Graham

You write

'Yet there is also research that says that smacking a child lowers its IQ'

My daughter has just finished 4 years at one of Australia's best uni with high distinctions all the way through her courses. My son has a TEE which allows him to do medicine if he so chooses. I am sure glad they both got smacks when they needed to. The non smacking brigade really are the child abusers. In fact they are pathetic and often gutless allowing spoiled brats to dominate their lives. It is no wonder that violence has dramatically increased on our streets with the hopelessly flawed secular discipline techniques. Reason has no impact on the secularist who deny the adamic nature. They are to dumb to distinguish between discipline and child abuse not realising that they are abusing children by not applying appropriate discipline.

These nanny state laws are too dangerous to be allowed to stand.

Once you have these laws, you WILL get some jumped up egotistical public servants, using them. Those with front line experience, at the coalface, who think they know it all, using them to enforce their idea of how society should work.

You know the type. Their vast experience means they are the only ones who could possible know what was right.

It is these people, who deal with the most incompetent in our society who have lost the plot. Their huge egos lead them to believe that the world can't do with out them. In fact, they cause more trouble than they ever solve. Their experience is limited to the bottom 2% or so, thank god. Any time thay get out of this area they stuff up totally.

You know the types, want to get into everyone's business, not just those who may need help.

I have spent quite a bit of time in places where they have never even heard of social workers, let alone seen one, & get along just fine.

So thank you Examinator for showing us the danger of having these laws available for people like you to use.

Runner, you never cease to amaze me! You always manage to bring religion and all the sinful secularists into every topic on these pages.

As far as I am concerned, the punishment of children in the name of religion is nothing to crow about anyway.

Some of those nuns and brothers from the Catholic orders were some of the most vicious disciplinarians I have ever seen in schools back in the 'good old days'. It was far preferable to be dealt with by parents.

I should know, I was there!

suzeonline you write

'Some of those nuns and brothers from the Catholic orders were some of the most vicious disciplinarians I have ever seen in schools back in the 'good old days'. It was far preferable to be dealt with by parents.'

I just happen to agree with you on this one Suzi. Discipline is far more likely to turn into abuse if administered by non natural parents or others. The Catholic church and others certainly abused this at times. On the whole I doubt very much that they caused more harm than some of the non smacking brigade has produced today. Bashing old people has often been carried out by people who have never suffered any consequences for their appalling behaviour throughout childhood. Secularism constantly tells people they are the victims and excuse the most appalling actions on that basis.

You are wrong to accuse me of singly out sinful secularist. The point is that secular humanism denies the adamic nature of all humans. Punishment should never be done in the name of religion. Corrective punishment should be done to teach right from wrong something that does not happen nearly enough today

"'Respect your elders' is a phrase from a by gone era I am afraid!"

I for one am happy that our children have a little less respect for their elders than in that by gone era.

It might be a little harder to adults to retain absolute control over behaviour but I would be willing to wager less kids are prepared to put up with abuse, both sexual and physical, than they did back then.

We are still hearing stories about the power wielded by religious figures that forced even knowing parents to turn a blind eye when clergy were abusing their children twenty, thirty, or forty years ago.

I'm sure I cop a little more cheek from my children than my parents would have put up with me, but I'm equally as sure they would be far more willing to expose someone who might be trying to coerce them.

My 15 year old confronted a taxi driver the other day who had driven her and some other kids home at dangerous speeds and used the mobile phone. She doesn't swear (at least not in front of me) but told the driver in no uncertain terms that he had put his passengers in danger and he needed to be far more responsible with young peoples lives.

In another time she would have been berated for showing a lack of respect, or of talking back, or of being precocious, now I'm just damn proud of her because I know at that age I would have just walked away.

I'm not interested in seeing our children caned back into those times.

Thankyou Runner, this was the first time we ever agreed on anything!
You are right in saying <" Punishment should never be done in the name of religion."

I still have nightmares about being beaten by the huge ruler, locked in a broom cupboard, or whacked in the head by a duster as a young girl.

The reason for this punishment by the loving nuns?
Because I was looking out the window or maybe 'not listening'!

All this served to do for me was to be terrified of anyone dressed in religious clothing. And religion as a whole, really.
Punishment should fit the crime.