|
Post by arietty on Feb 22, 2010 22:13:07 GMT -5
I guess I'm saying... I was a little freaked out when I saw so many uncomplicated endorsements of attachment parenting here, having heard about sooo many child abuse cases related to it. KM I must state this clearly, Attachment Parenting is NOT what anyone here is talking about. You brought up Attachment Therapy which as far as I know wasn't implicated in these Pearl related deaths but IS a now debunked and always controversial treatment. No one has given any "uncomplicated endorsements of attachment parenting." If you look up Dr. Sears or read some La Leche League material on it you will see that it's all about gentle parenting, lots of holding, co sleeping, extended breastfeeding and also letting the child lead in many ways (seen as permissive by those who don't gravitate towards it). It's as far from the Pearls as you can get.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 22, 2010 22:14:52 GMT -5
I guess I'm saying... I was a little freaked out when I saw so many uncomplicated endorsements of attachment parenting here, having heard about sooo many child abuse cases related to it. KM I must state this clearly, Attachment Parenting is NOT what anyone here is talking about. You brought up Attachment Therapy which as far as I know wasn't implicated in these Pearl related deaths but IS a now debunked and always controversial treatment. No one has given any "uncomplicated endorsements of attachment parenting." If you look up Dr. Sears or read some La Leche League material on it you will see that it's all about gentle parenting, lots of holding, co sleeping, extended breastfeeding and also letting the child lead in many ways (seen as permissive by those who don't gravitate towards it). It's as far from the Pearls as you can get. Okay, thank you. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some of the previous posts... I'm not sure. I'll go back and read more.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 22, 2010 22:21:21 GMT -5
Or rather people have endorsed attachment parenting but that's because it's a perfectly good and legitimate way to parent. They have not endorsed attachment therapy.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 22, 2010 22:24:32 GMT -5
Or rather people have endorsed attachment parenting but that's because it's a perfectly good and legitimate way to parent. They have not endorsed attachment therapy. I'm trying to understand the difference between the two? If both are based on attachment theory? And attachment parenting involves following the advice of attachment therapists? I'm not trying to be flippant, seriously, my brain's just not following this. And I've looked for online explanations and spent the last hour googling and...
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 22, 2010 22:29:12 GMT -5
I don't mean to derail. I was hoping that there was an easier answer (instead, there are contradictory answers, and I'm gonna have to form my own opinion . Feel free to PM links and other information about this stuff. I've been trying to understand it better for a while.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 22, 2010 22:32:05 GMT -5
Jo I appreciated your post about the adoptions. I have been kind of hysterical about the whole FAD of adopting whole sibling groups from Africa for a while now. Firstly it's a shock to me that people with little money, lots of kids and small houses are allowed to then go and adopt another 6 kids or whatever.. which you could never do in a thousand years in my country. I just don't get it, obviously QF families already have more on their plate than a couple with no kids or just 2, they already have more expenses, more stress, more actual work.. I just don't get how they can adopt so easily.
I also have been waiting and waiting for these adoption promoting blogs and Above Rubies to actually bring up trauma and the difficulties of adopting older kids but it seems they are too busy presenting these Liberian children in some Victorian ideal of the Spiritual Innocents. So cool that they come with those great biblical names too. I don't want to offend you as I know you've adopted, I'm not going after parents here but after the way these adoptions are promoted with virtually no reality check going on. In AR land everything is soooo lovely and the Liberian children just love to bake bread and sing hymns and quote scripture to their new mothers and I feel like screaming, when is the other shoe, you know the REAL shoe gonna drop?
People have big hearts and they are getting sucked into some fantasy world about adoption.
You have a lot of heavy stuff in your post about the machinations and the money making, is anyone exposing this publicly?
