A Christian evangelical movement where followers avoid contraception and have as many children as they can is spreading to the UK. They are The Quiverfull, writes Cat McShane.
"Get married. Have a quiver full of kids if you can."
So said unsuccessful presidential candidate and father-of-five Mitt Romney in a recent speech to graduates. It was a conscious echo of Psalm 127.
The psalm - where children are compared to arrows for war - is the inspiration for the Quiverfull movement.
"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 shall not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate."
Christians in the movement believe in giving up all forms of contraception and accepting as many children as God gives, both as a sign of obedience to God and in a bid to ensure the future of the faith.
In the US, Quiverfull families frequently reach up to a dozen children with the numbers of adherents in the tens of thousands. But now the movement is gaining popularity in other countries.
Within the Quiverfull movement, having larger families is part of a broader plan.
"Mothers determine the destiny of the nation," Campbell says. "We're in a battle for the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness. And our children are all part of that battle."
Campbell believes there are specific groups of people with high birth-rates that she is worried will soon outnumber Christians. "We are limiting our children. And then we are allowing other cultures to come into our nation who are having a lot more children than us.
"Gradually, down the line, the culture is going to change, without anyone doing anything except having children, or not having children," she says.
Back in south London, affecting the destiny of the nation was something Vicki could identify with. "I do think I'm raising my children to be future voters, and possibly to be future politicians, the MPs."
^^liberal tears
Another reason to Get More Jobs, and a family, if you want leftism to survive.
Edited by mustang19 ()
it's a good thing for them that all of those children will remain full members of their faiths forever, actively advancing an ideology will never degrade or be discarded by their offspring
All the children on Rhizzone remain full members of the Marxist faith forever, actively advancing the immortal science of Marxism-Lenisim that will never degrade or be revised by their offspring. If they act now, that is.
When the Mormon fertility rate is 4, and the secular rate is below replacement, even a 50% outconversion rate is still going to result in a massive population increase.
Edited by mustang19 ()
And besides, if you want to end all nations Mormonism is probably the most realistic way to do it, this is actually a Communist goal.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on the earth, but is at the present limited to an ecclesiastical kingdom. During the millennial era, the kingdom of God will be both political and ecclesiastical (see Dan. 7:18, 22, 27; Rev. 11:15; JST Rev. 12:13, 7; D&C 65), and will have worldwide jurisdiction in political realms when the Lord has made a full end of all nations (Mormon Bible Dictionary 87:6)."
"and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off..."
"And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;"
Religious identification increasingly becomes merely an issue of heritage and not ideology. Theologians actively try to help this process along by rationalizing modern views within the scope of tradition, because they know the only realistic alternative is atheism/nihilism/total rejection of religion and heritage. Everything gets watered down: sins are still sins, but they are now venial sins; and all are assured salvation, as everyone accepts Christ whether they are aware of it or not. Thus people can still believe in God and feel the warm fuzzies, and they can honor their ancestors, but don't have to follow their ancestors' ideology.
Go to the Temple and praise God, but also respect Baal and Asherah. The genie is out of the bottle. There is no apparent recourse, and martyrdom hurts. We're all liberals now.
Religious identification increasingly becomes merely an issue of heritage and not ideology.
Is having an arranged LDS marriage when you're twelve a matter of heritage and not ideology?
Think of evolution as God’s justice in action.
It's a simple mathematical argument. The Amish outconversion rate is about 10% and the fertility rate, 6, hasn't decreased since the 1950s. At this rate they'll be a significant portion of the population by the end of the century. The only real competition will be from other fundamentalist groups.
Additionally, fertility rates will rise and outconversion will fall as the Amish take over America, eliminating outside secular influences and apostasy.
Of course Islam has the advantage because it allows female circumcision.
Edited by mustang19 ()
- Augustinus
roseweird posted:Agnus_Dei could you say more about your feelings about old gods like the baals and asherahs and the ongoing attempts at their revivals? are christians truly offering respect to these deities? in what context and for what reasons? how are christians modifying their theology to account for this? gods as expressions of God?
