Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

'Arrows for the War'

By Kathryn Joyce, The Nation. Posted November 14, 2006.


The Christian 'Quiverfull' movement measures a mother's spiritual resolve by the number of children she raises, each one an arrow in the quiver of God's army.
111406story
111406story

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
What if People Actually Treated Religion as Just a Metaphor (Like Trekkies and Secular Jews)?
Greta Christina

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Naomi Klein: 'No Logo' Revisited
Naomi Klein

DrugReporter:
When It’s Crunch Time at College, Students Turn to Adderall
Erik Hayden

Environment:
20 Weird, Crazy Ideas for Helping the Earth

Food:
The War on Soy: Why the 'Miracle Food' May Be a Health Risk and Environmental Nightmare
Tara Lohan

Health and Wellness:
Pharmaceutical Giant Paid $500,000 to Psychiatrist Who Used Chicago's Poor as Guinea Pigs
Christina Jewett and Sam Roe

Immigration:
Dobbs' Resignation Was Long Overdue
Janet Murguía

Media and Technology:
Is Right-Wing Media Hustler Trying to "Blackmail" the Obama's Attorney General over ACORN Videos?
David Edwards, Muriel Kane

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
New Right-Wing Craze: Using Bible Quote to Pray That Obama’s 'Days Be Few'
Amanda Terkel

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Hey Guys, Don't Want Kids? A Vascetomy Is Probably the Way to Go
Anna Clark

Rights and Liberties:
Economic Crisis Is Getting Bloody -- Violent Deaths Are Now Following Evictions, Foreclosures and Job Losses
Nick Turse

Sex and Relationships:
How Abstinence-Only Programs Perpetuate Dangerous Stereotypes
Martha Kempner

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick

World:
Army Sends Mom to Afghanistan, Infant to Protective Services
Dahr Jamail

More stories by Kathryn Joyce

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

To watch Nightline's coverage of the Quiverfull movement go HERE.

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.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: evangelicals, contraception, conservatives, christianity, parenthood, birth rates

Kathryn Joyce is working on a book about Christian conservative women, to be published by Beacon Press.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
free choice
Posted by: edith on Nov 14, 2006 12:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
these are not people I would hang with and families of 8-13 are not my thing. Years ago people frequently had that many children, even in the US. Mortality rates insured that five or six kids survived through adolescence.

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
» RE: free choice Posted by: tweedster
» RE: free choice Posted by: gooch_x
» Are you serious? Posted by: DanielT28
» 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
» Not a new or unique concept Posted by: mirimac
» RE: "free choice" - THANK YOU Posted by: tweedster
» you are a liar, Posted by: goatini
» RE: free choice Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: free choice Posted by: purplelotus13
» RE: free choice Posted by: kingfelix
Better make that 2 new earths
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 14, 2006 1:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pastor Heneghan: "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."

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.

They breed 'em. We feed 'em.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 14, 2006 1:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What pisses me off is that I have to subsidize the breeding of little fanatics for the Holy War these people are planning. Credits, exemptions, dependents, property taxes...The list keeps growing.

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
less
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 14, 2006 1:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Coxsackie were called coxsuckie they wouldn't be cranking out so many babies. Also the impact on the environment of a lot of large families would be devastating. Overpopulation makes the ancient small-populated world advice totally irrelevant. The European tendency to small families is necessary for high consuming families. Get real folks and think out the options for yourself instead of relying on obsolete advice from an obsolete book. Less is better than more in the reality of today's world.

That woman doesn't even know her history
Posted by: cmd on Nov 14, 2006 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Low birth rate amoung the nobles was a concern at the beginning of the Roman empire, so by that logic, low birth rates would mean progress. Rome started out with old religions and crumbled after it became officially Christian. Let's face it, Rome fell because its entire economy was based on military expansion. See, lack of education is definitely a problem here.

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.

Breeding for the apocalypse
Posted by: WhatNow? on Nov 14, 2006 4:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The faster we can breed the sooner we will get to see the Fab Four, the four men of the apocalypse. Come on everybody! It's Battlemania!

» RE: Breeding for the apocalypse Posted by: Mr. Heathen
gayle
Posted by: gayle on Nov 14, 2006 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are you kidding me?
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?

