Fighting the fight

[Doug]

Well that should evoke no more offence that references to other things being fictional should it? But I do agree this thread has been showing overall a tone of mutual respect, lets 'ALL' endevour to keep it that way.

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by Doug

....this thread has been showing overall a tone of mutual respect, lets 'ALL' endevour to keep it that way.

This would be nice guys, please try and keep it civil.
Makes our job a lot easier.
After all us mods are only human too.

Originally Posted by ving

I do tend to prefer the evo idea() but i am open to a faith driven idea of how things came to be too.
Just because children might be taught ID school doesn't mean they are going to be closed or single minded individuals that believe naught but what the bible tells them.

While I also admire the idealism of tolerance towards religion - especially if it teaches useful moral values - but what has this to do with the nature of the physical world and the changes that occur in it?

Essentially, the problem with any believed religious text is that its indoctrinated followers of its sacred words cannot really deviate AT ALL from its basic precepts - unless you are willing to be labelled a heretic. ID'ers have absolutely no choice but to "stick like glue" to their religious beliefs - without any wavering, questioning or compromising - else they have to abandon the basis of heir faith and look for something else with better or more useful meaning to them.

In science all fundamental or considered theories are up for grabs, and can be shattered if sufficient evidence can be mounted against it.

To compare these two views, let's take a silly but useful example.

Premise : Gravity always makes something fall to the ground

But what if it once did the exact opposite, and rose into the air? If this happens, do you just throw out all your gravitational laws of physics deduce from Einstein to Newton?

If any religious or firm ID'er mind - does not this amazing "miracle event" simply reinforce your faith - again directly proving the existence of God (or the aliens) - proving his absolute mastery over the laws of nature? The question remains; How do you decide if this is a true "miracle" or an unknown quirk of the laws of nature that you just don't understand?

On the other hand, if you use science - there are at least logical steps to solve it.

You would first investigate the phenomena. Usually, this would be done in two simultaneous ways. First you would design experiment(s) to reproduce or observe the event again, while considering what situation would cause you laws to deviate then formulate new ideas - using other tools like maths or other physically observed laws and precepts - to explain the actual observations.

You may fail many times. You might find the reason, then produce a modified "law of gravitation" to explain it. You might never see gravity do this again - but at least you have made a logical and realistic means of explaining how the world behaves and works.

This is the basis of the so-called scientific method - based on the philosophy known as reductionism. (Looking at something, then inspect the components to explain how it works.)

In the end, in fact really all science is based on many many different theories, which are never really absolute. We know gravity has always caused things to drop to the ground - and it is for this reason - that we can use the theory of gravitation with much certainty without any fear that something contrary to it will unexpectedly happen.

The one thing the ID'ers miss is that science is about a logical methodology of learning how the world works, then applying this knowledge to our lives.
The reason you teach science so people can learn the rules of the scientific method, and if they are clever enough or lucky enough, use their abilities to find another way of explaining how the world works. In turn, this knowledge can be used for invention - via applied science - and advance technology for the benefit of others.

The real evil of ID is that it has NO methodology to prove or disprove anything. All it has is a series of premises or calverts which it believes to be true - not based on any known scientific theory - but from their personal or collective "faith" of interpretation of words written in some revered religious text.

In summary;

• All ID is designed for is one main purpose, that is, to attempt to prove God's existence via the complexity of the world.
  
• Science is only explaining this same complexity by is attempting to understand how the physical world works by experimentation and developing our theories of the world into knowledge.
  
• These two incomparable views are like day and night - totally separate
  from each other.

So the bottom line is that God may or may not exist. Whether you believe or not is based solely on having "faith" in the kind of world-view you have exposed too. Regardless, being an ID'er or "Evolutionist, if this makes you feel happier or better about yourself, then good luck to you.

[ving (David)]

Originally Posted by ariane

ID'ers have absolutely no choice but to "stick like glue" to their religious beliefs - without any wavering, questioning or compromising - else they have to abandon the basis of heir faith and look for something else with better or more useful meaning to them.

and why would they want to abandon thier beliefs, for is it not the word of god that drives them? god cannot lie therefore if it comes from god then its the truth and theres no reason to want to question it. if its god miracle then its god miracle, theres no need to probe it with 1 thousand scientific experiments.
jump off the harbour bridge and you'll hurt yourself, its the truth! you dont need to go and try it to find out cause thats silly.

yes its single mindedness, but i respect that even if its not my own belief.

