Avatar of Natural Law Remedy.com

Do Anti-Spanking Laws Protect or Destroy the Family?

0 rating, 0 votes0 rating, 0 votes (0 rating, 0 votes, rated)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...

June 9, 2012 in Guns, Offbeat, Outdoors, Politics, Preparedness, Resistance, Science

by

Anti-spanking laws are capable of tearing a family apart, and can cause far more harm than the spanking itself, 
 

By Richard Walbaum

If anti-spanking laws are evolutionary and thereby in accord with natural law, they will not cause other problems but will be supportive of the family. I can identify several problems with anti-spanking laws:

1) If “legal” punishment is not sufficient to control the child’s behavior, he can run the family since he knows he won’t be punished.1 This divides the family by pitting children against parents. Parents are liable for the property damages their kids cause, but are not allowed the means to control or adequately discipline them. And children are given the power to abuse the parents; there are already reported cases of children who have bruised themselves and turned their parents in for child abuse.

2) The law outlaws spanking, an act that is not by itself abusive; psychology, intent, and the situation must be considered. For example, a child may think a spanking game is great fun. Is breaking someone’s bone abusive? I saw a show where firefighters wanted to break a person’s leg (they didn’t) in order to extract him from being pinned in his car to save his life. I have seen boys take turns hitting each other in fun, and bruises are a part of football. When the intent is not abuse, the act is not abusive. The same applies when it is done in love for disciplinary purposes; absent love, it could easily be abuse. Since abuse is more than just the act, prohibition of an act cannot affect abuse. Natural law is purposeful; if a law has no function, it should not exist. Spanking can, of course, be made to cause great harm; anything can be abused. If it turns into a crime, doesn’t the current law handle it? If not, the law is not aligned to natural law and needs to be changed. If it can’t be changed because of undesired side effects (e.g., replacing our form of government with a totalitarian form), then do nothing and let natural law take care of it; natural justice is a fundamental aspect of natural law and retribution will naturally be made.

3) Since spanking is not abusive per se, the government may be prohibiting right action. Natural law does not outlaw right action; there is no penalty for it, it is rewarded. Government does not have the power to prohibit right action because free will is a gift of the Creator, and we have a right to perform all possible actions (subject to certain conditions) for the purpose of learning life’s lessons; any infringement violates the intent of the Creator. Nor can government compel wrong action; every situation is complex, and to not spank when it is necessary might be a sin of omission. If you argue that spanking is never necessary, well, if a boy pulls a knife on his sister (this happened in Europe), I wouldn’t spank him; I’d cane him (just what his step father did). If government passes child discipline laws (spanking laws being the first step), spontaneous right action applied to the situation at hand will no longer be possible. A law to constrain abusers must not also constrain the virtuous; it must be discriminative enough to be able to tell the difference.

4) Jurisdiction vested in the parents by virtue of birth and consent of all parties, is transferred to the state in violation of that consent. The parents gave the children birth using the natural laws instituted by God. They are a gift of the Creator. That the parents are a jurisdictional unit seems to be lost from sight; they are being relegated to the status of baby sitters. Parents can and do make and enforce laws upon their children. “Be home by 10 PM or you will be grounded for a week” is parental law outside the jurisdiction of the state. Unfortunately, parental jurisdiction is being terminated by bringing family questions (in this particular case spanking) before the state. Just as we may disagree with the harshness or leniency of the laws of other countries, other states, or other parents, we have to respect their sovereignty because of the agreements they have made between themselves, and the lessons they are learning. As long as there is going to be abuse from a jurisdictional authority, I would rather have it be the parents with whom there is natural love and affinity, rather than an uncaring state. Government can dispense much more destruction on far more people, both virtuous and sinner alike, and is hard to keep under control. Any abuse by parents is at least localized, and at its worst if you could see the mechanics from cosmic perspective, is really a lesson to be learned by parent and child.

5) Violations of natural law by the state may be worse than the potential harm of spanking. If you bring in government to solve a problem, it is possible that it will tear apart or destroy the family. Regarding marriage, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Matt. 19:6. The state never imposes divorce, but always tries to protect the marriage. How much more are children placed into a family by God, but how casually government will remove them. And consider the damage upon the children imagine being stolen away from your parents. The possibility of losing your kids also provides a disincentive to get professional help if needed. Public policy should not be in conflict with itself; if parents need help, there should be no law to act as a disincentive.