» 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
» Eddie's right. Posted by: Mr. Heathen
» RE: gayle Posted by: dougo
Bear a Litter for the Lord
Posted by: kww355 on Nov 14, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This movement is frightening. To top it off, they home-school their litters. Just perfect. Another way to dumb down an already diminished populations intelligence.

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: famouspipeliner
» RE: Bear a Litter for the Lord Posted by: dphrighton
more culture wars, more religion, still no economic populism
Posted by: mah_favorite_flavor_cherry_red on Nov 14, 2006 4:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
as Gomer Pyle would say, " SUH-PRIZE! SUH-PRIZE! SUH-PRIZE!"
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.....

» Actually,,,, YES. Posted by: MSTHOM
» Sounds familiar... Posted by: RoffleTheWaffle
Many of these kids will grow up to be LIBERALS!
Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma on Nov 14, 2006 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How many of us HERE had crazy conservative parents?

I just wish Xtians would stop maligning the Roman Empire, which fell BECAUSE of Christianity.

Thank God!
Posted by: osisbs on Nov 14, 2006 5:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank God that children rebel against their parents' wishes and turn out just the opposite! These little soldiers for God will end up puffin' joints and stealing beer like normal kids in no time.

Breed to Succeed
Posted by: Emily on Nov 14, 2006 5:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Biblical quotation, "be fruitful, and multiply" continues with "and cover the face of the earth." It was given when the earth was pretty much barren of people. But we have fulfilled that particular exhortation. If we "cover the face of the earth" to the point where there is standing room only, there isn't enough room to do anything but stand.

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
These kids reject their parents' values and craziness
Posted by: Beck on Nov 14, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grew up among fundamentalist Christians, and no one has to worry about this much. Not one single child of a fundamentalist family I know of grew up to retain these values. They speak of their wonderful families when interviewed for these articles, but the craziness in many of these families must be seen first-hand to be believed. I remember daughters not being allowed to choose their own nail polish colors because the church pastor was in charge of that, and know of families now that have the daughters sleep with the mother, and the sons sleep with the father, although the kids are teenagers. I know of families that don't tell their kids when their birthdays are, or even how old they are, based on some interpretation of a Bible verse. The parents usually have rejected their own families, so it is easy, once the kids grow up and start acknowledging the craziness around them, to be rejecting themselves. And since most of these parents are in no way qualified to educate anyone, and since this won't be apparent given the fact that they only interact with people just like themselves, the kids do not tend to grow up able to function or compete.

A question of economic organization
Posted by: mothersmovement on Nov 14, 2006 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The mandate to "be fruitful and multiply" made a lot of sense in pre-industrial and early industrial eras, when a woman who gave birth to eight or ten children could expect two or three to survive to adulthood and children from the age of four or six were expected to contribute to the labor pool needed to sustain the household. It does not make sense in a post-industrial, knowledge- and service- based economy where child mortality rates are at an all-time low and adult women make up half of the paid labor force. Today, women's wages are necessary to support the level of consumption that keeps the national economy growing. The patriarchal family is simply less essential than it once was -- does anyone here actually believe women were granted equal access to opportunity simply because they asked for it? -- although protecting the concentration of white, male power is a hard habit to break, even though it no longer serves our society very well.

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.

appalling
Posted by: xenacat on Nov 14, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The evangelical movement that encourages this type of indiscrimate breeding is reprehensible, racist, sexist, ingnorant and based on complete falsehoods and inaccuracies. Unfortunately, this movement has been in full swing for many years and has resulted in a full frontal assault on our civil rights, not to mention our private decisions about children and sexuality. It isn't just about a personal "choice" to have a large family. Many, many times these huge families wind up on the welfare rolls, are rife with sexual and physcial abuse and generally make messes with thier religious zealotry that the rest of us have to clean up. Nor are they better parents or more immune to divorce than the rest of us. Check out the polygamous mormon communities in Century City to see what happens when this type of "quiverfull" philosphy is carried out to its conclusion. Welfare fraud, sexual abuse - it is all documented. Even though the fundies profiled in this article are not polygamous, the underlying attitudes are the same and lead to the same type of disasterous consequences.