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 22, 2010 22:34:52 GMT -5
Or rather people have endorsed attachment parenting but that's because it's a perfectly good and legitimate way to parent. They have not endorsed attachment therapy. I'm trying to understand the difference between the two? If both are based on attachment theory? Attachment parenting does not involve coercion. No. With Attachment Parenting, you become an expert on your own baby. You let Baby lead the way. Well, one good source would be Attachment Parenting International -- you could go to their site, and start off by clicking on API Principles of Parenting. www.attachmentparenting.org/La Leche League is also a good source -- www.llli.org/Here's to hoping you get some answers!
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 22, 2010 22:35:43 GMT -5
Or rather people have endorsed attachment parenting but that's because it's a perfectly good and legitimate way to parent. They have not endorsed attachment therapy. I'm trying to understand the difference between the two? If both are based on attachment theory? And attachment parenting involves following the advice of attachment therapists? I'm not trying to be flippant, seriously, my brain's just not following this. And I've looked for online explanations and spent the last hour googling and... I think you would find it helpful if you stopped focusing on two very separate things having similar names. Just rename them in your mind and it won't be so confusing. Reread Asteli's post and look at the links.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 22, 2010 22:46:51 GMT -5
I think you would find it helpful if you stopped focusing on two very separate things having similar names. Just rename them in your mind and it won't be so confusing. Reread Asteli's post and look at the links. Okay, will do. Someone said in the thread that they were probably both linked to "attachment theory," which made me think that they weren't necessarily two completely separate things. But I'll go reread that stuff, yes.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 22, 2010 22:49:37 GMT -5
I almost hate to say this... At the Above Rubies conference I was at, Nancy Campbell said that one of her daughter's husbands had to physically discipline their oldest adopted daughter (who was 16 at that time, I believe). Nancy said she was developing a sullen/rebellious attitude, and that the spanking changed her attitude right away. Nancy said that in the child's previous culture, it was perfectly acceptable to spank older children, therefore it was okay, and also made a few comments that she expected Colin may have to do the same to the older Liberian children that she and Colin were going to adopt (they were purposely adopting older girls at that time, as well), if those girls had problems with obeying the authority of the home. NO mention...no mention...NOTHING, that I can recall, was said, at any time, about the fact that these children were coming from an extremely traumatic environment. I remember being thoroughly frustrated, on a number of fronts, primarily that it was bad enough that Nancy was preaching that good godly women would never use birth control, but that now the Above Rubies yoke included the fact that good godly women would adopt many children from crisis situations. How heavy can the burden be? Add to that the yoke of the Pearls, that your children should and will be 100% cheerful and 100% compliant and 100% *instant* in their obedience, and, MY GOODNESS. It's too much for anyone to bear----both parent and child alike.
|
|
|
Post by km on Feb 22, 2010 22:58:17 GMT -5
Re: Spanking of older children... Does no one in these circles ever get concerned about this being construed as sexual abuse?
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 22, 2010 23:24:57 GMT -5
First they'd have to stop a minute and think about it being physical abuse.
Though I'm sure the two are linked. I'm just stuck on the "beat the trauma survivors" issue.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 23, 2010 0:05:13 GMT -5
Since I've been over here causing trouble on this thread...
Please pray for me and for the people I have petitioned some experts in the field of trauma to bring attention to this issue, though this is peripheral to the primary reason why I contacted them.
For those of you who are atheists now, or whatever, think good thoughts or something!
It involves some high level folks who might be able to pick up addressing this and patriarchy as a pet project, but these are people who are usually paid well for their services.
