clown cars, VAGINAS, and quiverfull [video]

[village midget]

Barbara Bradley Hagerty

"The Swansons subscribe to the Quiverfull movement.
"When we first got married, we actually didn't want children," Kelly's husband, Jeff Swanson, says.
But then the Swansons began to notice that the Bible was very high on big families. And Kelly says that she and Jeff decided that God knew how many children they could handle."

full article on national pubic radio website

hambydammit

It is mind boggling to me that anyone could look at this and see anything but the most mind-numbingly selfish and absurdly misguided movement ever. Apparently, though, there are still people out there who would defend the rights of people to subject the world to not only their own stupidity being multiplied exponentially through the generations, but also to actively promote an ecological disaster.

full article on "hambydammit's blog

You may notice this week my sig features quote of the week "v****a is not a clown car" whilst the expression itself tickles me, the meaning behind it, and the argument it comes from, is serious.

As an atheist, it seems obvious to me that the 'go forth and multiply' religious doctrine has everything to do with ensuring the number of followers rises exponentially. The success of religion is a pure game of numbers.

Usually, in my experience of both Christian and Muslim women, the mothers of these large families -who have religiously chosen not to use birth control -do not share my perspective...or at least they don't care to admit it.

These women describe their broods as a blessing, each child is a a personal gift direct from the creator, a gold star reward for being a good follower...in fact there is even some rivalry between large families to have more offspring, and thus demonstrate more favour in the eyes of he who must be obeyed.

The public radio article got my attention because of the unusually candid nature of the "Quiverfull movement" it reports on. For example;

Nancy Campbell cited in In Quiverfull Movement, Birth Control is Shunned, Barbara Bradley Hagerty.

"The womb is such a powerful weapon; it's a weapon against the enemy"...

Something about this upsets me just as it upsets the blog writer reviewing the article, Hambydammit. It makes me angry but seemingly for different reasons, she seems to be furious with the organisation "Quiverfull" I am furious with the women.

I am angry with them for being so weak as to allow their bodies to be used/abused by their manipulative chiurch leaders as munitions factories, and for sacrificing their independance and identity to become baby machines.

Some questions to ponder:
Is it alright in this day and age to be proud of producing more children than you can afford to feed?
Does the country/nationality of the family make a difference to your answer?
Does the religion/denomination make a difference to your answer?
From the perspective of ecological problems and resources, is it ever alright to produce a large brood of children?
Am I being unfairly judgemental because I am not religious?


clown car -performance art video (not for sensitive viewers)  

[Archaic Thought]

Quote:

Is it alright in this day and age to be proud of producing more children than you can afford to feed?

When has it ever been? The Children will die of starvation, or numerous other conditions caused by malnutrition. That, and the worst thing this world needs is more mouths to feed (This applies even more so to the "PRAISE JAYZUS!" folks)

Quote:

Does the country/nationality of the family make a difference to your answer?

Generally, it's more the culture of said people. If they come from a culture that encourages copious ammounts of children, yes.

Quote:

Does the religion/denomination make a difference to your answer?

Quite an impact. Taking everything in a silly book of fairy tales as fact...

Quote:

From the perspective of ecological problems and resources, is it ever alright to produce a large brood of children?

To some this may sound borderline offensive, but what we need is population control, placing limits on the number of children families should have.

Quote:

Am I being unfairly judgemental because I am not religious?

I'm not religious, either. So, no.  

[village midget]

mistercombine

That, and the worst thing this world needs is more mouths to feed (This applies even more so to the "PRAISE JAYZUS!" folks)

please elaborate more on this, i can appreciate where you are coming from i think... i can also see that for a lot of people children are a method of ensuring your immortality to some extent. a little vessel to fill up with your wisdom (and religion/creed) and memories of you so you can continue to have a stake in the world after death...(i am guessing that's why most people try so desperately to have their own genetic children, even if it means ivf, rather than adopt.) why do evangelical christians fare worse in your idealogy than muslims or quakers, or jews or vocal atheists like dawkins?

mr combine

midget

Does the country/nationality of the family make a difference to your answer?

Generally, it's more the culture of said people. If they come from a culture that encourages copious ammounts of children, yes.

but a country like the USA has ample landmass and self sufficiency to accommodate a large increase in population, whereas a country like china does not...so are you against the encouragement of large families for practical reasons regarding the general global picture and the future of natural resources or are you against it on more specific grounds?

many cultures which encourage copious amounts of children see the majority living longterm in abject poverty. Xhosa people in South Africa have more children than they can afford for all the religious reasons in the first post (bessings etc) but also on a practical level because they know not all will survive, not all will be able to make a living and they are a kind of retirement plan, as South Africa offers no welfare state to the elderly..you work until you die or you starve...you need offspring to support you financially and to care for you...so is it wrong in that situation?

mr combine

midget

From the perspective of ecological problems and resources, is it ever alright to produce a large brood of children?