6) Anti-spanking laws violate Christian precepts, and since this is a Christian nation, they will give rise to discord. Natural law brings harmony to the entire diversity of creation; it doesn’t create discord. We have seen that the Bible promotes family, that children are to be regarded as a gift from God, not a gift from the state, and the father, not the state, is to have authority over the children. Those who believe in the Bible are entitled to follow it as a way of life, and Congress even passed a law asking us to voluntarily apply the teachings of the Bible and the Holy Scriptures (96 Stat. 1211).

7) If the police power can be invoked against religious beliefs regarding parental jurisdiction over children, then it won’t stop there. The Jewish practice of circumcision, even though based upon covenant with God, will not be able to resist the police power protecting children against what an objective person (i.e., the state) would view as mutilation or sexual abuse. If spanking cannot stand, then by what theory of law can circumcision? What is the difference?

8 ) It gives rise to confusion about right and wrong. When a person does what he believes to be right (even to the point of telling the state to butt out), and you charge him with criminal conduct, you create confusion and resentment which may give rise to more problems than you solve. When one’s own internal reference, one’s conscience, one’s link to natural law is in conflict with man’s law, that law is inappropriate. Even if the law if right, if mankind is not ready for it, the law is inappropriate. Anti-spankers argue that it is common for abusers to tell the state to “butt out.” I disagree; it is the righteous that will tell the state to “butt out.” Thieves, murderers, rapists, arsonists, burglars, etc., do not tell the state to butt out; they know what they are doing is wrong.

9) If the theory of law is upheld that the state has the power to prevent spanking based upon the potential for harm, it won’t stop there. Pregnant mothers could be placed on strict diets because of the potential harm that unsuitable food may have on the unborn. I heard of a woman who wanted a regular birth, but the county prosecutor filed suit insisting that she get a C-section because a regular birth might endanger the unborn’s life (she got the C-section and avoided a court case). Experts might specify the proper diet and living habits for each member of society, with fines shared with those who turn them in for violations. This would be based upon the cost of health care that society must pay due to bad living habits. Etc. etc. etc., all based upon a misunderstanding of the nature of state power, and what makes this a free country.

10) Those who are concerned about families and child abuse want to put that concern in the hands of the state an entity that deals in law, punishment, guns, jails, money, regulation, child kidnapping, slavery, and sales of children, but not concern. There are no bonds of affinity or affection between government and those it regulates. The general level of corruption in our society, reflected in our government, will be brought to bear against the virtuous, though the law is presumably targeted against the abusers. The virtuous will be caught in the same trap set to catch the abusers; it can’t tell the difference. The tool (the state) needs to be more refined than the equipment (the family) it is being used on.

11) It conflicts with the right to privacy and creates a police state. In order to make determinations of day to day discipline (spanking being the first step), the state must become intimately involved with each family, requiring massive monitoring and intrusion into family life, and citizen police (“see something, say something”), contrary to the principles of a free society and the original design of this government.

12) You may argue that even though anti-spanking laws cause harmful side effects, this is a small price to pay to protect innocent children from injustice. First of all, price is a subjective value judgment, plus you are asking others to pay it. Freedom includes the ability to abuse that freedom; our founding fathers paid the price for both. If you want a free country, you have to put up with the potential for abuse. Second, justice is a law of nature; if you see injustice when you see an “innocent” child being spanked, your understanding about how life works is incomplete. But that’s another story for another time. Third, natural law does not solve one problem by creating another. Any law in accord with natural law will not have this kind of price to pay.

Either rewrite the anti-spanking laws without these side effects, or leave it alone and let natural law and justice take care of it as it has done for several thousand years. Your desire to protect children, while laudable, is too shortsighted if it runs the risk of destroying the family and our way of life.

 See my other articles.

www.NaturalLawRemedy.com

Footnote

1 A UK writer wrote: “Since children have been made more aware of their rights as a child, it has prevented parents from administering chastisement and punishments traditionally used to control rowdy and unacceptable behaviour.” … If your child hits you, “Try not to retaliate by hitting back unless in absolute self defence, and disarm them if they come at you with a weapon. Many many abusers will ring social services to claim you have hit them, and the Law comes down on their side every time. You will be prosecuted for hitting your child and your child will be placed on an “at risk” register as will any other children in your household.” http://loupurplefairy.hubpages.com/hub/The-Silent-Suffering-of-Parent-Abuse-When-Children-Abuse-Parents.

Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article:

11 responses to Do Anti-Spanking Laws Protect or Destroy the Family?