I'm just so sick at heart over all this, I would appreciate your prayers (or whatever!) ;D
Thanks, Cindy
|
|
|
Post by asteli on Feb 23, 2010 2:18:23 GMT -5
I think you would find it helpful if you stopped focusing on two very separate things having similar names. Just rename them in your mind and it won't be so confusing. Reread Asteli's post and look at the links. Okay, will do. Someone said in the thread that they were probably both linked to "attachment theory," which made me think that they weren't necessarily two completely separate things. But I'll go reread that stuff, yes. They're related in as much as both believe secure attachment is important for children. That's as close as it gets. Attachment parenting is about taking care of your children much the way our early ancestors did; keeping babies close, breastfeeding, cosleeping & babywearing. As they get older AP is also about respectful boundaries and usually involves gentle discipline. Attachment therapy is about trying to fix/create attachment in extreme cases where attachment has gone horribly wrong; often even beyond Bowlby's classifications of insecure & disorganized attachment. It's for kids with things like Reactive Attachment disorder; serious issues which if not treated will result in adults with personality disorders. IMO the Pearls and their ilk, including Ezzo www.ezzo.info/Voices/attachment.htm & Dobson, promote methods which are practically custom tailored to create sociopaths if the kids don't get treatment.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 23, 2010 12:36:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Feb 23, 2010 13:01:05 GMT -5
Wow, that is a great article.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Feb 23, 2010 16:18:28 GMT -5
Most older girls from Liberia have in fact been sexually assaulted. I was sick to my stomach when I saw the QF movement start promoting Liberian adoptions.
These were not and are not the children that this subset needs to be adopting.
As for they were spanked in their birth countries...well, my son was stripped naked, tied to a pole, had ashes heaped upon him and mocked by all in the orphanage...all for peeing the bed at night. Does that mean I should have done the same when he got here???
Hardly. I gave him a pull-up. He was 7 and a bit embarrassed but I reiterated over and over again to simply throw the pull-up away in the morning, put the dirty sheets in front of the washer if the pull-up leaked and no more would be said of the situation EVER.
He not only regained his dignity but learned to trust me AND stopped wetting the bed long, long before the nightmares that paralized him at night stopped.
When you look specifically at Liberia and Sierra Leone you are looking at two joined societies whose entire culture and society broke down because of a brutal civil war. Who the freak cares what was done to these children in those countries? You don't repeat their trauma and justify it because it was done when society broke-down!
Its extremely dangerous for the QF/P groups to adopt these W. African children. I've maintained that stance for YEARS. But, what I can tell you is that the US has closed Liberian adoptions at this point. Its my hope that the child trafficker will find another scam before the country re-opens and the do-gooder facilitator will finally be dealt with by the state who has been trying to reign them in for a LONG time now.
I had 3 children when I adopted from W. Africa. There is just no way I could do it now with 8 kids, not unless my kids were older. I devoted my heart and soul to helping my son heal, and he has healed and healed abundantly. But, I knew even then that anymore children than we had in the house at that time and the adoption was NOT going to work.
We went with a reputable agency. They had significant policies in place. You couldn't adopt with a child less than 6 months, not while pregnant, not more than 3 siblings (2 if they weren't really siblings). They didn't do a family size limitation, and I do appreciate that stance. But, they didn't let you go shopping for 4..5..6 children like happened to so many of the Liberian kiddos.
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Feb 25, 2010 22:35:40 GMT -5
You know what's really creepy? Last night I saw the NGJ website and read the Pearl's "In Defense of Biblical Chastisement" articles. And what struck me was how articulate they are. They don't write like rednecks. They make it sound very logical.
And when they use extreme cases to justify this form of chastisement, it sounds quite common-sensical. To paraphrase one of their points crudely: If a young child insists upon playing on the freeway in direct disobedience to the parent, is it better to let him become road-pizza, or to spank him and save his life? Most people, when reading it framed in this manner would think, "Of course it's better to spank him than to let him get killed."
From my reading of the Pearls, there's enough half-truths and semi-logical points in their arguments to make it sound like a good idea. Of course, I don't think it's a good idea. But if a young parent, who wasn't able to spot the distortions and malice that's mixed in, were to read their stuff, it might sound really appealing.
This is the real bummer, the dark side, of intelligence and articulate writing. The Pearls seem intelligent and articulate, but when these qualities go bad, people become evil geniuses. They seem to have built their little kingdom on such a foundation.
