Actually that was never the case. There was one judge in 18th century England that ruled on that and was ROUNDLY criticized for it. It was never codified by statute in English common law. In any event beating your wife NOW is against the law in all modern non-Islamic nations.
Actually that was never the case. There was one judge in 18th century England that ruled on that and was ROUNDLY criticized for it. It was never codified by statute in English common law. In any event beating your wife NOW is against the law in all modern non-Islamic nations.
There are no small number of Americans, many of whom are religious, who insist that it is morally correct to beat their children. Not just permissible, but immoral not to hit them.
So long as we continue to address violence as a gender/race/religious issue we will make not appreciable progress. Violence is a violence issue.
Indeed it is. And back to the OP's original point, it is not a race/religious/gender issue. There is a group of people condoning violence against women. And that is wrong. It wouldn't have mattered if it was the Boy Scout's decree, the Catholic Church's decree, the town of Spartanburg's decree, or the Lithuanian Government's decree. The decree is wrong.