COMMENTS: 412
'Arrows for the War'
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
When the Gospel Community Church in Coxsackie, New York, breaks midservice to excuse children for Sunday school, nearly half of the 225-strong congregation patters toward the back of the worship hall: the five youngest children of Pastor Stan Slager's eight, assistant pastor Bartly Heneghan's eleven and the Dufkin family's thirteen, among many others. "The Missionettes," a team of young girls who perform ribbon dances during the praise music, put down their "glory hoops" to join their classmates; the pews empty out. It's the un-ignorable difference between the families at Gospel Community and those in the rest of the town that's led some to wonder if the church isn't a cult that forces its disciples to keep pushing out children.
But after the kids leave, Pastor Stan doesn't exhort his congregation to bear children. His approach is more subtle, reminding them to present their bodies as living sacrifices to the Lord, and preaching to them about Acts 5:20: Go tell "all the words of this life." Or, in Pastor Stan's guiding translation, to lead lives that make outsiders think, "Christianity is real," lives that "demand an explanation."
Lives such as these: Janet Wolfson is a 44-year-old mother of eight in Canton, Georgia. Tracie Moore, a 39-year-old midwife who lives in southern Kentucky, is mother to fourteen. Wendy Dufkin in Coxsackie has her thirteen. And while Jamie Stoltzfus, a 27-year-old Illinois mom, has only four children so far, she plans on bearing enough to populate "two teams." All four mothers are devoted to a way of life New York Times columnist David Brooks has praised as a new spiritual movement taking hold among exurban and Sunbelt families. Brooks called these parents "natalists" and described their progeny as a new wave of "Red-Diaper Babies" -- as in "red state."
But Wolfson, Moore and thousands of mothers like them call themselves and their belief system "Quiverfull." They borrow their name from Psalm 127: "Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate." Quiverfull mothers think of their children as no mere movement but as an army they're building for God.
Quiverfull parents try to have upwards of six children. They home-school their families, attend fundamentalist churches and follow biblical guidelines of male headship -- "Father knows best" -- and female submissiveness. They refuse any attempt to regulate pregnancy. Quiverfull began with the publication of Rick and Jan Hess's 1989 book, A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ, which argues that God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb on a case-by-case basis. Women's attempts to control their own bodies -- the Lord's temple -- are a seizure of divine power.
Though there are no exact figures for the size of the movement, the number of families that identify as Quiverfull is likely in the thousands to low tens of thousands. Its word-of-mouth growth can be traced back to conservative Protestant critiques of contraception -- adherents consider all birth control, even natural family planning (the rhythm method), to be the province of prostitutes -- and the growing belief among evangelicals that the decision of mainstream Protestant churches in the 1950s to approve contraception for married couples led directly to the sexual revolution and then Roe v. Wade.
"Our bodies are meant to be a living sacrifice," write the Hesses. Or, as Mary Pride, in another of the movement's founding texts, The Way Home: Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, puts it, "My body is not my own." This rebuttal of the feminist health text Our Bodies, Ourselves is deliberate. Quiverfull women are more than mothers. They're domestic warriors in the battle against what they see as forty years of destruction wrought by women's liberation: contraception, women's careers, abortion, divorce, homosexuality and child abuse, in that order.
Pride argues that feminism is a religion in its own right, one that is inherently incompatible with Christianity. "Christians have accepted feminists' 'moderate' demands for family planning and careers while rejecting the 'radical' side of feminism -- meaning lesbianism and abortion," writes Pride. "What most do not see is that one demand leads to the other. Feminism is a totally self-consistent system aimed at rejecting God's role for women. Those who adopt any part of its lifestyle can't help picking up its philosophy." "Family planning," Pride argues, "is the mother of abortion. A generation had to be indoctrinated in the ideal of planning children around personal convenience before abortion could be popular."
Instead of picketing clinics, Pride writes, Christians should fight abortion by demonstrating that children are an "unqualified blessing" by having as many as God gives them. Only a determination among Christian women to take up their submissive, motherly roles with a "military air" and become "maternal missionaries" will lead the Christian army to victory. Thus is Quiverfull part of Mary Pride's whole-cloth solution to women's liberation: embracing an opposing way of life as total and "self-consistent" as feminism, and turning back the tide on a society gone wrong by populating the world with right-thinking Christians.
The gentle manner of Deidre Welch, another Coxsackie mom, with four boys, seems at odds with Quiverfull's militaristic language, which describes children as weapons of spiritual war, as arrows shot out by their parents. But she describes the movement toward larger families in the same way: "God is bringing revelation on the world. He wants to raise up His army. He wants His children to be."
Angel Mays, a 31-year-old mother to three in West Virginia, spoke with me just before she was to have her tubal ligation reversed in order to make her body "God's home" again. Mays suspects a divine purpose to her change of heart and believes the Quiverfull and home-schooling movements are signs of a revival. "It seems the Lord is preparing for something, and I'm wondering if He's doing something big. There's so much selfishness, with people thinking they need to make their lives easier. But we're to seek the Kingdom of God first. The further the nation gets away from God, the starker the Christian contrast grows. The darker the world gets, the more we stand out."
In his 2004 column for the Times, David Brooks concluded that mothers like Welch and Mays are too busy parenting to wage culture war. A home-schooling mother of nine on the 2,700-family-strong online forum Quiverfull Digest responded in irritation to Brooks's misunderstanding of the movement's aims. Raising a large family, she replied, was itself her "battle station," as deliberately political an act as canvassing for conservative candidates, not to mention part of a long-term plan to win the culture war "demographically."
Population is a preoccupation for many Quiverfull believers, who trade statistics on the falling white birthrate in European countries like Germany and France. Every ethnic conflict becomes evidence for their worldview: Muslim riots in France, Latino immigration in California, Sharia law in Canada. The motivations aren't always racist, but the subtext of "race suicide" is often there.
Pastor Heneghan of Gospel Community Church sees the issue of population growth in more biblical terms, specifically those taken from Genesis and Revelation. "Some people think that what I'm doing -- having 11 children -- is wrong. I don't really get into that much. The Bible says 'be fruitful and multiply.' That's my belief system. They don't believe in God, so they think we have to conserve what we have. But in my belief system, He's going to give us a new earth." Overpopulation isn't a problem in a universe where God promises a clean global slate.
As a movement, Quiverfull has grown in a grassroots style. There's little top-down instruction or organization from church leaders; instead it spreads through community Bible studies, home-schooling forums, "prolife" activist circles or small ministries such as "Titus 2" wife-mentoring groups, which instruct Christian women in biblical wifehood. Supporter Allan Carlson, an economic historian who heads the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society and advises conservative legislators like Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, sees Quiverfull's most significant roots in the home-schooling movement, and as with the early days of home-schooling, he sees Quiverfull as a populist movement with "a wonderful anarchy to it."
But while home-schoolers may be more receptive to the idea of unplanned families, most prospectives actually learn about the Quiverfull conviction through the movement's literature: Pride's and the Hesses' books, Nancy Campbell's Be Fruitful and Multiply, Rachel Scott's Birthing God's Mighty Warriors or Sam and Bethany Torode's Open Embrace. And most people find these books after hearing the theory that birth-control pills are an abortifacient (that hormonal contraception such as the pill can cause the "chemical abortion" of accidentally fertilized eggs). This belief is something the Quiverfull conviction has in common with the larger Christian right, which has recently embraced a radically expanded "prolife" agenda that encompasses not just abortion but birth control and sexual abstinence. Taking a page from the antiabortion movement, anticontraception activists have gradually broadened their aims, moving from defending individual "conscientiously objecting" pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives on moral grounds to extending the same "right of refusal" to corporate entities such as insurers, to an out-and-out offensive against birth control as the murder-through-prevention of 3,000 lives a day and also as the future undoing of Western civilization.
The latter two points were recently made in Illinois by British demographer Andrew Pollard, a speaker at the pioneering "Contraception Is Not the Answer" conference in September. That event served as a sort of coming-out party for the anticontraception movement, following an August cover story on "The Case for Kids" in the evangelical flagship magazine Christianity Today. Pundits warning of a coming "demographic divide," wherein fecund red staters will far outnumber barren blue state liberals, are further ratcheting up interest in fertility politics. But before the movement made this mainstream splash, a quieter opposition to birth control had been building for years.
Among the first contemporary Protestants advancing the theory that contraception is anathema to Scripture was Charles Provan, an independent Pennsylvania printer, lay theologian and father to ten who was until recently deeply involved in the Holocaust revisionist movement. In 1989 Provan, whom both Pride and the Hesses name as an inspiration, published The Bible and Birth Control, which has been called the authoritative source for Protestants seeking scriptural guidance on contraception. In it, Provan traces Protestant opposition to birth control to three main scriptural bases: Psalm 127, the Genesis command to "be fruitful and multiply," and the biblical story of Onan, slain by God for spilling his seed on the ground (seen by Provan as a form of birth control).
No Protestant denomination accepted birth control until 1930, when the Anglican Church endorsed contraceptive use among married couples. Quiverfull author Rachel Scott sees that moment as the beginning of a biblically prophesied era of "70 years in Babylon" -- in this case a spiritual Babylon that declared children to be a "choice" -- that ended (rather inexactly) with 9/11, seventy-one years later.
The fall of the Twin Towers is a popular turning point in the Quiverfull narrative. Becca Campos, a 34-year-old Nebraska mother of five who works as an administrator for a sterilization reversal ministry, Blessed Arrows, explains: "The Bible says that if a nation humbles itself and prays together, God will turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children. After 9/11, people started looking inward." Campos sees the schedule change of her 2001 tubal ligation reversal in Mexico -- from September 10 to September 8 -- as God's provision that she shouldn't be stuck south of the border during her recovery, unable to board a plane home. The references aren't so much Falwellian bombast -- 9/11 as God's judgment on a sinful country -- as the magical thinking that goes along with a faith strong enough to convince poor families, who are struggling to make ends meet as it is, that God will provide for them unequivocally.
"Lean not on your own understanding," Quiverfull mom Tracie Moore tells me, describing the scriptural foundations she's discovered for the movement: Children are a blessing, a reward, an inheritance. Don't worry about money -- the Moores have never had much of it -- because God will provide for his flock.
And in its most innocuous self-explanations, this is what Quiverfull is about: faith, pure and simple. Faith that God won't give women more children than they can handle, and faith that by opening themselves up to receive multiple "blessings," they will bring God's favor upon them in other areas of life as well: Their husbands will get better jobs; God will send a neighbor with a sack of used children's clothes just when the soles on Johnny's shoes fall out. God, many Quiverfull women say, deals with their hearts about birth control, and if they submit, they are cared for.
This last equation -- submit, and be cared for -- is a fitting summary of the social logic of the Quiverfull life. While most Quiverfull families appear to be solidly working class or low income, even those in the middle-income brackets struggle with the financial challenges of caring for a ten-person family. But for many Quiverfull mothers, this struggle is still preferable to the alternatives they see society offering working-class women -- alternatives they see as the fruit of secular feminism. For poor women, the feminist fight for job equality won them no career path but rather the right to pink-collar labor, as a housekeeper, a waitress, a clerk. The sexual revolution did not bring them self-exploration and fulfillment but rather loosened the social restraints that bound men to the household as husbands and fathers. Even for women who stayed in the home, the incidence of women in the workplace led employers to stop offering a "family wage" that could sustain both parents and children.
Mary Pride puts it in biblical terms -- feminism made wage slaves out of women who had once been slaves to God; it made "unpaid prostitutes" out of women who should have been godly mothers and wives. Yet there's something deeper here than standard antifeminist backlash. While economic and cultural complaints may attract believers to Quiverfull, conviction, and the momentum of a growing movement, are what sustains them.
Rachel Scott, who calls herself a "one-woman Quiverfull activist," describes her conversion moment. One night after the birth of her fourth child -- their third "oops" baby due to birth-control failures -- when the prospect of tuition for four consumed husband Christopher and their pastor was urging vasectomy, Christopher saw a warrior angel in his dream. A "large, worrying warrior angel" with a flaming sword that he pointed at Christopher's genitals, telling him, "Do not change God's plan."
While Scott pays tribute to the foundation of the Quiverfull movement in Pride's books and the home-schooling movement, she distinguishes herself from the "hard line" of Quiverfull believers, whom she sees as holding each other to purity tests: How many kids do you have? Do you home-school? Concerned that such stringency could alienate potential believers, Scott instead promotes a gentler Quiverfull, so that average Christian families feel up to the task of "Birthing God's Mighty Warriors." "Like all good buildings, the foundation needs to be strong. But the Bible says, 'All men come.' The foundation's been laid and now God's starting to change people's minds, both inside and outside of the church. Before the end times, the Bible says the family will be restored, whether they're in church or out of church," says Scott.
The hard Quiverfull line is something that bothers Dawn Irons, founder of Blessed Arrows. After Lyme disease left Irons "postfertile," she felt stung by the assertions of "movement Quiverfullers," who view the number of children one has as a gauge of holiness or spirituality. "If you follow the discussions on the Quiverfull Digest right now, you can see what happens when a 'movement' mentality sets in. Someone just asked the question today if a person can really be considered Quiverfull if they're past the age of childbearing...as if being able to birth a baby is all that makes one Quiverfull. It's a heart change."
Becca Campos agrees. She says that Quiverfull shouldn't be thought of as a movement but as a return to an old ideal. Current speculation on the Quiverfull Digest as to whether larger families are becoming "a fad" grows from some people "making an idol of it." Of course, the nature of mass movements is a blunting of subtleties, and a winnowing down of theology to the most easily understood denominator. In this case: babies, lots of them, for God.
When I visited Janet and Ted Wolfson at their paintball farm in Canton, Georgia, for a planned Quiverfull picnic (one cut short by bad weather and Rachel Scott's cardinal rule that "with eight children, plans are always subject to change"), the Wolfsons and their guests were discussing the reasons for sticking with Quiverfull through the hard times. An anonymous mother had written in to the Quiverfull Digest full of despair, saying she felt she was "going to die." Her husband was older and unhelpful around the house, and she feared he would die and leave her to raise their six children alone and destitute. She wanted someone on the forum to give her a reason -- besides the Bible -- why one should be Quiverfull. The answers were quick and pointed: Apart from Scripture, there's no reason why one should be Quiverfull.
"If you don't invoke God's word, then there's really no reason," the Wolfsons explained. "Kids are great and all that, but in reality, it's all about the Bible."
But if the Quiverfull mission is rooted in faith, the unseen, its mandate to be fruitful and multiply has tangible results as well. Namely, in Rick and Jan Hess's words, to provide "arrows for the war."
After arguing Scripture, the Hesses point to a number of more worldly effects that a Christian embrace of Quiverfull could bring. "When at the height of the Reagan Revolution," they write, "the conservative faction in Washington was enforced [sic] with squads of new conservative congressmen, legislators often found themselves handcuffed by lack of like-minded staff. There simply weren't enough conservatives trained to serve in Washington in the lower and middle capacities." But if just 8 million American Christian couples began supplying more "arrows for the war" by having six children or more, they propose, the Christian-right ranks could rise to 550 million within a century ("assuming Christ does not return before then"). They like to ponder the spiritual victory that such numbers could bring: both houses of Congress and the majority of state governor's mansions filled by Christians; universities that embrace creationism; sinful cities reclaimed for the faithful; and the swift blows dealt to companies that offend Christian sensibilities.
"With the nation's low birth rate, the high divorce rate, an un-marrying and anti-child viewpoint, and a debauched nation perhaps unable to slow down the spread of AIDS, we can begin to see what happens politically. A half-billion person boycott of a company which violated God's standards could be very effective... Through God's blessing we would be part of a replay of Exodus 1:7, 'But the sons of Israel were fruitful and increased greatly, and multiplied, and became exceedingly mighty, so that the land was filled with them.'" "Brethren," they write, "it's time for a comeback!"