And the name of their ministry (No Greater Joy) is so Orwellian! Added to Orwell's 1984 "freedom is slavery" can be "brutal beatings are great joy." It reminds me of a pathetic, abused cartoon character from an old HBO show. He would always say, "Happy happy, joy joy!"
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 26, 2010 1:42:56 GMT -5
To paraphrase one of their points crudely: If a young child insists upon playing on the freeway in direct disobedience to the parent, is it better to let him become road-pizza, or to spank him and save his life? Most people, when reading it framed in this manner would think, "Of course it's better to spank him than to let him get killed." Isn't it Doug Phillips of Vision Forum who says that whoever defines, wins? Or is it Bill Gothard? It sounds like the Pearls are creating a scenario in which the only two options are hitting, or letting a child be "road pizza." As if parents who don't spank just let their kids be road pizza!
|
|
jwr
Full Member
Posts: 218
|
Post by jwr on Feb 26, 2010 3:52:24 GMT -5
To paraphrase one of their points crudely: If a young child insists upon playing on the freeway in direct disobedience to the parent, is it better to let him become road-pizza, or to spank him and save his life? Most people, when reading it framed in this manner would think, "Of course it's better to spank him than to let him get killed." Isn't it Doug Phillips of Vision Forum who says that whoever defines, wins? Or is it Bill Gothard? It sounds like the Pearls are creating a scenario in which the only two options are hitting, or letting a child be "road pizza." As if parents who don't spank just let their kids be road pizza! susan, Yes, exactly. They're always framing as my way or (literally in this illustration) the highway. They don't want people to realize there might be three or four other options. Example: when our daughter was almost three, she really did have a serious problem about running into the street. It happened several times. We couldn't reason with her and the little swats on the butt were no deterrent at all. It came to a head when she dashed out into a major 4-lane blvd, full of traffic with a 45 MPH speed limit. If my friend hadn't grabbed her (he was closest to her) she would have died. So what to do? We could have bought plumbing supply line or steel rebar or something, but it just wasn't our style. And we could have locked her in the house until she was 7 or something, but that wasn't our style either. So we got a baby leash, sort of like a dog leash for kids. But after a few weeks it got old, and we knew we couldn't keep her on a leash the rest of her childhood. She wasn't improving in this behavior, and we really were worried about her survival. And then one day, opportunity came knocking. Her little 3-year-old friend from the church nursery ran out in the street and: BANG! He got mauled by a car and was in intensive care for a few weeks. We cured our daughter by taking her to visit him in the hospital when he got out of I.C.U. and into the regular pediatrics ward. Poor kid, he was a hell of a sight: casts, stitches, the entire left side of his face one big nasty swollen bruise, etc. Our daughter was very distraught to see her friend in this condition and we told her exactly how it happened. On the ride home from the hospital she started singing a little rhyme to herself: "I stay away from fast cars; cars will eat me up." And she never ran out in the street again. It took no brutal beatings, no being locked away in a closet; not even the baby leash. She never stepped off the curb after that unless it was a crosswalk and we were with her. That's just one example of correcting destructive behavior. But fortunately, not everyone has a childhood friend to visit in the hospital, so I could never prescribe it for everyone. But that's ok. There are probably ten or more other options that I haven't considered, if people are creative. But with the Pearl's, the only right thing to do is beat. If you don't beat, the kid will be road-pizza, or grow up to be a criminal or an anarchist. P.S. to this post: Somebody might object that it's cruel to subject a kid to such a traumatizing sight. But she really had almost died about a month earlier and we needed something extreme. It worked. She's still alive, and we didn't have to even lay a finger on her; nor did we have to scream and rail at her, or anything of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by janedoe on Feb 26, 2010 5:40:45 GMT -5
