they're more likely to hit an animal, a pet. They're more likely to hit another child." [2] Other psychologists like Dr. James Dobson of
Focus on the Family, however, strongly disagree, contending:
"[I]t is possible -- even easy -- to create a violent and aggressive child who has observed this behavior at home. If he is routinely beaten by hostile, volatile parents or if he witnesses physical violence between angry adults or if he feels unloved and unappreciated within his family, that child will not fail to notice how the game is played. Thus corporal punishment that is not administered according to very carefully thought-out guidelines is a risky thing. Being a parent carries no right to slap and intimidate a child because you had a bad day or are in a lousy mood. It is this kind of unjust discipline that causes some well-meaning authorities to reject corporal punishment as a form of discipline. Just because a technique is used wrongly, however, is no reason to reject it all together. Many children desperately need this resolution to their disobedience .... When he lowers his head, clenches his fist, and makes it clear he is going for broke, justice must speak swiftly and eloquently. Not only does this response not create aggression in children, it helps them control their impulses and live in harmony with various forms of benevolent authority throughout life." [ Written in response to an question submitted through the Focus on the Family website ]
Still more important than what the experts say about spanking is what the Bible teaches. Some may find it a surprise, but the Bible commends corporal punishment in King Solomon's words: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24). Some religious leaders, however, say the word "rod" in this text wasn't meant to be taken literally. In an article titled, "Children and the Rod of Correction," Dr. Dave Miller of Apologetics Press effectively addresses this misinterpretation:
"Lest someone get the idea that Solomon used the term 'rod' figuratively, without intending to leave the impression that parents should actually strike their children with a rod, he clarified the target: 'Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell' (Proverbs 23:13-14). A proper balance is obviously needed between verbal reproof and encouragement on the one hand, and the application of corporal punishment on the other, as seen in the following words: 'The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul' (Proverbs 29:15, 17, emphasis added). The immense importance of the interplay between positive instruction, encouragement, and nurturing, in conjunction with appropriate physical punishment, cannot be overestimated nor successfully discounted."
It's interesting to note that the "interplay between positive instruction, encouragement, and nurturing, in conjunction with appropriate physical punishment" in the life of today's children is often neglected. It seems many children are subjected to one or more extremes -- either they are completely neglected and left to raise themselves, tortured and physically abused by twisted or insensitive parents, or over indulged by well-meaning ones with far too much "sweet-talking" and not enough action to back up their commands. Is it any wonder America is raising one of the most rebellious and violent generations in its history?
Children need to be taught a healthy fear (reverential respect and awe) for God and authority figures in life. No one can better administer these lessons than parents. And sometimes, though it should always be a last resort, there is no better means to get that lesson across than to do what the parent's of yesteryear used to do -- take the youngster for a visit, so to speak, to an "old-fashioned woodshed."
Spanking may not make a child into a famous CEO, but when it's affectionately and appropriately applied, it very likely will make him or her into an emotionally well-rounded, disciplined, and morally responsible individual.
Rev. Mark H. Creech (calact@aol.com) is the executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, Inc.
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
By Bill Haymin, 2006
By Chad Groening
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - A spokesman for a Michigan-based law center that defends and promotes the religious freedom of Christians says a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear an Islamic indoctrination case indicates that Islam is "in" and Christianity is "out."
The Thomas More Law Center represented the parents of the California seventh-graders who were subjected to an intensive, three-week indoctrination in Islam at school. The students were forced to become Muslims, in effect, and were not allowed to say anything critical about the religion.
The original trial court and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the indoctrination as constitutional. And now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal, the Ninth Circuit's ruling will stand.
Edward L. White III, trial counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, says the Byron Union School District in Contra Costa County, California, simply went too far with this school assignment. "The parents in this case objected to it," he explains, "not because Islam was being taught in the school, but because the school had crossed the line and started to teach the religion."
In other words, the school, "instead of teaching about the religion, started teaching the children to become Muslims," White says. "And the parents had never been told beforehand what was going to go on." But the problem of insufficient parental notification is only one of a number of issues of concern.
The pro-family attorney has serious questions about why the court would allow a school to compel students to become followers of Islam as a school exercise. That is particularly problematic, he suggests, when the court would almost certainly have rejected a similar exercise involving other religious faiths as obviously impermissible.
"Everyone knows if Christianity, for example, had been taught the same way as Islam had been taught in this class, that the ACLU would have been in federal court within minutes," White asserts, "and the same judge who ruled against us would have ruled in favor of the ACLU and not allowed a class on Catholicism."
The Thomas More Law Center spokesman doubts such a class would make it out of court -- if it even managed to get a hearing. "Even if you wanted to call it cultural education or just fun, it would never happen," the lawyer asserts. "So if we know it's not going to happen with Christianity or with Judaism, for example, it shouldn't happen with Islam," he says.
"If you're going to uphold the Establishment Clause, then the Establishment Clause has to be applied equally," White adds. But apparently, he observes, while the Ninth Circuit is perfectly willing to rule "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, Muslim indoctrination is perfectly okay with the court.