The fact that, in 2006, their predictions read less like Left Behind fantasies than a slight exaggeration of the past year's religious news is a testament to what's changed since the Hesses published their book more than fifteen years ago.
Quiverfull is not yet a large movement. The number of families wholly committed to its path doesn't represent any pollster's idea of a key demographic. But it's nonetheless culturally significant for representing an ideal: an illustration of the family structure many conservatives reference in condemning modern society. Not every family has to be "Quiverfull," in the sense of having six or eight children, for the movement to make an impact. Mothers who have four kids instead of three can also reinforce the Quiverfull goal of a return to the traditional, patriarchal family as the basic economic unit of society.
Even as the movement seeks to mellow its image to mainstream its message, the revival dreams the Hesses had in the 1990s have become popular talking points in their own right through the work of social scientists like Phillip Longman, a demographer at the centrist New America Institute and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It, and the man Longman describes as his "dark shadow," Allan Carlson. Though Carlson comes at natalism from the right and Longman, putatively the secular vanguard of the movement, works on the issue from the middle, their positions are sufficiently similar for Longman to have endorsed Carlson's controversial pro-Quiverfull treatise, "The Natural Family: A Manifesto."
Carlson is fond of recalling early opponents of birth control such as Teddy Roosevelt and the New Deal-era "maternalists" who pushed through the traditionalist strictures written into the first Social Security Act, which defined beneficiary families as breadwinning fathers and homemaking mothers. Roosevelt, according to Carlson, associated birth control with "race suicide" and selfish white women who "import our babies from abroad" rather than honor their duty to bear children for the nation. Like Roosevelt and the maternalists, Carlson wants to construct a secular, social-policy case for natalism based on the importance of large families to sustaining a Social Security system crippled by childless "free riders." As with the "family friendly" tax policies Carlson has written for conservative politicians such as Senator Brownback and Nebraska Representative Lee Terry -- which reward large families with hefty tax cuts for each child -- Carlson says that "the sub-theme of all I do is pro-natalism."
But faith, he says, is the necessary yeast for any secular movement, and religion has always been the driving force behind the family movement. In the same way that Carlson recalls the "strand of garrison life" that the cold war fight against Communism brought to American society, in the conservative Christian world that sees Europe as the measure of mankind's fall, a besieged war mentality is a given. In both Carlson's writings and in the work of Mary Pride and the Hesses, this is reflected in their description of patriarchal families as the basic "cellular units of society" that form a bulwark against Communism, as well as in the military-industrial terminology they assign to biblical gender roles within such "cells": the husband described as company CEO, the wife as plant manager and the children as workers. Or, in alternate form, the titles revised to reflect the Christian church's "constant state of war" with the world: "Commander in Chief" Jesus, the husband a "commanding officer" and his wife a "private" below him. And the kids? Presumably ammunition, arrows, weapons for the war.
Thus patriarchy, and its requirement that wives submit to their husbands, becomes a mission in itself, the inversion of a reactionary movement into a seeming revolution against modern society. As Pride writes, "Submission has a military air... When the private is committed to winning the war, and is willing to subject his personal desires to the goal of winning, and is willing to follow the leader his Commander has put over him, that army stands a good chance of winning."
But how well are these arguments being received in the larger society? There are signs of denominations and churches picking up the Quiverfull philosophy, not least among these the statements made by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler last year, who wrote that deliberate childlessness among Christian couples is "moral rebellion" and "an absolute revolt against God's design." Meanwhile, Phillip Longman hardly offers a left-wing counterpoint. Instead, he's searching -- at the request of the Democratic Leadership Council, which published his policy proposals in its Blueprint magazine -- for a way to appeal to the same voters Carlson is organizing: a typically "radical middle" quest to figure out how Democrats can make nice with Kansas.
"Who are these evangelicals?" asks Longman. "Is there anything about them that makes them inherently prowar and for tax cuts for the rich?" No, he concludes. "What's irreducible about these religious voters is that they're for the family." Asked whether the absolutist position Quiverfull takes on birth control, let alone abortion, might interfere with his strategy, Longman admits that abortion rights would have to take a back seat but that, in politics, "nobody ever gets everything they need."
Aside from the centrist tax policies Longman is crafting to rival Carlson's, he urges a return to patriarchy -- properly understood, he is careful to note, as not just male domination but also increased male responsibility as husbands and fathers -- on more universal grounds. Taking a long view as unsettling in its way as Pastor Bartly Heneghan's rapture talk, Longman says that no society can survive to reproduce itself without following patriarchy. "As secular and libertarian elements in society fail to reproduce, people adhering to more traditional, patriarchal values inherit society by default," Longman argues, pointing to cyclical demographic upheavals from ancient Greece and Rome to the present day, when falling birthrates have consistently augured conservative, even reactionary comebacks, marked by increased nationalism, religious fundamentalism and deep societal conservatism. Presenting a thinly veiled ultimatum to moderates and liberals, Longman cites the political sea change in the Netherlands in recent years, where, he charges, a population decline led to a vacuum that "Muslim extremists came in to fill." Though individual, nonpatriarchal elements of society may die out, he says, societies as a whole will survive and, "through a process of cultural evolution, a set of values and norms that can roughly be described as patriarchy reemerge."
Longman's answer to this threat is for progressives to beat conservatives by joining them, emulating the large patriarchal families that conservatives promote in order not to be overrun by a reactionary baby boom. Any mention of social good occurring in regions with low birthrates is swept away by the escalating rhetoric of a "birth dearth," a "baby bust," a dying hemisphere undone by its own progressive politics.
That's how Quiverfull mother Wendy Dufkin sees it, give or take a few mentions of the Lord's name: God is leading Quiverfull families at the head of a "return to patriarchy, to father-led families. Patriarchy may be a loaded word for some, but it's not for me. There are so many woman-led families, whether single mothers or families where the father is just absent. I think it's gone to such an extreme with those families for a while that now we're returning to another extreme, patriarchy."
She recounts the "seven stages of decline of the Roman Empire" as illustration: from men failing to lead their families to God, through adultery, divorce, homosexuality, barrenness, atheism and then, in the end, an invasion of barbarians from abroad.
The invasion, the war, is to be understood on both planes: the worldly war that a good patriot like Dufkin likely supports, and the spiritual war of the church, which will continue indefinitely. Where the two meet -- in the generally low-income households of believers who feel bound to supply their children, their arrows for God -- you might expect a clash of consciences, such as when Deidre Welch explains what she sees as a "media attitude" about bearing many children. "This idea of, why bring children into this world, a world of violence, just to get drafted?" The example seems poignant -- her oldest son has just left for Iraq -- but Welch remains optimistic, bearing in mind the biblical promise that "God can use your Quiverfull to bring up his army of belief." As a believer and a loving mother, perhaps she sees this path -- worldwide redemption through spiritual and actual warfare -- as the one that will lead to the end of wars, even if that path means the wars will be fought with arrows such as her son.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Nov 14, 2006 12:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, with better health practices, 13 kids means 13 kids. I flinch at the thought. But if someone else is willing to do the work, I am not going to second guess them, even if I find their religious reasoning childish and superficial.
Prochoice means prochoice. The Nation's attack on this religious group has a sour smell to me. We know the author and her feminist colleagues at the Nation would never raise this many kids, say to populate the world with secular leftists. But if others voluntarily breed for their Biblical beliefs, that's their freedom of religion. The Nation's condescending attitude and indeed the purpose of the article itself demonstrates a nasty sort of elitism.
» RE: free choice
Posted by: fork
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: free choice
Posted by: marxalot
» You say that...
Posted by: pball
» RE: free choice
Posted by: caitlin
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: free choice (?)
Posted by: Basenjis
» Welfare slugs
Posted by: nicoKno2
» RE: free choice
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: free choice
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: free choice
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Vaene
» RE: free choice
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Vaene
» "trust funded left" hahahahahaha
Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: free choice
Posted by: gooch_x
» Are you serious?
Posted by: DanielT28
» Great post! (RE: free choice)
Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice
Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Vaene
» You're missing the point...
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: free choice
Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice
Posted by: gooch_x
» RE: free choice
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: free choice...the problem with that argument is that for many of the
Posted by: mdruss42
» Not a new or unique concept
Posted by: mirimac
» RE: free choice...the problem with that argument is that for many of the
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: goatini
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: Vaene
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: goatini
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: Vaene
» okay, Vain twit, prove where I said
Posted by: goatini
» RE: okay, Vain twit, prove where I said
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU
Posted by: goatini
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU
Posted by: Vaene
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU
Posted by: Vaene
» you are a liar,
Posted by: goatini
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU...If we gain anything from these stories and opinions
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: free choice
Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: free choice
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: free choice
Posted by: kingfelix
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 14, 2006 1:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, pastor, I'm running low on grazing land carved from rain forest, so can you please send God a message to speed that delivery up?
It's either a couple of new earths or soylent green.
» Yeah, I guess thats why God called on us to be stewards of his gifts to us. Sad luck...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 14, 2006 1:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they keep clogging up the tax codes with kid-friendly stuff, we'll all have to have 50 kids, just so we can keep some of our paycheck.
» Not only that...
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Not only that...
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: Not only that...
Posted by: MSTHOM
» whaaaaat?
Posted by: goatini
» RE: whaaaaat?
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Agreed. Apply the same rules to everyone. Nobody's special.
Posted by: eddie torres
» Your problem is an answer in search of a question.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Your problem is an answer in search of a question.
Posted by: wolfcry
» In 20 years they'll feed you
Posted by: Lori37
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 14, 2006 1:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: edith
» RE: linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: nicoKno2
» ECM: excess cellular matter
Posted by: edith
» RE: linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: caitlin
» Would You Sell Your Soul to Me? Naaah. Why take a chance?
Posted by: edith
» RE: linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: osisbs
» RE: linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» Edith, have you read ¨The Gate To Women´s Country¨by Sheri Tepper?
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmd on Nov 14, 2006 4:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, it is dangerous to have a over six kids in less than ten years. It dramatically increases a woman's chance of dying during childbirth. The uterus is overworked and cannot always clamp down on the blood vessels after birth.
And what's up with the whole white supremacy thing here? So what if there are less "white" people? People are people. And there are plenty of people in the world. I think adoption is a wonderful thing. Parents who want children take in children who need parents. Also, adoption is a hard and expensive process, so people who adopt really want kids. Also, it doesn't contribute to the overpopulation of the world.
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: AdamG
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: bgawboy
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 14, 2006 4:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Breeding for the apocalypse
Posted by: Mr. Heathen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gayle on Nov 14, 2006 4:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These children are going to be paying your Social Security. They are the ones who are going to be holding up this country. And maybe if they are taught right they won't be using up all the social services---drug rehab, VD clinics--
Heck, they aren't even using public education funds right now. What's the beef?
» And using up valuable resources
Posted by: nicoKno2
» RE: gayle
Posted by: caitlin
» RE: gayle
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: gayle
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: gayle
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: gayle
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: gayle
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: that's the problem
Posted by: goatini
» RE: gayle
Posted by: buffeliscious
» Fine, You wanted it, you can have it. Infinite Diversity In Infinite Porportions.
Posted by: MSTHOM
» You mean besides the fact that such an economy is just a giant pyramid scheme????
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» So many Cells; So Little Time
Posted by: edith
» Eddie's right.
Posted by: Mr. Heathen
» RE: gayle
Posted by: dougo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kww355 on Nov 14, 2006 4:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's definitely a race issue, as well. If it weren't, they'd adopt all the children already here who need parents. Oops, most of those are minority or mixed race. Only Aryans qualify.
These people disgust me.
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: dphrighton
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Nov 14, 2006 4:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks like the fakeLeft is up to its same old culture war tricks. Stirrring up the zealot base with bloodtalk, and not about taxing the rich and providing universal healthcare, either. Oh, no. Religion! Lifestyles! Fear! THAT is what the fakeLeft zealot base wants. They care little for the concerns that touch the typical american middle class, who simply want the politicians to stop fighting over culturewar trifles and start taking care of business. But the zealots on the fakeLeft and rightwing care for little else but the bloodlust and partisanry that is centered around social wedge issues like religion, lifestyles, race and gender and gays.
A perfect example of this was a recent post that made the rounds of the fakeLeft websites. It showed a picture of Pelosi and a snippet of text: "I'm in ur house, impeachin ur doodz."
This was perfectly emblematic of the fakeLeft vs rightwing quasi-religious zealotry. These so called "politically aware" partisans are really much like cult members, controlled almost entirely by the party elite. No wonder american politics is a mess.....
» More Self-Absorbed Male Obtuseness, Still No Acknowledgement That Women Even Exist
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: more culture wars, more religion, still no economic populism
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» "By the way, you have the stupidest handle of anybody posting here."
Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: "By the way, you have the stupidest handle of anybody posting here."
Posted by: goatini
» RE: more culture wars, more religion, still no economic populism
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Good grief, what are you so scared of?
Posted by: russianblue1
» Actually,,,, YES.
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Sounds familiar...
Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle
» A pig by any other name is still a pig
Posted by: AdamG
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Nov 14, 2006 5:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just wish Xtians would stop maligning the Roman Empire, which fell BECAUSE of Christianity.
» RE: Many of these kids will grow up to be LIBERALS!
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: Many of these kids will grow up to be LIBERALS!
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: osisbs on Nov 14, 2006 5:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Emily on Nov 14, 2006 5:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as these Christians believe that something 'magical' will happen and we will be given another earth, I have no point of contact with them. My logic makes no more sense to them than their logic makes to me.
The social revolution of the 1960s was pushing toward a more peaceful world. Away from a nuclear holocaust - away from a rising tide of desperately poor and hungry people. We looked with horrified eyes on those nations where the lack of birth control led to huge populations and grinding poverty for their people - at countries where mothers and fathers willingly sold their children into slavery so they could eat - or worse yet, practiced a kind of post-birth abortion by killing those babies who were deemed not to have the potential to provide a profit to the family.
It is very sad that as a people we have such short memory.
» RE: Breed to Succeed
Posted by: SteveO
» RE: Breed to Succeed
Posted by: aida1200
» RE: Breed to Succeed
Posted by: purplelotus13
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Nov 14, 2006 5:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: Beck
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: Beck
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mothersmovement on Nov 14, 2006 6:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should also be noted that European countries with the most stable replacement-rate fertility patterns are those that have the most generous public policies to support maternal employment and promote gender equality in labor force participation and parenting. The E.U. countries with the lowest fertility rates have more limited supports for maternal employment and less egalitarian attitudes about women's social roles. Germany is a case in point -- even though all families receive a child care stipend, public school children are sent home every day for lunch and non-parental care of infants and toddlers is frowned upon.
But the most problematic thing I see in the pro-natal fringe movement is that there is no guarantee the children raised in these radically religious communities will conform to their parents' expectations to populate the future army of the Christian right. When these kids reach the age of independence, they may very well reject the extreme doctrines that informed their upbringing and become more moderate. In his excellent history of American childhood, Steven Mintz notes this is precisely what happened to the early Puritan movement -- younger generations abandoned a religious ideology that required strict submission to their worldly father and God as the ultimate patriarch for a more enlightened and permissive view of religion and social conduct, and a few generations later their descendents were demanding the separation of church and state.
The same point can probably made about kids raised in alternative communes in the 60s and 70s. Some may be into organic farming or living off the grid -- and some are movie stars and corporate execs.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 14, 2006 6:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: appalling
Posted by: munchkinpup
» Not appalling: FUNNY!!!!!!!!
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jasonix on Nov 14, 2006 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suspect that the vast majority of evangelicals still feel this way. In my travels through the evangelical sub-culture - one that's left me a lot less sanguine about religion than I was in the late 80s - I've run into maybe two families that might be described as "quiverful." Even the most dreadfully literalist, young-earth believing fundamentalists seldom subscribe to this philosophy.