I was only using these specific idols metaphorically as tolerating their worship is considered the primary form of apostasy throughout the Old Testament. But in the same vein, today a Christian is obligated to respect all other religions. The same is true with non-Christians. My point was not exclusive to Christians; it affects everyone who has views which contradict the standard acceptable views. People may be raised a certain doctrinaire way, or may even come independently to certain heterodox conclusions, but the power of the social pressure to conform to multicultural liberalism is too intense for most to resist; therefore I reject the thesis of the OP that childhood indoctrination will define the future. Standardized ideology will define the future.
roseweird posted:mustang19 i am not fond of augustine but that is basically accurate. even if your predictions about the dominance of groups with these philosophies is true, and i don't think it is (because i have Faith, i suppose, but also because i am just skeptical of your conclusions), you are just trolling for marxists and feminists to abandon principles like "it is wrong to subvert women's bodies to religious-cultural programs of hyper-fertility" simply on the basis that "marxists wouldn't it be cool if you had wives and an army of children to indoctrinate"? "hey marxists, your enemies are big and scary" etc.
Basically yes, but fertility and reactionary gender roles don't have to go hand and hand. Some groups of Mormons are very supportive of multiculturalism, female education and employment, and oppose female circumcision like Rhizzone does.
People may be raised a certain doctrinaire way, or may even come independently to certain heterodox conclusions, but the power of the social pressure to conform to multicultural liberalism is too intense for most to resist; therefore I reject the thesis of the OP that childhood indoctrination will define the future. Standardized ideology will define the future.
Then you have a crap argument because 1) the Amish practically have a net gain from converts and 2) pedophilia is the apex of multicultural liberalism. All roads lead to fertility explosion Yawm Al-Din.
It'll be hilarious when it happens. Again though, this is not something you should resist, ending all nations under a global religious caliphate and setting the age of consent to 9 are both communist policies.
Dusz posted:imo time for global 1 child policy.
uh, just killing opposing groups is a more humane option than a mult-generational 1 child policy
roseweird posted:mustang19 be honest you never actually got any further than "islamo-fascist... islam... fascist...? hey now" did you. please get back to work and come up with a better-researched troll
I'm just stating facts and conservative extrapolations. It's your fault for being trolled.
But if you want to talk about amusing Huffpost articles we can do that too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/29/american-female-converts-to-islam-facing-growing-scrutiny_n_3181654.html
OSTON (RNS) When Karen Hunt Ahmed and her Muslim husband divorced four years ago, many friends asked her, "Now you can stop this Islam stuff, right?"
Some friends, she thought.
"Like it was a hobby I took up when I got married and now I'm supposed to drop it," said Hunt Ahmed, president of the Chicago Islamic Microfinance Project, which she founded with two colleagues in 2009.
Edited by mustang19 ()
"here i found this shitty gossip article from huffpo that forms the basis of my analysis of liberalism". liberals don't think islam is a hipster fad, they just think their friends converting to it is. they think islam is a dangerous medieval regression. they think it is a huge mindless cult of an alien god or something like that.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but I think there are a lot of liberals who convert to Islam who actually are Muslims and support orthodox Sharia Law being implemented in the US, teenage marriages etc. Of course it's too early to tell.
Edited by mustang19 ()
roseweird posted:or are they talking about the complete overthrow of the u.s. government and implementation of islamic theocracy?
Of course. Anything else is being a cafeteria Catholic. Sourcing all legislation from the serious, traditional interpretation of the Koran is not too much to ask.
do they mean allowing the establishment of islamic courts, serving islamic communities?
This sounds like some bizarre, Mises.org "polycentric law" idea. It's either/or. Either marrying 9 year olds is legal or it isn't.
stop posting mustang19
Don't spoil my fun.
mustang lf went through the whole islamist troll/sincere period years ago and you're really just half-assing it.
I doubt they ever did, it was probably some PC "radical feminist jihad" crap.
mustang19, from what i know about islamic jurisprudence in the medieval caliphates, and admittedly it is not very much, the development of competing schools of legal thought has often led to the simultaneous operation of different courts servicing different communities ascribing to different schools in a single region. additionally of course in some regions christians and jews were able to practice their own laws amongst themselves, though they would be subject to islamic law if they committed an infraction against a muslim.
This is interesting. At the same time it's heresy. This is almost word for word how capitalist libertopia is supposed to work.
There was also the waqf, which were basically a private defense agencies that exchanged property protection for payment, and the bayah or personal contract which voluntarily bound citizens to the caliphate. All in all the Khalifah actually had a lot of feudal libertopia/anarchocapitalist features, ironically.
But I guess if the communities were limited to only setting laws about cultural things it would work.
do you believe in the gold standard mustang19
Seriously jools? We're talking about pedophilia here.