[Kal (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by ariane

Essentially, the problem with any believed religious text is that its indoctrinated followers of its sacred words cannot really deviate AT ALL from its basic precepts - unless you are willing to be labelled a heretic. ID'ers have absolutely no choice but to "stick like glue" to their religious beliefs - without any wavering, questioning or compromising - else they have to abandon the basis of heir faith and look for something else with better or more useful meaning to them.

That's a pretty broad generalisation/stereotype. Straight off the top of my head I can think of religious organisations that are making changes to things such as female priests, or their approach to homosexuals or contraception. Religion doesn't necessarily follow the text of the bible to the very letter, and it is often changing as necessary as the civilisation around it changes.

[xelasnave]

Kal said........
Religion doesn't necessarily follow the text of the bible to the very letter, and it is often changing as necessary as the civilization around it changes .

This is the problem... and the expression.."You can’t have your cake and eat it" springs to mind.

Have you read the bible from cover to cover? I have many times..Why because I attended bible readings where certain parts were reviewed and yet other parts of the book were never never touched upon..I read it all and when one reads it all an apparent truth becomes self evident.. If one reads the bible from cover to cover and then hears someone call it the word of God ones respect for God will fall away..That is/was the situation for me.. Read proverbs for example and try and make sense of it..(Let alone the horseman ramblings which are capable of any interpretation you place upon them such is the ambiguity of that section...I know you have to be wise to interpret it etc..hogwash it says what it says..simple... sure parts are profound yet other bits are undeniably nonsense... I like some one here observing that it was man who said the bible was the word of Man not God... well I say one can not have it both ways ..it is or it is not the word of God.. if it is not we have no problems at all and can use it (the bible) as a guide for morality, use it as revealing histories of various people and how patience and decency prevailed against difficult times presented to them.. I like the bible in that context.. But I freely admit my use of it is selective somewhat like seeking good quotes from famous people... So it beggars belief there are those who quote only parts that suit their case and overlook the nonsense set out at length elsewhere.. I guess my real concern is that so many professing faith simply hold onto a text they have not read for if they had they would have different views to those they currently express.
However if one say it (the bible) is the word of God we must of necessity give it a very high degree of reverence... which if I were convinced that such was the case would be doing myself.. if it were not for the nonsence..which would then have me questioning God's ability to hold reasonable logic.
My point is that if one sees the book for what it is it can be meaningful..a collection of stories seeking to demonstrate how to deal with life in general..
Again the problems surrounding these matter come down to fundamentalism.. but if anyone want to take the bible as literal before you say one more thing read all of it... if you have not be prepared to be made a fool of many times over.
Having said all that lets review our progress. Those of faith want recognition of their position.. fair enough.. but you can throw out science to have this or you will take us back to the dark ages.
Those who argue the bible is the word of God say his hand was ever present in the putting together of the texts ..the editing, the publication etc well I say if so God left to much in the hands of humans because their are some very human oversights contained therein.
I am not here to try and destroy your faith in God but to ask fundamentalists go away and rethink it all... and then agree with me..is that unreasonable.. well yes maybe that is..
I live by Christian principles not because I fear God, I observe the law not because I fear imprisonment but because I strive to be a decent human being.. I want to feel that being decent is a good thing in its own right not needing fear motivation. I don’t need religion to do that or even a belief that anything has purpose or meaning.. Look to yourself and be proud of what you can be without being forced to follow rules.
JC said love your fellow man..who really does this.. I do and that means one can extend respect to others simply because it is the decent thing to do..
AND if your faith is that so tenuous that you need constant support by reading a collection of ancient books to justify your position what does that really say about where you are coming from and more important where you will end up...
At lunch today I eavesdropped a Christian group planning. nay plotting politician strategies .. most concerning.. I have not heard any atheists plotting same. Shame on them ..shame on them.
It strikes me the folk who have contributed the most here for the case against ID actually know more about the bible than those who profess to follow it.. think about those implications my friends.
What would God say if he saw the way his name is taken in vain to push one barrow or another...
alex

[Glenn Dawes]

Hello all,

I would like to thank ariane for his wonderful posts. He has reminded me of a lot of things I’d forgotten – such as the book of Enoch.

