ARCHIVE: Zakath is Genuine!
- Thread starter wickwoman
- Start date
wickwoman
New member
Oh, sure, if it's on Worldnetdaily. I has to be unbiased and correct 
.
How about this:
APB News, New York, 18 June 1999
By Keith Coffman
GOLDEN, Colo. (APBNews.com)
AP
Probation officials sought to block Bob Enyart from appearing tonight on the Father's Day edition of ABC's Politically Incorrect because it would undermine Enyart's rehabilitation by giving him a national forum to justify his actions, despite his criminal conviction.
But Jefferson County Judge Charles Hoppin ruled that Enyart was not a public threat, and preventing him from traveling to California for the show would violate his First Amendment right to free speech.
Enyart, 40, was released from jail May 25 after serving a 60-day sentence for striking the 7-year-old boy several times with a belt for disobeying his mother. Evidence at the trial showed the blows raised three welts on the boy's buttocks.
. . .
On the show, Enyart frequently bashed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which he has said helps guilty criminals go free and defends child pornographers.
But in a peculiar twist to his own case, Enyart enlisted two ACLU lawyers, Patrick Mulligan and Randy Canney, to argue his Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated.
Enyart was unavailable for comment, but the unusual alliance was not lost on his attorneys.
"The irony of it all is hilarious," Canney said.
Keith Coffman is an APBNews.com correspondent in Colorado.
. How about this:
APB News, New York, 18 June 1999
By Keith Coffman
GOLDEN, Colo. (APBNews.com)
AP
Probation officials sought to block Bob Enyart from appearing tonight on the Father's Day edition of ABC's Politically Incorrect because it would undermine Enyart's rehabilitation by giving him a national forum to justify his actions, despite his criminal conviction.
But Jefferson County Judge Charles Hoppin ruled that Enyart was not a public threat, and preventing him from traveling to California for the show would violate his First Amendment right to free speech.
Enyart, 40, was released from jail May 25 after serving a 60-day sentence for striking the 7-year-old boy several times with a belt for disobeying his mother. Evidence at the trial showed the blows raised three welts on the boy's buttocks.
. . .
On the show, Enyart frequently bashed the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which he has said helps guilty criminals go free and defends child pornographers.
But in a peculiar twist to his own case, Enyart enlisted two ACLU lawyers, Patrick Mulligan and Randy Canney, to argue his Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated.
Enyart was unavailable for comment, but the unusual alliance was not lost on his attorneys.
"The irony of it all is hilarious," Canney said.
Keith Coffman is an APBNews.com correspondent in Colorado.
Zakath
Resident Atheist
Nineveh said:
Perhaps you need a new search engine. A simple Google search of "Enyart" and "child" turned up the following five references pretty easily without any digging at all...
- 1. http://www.corpun.com/usdm9906.htm "Child abuser allowed to air views on discipline"
2. http://www.nospank.net/n-e81.htm "Abuse conviction won't keep Enyart off TV"
3. http://www.westword.com/issues/1999-12-16/news/feature_3.html "Thank God for Bob"
4. http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2000-02-02/cover.html "God Bless the Child"
5. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/t1002922.htm "Bob Enyart allies himself with ACLU against Colorado Authorities who want to violate his free speech"
And what did the boy say that was different from what is in the public record? :think:
Zakath
Resident Atheist
I wasn't addressing Edge's claims. I was addressing your seeming inability to find anything about Enyart's child abuse conviction on the WWW.Nineveh said:
Well now, there's something different... :chuckle:
You claimed you were "privy to the boy's testimony" and that Edge's impression about Enyart was incorrect based on that knowledge.
All I asked was how does the "privy knowledge" you have contradict what's on the public record?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Zakath said:
Most of those links were about corporal punishment pro/con. Little to do with the info I was asking for.
Maybe you didn't see it or have forgotten, but the link was here on TOL a while ago. What he claimed in his testimony wasn't different than...well, his testimony, but it certainly doesn't square with what The Edge is claiming.
If I recall correctly he was a bit sheepish about how he had been treating his mother directly before the "event" occured.
I appreciate that you have not rushed to judgment, and I agree with much of your post. But it appears that even you have been somewhat influenced by pop psychology and the liberals' holy war against spanking. I hope that you will reconsider some of your assertions in light of scripture:godrulz said:
Blows that hurt cleanse away evil,
As do stripes the inner depths of the heart. Proverbs 20:30
As do stripes the inner depths of the heart. Proverbs 20:30
Why not? Does a child suddenly become exempt from corporal punishment when he reaches thirteen? Now, if a child has been properly trained and disciplined since birth, spanking a teenager should seldom be necessary. But if a spanking is deserved, so be it. (Not that the boy in this case was a teenager, but I still think it's worth discussing.)
That depends. What if a child does not submit after one blow? How long must a parent wait to administer another? Note that "stripes" is plural in Proverbs 20:30.
I'd just as soon not have my children associate my hands with pain.
