The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Dan Lewis:

I have a young firstborn son, young enough that my wife and I haven't completely discussed corporal punishment. We love this nanny show, though, because of this quick-and-dirty soundbite parenting, and because we can watch it and laugh at the parents and kids. (Not schadenfreude, just the absurd comedy of it all, like last night when the 3-year-old screamed because Mom finally threw out his baby bottle for good.) And we don't feel guilty about studying the parenting with an eye to imitate.

My experience was different when I read Dr. Dobson's books some years ago. It was before I was married, when I wanted to learn more about marriage and relationships, children. I was ok when he talked about needing a gameplan with your spouse, consistent discipline. That sounded more like equality to me, another story. But I did feel guilty when he got around to the value of hitting your kids with a paddle.

As I recall, he said, and here is the passage (from his massive Q&A compendium, Complete Marriage and Family Home Reference Guide, 2000):

I recommend a neutral object of some type. To those who disagree on this point, I'd encourage them to do what seems right. It is not a critical issue to me. The reason I'd suggest a switch or paddle is because the hand should be seen as an object of love...

As I conceded above, some people (particularly those who are opposed to spanking in the first place) believe that the use of a neutral object in discipline is tantamount to child abuse. I understand their concern, especially in cases when a parent believes "might makes right" or loses her temper and harms the child. That is why adults must always maintain a balance between love and control, regardless of the method by which they administer disciplinary action.

Still feels weird to me.

I don't know where Digby got his quotation about 9-month child punishment. He mentioned The Strong-Willed Child, I guess. In the Q&A immediately following the above passage, "Is there an age when you begin to spank?", Dobson writes:

There is no excuse for spanking babies or children younger than fifteen to eighteen months of age. Even shaking an infant can cause brain damage and death at that delicate age! But midway through the second year (eighteen months), boys and girls become capable of knowing what you're telling them to do or not do. ...

Not to whitewash his political dealings, which I find reprehensible, or whatever else he has said about parenting. Maybe I am bamboozled here, maybe I fail to see the broader context, you tell me.

My wife and I have moved on to other aids and advices (Parenting with Love and Logic we have found interesting and helpful so far). We still notice that our Christian friends spank their children and wonder if we don't fit in the crowd somehow.

Back when I was first reading Dobson's work, though, I thought, "Well, you're the doctor," and took it in like it had some sort of Christian-physician imprimatur, despite my nervous feelings. Strong is the temptation to learn about science through "safe" Christian material, which can be trusted implicitly. At least, when you want a safe kind of Christianity.

What I object to in the line Jerry pursues is his apparent view that we should not judge leaders by what they do at the times of greatest pressure and responsibility. Rather, when the consequences are much more important, their decisions are magnified, for better and for worse. Iraq is not an aberration in the general's career; it is the essence of his leadership.

What I object to in the line Ray pursues is his apparent view that only partisan Republicans really understand Iraq and the awesome power of this fully operational general. Forgive me, Ray, for remaining in my own worldview; never the twain shall meet.

Next week: Senator Frist refers to his gung-ho style of leadership as "personal organ operations" and "extraordinary negotiation". The next day, the New York Times calls Republican politics "loveball".

Bill Frist hearts you.

Thank you, Greg. :) I too envision a T-shirt. Now, though, we need to name the movie that garnered this 'W' rating.

"Worst. Debt. Ever."

"Uninsured Side Story"

"A Land War in Asia Too Far"

"Wag the Chief"

I used up my idea fairy for the day, so take it away.

Rated W: Not admitted without parent. Maybe part of the white on green Preview screen. "The following administration contains policies not suitable for all citizens..."

I completely agree; I'm not saying that I have the power to change the agenda of the religious right, or the one-party government (when those new Justices start swooping into office, anyway).

In the long run, I hope there is a Judgment at Nuremberg moment, when the voters of the right come around to my point of view. Then, maybe it will be worth talking about my compromise.

In the short run, it's true that the right militated against civil unions as well as marriages in this election, and the politics of civil unions are fragile at best. In a post at TAPPED ((NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.), Garance Franke-Ruta discussed it last weekend. I think it's a little hysterical, but basically on point.

It's Utopian of me to hope that religion may remove itself from politics here. Still, that is my hope.

And Kevin: yes, I'm sure my right sense of linguistic descriptivism will catch up to my burning ears eventually.

I agree that Dave's argument, that the Purpose of Marriage is to have and raise babies, is strange. It is a religion-neutral answer to a religious question.

I am a Christian, but I would rather have a religion-neutral answer to the political question of gay marriage; I think civil unions fit the bill.

My religious idea of the purpose of marriage doesn't make sense for long outside of the Christian context where it applies. The meanings of sex, male, female, homosexual, and so on, all similarly don't carry. So what common discourse can we assume on these religious issues? How deep does the disagreement cut?

"I regret that I must insist that marriage is not merely a civil contract (whatever the law might say), but a social institution. I am sorry if I was confused on this point. As a social institution it has a certain meaning defined by its very name; a civil contract is defined by its specific clauses."

I have a lot of sympathy with this; for me, "homosexual civil union" means something like "take the rights, just leave us the name. We need it." But that is a whimper out of me, and I'm reminded of Homer's whine about "queer": "That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!"

Even if gay unions are eventually called marriages (I'm not being derogatory), people can always have their precious opinions on their status. We are always free to judge. After all, everything is permissible. But then again, not everything is beneficial.

Meanwhile, more meaty questions of life, death, and religion continue. The Christian's attention is best spent elsewhere.

Comment statistics for Dan Lewis on the Electrolite blog

Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.