A Rising Anti-Pearl Movement within the Conservative Christian Community

6562 reads

There are 47 Comments

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Quote:
Many critics of "biblical chastisement" -- notably, those close to the controversy, and even to the Schatz family -- might say that Pearl has it backward. They suggest that his teachings, with all the weight of their godly imprimatur, could exacerbate, or even create, the impulse to abuse.

Oscar Mayer would be proud.

Jay's picture

Quote:
He adds: "Not to be crass, but you slap the title 'Christian' on something, and all of a sudden it's the 'Christian' thing. Sometimes, in my experience, that's all it takes for Christians to start following something. There's not a whole lot of discernment."

No kidding.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

It is easy to slap "Christian" on something and then see many mindlessly accept it as biblical, but that goes both ways. It's interesting how often I've heard that accusation in reference to something old and time honored in preference for something new and progressive. In this particular case, I have to ask which is more likely, that the old fashioned firm, authoritative discipline was falsely labeled "Christian" or that the newer, tolerant, child-centered approaches labeled "Christian" are falsely labeled?

I'm not talking about Pearl in particular, though, because I have absolutely no knowledge of their work at all. I just know I see a pattern of (mostly young) evangelicals embracing new notions of parenting and rejecting older conventional wisdom (that was at least shaped by centuries of Christian influence, unlike the newer models).

Pastor Joe Roof's picture

We get in trouble when we fail to seek God for discernment as we read books. As we seek God for discernment, I have trouble believing He is going to direct us to go to the hardware store to buy pvc pipe to use to discipline our children.

We also get in trouble when we we approach our authors, preachers, teachers, Bible-colleges, and other religious institutions with a cultic type of loyalty. It really is a form of idolatry.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Pastor Joe Roof wrote:
We get in trouble when we fail to seek God for discernment as we read books. As we seek God for discernment, I have trouble believing He is going to direct us to go to the hardware store to buy pvc pipe to use to discipline our children.

No- He tells us to go out back and get a switch from the tree. Wink Better yet, you make the child go get their own. Years ago this was SOP, and today it would be thought of as mental cruelty.

Anne Sokol wrote:
read this post: http://ticklemebrahms.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-talk-about-terribl...
A lot of this guy's rant is bunk. You can search the Pearl's site for all of their posts and articles about the use of the rod. They do not teach anything that would result in someone beating their child to death.

Anne Sokol's picture

Susan R wrote:
No- He tells us to go out back and get a switch from the tree. Wink Better yet, you make the child go get their own. Years ago this was SOP, and today it would be thought of as mental cruelty.

i have a lot to say about this. a rod has nothing to do with a tree switch. . . .
Susan R wrote:
Anne Sokol wrote:
read this post: http://ticklemebrahms.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-talk-about-terribl...
A lot of this guy's rant is bunk. You can search the Pearl's site for all of their posts and articles about the use of the rod. They do not teach anything that would result in someone beating their child to death.
keep reading susan.

Pearls wrote:
How many licks?

There is no number that can be given. It would be better to administer more licks that are less forceful than to administer few licks that hurt severely. It is much more effective to administer chastisement or punishment in a slow thoughtful fashion. Our goal is to cause the child to voluntarily surrender his will. We want to impress upon him the severity of his disobedience. It takes time and thoughtfulness for the child to come to repentance. I have told a child I was going to give him 10 licks. I count out loud as I go. After about three licks, leaving him in his position, I would stop and remind him what this is all about. I would continue slowly, still counting, stop again and tell him that I know it hurts and I wish I didn’t have to do it but that it is for his own good. Then I would continue slowly. Pretending to forget the count, I would again stop at about eight and ask him the number. Have him subtract eight from ten, (a little homeschooling) and continue with the final two licks. Then I would have him stand in front of me and ask him why he got the spanking. If his answer showed that he was rebellious and defiant, he would get several more licks. Again he would be questioned as to his offense. If he showed total submission, we put it all behind us, but if he were still rebellious, we would continue until he gave over his will. …

If you ever have a child who stands his ground of defiance and you let him win, you have lost his heart forever—unless you are able to go back and win a confrontation and keep on winning. If you ever let his rebellion triumph just one time, it makes it much harder to conquer in the future. After he gains the upper hand, one victory on your part will not be sufficient. You will have to persevere in several contests of wills until he is convinced that he can never stand against your authority.