But that could change. Evangelicals weren't originally anti-abortion - they imported that belief from the Catholics a few years after Roe v. Wade. Most denominations also have formal resolutions on the books supporting the Right to Die, but that didn't stop a few zealots from making a big deal of the Schiavo debacle. I think we're going to see large numbers of evangelicals retreat from politics for the next decade or so, and large numbers of people - mostly rational, considerate people - are becoming dissatisfied with a religious movement that once promised a personal relationship with God and instead delivered a militaristic cult based on the exaltation of Authority. As the sane people drop out, the insane people will be left with the diminished institutions - and when they've bred enough to fill these institutions once again, the Religious Right we've seen so far might look like People of the American Way compared to what might emerge.
» RE: Anybody remember that Monty Python song?
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lilah on Nov 14, 2006 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biblically - As most Christians, these Quiverfull's are picking and choosing which O.T. passages they are going to live out. I HIGHLY doubt they are advocating men having to take their brother's widows as wives (usually polygamy), or sticking to the kosher dietary laws, or any of the other levitcal laws that are not observed by American Christians.
» RE: I question both the Biblical and medical reasoning of these groups...
Posted by: xenacat
» RE: Biblical basis is baloney
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Biblical basis is baloney
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Biblical basis is baloney
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Biblical basis is baloney - just being facetious
Posted by: Jasonix
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lizmv on Nov 14, 2006 6:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: This may backfire on them
Posted by: SteveO
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davewuxi on Nov 14, 2006 6:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who brings into the world a child whom they cannot properly support - materially, spiritually and psychologically - cannot be described in any other way.
Sir Julian Huxley was right when he said that we cannot hide in the arms of an inscrutable God; yet that is exactly what these parents are claiming they can do.
» "Carrying capacity of the earth"- not making a dent on them
Posted by: plantland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kyblue on Nov 14, 2006 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frightening stuff.
We're running out of land, fuel, etc. There are too many people on this planet already. It's selfish to have so many children.
» RE: we've heard this before
Posted by: wolfcry
Comments are closed-
Posted by: splendid on Nov 14, 2006 6:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read this, it seemed a bit much to count on even home schooling to ensure that a full quiver stays within the "control" of the patriarch once the arrows are grown up. (Unless it's 2,000 years ago and you use them up in battle before they even grow up.)
OTOH, my own three kids (18, 21, 23) - allowed to read and think what they want as they grew up - are proving as adults to agree with me on an astonishing number of topics.
It's amazing, isn't it, how the religious right - no matter what religion - seems to find it absolutely necessary to be patriarchal and deny women roles outside of vessels for sex and babies.
Makes me a dystheist, I think. If there is a god and this is what "he" wants, then I don't like "him" very much.
» Well, congrats for having 3 liberal kids...
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: J. S. on Nov 14, 2006 7:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: J. S.........who are they?
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: J. S.........who are they?
Posted by: jmoore
» They're pretty right-wing from the Israeli perspective...
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaciain on Nov 14, 2006 7:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: cmaciain
Posted by: jmp3954
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JCR on Nov 14, 2006 7:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hallelujah and Praise Jesus brothers and sisters. The lord has seen fit to bless the world with the progeny of these ignorant and simple-minded couples - Praise Jesus!! The heathen masses of Indians and Chinamen are outpacing us brothers and sisters. We need to do our part by acting less responsible than your average 15-year-old couple, buy ever-larger vehicles, burn more fuel, use a disproportionate amount of water and electricity and contribute 6 times more garbage to our blessed landfills!! Yes we are doing our part - Praise Jesus!!
Thank you Jesus for allowing us to live in a country so ignorant and superstitious that no one would dare put a halt to this breeding frenzy. We shall punish those whorish couples that dare use - GASP - birth control and bring fewer children into this bountiful world overflowing with water, oceans teeming with fish and certainly enough oil to last another 1,000 years. Oh and it's peaceful and safe thanks to the "War on Terror" brought to you by Brother George!! Hallelujah and Praise Jesus!!!
The best news is that the kids are homeschooled by these ignorant fucks who most certainly fill their brains with this very same kind of nonsense. Aren't we the lucky ones!!!
» RE: Thank you lord!! Thank you Jesus!!...READ ¨THE GATE TO WOMEN´S COUNTRY¨
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ghoster on Nov 14, 2006 7:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xopher.tm on Nov 14, 2006 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These children are the Timothy McVeighs of the future.
» RE: War is coming.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: War is coming.
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: War is coming.-->BINGO!!
Posted by: owlbear1
» RE: War is coming.-->BINGO!!
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jurgen on Nov 14, 2006 8:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Don't fault them
Posted by: thehousedog
» RE: Don't fault them
Posted by: xopher.tm
» YOU ARE CROSSING THE LINE
Posted by: MSTHOM
» another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: goatini
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: goatini
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: dkm
» W :a brave christian soldier
Posted by: chrisp.
» And now for something completely different...
Posted by: doctorsquared
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 14, 2006 8:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Four little, five little, six e-van-gelicals,
Seven little, eight little nine e-van-gelicals,
See evangelicals swarm.
They're dropin' 'em in ones, and twos, and threes 'n' fours,
Soon they won't be a minority anymores,
For most of humanity they'll slam shut the chaple doors,
See evangelicals swarm.
We'll all sing hymns and wor-ship before the cross,
The church's aims will mean our freedom's lost,
Darwin's out; Creation's our new boss,
See evangelicals swarm.
When the rest of the world resists the sacrament,
We'll be sure that we have enough armaments,
To bend 'em to our will, or to hell they will be sent,
See evangelicals swarm.
It would be a better world without the war and strife,
But boring as hell when everybody thinks alike,
With no one bright enough to see the human blight,
When evangelicals swarm. . .
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: aerdrie
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: chomsky
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Analogies
Posted by: dkm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Confusion
Posted by: dkm
» RE: Confusion
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Survival of the fittest
Posted by: dkm
» Theories
Posted by: dkm
» RE: Theories
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: goatini
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: goatini
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: dkm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: JCR
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: BillC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Callibrarian on Nov 14, 2006 9:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: keefus55 on Nov 14, 2006 9:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For, if Momma is perpetually pregnant, then Dad is forced into extended periods of perpetual celibacy as well. And, as we all know from the experiences of the Catholic Church and its Priests, celibacy is NOT a normal human condition.
What's more, if the behavior of the Revs. Swaggart, Haggard and Bakker are any indicators of the dark underbelly that's often present in such closed, fundamentalist communities, there's most likely a lot more "sinning" (and in the case of incest, lasting human psychological damage) going on than meets the eye.
» RE: More "Sin" than meets the eye? Closed groups are in danger
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: More "Sin" than meets the eye?
Posted by: fork
» RE: More "Sin" than meets the eye?
Posted by: keefus55
» RE: More "Sin" than meets the eye?
Posted by: Lizzzarde
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 9:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The thing is, they're not doing it because they love children (and perhaps they do), nor is it about rejecting feminism (is it me or does feminism get blamed for just about everything wrong these days?) They are doing this simply to play catch-up with the numbers of non-white births in this country and elsewhere. These white people are so terrfied of being the minority (and considering many of their past/present behaviours they may children into the world for the sheer numbers. Believe me, if the numbers of latino births suddenly declined, this "Quiverfull" movement would disappear for they'd not have anything to rally around.
This isn't about love or religion - it's about race. Dig deeper and you'll find close ties to far-right racialist groups here and in abroad.
Sadly, this sounds exactly like Hitler exhorting "good" German women to breed soldiers for the Fatherland because there were too many Jews.
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: morticia
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: morticia
» Race is important, because everyone thinks it is.
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: fork
» It's Not Race: It's Pumpin, PUMPKIN.
Posted by: edith
» RE: It's Not Race: It's Pumpin, PUMPKIN.
Posted by: fork
» If they don't agree with you, they are a racist?
Posted by: edith
» RE: If they don't agree with you, they are a racist?
Posted by: fork
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: wolfcry
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BeeGee on Nov 14, 2006 9:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a novel by Margaret Atwood. It describes this culture moved into a future dystopia and it's horrible. Highly recommended for more ammunition as to why this culture should be gently counteracted.
For further ammunition, read George Lakoff's "Moral Politics," which describes the difference in children raised by authoritarian fathers versus a nurturing father and mother. Hint: nurturance equals self esteem and self-reliance, authoritarianism equals dysfunction.
» RE: Two words...
Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: Two words... Two more.....Sheri Tepper
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eichen on Nov 14, 2006 10:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Nov 14, 2006 10:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: eligion and population
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 14, 2006 10:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
palestinians in occupied terroritories
crazed fundamentalists in the USA
is the same sad technique in which the some minority, terrorists, or anti-modernists tries to drive out modernity by birth rates.
» RE: Same old tale
Posted by: edith
» RE: Same old tale
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Time to Fly
Posted by: edith
» RE: Time to Fly
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Good point- they were marginalized to begin with?
Posted by: plantland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 14, 2006 10:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This apprroach to breeding, which is not new by the way, the Catholic and Morman Churches have been espousing it for decades, even centuries, is not only a health hazard for women, but also for the children they bear. We have one o fthe highest infant mortaility rates in the world in the United States according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Women who have multiple births suffer from depleted physical strength overtime which results in smaller children and children who have weaker immune systems and other health problems. Assuming that a woman can bear multiple children without losing a significant number to birth related death, she and they will have to be fed and cared for overtime, and if the family is unable to raise a significant portion of its own food, that will become impossible in the years ahead.
We are a nation and a world that is facing famine and starvation in the not so distant future because of over-population and declining oil. The United States will not be able to feed its own population in the near future, and it is reported will be the largest importer of food in the world in 2007. We have depleted our soil and sold it off for development so fact because of promises for a better future through technology that we have lost sight of the realities of God's World, which is finite.
The members of the Quiverfull doctrine believe that they are breeding an Army for God? God does not need armies, you fools, it needs hearts and minds that think and care about the world. He needs people who can care for the land and restore the world to health. He needs people who can reach out to others and lend a helping hand to their neighbors. He does not need mindless breeding anymore. The world is populated to a point where it will be unable to feed its citizens, and when you breed in the name of God, you create a situation that will not turn Earth not into Heaven, but into a Hell of hunger, starvation, war, and disease. That is the natural order of things, realistically and historically.
If you want to practice a Godly life in honoring your husband above your own common sense then do so, and hope he doesn't get tired of you as you become haggard and tired from repeated pregnancies, or from the strain of raising all those children. You also might want to look closely to whether or not he stays home as much, because if he is working to feed that brood you have produced, he won't be there to help you. In fact, he might find greener pastures elsewhere after four or five years of two or three jobs just to cover your ever expanding family. He will just get tired, and as one woman put it, what if he dies and you have to support those children alone. Trust me, there will be little help from anyone for the long haul, so you better hope he has good insurance and you have job skills, because God does help those who follow His laws, but He also helps those who help themselves.
So, if you want to follow a Quiverfull life, fine, but do so in a manner that will make your family sustainable on its own. Do not expect the rest of the world, which you condemn as un-Godly for chosing not to over-populate this planet, to support or sustain you for long when we have to care for the planet you have overtaxed and our own families are going hungry or without medical care. You will need 2.5 acres for every four members of your familyto be sustainable. Hope you can find it.
» RE: God Built A Sustainable World, But He did not guarantee it!
Posted by: form516
» IT'S not there; it's just your norepehine kicking in.
Posted by: edith
» RE: IT'S not there; it's just your norepehine kicking in.
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: putman9 on Nov 14, 2006 10:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Few comments here seem to have caught on to this, the real historical reason for patriarchy: WAR.
(Not capitalism; that's hard to grasp for some modernists who tend to assume the world began in 1789, or maybe the Reformation, but patriarchy is at least 5,000 years old; capitalism is not.)
With a few notable and brilliant exceptions, there is only one reason wars are lost: your tribe runs out of men to hold the frontlines. (somebody cc this memo to Commander Rumsfeld, btw)
Thus the historical problem: if your tribe's women don't wnat to or can't provide enough cannon fodder to feed the "infantry push mechanism" and advance the front lines, you lose. And if you don't WANT to adopt such a social system and repression of women? Too bad. You still lose--and your women get killed or sold as slaves to the victors anyway, possibly t o breed for them. Life's not fair, let alone war.
Here is the irony of this article: the author seems to be accepting this principle as valid, in that the tone of the article is to be afraid or concerned about this movement because it heralds a future demographic shift in favour of the religious right. Or, in other words, "Ack! They're gonna have more guys on the battlefield than we will!"
Now if this is not necessarily the case in the modern world, or at least in this particular case (although you will notice that the Israeli right is pulling their hair out over the tremendous Arab birth rate advantage), then what is the point of the article?
If these people pose no danger, and are just harmless cranks, why pick on them instead of, say, I dunno, BUSH/CHENEY and War Street? If the focus of the article is on over-population in general, why pick on these people only? You ever hear of Bangladesh? China? India? America pollutes the most NOW--but just wait until the Chinese Dragon starts snorting another 500 coal-fired plants.
» RE: Militarism and Patriarchy
Posted by: fiskhus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: danielgeery on Nov 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was followed by a second part, Why Have Kids, Part 2 , after a little more thinking, and some input from Les Knight, founder of The Voluntary Movement for the Extinction of Humans.
» RE: Why have kids?
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fiskhus on Nov 14, 2006 10:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The claim that "feminism made wage slaves out of women" is a clear denial of God's own truth that it is greed and lack of charity on the part of employers and investors that makes any one, at any time, a wage slave.
Jesus, famously, did NOT engage in such blame - in fact, he welcomed all, just as they are.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jzelensk on Nov 14, 2006 10:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The kids, age 0-10 at this time, are scary in the extent of their lack of worldliness/learning and severe behavioral problems, and these only seem to be worsening each year. The Husband/Dad makes a modest salary in a somewhat deadend job.
But I predict that most of these kids will rebel against the culture and beliefs of these parents. No way to know for sure, but it seems that I saw something similar happen in the '60's and '70's with the counterculture.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LtL on Nov 14, 2006 11:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SFSierra on Nov 14, 2006 11:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: At least 1 in 10 will be Gay
Posted by: DeeOhGee
» We ARE All Gay, Straight, Nuts and Sane. It's called HUMAN.
Posted by: edith
» RE: We ARE All Gay, Straight, Nuts and Sane. It's called HUMAN.
Posted by: kww355
» RE: We ARE All Gay, Straight, Nuts and Sane. It's called HUMAN.
Posted by: edith
» Are You Sure Gay Means "More Feminized, Less Masculine" Or Are You Engaging in Stereotyping?
Posted by: Douglas
» You ever been to Christopher Street?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» Most Homosexual Males Are In The Closet, Not On Christopher Street -- See Brokeback Mountain
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Most Homosexual Males Are In The Closet, Not On Christopher Street -- See Brokeback Mountain
Posted by: medstudgeek
» I Was Making No Value Judgments, Only Questioning Your Misleading Stereotyping Of Gay Men
Posted by: Douglas
» OK, I stand corrected...
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: At least 1 in 10 will be Gay
Posted by: morticia
» One bit of research
Posted by: dkm
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 12:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too easy!
Oh and CryOFan (or whoever you are today), you are definitely going to be my field honky. Know any call and response songs?
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: AprilH
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: Kym525
» the hypocrisy of white-hating identity politics
Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature
» Oh boo hoo, you lack a sense of humor
Posted by: Kym525
» You Might Also Be Pissed at Steve Martin
Posted by: Kym525
» And I'm Sure that Weird Al Isn't High on Your List Either
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: And I'm Sure that Weird Al Isn't High on Your List Either
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: And I'm Sure that Weird Al Isn't High on Your List Either
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: edith
» edith
Posted by: kww355
» I lack the fervour of the "Brit" Commonwealth posters
Posted by: edith
» RE: I lack the fervour of the "Brit" Commonwealth posters
Posted by: morticia
» Do Yourself a Favour and Review Alternet Postings About Democrats.