I admit to being a little shocked, but not surprised, by the creationist natural museum (thanks to astron for pointing it out)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6216788.stm

We know one of the major criticisms levelled at evolution has been the lack of transitional fossils (even this isn’t true but I’ll leave it at that). It is obvious the IDers give some credence to fossils, and what science says they represent, or they wouldn’t have life size models of them at this museum. Unfortunately, they have them happily co-existing with primitive humans. Now there are few certainties in science, but there is universal agreement that Man and dinosaurs never met. So a requirement to be an IDer is to happily accept what science says to suit their arguments and ignore what doesn’t – not exactly critical thinking!

At the start of this thread I made a call to arms to combat ID penetrating the school system. I mean here avoiding it standing side by side with evolution in the science classroom (and don’t be fooled, that IS what they want – not just in a scripture class). They are happy to hide behind PC to get their way, such as demanding they have a right for equal time (but not too strong on the why?). Well I have the solution to kill it. We need to point out to all ethnic communities in Australia what ID really is ie. Thinly disguised fundamentalist Christianity. The same mobs that complained about even Christmas being celebrated in your local shopping centre will shut it down real fast! (I know a lot about this, my wife’s family is Lebanese Muslim)

There is a real passion in IIS on this subject. I would love to see some positive actions taken, not just further talk on this thread. I intend to make a start.

Regards

Glenn

[Lester]

Man and dinosaurs did co-exist. The word dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible because the word "dinosaur" only originated 165 years ago= well after the Bible was written.

The book of Job talks about Behemoth and Leviathun.

[Glenn Dawes]

Originally Posted by Lester

Man and dinosaurs did co-exist. The word dinosaur is not mentioned in the Bible because the word "dinosaur" only originated 165 years ago= well after the Bible was written.

The book of Job talks about Behemoth and Leviathun.

Lester,

I see you have pulled out the 'because the bible tells me so' card.

Based on this I could say the creatures from the legends of the Greek and Norse Gods were real as well because they were written down thousands of years ago by what I consider to be a reliable source.

In your and my case Science would quite correctly ask for independent evidence to back up our claims. And we don't have any.

Glenn

[xelasnave]

Now Glenn lets back it off a little...Lester in fairness feels his beliefs are under threat because lets face it this thread has revealed some rather alarming aspects about fundamentalism, which may not apply to all persons of faith.
Let’s interpret his input with respect and an effort to explain a possible misconception. We can make statements in this area that seem black and white to cover a grey area. I had hoped someone would pick up on my eaves dropping and particularly point out that no doubt atheists are guilty of the plotting I suggested.. It was a nasty trap and thinking about it I really feel guilty setting it.. Maybe it was so obvious all stepped over it.
But the solution must be found by seeking common ground that we can all happily share.
I can understand the frustration and concern of a parent having guided their child to believe in God and use such as a basis to build a simple morality set of norms for the child to have it all called into question when the child comes home from school saying that the science master said Darwin has in effect proved the bible incorrect. In many regards the truth in that instance may be damaging. I suspect much of the problem for the average person can be found here. I sense that apart from the fundamentalist there is a genuine need to address this issue at the level. After I found out Santa Clause was a hoax I never trusted anyone again as it was the first lie I felt I was a victim of.. I suspect that the damage to a young person finding out Santa was a lie is nothing compared to the revelation that the science master says that the bible is wrong. I bet most persons of faith merely want a proposition put that there are various views available and leave the final choice as to what should be taken literally in the bible put off to such a time where the child can make more advanced assessments. If the child is intelligent in time they can build their own faith, taking from science and the bible.. Their facts may be disjointed but at least the "fundamental" goal of a moral foundation has been laid.
I went to Sunday school and in truth it did me more good than harm.. I wish there was a better alternative but I am at a loss to suggest one. Many people don’t really need to know the truth if you think about it... and are very happy being distant from the truth. That does not make them bad or stupid.. But it gives them something to hang onto. Life for many is without meaning or purpose if faith can give it I say why not.. So it turns on how to get around the Santa syndrome I recon. Maybe a disclaimer at the start of a Darwinian lecture that science cant say why its done this way but that God must have his reasons. If we could seek the innermost views of the Pope I suspect he would not be taking the Bible literally for he would have read it cover to cover many times and would be more aware of the shortcomings than most.. even me or you.. But I doubt that when on the balcony he is going to try and explain that to a mob of people of various backgrounds, experience and intellect.
The solution is perhaps to lend an ear to the concerns of the ID camp, the troops as it were not those who use the parent’s fear of a moral collapse to build a pretext for a new science. I have in my postings here tried to put aside my strong opposition to look behind the fundamentalist view to see what it is that concerns the Mum and Dad who spend the money for an education at a school that supports their beliefs.. I think they are finally not trying to instill religion into their children as much as they are trying to lay the foundations a decent moral outlook.
Think of my case, here I am someone who in effect practices the moral principles of Christianity yet does not believe Jesus was the son of God or the resurrection or that 144,000 Jews will rule us from heaven.. curious really.. maybe the reason why I challenge all thinking now is because of the many anomalies I found. by myself at my pace through out the bible.
Maybe the Santa syndrome has built a large part of who I am today.. cynical yet analytical, suspicious but caring, open minded but not gullible.
But one thing is for sure if we offer no refuse for the parents I see in my minds eye the fundamentalist can only prosper as they have no where else to turn.
I still see the fundamentalist ID er in a very poor light as I do the person who professes faith who has never read all of the bible cover to cover.(read the parts before the start of Genesis for a good insight)
I agree ID must be headed off but lets try and bring the more sensible folk back to the real world and save them from these fundamentalists.
alex

