Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

'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

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Kathryn Joyce

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

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.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: christianity, evangelicals, conservatives, contraception, 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

 

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