Chad Groening, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
Read all of our current headlines
German Court's Decision May Bode Ill for U.S. Home-Schooling Families
By Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - An official with a pro-family organization is shocked at a recent decision by a European court, which upheld a German ban on home schooling. However, he suspects the ruling may be an indicator of an unfortunate anti-family trend in courts worldwide.
The case in Germany centered on Christian families who objected to lifestyle indoctrination in public schools in the form of sex education. The matter was sent on appeal to the European Human Rights Court, which sided with the German government.
Larry Jacobs, vice president of the U.S.-based World Congress of Families, says European families are under attack by a bureaucracy and court system that are decidedly not pro-family. "It's clear that there is an anti-Christian bias and an anti-family bias throughout much of the court system in Europe," he notes, "and as we even see in our own country as abortion and other family issues have been brought before the courts."
One of the key reasons for concern about court decisions worldwide now, Jacobs says, is the "unfortunate tendency" of many courts, including America's own Supreme Court, to cite international law and international rulings when ruling on domestic cases.
And now, in the wake of the German court's ruling on home education, the pro-family leader has a dire prediction for American home-schooling families. "We can expect that liberal judges who don't like home schooling will be using this decision in cases in the U.S.," he says, "so that brings it close to home."
Jacobs points out that Germany's ban on home schooling was originally instituted when the Nazis were in power. Today, the total number of home-educated children in that nation of some 80 million inhabitants is estimated at around 500, but the practice of home schooling remains illegal.
As one European official, Belgian Member of Parliament -- and a home-schooling mother -- Alexandra Colen, observed last year in an article on the case in Germany, the parents involved in the matter are Christians who claim the right of mothers and fathers to educate their own children. The MP remarked on the fact that these conscientious Christian parents are not only opposed by their government but also lack the support of the official, state-funded churches in their country.
"Six decades after Hitler," Colen noted, "German politicians and official church leaders still do not seem to understand what true freedom implies: that raising children is a prerogative of their fathers and mothers and not of the state, which is never a benevolent parent and often an enemy."
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
Read all of our current headlines
Appeal Filed Defending Montana Church's Right to Free Speech
By Allie Martin
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) are filing an appeal of a federal judge's decision to restrict the free speech of a Montana church.
In 2004 Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church of Helena was accused of violating state election law because it did not report to the government when it spoke out on the state's proposed marriage amendment, which was eventually approved by 66 percent of the voters. Recently, a U.S. district court ruled that the church did indeed violate Montana election law.
Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel with the ADF, argues to the contrary, however. "Churches obviously, throughout our history, have had a crucial role in discussing and changing the social fabric of our country," the attorney says. "That's part of what churches do is speak out about important social issues."
Responding to a complaint filed by the now-disbanded Montanans for Families and Fairness, the state's commissioner of political practices asserted that by demonstrating support for the amendment, the church "became an incidental political committee under Montana law, with corresponding reporting obligations."
Schowengerdt describes Montana's law as "particularly restrictive" and one that "needs to be challenged." He puts it this way: "The law is so extreme that it can be triggered by 'anything of value' -- even a penny spent on the church electric bill." The ADF attorney is optimistic about the outcome of the appeal being filed.
"We think that we stand a very good chance of overturning the trial judge's opinion," he says. "It's counter to Supreme Court authority and even Ninth Circuit authority on that exact issue, so I think we're hopeful that the Ninth Circuit will overturn the decision."
Schowengerdt maintains the complaint filed against the church was nothing more than a politically motivated attack designed to muzzle supporters of traditional marriage.
Allie Martin, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
Read all of our current headlines
Pastor Presses On Toward Potential Partnership with Moderate Muslims
By Ed Thomas
Part 2 of 2
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - A Florida pastor who was dropped from political appointments by Governor Jeb Bush and Attorney General Charlie Crist for statements against Islam now says he wants to work together with peace-loving Muslims to oppose Islamic extremism. Dr. O'Neal Dozier says clarifying his beliefs about Muslims is an important step in the proposed alliance.
Dozier, pastor of Worldwide Christian Center in Pompano Beach, says he did not mean to include moderate, peace-loving Muslims in his criticism of Islamic extremists who promote violence. Islamics whom Dozier says also believe in freedom, tolerance, and human rights are who he wishes to work with at the grassroots level to name and renounce terrorism. (See earlier article)
"It was never my intention to include [moderate Muslims] as being a part of the problem regarding radical Islam," the pastor says. He says he has made the offer of working together to the Council on American Islamic Relations and anyone who will publicly make a written condemnation of the known terrorist groups.
Dozier still considers the radical theology of Islam as cultic -- but despite his theological disagreements with much of the basic Islamic faith, he now says his approach has been modified to one that is more useful for helping find a solution for Americans and Muslims to live in peace together.
"This is why I am reaching out to the moderate Muslims to come up with a strategy -- a strategy that would work; a strategy that would eradicate radical Islamic extremism," he states.
The Florida pastor continues to oppose the building of a mosque on land in a neighborhood in which he says his city previously promised low-income housing. But he says he believes the most practical way for Americans to live in peace with those of the Islamic faith is to join together with those who are moderate and help them promote elimination of violent applications of their religion.