To some this may sound borderline offensive, but what we need is population control, placing limits on the number of children families should have.

ok, i hear you but this is sort of the point i was making above about the ammenities available to each country and the size of population they are able to accomodate...it is going to lead to extreme political situations if some countries are forced to control population and some are not. and a blanket agreement the same for every country will not work, there will be opposition to this on grounds of human rights in every country, but in a country where there is no need for control there will be no grounds to justify such a ruling.  

[black_wing_angel]

God might know how many you can handle, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop you at that point.

People need to realize that for "God" to work, you have to understand that his only interactions with us, are in "miracles". He doesn't control everything, he created science to do that for him. He only BENDS the laws of physics, on rare occasions.

Fundies really make us look bad....  

[village midget]

black_wing_angel

God might know how many you can handle, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop you at that point.

People need to realize that for "God" to work, you have to understand that his only interactions with us, are in "miracles". He doesn't control everything, he created science to do that for him. He only BENDS the laws of physics, on rare occasions.

Fundies really make us look bad....

so you disagree with the idea that it is morally wrong to use contraception? it is not just fundamentalists who take the christian doctrine on reproduction seriously, you only have to look at an abortion debate thread to see that.

and how can you be sure that your particular brand of christianity is correct? maybe your god is omnipresent and acts through all things, maybe the bible is meant to be taken literally in it's entirety, maybe i will go to hell because i don't believe any of it...

clearly, i do not approve of these women with the quiverfull mentality, but i am going to have to say for me it is problematic to see a religious person who has faith, and seeks the respect of his peers for it, failing to respect the faith of other religious people.  

[black_wing_angel]

village midget

black_wing_angel

God might know how many you can handle, but that doesn't mean he's going to stop you at that point.

People need to realize that for "God" to work, you have to understand that his only interactions with us, are in "miracles". He doesn't control everything, he created science to do that for him. He only BENDS the laws of physics, on rare occasions.

Fundies really make us look bad....

so you disagree with the idea that it is morally wrong to use contraception? it is not just fundamentalists who take the christian doctrine on reproduction seriously, you only have to look at an abortion debate thread to see that.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with contraception. Sex is not just for procreation. I have no problem with condoms, birth control, or any of that.

Quote:

and how can you be sure that your particular brand of christianity is correct? maybe your god is omnipresent and acts through all things, maybe the bible is meant to be taken literally in it's entirety, maybe i will go to hell because i don't believe any of it...

Because, the way I have it "figured out" is the only way that really makes any sense, to me. The whole idea that god controls every last little smidgeon of activity on Earth, is rendered a ridiculous notion, when you factor in the existence of science.

However, to say that God created the laws of science to govern the world, as he created daylight to govern the passing of days, seems a lot more reasonable.

I've had 23 years to try to figure God out. And I've done so while factoring in what we DO know about the Earth, and how it could be related to God's existence.

Prime example, we have rather convincing evidence that humans were "evolved" from "neanderthals". The bible never actually describes Adam or Eve, and it's QUITE POSSIBLE that they WERE such neanderthals, and that over time, humans evolved into what we are, today. Evolution being a law created by God, to help his beloved creations survive in an ever changing world.

I believe that, when we have what is called a miracle, that is an act of God. And ONLY such is an act of God.

The mixture of warm air and cold air combining to create a tornado that rips through a town, killing 15 people? the laws of Science, at work.

One survivor being found, having been trapped under the weight of a wall, that should have crushed every bone in his body, and has survived for 8 whole days without food or water, yet lives to tell his tale? That would be an act of God.

God made laws to govern man, what he can do, what he can't do. It seems likely that he would make laws to govern EVERYTHING ELSE, too.

But, as is the case with all laws, he can bend them to his will.

Quote:

clearly, i do not approve of these women with the quiverfull mentality, but i am going to have to say for me it is problematic to see a religious person who has faith, and seeks the respect of his peers for it, failing to respect the faith of other religious people.

I did not say I don't respect their right to believe what they wish. I'm not trying to stop them from doing what they want. They have their right to interpret the bible, and God, however they best can, or want to.

However, that does not mean I will be silent about how I feel about their behavior. I am known for making myself heard, whatever my opinion.

But, just because I verbally oppose it, does not mean I don't respect it.

I verbally oppose the notion of abortion. I despise the concept entirely, and believe it's avoidable. And I've been WELL documented for saying that I would not date someone who would willingly participate in an abortion (with only EXTREME exceptions). However, I respect other peoples' rights to have them, if they honestly feel that they must.