I can't read all the posts here because this ISSUE for me, is INTOLERABLE, PERIOD... "(I guess the Pearls still have no twinges of conscience regarding the use of plumbing supply line.)" It is NOT ENOUGH, to have ONLY teachings to refute this child abusing garbage...WE NEED LAWS--holding the profiteers [and 1.8 million off of book sales to teach how to beat your children is no chump change, this is BLOOD MONEY OFF OF CHILDREN], Accountable, for Accessory to Child Abuse and Child Sexual Assault. The Pearls Should be, arrested and tried to the FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW, for their Contributions to the Environment, of NOT only assisting in Child Abuse, but Attempted Murder of children, not only that, but for Creating Environments that are Begging, for child abuser-criminals to find Refuge, within these groups and within many churches. And this is one of the Main reasons I do NOT respect churchianity in America, it is NOT only the fault of the QF teachings but of a Culture, that has for FAR TOO LONG been Tolerant and Silent towards child abuse Within the church, be it priests molesting children to pastors raping young girls. We need Legislation that can Remove the 'protection and immunity from prosecution' of Religion [ALL RELIGIONS] that abuse children, in Any form, no matter if it's Culture, Doctrine, don't care, IT NEEDS TO END. What really just boggles my mind is how even the ACLU stepped up to defend the case of the one Mormon sect for child sexual abuse--from the CPS in Texas, etc., everyone in our state has KNOWN about these abuses for Years...but due to the Separation of Church and State, these kids are left vulnerable with no protection...but what Really just peeves me to no end, is that the Pearls [and others they aren't the only ones] are making Profit, they aren't even HIDING their child abuse 'training' and Why the Hell aren't they in Jail yet? While I understand, how prosecution could be abused, on the other hand, Something needs to be done, and frankly I don't care what their Reasons are, these children will be scarred for life--who Protects Them? I say, this is one issue that needs More than discussion, this needs action--Write your Congress people and Demand, that these profiteers be Held Accountable, for Accessory to Child Abuse, Child Sexual Assault, Felony Murder, whatever it takes... if there is no deterrent, these abuses will continue, not just in this religion but in others here...this is Why, we Do need, a Children's Right Bill, that will be ENFORCED, ACROSS THE BOARD--not just against Christians or other groups, but All groups--NO IMMUNITY, FOR CHILD ABUSE...FOR THE PERPETRATORS OR THOSE WHO, CONTRIBUTE TO, ESPECIALLY WITH BLATANT, BLATANT, TEACHINGS, that are to Any one with any sense... child abuse. The law needs the Public, to say, NO more, Enough is Enough--IF the Churches don't like it, well, then by golly, [and they seem to have no issue with 2 million dollar ads for family values and pro-life legislation, guess once they pass that fetus stage it's tough luck kid eh], they need to Change it--they've had Years...and Nothing [well, very little]. They can't point fingers at FGMS and Honor Killings, when they are doing the Identical Same..right here at home. Just my two cents Jane
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 26, 2010 10:26:52 GMT -5
It is Doug Phillips who has been coined as saying: "He who defines, wins." What bothers me so much is that Michael Pearl himself, from what is made public, has never so much as flinched about the plumbing supply line. When things go wrong, and depending on the severity of the problem, if I've facilitated a bad outcome for someone, even in a remote way, I feel empathy, but I also question my role in the events. "Ideas have consequences," and I tend to think of the Brothers Karamazov where the end outcome of one brother's ideas result in his father's death, and he's tortured with this realization. There are two implications for Pearl: legal and ethical. The two are worlds apart. From a legal perspective, if Pearl admits any weakness or guilt or shortcoming, this is a legal nightmare for him, I suspect. From an ethical perspective, I think it would go a long way if he showed due responsibility for the consequences of his ideas. If his words were like a gun and bullets (something that can kill), and he just hands them out to people that he cannot know, if someone gets shot (or dies from chastisement), he is culpable on an ethical level. (What the legal system decides is different. They are concerned about legal procedure, not necessarily ethics or truth, something people often fail to realize.) Speaking as a Christian from the traditional Christian perspective: If Christians are supposed to be the moral signposts for sinners in the world (city on a hill whose good works should glorify God), if we are the ones setting the best moral standards, then why is Michael Pearl showing only careful empathy and self-defense? "There's nothing wrong with my teaching, it's the people who carried it out wrong. They just didn't get my meaning." There is no admission of the issue of the subjectivity of much of what he says. One kid's breaking point may be one swat with the tubing, and another child's might be renal failure or death, apparently. Maybe children aren't Amish mares (why doesn't anyone who loves this stuff find that evolutionary and Darwinian?)