Can you say "Birth Control??"

[tyme]

Stand: I never made such inferences about Christians in general.  This is an extreme subset of Christians who have some very outside-the-mainstream beliefs.  These subsets are practically nonexistent in Christianity in Europe.  It's a pathology quite specific to the U.S.  To wit:

As Quiverfull author Rachel Scott writes in her 2004 movement book, "Birthing God's Mighty Warriors," "Children are our ammunition in the spiritual realm to whip the enemy! These special arrows were handcrafted by the warrior himself and were carefully fashioned to achieve the purpose of annihilating the enemy."

Quiverfull advocates Rick and Jan Hess, authors of 1990's "A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ," envision the worldly gains such a method could bring, if more Christians began producing "full quivers" of "arrows for the war": control of both houses of Congress, the "reclamation" of sinful cities like San Francisco and massive boycotts of companies that do not comply with conservative Christian mores. "If the body of Christ had been reproducing as we were designed to do," the Hesses write, "we would not be in the mess we are today." Nancy Campbell, author of another movement book from 2003 called "Be Fruitful and Multiply," exhorts Christian women to do just that with promises of spiritual glory. "Oh what a vision," she writes, "to invade the earth with mighty sons and daughters who have been trained and prepared for God's divine purposes."

from http://www.newsweek.com/id/189763

These people can do whatever they want with their own bodies and believe whatever they want, but they are intent on destroying (through a multi-generational out-breeding plan) the heathens.

More importantly, they are USING THEIR CHILDREN AS WEAPONS.  They are not bringing them into the world, trying to educate them the best they can, and respecting their kids' choices, dreams... daughters' dreams of careers.  Nope.  They are weapons, and their daughters will be indoctrinated to want nothing more in life than to produce the next generation of warriors, who will be similarly indoctrinated.

[zahc]

indoctrinated

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

but they are intent on destroying (through a multi-generational out-breeding plan) the heathens.

Was there a point you had with this? I must be missing the obvious outrageous element that springs out at you. Is it that they are raising (excuse me, "indoctrinating") their own children according to the principles they feel are important rather than daycaring them, then public schooling them, then colleging them, all the while "respecting their choices" the whole time, and basically instead allowing contemporary western culture to indoctrinate their children with its own values, most of which involve buying lots of coca-cola and selective seratonin reuptake inhibitors?

Who says they are not educating their children the best they can? You? Because I didn't really get that.

Who said it's bad if their daughters don't want careers? Why should they? Because you think they should? Have some kids and indoctrinate them to want careers. It's all the rage. Careers suck.

They have a stated mission to further their beliefs through bringing children into the world that are raised (indoctrinated) to share their beliefs. This doesn't bother me in principle, and it's not a new force in the world. If they weren't doing it, someone else would be raising full stables of muslims, scientologists, hindus, or whatever. Muslims are big on moving into fresh breeding grounds and popping out puppies far out of proportion to the native enlightened populations. Catholocism has been a vocal supporter of the "outbreed them" stategy for centuries, continuing today.

I don't know what these people's beliefs are, but if I had kids, they would learn that communism is bad, that one should be responsible for their own actions, that one shouldn't eat yellow snow, and that Steely Dan is the best band in the world. I suppose I'm just one of those old fashioned sick bastards that would dare um, what was it called before? raise children. That's a job for the State nowadays.

[Harold Tuttle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

[roo_ster]

First of all, the husbands and/or fathers seem to be the real authoritarians in this cult.  And I'm sure they all have reasonably charismatic leaders of their local churches.

Well, if that is the way you're going to argue, you're going to have to use a word other than "cult" to describe it, because the definition you quoted does not resemble what you wrote. 

Wow, that's a pretty nice twisting of concepts.  They go further than doing nothing to prevent pregnancy.  They have sex.

The horror...

Uh, yeah.  Adults have been doing that for a long time.  Maybe you missed that bit in your education?

Or is the idea of procreative sex scandalous to you? 

Neo-Pruitatheism: "The pervasive fear that someone, somewhere is having fun sex."  Neo-prudery is even more hardcore than the old bluehaired bluenoses: even (especially) sex inside marriage is to be discouraged.

I can see how some might fear or envy the readily apparent fact that "the boots are a-knockin'" at a high rate in fundie households.  The scary fundies might not believe in Darwin & evolution, but their adaptations are much more Darwin-friendly than the average atheist, against whom they have a roughly 3:1 advantage in birth rate (atheist birth rate being well below replacement rate).

Pretty funny when you think about it: in the competition to determine the Darwinian survival of the fittest, the fittest do not believe in the very competition they are bound to win.

They're not maximizing offspring because they don't resort to heroic scientific methods that may or may not increase the average number of births per woman.  Of course! 

Dude, lack of prevention != maximization.