Ed Thomas, a regular contributor to AgapePress, is a reporter for American Family Radio News, which can be heard online.
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
The Right Frame of Mind
Visiting An 'Old-fashioned Woodshed'
By Rev. Mark H. Creech
October 18, 2006
(AgapePress) - According to a recent article in USA Today, there is one thing the nation's most successful CEOs have in common -- they received their share of spankings as children.
Although the article stated that "[m]ost CEOs believed spankings played little or no role in their success," the CEOs also acknowledged that the practice taught them valuable life lessons. David Haffner, chief executive officer of Leggett & Platt, said the spankings he received as a child made him "disciplined, detailed and organized." Joe Mogolia, with TD Ameritrade, said he learned from his parents that "tough love is better than soft love."
Also cited in the article is a recent study by sociologists Eve Tahmincioglu, titled: "From the Sandbox to the Corner Office: Lessons Learned on the Journey to the Top." Chapter One of the book is called "Less Carrott, More Stick." And in the book, Tahmincioglu contends spanking taught the 55 executives she interviewed "to respect authority." "They feared their parents, but loved them as well. Their parents would follow through with a spanking when the children misbehaved. Today there is no follow-through," she argued.
Fans of the Andy Griffith Show may remember that delightful episode, "Opie and the Spoiled Kid" -- the one where a spoiled boy moves to Mayberry and tries to run all over everybody, including Andy and Barney, the town's local law enforcement. When Andy impounds the boy's bike for his misbehavior, the boy's father protests until he discovers his bratty son would rather he end-up in jail than for him to lose his bike. This prompts the father to sell the bike and accept Andy's advice that the boy needs a good visit to an "old-fashioned woodshed." Hmmm ... don't believe that would fly on any modern national television broadcast.
USA Today notes that modern child psychologists "wince" at the idea of administering corporal punishment. Dr. Robert Fathman of the Ohio-based group End Physical Punishment of Children (EPOCH-USA), says, "If you bring a child up and you're spanking them, they're more likely to hit an animal, a pet. They're more likely to hit another child." [2] Other psychologists like Dr. James Dobson of
Focus on the Family, however, strongly disagree, contending:
"[I]t is possible -- even easy -- to create a violent and aggressive child who has observed this behavior at home. If he is routinely beaten by hostile, volatile parents or if he witnesses physical violence between angry adults or if he feels unloved and unappreciated within his family, that child will not fail to notice how the game is played. Thus corporal punishment that is not administered according to very carefully thought-out guidelines is a risky thing. Being a parent carries no right to slap and intimidate a child because you had a bad day or are in a lousy mood. It is this kind of unjust discipline that causes some well-meaning authorities to reject corporal punishment as a form of discipline. Just because a technique is used wrongly, however, is no reason to reject it all together. Many children desperately need this resolution to their disobedience .... When he lowers his head, clenches his fist, and makes it clear he is going for broke, justice must speak swiftly and eloquently. Not only does this response not create aggression in children, it helps them control their impulses and live in harmony with various forms of benevolent authority throughout life." [ Written in response to an question submitted through the Focus on the Family website ]
Still more important than what the experts say about spanking is what the Bible teaches. Some may find it a surprise, but the Bible commends corporal punishment in King Solomon's words: "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24). Some religious leaders, however, say the word "rod" in this text wasn't meant to be taken literally. In an article titled, "Children and the Rod of Correction," Dr. Dave Miller of Apologetics Press effectively addresses this misinterpretation:
"Lest someone get the idea that Solomon used the term 'rod' figuratively, without intending to leave the impression that parents should actually strike their children with a rod, he clarified the target: 'Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell' (Proverbs 23:13-14). A proper balance is obviously needed between verbal reproof and encouragement on the one hand, and the application of corporal punishment on the other, as seen in the following words: 'The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul' (Proverbs 29:15, 17, emphasis added). The immense importance of the interplay between positive instruction, encouragement, and nurturing, in conjunction with appropriate physical punishment, cannot be overestimated nor successfully discounted."
It's interesting to note that the "interplay between positive instruction, encouragement, and nurturing, in conjunction with appropriate physical punishment" in the life of today's children is often neglected. It seems many children are subjected to one or more extremes -- either they are completely neglected and left to raise themselves, tortured and physically abused by twisted or insensitive parents, or over indulged by well-meaning ones with far too much "sweet-talking" and not enough action to back up their commands. Is it any wonder America is raising one of the most rebellious and violent generations in its history?
Children need to be taught a healthy fear (reverential respect and awe) for God and authority figures in life. No one can better administer these lessons than parents. And sometimes, though it should always be a last resort, there is no better means to get that lesson across than to do what the parent's of yesteryear used to do -- take the youngster for a visit, so to speak, to an "old-fashioned woodshed."
Spanking may not make a child into a famous CEO, but when it's affectionately and appropriately applied, it very likely will make him or her into an emotionally well-rounded, disciplined, and morally responsible individual.
Rev. Mark H. Creech (calact@aol.com) is the executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, Inc.
2006 AgapePress all rights reserved.
By Bill Haymin, 2006
Print
Email