Posted by: edith
» RE: Do Yourself a Favour and Review Alternet Postings after the election....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: countingdaisies
» More Humour and Less Fervour
Posted by: edith
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: Kym525
» You don't know where babies come from?
Posted by: edith
» RE: You really don't have a sense of humour...
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: plousia on Nov 14, 2006 1:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gonzales_jo on Nov 14, 2006 1:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll tell you we as americans talk about how illegal immigrants are destroying america by living off the system, taking what we call our jobs and what we call our taxes, etc. Well just listen to yourselves the comments and suggestions you made on the subject of evangelistic breeding. I'm really wondering is it really the outsider destroying America or the Yahoos already living here.
I agree it is racially motivated but who gives a shit, it will allows them to sleep better at night so be it. It's a typical American thing to do, keep up with the Garcia's in this case.
Ha! Ha!
» RE: I Just Love it!
Posted by: edith
» RE: I Just Love it!
Posted by: drmflorida
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Nov 14, 2006 2:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Heart on Nov 14, 2006 3:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» what a great article!
Posted by: goatini
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmooney on Nov 14, 2006 3:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bible was written by simple minded humans and contains many items that are heinous in nature such as genocide, slavery, immorality, etc. The term "Good Book" is one of the greatest misnomers in all of history.
I saw the one writer saying it is elitist and anti-free choice to criticize people who believe as these people do. I submit it is an affront to human kind NOT to call them on this kind of bull. There is a way to cultivate a sense of spirituality and awe toward the universe that isn't tied up to the idea that women must be baby factories and that there is only one way to live life. But that way is not through scouring every word written by archaic, eccentric old men looking for something that a supernatural maker of the universe was trying to tell us. If there were such a supernatural universe creator I think he or she (oh, I guess there's no chance, according to the Bible that it was a she) or it would have found a little more clear way of doing so than through those tangled scriptures that only became part of the Bible as a result of politicking on the part of the members who were in attendance at the Council of Nicea.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Nov 14, 2006 3:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» Listen Carefully
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Nov 14, 2006 3:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Nov 14, 2006 3:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: pomes
» great comeback!
Posted by: goatini
» RE: great comeback!
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: ISlamIslam
» stfu
Posted by: goatini
» RE: stfu
Posted by: christii
» dear christie,
Posted by: goatini
» oh Christie!
Posted by: goatini
» RE: oh Christie!
Posted by: christii
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage/ don't forget the good old Crusades
Posted by: liberal is good
» and let us give thanks
Posted by: goatini
» Not the point
Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Not the point
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: morticia
» Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Peter Boyd on Nov 14, 2006 3:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» i don't really see any difference
Posted by: goatini
» RE: i don't really see any difference
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mewsician on Nov 14, 2006 4:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: liberal is good on Nov 14, 2006 4:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These radical "Christians" want to take over and run my life, brainwash me. Tell me when I can have kids or that I must have them, 5, 6,10, now that’s nuts. Telling me I'm a second class citizen, but, they do it so nicely. Now that's a way to get out of personal responsibility. It's about power over another human being. You can use God or anything else, It's nothing new, your religious radicals Jim Jones, these Quivering guys, radical Muslims who treat their women even worse!! Then you have your secular radicals the Nazis , Communists, All the same.
They fear independence, differences, they must have order but, their way.
God has nothing do to with what these people say or believe, most of us get that.
But I think people are afraid to say anything because you know they’re just nice God fearing people, then wham, they get you.
It is their view of God their interpretation of writings of feelings and if that's what they want I say go for it. Just don't act like you had a latte with God at starbucks and he filled you in on what he wants... Just stay out of my life and how I choose to live.
God gave us free will, not free maybes. God doesn’t judge people do. So my judgment is these type of people can be dangerous not only to themselves but to the whole country... It's the children I feel sorry for. I think the Amish have the right way, they live as they choose and do not push their beliefs on anyone else. Free will.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ajh on Nov 14, 2006 4:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The govt should change qualifications for joining military and draft rules to accept only those adhering to Fundamental Christian beliefs, then we can have true Holy Wars, in addition to paring down the numbers thru casualties of war...
End of T-in-C
» RE: excess people put to good use
Posted by: edith
» RE: excess people put to good use
Posted by: ajh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 5:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe one reason they do so is out of fear - fear of self-determination, fear of not having someone to make choices for them.
What is sad however is the dark side of this movement as illustrated by Heart. Her post and the links attached show just what this neo-racialist so-called 'Evangelical' movement is really all about. Their track record on child abuse and incest speaks for itself. Andrea Yates was one graphic example and I'm afraid that it's only going to get worse before it ever gets better.
» RE: In All Seriousness
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dobby on Nov 14, 2006 5:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dobby on Nov 14, 2006 5:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: charlene on Nov 14, 2006 5:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: astockton on Nov 14, 2006 6:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Nov 14, 2006 6:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Nov 14, 2006 7:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The father, JimBob Duggar (no, no, I wish I was kidding...I'm not), ran for Senate with one issue: END ABORTION, DADGUMMIT! The wife, Michelle, has huge hair and wears ugly plaid frocks that would horrify Laura Ashley. The kids are decent, I suppose, and all of them have "J" names. It's really, really special.
I'm part of a forum where we discuss the Duggars and the Quiverfull movement at length...it's called "Free Jinger" (Jinger is a middle daughter who dared to question whether she would marry or not...scandal!). As the name implies, don't go there if you're looking for all seriousness, all the time. We have a lot of great links, including ones to the utterly trendy Lydia of Purple, designer of fine modest dress.
» RE: The Duggar Family, aka Quiverfull Supastars!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shellym on Nov 14, 2006 8:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our finances short? Sometimes... but none go hungry. All are well clothed. All loved. If a woman choses to have no children and a job outside the home, I don't see you all throwing a fit. Why carry on when a well educated woman chooses to raise children instead? They are a far greater investment in my eyes.... What do you get after 20 years with a company? A watch? After 20 years with my children, I have even more friends... it's a great deal. Much more fun than the several years I spent in real estate in Southern California. As far as using more resources, most of the "quiverful" families I know use equal or less... We don't have as much trash at the curb as our neighbors with 3 kids. We usually buy high quality new or second hand clothing and take care of it, recycle, and live in a comfortable home smaller than the "Mc Mansions" around. Food is cheaper per person bought in bulk, with less packaging as well. A home uses the same energy to warm 2 or 20. Carpooling is great - we pretty much always do. Most of the larger homeschooling families we know have some really great kids... real kids, yea... but great kids. Many are in their teens and 20's... few signs of either brainwashing or rebellion. As far as the homeschooling - have you actually looked at the statistics?? Home educated kids tend to do better than their public school educated peers, and usually better than those in private school as well. What are the schools always calling for? More parental involvement... home education provides that for sure. Oh, and the comment on "wearing yourself out" with too many pregnancies? The uterus is made of muscle. In a well nourished woman it performs quite well, over and over. Overpopulation? There is plenty of land if you get out of the city. Go to France or Germany and you can be paid to have a 3rd child. As far as faith... we all have some. Some believe everything came from nothing, and it is getting better - I see nothing to support that theory. Some believe this earth and all in it required an intellient design... that one makes more sense to me! So - you all go on slinging your hate, outrage, disgust, etc - - I will go on loving my family and thanking God for my blessings.
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: RickyBarnes1960
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: astockton
» Thank you.....
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: galacticsurfer
» The Exception to the Rule Perhaps???
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: fork
» I Have a Few Questions to Pose to You
Posted by: Kym525
» Obviously you haven't checked out Alternet before
Posted by: AdamG
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: Shellym
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nicoKno2 on Nov 14, 2006 9:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Using children as weapons
Posted by: RickyBarnes1960
» RE: Using children as weapons: RickyB-
Posted by: SamFox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jurgen on Nov 14, 2006 9:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wars of the past two or three generations have become increasingly meaningless, and the intellectual demands on the foot soldiers are more and more reverting to the mental skills required of a berserker wielding a broadsword.
Intelligent soldiers are not only less and less required but are actually counterproductive, especially when they begin to recognize the meaninglessness of what they are doing and revert to the fragging of the Vietnam affair or the current signing up with peace groups.
So the military is working more and more toward employing functioning robots, but that goal is still far off in the future. In the meantime we're going to need lots of these Quiverites who can qualify to pull the trigger on an automatic rifle.
Sure, there are still complex pieces of equipment calling for private contractors to program them and work them in the field--at several times the pay received by the grunts--but manning (or womanning) checkpoints takes no large amount of grey matter. Nor does knocking down doors or acting as prison guards require much smarts. And the less thought they give to what they are doing or why they are doing it, the better.
We need to keep recruiting the kinds of soldiers described by e e cummings, "they did not stop to think, they died instead."
So, go for it, Quiverites! Produce masses of badly educated children who will start off in life with the baggage of your gene pool. We're going to need lots of "heroic, happy dead," in those future wars.
» RE: More arrows needed in the quiver
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RickyBarnes1960 on Nov 14, 2006 9:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What human cultures need least of all are more individuals stuck in a process of devolution and certainly fewer of those who are adamant in imposing their views on others. As a species, we can only prosper with fewer people overall who are much further advanced in reason and rationality and dedicated to the individual right to self-determination. "Quiverfull" is one of many human groups taking giant strides in the wrong direction. Their views of women, of children, of their religion, of the Earth, of mankind as a whole are leftovers of the stone ages. These views were wrong then, they are wrong still.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ccurtis on Nov 14, 2006 10:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is America, screw history and patriarchy, even the kinder, gentler kind. In America we move forward and expand rights. There is no turning back. Too bad if it makes things difficult for democrats, or society. If the men of the democratic party must return to patriarchy, (cause that's what the guys in Rome had to do, blah, blah, blah), in order to preserve thier progressive values and to keep the guys in Kansas happy, then democrat men don't deserve anything good...especially not the love, respect or support of good women.
Perhaps Mr. Longman should come up with ideas where his rights are compromised, instead of womens.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: livopete on Nov 15, 2006 10:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Franco33 on Nov 15, 2006 11:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SamFox on Nov 15, 2006 11:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberal "progressive" duplicity is also seen when it comes to other choice issues like school choice or their fear of teaching intelligant design alongside Darwin. Why can't the students be given all the info & make up their own minds? Then there is their stance when it comes to firearms. The only choice they want is "take the guns away". (I know, not every left lib D follows every mainstream lib left's position. But these are some basic tenets of their main core platform.)
So what if they get tax breaks? Don't we all want tax breaks? We all sure need them. Now that the Dems have Congress we will see if they are really differant from the Repub RINOs who, lib D style, expanded every thing bad about big gov. I do not think the D's are any differant from the R's, but we shall see. Will they reduce spending, lower taxes, fix the trade imbalances, lower the deficiets, bring back our manufactuing base, repudiate the drive for the North American Union, contol the open borders, downsize gov & it's reach into our lives? Not likely as they are the ones who implemented or supported all this stuff along with the RINOs. The R's just took up where the lib left left off when the D's were voted out when the Contract w/America was introduced to deceive the US into thinking the R's will fix the problems mostly caused by D libs. Changing the lib gov is why the R's got into power in the 1st place. Not living up to their word is what got them voted out.
I think it was a big mistake to trade corrupt R's for equally morally bankrupt D's. I do hope I am proven wrong! Here is a shining chance for the D's to do differantly all the things they complained about the R's for since Newt's un-fulfilled, lip service Contract w/America.
Don't forget, sex & other scandals have plauged BOTH "parties" for many years.
SamFox
» RE: I'm with edith, the first post-
Posted by: chomsky
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lizzzarde on Nov 15, 2006 12:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-Choice is something people don't consider enough. Either you are, or you are not. There should be no in-between. No "yeah but" or "what if." As several people herein stated: if it is truly these peoples' choice to continuing bearing children, fine. I don't care. And I honestly don't think that, even if it is not their choice, it is our job to judge, blame, assault, or demean and degrade them and their decisions. And if it is not their free will but rather that which is being imposed upon them by another, than why are we harshly accusing them of stupidity instead of acknowledging that they are victims and prisoners and questioning what we can do to help?
Honestly, is there any real fear that they are going to take over the world? Some people went so far as to suggest that they be stopped! Are we moving so far from our Democracy that we are now going to consider such a violation of personal rights?
Yes, it is wrong when there is racism, sexism, oppression, etc. It is wrong in multiple ways. But before we consider using such vast energies as have been displayed here on freaking out over the personal actions of this one group of people, why not instead turn it to examining the rampant levels of institutional, political, and social 'isms that currently abound in our world and which are for more dangerous and impactful on society and the world at large?
The truth is that we all grew up with parents that have their own belief systems, but that does not mean that like little robots we believe exactly as they. I grew up in the Catholic Church (recovery is going quite nicely thank you). Most of the families, including my own, had at least 7 children. There were those who had as many as 18. The pews were taken by entire families in those days. But trust me. We all grew up to have small families, most of us bearing 1 - 3 children. None of us have the mindeset that we have to bear someone's fruit in order to have value.
I think that the Quiverfull socieities are the least of our worries.
Chill all.
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lizzzarde on Nov 15, 2006 12:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-Choice is something people don't consider enough. Either you are, or you are not. There should be no in-between. No "yeah but" or "what if." As several people herein stated: if it is truly these peoples' choice to continuing bearing children, fine. I don't care. And I honestly don't think that, even if it is not their choice, it is our job to judge, blame, assault, or demean and degrade them and their decisions. And if it is not their free will but rather that which is being imposed upon them by another, than why are we harshly accusing them of stupidity instead of acknowledging that they are victims and prisoners and questioning what we can do to help?
Honestly, is there any real fear that they are going to take over the world? Some people went so far as to suggest that they be stopped! Are we moving so far from our Democracy that we are now going to consider such a violation of personal rights?
Yes, it is wrong when there is racism, sexism, oppression, etc. It is wrong in multiple ways. But before we consider using such vast energies as have been displayed here on freaking out over the personal actions of this one group of people, why not instead turn it to examining the rampant levels of institutional, political, and social 'isms that currently abound in our world and which are for more dangerous and impactful on society and the world at large?
The truth is that we all grew up with parents that have their own belief systems, but that does not mean that like little robots we believe exactly as they. I grew up in the Catholic Church (recovery is going quite nicely thank you). Most of the families, including my own, had at least 7 children. There were those who had as many as 18. The pews were taken by entire families in those days. But trust me. We all grew up to have small families, most of us bearing 1 - 3 children. None of us have the mindeset that we have to bear someone's fruit in order to have value.
I think that the Quiverfull societies are the least of our worries.
Chill all.
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear...and rightfully so
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: fork
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: Lizzzarde
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jdylarid on Nov 15, 2006 1:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That said, I'm entertained by comments pointing out that ultimately, social welfare of some kind or another helps sustain such families. Are you actually suggesting that social welfare encourages the irresponsible to be more irresponsible?! Wow, you're starting to sound like...conservatives! The difference of course is that welfare here is helping rural/suburban white Christians (bad) instead of urban ethnic minorities (good).
Also, the comment suggesting that more Americans = more resource waste per person is correct. And, therefore: more immigrants = more resource waste per person. It's indisputable. (To say nothing of the fact that immigrants tend to have larger families.) As above, the difference is simply one of sensibilities; e.g., "Well, if we're going to waste more it's better to have a 'diverse' citizenry doing the wasting."