  1. WoW. What a good topic. Kids don’t have chores like they used too. Feed the and watering animals,picking up eggs in the morning. Getting fire wood,doing laundry prepping for food for the day. Before school!!!The TV and mindless vedios,stupid cell phones(all KIDS seem to have them now days) and parents not being involved with their child because we are too busy.
    I’m 33 and thats not old yet!!We did not watch T.V cause only got 2 fuzzy channels.We played alot.Got spanked too.I missed my mom alot cause she was always working.I would act out to get her attention.WE MUST find balance somewhere.Play,work with and teach your kids.Then maybe we would not have to spank so much. Lots of people are a little out of hand with spanking but I also no sometimes it is needed.All mamals have a form of getting their little ones attention.Deer kick their babys if they don’t stay hidden.Wolves will bite to teach lessons and they will hurt a little I’m sure.Nobodys going to tell me what to do period.KIDS need us to know they are there and hug and support them always.Hold them responsable when they screw up.Take the F##king cell phones out of their hand and go fishing or hiking.(yours too!!!!!)Say no more offten in the stores and its not such a shock when you say it.Eat dinner with them everynight if you can.Give them purpose not video games.

  2. Great Article.

    I think there is line between justified spanking and abuse.
    However, it must be noted that undisciplined children have no respect for authority, property and parents.
    Yes, children a special and a gift from God, but it is the parents responsibility to bring up the child and be a functioning part of our society.
    I have long held the view that the people making these decisions have NO IDEA of what they are doing.
    I suppose the bottom line is that as we loom towards the end of this age, rebellious children grow into rebellious adults.
    The world has grown too politically correct, ” Castles made of sand..slip into the sea eventually”. JH.

    • I disagree with you on only one thing. I think the people doing this know exactly what they’re doing. I think the whole point of laws like this is to break up the family unit. It’s easier to control people if each person feels alone in the world.

  3. How about comparing predominance of Anti-spanking attitudes vs. rise in prison inmates in this country… I’m sure there is a connection somehow…

    • JP said on June 10, 2012

      That is very likely.

      They didn’t learn respect for parental authority. Why would they have grown any respect for any other form of authority?

  4. I have to ask, if a child thinks a spanking game is fun, where did that thought come from? If
    boys hit each other for fun, where did they learn that behavior? Or who neglected to teach
    them that it is inappropriate behavior?As far as football is concerned, it is highly debatable
    whether or not the sport should exist or if some of the things that happen because of
    football are acceptable.Have you ever read the statistics that show how many wives and girl
    friends of football players are abused? It’s up there with the rate of military wives that
    are abused. That’s because football is mock battle and fosters a violent mentality.

    You say that when the intent is not abuse then the act is not abuse. Have you ever heard
    that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? A great many bad things happen when
    people didn’t intend for them to, but they are still bad. Under the law, that is called
    extenuating circumstance, and the punishment is lighter; but there is still punishment.

    Love has little to do with whether or not something is good. People all over the planet at
    any given moment are lying, cheating stealing and abusing in the name of love. None of those
    things are good because of the existence of some so called love. Love is when you treat
    people the way you would want to be treated. I suppose if you like being hit, then you
    might thinking striking another person is love. Some people cut off other peoples genital
    parts because they love them. They are trying to abolish that practice.

    To a certain degree, I agree that the government should not do away with parental spanking
    by using some method that also does harm. But that still does not mean it should not be
    done away with. You are advocating people standing around motionless while the building
    burns down around them for fear that any attempt to put it out might make the fire worse.
    Sometimes you figure out the proper course of action by trial and error.

    Prohibition and DUI/DWI laws are a good example. Bad things happen when people get drunk.
    But it didn’t work to abolish all alcohol consumption. So the law was repealed and later
    on we had DUI penalties and public intoxication laws established. The pendulum of law basically
    swung back to a more level position.

    I don’t live by Natural law; I live by a Higher law. God established it because man’s
    natural instincts cause him to err. We don’t need the government telling us that they
    can hit our children and we can’t. We need to be intelligent enough to stop it and not give
    them the excuse to step into our homes. But as far as the idea that we should never have
    to answer to government because we have free will, who do you think made us with free
    will? God gave us free will, but he also allows governments and principalities to exist
    because they sometimes serve his plan. Sometimes it is his plan to infringe on our
    right to free will because we use it inappropriately. The Hebrew nation was scattered
    all over the world because they used their free will to do things contrary to God’s law and
    he used the governments of other nations to chastise them. Government is not the problem.
    What we allow to be called government is the problem.