» RE: appalling Posted by: munchkinpup
Anybody remember that Monty Python song?
Posted by: Jasonix on Nov 14, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went to a moderately evangelical college in the late 80s, and we used to sing the song from Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" to taunt the handful of Catholic students on campus. Being able to use birth control was one of the best things about being an evangelical, or so we thought at the time.

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.

I question both the Biblical and medical reasoning of these groups...
Posted by: Lilah on Nov 14, 2006 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Medically - If birth control is thwarting God's control, so is ANY medical intervention. That heart attack? It's God's way of saying it's time for you to 'come home to Jesus.' Ditto strokes, cancer, etc. If you truely belive birth control is wrong, you should similarly forgoe ANY medication or medical trreatment as interveining in God's control of your body.

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: Biblical basis is baloney Posted by: Basenjis
This may backfire on them
Posted by: Lizmv on Nov 14, 2006 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ask anyone who grew up in a large family, it's not exactly a joyful experience. Parents who are over-stretched, financially and emotionally, are unable to give so many children what they need. And these kids will not grow up isolated, no matter how hard the parents try, the cultural norms will creep in. They will see their mothers as docile breeding animals and their fathers as tyrants and rebel against both. After all, evangelical christianity is not genetic!

Irresponsible.
Posted by: davewuxi on Nov 14, 2006 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The behaviour of these parents can be summed up in one word - and this is supported by most of the comments in the posts above. They are 'IRRESPONSIBLE'.

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.

we've heard this before
Posted by: kyblue on Nov 14, 2006 6:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This sounds much like the rhetoric used by the Nazis to promote their Aryan ideal. Women were encouraged to propagate to produce the Aryan warrior to take over the world.

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
Red-State Babies Do Not Equal Red-State Adults
Posted by: splendid on Nov 14, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, if those women's bodies were to be cloned, their husbands could make bunches of them pregnant all at once.

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.

J. S.
Posted by: J. S. on Nov 14, 2006 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So when can we expect an article about other, non-conservative Christian, religious groups that encourage large families from this author? Any time soon?

» RE: J. S.........who are they? Posted by: mdruss42
cmaciain
Posted by: cmaciain on Nov 14, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best thing to do is allow taxbreaks for only two children and that's it. Any more than that and no deductions nor tax credits may be taken. And do what they do for non parents who try to get welfare--here are some scraps, go to a non profit organization for help, and get out of our sight.

» RE: cmaciain Posted by: jmp3954
Thank you lord!! Thank you Jesus!!
Posted by: JCR on Nov 14, 2006 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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."

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!!!

Who Cares?
Posted by: ghoster on Nov 14, 2006 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look at the number 225 dingbats getting pregnant. Who cares, they have to change the diapers and all the other stuff to care and feed these litters. Let them, I love to see their trailer and the sattelite antenna outside with all the junk cars. This has been tried before and it is a stupid approach to an nonsensical theory. Mostly it is to provide sexual comfort for some old lecher, usually the pastor or his minions. Why do you think they throw the young men out of these communities? Take a look at Arizona city for one example of this wrongheaded approach to life. It is too stupid to waste much time on.

War is coming.
Posted by: xopher.tm on Nov 14, 2006 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate to sound like a tinfoil hat paranoiac, but when these children are grown, they will have "teams" of children of their own, all raised to despise our "secular government" and to hate and fear anyone who lives and thinks differently.

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
Don't fault them
Posted by: jurgen on Nov 14, 2006 8:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people are doing the rest of us--and our children--a great service. America will need more and more home-grown targets in all of its future wars. These home educated, brainwashed litters will be ideal for military service. Every one of them recruited will mean fewer of ours which will be needed.