As has already been stated, it's easy to focus on relatively small groups of people behaving in ways that most of us disagree with, yet not necessarily the best use of our intellectual foci and critical skills. These kids are just as likely to strongly rebel against their upbringing as they are to continue it when they mature. Still, the 'sensationalistic' elements make it ripe for coverage.
» RE: Libs/progs criticizing welfare is entertaining
Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Libs/progs criticizing welfare is entertaining
Posted by: Lydia
» Good point, Lydia
Posted by: jdylarid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dm. on Nov 15, 2006 8:36 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: AlKar on Nov 16, 2006 4:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Nov 16, 2006 8:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They hate life because they hate what life offers. To them, it is "sinful", a ridiculous notion based upon biblical misinterpretation. Their goal is death and they are willing to do whatever it takes to choose death over life. Their utter failure to understand the Bible, it's translations, it's authenticity and it's historical setting is at the root of this evil they do. Spawning vast sects around the world, fundementalist movements such as Quiverfull are directly responsible for much of the planets wars, famine, conflicts, pollution, excess and greed.
Creating huge families is bound to have huge impacts. Their goal of 500,000,000 million Christian Americans is insane. They have failed to consider the ramifications of their actions, because they take NO RESPONSIBILITY for what they do. After all, it's 'God's plan'. God is a convienent scapegoat for all of their evil deeds, and if not God, then Satan is to be blamed.
The failure to identify their own selves to their childish and provably wrong belief system is the reason such movement flourish. It is total escapism, living in another dream world in the mind alone, while they world they live in is falling apart with their help and active assistance.
I've studied Quiverfull and other groups like them and I consider then exceedingly dangerous and delusional. Their feet are not planted on Earth, but in the sky itself. Their belief in a sky-god is very similiar to ancient Sumerian beliefs and others throughout history. We know their end. They were all eventually destroyed for the lack of knowledge and education that they needed to adapt to their changing world.
This too, will eventually be the end of the Quiverfull movements and others of their ilk, but not before they have left behind a blasted and wasted planet overfull of too many humans, mountains and mountains of garbage and pollution, broken lives, broken dreams and a world in conflict.
It is not peace that they want, but war. War to them is the will of God, who despite his pronouncements, is interpreted to mean death to all "unbelievers". Fundementalist groups believe they serve the greater good by creating war and conflict, and if breeding like rabbits is the means by which it is to be done, then they have their sky-god blessings.
History is full of groups that beleived this very same thing, and they are all dead and gone, swept up by a world that was not under their control or of their sky-god. Education is what these morons need, but they adamantly refuse to take on even this responsibility, because it attacks their "faith". Pointing out that their faith is nothing more then irresponsibility and willful ignorance does no good at all.
I have nothing but utter contempt for such ignorance and willful destruction caused by these groups. While they barely suffer us "unbeleivers" to live (only to be converted to their ignorant thinking), I barely believe that we continue to tolerate their contribution to the world's madness.
If we truly seek peace, life and happiness, we will find it right here on Earth. Not in some ethereal, whimsical dream that contradicts itself thirty thousand times (the bible).
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maven7 on Nov 16, 2006 9:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My husband and I both have master's degrees, we have been happily married 20 years, we started with 0, other than state college bachelor degrees provided by our parents. We have lived primarily debt free, own a beautiful house in a large American city and have multi-million dollar investments (all on my husband's salary- I quite working for wages over 15 years ago). We did this by living beneath our means, saving carefully, and investing wisely - all while giving to the evangelical church which we attend. We have been very blessed, but don't let the "stuff" fool you we aren't really very materialistic and we live a very simple life. We have always wanted a large family just because we love children and because we think that we can offer a happy home. We really believe the Bible when it says that children are a blessing - they are! They made us better people than we would have been without them. (After all, we know what we were like before them.) We sincerely appreciate the materials and support that have been offered to us through Mary Pride, Vision Forum, etc.
We have been homeschooling our four children for 7 years. Our oldest is now doing great at an elite eastern school (we are paying). Now that we are at the end of our childbearing years, we wish that we had more children to love. My only regret is that we are "missing" the children that we could have had during the time in our early marriage when we could have had them. We wanted more children so badly that we have endured 5 miscarriages through out the years. The funny thing is that I don't think that we are so unique. I know lots of "quiverfull" families just like us. I think that the "Millionaire Next Door" is a good book to read to understand people like us. We just fly beneath most people's radar. Conservative? Yeah - we work hard, play hard, and follow the rules. We love our families, help those less fortunate and contribute less post- consumer waste than others in my liberal neigborhood. We scare some of you? Why??
I was once a liberal feminist- a student in some of the first "women's studies" classes. I rejected all of that long ago and I am so grateful! Being a wife and mother is my career and I enjoy it so much more than my corner office (even with its views of La Jolla Shore and Big Bear).
My purpose in life is "to glorify God and enjoy him forever"!
P.S. Jesus loves you - go read the New Testament.
» RE: sterotypes
Posted by: grolan
» RE: sterotypes
Posted by: grolan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dkm on Nov 16, 2006 5:43 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No, they won't be because with the education and preparation that they are getting, they won't be able to hold down a productive job and won't be paying diddly into SS.
"And maybe if they are taught right they won't be using up all the social services---drug rehab, VD clinics--"
Home schooled children are some of the biggest users of social services when they hit the real world because of their maladjustment to society. In my county we just had the second multiple murder in two years by someone raised as a homeschooler and was psychologically unequipped to deal with real life.
"Heck, they aren't even using public education funds right now. What's the beef?"
That their very presence will be a drain on society that cannot afford them is the beef. Because of their poor grade school preparation and their large numbers, they will require extra public education funds when they hit high school since their parents are unequipped to deal with much more than Bible reading and simple arithmetic.
As has been stated, if the rest of the world lived like the US, we would need another 5 earths to sustain us. They are only promising one and they are increasing the use of this one.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: faultroy on Nov 16, 2006 9:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I do not necessarily subscribe to these Christians' positions, I certainly appreciate the fact that women are finally beginning to understand that the Feminist Movement as it has been touted for the past 30 years is anti family, anti
Christian and Anti American.
Feminism has destroyed the family as we knew it, and women have been the most ardent destroyers of both families and family values and childrens' best interests.
Women have given us Latch Key children" children with very little if any values, aand a totally self centered feminine population.
Millions of women are totally disenchanted with their new found liberated empty vacuous lives.
Thank God that women are finally realizing what a insidious feckle movement that Feminism has been. It has destroyed far more than it has created.
» RE: Thank God For Christian Reason
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: werewolf on Nov 16, 2006 10:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To breed to increase takes a lot of efffort and the results can be achieved only over a long period of time while killing Muslims in large numbers within days is more practical to achieve the same goal of the fundamentalist Christians in record time, right?
Also, as we all know conversion to Islam far outpaces conversion to Christianity, engineering genocide on Muslims occasionally (especially on women and children,) would ensure these fanatic Christians that Muslim population can never equal the Christians in numbers due to the fast paced conversions taking place today.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JennieC on Nov 16, 2006 10:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
AlterNet will not tolerate:
* personal attacks on our writers or readers
* excessive profanity
* racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language
So many of the remarks here clearly violate this no-tolerance policy. Try substituting the word "Jews" for "quiverful families" and stop to think how quickly these comments would be yanked. The stereotyping represented here is eerily similar to the anti-Semitic German propaganda of the Nazis. But don't take my word for it. Check out a sample chapter from a 1939 book, The Jewish World Plague. A lot of the wording is so close to what has been posted on this page that it is scary.
And as for my own background, I was homeschooled from fifth grade through high school (one of three siblings--my parents would gladly have welcomed more, but three was all they got). I got a full scholarship into a private college and graduated summa cum laude. While homeschooling, I traveled to Europe, Africa, Canada, Mexico, and all over the U.S. with my family, since my father was a well-known historian who traveled a lot and never liked going anywhere without his family. We learned more about different peoples, cultures, and beliefs than the average public school student could possibly encounter, no matter how many "diversity" classes he attends. Not a single one of us (now grown into adulthood and married with children) has ever been on welfare, cheated on taxes, been arrested for a crime, or abused our children. From the tone and scope of the article and comments, you'd think we were the anomaly, but I've yet to meet a single "quiverful" family that is lazy and soaking up government money. In fact, we're teaching our children not to take any government handouts (including social security, which we'll also refuse), yet we're paying taxes that not only support everyone else on social security, but pay for the government schools we do not use and the welfare programs we believe are fatally flawed. On top of that, we give more than 10% of our income to our church and local and national charities. This isn't to toot our own horns; it's just to set the record straight. We are not the exception to the rule here, either. The exceptions get all the press, because they stick out like sore thumbs--not because they are the rule.
So why do our beliefs frighten anyone? Why do people feel compelled to class our views with cultic practices that have nothing to do with orthodox Christianity? No one has brainwashed me or forced me into a mold. In fact, there was a time when I embraced feminism and thought it was brilliant. That was until I started reading the racist, anti-family literature of the 1840s feminists and women like Margaret Sanger, who advocated sterilizing blacks and other "unfit" people.
People who love children and view them as blessings and wealth are not closet anarchists or repressed, violent abusers. We are your next-door neighbors. We love having people into our homes and have nothing to hide. We support your right to speak your mind, even when it comes at the cost of maligning our motives and mocking our beliefs.
How about doing unto others as you'd have them do unto you?
» RE: MomofSeven
Posted by: werewolf
» RE: MomofSeven
Posted by: JennieC
» RE: MomofSeven
Posted by: fork
» RE: MomofSeven
Posted by: JennieC
» RE: MomofSeven
Posted by: fork
» continuation of reply...
Posted by: JennieC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tocarr on Nov 17, 2006 6:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lydia on Nov 17, 2006 6:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Name one social service that my children and other homeschool children have taken advantage of, without paying for.
I say it is "too late" for you to say anything because my children were homeschooled and are now on their own, homeschooling their own children.
In all the time I home educated them, we took no freebies from anyone. We continued to pay into the school system through our taxes but took nothing from them, not even to use their gymnasium facilities.
Today although they are in their late twenties, they have real jobs, not government jobs and take no free lunch. They do not even get subsidized prescription drugs or hospitalization--they pay for everything in full if they need it.
They contribute more to society than society gives back to them. Don't tell me that I'm some kind of evangelical fanatical nut. Being self sufficient and still being able to help others was one of our themes at home.
Their public school counterparts were more likely to turn to the government welfare system for "help" and they themselves will not lift a finger to help any of us.
Now that our children are grown, my husband and I pay 4 times the amount of taxes that we paid when they were here. So, we are subsidising the school, the welfare, an all the other programs which we take no part in.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MomOf11 on Nov 17, 2006 7:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, we have been of the quiverfull mindset since our marriage 25 years ago. Of the 20 families that I personally know in real life, yet are now past child bearing age, here are some statistics:
2 families have 8 or more children (including us).
1 family is childless.
1 family has 1 child.
1 family has 2 children.
4 families have 3 children.
9 families have 4 children.
1 family has 5 children.
1 family has 7 children.
Beleiving that God should be in control of fertility and conception does NOT mean you will have a child every year. God has closed the womb of some women, others may only be able to have one, two or a few.
Secondly, no one that I know of lets God control their family size with the intent of taking over the government. That is just patently ridiculous and not even worth talking about. We view children as a blessing, not a tool for warfare.
Third, our family, and most of the others that I know of, do not use government resources such as welfare, the public schools, etc. Speaking only for my own family - we live on a farm, and raise 70% of everything we eat, including our milk, meat, eggs, fruits, vegetables, and even wheat and oats. We have one vehicle and only go to town once a week, so we use much less gasoline than many yuppies. Our annual income ranges from $7,000 in a bad year to $25,000 in a great year. We can live on that comfortably because we are debt free and do not beleive in conspicuous consumption. If you came to our home, you would find high quality, comfortable furniture that is built to last, one television, quality toys (we own 70 pounds of legos!), 3 computers, and a root cellar, pantry, and cupboards full to overflowing with healthy food. Our children are always clean and well dressed, they get their teeth cleaned yearly, eyes examined yearly, and go to the doctor when they are sick - all at our own expense. To claim that all large families use too many resources is to show ignorance. Some may, but so do many families with one or two children. I would be willing to wager that my family of 13 uses less of the worlds resources than most families with 2 children.
Fourth, my oldest son went to public kindergarten and was home schooled from then on. He received a full tuition scholarship to a secular university where he is majoring in foreign languages. My second son recieved a lesser scholarship and is attending a secular univeristy as a science major. My third son received a full scholarship to a technical school. The rest of my children are still being home educated, and even though our state does not require testing, we do standardized testing every other year. Every one of my children tests well above their government schooled counterparts. My 12 year old son is apprenticing with a local businessman. All of my children are active in community sports and activities. They are not socially inept. Home education works at least as well as government education, and usually much better!
Fifth, as usual, the Harry Potter debate was started. No, my children do not read Harry Potter. So what? Why does it matter what they read? What matters is that my children are avid readers, rather than avid tv watchers, video game players, and Ipod addicts.
I am sure there are other arguments to refute, but I think you get the point. Those spewing venom are doing so without knowledge. They are reacting out of fear that if "we" are right, then "they" must be wrong. What they fail to see is that the condemnation is coming only from them........
» Do you understand there are to many people on the planet?
Posted by: livopete
» Ooops!
Posted by: livopete
» RE: Ooops!
Posted by: livopete
» RE: Ooops!
Posted by: Lydia
» RE: Ooops!
Posted by: grolan
» Thanks for sharing your story, and finding the time!
Posted by: plantland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lydia on Nov 17, 2006 11:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Non religious People have Large Families, too.
Posted by: grolan
» Africa is NOT "overpopulated"
Posted by: jdylarid
» RE: Africa is NOT "overpopulated"
Posted by: grolan
» RE: Africa is NOT "overpopulated"
Posted by: grolan
» RE: Populations models (was Africa is NOT "overpopulated")
Posted by: jdylarid
» RE: Africa is NOT "overpopulated"
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: Non religious People have Large Families, too.
Posted by: Lydia
» RE: Non religious People have Large Families, too.
Posted by: grolan
» RE: Non religious People have Large Families, too.
Posted by: Lydia
» RE: Non religious People have Large Families, too.
Posted by: grolan
Comments are closed-
Posted by: J. C. Miller on Nov 17, 2006 3:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: jc miller
Posted by: Lydia
» RE: jc miller
Posted by: Kali
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jdylarid on Nov 17, 2006 3:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't have time for more thorough research, but here's a start.
General ("progressive" stereotypes quickly vaporized)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling
Univ of Maryland study: Iowa homeschooled out-perform and out-achieve public school students
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n8/
Homeschooling out-performance confirmed by no less than U.S. Dept of Education
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/Homeschool/index.asp
Undoubtedly there are exceptions to the rule (as is always the case), but I'm confident that more thorough research would merely confirm what is presented above.
American public school students rank below those of every other industrialized nation, and even some "third World" nations. I think it's no exagerration to state that our public school system is an embarassment. Can someone please explain what is so compelling and important about a public school education? I'm sure replies will flow in, "Our schools are poor because they are under-funded...". That is debatable. Even if it's true, so what? Should parents continue to place their children in an education system that performs so poorly because it's the "right" thing to do and will hypothetically improve in the future? More importantly, who the hell are you to tell parents who choose a path in which they are more intimately involved that they are wrong?
By the way, I attended public schools my entire life (through graduate school), and will most likely send my own kid to public schools. Private schooling is beyond my means. My intention here isn't railing on public schools, but rather reacting to the ignorant opinions expressed above. Many of them are similar in sheer stupidity and arrogance to those found on a right-wing site like say, The Free Republic.
li
» From one of your links
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 9:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women in Nazi Germany were to have a very specific role. Hitler was very clear about this. This role was that they should be good mothers bringing up children at home while their husbands worked. Outside of certain specialist fields, Hitler saw no reason why a woman should work. Education taught girls from the earliest of years that this was the lifestyle they should have.
