"Christian Domestic Discipline": Brutality by Another Name

A group called the Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD) has been advocating relationships of "domestic discipline" applied, not toward the children, but toward the wives.

It has been claiming such "discipline" to be part of "traditional Christian marriage."

It is time that both be seen for what they are.

The relationships of "domestic discipline" - meaning ones in which men use belts and fists on their wives - are rarely ones into which women enter by informed and willing concent. In most cases, it is the case of the woman's family or community bullying the young woman into such a situation in order that they could perpetuate their abuse of her and control her through her husband, and to continue this oppression indefinitely through generations. In most other cases, it is the case of the woman being lured through false advertisement into a cult that practices such a thing and only becoming aware of its true character when she is already married and pregnant and cannot get out.

For this reason it is time to say what is blatantly obvious. If the woman's family wants to do such a thing to her, then they do not deserve her loyalty or power over her or her children. And if a religious group engages in such false advertising, then it does not deserve to preach "morals" or "righteousness" or to claim itself as possessing such things.

Since domestic violence is illegal, the groups that sanction such a thing are in direct violation of the law. Besides this blatant illegality, the concept of "domestic discipline" is incompatible with liberty and human rights. As such, it has no legal place in the countries that practice either. And what likewise has no place in countries that practice either is the desire by families or communities to exercise this kind of control over the free citizens, whatever their gender and whatever their age - as well as the false advertising that misleads free women into becoming part of such frauds.

As for the larger concept of "traditional values," it is likewise a lie. The Christian and Islamic groups who claim this as their ideology had zero respect for the traditions or the values of the thousands of societies and cultures that they wiped out. The concept is especially out of place in America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Latin America, whose white, Asian, part-white, Hindu and Middle Eastern inhabitants are there because either they or their ancestors rejected their families, countries, traditions, values and ways of life in order to seek a different way of life in the New World. Which means that they, having broken with their own ancestry, do not have a right to dictate their way of life to their descendants either.

This is especially true of the sects such as those that promote "Christian Domestic Discipline," as much as it is the case for such groups as Jehovah's Witnesses, Taliban, Wahabbis, Church of Scientology, and the cult of Soon Yung Moon. These cults did not exist for time immemorial. There was life in the places they operate before these started, and mostly it was better than is life in these cults. The people who became part of these cults either did so on their own choice or because they were converted by force or fraud - typically by being given an incomplete and misleading advertisement and only finding out the true character of what they got into when it they were deeply into it, committed, and unable to get out. In the first case, the participants do not have the logical prerogative to dictate to their descendants their "traditions" or "way of life" since they became part of these cults by abandoning their own roots, their own families and their own traditions in order to join them. In the second case, such traditions and ways of life have been placed on the people through force and fraud - meaning that empowering them to leave such cults is a favor done to them and to their descendants.

For women who enter situations such as that of "Christian Domestic Discipline" or Jehovah's Witnesses or Wahabbism on their own choice, it is worthwhile to bring to bear that they've done so by abandoning the way of life that they had before, and that they therefore have no right to dictate to their children that they remain part of such entities. As for the women who are bullied into it by their families or communities, it is rightful to see that the people doing this usurpation are the people who have themselves broken with their ancestral ways to become what they are and to live as they do, and that they likewise do not have the right to dictate to them what they are, what they believe, or what lifestyle they practice. This is especially the case when the lifestyle is as blatantly illegal as "Christian Domestic Discipline," more properly named as church-sanctioned assault.

The Christian Domestic Discipline website contains instructions as to how to beat or to belt one's wife in a way that does not leave marks - presumably so that the woman would have no evidence of brutality should she call the police. Perhaps it is right to respond with instructions as to how to leave an abusive relationship. It may be right likewise to respond with instructions as to how to defend oneself against a brute who would take part in such a thing. If families and communities insist on bullying women into situations of violence and abuse, it is only logical that women learn how to defend themselves in such situations. And it is more logical still that they learn how to leave such situations, as well as how not to get involved in them in the first place.