They are having sex, but not using any of the common methods of contraception.  You consider this "have[ing] as many children as they're biologically capable of."  My point was that this is an incorrect understanding.  Not minimizing an event is not equivalent to maximizing an event.  Minimization and maximization, in this context, both require artifice.  Minimization would require the use of condoms, birth prevention meds, and the like.  Maximization would require birth promotion meds, explicit timing/diagnostics, etc.  None of this is "heroic" by any stretch of the imagination.

You're so concerned about the parents rights.  That's fine to a degree, but shouldn't you be just as concerned about kids who are being raised to believe that their purpose in life is to be baby factories?  This is not Saudi Arabia.  That crap shouldn't fly, and it shouldn't be permitted in the name of parents' rights.

Yeah, there oughta be a law forcing scary Christians to abort their kids if they are so gauche as to breed above replacement rate.

[roo_ster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

MP: TMoL was a scream.  My favorite was the organ donation crew.

[Perd Hapley]

evangelicals tend to be morons

Has he retracted that yet? If not, I'm not sure why anyone's taking him seriously.

Oh.  They are members of a cult.  Should have known. 

Reliance on Wikipedia is bad enough, but when it doesn't even support your point of view?  Interesting. 

[MicroBalrog]

Now, I am not known to be in favor of monogamy, or the traditional family, or Christianity. And the concept of "children as ammunition" is indeed creepy as hell to me. And frankly, if the children of the Duggars grew up to become high-earning porn stars and strippers and video game designers, I'd laugh horribly at their outrage.

That said, however:

There is no single model on how to 'correctly' raise a family. I prefer – as I have explained on this thread several times – families with one or two children because I think that children deserve parental attention and mothers and fathers need to be available to grant it. However, in my view,  none of the different models (unless actual child abuse is involved) should be illegal, or 'shunned'.

The idea of militant atheism – WHAT? YOU DARE TO BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE A GOD AND OBJECTIVE MORALITY? WHY YOU HEATHEN DON'T YOU KNOW ABOUT THE INQUISITION AND GALILEO AND YOU HATE WOMEN – one where you condemn people as fools for believing in different concepts than you do is entirely foreign to me. The idea that people are somehow made less competent and intelligent than me because they have weird beliefs is distasteful. Its final result (though I am sure tyme does not personally intend on this) is anti-cult legislation like France and Germany already have, to suppress not just religious groups like Scientologists, but 'evil Evangelicals'.

My disagreement with the sexual habits of the Duggars is not as much a moral condemnation – I am, in fact, sex-positive enough to realize sex habits are not a questin of morality – but  rather a pragmatic one, based on my belief that this is not the best way to raise children who will be free citizens in a Republic.

Reasonably, if I am to support homosexual marriages, open relationships, polygamy, swinging and strippers running for office (all of this I have supported previously on this forum), and reproductive choice, there is no escape from supporting the reproductive choice of the Duggars, even as I suggest it to be an inferior manner of raising one's children.

Consider a gun analogy: I support people's right to bear arms. I would like gun laws to go away. I may not subscribe to the notion that a 10.5” .22LR rifle mounted in a wheelbarrow is an adequate sniper weapon, but I would never dream of opposing your right to utilize that as your means of home defense. I would say it is a bad gun, and it might get you horribly killed - but because I support your right bear arms, even guns other the ones that make sense, there would be a natural limit to the moral indignation I express based on my tolerance and acceptance of your individual liberty.

[taurusowner]

Has he retracted that yet? If not, I'm not sure why anyone's taking him seriously.

Quote from: tyme on September 06, 2009, 09:36:25 PM
evangelicals tend to be morons

Reliance on Wikipedia is bad enough, but when it doesn't even support your point of view?  Interesting. 

No he hasn't retracted it yet.  The most he gave was a "you must have misunderstood me" type answer.  Though I'm not really sure how he expects us to believe "evangelicals tend to be morons" can be "misunderstood" to mean anything other than what is plainly written.  And yes, if you or I had said that about someone else here, we would be facing corrective action.

[Iain]

Just to let you all know - I ain't going near this one with a 10ft...

[Perd Hapley]

Just to answer the original post, though, I can indeed say "Birth Control."  Birth Control, Birth Control, Birth Control.  Happy? 

[taurusowner]

That's typing it, not saying it.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, I have neither microphone nor webcam, so just take my word for it.  I say it whenever, well, you know.  Pastor said if we just say it, it will keep us from having babies God doesn't want us to have.  Actually, I just say it myself.  We don't let women talk, in our cult church, I mean church.

[Chrissy]

Just to answer the original post, though, I can indeed say "Birth Control."  Birth Control, Birth Control, Birth Control.  Happy? 

COOL!   

Not meaning to start any arguments with this thread - everybody has an opinion and they're entitled to it.  To agree that others can disagree with us means we are adults.  Like I said, I have nothing personal against that family.  I just don't think they can give all the kids individual attention and that's a shame that some will get lost in the shuffle.  I'm sure they'll grow up fine, but it's still nice to have one on one with mom and dad at times. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how many of the folk less than enamoured of the duggers have kids?