[avandonk]

The basic problem here is that a Faith based construction is masquerading as Science and there is a very powerful push to teach it as such.
I have no problem with any Religion or any Faith based teaching as long as it is taught for what it is, a moral guide to living with your fellow humans.

Secondly these same fundamentalists no matter what flavour are about absolute power over all their fellow mankind. In order to do this they define what is correct only to maintain their power. Anything that shows how lacking they are in any real knowledge is a threat to their absolute self appointed power so must be negated.
How many people have been tortured,killed etc through history because of mere fact of their doubting of these 'absolute truths' no matter how implausible. This is happening at this moment. Nothing has changed only the cast.

There always seems to be an over abundance of people lacking scruples to use any means to gain and maintain power.

The words sociopath and psychopath come to mind. I wont go into all the scandals of the hypocrites through history and in current times. Preaching from on high and sinning better than the worst of us.

There are only two sins Hypocrisy and Ignorance. If you think carefully it covers the lot.

Bert

Oh my god!

Is Santa really a hoax?

Tell me its not true.....

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!

[Doug]

Dinos and man?? well there exists on scientific record a Dino footprint fossil with a human foot print embedded in it. 70 million years part? I donut think so. The fossil, from memory was found in Wyoming USA and as far as I know there exists no refutation of this find or its time-line interpretation, unlike the fragment of pig jaw that was hailed for many years as an important homosapien find in china. Pilkdown man, was perhaps the greatest 'missing link' fraud ever perpetrated by evolutionists, unless someone wants to form a conspiracy theory and blame fundamentalists. Let's be honest; both sides have agendas; both sides have less than ultimately honest adherents.

Glenn, all I ask of any evolution evangelist is show me scientifically based proof. Don't just say there is proof and move on......put on the table if it exists.

Alex, you admit to having read the Bible cover to cover, ok fine believe me when I tell you that if I picked up a book on the 'Law of Tortes' and read it from cover to cover I would still know or understand nothing of any value about its contents.

The book of Enoch has been devalued by the 'Church' as being non canonical because like other books collectively called the 'pseudepigrapha' it was not written by Enoch, it contains discrepancies and there are at least 2 different versions of it. The pseudepigrapha collection also contains writings titled the book of Adam and Eve, to name just one of several. Now how pseudo is that? It was common practice and acceptable to write under a pseudenomen a few millenia ago, today we might loosely call it plagiarism. Enoch is not really considered part of the Apocraphial literature, it is pseudepigraphic material it is as was much literature of the intertestamental period apocalyptic in its nature.

Doug

Ving and Kal

I have had to be broad here, without attacking any one's real beliefs, and have avoided really attacking individuals.

Let's be perfectly crystal clear here...

