Bay Times published this on Saturday, 16 December 2006.
A recent editorial, your columnists Richard Moore and Rosemary McLeod, and several of your correspondents continue to trot out the same old argument that in raising children corporal punishment equates to discipline and to spare the rod is to spoil the child. I can only assume that in the good old days, when every parent religiously smacked their children for misbehaviour, there was no youth crime, no wanton violence, no desecration of churches or graves. Please correct me if I have something wrong.
In my own experience, when I brought up my children without any corporal punishment, I was aware of a number of other parents of the same generation who also taught values without smacking. I spent a short time working for Social Welfare and I saw another side to life where most of the kids in state care had received more than their share of “hidings” from their parents. Presumably the children of the former group have grown up to be violent criminals through their parents’ negligence, while the kids in the latter group are pillars of the community thanks to those hidings. Or am I wrong again?
17 December 2006
Respect other beliefs
Bay Times published this on Thursday, 14 December 2006.
If Bill Capamagian (Bay Times 1 November) advocates teaching children about the Bible and the other diverse beliefs that people hold in our pluralist society then I have no problem with this. However if “Bible in Schools” means religious indoctrination which sets out to convert children to the beliefs of the teacher, then he is dishonest in pretending that this is done “so that our children can at least be aware of our spiritual history.”
Nor does Bill tell the whole truth when he says that teaching the Bible in schools is voluntary. Religious instruction and observance are illegal in state primary and intermediate schools. They happen when schools are declared “closed” and the children are handed over to Christian evangelists. Children have to opt out of this indoctrination and are usually supervised in the school library. Opting out requires some intervention from the parents and makes the “opt out” children feel different, the last thing any young child wants. Evangelists know this and kick up a fuss against any attempt to switch to “opt in”.
The issue here is not about Bill waivering in his Christian faith. It is about him respecting the rights of others to their own beliefs.
If Bill Capamagian (Bay Times 1 November) advocates teaching children about the Bible and the other diverse beliefs that people hold in our pluralist society then I have no problem with this. However if “Bible in Schools” means religious indoctrination which sets out to convert children to the beliefs of the teacher, then he is dishonest in pretending that this is done “so that our children can at least be aware of our spiritual history.”
Nor does Bill tell the whole truth when he says that teaching the Bible in schools is voluntary. Religious instruction and observance are illegal in state primary and intermediate schools. They happen when schools are declared “closed” and the children are handed over to Christian evangelists. Children have to opt out of this indoctrination and are usually supervised in the school library. Opting out requires some intervention from the parents and makes the “opt out” children feel different, the last thing any young child wants. Evangelists know this and kick up a fuss against any attempt to switch to “opt in”.
The issue here is not about Bill waivering in his Christian faith. It is about him respecting the rights of others to their own beliefs.
04 December 2006
Any crime link with harsh discipline?
Bay Times published my reply to their editorial on 30 November.
Your editorial (Bay Times, 22 November) blames “rising youth crime and wanton violence” on the outlawing of caning and the move away from enforcing discipline with a solid smack. Some of your correspondents blame the absence of prayer in schools. I’m sure others blame the Labor government. The thing they all have in common is the failure to provide any real evidence of a link between the problem and their pet cause. The best they can manage is the post hoc logical fallacy; they assume that if B follows A in time, then B must be caused by A.
The argument by reference to today’s community and business leaders could also apply to today’s leading criminals, who are also sure to have been smacked. Did this “help mould them into the people and leaders they are today”?
What would be interesting would be some research to see if there is any correlation, positive or negative, between corporal punishment and those responsible for the youth crime and wanton violence. Were these young people smacked at home or not? I know where I would put my money.
Your editorial (Bay Times, 22 November) blames “rising youth crime and wanton violence” on the outlawing of caning and the move away from enforcing discipline with a solid smack. Some of your correspondents blame the absence of prayer in schools. I’m sure others blame the Labor government. The thing they all have in common is the failure to provide any real evidence of a link between the problem and their pet cause. The best they can manage is the post hoc logical fallacy; they assume that if B follows A in time, then B must be caused by A.
The argument by reference to today’s community and business leaders could also apply to today’s leading criminals, who are also sure to have been smacked. Did this “help mould them into the people and leaders they are today”?
What would be interesting would be some research to see if there is any correlation, positive or negative, between corporal punishment and those responsible for the youth crime and wanton violence. Were these young people smacked at home or not? I know where I would put my money.
Religious Abuse
Bay Times published on Friday, 24 November 2006.
Margaret Muirhead (Bay Times 31 October) ignores my objections to religion in schools. Instead she chooses to answer what was clearly a rhetorical question designed to highlight the diversity of opinion in this area. According to the 2001 census that diversity includes 30% of New Zealanders who profess to have no religion at all. Given that many Christian parents will choose to send their children to religious schools, one can assume that the non-religious make up an even greater proportion of the state school population. It is surely arrogant and intolerant for State School Chaplaincy to seek to impose their worldview on this group, who have already chosen to reject religion. In fact some non-religious parents may well share the view of Richard Dawkins when he recently described religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse.
Margaret Muirhead (Bay Times 31 October) ignores my objections to religion in schools. Instead she chooses to answer what was clearly a rhetorical question designed to highlight the diversity of opinion in this area. According to the 2001 census that diversity includes 30% of New Zealanders who profess to have no religion at all. Given that many Christian parents will choose to send their children to religious schools, one can assume that the non-religious make up an even greater proportion of the state school population. It is surely arrogant and intolerant for State School Chaplaincy to seek to impose their worldview on this group, who have already chosen to reject religion. In fact some non-religious parents may well share the view of Richard Dawkins when he recently described religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
