When discipline becomes abuse…
when love becomes hate…
Whoever punishes every form of physical punishment without differentiation, evens out the profound pedagogical difference between child abuse and clear, child-rearing guidelines of controlled chastisement which are aimed at the welfare of the child and are not administered in anger. No one can argue that the Bible agrees with chastisement as long as it is done within measure and as long as it serves to raise a child lovingly. A state that forbids Christian parents all forms of physical discipline intrudes in a God-given, inalienable right, and restricts not only parental rights but also the freedom of religion that is protected by the German Constitution.*
Some twenty-three years ago a Christian theologian and father of six wrote these remarkable words. Two years ago a higher court penal judge in Germany wrote about them… anonymously. Why would that judge do such a thing? Why does his picture and name not appear with his article, “Judicial Aspects of Corporal Punishment”? Judges are surely esteemed men and women whose views are respected in every culture. Is it not plain that he fears that another God-given, inalienable right has been effectively curtailed? You know, the big one, almost the final one: freedom of speech.
While we are able…
While we are able, let us consider this father’s words. “Profound pedagogical difference” means the profound difference in what is taught the child by first, abusive treatment, and second, “controlled chastisement” deliberately “not administered in anger.” Indeed, no one can deny that the Bible agrees with chastisement to “raise a child lovingly.” But in these perilous days we live in, good is being redefined as evil and evil as good. 2,700 years before George Orwell wrote 1984, the prophet Isaiah foretold the days we now live in:
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)
It becomes more and more obvious that God and the rights He gives — just like His word, the Bible — are no longer in the picture! When one inalienable right is rolled away, the rest are sure to follow! Clearer and clearer the firm foundation of twenty-first century socialism in Germany is revealed as twentieth-century socialism in Germany.
1984 and Doublethink
1984 portrays a world where every thinking person practices — indeed must practice — doublethink. That is, he must tell himself that what is true is false because it is decreed to be false…no matter how true it is. This is the function of peer pressure in every society even today, to override what men and women know to be true in their conscience and declare it as false. Thus men and women annul the everlasting covenant spoken of by the prophet Isaiah in Isaiah 24:5-6. No more the sanctity of marriage, the authority of parents, the proper and limited role of the state, the freedoms of conscience, speech, and religion. All are swallowed up in political correctness.
The difference between the guarantees of the German Constitution (Basic Law) concerning these freedoms and their actual practice can only be comprehended by one dialectic — by one means of argument — doublethink.
As Orwell defines doublethink: “To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy…”
This is the exact discipline of mind required of those who insist on saying there is Freedom of Religion in Germany, even the freedom to live out one’s beliefs. (We hope this will change; that people will recognize what is happening to their beloved country.) And other “freedoms”, too, guaranteed by the Basic Law are in this same category. That’s why the judge wrote what and how he did (whose quote opens this entry). And there are “truths” that are not true as well. That the Jugendamt protects or helps children is a good example of a false “truth” — one that requires doublethink to believe.
What do our children learn from the Jugendamt?
So what are our children being taught by the courts of Germany and the Jugendamt? The older ones can speak for themselves, as their many cards and letters on this blog attest. They have learned about shouting, fighting, television and movies filled with sex, violence, and foolishness, peer pressure, alienation, and despair: all the things modern children have as their portion in this present world. Why should our children be denied these things, the courts ask. Why indeed? Simply because their parents love them — is that reason enough? But how can they integrate into German society without such a foundation for their lives? Good question.
For the younger ones, the parents can speak, too. Clearly, they mainly speak of the agony they experience and the disillusionment, confusion, and even bitterness their children feel.
Most painful of all is that the children, quite naturally, direct their feelings of bitterness and resentment not towards those responsible — the media, the courts, and the Jugendamt — but towards their parents, who do not take them home.
Of course, the people responsible know this.
They have lots of experience with this.
It is their occupation, more or less.
With us, more.
Yes, these are the things our children are learning from the Jugendamt, because, as the Proverbs say, “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10)
But as to the long-term effects of being ripped away from their parents, we must turn to those whose occupation is the health and well-being of children. They are not able to enter into new relationships, a “hindrance” to their normal development that can last into adulthood.
Michele Noterdaeme is Professor for Child and Adolescent Psychology and Psychotherapy. The Chief physician of Augsburg Children’s Hospital Josefinum has closely followed the case “Twelve Tribes.” Her judgment concerning the actions of the youth office is at least reserved: “You have to look at each individual case specifically,” she says, “you can consider the action of the authorities quite critically…
“The younger the child is, the more dependent it is on the mother, the more good arguments it takes to remove him from the parents,” says the professor.
“If a one and a half year old child will suddenly be separated from his mother, it means “a significant risk for the development. After the abrupt end of such a close relationship some children find it difficult to enter into new relationships. This can last into adulthood...
“If there is no imminent danger, then the forced removal to prevent immediate danger is not justified.” According to the eyewitnesses in the home in Dürrlauingen there was — at least in the short term — no danger for the little kids.” (See the article, With All Force, on this blog.)
And when does this inability to trust others end?
Please tell us, you who abuse our children.
You know the answer!
*Reference: Friedrich, M. (pseudonym), Juristische Aspekte koeperlicher Zuechtigung, (Gemeindegründung Nr. 110, 2/12, p. 21-27), p. 22.