Pearls wrote:
*What instrument would I use?
"As a rule, do not use your hand. Hands are for loving and helping. If an adult swings his or her hand fast enough to cause pain to the surface of the skin, there is a danger of damaging bones and joints. The most painful nerves are just under the surface of the skin. A swift swat with a light, flexible instrument will sting without bruising or causing internal damage. Many people are using a section of ¼ inch plumber’s supply line as a spanking instrument. It will fit in your purse or hang around you neck. You can buy them for under $1.00 at Home Depot or any hardware store. They come cheaper by the dozen and can be widely distributed in every room and vehicle. Just the high profile of their accessibility keeps the kids in line."

Pearls wrote:
And when you do spank, make sure that it is forceful enough to get her undivided attention. If she can scream "huggie" while you are spanking her, you are probably not spanking hard enough."

Pearls wrote:
They try you, test your limits, and seek emancipation from all authority and rule of law. They are liberal totalitarians seeking a following, not passive peasants groveling to do your will. Children must be broken to the yoke of authority.

Pearls wrote:
The soul of your child needs to be punished. "He feels the need to suffer for his misdeeds. What I am telling you is well understood by the most reprobate of modern psychiatrists and psychologists. They call it a “guilt complex.” Children and adults in this state of mind often do harm to themselves. Their anger is turned inward because they hate the bad person they know themselves to be. Their soul is crying out for justice to be done to the self. They don’t know what is happening, and they will not voluntarily seek punishment, but their soul needs judgment. When your child is in the first throes of this debilitating condition, be kind enough to punish him. Care enough and love enough to pay the emotional sacrifice to give him ten to fifteen licks that will satisfy his need to experience payback.
If you do not see the wisdom in what I have said, and you reject these concepts, you are not fit to be a parent. I pity your children. They will never experience the freedom of soul and conscience that mine do.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Anyone can do a cut & paste job to make someone look bad. If you read ALL the material put out by the Pearls about using the rod, you will see that they are not advocating inflicting bodily harm on children. You don't have to agree with their methods- and I don't agree with all of them- but they are not responsible for people taking their ideas to extremes any more than Jenny Craig is responsible for those with anorexia or bulemia.

Anne Sokol's picture

Susan R wrote:
Anyone can do a cut & paste job to make someone look bad. If you read ALL the material put out by the Pearls about using the rod, you will see that they are not advocating inflicting bodily harm on children. You don't have to agree with their methods- and I don't agree with all of them- but they are not responsible for people taking their ideas to extremes any more than Jenny Craig is responsible for those with anorexia or bulemia.
I don't agree with this logic, susan. I don't have time to put it into words now, and someone probably has better than me anyway, but here's a site that's much more insightful:
tulipgirl wrote:
I’ve heard several apologists for Michael and Debi Pearl and their parenting teachings. Usually the defense is along the lines of, “but you and any abusive parent is taking the teachings out of context!”

Really? Seriously? In what context is ingraining in parents an attitude of “defeat them totally” okay? In what context is is okay to use an implement to strike a 4 month old? Pull a nursing baby’s hair? Hit a toddler with a toy? Whipping (the term often used by the Pearls) on bare skin; for “every transgression”? Whipping a baby who cannot sleep? Whipping a year old for crying? Whipping a 3 y/o until “totally broken?” Using a “tree branch” to spank? No matter what the “context” this advice is harmful to both parents and children.

