Thanks for offering some more thoughts.

I agree with you, this isn’t a “Christian issue”… in the sense that term is often understood.

Because I agree with that, I struggle to understand why you would make it a matter that comes down to my “God given discernment” when it comes to defining the difference between discipline and abuse.

Surely we can both agree that since this is not a “Christian issue”, whatever I define as my God given discernment (a somewhat subjective determination from person to person) should be a minor part of the discussion – indeed, since the issue is a legal one, I am not allowed the luxury of exerting such discernment as a primary argument.

The law was and still is based around “reasonable force”, so the question I asked was premised on that. I used the example I did to highlight some of the extremes of defining the term “reasonable” and since I am a Christian, it specifically interests me how people use their belief system to back up their particular understanding.

I would like to hear where the line is for you – the differentiation between discipline and abuse – of course I can define these things for myself, but I am interested to hear how you define them – where does it cross from discipline to abuse and how do you think the law should differentiate.

Allow me to gladly put forward my belief that the current piece of legislation is downright confusing though.

Open up, share your understandings a little more without the well worn mantras against the left

Note: I personally think the old concepts of left and right politics do little to define the political spectrum of the modern world. Modern politics is a lot more nuanced that those terms allow for.

That’s simple.
This issue has nothing to do with “Christian principles” it is to do with the loss of common sense.
The lie I was referring to was the “smacking is hitting” mantra well worn by the left and others willfully ignorant of the reality of parental authority.
This issue has nothing to do with Christianity despite the best efforts of the likes of Sue Bradford to make it so.
Most people that signed the petition were parents who could see this law for what it was, a blatant intrusion into the lives of parents to promote radical human rights ideology.
And Frank, your mentioning of the “alkathene pipe” and “closed fist” example is also very cliche of the dishonest approach of the left.
If you can’t use your God given discernment to differentiate between discipline and abuse, there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Over my lifetime I have attended most denominations and would say that it is futile for both sides of such a discussion to try and label the church as being either too left or too right – I think it’s fairly well split.

I think if one were to examine the mainline churches one would find a strong left leaning, but on the other hand, in evangelical churches the leaning at this point in time would probably be more moderately to strongly right. The spectrum is well and truly represented. Even in my own microcosm of friendship, the spectrum is represented – from communist voters to libertarian voters – all Christian.

I find the distinction made between “smacking” and “hitting” to be an interesting one and predominantly a quibbling of semantics that makes one more acceptable as it sounds less forceful.

There are, of course, degrees of smacking – without entering the argument over whether it is right or wrong, I would be interested to know, for you, where it moves from being acceptable “smacking” into “hitting” or at least something that is violent and unacceptable? I ask because from what I can see in the many discussions I have had around this topic – that line is subjective and relative and it amazes me how many Christians bring their Bible to the table on what they deem to be acceptable.

I have spoken to people who think any form of force is wrong and I have covered the spectrum right down to a man who thought “smacking” his son forcefully and repeatedly on the bare bottom with a piece of alkathene pipe was acceptable and mandated in the Bible.

Interestingly he also made a distinction between smacking and hitting when I asked him the same question about what he thought was acceptable – he believed that if he closed his fist then it moved from a smack to a hit – in his mind, anything that could be defined as a smack rather than a hit, was acceptable.

I know you won’t be at that end of the spectrum, but hopefully you can understand why I would ask the question.

In your first comment, you disagreed with Drew when he stated that “the right to hit your children is not a great Christian principle” – you called that a lie. To try and turn this discussion into something fruitful rather than simply an argument back and forth I would like to hear your thoughts on why that is a lie. I am guessing it will come down to some biblical passages worth discussing.

Can you point out why you think, in the face of the assertion that Drew’s statement is a lie, that it is a Christian principle to “smack” our children?

Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts here.

Christianity in Aotearora/NZ covers the full political spectrum but undoubtedly leans more to the conservative right than the liberal left. It depends a lot on which denomination you’re talking about.

I’m afraid that Jesus – with his anti-wealth, pro poor stance and the early church – living in community and working with the needy would share a great deal in common with these dreaded left wing ideologues.

If you consider hitting kids is a great Christian principle – I wonder what other rights you’re prepared to fight for…the right to keep slaves perhaps, to own assault weapons or repress women.

Your last sentence is derogatory nonsense. Most churches are attended by intelligent individuals seeking to learn more and open to new ideas. The few churches where the members are expected to follow a party line unquestioningly are most certainly not left wing but ultra conservative which rather defeats whatever point you were trying to make.

Oh you really swallowed that lie hook line and sinker.
The problem with Christianity in NZ is that there is just too much common ground shared with left wing ideologues.
Go to any contemporary church and all you find is a bunch of unquestioning blind little sheep towing the party line.

If Sue Bradford from her position had a ref questions it would probably have been just as slanted “Should violence against children, as protected under section 59, be outlawed in NZ”. OF COURSE it should be. I say outlaw it all together! at least then we’d know what it actually says and actually means.

Thanks Drew