    Why do you think caning is appropriate? Is it not saying that I will answere violence
    with violence? Should the son not have been taught that violence is wrong and to do
    good for goodness sake? The parents messed up long before the day he pulled the knife.
    But that can be the expected outcome of people who resort to caning being allowed to
    parent.

    You keep speaking of government as something separate from you or I. That is the problem
    people need to address. They need to remember that government is supposed to be you
    and I, not them. If government is bad, it’s because we have allowed it to become that way.
    But according to your logic, we should leave it alone and it will eventually fix itself.
    We shouldn’t do anything or say anything because we might make government worse.

    I agree that laws should not punish the virtuous with the abusers. But I don’t consider
    violence of any level for any reason against people you say you love to be a virtue.

    Your fourth premise assumes that children consent willingly to being beaten and that
    parents should always maintain jurisdiction over their children so long as the
    children consent. Even according to Judaic and Christian laws, there is an age of
    consent. Therefore, a toddler has not reached the age of reason to be able to give
    free consent to being beaten. If he is subjected to abuse all of his life, and taught
    that it is the correct way to live, when he reaches the age of consent, he may not
    have had any life experience to tell him otherwise and if he then gives consent based
    on the only way he has ever known, he gives his consent in a state of ignorance.

    Children are not only a gift from God, they are a responsibility that God has given us.
    If we missuse a gift or neglect our responsibility, we lose our right to what you call
    our jurisdiction. The only agreements that were made to allow this jurisdiction to come
    into being is the agreement of a man and woman to have sex and the decision of the
    woman to allow the resultant pregnancy to continue and to keep the child after it was
    born. The child was not given the opportunity to agree to anything. Sometimes, the
    woman, even within a lawful marriage is raped, and she didn’t even consent to the sex.Why
    should such situations give anyone jurisdiction over others? There is no such thing as
    natural love and affinity within many families and it is presumptuous to believe that
    there is. Love is an action not an emotion. Because you don’t think government should
    be allowed to abuse, you allow for parents doing it. You choose the lesser of two evils.
    I believe we should change both evils.

    You are entirely wrong in your belief that spanking is a Christian precept that antispanking
    is in violation of. Within Natural law, discord is a part of it. Lions do not eat zebras
    because they are in accord with them. We do not eat cows because we are in accord with them.
    But it is natural for both lions and man to eat meat. Fathers are intended to have
    authority over their households, so long as they abide by Christian principles to guide
    them; else, the blind lead the blind and both fall into the ditch.

    You say that Congress asked us to make the Bible a law that we voluntarily follow. There are two problems there.
    First, people tend to pick which laws they want to follow from the Bible and two,
    Congress also passed the Noahide laws which say that Christians should be beheaded for
    trying to keep what the consider to be Jewish law that we are unworthy to keep.

    Why should a man who is in and out of jail, does drugs and cheats on his wife, then be
    allowed to claim he is a Christian so that he can spank his children?

    There are major differences between spanking and circumcision. Firstly, Christians
    don’t have to be circumcised in order to be Christian; secondly, spanking is not a
    surgical proceedure intended to decrease infections in the genitals. As with many
    Old Covenant laws, they had a practical purpose which was frequently the health of
    the Hebrew people, and that was the intent behind circumcision. We live in a cleaner
    world that is better educated now, and it is debatable as to whether or not circumcision
    any longer has a purpose, particularly to those of us who are not bound by the Old Law.

    You say that people should have the right to do what they think is right and tell the state
    to butt out. Where do you draw the line with that? Just because you believe you are right
    does not mean you are. There are Biblical laws because not everyone who believes they are
    right is. Christ does not recognize people who do bad things and claim to be Christians.
    So why should we as a society recognize them? If we are going to use Christianity as a
    basis to live by, it has a form of government. Christians are supposed to be answereable
    to elders and deacons. They do not just get to go around doing whatever they feel is
    right with no one around to question it. God knew that people would resent that, which
    is why there are scriptures that tell Christians to submit themselves to being rebuked
    by their elders and deacons. He set up the contingency plan for dealing with resentment
    and confusion. If people aren’t going to answer to elders and deacons, the next stop
    according to Christian principles is the government or principality that God allows to
    exist to serve his purposes.

    You obviously are doing what many other people do, you speak of Christianity and pay it
    lip service and then out the other side of your mouth say things like, “If the law is right,
    and mankind isn’t ready for it, it is inappropriate.” That puts man’s wishes above
    God’s which is not at all Christian. Christians are not to question God. Doing so assumes
    you are his equal. You say that thieves, murderers, rapists, arsonists and burglars,
    do not tell the government to but out because the know what they are doing is wrong.
    IF that is true, then why do they have to be forcibly imprisoned or shot to stop them.
    Because they don’t believe the government has the right to inhibit whatever they feel like
    doing, in other words, they think the government should butt out.