Here I am really talking about all the religions and their followers - and not just Christianity. I am also not quibbling about the incidentials here, but the very foundations of the religion itself. Ie. "The Earth was created in seven days", "God created Man" or "JC was the son of God", etc.

Anyone who holds faith in their religion cannot readily abondon these foundations - else the rest of their precepts just fall down on top of them. Really it is these passion is which these religions survive and thrive.

As for the statement;

"If its god miracle then its god miracle, theres no need to probe it with 1 thousand scientific experiments."

If this is so, then how do you verify the physical reality of the world if you are not willing to question it? If God has given humans a mind to enquire, reason and explain the world - why deny the process of critical thinking to explain ANY phenomenae?

Really, is the world just only based all on some unknowable supernatural intervention against all the natural laws of the physical world? Is it based on magic or even a better technology?

Perhaps the only true miracle is that people continue to believe to want to believe in Him!

[xelasnave]

Doug said.........
Alex, you admit to having read the Bible cover to cover, ok fine believe me when I tell you that if I picked up a book on the 'Law of Tortes' and read it from cover to cover I would still know or understand nothing of any value about its contents.
Dough I find that difficult to accept as my impression of you is you are no fool with excellent powers of comprehension and deduction. Torts is perhaps the easiest thing in law to grasp.. it all turns on one person owing others a duty of care.. a simple effort by the law to set forth responsibilities of one person to another.
As with any book dealing with English law (and for this purpose English law is Australian law) it is written in English and I doubt beyond your ability to comprehend but if it is this way for you your presumed inability is no guide as to my ability to understand the words set out in the bible. I wont produce examples to prove the aspects of nonsence I alude to..as that is counter productive to my effort here to bring the concerns of one side to the other. But I suggest this proposition for your consideration... books are written to convey ideas and thoughts, if the bible unsuccefully does this I dont think I can be blamed for not getting it.(and I wont accept that I miss anything).it is clearly the fault of the writer(s) who if seeking to record fact or thought owe a duty of care that they responsibly set out the matters to be conveyed in a manner that it can be read and reasonably understood by those who take the time to read it.. I dont need to be a priest as I can read and write. Some, given my slack attention to spelling, may say the art of reading and writting is indeed beyond me..but not so.. after all if with my background it (the Bible) presents areas open for ridicule to me one could say then of what use is same to convey meaning to anyone else.. you are not suggesting that one must read past what is written and place a different meaning to that delivered.. if you do I say it is of no use for then the meaning can only be drawn out by ones personal additional input. Still to put a finer point upon your observation I was not commenting that I could not understand it (I think that was the case)..I say that I can understand what is written and there are many examples of nonsence, and many examples that one can place any meaning one cares to...horsemen etc is inappropriate metaphore leaving open the door to varied interpretations.. and as such meaningless one could argue.
But it is not particularly relevant to the overall proposition I propose of all in making an effort to solve the problem faced by the Mums and Dads with children at a school supporting their faith.
My point is nothwithstanding the "is and isnt" cries herein a problem exists very much along the lines I suggest. I am seeking a reasonable result for reasonable people. It seems that I alone seek such a possibility and others wish to carry on with the "is isnt" game... that wont move things forward.
Jesus teaches us to love your fellow man..love is respect. I seek a result for those who feel their voices are not heard . It is not easy for me given my personal views as expressed but notwithstanding those views I still seek a solution.. I am not trying to be cute and although many of my words may seem so I still say I offer respect to those who are not happy with evolution undermining their views and more important the method they have choosen to educate their children.
But feel free to pull me up if you think I am slipping in sneaky blows beneth the belt as they say. ( even with inoccent intentions I cant resist a little jab now and then). do this so I have to opportunity to withdraw an inflamatory statement... please keep the list as short as possible however.
At this stage I am not sure of what you are saying to me as to your position I suppose but I will re read all the posts as maybe I have missed something.
But if you want to play the is isnt game with me thats ok (we both enjoy that stuff I suspect) but if we do that lets not carry the fate of the respective sides on our backs simply to see if we can come up with something to make those of faith feel important enough to us that their concerns are our concerns and appropriate respect available.
I ramble but I am tired. best wishes
alex

[xelasnave]