Other times, people defend the Pearls stating that the problems must be that a parent “disciplined in anger.” While yes, anger and rage can lead to a lack of self control, what is taught by the Pearls is harmful whether a parent is hot with anger or cold and calculating. This is an excellent reflection on that idea, Spanking in Anger Isn’t the Problem.


http://www.tulipgirl.com/index.php/2010/02/hold-em-down-defeat-totally/

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

From[URL=http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/articles/general-view/archive/2006/june/21/t... NGJ[/URL ]-

Quote:
We have made the point here that children under three (give or take six months or so) cannot profit from corporal punishment, but we have made the point elsewhere that small children do profit from the application of the training rod. How are they different? In both cases, the child is being swatted with an instrument. There is a great deal of difference in both the severity and the number of “licks,” and also in the parents’ expectations and perspective. For that reason, we cannot arbitrarily specify a suitable age and declare that it is fitting to spank a child beginning at that point. Children differ, spankings differ, circumstances differ, and parents differ...

First, the parent must be trained to exercise personal discipline, and then he is capable of constraining the child to walk in discipline—sometimes by application of the rod of training...

“When is a child too young to spank?” Based on my definition of “spanking,” I can answer the question. A child is too young to spank when spanking is not profitable to the child. Of course, the same applies to a child of any age.

Where do you find "whipping a baby who cannot sleep"? Only in Hysteriaville on Hyperbole Street.

Jay's picture

I've never heard of the Pearls or any of this, and not particularly wild about "internet jurisprudence". Let's see the autopsy report before we put the family in prison. I have read the first blog that Anne linked to, and if it's true, then this is absolutely horrific and the parents absolutely should go to jail. But if it's something like SIDS or heart failure [and I really don't know - just using examples ], then the blog author is guilty of libel and slander.

My concern is that a lot of people get on the internet and start talking about things when all they have are clues or ideas and no hard facts, and that's not only unfair to the family who is under investigation, it's also [really ] gossip and slander, which is sin.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Rachel L.'s picture

http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-speak-of-unspeakable.html This lady knew the family. Her blog post is filled with love and grace, and I think an appropriate level of horror.

Jay C -- I know you weren't saying that it *was* SIDS or something, but even without an autopsy it seems quite apparent that the death was due to the beating since the 7yo's elder sister was also beaten and did not die -- she "just" ended up with kidney failure (she was hospitalized for 2 weeks). Beatings can result in organ failure due to tissue breakdown that releases toxins and minerals into the bloodstream.

Susan R -- I know that the quote to which you linked from NGJ says that children under three cannot profit from corporal punishment. Michael Pearl appears to, at times, use words in non-standard definitions. He does not generally call switching a baby "corporal punishment," but calls it "training" instead. If you read your quote with that light in mind, one can see how he can *say* what he's said but still not *mean* that he doesn't switch babies. In the http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_14427371?source=rss_viewed ]statement Pearl released to the press, he says:

Quote:
We do not teach 'corporal punishment' nor 'hitting' children. We teach parents how to train their children, which sometimes requires the limited and controlled application of a spanking instrument to hold the child's attention on admonition.

Pearl does not believe in original sin. This doctrinal position is why he emphasizes *training* children like you would an animal. It's an extremely behavioristic approach that makes complete sense given the fact that he doesn't believe in original sin.

Jay's picture

Rachel L. wrote:
http://lauriemo.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-which-i-speak-of-unspeakable.html This lady knew the family.

Does she really? All I see is their own word that they know the accused and that actually was what happened to the kids. Anyone can claim that on the internet. Furthermore, is it REALLY wise to air this out on the internet for anyone to read?

Like I said, I'm not trying to minimize this at all. I just want some kind of objectivity here. I could claim I was Lydia's uncle and no one would know any better.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

I also believe in 'training' children- I potty train them and use 'behavioristic' methods to train them not touch things that are dangerous and to respond to the sound of my voice. This is entirely appropriate if a child is not of an age to be reasoned with or understand the implications/consequences of their actions.

Abusive methods are those that cause bodily harm- serious bruising, lacerations, etc... and emotional abuse such as screaming at and insulting children instead of calmly dealing with their behavior. I have seen the Pearls clarify all their child training advice with the use of words such as "reasonable", "limited", "calm", and "controlled". Whether you like his particular vocabulary, those ideas are clearly the anti-thesis of abuse.