    Under your tenth premise, you say that our government is corrupt because
    society is corrupt. You thereby just did away with your entire argument, because you
    cannot be corrupt and a Christian at the same time. If you are corrupt, then you have
    no other right than to become uncorrupt under Biblical principals. You can’t claim that
    we all have the Christian right to discipline our children as we see fit, and at the same
    time say that most of us are corrupt and thereby not true Christians. If you aren’t Christian
    then Christian rights do not apply to our lives. Now if most people were Christians, it
    might then make sense to claim Christianity should be a protection against government.
    But not even Christ did that. He said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render
    unto God what is God’s. We are to obey the law so long as it does not require us to
    disobey God’s law. Not spanking your children is not disobeying God because he never
    told us to beat our children in the first place. Some bad men just interpreted the Bible
    into English in such a way that many of us would believe it said that.

    We don’t really have the right to privacy, because God sees all.

    Your twelfth premise says that price is a subjective value judgement. I agree, we don’t have
    the right to make the judgement for children that being beaten is worth the cost.You say that
    freedom includes the ability to abuse that freedom. I agree, but God gave us both the
    freedom and the consequence of abusing it. You are forgetting that he gave us consequences
    for it while claiming Christian rights.

    You do not know your history. This country was never intended to be a free, Christian,
    nation. There were those who came here wanting to start a new utopian society that had nothing to do
    with Christianity. They were hampered by the fact that Puritans and Quakers came here
    with the intent to create a Christian society as they felt it should be. In the Puritan
    colonies, you could be put into stocks, beaten or flogged if you broke what they interpreted
    to be Christian law.Puritans persecuted Quakers, and neither of them like Catholics.
    Maryland was the only colony that Catholics could immigrate to. They did not intend for
    people in their colonies to have freedom of religion. At the same time, the other people didn’t intend for people to be Christian
    at all. From the beginning, the people who did not want you to be Christian have been at
    odds with those who want to tell you how you are allowed to be a Christian, and the rest
    of us have been stuck in the middle ever more. Government had to step in and tell them
    that they were both wrong, else we would all either be, Puritan, Quaker or Deist. But
    even the Deists believed that people sometimes have to answer to higher authority than
    their own opinion. Your conscience is not the only guide you have to defer to if you are
    Christian. And at any rate, whether or not you feel yourself to be Christian is a mute
    point when it comes to our government, which is not and never was intended to be the king
    of government where people are only answerable to themselves.

    The only thing I agree with you on it that parents who spank are the lesser of two evils.
    But I add the provision that some parents are truly evil and we have to make them answer
    to someone. Hypocrites said, “First do no evil.” First is the opperative word, because he
    didn’t mean for you to do nothing at all. Using the word first means he intended for you
    to follow up with something second and maybe third and fourth.

    • This is one long reply!

      ” if a child thinks a spanking game is fun, where did that thought come from? If
      boys hit each other for fun, where did they learn that behavior?”

      You must never have been a boy.

      “You say that when the intent is not abuse then the act is not abuse. Have you ever heard
      that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? ”

      People’s intention to protect children is a good intention that was the road to hell that we are in now. Government is stealing children and engaging in sex slavery. As long as children are to be regulated, it should be by the parental government, not state government.

      “Love has little to do with whether or not something is good. People all over the planet at
      any given moment are lying, cheating stealing and abusing in the name of love”

      Love has everything to do with it. Love admits no abuse. No one is abusing in the name of love. Love can cause no intentional harm.

      “I don’t live by Natural law; I live by a Higher law. God established it because man’s
      natural instincts cause him to err. ”

      Natural law IS the Higher law, God’s law. Man’s natural instincts, man’s conscience, expresses natural law, developed in some more than others.

      “But I don’t consider violence of any level for any reason against people you say you love to be a virtue.”

      Each child is different. Some only need a word to correct an error, others need more. If you are not practical, the children will end up running the family.

      “Your fourth premise assumes that children consent willingly to being beaten and that parents should always maintain jurisdiction over their children so long as the children consent.”

      I am more esoteric here. Children choose their parents before birth; that is where the consent comes from. They choice depends on the lessons they came here to learn. Then, there is karma. If you beat your kids in a past life, you will be beaten as a kid in this life. Lifetime after lifetime, you will take turns beating each other up, till eventually you learn the lesson that it is not a good thing to do. Earth really is a school.