Bert properly said....There are only two sins Hypocrisy and Ignorance.
I agree let all look at themselves and ask if they are guilty of same...
I try to avoid hypocracy but maybe ignorance is my problem..but if one is ingnorant how would one know I wonder.. well I try I read and read and read everything I can in an effort to head that one off.
alex

[Nevyn]

Hi, this isn't the sort of thing I was hoping to find here at IIS. I've been lurking around the forums for a while now trying to learn as much as I could before I started asking dumb questions , but I couldn't leave this one alone. I am clearly biased on this subject
I have to ask Glenn, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? Is it your position that only evolution should be taught in schools and not questioned at all? Dogma anyone?
What exactly, in your opinion is wrong with critical analysis of Darwinian thinking? By dismissing and not even entertaining or experimenting with the notion of 'irreducible complexity', the main point of ID, would be unscientific don't you think? If you still think it has no merit then take out 'both'* of your kidneys *how exactly did we end up with two?? Why two???

To my knowledge, there hasnt been in history one act of violence, coercion, invasion, political power hungry/seeking movement/party/army, war. mass murder by an organised group of these dangerous 'scientific fundamentalists'.

Um, Hitler....master race, experiments on Jews...........eugenics etc. etc.

Absolutely, the Vatican Observatory remains a major astronomical research body. There is no conflict here with ID because the Catholic Church has rejected creationism.

You might want o rethink or read what the Vatican really thinks http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam..._Evolution.asp

And just for th heck of it I'll throw in some compelling reading, here's a small tidbit

Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, was candid about how certain conclusions would be avoided at all costs, regardless of the evidence:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.5

http://www.creationontheweb.com/cont...3262/#elephant
and "Unintelligently Attacking Intelligent Design" found here http://www.creationontheweb.com/cont...w/4704/#author

Cheers Brad

[xelasnave]

Ariane said.......
Is Santa really a hoax?
Well in the context that Santa as described to children lives and breathes and is responsible for presents via the chimney yes it is a hoax unfortunately.
However make no mistake Santa is real by any definition. He is better recognised than you or me and his presence in our lives is undeniable. I fact I represented him this year at Tabulam and very happy to do so..
Even to an athiest God is real ..all know who you are talking about, he is referred to by the speakers of our houses of parliment in this country and stands behind our law... and his presence in our lives is undenialble.
Can we meet the real Santa ..no because in the real world he does not exsist.
Can we meet God? not yet anyways I personally live in hope and have no fear of that day should it occur.
alex

[xelasnave]

Hi Brad, welcome to the forum and thanks for your input.
Now that you have joined us what do you think should be done?
alex

[fringe_dweller]

I cant help getting the impression that some non-(practising?)christians think religion is the panacea for all the changes in the world brought on by mainly, lets face it, technological advances and social adjustments over the last 35 years, not loss of christian values.
And of course after 9/11 and all the west V's radical/fundamentalist jihadist edges of Islam stuff. We naturally saw many people turning to churches for comfort and dignity/sense of purpose in these times of national tragedy and grief.
But I personally saw an ugly side to that to, during the worst backlashes, suddeny some of the most un-godly people one could meet, who probably never set foot in a church or read the bible, or adhered to its teachings in any way were boasting loudly 'yer i'm a christian' as if it was something you did out of nationalistic pride, or like a footy team barracker identifying his colours against the opponent team.
that made feel a little queasy to say the least.
Also, i sometimes get the feeling that maybe some people feel that that Holy books and religion are purely about moral guides to having a civilised society (the origin of the basic laws of society for instance as you all know), and thats were it all originated, but i think the poly-god ancient greeks political systems and idea's on democracy also had a hand in where we are today
And that its whole purpose is about setting standards for decent loving behaviour - but I always thought/was taught, really the number one thing a christian (or one of most of the larger relgions?) must do in order to be a christian, is to Love God, and secondly, thereby, hopefully, avoiding ending up in hell but by doing all that, the rest will follow anyway of course.
I remember the thing that kept everyone in control as a lad (say of school age especially) in the 'good ol days' was the threat of violence from authority ie the cane ect. not the fear of God exactly (altho they put that into you) so unless you are also willing to re-introduce laws allowing parents and authority to once again have the right or at least have the threat of/to 'discipline' ermm thrash their children (and wives?) into line - you are wasting your time in my personal view