? I don't know what has happened behind the scenes, because he may have tried to help the Schatzes and may have reached out to them in some way. If I were him, I would be petitioning the court to let me come give moral support to the Schatzes. Counsel. Something. Maybe he is and we don't know. Why doesn't he call his buddy Brother Bill Gothard to go to try to help the Schatzes? If he couldn't go, he could offer support and help to them. Maybe he has and we don't know. But if he did and it was well known, it would show lots of people how we should respond to others in crisis and need. As it stands, it looks like he handed them an unloaded gun and bullets with instruction and walked away. He seems to be cutting them loose. Why doesn't he go and bear their burdens, begging the courts to hold him accountable so that these people can go free? But there is a disconnect for these folks, I think. If you follow patriarchy and your kids get messed up and don't fit the mold, then it is not the system that was flawed, it was your execution of patriarchy in the home. Or you followed the wrong flavor of patriarchy. It certainly can't be the patriarchy itself! Shame on you! And there's plenty of shame to go around, isn't there? If there isn't enough, they'll manufacture some for you. But what do I know? I'm apparently some career driven radical feminist lesbian who hates babies and life and an open theist. Oh yeah. I'm a communist, too.
|
|
jo
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by jo on Feb 26, 2010 11:50:38 GMT -5
See, I think the Pearl's CAN be held legally accountable. And, I think its only going to be legal accountability that stops this so-called ministry.
I think there is a reasonable expectation that this ministry is not merely selling a gun and bullets. This is akin to handing a known drunk a set of car keys. And, whether you are a licensed bartender or a friend throwing a party, the courts still hold you to the same standard. The law of this land says that you had a reasonable expectation that the drunk would wreck and kill someone, so the minute you let them drive you were culpable for the life you took.
Michael Pearl's book teaches child abuse. If you encourage anyone to use it with children, there is a reasonable expectation they will abuse...and could kill a child.
I really think the way to stop this insanity is the hold the Pearls to that standard. They put the weapon in the hands of the parents. They knew those parents would abuse, beat and kill. They argue that it takes an abusive monster to do that. But, they are wrong. Strict adherence to their program turns ANY parent into that monster. Its the program that creates the monster, not the monster who embraces the program.
That was the argument the Pearls made about Lynn Paddock, she was the monster that killed Sean. Yes, she was a monster. But, she became a monster, she didn't start as one. And, I think its now a LOT harder to argue that the Schartz were monsters *before* Pearl. I think its clear by those around them that it was NGJ and Michael Pearl who trained them into the monsters.
|
|
|
Post by Sierra on Feb 26, 2010 11:55:54 GMT -5
I suppose I've been silent on this thread mostly because it seems unnecessary for me to add to the chorus of how awful the Pearls' doctrine is. I also have no personal experience with corporal discipline: I was spanked exactly once in my life. I can't remember what for. The only thing I remember is my father chasing me down the hallway to administer a smack. Needless to say, I learned nothing from it.
But I have one major concern to raise about this plumber's supply line business. It sounds like the Pearls make this the weapon of choice because it's more painful and less damaging than an open palm. If that's really what they're saying, that's totally contrary to reason. The surface area of the palm is much greater than the supply line; the impact of a palm is going to be distributed across a wider surface and thus the impact will penetrate less deeply into the muscle tissue than a whip with the supply line at equal speed. (As someone else has already pointed out, the fact that the parents aren't feeling the impact in their own hands makes them more likely to hit harder, too.)
