The Ohio organ, of the temperance reform. (Cincinnati, [Ohio]) 1853-1854, 1853-11-11
342
!. Rnlaa f0r Homa Eduoation. !"


IAth Of October, viii be found an article
under the above title. A lady cores
pondent writes US a long episte, taking
exceptions to some Of the rules therein
laid down, and expresses a regret that a
paper exeTting so wide an influence as
the "Organ" should propagate erroneous
doctrines. The article referred to was
selected, and we, of course, cannot be
held responsible for the errors of others,
although we intend, in our selections as
well as in our original matter, 10 be very
careful about giving currency to pernl-
cious sentiments. We feel that very
great responsibility rests upon the con-
ductors of family newspaper, as meal
culable mischief may be effected by en-
dorsing false doctrines. We are grateful
to those who watch our columns, and
give us friendly hints in relation to the
soundness or unsoundness Of the senti-
ments inculcated. We have carefully
re-perused the obnoxious "rules" re-
ferred to, and we are ready to endorse
them as sound and wholesome, and must
theretofe wholly dissent from the views
of our correspondent. The fifth Rule in
the series our fair friend takes the most
exception to. 1t reads thus-"Always
punish your children Tor wiEulIy DISC
eying you, but never punish in anger"
1t is said "a little yfattery rather than
severity, is better in cases of absolute
disobedience. A child knows when it
has disobeyed, and one gentle look Of
disapprobation is sufficient to make 1t
feel all the remorse and regret it is capa-
bic nf."
We are no defender Of the ndiscrimi
nate use of the rod, and cheerfully admit
that it is often employed 10 the very
great injury of the child. Better not
punish at all, than in fit of passion to
use broomstick or other convenient
weapon. Most children can be better
controlled and governed without the en-
ployment of any corporeal punishment;
but some kind of punishment should be
inflicted for wilful disobedience. The
"ruler laid down does not assert that it
should consist in sound hogging, or
sending the offender supperless to bed,
or denying him some favorite amuse-
ment or luxury. We believe that the
kind of punishment which is demanded
in one case will not answer in another.
Dispositions are widely different, even
in the same family, and every parent
should make these different tempers a
subject OF constant and earnest study,
and apply such remedies as are suited
TO the individual cases. The "gentle
look of disapprobation" may be all that
is required to secure sincere repentance
and cheerful oot dience in one, while the
same remedy would be regarded by an
other as license 10 repeat the oftense.
Our fair correspondent thinks that there
cannot be in child a perverse spirit, a
disposition TO wiyuLy disobey. Here we
think is the error upon which she has
based all her reasoning. We fear our
friend has become imbued with that ab-
surd doctrine preached by Mrs. Mott and
that tribe of go called) reformers, who
repudiate the long cherished opinion OF
constitutional depravity, and who boldly
avow that man is prone to good and not
to evil. That we ego astray from the
womb" is a doctrine not only affirmed
by Holy Writ, but confirmed by the OBJ
servatlon and experience of all. On this
point our correspondent and ourself diff
Ter as widely as the poles, and it is not
to be wondered at, therefore, that we
should take issue on the subject of family