[Perd Hapley]

Not meaning to start any arguments with this thread

You must be new here.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If I had been shackled with the childcare of my parents other kids when I was in my mid-late teens, I would have been far from enthused.  Another poster mentioned it and I agree.  The old children are not parents.  They did not choose to be parents. And I can't speak for them, but for me, I would have been VERY opposed to the idea of having to act as a parent in my teens just because my parents wanted to keep having kids but couldn't do the job themselves.

Did your parents expect you to do any non-child-rearing house chores?  Would you have considered those chores to be an unfair imposition on your time, too?  Or is it only chores related to helping your siblings that are unfair and unreasonable?

[MicroBalrog]

Did your parents expect you to do any non-child-rearing house chores?  Would you have considered those chores to be an unfair imposition on your time, too?  Or is it only chores related to helping your siblings that are unfair and unreasonable?

So, since the parents can impose SOME chores, does this mean it's okay to impose any kind of work whatever?

[Perd Hapley]

Help, help, I'm bein' oppressed!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, since the parents can impose SOME chores, does this mean it's okay to impose any kind of work whatever?

I think children can and should be expected to help out around the house, and that isn't an imposition on the child to expect him to pitch in.   Chores are chores, and I don't see that it makes any difference whether a child is expected to help prepare dinner vs helping a younger sibling out with her homework vs doing some housecleaning vs helping to change a baby's diaper vs mowing the yard vs babysitting for a bit while the parents do other useful stuff.

Ragnar's remark strikes me as being entirely self-centered, petulant, and based in a mindset that believes kids should get to be free-loaders at their parents' expense.  I figured I'd give Ragnar the benefit of the doubt and assume that's not how he meant the remark to be taken.  So I asked for some clarification.  Does he think it's wrong for parents to expect a child to give any sort of help around the house, or is it only help with siblings that he has a problem with?

[MicroBalrog]

So, would it be reasonable to ask of a six-year-old to do dishes? All the time?

What about asking an eight-year-old to clean toilets? Fix roofs? No?

P.S. Any kind of child (until they hit a certain age) is by definition a 'freeloader' on the family. He or she does not put as much work and stress and resources as the parents do, and it costs the parents massive amounts of money and work and stress to raise the child - unless the child is working full-time in the field and helping support the family, which is something I think we don't want to return to.

Yes, the proper role of children is to be supported by their parents until they reach adulthood.

But the more important issue here is not the chores. The more difficult issue is that small children require emotional support and attention. Other children, even older ones, are not mature enough to provide this attention in an individual manner as parents do, that's why they're called 'children'. This is the real burden, not the washing of 18 pairs of pants or the preparing of 18 meals.

[red headed stranger]

So, would it be reasonable to ask of a six-year-old to do dishes? All the time?

What about asking an eight-year-old to clean toilets? Fix roofs? No?

Are you trying to set up a straw man? I don't hink anyone said that ANY chore was acceptable.   In my experience with the dynamic of very large families, (my dad came from a family of 10 kids, and I grew up going to catholic school) older children were generally given chores appropriate to their age and maturity. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

but the older kids are adults.... or they are in your world when its convenient to your goals. i spent quite a bit of time caring for my siblings  more so than most of my friends in my case it "was a japanese thing" that my haole friends thought was weird.  heck my lil bro lived with me on and off into his late 30's. wasn't that big a deal  in many ways an honor   i did the kitchen floors in my house  all the time for almost a decade  cleaned a toilet or 2   never fantasized that was abuse

[Perd Hapley]

So, would it be reasonable to ask of a six-year-old to do dishes? All the time?

Yes.  Of course.  You honestly have a problem with that?  Edited to add; I don't know what age would be appropriate for kids to do dishes all the time.  Six may be too young, given all the sharp things in the kitchen.  Still, you'd have to explain how it would damage a child to have chores. 

And, yeah, having your 15-year-old change diapers is exactly the same as having an eight-year-old fix the roof. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i had my 3 year old working the handle on a hydraulic log splitter. she was pretty proud about being a big help. understood that was what kept us warm in winter. i did get to listen to some mouth about it but strangely enough it was usually from the childless.  the one lady with kids who got mouthy visits her son on weekends at the prison in powhatan.

[red headed stranger]

But the more important issue here is not the chores. The more difficult issue is that small children require emotional support and attention. Other children, even older ones, are not mature enough to provide this attention in an individual manner as parents do, that's why they're called 'children'. This is the real burden, not the washing of 18 pairs of pants or the preparing of 18 meals.

This is exactly why older kids help out with chores.  When they do the dishes, help with meals, wash the clothes, or even babysit younger siblings from time to time, the older children are giving their parents the opportunity to do the heavy lifting of parenting.  This, of course, includes emotional support and attention.