I will admit, maybe I was a bit harsh. But it really just seems like common sense that God created the laws of science to govern the world. When you have a baby, it's not because God said "let them have a baby", it's because God DID NOT say "They shall not conceive". I wish more people would look at it, the way I do.  

[MayIHelpYou22102]

"Is it alright in this day and age to be proud of producing more children than you can afford to feed? Okay. In my culture, the pride is in producing the most children you can afford to feed. The more children you can afford, the more wealth you have. (Sort of why some cultures are proud of being fat).

Does the country/nationality of the family make a difference to your answer?Yes. From what I know, the Hispanic cultures have pride in one woman producing 13 children from one man. African cultures have pride in one man having multiple mothers to more than 30 children. The American culture pride in having maybe 2 or 3 children by one woman and one man and pampering them until they are 18. Different nationalities understand the child caring process

Does the religion/denomination make a difference to your answer?
I'm not sure. I know religion plays a role in whether or not a young mother aborts, but I've never been too close to the religious circuit to see this.

From the perspective of ecological problems and resources, is it ever alright to produce a large brood of children?Only if you can afford them. If you have the means, then may God bless you with patience...

Am I being unfairly judgmental because I am not religious?
No, but you have to understand there are sane religious people out there. 3nodding "

 

[Myhrie]

Well to start, I am opposed to organized religion of all types for a variety of reasons. This is a good example of one of them.

Allowing yourself to be controlled by religious beliefs is no different in my opinion than a cult like Jonestown. Sure, the leader of cults like that are typically egotistical bastards that are out to control the followers in every way possible.

I don't believe that this is the main goal behind most religions as I think most religious leaders legitimately believe in the good that their religion of choice will offer.

But the effects on the followers is the same. Imagine if the pope or another powerful Christian leader came out today and told all Christians to kill themselves.

If he gave believable reason for it and was as convincing as leaders like Jim Jones then would not an enormous number of people follow his orders?

If all Christians believed that what he said was the legitimate word of God then they would obey.

Religion puts people in a little box that prevents them from expanding spiritually as we as intelligent, curious beings should.

It allows people to come up with simple answers to complex, unanswerable questions.

It makes things easier.

It allows people to divide good from bad. To say, "That person is going to hell and I'm going to heaven."

It's comforting.

And it allows intelligent people to lose all logic if a situation involves their faith. They'll have 8 kids even though they know they can't afford it and the children will suffer because of it. (I know this from personal experience with my mormon cousins)

Spirituality is powerful, moving, and important. Religion denies people spirituality and logic whenever their faith is brought into the picture.

 

[magmayoshi]

Nancy Campbell cited in In Quiverfull Movement, Birth Control is Shunned, Barbara Bradley Hagerty.

"The womb is such a powerful weapon; it's a weapon against the enemy"...

It's so true in many ways but who the ******** actually says it openly. gonk  

[Kuchen Fairy]

This is where I start saying "******** civilisation, I do what I want." It is biologically natural to feel the need to reproduce. That instinct is what keeps our species going - that and sex feels great, but I myself believe this to be a reward/incentive to procreate.
If we're meant to do it as humans, it's not wrong to do it as a societal group either. What makes it "wrong" is the concept and untilisation of "income." We must be able to afford children to find them a general benefit, both to ourselves and to societal as a whole.

Should there be a limit on how many offspring you may have? ******** no. Should people be mindful of the consequences when they choose to have sex? Of course. Do they now? Sometimes.

I guess what my point is is that society is being torn down by... society.

You should be proud of your children always. They are your offspring, the continuation of your genes. You should never feel ashamed or regretful of them.
Religion plays a big role in some peoples' choice to have a big family. But it is still their choice so I don't see why this is an issue. Religion is not the only factor in this instance by far.

Those points aside, I think there is something about religious women that needs to be addressed here. Women who choose to have big families within their church are not being "used" or "abused" or "controlled." They feel it is their duty or they feel it is best for them, and they are capable of free will, so there is no manipulation going on here. To say that women with large families are "slaves" to their religion is absolutely ludicrous and extremely disrespectful, because you are essentially telling them that they do not have the power of free will, which renders them less than human.
I also do not see how having many children renders one "dependent." Women with large families can also have identities that span beyond the home.

All in all, what is right for you is not by default right for others. It might seem ridiculous that some women want large families but the opinion is possible.

Basically people should mind their own damned business about other peoples' lives. This is unrealistic though because order is required for a civilised society, which so many of us are bound to maintain, and for order to happen you need rules and regulations, which are always nosy.

That aside, I want one kid. talk2hand  

[Kuchen Fairy]

Plexiglass Prism

Well to start, I am opposed to organized religion of all types for a variety of reasons. This is a good example of one of them.