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. – Proverbs 22:15
He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. – Proverbs 13:24
Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell. – Proverbs 23:13-14
The rod and rebuke give wisdom,
But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. – Proverbs 29:15
but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. – Proverbs 22:15
He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. – Proverbs 13:24
Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell. – Proverbs 23:13-14
The rod and rebuke give wisdom,
But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. – Proverbs 29:15
A couple more comments:
One should not avoid doing good for fear of being accused of evil by people who can't discern the difference. Bob's motto is "Do right and risk the consequences," and as far as I've seen he lives by it.
In regards to this case, I've heard Bob say that he would rather obey God and risk the wrath of the government than to withhold correction and risk the boy's destruction. But he also takes responsibility for having caused this incredibly difficult situation for his family. For if he had not destroyed his first marriage, this never would have occurred. But we (and those around us) must live with the consequences of our sins even when we are repentant.
It sounds like your saying people should hold back from spanking properly to avoid inspiring others to spank excessively. One could (and many do) use that reasoning to abstain from spanking all together. How about setting spanking rightly, according to God's word, and setting a proper example for others?
julie21
New member
I am honestly asking here if you mean that by using a 'device' to spank your child with, instead of using just your own hand, that your hands then will be seen by the recipient as innocent of inflicting the pain?
I am sorry Turbo, but if your hands are the ones holding an inanimate object that is inflicting pain on a child, young child, teenager, whatever age...I cannot see that your hands will not be seen logically as anything but being associated with pain at that time. Believe me...as one who has been down that track personally when a child...if your hands are the ones that are holding a paper, a belt, a dowel or whatever to smack a child with, that child will not hold any malice to the inanimate object, but rather the hand that held it. They will fear the inanimate object, but only when held in your hands as a device of inflicting pain.
They will naturally remember the times those hands held theirs with love, or held them lovingly or patted their heads lovingly, but it will always remain that those same hands inflicted pain at times. And it will be remembered for years to come...even if as a grown adult, the past action can be seen as warranted, the level of pain inflicted and the way it was carried out may not.
I believe if a child needs a spanking, so be it. But excessive use of it I do not condone, and an open faced hand is all that is ever warranted in my opinion.
I know that there are those who will not agree with my point of view in this, but that is the priviledge that I have...that I can state my personal point of view.
Yes, but I wasn't looking to state an absolute or anything. When the hand is routinely used to correct a child, it may easier to slip into striking a child in anger rather than in a consistent, structured manner. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong to use one's hand, but I think it's better to use an instrament. You'll notice that when God speaks of corporal punishment He repeatedly refers to the use of a rod.julie21 said:
The goal would be would be for the child to associate misbehavior with pain in the short term, and in the long term for the child to no longer desire to misbehave.
Malice? That's not the effect God says to expect when properly administering the rod of correction. Are you talking about just, consistent, structured, Biblical spankings here or something else?
And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. Ephesians 5:4
Then will the hands be associated with pain only when they hold the object?
As a general rule, people I've talked to (regardless of their own views on spanking) have had big smiles on their faces when they talk about the whoopin' their dad gave them that time they pulled such-and-such.
Okay... But be aware that your opinion doesn't conform with God's on this matter:
He who spares his rod hates his son,
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. – Proverbs 13:24
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. – Proverbs 22:15
Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell. – Proverbs 23:13-14
The rod and rebuke give wisdom,
But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. – Proverbs 29:15
But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. – Proverbs 13:24
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child;
but the rod of correction will drive it far from him. – Proverbs 22:15
Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell. – Proverbs 23:13-14
The rod and rebuke give wisdom,
But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. – Proverbs 29:15
julie21
New member
Turbo...read your reply with interest. Thank ypu for clarifying your views on the matter.
I believe it does, when Jesus died on the Cross and personally fulfilled the law [in my opinion] and so I choose to follow His decree of LOVE, and forgiveness, rather than the OT ways of corporal punishment.
Once again..my personal views that I wil be happy to run past God on the day I appear before Him. I don't care what anyone else thinks I shall have to answer for, as all else are mere man like me, and will have their own actions to answer for. So be it.
But unfortunately, even God does not always get what He desires, effect or otherwise.
Thoroughly agree here...love is the first step of admonition. Even when I wasn't a Christian, that is how I advocated in bringing up my children, in showing them gentle, loving rebuke for inerrant behaviour, and have never had the ocassion to need to raise my hand nor an instrument to rebuke them physically.
This type of training I always picture with Lab rats suffering electrical shocks...not children we love...sorry, my view once again.
I would say not only then.
:
I believe it does, when Jesus died on the Cross and personally fulfilled the law [in my opinion] and so I choose to follow His decree of LOVE, and forgiveness, rather than the OT ways of corporal punishment.
Once again..my personal views that I wil be happy to run past God on the day I appear before Him. I don't care what anyone else thinks I shall have to answer for, as all else are mere man like me, and will have their own actions to answer for. So be it.
Last edited: