No, the free market should determine whether this ministry exists

This makes me sick to my stomach.

Isn't this story like 15 years old?

Especially the nytimes article was interesting.

Well, it appears the author Michael Pearl is not fully as crazy as some of his fans.
"But he acknowledged that the methods are not right for out-of-control or severely overburdened parents."
I'd recommend Mr Pearl to self-ban himself. It should be evidenced to him that the parents who feel a need and use of his book are the typically "severely overburdened" ones. He should see that he is apparently being a bad influence and repent, pray and revoke his ways and his books.

Yeah I saw this. Very, very sickening. I +1ed your post, because I think this is a good example of a book that should seriously make free speech advocates look hard at their ideals, which is a very important thing to do.

In the end, and with a heavy heart at its abuses, though, I do support free speech, even for sickening works like this. Hopefully the sickness and danger of this book will be more broadly exposed (you're the second person to point me to it today), and those who distribute or suggest it will be heartily shamed. It's an attempt to legitimize sadism, pure and simple, and against children.

@Invictus, it's in the news again because the most recent couple were just conviceted of murder.

I read the NY Times article. I don't think the deaths can be sufficiently traced back by the books:

1. Another common denominator in these cases seems to be the fact that all children were adopted at a somewhat advanced age.
2. The methods in the book were taken to extremes: "The Paddocks had adopted six American children, some with emotional problems, and turned to the Internet and found the Pearls’ Web site, Mrs. Paddock said. Sean suffocated after being wrapped tightly in a blanket." Does the book mention anything about wrapping kids tightly in a blanket in a way that inhibits their respiration?

In Holland, it is illegal to strike your child and I believe that it should be. I also disagree strongly with the book.

That all being said, a fundamental conversation about child behavior could do good. I'm having the feeling that many parents these days are giving insufficient attention to their children because they are not really ready to have them and did not make necessary preparations for them (marriage, a stable situation in life) and the richer ones compensate by drowning them in presents.

No. Parents of the adoptee that was murdered were convicted a few weeks ago. The murder took place 2 years ago.

*traced back to the book:

A bad parent will be a bad parent with or without the aid of a bad book. I suspect banning it would only give it more publicity and encourage anti-government types (of which the US has more than its fair share) to read the damned thing when it would have otherwise be ignored.

Have the US medical and child care community come up with a standard for such books and award those who meet it with a stamp of approval. Make sure all reasonable steps are taken to point parents in the direction of sound advice. Banning books rarely achieves anything positive.

Here are some quotes from the book (I found this in an Amazon review):

Some excerpts: On p.65 co-author Debi Pearl whips the bare leg of a 15 month old she is babysitting, 10 separate times, for not playing with something she tells him to play with.

After about ten acts of stubborn defiance, followed by ten switchings, he surrendered his will to one higher than himself. In rolling the wheel, he did what every accountable human being must do-he humbled himself before the "highest" and admitted that his interests are not paramount. After one begrudged roll, my wife turned to other chores

On p.59 they recommend spanking a 3 year old until he is "totally broken."

She then administers about ten slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, "Johnny, clean up your mess." He should very contritely wipe up the water.

On p.79 they recommend switching a 7 month old for screaming.

A seven-month-old boy had, upon failing to get his way, stiffened clenched his fists, bared his toothless gums and called down damnation on the whole place. At a time like that, the angry expression on a baby's face can resemble that of one instigating a riot. The young mother, wanting to do the right thing, stood there in helpless consternation, apologetically shrugged her shoulders and said, "What can I do?" My incredulous nine-year-old whipped back, "Switch him." The mother responded, "I can't, he's too little." With the wisdom of a veteran who had been on the little end of the switch, my daughter answered, "If he is old enough to pitch a fit, he is old enough to be spanked."

This book advocates "training" children by implementing a programme of sustained beatings from the age of six months onwards. The authors should be arrested and put on trial for inciting violence against infants.

In Scotland, following the examples in this book would lead to parents having their children taken away from them, and the parents would be likely to face prosecution for abuse. And rightly so.

Disgusting.

Should the following books be banned, and profits stripped, etc.:
* The Anarchaist Cookbook (already banned, I think)
* Mein Kampf
* Any writing supporting communism, which has led to the authoritarian rule over, and death of millions
* Any books supporting Satanisn, or Satanic worship
* Any crime novel with graphic scenes of violence, especially rape, which can essentially serve as both inspiration and an instruction manual to the mentally unstable

And the list goes on...

Once again, Putin (and Putin backers) - who is responsible, the rapist, or the girl in the slinky dress? Who is responsible? The parents who murdered their child, or the book, which apparently all of you are able to see as teh bad advice it is?

Do you *ever* advocate for people taking responsibility for their own actions??? Are you that much of a loser in real life that nothing you do is your own fault?

The parents are responsible for their own actions Krellin, correct, but the author is responsible for his own actions too ie. giving out dangerous and immoral advice

Should the following books be banned, and profits stripped, etc.:
* The Anarchaist Cookbook yes
* Mein Kampf no
* Any writing supporting communism no
* Any books supporting Satanisn, or Satanic worship no
* Any crime novel with graphic scenes of violence, especially rape no

The difference with the Cookbook is it explicitly aims at the creation of weapons (grenades, bombs etc) and their use (towards anarchist ideals). The rest are just books that suggest a certain ideology, not at telling them what to do and how to do it. In Mein Kampf for example Hitler mentions nothing like: step 1 create death camps in Poland. Likewise Marx/Lenin does not include plans for a nuclear device to use against the Bourgeouis, and the novel although it contains depictions of it, does not suggest violence or rape. A book that suggested and gave tips on how to rape should definitely be banned/

The law is generally quite clear on such matters of culpability.

It is fine for example for me to advocate all webdippers to arm themselves and overthrow the tyranny of the mods. That's free speech. But if I were (and for the avoidance of doubt I'm not), to suggest that Krellin pistol whips mod a to within an inch of his life that's incitement and I could be charged with an offence.

Moral - think big. Encourage wholesale mass murder and not giving someone specific a mild beating.

Hope that helps?

"giving out dangerous and immoral advice"

Oh please...and are YOU going to be the arbiter of what is moral? Or maybe Putin the Communist who supports mass-murdering regimes should determine that?

As for dangerous, can you seriosuly tell me the book advocates murder? Or do you think perhaps it was mis-interpreted by sociopaths?

And you know, Satanic worship has been linekd to ritualistic *mruder*...but you don't want that banned. You FAIL.

It advocates hosing children down and leaving them in the cold, starving them and beating them severely, so it's pretty immoral.

That depends on which denomination of Satanism you're talking about. Any that directly advocate murder should obviously be banned.

A novel that depicts rape in graphic detail...OK with you. Yeah...not a chance in teh world that will inspire an unstable mind....so you assume all readers are rational enough to not do what they read if it is wrong....

....and yet if it is a romance novel, we can certainly imagine a spouse inspired by examples from a romance novel such that when her husband comes the house is covered in rose petals and candles, and she is lying in bed in a lacy outfit with a array of new toys by her side….all inspired by her romance novel…

So you can’t tell me that one novel inspires…but the other…meh…no big deal..nobody will take that seriously and follow the very graphic descriptions of how to abduct and rape a woman.

There are a couple authors I quit reading a number of years back because the violence was so detailed and perverse I didn’t want to give such a perverse mind my money…he’s a best seller…and you can’t tell me that other perverse, unstable minds don’t find him inspirational

"It advocates hosing children down and leaving them in the cold, starving them and beating them severely, so it's pretty immoral"

And YOU can see this as the immoral nonsense that it is, thank god. Others can't. What makes you think that others don't read a rape-filled crime novel in a different light than you?

That's part of the problem with literature; there's no universal standard of it....

No...that's part of the problem with banning books....or alternately, that's part of the problem with FREE SPEECH....please see:

First Amendment: http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?viewthread=1072940#1072940

The law has a few tests (that I agree with) reasonable foreseeability in the chain of causation. There's a lot of debate about what is a "reasonable man" though.

I guess I see your point krellin. It's difficult for any government to justify "protecting people from themselves" by banning books.. However it's reasonable to say certain books are banned in my house and to stop your children reading them until they're adults.

Using your IRL mute button is also part of the 1st amendment. Do so.

Maniac, that's not really an accurate description of US law, at least. In the US, you're allowed to advocate for violence and lawbreaking as long as the time is left unspecified, and you're not advocating for iminent action. See Brandenburg v. Ohio and subsequent cases.

"banned in my house and to stop your children reading them until they're adults. "

DING DING DING. SYnapse wins the prize...