If people don't agree with the Pearl's methods, that's certainly fair- I keep up with their teachings because they are popular with some of my friends (both homeschooling and public/private schooled)- but painting them as enablers or proponents of child abuse is bearing false witness.

Rachel L.'s picture

Jay -- a child has been *killed*... why in the world would you immediately "go to" a place of assuming libel and slander and assume that someone is *lying* about knowing the family?

Jonathan Charles's picture

I've never heard of these nuts before and I don't really want to delve into all of their material before I make a judgment about them Bleah . From the Salon article, it seems as if their followers have learned to expect 100% compliance out of children all the time from toddlerhood up. My wife and I approach discipline as an 18-year process. I don't expect total and complete obedience out of a 3 year old. I surely don't discipline my children for everything-it would weary them and me. I have a 3,4,10 and 13 year old. We try to address heart attitudes and sinful patterns we see developing. While the Bible surely commands parents to chasten their children, a child's most important need is to be converted. It would be a shame to have a child who gets to 18 and shrinks everytime mom or dad reaches for the piece of pipe and yet is lost. How can you successfully evangelize a child who has learned little of God's grace from his or her mother or father? How can a child learn that forgiveness is having your sins wiped away without having to bear the punishment if he or she has seen little of that in his or her own experience? Discipline takes in far more than negative consequences for misbehavior; experiencing grace, forgiveness and love is part of discipine as well.

I read Hebrews 12:10 recently which reads, "For our fathers disciplined us for a few years, doing the best they knew how?" (NLT) "The best they knew how." There are too many variables in raising a child. Every child is different, every circumstance is different. How can a single extrabiblical book serve as a "one size fits all" remedy for how a child is to be disciplined? I'm far more satisfied with trying to live out the Bible in my home, and with trying to do the best I can. By God's grace, I pray to someday have 4 goldy young adults.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

Quote:
Pearl does not believe in original sin. This doctrinal position is why he emphasizes *training* children like you would an animal. It's an extremely behavioristic approach

I would agree that if someone rejects original sin and embraces some kind of Palagianism, the idea of "training" could (but wouldn't necessarily) lend itself to excess. You could start to think that you are actually transforming the child's essential nature and his standing with God. That's alot of burden to put on a parent and I'm glad to not have to carry that! On the other hand, there is a bit of an overreaction in some quarters that emphasize the child's "heart" so much, parenting becomes much more mysterious and complicated than it needs to be as well. It's hard enough if we just stick with Scripture.

Proverbs emphasizes character and the practical benefits of good habits--and how parental training instills those habits. But of course you can have all the good habits in the world and--as Romans shows (esp. ch.2)--still stand before God condemned. There must be an imputation of Christ's righteousness in place of the guilt of Adam imputed to us in the womb... along with the imputation of His righteous life in place of all the sins we personally commit. Nothing less than substitution will do, and that substitution has nothing at all to do with child training.

But when a child is born again, then you're not just character-building as a parent--you're disciple-making. So all those heart issues become important on top of developing good habits. It's both-and, not either-or. Some of the books seem to reject the building of good habits entirely.
(And also overlook the fact that everything we do affects our "hearts," even if we don't understand or believe in it at the time)

Jim's picture

Anne Sokol wrote:
http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/DA-Deadly-Child-Abuse-Case...

http://www.paradisepost.com/ci_14378467?source=rss_viewed[/quote]

Quote is from the first link

Quote:
Ramsey [The District Attorney ] is quick to point out that followers of No Greater Joy [color=red ]do not advocate spanking to the point of serious injury[/color ].

"Even the Tennessee pastor that espouse hitting children right from infancy says that you must watch that you don't cross the line. Clearly this is a situation where the line was crossed from discipline... to beating... to murder," said Ramsey.

So why is this about the Pearls?

Anne Sokol's picture

I think these two parents were actually carrying out the Pearls' system.

Of COURSE Michael Pearl doesn't (openly) advocate spanking to the point of injury--he'd probably go to jail then. But his teaching do in fact teach this, if you know what I mean. Read his stuff. It's full of cross-talk.

article wrote:
CHICO (CBS) ― Prosecutors say parents used quarter inch plastic tubing to beat their seven-year-old adopted daughter to death, CBS station KOVR-TV reports. Apparently, they got the idea from a fundamentalist based Christian group, which promotes using this as a way of training children to be obedient.