» 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
» W :a brave christian soldier Posted by: chrisp.
A little ditty. . .
Posted by: monkeywrench on Nov 14, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One little, two little, three e-van-gelicals,
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
» 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: BillC
Are they humans or feral cats?
Posted by: Callibrarian on Nov 14, 2006 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, the Bible does say be fruitful and multiply, but it also says that God will destroy those who are destroying the earth. Back when most of your kids would die on the Oregon Trail of small pox or an infected hangnail, it was okay to have twenty. Today the average American sucks up resources somewhat akin to your average shopper clearing the mall the day after Thanksgiving. Even if these kids use up just half the amount of resources of the American child, the fact that there are so many cancels it out. Now we can talk about choice all we want and pretend they're all equal and good. But that would be a lie. When you and your friends gather around in a religious funk telling everyone they should have tons of kids and home school, you're not creating a family friendly enviornment---you're creating CULTS. And, unlike the ones who commit mass suicide, we will have to worry about these people for years to come because they create a subculture of ignorant sheltered people. Yes, you can claim that home schooling is great, but how can you teach 13 kids when all of them are in different grades? How can they help us out with Social Security if the only jobs they can get are serving dipping dots at the mall? While the rest of the world will be creating stem cells and good economic policy, the only thing we'll have an abundance of is babies and meth.

More "Sin" than meets the eye?
Posted by: keefus55 on Nov 14, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would be very interesting to do some far-reaching statistical research in Coxsackie and other such fundamentalist Christian communities as to the per-capita rates of incest, adultery and other such deviant sexual "sin" going on in the town.

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.

It's All About Race, Not Religion
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm staunchly pro-choice, and if these women (as brainwashed as I believe them to be) want to have the equivalent of two football teams worth of kids, that's their right. If they (through god) can provide a stable loving home for them, so much the better.

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: purplelotus13
» RE: It's All About Race, Not Religion Posted by: purplelotus13
Two words...
Posted by: BeeGee on Nov 14, 2006 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Handmaid's Tale"

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
Create your own belief
Posted by: eichen on Nov 14, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Find what works for your belief set, base it on culture, ethnicity, family of origin and fear...behold you have faith! For these crackers, a Coxsackie will get you a Quiver full.

Religion and population
Posted by: willymack on Nov 14, 2006 10:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh joy! Just what the world needs-more people! It's already been acertained that the current population explosion is not only outpacing oil production, but our ability to feed, clothe, and shelter the additional people expected from 2020 on. The information is out there, folks; all you need to do is read it and (more importantly) heed it. The figures are grim and irrefutable. We can maintain a world population of around 3 billion, without destroying the ecosystem through pollution and destruction of habitat for the species which share the Earth with us. Only religion-besotted numbskulls are oblivious enough to ignore scientific evidence, merely because it is scientific-you know, the rantings of those evil ones who are trying to shove EVOLUTION down our children's throats, and if they'd lie about that they'd lie about other things to promote some dark agenda aimed at destroying the perfect world which is possible ONLY by everyone coming around to their twisted version of reality. I got news for you, folks; it's been tried before, and it just doesn't work. If nothing is done-and soon-our profligate waste of resources and poisoning of the only home we have will lead to a disaster surpassing all the wars and pandemics of the past put together. Don't you think it'd be better for all of us if we reduced the world population and the pollution caused by us voluntarily rather then let Nature take its course?

» RE: eligion and population Posted by: mdruss42
Same old tale
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 14, 2006 10:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
catholics in Northern Ireland
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
God Built A Sustainable World, But He did not guarantee it!
Posted by: djnoll on Nov 14, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have read with interst the article about Quiverfull and the arguments that they put forth in support of their appraoch to birth control and other issues of family life. I have never heard of anything so self-serving in my life. God told mankind that they were the stewards of the Earth and all that lives on it. We were suppose to be the Shepards of all the beasts and all the plants. Well, for the Quiverfull folks, here's a news flash; We have blown it!

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.

Militarism and Patriarchy
Posted by: putman9 on Nov 14, 2006 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two sides of the same coin.

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.

Why have kids?
Posted by: danielgeery on Nov 14, 2006 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I recently wrote an article Why have kids? , that may be of interest to anyone contemplating same.

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
BLAMING THE VICTIMS IN SUBTLE WAYS
Posted by: fiskhus on Nov 14, 2006 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again, a cult pretending to be Christian and godly spends more effort blaming the victims of the rich than helping them.

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.

JimZ
Posted by: jzelensk on Nov 14, 2006 10:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a couple in my extended family that fits this description to a T. Kids popping out as fast as possible, home-schooled, subservient (although I think passive agressive) Wife/Mom, etc.

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.

End hand outs and the problem takes care of itself
Posted by: LtL on Nov 14, 2006 11:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No free housing, medicine or food and people will once again be subject to survival of the fittest. These ignorant "jesus will provide" ideas will starve and die just like the people that hold them.