From their earliest years, girls were taught in their schools that all good German women married at a young age to a proper German and that the wife’s task was to keep a decent home for her working husband and to have children.
As housewives and mothers, their lives were controlled. Women were not expected to wear make-up or trousers. The dyeing of hair was not allowed nor were perms. Only flat shoes were expected to be worn. Women were discouraged from slimming as this was considered bad for child birth. Women were encouraged to have a well built figure as slim women, so it was taught, would have problems in pregnancy.
August 12th had been the birthday of Hitler’s mother. On this day each year, the Motherhood Cross was awarded to women who had given birth to the largest number of children. The gold cross went to women who had produced 8 children; silver was for 6 children and bronze was for 4 children.
"In the Germanic nations there has never been anything else than equality of rights for women. Both sexes have their rights, their tasks, and these tasks were in the case of each equal in dignity and value, and therefore man and woman were on an equality." --Hitler in 1935
"The mission of women is to be beautiful and to bring children into the world. This is not at all as.........unmodern as it sounds. The female bird pretties herself for her mate and hatches eggs for him. In exchange, the male takes care of gathering food, and stands guard and wards off the enemy." --Joseph Goebbels, writing in 1929.
» Oh no! Hitler again!
Posted by: jdylarid
» Exactly what I said
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 9:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then you’ll surely get a man!
Shop and office leave alone, Your true life work lies at home."
Bush is not very original. First the Holocaust, then Vietnam and next, 1984.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: morticia on Nov 18, 2006 12:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» Thanks
Posted by: Donna_Darko
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 9:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mother's Cross
A Christian cross given to German mothers
Hitler encouraged several programs for the growth of a strong German Nazi Volk. These programs involved the encouragement of the virtues of German motherhood for the purpose of increasing the size of their families and the abolition of abortions (except for the mentally ill). In 1938, Hitler instituted a new award to honor German Nazi motherhood, especially for large families. He awarded such mothers the cross of Honor of the German Mother.
See the second picture on this link
» RE: If you don't see the similaries...
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lord Ichmael on Nov 19, 2006 9:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fanatical Christian Right is extremely dangerous. A vast majority of them are undereducated, usually Southerners (who tend to be far more religiously superstitious than 'Northerners'), and choose the simpler sounding religious point of view over the secular one. They see only what they want to see, and they hear only what they want to hear. A tidal wave of non-issues has struck the U.S. because of them. These moronic arguments are (if this offends anyone, tough; the truth hurts):
-Sex before marriage, homo/bisexuality, and enjoying sex are all somehow immoral, for no rational reason ('because God says so' doesn't count; sorry, I can say God hates bigots, but that means nothing in reality), and this belief seems to be widespread. If being gay/sexually active is so damn evil why did God invent it?
-We (humans) are for whatever reason the most important thing in the universe; somehow vastly superior to other forms of life, and we couldn't possibly have ever been chimps or other 'inferior' beings. This explains hostility towards the ideas and evidence of:the Earth orbiting the Sun, evolution, and that life occured by chance (which is what the evidence is pointing to). Like I said, they see and hear only what they want to see and hear.
-Pray, because it does something. I'm sorry; enough tests have proven that any and all types/kinds of prayer do nothing whatsoever. Oh, God wants to be hidden, you say? Somehow, I am not swayed by this argument that God exists because he refuses to give the slightest hint of his existence.
-If you don't blindly accept everything we tell you to, God will torture you forever and ever and ever with fire and other things, but don't worry; he still loves you.
-Death is not the end of our existance. This one stems from the need to comfort oneself from the evidence suggesting otherwise; although I admit I can't be sure either way on this one, but neither can anyone else.
-Don't worry about trashing the Earth or the environment; we'll get to go to a much better place after we die anyway! I'm sorry; this is ignorant immaturity at best and downright evil at worst.
-The universe couldn't have existed unless something created it. Ok, so the universe needs a 'creator' to exist but said 'creator' doesn't? This one's just silly.
-Science is wrong! I consider this one to be merely a mind control tool.
-Abortion is murder and God hates it. Well, God invented abortion (miscarriages anyone?), and believe it or not, overpopulation can be a bad thing, like this article shows. Truth is, at least some amount of 'pro-life' people only oppose abortion because they consider accidental pregnancy to be punishment for recreational sex and abortion as a way of dodging the punishment. South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli has said almost exactly that; google his name to see the quote. Also, fetuses are not children, to be honest... neither are embryos (even moreso!). An egg yolk is not a chicken.
And the worst of all is...
-YOU MUST SHOVE ALL OF THE ABOVE DOWN EVERYONE ELSE'S THROATS! All of the above wouldn't be an issue at all if it weren't for this one.
The Bible wasn't written by God; it was written by primitive men. Why else could there be so many absurdities and atrocities in it and ZERO evidence supporting any of its often nonsensical claims? Besides; Christianity is merely a combination of over a dozen pagan religions that preceded it. The tale of Christ was copied from the tale of Horus, which was copied from the tale of Ra, which was copied from... etc.
» Oops, one last thing.
Posted by: Lord Ichmael
» RE: Yikes, this sounds really bad.
Posted by: Lydia
» RE: Yikes, this sounds really bad.
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: edith on Nov 14, 2006 12:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, with better health practices, 13 kids means 13 kids. I flinch at the thought. But if someone else is willing to do the work, I am not going to second guess them, even if I find their religious reasoning childish and superficial.
Prochoice means prochoice. The Nation's attack on this religious group has a sour smell to me. We know the author and her feminist colleagues at the Nation would never raise this many kids, say to populate the world with secular leftists. But if others voluntarily breed for their Biblical beliefs, that's their freedom of religion. The Nation's condescending attitude and indeed the purpose of the article itself demonstrates a nasty sort of elitism.
» RE: free choice
Posted by: fork
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: free choice
Posted by: marxalot
» You say that...
Posted by: pball
» RE: free choice
Posted by: caitlin
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: free choice (?)
Posted by: Basenjis
» Welfare slugs
Posted by: nicoKno2
» RE: free choice
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: free choice
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: free choice
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Vaene
» RE: free choice
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Vaene
» "trust funded left" hahahahahaha
Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: free choice
Posted by: gooch_x
» Are you serious?
Posted by: DanielT28
» Great post! (RE: free choice)
Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice
Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice
Posted by: Vaene
» You're missing the point...
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: free choice
Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice
Posted by: gooch_x
» RE: free choice
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: free choice...the problem with that argument is that for many of the
Posted by: mdruss42
» Not a new or unique concept
Posted by: mirimac
» RE: free choice...the problem with that argument is that for many of the
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: goatini
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: Vaene
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: goatini
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: Vaene
» okay, Vain twit, prove where I said
Posted by: goatini
» RE: okay, Vain twit, prove where I said
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU
Posted by: goatini
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU
Posted by: Vaene
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU
Posted by: tweedster
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU
Posted by: Vaene
» you are a liar,
Posted by: goatini
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU...If we gain anything from these stories and opinions
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: "free choice" - oh please! spare me!
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: free choice
Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: free choice
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: free choice
Posted by: kingfelix
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 14, 2006 1:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, pastor, I'm running low on grazing land carved from rain forest, so can you please send God a message to speed that delivery up?
It's either a couple of new earths or soylent green.
» Yeah, I guess thats why God called on us to be stewards of his gifts to us. Sad luck...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 14, 2006 1:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they keep clogging up the tax codes with kid-friendly stuff, we'll all have to have 50 kids, just so we can keep some of our paycheck.
» Not only that...
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Not only that...
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: Not only that...
Posted by: MSTHOM
» whaaaaat?
Posted by: goatini
» RE: whaaaaat?
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Agreed. Apply the same rules to everyone. Nobody's special.
Posted by: eddie torres
» Your problem is an answer in search of a question.
Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Your problem is an answer in search of a question.
Posted by: wolfcry
» In 20 years they'll feed you
Posted by: Lori37
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 14, 2006 1:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: edith
» RE: linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: nicoKno2
» ECM: excess cellular matter
Posted by: edith
» RE: linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: caitlin
» Would You Sell Your Soul to Me? Naaah. Why take a chance?
Posted by: edith
» RE: linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: osisbs
» RE: linguistic population control: Talk is cheap but babies aren't.
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» Edith, have you read ¨The Gate To Women´s Country¨by Sheri Tepper?
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmd on Nov 14, 2006 4:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also, it is dangerous to have a over six kids in less than ten years. It dramatically increases a woman's chance of dying during childbirth. The uterus is overworked and cannot always clamp down on the blood vessels after birth.
And what's up with the whole white supremacy thing here? So what if there are less "white" people? People are people. And there are plenty of people in the world. I think adoption is a wonderful thing. Parents who want children take in children who need parents. Also, adoption is a hard and expensive process, so people who adopt really want kids. Also, it doesn't contribute to the overpopulation of the world.
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: AdamG
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: bgawboy
» RE: That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: pomes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 14, 2006 4:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Breeding for the apocalypse
Posted by: Mr. Heathen
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gayle on Nov 14, 2006 4:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These children are going to be paying your Social Security. They are the ones who are going to be holding up this country. And maybe if they are taught right they won't be using up all the social services---drug rehab, VD clinics--
Heck, they aren't even using public education funds right now. What's the beef?
» And using up valuable resources
Posted by: nicoKno2
» RE: gayle
Posted by: caitlin
» RE: gayle
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: gayle
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: gayle
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: gayle
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: gayle
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: that's the problem
Posted by: goatini
» RE: gayle
Posted by: buffeliscious
» Fine, You wanted it, you can have it. Infinite Diversity In Infinite Porportions.
Posted by: MSTHOM
» You mean besides the fact that such an economy is just a giant pyramid scheme????
Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» So many Cells; So Little Time
Posted by: edith
» Eddie's right.
Posted by: Mr. Heathen
» RE: gayle
Posted by: dougo
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kww355 on Nov 14, 2006 4:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's definitely a race issue, as well. If it weren't, they'd adopt all the children already here who need parents. Oops, most of those are minority or mixed race. Only Aryans qualify.
These people disgust me.
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: hms2004
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: dphrighton
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Nov 14, 2006 4:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks like the fakeLeft is up to its same old culture war tricks. Stirrring up the zealot base with bloodtalk, and not about taxing the rich and providing universal healthcare, either. Oh, no. Religion! Lifestyles! Fear! THAT is what the fakeLeft zealot base wants. They care little for the concerns that touch the typical american middle class, who simply want the politicians to stop fighting over culturewar trifles and start taking care of business. But the zealots on the fakeLeft and rightwing care for little else but the bloodlust and partisanry that is centered around social wedge issues like religion, lifestyles, race and gender and gays.
A perfect example of this was a recent post that made the rounds of the fakeLeft websites. It showed a picture of Pelosi and a snippet of text: "I'm in ur house, impeachin ur doodz."
This was perfectly emblematic of the fakeLeft vs rightwing quasi-religious zealotry. These so called "politically aware" partisans are really much like cult members, controlled almost entirely by the party elite. No wonder american politics is a mess.....
» More Self-Absorbed Male Obtuseness, Still No Acknowledgement That Women Even Exist
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: more culture wars, more religion, still no economic populism
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» "By the way, you have the stupidest handle of anybody posting here."
Posted by: russianblue1
» RE: "By the way, you have the stupidest handle of anybody posting here."
Posted by: goatini
» RE: more culture wars, more religion, still no economic populism
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Good grief, what are you so scared of?
Posted by: russianblue1
» Actually,,,, YES.
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Sounds familiar...
Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle
» A pig by any other name is still a pig
Posted by: AdamG
Comments are closed-
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Nov 14, 2006 5:25 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just wish Xtians would stop maligning the Roman Empire, which fell BECAUSE of Christianity.
» RE: Many of these kids will grow up to be LIBERALS!
Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: Many of these kids will grow up to be LIBERALS!
Posted by: Moore Hognutz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: osisbs on Nov 14, 2006 5:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Emily on Nov 14, 2006 5:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as these Christians believe that something 'magical' will happen and we will be given another earth, I have no point of contact with them. My logic makes no more sense to them than their logic makes to me.
The social revolution of the 1960s was pushing toward a more peaceful world. Away from a nuclear holocaust - away from a rising tide of desperately poor and hungry people. We looked with horrified eyes on those nations where the lack of birth control led to huge populations and grinding poverty for their people - at countries where mothers and fathers willingly sold their children into slavery so they could eat - or worse yet, practiced a kind of post-birth abortion by killing those babies who were deemed not to have the potential to provide a profit to the family.
It is very sad that as a people we have such short memory.
» RE: Breed to Succeed
Posted by: SteveO
» RE: Breed to Succeed
Posted by: aida1200
» RE: Breed to Succeed
Posted by: purplelotus13
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Beck on Nov 14, 2006 5:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: Beck
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: djnoll
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: Beck
» RE: These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mothersmovement on Nov 14, 2006 6:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It should also be noted that European countries with the most stable replacement-rate fertility patterns are those that have the most generous public policies to support maternal employment and promote gender equality in labor force participation and parenting. The E.U. countries with the lowest fertility rates have more limited supports for maternal employment and less egalitarian attitudes about women's social roles. Germany is a case in point -- even though all families receive a child care stipend, public school children are sent home every day for lunch and non-parental care of infants and toddlers is frowned upon.
But the most problematic thing I see in the pro-natal fringe movement is that there is no guarantee the children raised in these radically religious communities will conform to their parents' expectations to populate the future army of the Christian right. When these kids reach the age of independence, they may very well reject the extreme doctrines that informed their upbringing and become more moderate. In his excellent history of American childhood, Steven Mintz notes this is precisely what happened to the early Puritan movement -- younger generations abandoned a religious ideology that required strict submission to their worldly father and God as the ultimate patriarch for a more enlightened and permissive view of religion and social conduct, and a few generations later their descendents were demanding the separation of church and state.
The same point can probably made about kids raised in alternative communes in the 60s and 70s. Some may be into organic farming or living off the grid -- and some are movie stars and corporate execs.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 14, 2006 6:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: appalling
Posted by: munchkinpup
» Not appalling: FUNNY!!!!!!!!
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jasonix on Nov 14, 2006 6:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suspect that the vast majority of evangelicals still feel this way. In my travels through the evangelical sub-culture - one that's left me a lot less sanguine about religion than I was in the late 80s - I've run into maybe two families that might be described as "quiverful." Even the most dreadfully literalist, young-earth believing fundamentalists seldom subscribe to this philosophy.
But that could change. Evangelicals weren't originally anti-abortion - they imported that belief from the Catholics a few years after Roe v. Wade. Most denominations also have formal resolutions on the books supporting the Right to Die, but that didn't stop a few zealots from making a big deal of the Schiavo debacle. I think we're going to see large numbers of evangelicals retreat from politics for the next decade or so, and large numbers of people - mostly rational, considerate people - are becoming dissatisfied with a religious movement that once promised a personal relationship with God and instead delivered a militaristic cult based on the exaltation of Authority. As the sane people drop out, the insane people will be left with the diminished institutions - and when they've bred enough to fill these institutions once again, the Religious Right we've seen so far might look like People of the American Way compared to what might emerge.
» RE: Anybody remember that Monty Python song?
Posted by: hms2004
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lilah on Nov 14, 2006 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Biblically - As most Christians, these Quiverfull's are picking and choosing which O.T. passages they are going to live out. I HIGHLY doubt they are advocating men having to take their brother's widows as wives (usually polygamy), or sticking to the kosher dietary laws, or any of the other levitcal laws that are not observed by American Christians.
» RE: I question both the Biblical and medical reasoning of these groups...