Three years ago, Kevin Schatz and his wife Elizabeth decided to adopt three children from Liberia. Now, they are accused of killing one of them, allegedly because one child mispronounced a word.

Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey says the seven-year-old was held down for several hours by Elizabeth and beaten dozens of times by Kevin on the back of her body, causing massive tissue damage.

"It was torture," says Ramsey.

Another 11-year-old adopted child was critically beaten for "being a liar and a bad influence on the seven-year-old."

The District Attorney points to a book written by a Tennessee Evangelist named Michael Pearl, who the Schatz's have told police they were following.

Pearl's Web site, www.nogreaterjoy.org, suggests "A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting but not bruise. Give ten licks at a time, more if the child resists."

"This is not a good ole' fashion spanking, it certainly is way beyond that," says Ramsey.

The alleged beating happened on a piece of property in Paradise, where the three adopted children and the Schatz's six biological children were homeschooled.

The family rarely left their property. Their six biological children were home schooled. They even grew their own food.

Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz now face life in prison.

The Schatz's nine children thought these alleged beatings were normal, and they can't understand why police have arrested their parents.


http://kdka.com/national/Parents.Accused.Of.2.1507239.html

Jim's picture

Anne Sokol wrote:
I think these two parents were actually carrying out the Pearls' system.

Hey Anne, I probably should know something about the Pearls as someone has already pointed out they have been discussed previously on Sharper Iron

Not to defend the Pearls, but the parents were NOT actually carrying out the Pearl's system.

In your own quote above: "A swift whack with the plastic tubing would sting [color=red ]but not bruise[/color ]". If the Pearls advocated "stinging not bruising" then the couple were NOT in fact following the Pearl's advice.

I said I was not defending the Pearls. More comments on that here:

  • I think spanking an infant is just pure wrong!
  • I think the plastic tubing idea is likewise nefarious
Anne Sokol's picture

in the very next sentence, MP says "Give ten licks at a time, more if the child resists."

MP was not saying not to bruise a child, he was saying that doing this shouldn't leave a bruise (in the discoverable sense).

MP: “…then use whatever force is necessary to bring him to bay. If you have to sit on him to spank him then do not hesitate. And hold him there until he is surrendered. Prove that you are bigger, tougher, more patiently enduring and are unmoved by his wailing. Defeat him totally. Accept no conditions for surrender. No compromise. You are to rule over him as a benevolent sovereign. Your word is final.”
From To Train Up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl
Chapter 6: Applying the Rod

“Otherwise, tell him to bend over on the bed or couch; and while he is in this position give some choice admonition. You have his undivided attention. Slowly begin to spank. . . . I found five to ten licks usually sufficient. Sometimes, with older children, usually when the licks are not forceful enough, the child may still be rebellious. . . . A general rule is to continue the disciplinary action until the child is surrendered.

“Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain. . . For the under one year old, a little, ten- to twelve-inch long, willowy branch (striped of any knots that might break the skin) about one-eighth inch diameter is sufficient. . . . A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a sufficient alternative. For the larger child, a belt or larger tree branch is effective.”

From To Train Up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl
Chapter 6: Applying the Rod

Jay's picture

Rachel L. wrote:
Jay -- a child has been *killed*... why in the world would you immediately "go to" a place of assuming libel and slander and assume that someone is *lying* about knowing the family?

Rachel,

All I know is that a child died. That's it. I'm not saying anyone is lying or assuming slander on a person's behalf or anything else. I don't know anyone involved, I don't know the kids' family, and I certainly don't know who this person is that's saying the kid was murdered. All I'm saying is that we ought to be careful before weighing in.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jim's picture

I'm going to leave this alone after this post

  • There seems to be phenomena in the US (and perhaps in other countries) where so-called specialists rise up and have a following
  • I saw this with Bill Gothard. People would go off to a Gothard conference and seemingly afterward buy every book, hang on every word, and follow every idea no matter how crazy it was
  • The Lord wants us to be followers of Him and not followers of men!
  • Every lesson taught should be tested with the plumb line of the Scriptures.
  • It is obvious to me that corporal punishment is not wrong (done correctly!) Proverbs 13:24
  • Many Scriptural teachings can be taken to the extreme. Samples
    • Obey the Pastor (Hebrews 13:17). In everything? How much authority does he have in my home, my finances, etc?
    • Submission in the home (wife to husband). Taken to the extreme you have a brutal dictatorship!
    • Discipline of children: In the sad case of Lydia and Zariah Schatz discipline went well beyond Scriptural discipline! It became Homicide!

I advise parents to read the Book of Ephesians. Ephesians 6:1-4 sets the pattern.

Back briefly to my own upbringing (in the home of parents who did not know the Lord!)

  • There was corporal punishment! Sometimes with a belt!
  • My parents were wise enough to understand that the belt was the ultimate extreme reserved for rebellious behavior
  • I know I was not spanked as an infant!
  • My folks used the old rewards and withholding of rewards system most times!
Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Quote:
Of COURSE Michael Pearl doesn't (openly) advocate spanking to the point of injury...
So he secretly advocates spanking to the point of injury? How did this family find out and carry out the hidden Pearl agenda?

Quote:
But his teaching do in fact teach this, if you know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean. I've read their stuff for years, and have never seen anything that read "I know I'm saying in this book not to abuse your children, but if you turn the book upside down and read it backwards, you will see the secret message and immediately commence to beating your kids to death."

Anne Sokol's picture

I'm not opposed to you at all!

My beef is this: This man (and others, like Gothard) play on parents' fears concerning their kids, and end up promoting harmfulbizzareungodly parenting as Biblical. It's amazing what Christian parents conscientiously do to their children in the name of God. Parents are taught to behave this way.

People need to start talking about this. Like, my friend on FB posted a status about dealing with her 2yo. A woman posts a comment about how she carries pingpong paddles everywhere with her to strike or threaten her children with. There is one in her purse, in the car, in each room of the house.

Just take a moment to think about this.

What adult, much less a child, whom you are discipling would you treat/train/motivate in that way?

It's absolutely phenomenal what we have come to accept as normal childrearing.

Anne Sokol's picture

Susan R wrote:
Quote:
Of COURSE Michael Pearl doesn't (openly) advocate spanking to the point of injury...
So he secretly advocates spanking to the point of injury? How did this family find out and carry out the hidden Pearl agenda?

Quote:
But his teaching do in fact teach this, if you know what I mean.

No, I don't know what you mean. I've read their stuff for years, and have never seen anything that read "I know I'm saying in this book not to abuse your children, but if you turn the book upside down and read it backwards, you will see the secret message and immediately commence to beating your kids to death."

Susan . . .

The man "says" not to abuse your child. Then he says to strike repeatedly, he says to use tubing, he says to "huggie" your child so s/he can't scream, he says . . . .

you see? he says literally "do not abuse" then teaches discipline in a way that is abusive.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Striking repeatedly in a controlled manner with reasonable force does not result in serious bodily harm. Not allowing kids to scream is not abuse. Using tubing is not abuse, as it inflicts pain without causing damage.

Again- the Pearls clarify all their child training advice with the use of words such as "reasonable", "limited", "calm", and "controlled"- those ideas are clearly the anti-thesis of abuse. Implying that the Pearls are responsible for the abuse and murder of children is bearing false witness.

Anne Sokol's picture

Susan R wrote:
Striking repeatedly in a controlled manner with reasonable force does not result in serious bodily harm. Not allowing kids to scream is not abuse. Using tubing is not abuse, as it inflicts pain without causing damage.

Again- the Pearls clarify all their child training advice with the use of words such as "reasonable", "limited", "calm", and "controlled"- those ideas are clearly the anti-thesis of abuse. Implying that the Pearls are responsible for the abuse and murder of children is bearing false witness.


is this not what the Schatz parents were doing?

Pages