      “Children are not only a gift from God, they are a responsibility that God has given us.”

      Amen.

      “If we missuse a gift or neglect our responsibility, we lose our right to what you call our jurisdiction.
      The only agreements that were made to allow this jurisdiction to come into being is the agreement of a man and woman to have sex and the decision of the woman to allow the resultant pregnancy to continue and to keep the child after it was born. The child was not given the opportunity to agree to anything”

      See previous comment about karma. The universe is governed by one law and one law only: As you sow, so shall you reap. If you love you will be loved, hate you will be hated, beat you will be beaten; ____ you will be ____ ; fill in the blank. Even if the person does not give you a reaction, someone else will. The universe cannot be deceived, a reaction will come.

      “There is no such thing as natural love and affinity within many families [TRUE] and it is presumptuous to believe that there is. Love is an action not an emotion [I disagree here; you didn't think this through]. Because you don’t think government should be allowed to abuse, you allow for parents doing it. [Yes, much better that parents do it; the family is learning their karmic lessons; any intervention retards that progress. There is still some natural affinity, obviously most parents love and protect their children, compared to government where there is none]. You choose the lesser of two evils. I believe we should change both evils.” [Alignment with natural law, by government and parents, is the only way this.]

      “You say that Congress asked us to make the Bible a law that we voluntarily follow. There are two problems there. First, people tend to pick which laws they want to follow from the Bible …”

      As human beings created in the image and likeness of God, we have the right to perform any and every possible action, subject to the restriction that we cause no harm to others; actions must tend to good order.

      “… and two,Congress also passed the Noahide laws which say that Christians should be beheaded for trying to keep what the consider to be Jewish law that we are unworthy to keep.”

      Do you have a citation?

      “Christians don’t have to be circumcised in order to be Christian; secondly, spanking is not a
      surgical proceedure intended to decrease infections in the genitals. As with many Old Covenant laws, they had a practical purpose which was frequently the health of the Hebrew people, and that was the intent behind circumcision.”

      I’m not an expert on circumcision; I thought it was a Jewish, not a Christian tradition based upon covenant with God, nothing to do about health.

      “You say that people should have the right to do what they think is right and tell the state to butt out. Where do you draw the line with that? …”

      God has given us free will, which means the right to do any and every possible action. The only way to minimize infringing upon the will of God, is to pass laws based upon necessity to remedy a perceived harm. If there is no harm, there can be no law. Laws must be tailored for minimal infringement upon God-given liberty, or risk infringing God’s will. There must be a presumption of God’s will in action, a presumption of liberty, regulated to the extent necessary to protect society and 3rd persons. This is were the line is drawn.

      “… Just because you believe you are right does not mean you are. There are Biblical laws because not everyone who believes they are right is.”

      No, I am always right. I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

      “You obviously are doing what many other people do, you speak of Christianity and pay it
      lip service and then out the other side of your mouth say things like, “If the law is right,
      and mankind isn’t ready for it, it is inappropriate.”

      A case in point is Right to Life vs Right to Abort. It is a hotly contested issue. Our society is not ready for a law. I would let natural law take care of it. If you abort, you will be aborted applies here.

  5. DESTROYS FAMILIES!

    Yeah, because harsh language really works on kids…..NOT!

    Doesn’t anyone believe in dishing out the punishment for their kids these days? My god, what the hell is going on with this Country. Have we all become Weak Minded Wussies afraid of spanking our OWN kids! JESUS CHRIST! This BS needs to stop, and this Liberal-weak-minded, wimped-out Country needs to grow a pair, once again…..I certainly don’t advocate child abuse, but, come on…..And parents wonder why their kids have no respect for them! DUH! Well, gee, let’s see……. “Screw You Mom”….”Johnny, that’s not nice…no TV for you tonight” OOOOoooohhhhhh BIG DEAL!!!!!!!….that’s the form of punishment kids have today! Once again, the government knows what’s best for us…..Hey Government….Stay the HELL out of our lives! We don’t need you!

    • tony said on June 9, 2012

      well said my friend well said!

    • With these new ‘laws’ the state won’t let parents spank their kids, yet the policeman can brutally TORTURE them with those damned cattle prods and pepper spray…

      It’s not a law for anyone’s safety… It’s control of the state…

      • Exactly. The idea is to destroy the traditional family and replace it with the state being the authority on every level. This is the globalist goal.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.