Posted by: xenacat
» RE: Biblical basis is baloney
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Biblical basis is baloney
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Biblical basis is baloney
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Biblical basis is baloney - just being facetious
Posted by: Jasonix
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lizmv on Nov 14, 2006 6:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: This may backfire on them
Posted by: SteveO
Comments are closed-
Posted by: davewuxi on Nov 14, 2006 6:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anybody who brings into the world a child whom they cannot properly support - materially, spiritually and psychologically - cannot be described in any other way.
Sir Julian Huxley was right when he said that we cannot hide in the arms of an inscrutable God; yet that is exactly what these parents are claiming they can do.
» "Carrying capacity of the earth"- not making a dent on them
Posted by: plantland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kyblue on Nov 14, 2006 6:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Frightening stuff.
We're running out of land, fuel, etc. There are too many people on this planet already. It's selfish to have so many children.
» RE: we've heard this before
Posted by: wolfcry
Comments are closed-
Posted by: splendid on Nov 14, 2006 6:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As I read this, it seemed a bit much to count on even home schooling to ensure that a full quiver stays within the "control" of the patriarch once the arrows are grown up. (Unless it's 2,000 years ago and you use them up in battle before they even grow up.)
OTOH, my own three kids (18, 21, 23) - allowed to read and think what they want as they grew up - are proving as adults to agree with me on an astonishing number of topics.
It's amazing, isn't it, how the religious right - no matter what religion - seems to find it absolutely necessary to be patriarchal and deny women roles outside of vessels for sex and babies.
Makes me a dystheist, I think. If there is a god and this is what "he" wants, then I don't like "him" very much.
» Well, congrats for having 3 liberal kids...
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: J. S. on Nov 14, 2006 7:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: J. S.........who are they?
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: J. S.........who are they?
Posted by: jmoore
» They're pretty right-wing from the Israeli perspective...
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaciain on Nov 14, 2006 7:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: cmaciain
Posted by: jmp3954
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JCR on Nov 14, 2006 7:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hallelujah and Praise Jesus brothers and sisters. The lord has seen fit to bless the world with the progeny of these ignorant and simple-minded couples - Praise Jesus!! The heathen masses of Indians and Chinamen are outpacing us brothers and sisters. We need to do our part by acting less responsible than your average 15-year-old couple, buy ever-larger vehicles, burn more fuel, use a disproportionate amount of water and electricity and contribute 6 times more garbage to our blessed landfills!! Yes we are doing our part - Praise Jesus!!
Thank you Jesus for allowing us to live in a country so ignorant and superstitious that no one would dare put a halt to this breeding frenzy. We shall punish those whorish couples that dare use - GASP - birth control and bring fewer children into this bountiful world overflowing with water, oceans teeming with fish and certainly enough oil to last another 1,000 years. Oh and it's peaceful and safe thanks to the "War on Terror" brought to you by Brother George!! Hallelujah and Praise Jesus!!!
The best news is that the kids are homeschooled by these ignorant fucks who most certainly fill their brains with this very same kind of nonsense. Aren't we the lucky ones!!!
» RE: Thank you lord!! Thank you Jesus!!...READ ¨THE GATE TO WOMEN´S COUNTRY¨
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ghoster on Nov 14, 2006 7:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xopher.tm on Nov 14, 2006 7:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These children are the Timothy McVeighs of the future.
» RE: War is coming.
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» RE: War is coming.
Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: War is coming.-->BINGO!!
Posted by: owlbear1
» RE: War is coming.-->BINGO!!
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jurgen on Nov 14, 2006 8:00 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Don't fault them
Posted by: thehousedog
» RE: Don't fault them
Posted by: xopher.tm
» YOU ARE CROSSING THE LINE
Posted by: MSTHOM
» another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: goatini
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: goatini
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: another nutter unclear on the concept
Posted by: dkm
» W :a brave christian soldier
Posted by: chrisp.
» And now for something completely different...
Posted by: doctorsquared
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 14, 2006 8:16 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Four little, five little, six e-van-gelicals,
Seven little, eight little nine e-van-gelicals,
See evangelicals swarm.
They're dropin' 'em in ones, and twos, and threes 'n' fours,
Soon they won't be a minority anymores,
For most of humanity they'll slam shut the chaple doors,
See evangelicals swarm.
We'll all sing hymns and wor-ship before the cross,
The church's aims will mean our freedom's lost,
Darwin's out; Creation's our new boss,
See evangelicals swarm.
When the rest of the world resists the sacrament,
We'll be sure that we have enough armaments,
To bend 'em to our will, or to hell they will be sent,
See evangelicals swarm.
It would be a better world without the war and strife,
But boring as hell when everybody thinks alike,
With no one bright enough to see the human blight,
When evangelicals swarm. . .
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: aerdrie
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: chomsky
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Analogies
Posted by: dkm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: xopher.tm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Confusion
Posted by: dkm
» RE: Confusion
Posted by: MSTHOM
» Survival of the fittest
Posted by: dkm
» Theories
Posted by: dkm
» RE: Theories
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: goatini
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: goatini
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: dkm
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: JCR
» RE: A little ditty. . .
Posted by: BillC
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Callibrarian on Nov 14, 2006 9:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: keefus55 on Nov 14, 2006 9:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For, if Momma is perpetually pregnant, then Dad is forced into extended periods of perpetual celibacy as well. And, as we all know from the experiences of the Catholic Church and its Priests, celibacy is NOT a normal human condition.
What's more, if the behavior of the Revs. Swaggart, Haggard and Bakker are any indicators of the dark underbelly that's often present in such closed, fundamentalist communities, there's most likely a lot more "sinning" (and in the case of incest, lasting human psychological damage) going on than meets the eye.
» RE: More "Sin" than meets the eye? Closed groups are in danger
Posted by: mdruss42
» RE: More "Sin" than meets the eye?
Posted by: fork
» RE: More "Sin" than meets the eye?
Posted by: keefus55
» RE: More "Sin" than meets the eye?
Posted by: Lizzzarde
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 9:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The thing is, they're not doing it because they love children (and perhaps they do), nor is it about rejecting feminism (is it me or does feminism get blamed for just about everything wrong these days?) They are doing this simply to play catch-up with the numbers of non-white births in this country and elsewhere. These white people are so terrfied of being the minority (and considering many of their past/present behaviours they may children into the world for the sheer numbers. Believe me, if the numbers of latino births suddenly declined, this "Quiverfull" movement would disappear for they'd not have anything to rally around.
This isn't about love or religion - it's about race. Dig deeper and you'll find close ties to far-right racialist groups here and in abroad.
Sadly, this sounds exactly like Hitler exhorting "good" German women to breed soldiers for the Fatherland because there were too many Jews.
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: morticia
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: morticia
» Race is important, because everyone thinks it is.
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: fork
» It's Not Race: It's Pumpin, PUMPKIN.
Posted by: edith
» RE: It's Not Race: It's Pumpin, PUMPKIN.
Posted by: fork
» If they don't agree with you, they are a racist?
Posted by: edith
» RE: If they don't agree with you, they are a racist?
Posted by: fork
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: wolfcry
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BeeGee on Nov 14, 2006 9:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a novel by Margaret Atwood. It describes this culture moved into a future dystopia and it's horrible. Highly recommended for more ammunition as to why this culture should be gently counteracted.
For further ammunition, read George Lakoff's "Moral Politics," which describes the difference in children raised by authoritarian fathers versus a nurturing father and mother. Hint: nurturance equals self esteem and self-reliance, authoritarianism equals dysfunction.
» RE: Two words...
Posted by: Ocean tides
» RE: Two words... Two more.....Sheri Tepper
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: eichen on Nov 14, 2006 10:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: willymack on Nov 14, 2006 10:02 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: eligion and population
Posted by: mdruss42
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 14, 2006 10:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
palestinians in occupied terroritories
crazed fundamentalists in the USA
is the same sad technique in which the some minority, terrorists, or anti-modernists tries to drive out modernity by birth rates.
» RE: Same old tale
Posted by: edith
» RE: Same old tale
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Time to Fly
Posted by: edith
» RE: Time to Fly
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Good point- they were marginalized to begin with?
Posted by: plantland
Comments are closed-
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 14, 2006 10:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This apprroach to breeding, which is not new by the way, the Catholic and Morman Churches have been espousing it for decades, even centuries, is not only a health hazard for women, but also for the children they bear. We have one o fthe highest infant mortaility rates in the world in the United States according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Women who have multiple births suffer from depleted physical strength overtime which results in smaller children and children who have weaker immune systems and other health problems. Assuming that a woman can bear multiple children without losing a significant number to birth related death, she and they will have to be fed and cared for overtime, and if the family is unable to raise a significant portion of its own food, that will become impossible in the years ahead.
We are a nation and a world that is facing famine and starvation in the not so distant future because of over-population and declining oil. The United States will not be able to feed its own population in the near future, and it is reported will be the largest importer of food in the world in 2007. We have depleted our soil and sold it off for development so fact because of promises for a better future through technology that we have lost sight of the realities of God's World, which is finite.
The members of the Quiverfull doctrine believe that they are breeding an Army for God? God does not need armies, you fools, it needs hearts and minds that think and care about the world. He needs people who can care for the land and restore the world to health. He needs people who can reach out to others and lend a helping hand to their neighbors. He does not need mindless breeding anymore. The world is populated to a point where it will be unable to feed its citizens, and when you breed in the name of God, you create a situation that will not turn Earth not into Heaven, but into a Hell of hunger, starvation, war, and disease. That is the natural order of things, realistically and historically.
If you want to practice a Godly life in honoring your husband above your own common sense then do so, and hope he doesn't get tired of you as you become haggard and tired from repeated pregnancies, or from the strain of raising all those children. You also might want to look closely to whether or not he stays home as much, because if he is working to feed that brood you have produced, he won't be there to help you. In fact, he might find greener pastures elsewhere after four or five years of two or three jobs just to cover your ever expanding family. He will just get tired, and as one woman put it, what if he dies and you have to support those children alone. Trust me, there will be little help from anyone for the long haul, so you better hope he has good insurance and you have job skills, because God does help those who follow His laws, but He also helps those who help themselves.
So, if you want to follow a Quiverfull life, fine, but do so in a manner that will make your family sustainable on its own. Do not expect the rest of the world, which you condemn as un-Godly for chosing not to over-populate this planet, to support or sustain you for long when we have to care for the planet you have overtaxed and our own families are going hungry or without medical care. You will need 2.5 acres for every four members of your familyto be sustainable. Hope you can find it.
» RE: God Built A Sustainable World, But He did not guarantee it!
Posted by: form516
» IT'S not there; it's just your norepehine kicking in.
Posted by: edith
» RE: IT'S not there; it's just your norepehine kicking in.
Posted by: djnoll
Comments are closed-
Posted by: putman9 on Nov 14, 2006 10:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Few comments here seem to have caught on to this, the real historical reason for patriarchy: WAR.
(Not capitalism; that's hard to grasp for some modernists who tend to assume the world began in 1789, or maybe the Reformation, but patriarchy is at least 5,000 years old; capitalism is not.)
With a few notable and brilliant exceptions, there is only one reason wars are lost: your tribe runs out of men to hold the frontlines. (somebody cc this memo to Commander Rumsfeld, btw)
Thus the historical problem: if your tribe's women don't wnat to or can't provide enough cannon fodder to feed the "infantry push mechanism" and advance the front lines, you lose. And if you don't WANT to adopt such a social system and repression of women? Too bad. You still lose--and your women get killed or sold as slaves to the victors anyway, possibly t o breed for them. Life's not fair, let alone war.
Here is the irony of this article: the author seems to be accepting this principle as valid, in that the tone of the article is to be afraid or concerned about this movement because it heralds a future demographic shift in favour of the religious right. Or, in other words, "Ack! They're gonna have more guys on the battlefield than we will!"
Now if this is not necessarily the case in the modern world, or at least in this particular case (although you will notice that the Israeli right is pulling their hair out over the tremendous Arab birth rate advantage), then what is the point of the article?
If these people pose no danger, and are just harmless cranks, why pick on them instead of, say, I dunno, BUSH/CHENEY and War Street? If the focus of the article is on over-population in general, why pick on these people only? You ever hear of Bangladesh? China? India? America pollutes the most NOW--but just wait until the Chinese Dragon starts snorting another 500 coal-fired plants.
» RE: Militarism and Patriarchy
Posted by: fiskhus
Comments are closed-
Posted by: danielgeery on Nov 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That was followed by a second part, Why Have Kids, Part 2 , after a little more thinking, and some input from Les Knight, founder of The Voluntary Movement for the Extinction of Humans.
» RE: Why have kids?
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fiskhus on Nov 14, 2006 10:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The claim that "feminism made wage slaves out of women" is a clear denial of God's own truth that it is greed and lack of charity on the part of employers and investors that makes any one, at any time, a wage slave.
Jesus, famously, did NOT engage in such blame - in fact, he welcomed all, just as they are.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jzelensk on Nov 14, 2006 10:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The kids, age 0-10 at this time, are scary in the extent of their lack of worldliness/learning and severe behavioral problems, and these only seem to be worsening each year. The Husband/Dad makes a modest salary in a somewhat deadend job.
But I predict that most of these kids will rebel against the culture and beliefs of these parents. No way to know for sure, but it seems that I saw something similar happen in the '60's and '70's with the counterculture.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LtL on Nov 14, 2006 11:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SFSierra on Nov 14, 2006 11:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: At least 1 in 10 will be Gay
Posted by: DeeOhGee
» We ARE All Gay, Straight, Nuts and Sane. It's called HUMAN.
Posted by: edith
» RE: We ARE All Gay, Straight, Nuts and Sane. It's called HUMAN.
Posted by: kww355
» RE: We ARE All Gay, Straight, Nuts and Sane. It's called HUMAN.
Posted by: edith
» Are You Sure Gay Means "More Feminized, Less Masculine" Or Are You Engaging in Stereotyping?
Posted by: Douglas
» You ever been to Christopher Street?
Posted by: medstudgeek
» Most Homosexual Males Are In The Closet, Not On Christopher Street -- See Brokeback Mountain
Posted by: Douglas
» RE: Most Homosexual Males Are In The Closet, Not On Christopher Street -- See Brokeback Mountain
Posted by: medstudgeek
» I Was Making No Value Judgments, Only Questioning Your Misleading Stereotyping Of Gay Men
Posted by: Douglas
» OK, I stand corrected...
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: At least 1 in 10 will be Gay
Posted by: morticia
» One bit of research
Posted by: dkm
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 12:06 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too easy!
Oh and CryOFan (or whoever you are today), you are definitely going to be my field honky. Know any call and response songs?
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: AprilH
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: Kym525
» the hypocrisy of white-hating identity politics
Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature
» Oh boo hoo, you lack a sense of humor
Posted by: Kym525
» You Might Also Be Pissed at Steve Martin
Posted by: Kym525
» And I'm Sure that Weird Al Isn't High on Your List Either
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: And I'm Sure that Weird Al Isn't High on Your List Either
Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: And I'm Sure that Weird Al Isn't High on Your List Either
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: edith
» edith
Posted by: kww355
» I lack the fervour of the "Brit" Commonwealth posters
Posted by: edith
» RE: I lack the fervour of the "Brit" Commonwealth posters
Posted by: morticia
» Do Yourself a Favour and Review Alternet Postings About Democrats.
Posted by: edith
» RE: Do Yourself a Favour and Review Alternet Postings after the election....
Posted by: morticia
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: countingdaisies
» More Humour and Less Fervour
Posted by: edith
» RE: I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: Kym525
» You don't know where babies come from?
Posted by: edith
» RE: You really don't have a sense of humour...
Posted by: Kym525
Comments are closed-
Posted by: plousia on Nov 14, 2006 1:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gonzales_jo on Nov 14, 2006 1:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll tell you we as americans talk about how illegal immigrants are destroying america by living off the system, taking what we call our jobs and what we call our taxes, etc. Well just listen to yourselves the comments and suggestions you made on the subject of evangelistic breeding. I'm really wondering is it really the outsider destroying America or the Yahoos already living here.