It strikes me that the supply line is vastly more likely to cause deep internal, invisible, localised damage than surface bruises caused by beating with hands or other, wider implements. This makes it the ideal abuser's tool, and makes its use that much more likely to be lethal.
Like the rest of you, I'm appalled.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 26, 2010 12:47:01 GMT -5
Goofing off instead of working...
It isn't that I don't think that the Pearls should not be held responsible legally. I think it was on this thread that I asked if anyone knew how he was not implicated in 4 yo Sean Paddock's death in 2006. If it were my call, I would hold him just as accountable as the parents that followed his directive.
I don't understand why he hasn't been charged or investigated or something. I also don't understand why other Christian groups don't try to hold Pearl accountable. It would not necessarily need to be confrontation. Pearl expresses what I would call disdain for psychology, so if it were not for that, someone like Dobson could approach him and they could work together to take a look at the model to see if it's reasonable. But I think Pearl would run him out on a rail because of his professional stance. Who else is there? Gothard? He recommends this stuff and practices it. But if it is Christianity and parent rights hanging in the balance, then why don't these people stand up and publish position papers on the Pearl method? Well, I think I know why. Bad economy. They'll loose donations. They'd be taking to great a chance.
I know in my profession, we hold one another accountable. If we don't govern our profession and maintain standards of practice, someone else will do it for us. If we do it poorly, then someone should come in and take it over, setting and maintaining the standard for us. I tend to look at the same thing in Christianity. I remember hearing over and over again in the '80s, "Judgment begins with the House of God." We had to clean up our own act before we could be effective. How can you be an agent for good in the world if you are not a reasonable standard of goodness yourself.
I tend to see this whole patriarchy issue the same way. With the Take Heart Project, I think that should have been something the Church should have organized. (I would have done it myself, but I tried, and it was not my forte', so I contribute what I can and have to give. And there was little to no support from inside the church. They didn't want to hear about their dirty laundry.) The church had an opportunity to address these issues, and they've not done much at all. I'm all the more grateful for the people who are supportive, because there are a few leaders, apart from individual women who work to make a difference in this area. But the organized effort is not coming from inside the walls of the church, and I think that the Church should be embarrassed by that. It breaks my heart.
The same with Pearl. If the Church is going to ignore this issue, and some individual churches and groups support Pearl, then the "world" should do it. And the Church should feel ashamed for failing to do the right thing. Not that its easy or without its pains, but its the right thing to do. People who winked at it should realize that the issue of spanking and having autonomy under the law is very different from punishment resulting in death. They overlap for sure, but then it should be the Church setting the moral standard. We should have no need for the legal system. But then, that is the ideal and not the fact of the matter.
So I don't know how Pearl has gotten away with this. About 2 years ago, there was also a report of a kid who was an older child who was tied to a tree by his homeschooling family, and he asphyxiated and died (you cannot bind someone like that without risking asphyxiation). They used the Pearl material, but I guess Pearl also claimed that he didn't teach restrictive binding outside of infancy or something, perhaps the same reason why he was not implicated in the Sean Paddock case. But I don't know how or why the prosecutors didn't bring Pearl into these other cases, as is my understanding. (Maybe they did and someone knows more about it than I do.)
So I absolutely think that Pearl should have been implicated if not held responsible in these earlier cases, and especially this one which was per his specifications. If Christianity at large doesn't feel the burden of responsibility for Lydia Schatz and her sister, then I am glad that the legal system has not likewise abandoned them. They deserve justice, just like these other children did. But were it not for people like Tulipgirl (.com) and others like her, I think that this would have gone unnoticed in the Church itself.
I've contacted a bunch of people about this in the past and now. I think that before, they thought I was too reactionary, but now I am taken more seriously. So maybe things will start to change?
I don't know. I hope so. This stuff always catches up, though it may take a long time, and the collateral damage is too great.
|
|