Allowing yourself to be controlled by religious beliefs is no different in my opinion than a cult like Jonestown. Sure, the leader of cults like that are typically egotistical bastards that are out to control the followers in every way possible.

I don't believe that this is the main goal behind most religions as I think most religious leaders legitimately believe in the good that their religion of choice will offer.

But the effects on the followers is the same. Imagine if the pope or another powerful Christian leader came out today and told all Christians to kill themselves.

If he gave believable reason for it and was as convincing as leaders like Jim Jones then would not an enormous number of people follow his orders?

If all Christians believed that what he said was the legitimate word of God then they would obey.

Religion puts people in a little box that prevents them from expanding spiritually as we as intelligent, curious beings should.

It allows people to come up with simple answers to complex, unanswerable questions.

It makes things easier.

It allows people to divide good from bad. To say, "That person is going to hell and I'm going to heaven."

It's comforting.

And it allows intelligent people to lose all logic if a situation involves their faith. They'll have 8 kids even though they know they can't afford it and the children will suffer because of it. (I know this from personal experience with my mormon cousins)

Spirituality is powerful, moving, and important. Religion denies people spirituality and logic whenever their faith is brought into the picture.

Number one: this is not a religion-bashing thread.
Number two: no.  

[village midget]

black_wing_angel

But, just because I verbally oppose it, does not mean I don't respect it.

firstly, thank you for being so open about your beliefs. and secondly, i think opposing what these women are choosing is disrepecting it. you respect that they have a right to have as many children as they are capable of if they choose, but it seems that you do not respect their choice to excercise their right.  

[village midget]

MayIHelpYou22102

"

Does the country/nationality of the family make a difference to your answer?Yes. From what I know, the Hispanic cultures have pride in one woman producing 13 children from one man. African cultures have pride in one man having multiple mothers to more than 30 children. The American culture pride in having maybe 2 or 3 children by one woman and one man and pampering them until they are 18. Different nationalities understand the child caring process

this is a very good point. however, these women are very much a part of American culture so perhaps there is more diversity within cultures than we are crediting...these are really stereotypes that you list.

mayihelpyou

Am I being unfairly judgmental because I am not religious?
No, but you have to understand there are sane religious people out there. 3nodding "

ok, accepted smile  

[village midget]

Silver Screen

Religion plays a big role in some peoples' choice to have a big family. But it is still their choice so I don't see why this is an issue. Religion is not the only factor in this instance by far.

Those points aside, I think there is something about religious women that needs to be addressed here. Women who choose to have big families within their church are not being "used" or "abused" or "controlled." They feel it is their duty or they feel it is best for them, and they are capable of free will, so there is no manipulation going on here. To say that women with large families are "slaves" to their religion is absolutely ludicrous and extremely disrespectful, because you are essentially telling them that they do not have the power of free will, which renders them less than human.
I also do not see how having many children renders one "dependent." Women with large families can also have identities that span beyond the home.

i beg to differ, the Sawnsons are quoted as having not wanted children when they got married. yes they are making their own decision and excercising their right in a free country, but what is influencing their decision making? how did this couple who were not interested in having children get to a point where they have an abnormally large family and intend on increasing it? their religion. this woman, Kelly Sawnson is not "less than human" as you put it, but rather she and her husband have been persuaded by a religious movement to completely change her outlook on life. i find that unsettling.

"The average family at their evangelical church has 8.5 kids. They are children who the Swansons hope will spread the message of Christ." (from the npr article)
it is obvious that the impetus to behave this way is coming directly from the church. it is unusual in this era to want to produce so many offspring, animal instincts and biology are no longer the governing force of our species, and the need for a growth in population is nonexistant. clearly the need these women feel is to further the doctrine of their church, and clearly it is their church and the quiverfull movement that is telling them that...which is manipulation. you don't have to be stupid or gullible to be manipulated it only takes an amount of trust...

silverscreen

Basically people should mind their own damned business about other peoples' lives. This is unrealistic though because order is required for a civilised society, which so many of us are bound to maintain, and for order to happen you need rules and regulations, which are always nosy.

unless the people who's lives are being scrutinised have willingly made their private life public. celebrities are an easy example of what i mean, and quiverfull is no different. joining a movement which speaks publically and aims to attract/convert as many people as possible is saying "look how i live" and "you should live like me"  

[village midget]

magmayoshi

Nancy Campbell cited in In Quiverfull Movement, Birth Control is Shunned, Barbara Bradley Hagerty.

"The womb is such a powerful weapon; it's a weapon against the enemy"...

It's so true in many ways but who the ******** actually says it openly. gonk

what really freaks me out is the word 'enemy' - who is the enemy?