I agree it is racially motivated but who gives a shit, it will allows them to sleep better at night so be it. It's a typical American thing to do, keep up with the Garcia's in this case.
Ha! Ha!
» RE: I Just Love it!
Posted by: edith
» RE: I Just Love it!
Posted by: drmflorida
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pirate1 on Nov 14, 2006 2:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Heart on Nov 14, 2006 3:05 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» what a great article!
Posted by: goatini
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jmooney on Nov 14, 2006 3:08 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bible was written by simple minded humans and contains many items that are heinous in nature such as genocide, slavery, immorality, etc. The term "Good Book" is one of the greatest misnomers in all of history.
I saw the one writer saying it is elitist and anti-free choice to criticize people who believe as these people do. I submit it is an affront to human kind NOT to call them on this kind of bull. There is a way to cultivate a sense of spirituality and awe toward the universe that isn't tied up to the idea that women must be baby factories and that there is only one way to live life. But that way is not through scouring every word written by archaic, eccentric old men looking for something that a supernatural maker of the universe was trying to tell us. If there were such a supernatural universe creator I think he or she (oh, I guess there's no chance, according to the Bible that it was a she) or it would have found a little more clear way of doing so than through those tangled scriptures that only became part of the Bible as a result of politicking on the part of the members who were in attendance at the Council of Nicea.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Nov 14, 2006 3:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» Listen Carefully
Posted by: edith
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Nov 14, 2006 3:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Nov 14, 2006 3:21 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: pomes
» great comeback!
Posted by: goatini
» RE: great comeback!
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: ISlamIslam
» stfu
Posted by: goatini
» RE: stfu
Posted by: christii
» dear christie,
Posted by: goatini
» oh Christie!
Posted by: goatini
» RE: oh Christie!
Posted by: christii
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage/ don't forget the good old Crusades
Posted by: liberal is good
» and let us give thanks
Posted by: goatini
» Not the point
Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Not the point
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Selective outrage
Posted by: morticia
» Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: pomes
» RE: Finally! A progressive stays on topic and demonstrates intellectual consistency!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Peter Boyd on Nov 14, 2006 3:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» i don't really see any difference
Posted by: goatini
» RE: i don't really see any difference
Posted by: symcokid
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mewsician on Nov 14, 2006 4:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: liberal is good on Nov 14, 2006 4:30 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These radical "Christians" want to take over and run my life, brainwash me. Tell me when I can have kids or that I must have them, 5, 6,10, now that’s nuts. Telling me I'm a second class citizen, but, they do it so nicely. Now that's a way to get out of personal responsibility. It's about power over another human being. You can use God or anything else, It's nothing new, your religious radicals Jim Jones, these Quivering guys, radical Muslims who treat their women even worse!! Then you have your secular radicals the Nazis , Communists, All the same.
They fear independence, differences, they must have order but, their way.
God has nothing do to with what these people say or believe, most of us get that.
But I think people are afraid to say anything because you know they’re just nice God fearing people, then wham, they get you.
It is their view of God their interpretation of writings of feelings and if that's what they want I say go for it. Just don't act like you had a latte with God at starbucks and he filled you in on what he wants... Just stay out of my life and how I choose to live.
God gave us free will, not free maybes. God doesn’t judge people do. So my judgment is these type of people can be dangerous not only to themselves but to the whole country... It's the children I feel sorry for. I think the Amish have the right way, they live as they choose and do not push their beliefs on anyone else. Free will.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ajh on Nov 14, 2006 4:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The govt should change qualifications for joining military and draft rules to accept only those adhering to Fundamental Christian beliefs, then we can have true Holy Wars, in addition to paring down the numbers thru casualties of war...
End of T-in-C
» RE: excess people put to good use
Posted by: edith
» RE: excess people put to good use
Posted by: ajh
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 5:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe one reason they do so is out of fear - fear of self-determination, fear of not having someone to make choices for them.
What is sad however is the dark side of this movement as illustrated by Heart. Her post and the links attached show just what this neo-racialist so-called 'Evangelical' movement is really all about. Their track record on child abuse and incest speaks for itself. Andrea Yates was one graphic example and I'm afraid that it's only going to get worse before it ever gets better.
» RE: In All Seriousness
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dobby on Nov 14, 2006 5:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Dobby on Nov 14, 2006 5:31 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: charlene on Nov 14, 2006 5:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: astockton on Nov 14, 2006 6:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Nov 14, 2006 6:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Nov 14, 2006 7:09 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The father, JimBob Duggar (no, no, I wish I was kidding...I'm not), ran for Senate with one issue: END ABORTION, DADGUMMIT! The wife, Michelle, has huge hair and wears ugly plaid frocks that would horrify Laura Ashley. The kids are decent, I suppose, and all of them have "J" names. It's really, really special.
I'm part of a forum where we discuss the Duggars and the Quiverfull movement at length...it's called "Free Jinger" (Jinger is a middle daughter who dared to question whether she would marry or not...scandal!). As the name implies, don't go there if you're looking for all seriousness, all the time. We have a lot of great links, including ones to the utterly trendy Lydia of Purple, designer of fine modest dress.
» RE: The Duggar Family, aka Quiverfull Supastars!
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shellym on Nov 14, 2006 8:40 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our finances short? Sometimes... but none go hungry. All are well clothed. All loved. If a woman choses to have no children and a job outside the home, I don't see you all throwing a fit. Why carry on when a well educated woman chooses to raise children instead? They are a far greater investment in my eyes.... What do you get after 20 years with a company? A watch? After 20 years with my children, I have even more friends... it's a great deal. Much more fun than the several years I spent in real estate in Southern California. As far as using more resources, most of the "quiverful" families I know use equal or less... We don't have as much trash at the curb as our neighbors with 3 kids. We usually buy high quality new or second hand clothing and take care of it, recycle, and live in a comfortable home smaller than the "Mc Mansions" around. Food is cheaper per person bought in bulk, with less packaging as well. A home uses the same energy to warm 2 or 20. Carpooling is great - we pretty much always do. Most of the larger homeschooling families we know have some really great kids... real kids, yea... but great kids. Many are in their teens and 20's... few signs of either brainwashing or rebellion. As far as the homeschooling - have you actually looked at the statistics?? Home educated kids tend to do better than their public school educated peers, and usually better than those in private school as well. What are the schools always calling for? More parental involvement... home education provides that for sure. Oh, and the comment on "wearing yourself out" with too many pregnancies? The uterus is made of muscle. In a well nourished woman it performs quite well, over and over. Overpopulation? There is plenty of land if you get out of the city. Go to France or Germany and you can be paid to have a 3rd child. As far as faith... we all have some. Some believe everything came from nothing, and it is getting better - I see nothing to support that theory. Some believe this earth and all in it required an intellient design... that one makes more sense to me! So - you all go on slinging your hate, outrage, disgust, etc - - I will go on loving my family and thanking God for my blessings.
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: RickyBarnes1960
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: astockton
» Thank you.....
Posted by: MSTHOM
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: galacticsurfer
» The Exception to the Rule Perhaps???
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: fork
» I Have a Few Questions to Pose to You
Posted by: Kym525
» Obviously you haven't checked out Alternet before
Posted by: AdamG
» RE: Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: Shellym
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nicoKno2 on Nov 14, 2006 9:39 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
» RE: Using children as weapons
Posted by: RickyBarnes1960
» RE: Using children as weapons: RickyB-
Posted by: SamFox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jurgen on Nov 14, 2006 9:49 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wars of the past two or three generations have become increasingly meaningless, and the intellectual demands on the foot soldiers are more and more reverting to the mental skills required of a berserker wielding a broadsword.
Intelligent soldiers are not only less and less required but are actually counterproductive, especially when they begin to recognize the meaninglessness of what they are doing and revert to the fragging of the Vietnam affair or the current signing up with peace groups.
So the military is working more and more toward employing functioning robots, but that goal is still far off in the future. In the meantime we're going to need lots of these Quiverites who can qualify to pull the trigger on an automatic rifle.
Sure, there are still complex pieces of equipment calling for private contractors to program them and work them in the field--at several times the pay received by the grunts--but manning (or womanning) checkpoints takes no large amount of grey matter. Nor does knocking down doors or acting as prison guards require much smarts. And the less thought they give to what they are doing or why they are doing it, the better.
We need to keep recruiting the kinds of soldiers described by e e cummings, "they did not stop to think, they died instead."
So, go for it, Quiverites! Produce masses of badly educated children who will start off in life with the baggage of your gene pool. We're going to need lots of "heroic, happy dead," in those future wars.
» RE: More arrows needed in the quiver
Posted by: medstudgeek
Comments are closed-
Posted by: RickyBarnes1960 on Nov 14, 2006 9:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What human cultures need least of all are more individuals stuck in a process of devolution and certainly fewer of those who are adamant in imposing their views on others. As a species, we can only prosper with fewer people overall who are much further advanced in reason and rationality and dedicated to the individual right to self-determination. "Quiverfull" is one of many human groups taking giant strides in the wrong direction. Their views of women, of children, of their religion, of the Earth, of mankind as a whole are leftovers of the stone ages. These views were wrong then, they are wrong still.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ccurtis on Nov 14, 2006 10:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is America, screw history and patriarchy, even the kinder, gentler kind. In America we move forward and expand rights. There is no turning back. Too bad if it makes things difficult for democrats, or society. If the men of the democratic party must return to patriarchy, (cause that's what the guys in Rome had to do, blah, blah, blah), in order to preserve thier progressive values and to keep the guys in Kansas happy, then democrat men don't deserve anything good...especially not the love, respect or support of good women.
Perhaps Mr. Longman should come up with ideas where his rights are compromised, instead of womens.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: livopete on Nov 15, 2006 10:26 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Franco33 on Nov 15, 2006 11:35 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: SamFox on Nov 15, 2006 11:58 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Liberal "progressive" duplicity is also seen when it comes to other choice issues like school choice or their fear of teaching intelligant design alongside Darwin. Why can't the students be given all the info & make up their own minds? Then there is their stance when it comes to firearms. The only choice they want is "take the guns away". (I know, not every left lib D follows every mainstream lib left's position. But these are some basic tenets of their main core platform.)
So what if they get tax breaks? Don't we all want tax breaks? We all sure need them. Now that the Dems have Congress we will see if they are really differant from the Repub RINOs who, lib D style, expanded every thing bad about big gov. I do not think the D's are any differant from the R's, but we shall see. Will they reduce spending, lower taxes, fix the trade imbalances, lower the deficiets, bring back our manufactuing base, repudiate the drive for the North American Union, contol the open borders, downsize gov & it's reach into our lives? Not likely as they are the ones who implemented or supported all this stuff along with the RINOs. The R's just took up where the lib left left off when the D's were voted out when the Contract w/America was introduced to deceive the US into thinking the R's will fix the problems mostly caused by D libs. Changing the lib gov is why the R's got into power in the 1st place. Not living up to their word is what got them voted out.
I think it was a big mistake to trade corrupt R's for equally morally bankrupt D's. I do hope I am proven wrong! Here is a shining chance for the D's to do differantly all the things they complained about the R's for since Newt's un-fulfilled, lip service Contract w/America.
Don't forget, sex & other scandals have plauged BOTH "parties" for many years.
SamFox
» RE: I'm with edith, the first post-
Posted by: chomsky
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lizzzarde on Nov 15, 2006 12:53 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-Choice is something people don't consider enough. Either you are, or you are not. There should be no in-between. No "yeah but" or "what if." As several people herein stated: if it is truly these peoples' choice to continuing bearing children, fine. I don't care. And I honestly don't think that, even if it is not their choice, it is our job to judge, blame, assault, or demean and degrade them and their decisions. And if it is not their free will but rather that which is being imposed upon them by another, than why are we harshly accusing them of stupidity instead of acknowledging that they are victims and prisoners and questioning what we can do to help?
Honestly, is there any real fear that they are going to take over the world? Some people went so far as to suggest that they be stopped! Are we moving so far from our Democracy that we are now going to consider such a violation of personal rights?
Yes, it is wrong when there is racism, sexism, oppression, etc. It is wrong in multiple ways. But before we consider using such vast energies as have been displayed here on freaking out over the personal actions of this one group of people, why not instead turn it to examining the rampant levels of institutional, political, and social 'isms that currently abound in our world and which are for more dangerous and impactful on society and the world at large?
The truth is that we all grew up with parents that have their own belief systems, but that does not mean that like little robots we believe exactly as they. I grew up in the Catholic Church (recovery is going quite nicely thank you). Most of the families, including my own, had at least 7 children. There were those who had as many as 18. The pews were taken by entire families in those days. But trust me. We all grew up to have small families, most of us bearing 1 - 3 children. None of us have the mindeset that we have to bear someone's fruit in order to have value.
I think that the Quiverfull socieities are the least of our worries.
Chill all.
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lizzzarde on Nov 15, 2006 12:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-Choice is something people don't consider enough. Either you are, or you are not. There should be no in-between. No "yeah but" or "what if." As several people herein stated: if it is truly these peoples' choice to continuing bearing children, fine. I don't care. And I honestly don't think that, even if it is not their choice, it is our job to judge, blame, assault, or demean and degrade them and their decisions. And if it is not their free will but rather that which is being imposed upon them by another, than why are we harshly accusing them of stupidity instead of acknowledging that they are victims and prisoners and questioning what we can do to help?
Honestly, is there any real fear that they are going to take over the world? Some people went so far as to suggest that they be stopped! Are we moving so far from our Democracy that we are now going to consider such a violation of personal rights?
Yes, it is wrong when there is racism, sexism, oppression, etc. It is wrong in multiple ways. But before we consider using such vast energies as have been displayed here on freaking out over the personal actions of this one group of people, why not instead turn it to examining the rampant levels of institutional, political, and social 'isms that currently abound in our world and which are for more dangerous and impactful on society and the world at large?
The truth is that we all grew up with parents that have their own belief systems, but that does not mean that like little robots we believe exactly as they. I grew up in the Catholic Church (recovery is going quite nicely thank you). Most of the families, including my own, had at least 7 children. There were those who had as many as 18. The pews were taken by entire families in those days. But trust me. We all grew up to have small families, most of us bearing 1 - 3 children. None of us have the mindeset that we have to bear someone's fruit in order to have value.
I think that the Quiverfull societies are the least of our worries.
Chill all.
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear...and rightfully so
Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: fork
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: Lizzzarde
» RE: Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: fork
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jdylarid on Nov 15, 2006 1:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That said, I'm entertained by comments pointing out that ultimately, social welfare of some kind or another helps sustain such families. Are you actually suggesting that social welfare encourages the irresponsible to be more irresponsible?! Wow, you're starting to sound like...conservatives! The difference of course is that welfare here is helping rural/suburban white Christians (bad) instead of urban ethnic minorities (good).
Also, the comment suggesting that more Americans = more resource waste per person is correct. And, therefore: more immigrants = more resource waste per person. It's indisputable. (To say nothing of the fact that immigrants tend to have larger families.) As above, the difference is simply one of sensibilities; e.g., "Well, if we're going to waste more it's better to have a 'diverse' citizenry doing the wasting."
As has already been stated, it's easy to focus on relatively small groups of people behaving in ways that most of us disagree with, yet not necessarily the best use of our intellectual foci and critical skills. These kids are just as likely to strongly rebel against their upbringing as they are to continue it when they mature. Still, the 'sensationalistic' elements make it ripe for coverage.
» RE: Libs/progs criticizing welfare is entertaining
Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Libs/progs criticizing welfare is entertaining
Posted by: Lydia
» Good point, Lydia
Posted by: jdylarid
Comments are closed-