At least 1 in 10 will be Gay
Posted by: SFSierra on Nov 14, 2006 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1 out of every ten of these fundamentalist kids are likely to be gay at birth, although the percentage may be higher. I can not quote any research regarding large families and gay children, but I know from personal experience many gay people who were born into large families. I know of several instances where there were at least 3 gay children in families of 5 or more with different religous and economic backgrounds. The point of course, is that just birthing babies is no guarantee as to how they will turn out. Even a childhood of programming is no guarantee.

» OK, I stand corrected... Posted by: medstudgeek
» One bit of research Posted by: dkm
I Want These White People to Have More Kids
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After all, when us people of colour take over the world, we're going to need hardy white slaves to work on our various and sundry plantations. But don't you fret none, because we learned some very important lessons as to how to manage our slaves, and we promise to do a better job so that none of you will run away or want to be free. We'll just give these folks some good old fashioned religion that says for slaves to obey their masters. In fact, since they're already being indoctrinated into religion, most of our job is done.

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?

» the hypocrisy of white-hating identity politics Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature
» edith Posted by: kww355
My response to this article
Posted by: plousia on Nov 14, 2006 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For anyone who's interested, I've posted a response to this article (http://plousia.blogspot.com/2006/11/quiverfull_14.html) on my blog. I grew up in a circle which espoused this mentality so I'm very familiar with it. While I believe most if not all of these people are well-intentioned, I also believe they're basically misguided. Please read my blog for more.

I Just Love it!
Posted by: Gonzales_jo on Nov 14, 2006 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After carefully reviewing all comments on evangelistic breeding, I'll have to say I'm not surprised on the comments you all made.

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
This is no surprise...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Nov 14, 2006 2:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People of such severely limiting persuasions only see the universe in terms of humanity and it's relationship to whatever version of a supreme being their particular group favors. In the view of this particular group, women are basically vessels for producing babies that will be indoctrinated into the same belief system and thus such groups perpetuate themselves. The only truth is that there isn't any that is comprehensible by human intelligence. Too many of those that "believe" are despoiling the earth as they see everything here as OURS to do with as we will because the life that COUNTS is in some "NEXT WORLD" far off in their collective mind. They even give the this "god" a human face. Of all the arrogance! They've been told by those they are told KNOW, that "GOD" said so... and so it goes. Belief is like that... faith that somewhere in all this SOMEONE surely KNOWS and that is all they need.

Full quiver families
Posted by: Heart on Nov 14, 2006 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a different perspective about full quiver families.

Heart

» what a great article! Posted by: goatini
Insanity
Posted by: jmooney on Nov 14, 2006 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not about elitism or free choice or any other babble. It is about a form of insanity that has people sifting through literature written by ancient and generally backward people and saying, "This is our talisman." It is really just a bunch of crap.

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.

lol wut
Posted by: chomsky on Nov 14, 2006 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the *fuck* is this shit?

» Listen Carefully Posted by: edith
The age of reason died soon after America's birth
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Nov 14, 2006 3:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The documents people talk about were born at the twilight of the age of reason. We are now definitely moving to the dark ages once again. Mysticism is finding it's way into all we do and learn, even in institutions of "higher learning". Where have the people of reason like Thomas Paine, George Mason and Patrick Henry gone? Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison were deists as were most of their peers. Philosophical progress has passed. The radicalization of myths told as truths has prevailed and the slide into the darkness is inevitable as man has moved closer to supertroops of chimps that may end up projecting nuclear fusion and fission "stones" back and forth at each other.

Selective outrage
Posted by: ISlamIslam on Nov 14, 2006 3:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny how progressives are outraged at small numbers of white Americans acting stupidly but aren't equally outraged at the Islamic practice of Muslim men having four or more wives and producing children in the double digits. UBL was in fact one of 50+ children and has multiple wives with untold (by the MSM) numbers of children. This practice by Muslims is more of a threat world-wide to natural resources and cultural and economic stability than that described in the article, given that Muslims are already one-fifth of the world's population. The lack of outrage from so-called progressives and feminists to this dehumanizing practice of polygamy and overpopulation by Muslims is itself outrageous.

» 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
» 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
The treatment of women
Posted by: Peter Boyd on Nov 14, 2006 3:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And Christians regail Islam for the way it treats women

HOW UNUTTERABLY REVOLTING
Posted by: Mewsician on Nov 14, 2006 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gawd. These women are psychos. And just think what measure of disappointment and misery awaits them as their little warriors grow up and begin to actually use the brain God gave them - as they run, not walk, to leave their weirdo fundamentalists families back on the farm and join the real world somewhere.

give me the terrorist any day
Posted by: liberal is good on Nov 14, 2006 4:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading this and other articles about evangelicals and the "Christian" right (wrong), I think I would rather face a good old gun toting radical Muslim fundamentalist. They want to kill me, end of story.
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.

excess people put to good use
Posted by: ajh on Nov 14, 2006 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tongue-in-Cheek on:
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

In All Seriousness
Posted by: Kym525 on Nov 14, 2006 5:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These women and the children they bring into the world are to be pitied and prayed for. Whether we agree with it or not, they have made their choice. This is still America and in spite of the options and the freedoms that other women fought for (and continue to fight for), these "Quiverfull" women have decided this is the best way to exercise their beliefs. Unlike many Islamic countries where women's roles are enforced by violence (one VERY big difference Mr. IslamIslam), the women featured in this article seem to be aware of just what it is being asked of them and seem to be comfortable with it. Are they brainwashed - perhaps? Or perhaps they simply do not know any better and have lived under the thumb of a god who still blames them for Original Sin.

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
mind your own bidness
Posted by: Dobby on Nov 14, 2006 5:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
get it

how many of you have ever been approached?
Posted by: Dobby on Nov 14, 2006 5:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
by the brainwashers, of whom you are all smarter?

charlene
Posted by: charlene on Nov 14, 2006 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Move over Stepford wives !! Stay away from that back alley, now, ya heah !!

Do as I say...
Posted by: astockton on Nov 14, 2006 6:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Albert Mohler, one of the proponents of the "Quiverfull" movement, has TWO children.

Who pays for these litters?
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Nov 14, 2006 6:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If polygamists in Utah are any example, probably they rely on welfare checks. Let's face facts, it's difficult for well-paid, educated people to support 2 kids, so how do these poorly educated, minimum wage types manage to feed 10 or more? They're probably just parasitizing the society they claim to reject. Their children will grow up in third-world conditions of poverty and ignorance.

The Duggar Family, aka Quiverfull Supastars!
Posted by: mmeetoilenoir on Nov 14, 2006 7:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TLC and the Discovery Channel have done several shows on this one family in Arkansas named the Duggars. The first one was "14 Children And Pregnant Again!". Then there was a 15th, and they were building a house. Then, there was a 16TH...and they were all on vacation or some junk.

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.

Amazing hate responses....
Posted by: Shellym on Nov 14, 2006 8:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am Tracie - commented on in the story. Amazing how quick many of you are to jump to conclusions and sling hate. A few facts... We do have 14 children. Some by birth. Some by adoption. Various shades of skin tone. 7 of them grown now. 3 with successful businesses. All well educated, and far more capable than most kids their age. Able to succeed in both academics and life. Working anything from computers to large machinery.
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
Using children as weapons
Posted by: nicoKno2 on Nov 14, 2006 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally, I find this idea disturbing. Using children as weapons is never a good thing for the child. Isn't this an abusive notion?

» RE: Using children as weapons Posted by: RickyBarnes1960
More arrows needed in the quiver
Posted by: jurgen on Nov 14, 2006 9:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, we've drifted away from the point I was making. Maybe a bit of clarification will help to bring us back on topic.

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.

Sheer Madness
Posted by: RickyBarnes1960 on Nov 14, 2006 9:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Human beings are neither breeding cattle nor lambs for the slaughter. I have never seen myself as a tool of a fantasy "god", of society or of other human beings and neither have I ever seen children of my own or of others as the means to any end other than that which they judge for themselves. I am not, never have been nor will I ever be the property of another and certainly have not, do not and never will treat others - most especially vulnerable children - as my own property or as the property of others. They are most especially not the tools or property of some mythical ghost in the sky borne out of chronic and acute childlike misunderstandings of what is real and rational. Women are human beings whose bodies belong to themselves and to none other. Their duty is merely to live the life they have as happily as they are able and only voluntarily in a manner they judge most appropriate for themselves. In that, they are no different from any other human being. The people of "Quiverfull" are irresponsible in the extreme. They and their philosophy pose a threat to individual self-determination, a threat to human evolutionary progress away from supernaturalistic dominionist belief systems, and a threat to the world environment on which we ALL depend. Their warped unreasonable and irrational thinking is nothing short of utter mental dysfunction. Madness.

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.

ccurtis
Posted by: ccurtis on Nov 14, 2006 10:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the Democrat Leadership Council's advisor, Phillip Longman, thinks women should compromise thier rights and return to a kinder, gentler patriarchy for the good of society, oops, sorry, I mean the men of society.

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.

Planet of my Dreams
Posted by: livopete on Nov 15, 2006 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Underpinning the fact that our planet, as we know it, is on its way to man made destruction is the simple truth that we are overpopulated. Capitalism in our society pervades everything. Markets need to keep growing so the scions of capitalism can survive. Increased population equals bigger market. US Religion, as far as I can see it, is as capitalist as Newscorp, Halliburton, Enron, WorldCom, so why should they be any different. The US religious bullshit we get fed on early morning TV from supposed christians who offer salvation in the form of a donation is ludicrous (I am Australian). Procreate for our continued profitability! FZ owns the title. He could see through you.

All Cults go bust in the end
Posted by: Franco33 on Nov 15, 2006 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Britain was also full of evangelical fruitcakes a century ago. Their grandchildren couldn't care less about the christian cult. Wales is full of rotting, empty, abandoned evangelical churches. I suspect the same will happen here.

I'm with edith, the first post-
Posted by: SamFox on Nov 15, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
edith is quit correct. These people are exercising their "choice"! Since it does not agree with the left lib's, the left libs get all upset. The resistance to the choice to have kids shows the double tounge-speak of the "pissed off" left. They use the word "choice" but are not honest enough to come out and say "the only real chioce we want is the one we dictate". If "choice" was really respected we would not have all the yammering about how bad the choice of others that do not agree with the lib agenda is. So why is it not enough that they exercised their choice and leave it that? Besides, living children have so much more potential than dead ones. Since when is it bad to have living children? The US citizan birth rate is pretty low. I went to the US Census site...Most of US population growth is from the invasion of illegal aliens. Other wise the US would not have hit the 300 million mark. These children are born to a very small % of the US population any way. They make up very small fraction of the total US pop. Hardly an "explosion".

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

Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: Lizzzarde on Nov 15, 2006 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. Lots and lots of the above were brought out by this article. I'm a liberal, progressive, feminist, pro-choice woman. I won't say Democrat because they've managed to piss me off a lot in the last few years. I prefer keeping my mind open as an Independent and examining each person based on their qualities, experience, belief system, etc. But that is not what this post is about.
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.

Name calling, labeling and fear
Posted by: Lizzzarde on Nov 15, 2006 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. Lots and lots of the above were brought out by this article. I'm a liberal, progressive, feminist, pro-choice woman. I won't say Democrat because they've managed to piss me off a lot in the last few years. I prefer keeping my mind open as an Independent and examining each person based on their qualities, experience, belief system, etc. But that is not what this post is about.
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.

Libs/progs criticizing welfare is entertaining
Posted by: jdylarid on Nov 15, 2006 1:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me state plainly that I find the trend examined in the above article disturbing on multiple levels.

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.

» Good point, Lydia Posted by: jdylarid
Just Me
Posted by: dm. on Nov 15, 2006 8:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ah ha!...thanks for explaining Mel Gibson's newest in his film quiverfull. He must know that reel life ain't real life, but it sure is an excellent propaganda tool.

Mosquito ringtone
Posted by: AlKar on Nov 16, 2006 4:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Mosquitotone is too highpitched for older ears to hear. Technology-savvy teens and preteens set their back-to-school shopping bar higher with demands for portable mp3 players, laptop computers, new slide phones and text messagers. They begin to lose the ability to hear the highest frequencies from 18KHz to 20KHz. The ringtone and the alarm both operate at high frequencies, meaning that they are not audible to adults. The mosquito ringtone is available for download off several Internet sites for a few dollars. Thousands of students are downloading it so that they hear their phones ring in class while their teachers remain oblivious.

A Dangerous Deception
Posted by: chomsky on Nov 16, 2006 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Quiverfull movement is characterized by gross misinterpretation of the bible and a hatred of life itself. Most fundementalist movements are like this.

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).

sterotypes
Posted by: maven7 on Nov 16, 2006 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
See if you can fit me into some of your stereotypes:

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
Gayle
Posted by: dkm on Nov 16, 2006 5:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"These children are going to be paying your Social Security."

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.

Thank God For Christian Reason
Posted by: faultroy on Nov 16, 2006 9:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Alternet for publishing this most interesting article.
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.

...and kill as many Muslims as you can by illegal wars
Posted by: werewolf on Nov 16, 2006 10:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why shouldn't the Muslims suspect that killing Muslims by the militaries of Christian nations is not secrety encouraged by the Muslim hating Christians to reduce Muslim numbers?.

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.

MomofSeven
Posted by: JennieC on Nov 16, 2006 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm thankful to see responses from fellow "mothers of many" like maven7. What amazes me about the majority of the comments on this story (and the story itself) is the incredible fear-mongering and ignorance being put forward in the name of "reason" and "intelligence." I thought conspiracy theories only abounded on the extreme right, but here they are, masquerading as "reporting." And when I signed up to post a comment, I noted that Alternet's rules disallow comments that attack others:

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
not new, again
Posted by: tocarr on Nov 17, 2006 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
didn't the Nazis try and fail at this, too?

Been There, Done That
Posted by: Lydia on Nov 17, 2006 6:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is too late for the naysayers and the negative to tell me that my homeschool children will one day suck the system of social services. You KNOW that, do you?

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.

The article misrepresented several things
Posted by: MomOf11 on Nov 17, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have 11 children, have homeschooled for 14 years, use no government services, beleive in good stewardship of the earth, and are conservative Christians. Now that you know who I am, let me make a few things clear.

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........

» Ooops! Posted by: livopete
» RE: Ooops! Posted by: livopete
» RE: Ooops! Posted by: Lydia
» RE: Ooops! Posted by: grolan
Non religious People have Large Families, too.
Posted by: Lydia on Nov 17, 2006 11:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why isn't anyone outraged over celebrities that have quiverfulls of kids...one being Wille Nelson, whose children don't even have the same mothers.

» Africa is NOT "overpopulated" Posted by: jdylarid
jc miller
Posted by: J. C. Miller on Nov 17, 2006 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If only "God, as the "Great Physician" and sole "Birth Controller," opens and closes the womb", then the hymen of all Quiverfull women would be intact, and Quiverfull families would be childless.

» RE: jc miller Posted by: Lydia
» RE: jc miller Posted by: Kali
Homeschooling reality doesn't fit Alternet's stereotype (an understatement)
Posted by: jdylarid on Nov 17, 2006 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not surprisingly, those disparaging homeschooling and parents who choose this option above provide zero facts to back up their hateful assertions. And I think the word "hateful" really does apply here--one can really sense their intensely negative, emotional reactions.

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
Quiverfull movement
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 8:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
=Hitler Youth program

Hitler Youth program
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Hitler Youth catered for 10 to 18 year olds. There were separate organisations for boys and girls. The task of the boys section was to prepare the boys for military service. For girls, the organisation prepared them for motherhood.

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
A common rhyme for women in Nazi Germany
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 9:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Take hold of kettle, broom and pan,
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.

Mark Morford on the Duggars.....
Posted by: morticia on Nov 18, 2006 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Read it and weep (with laughter)....

» Thanks Posted by: Donna_Darko
If you don't see the similaries...
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Nov 18, 2006 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I dunno what to tell ya.

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

Yikes, this sounds really bad.
Posted by: Lord Ichmael on Nov 19, 2006 9:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spent my elementary years in a Catholic school, and during that time my mom forced me to go to church every Sunday. As a result, I'm a die-hard progressive and Atheist and nothing short of a miracle will ever change that (so that means it won't).

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
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement