kind of reminds me of erich fromm's "escape from freedom"...

definitely scary stuff...

been missing y'all too, jess!

How did feminism become responsible for child abuse? Funny, but I thought one of the major achievements of feminism has been for survivors of incest abuse to get the help they need, and to prosecute the (mostly) men who abused them, to say nothing of helping women who are being abused by their partners get themselves and their children to a place of safety.

"For poor women, the feminist fight for job equality won them no career path but rather the right to pink-collar labor, as a housekeeper, a waitress, a clerk."

Because prior to feminism, poor women weren't working as housekeepers, waitresses, and clerks? Who was, then?

"The sexual revolution did not bring them self-exploration and fulfillment but rather loosened the social restraints that bound men to the household as husbands and fathers."

So women--in this case, other women, dirty, nasty feminist women--are yet again to blame for men's sexual behavior and choices? If the problem is male behavior, why is it so threatening to blame males?

"Even for women who stayed in the home, the incidence of women in the workplace led employers to stop offering a "family wage" that could sustain both parents and children.""

Well, my stepfather grew up in the fifties in a working-class family, and both his parents had to work factory jobs to support their family, so I'm guessing that we've moved on from any pseudo-concern for "poor women." But of course, the advent of outsourcing, global capitalism, and the rise of consultant labor has nothing to do with business decisions. Those, once again, are the faults of...feminists! Right. How many CEOs of large corporations do you know who are feminists?

You know the old joke about the two old Jewish men sitting on a park bench? They're both reading the paper, and one looks over his friend's shoulder and sees that, to his shock, his old buddy is reading a neo-nazi propaganda rag! "Morty," he says, "how can you read that crap?"

"Sammy," Morty says, "What's in your paper?"

"Well," says Sammy, "There're murders and bombings, vandalism, wars, women can't leave their homes without being attacked, fires, you know. The news."

"Right," says Morty. "Well, in here, I'm reading about the Jews are secretly in charge of the world, how we run Hollywood, the banking system, all major governments, and the army and police."

"So?" says Sam.

"Well," says Morty, "I prefer good news."

If only we feminists really did have the power the Christian right likes to fantasize we do.

Hmm. It also seems to me that their rhetoric is pretty shaky. Attempting to control my own body is usurping God's power? What I about when I control my body's urges to have sex someone I've just met? Or its urges to have sex with a woman? Or how about when I potty-train toddlers? Or decide not to have a second glass of wine? Or exercise?

Or is it only bad to control my own body when the result of not controlling it would be pleasurable?

"If only we feminists really did have the power the Christian right likes to fantasize we do."

EG, that was brilliant.

Just brilliant :) Thanks for the chuckle.

hmmmnnmn... EG, i'm loving every bit of what you've written...

i mean, really, that story is hot... your point is brilliant and that last bit seems like a wonderful argument for some killer drunken orgiastic parties with fundies...

First of all, let's just say these women wouldn't be able to have as many kids as they did without modern technology. I know it wasn't uncommon for women to have multiple children before the era of the hospital but for a good portion of women they would have died or been permanetely crippled from birthing so many kids. The woman in the photo above has had a special on Discovery Health and as of right now she's got 17 kids (I think, at least 16) and no plans of stopping. Had this been 100 years ago she might have made it to 6 but beyond that, who knows. I'm reading "Brought to Bed" which is a history of childbearing from 1750-1950 and the medical problems that most women had from having only one to two children is scary and sad, let alone having more than that, which was the ultimate reason for men having more than one wife.

Their kids are kept under lock and key and if they want to become the Christian equivalents of the Jewish Orthodox then so be it. As long as they can afford them then let them have at it. I can't help but think this will blow up in their faces at some point.

Oh yeah, there's also THIS:

"Population is a preoccupation for many Quiverfull believers, who trade statistics on the falling white birthrate in European countries like Germany and France. Every ethnic conflict becomes evidence for their worldview: Muslim riots in France, Latino immigration in California, Sharia law in Canada. The motivations aren't always racist, but the subtext of "race suicide" is often there."

Nor surprised one bit.

Actually, isn't France's birthrate coming back up, thanks to a generous social support system that includes paid parental leave and plenty of excellant preschools?

"Women's attempts to control their own bodies--the Lord's temple--are a seizure of divine power."

And yet He's not complaining about the loss of the pain, agony, hormones, morning sickness, stretch marks, backaches, emotional roller coasters, fatigue, and the rest of the crap that comes with pregnancy. *eyeroll*

I'm the one who's conscious here, the one who lives with the consequences, suffers through them, what-have-you. Therefore it is my decision. And the fundies' God, if He wants more kids in the world, is perfectly welcome to grow Himself a uterus, fuck Himself, and bear them Himself.

This sort of attitude can also be devastating for the women who want to be Quiverfull mothers, but who have trouble getting pregnant. I've got a friend who is a very conservative Catholic, and she's been pretty seriously depressed for the past 4 years because of her inability to get or stay pregnant, and all of my insistence that she be joyful about the wonderful son she does have just goes in one ear and out the other. She has a lot of trouble reconciling having just one child with her beliefs that she needs a lot more to be a good Christian mother.

Stacy, your comment reminded me of something. I guess I'd call this a vaguely unpleasant memory, except that I feel my experiences in a right-wing Christian cult have helped give me a better understanding of exactly why and how they go wrong.

Anyway, part of this cult was that we had to attend annual meetings in Knoxville, TN, in the dead of summer (in retrospect, I think this must have been to remind us of the nearness of Hell's scorching misery). At these annual gatherings, they'd split us up into various groups by age and gender. The "young ladies" (I was around 13 at the time and this included women into their twenties; they went to the same group lectures as the female adolescent children because they were not yet wives/mothers) received lectures on, among other things, modesty and the appropriate use of makeup. Seriously. I swear to God I'm not making this up.

Anyway, at the end of one of these lectures they had a question-and-answer session and one girl walked up to the microphone to ask a question. She was crying softly and explained that her parents were telling her to get her hair cut short and she was worried this made her sinful or "bad" in God's eyes, because there's a verse somewhere in Psalms that extolls the virtues of a woman's long hair (and this had been included in our talk about modesty and appearance).

Anyway, my point is just that, for all the noise these people make about "protecting" women or making our lives better, they sure do a good job of making us feel shame for simply existing.

DuuuUUUUUuuhhh Kyra,
It's RIGHT for women to feel all that pain because, after all, we are responsible for bringing sin into the world (they just can't get past that Eve lady). Trying to get out of our eternal divine punishment is obviously subverting God's will. Sheesh.

*wink wink*

"Even for women who stayed in the home, the incidence of women in the workplace led employers to stop offering a "family wage" that could sustain both parents and children."

They don't have their facts straight here. True, women entering the workforce did lead to greater competition for jobs in the marketplace. And an increase in the labor supply can cause wages to decrease. But that is hardly the only factor in decreasing wages. Plus that's the free market, something most conservatives claim to support. Women entering the workforce has been a boon to our economy. Actually, look at *any* developed nation with a decent economy and you'll find that women are allowed to work.

What they're really saying is "wah, it's the feminists fault I don't make enough money!"

Someone on AlterNet brought up an interesting point : If it's right to let whatever happens to our bodies happen as God's will, why should it stop at the womb?

Why get treatment for that cancer, or that heart attack? It just means Jesus wants to have us with him in heaven faster!

Shouldn't it extend to everything? Why pick and choose the parts of our bodies God has dominion over?

I just put up a post about this same subject at my place -- not this same article, oddly enough, but another one I found. What gets me is the language these people use when they describe women -- it's all about surrendering control of the womb. Well, why not the penis? Why isn't anyone ever talking about how much better their life got when they gave God control of their penis? Or their sperm? No, it's always the womb.

Also, there's a passage in the article I link to that mentions a man talking about how his 12-year-old daughter is going to be made to carry on the tradition. First, that's just sad, and second, he actually says he plans to "hand her off" on her wedding day. Like she's an extra key or surplus blanket or something. It's disgusting.

I also love the part where they blatantly state that its not about the children. "Kids are great and all that, but in reality, it's all about the Bible." Isn't that a version of child abuse - that is doing something not for the benefit and health of your children? I guess I'm of the old fashioned belief that all children should be wanted as individuals, as separate entities, not a potential army. I'd be curious to see how many of their children make it to adulthood 1) staying true to their beliefs and 2) mentally sound.

This is laughable. Servile women like these do not repect themselves. Women like those would say "women who are sexually active for their own benifit don't respect themselves." Wrong it is women like these; the one's who think they only thing women can contribute to society are to be automatic progny cannons. These women do not respect themselves at all! The women must have been in love with the spartian creed.

UltraMagnus -

Awhile back, someone doctored the Duggar photo above to show what the family would look like if they, and other science-hating fundies like them, had managed to suppress science (as she put it) "over the medieval superstition they teach their children—and want taught to all American schoolchildren—in place of science." The result: mom and six of the then-fourteen children dead of various causes. (Mom was done in by childbirth, of course).

Photo and statistical explanation here: http://6-bleen-7.livejournal.com/46587.html.

And did anyone else find it alarming that child abuse ranks as a lesser evil than condoms to these people?

Jeesh.

My parents were in at the start of the quiverfull movement - they had all of those books and used to read from Mary Pride every night. In my mom's case, she'd had a rough childhood and I think she used the whole thing as a way to feel important. It's weird, it's so backwards. For my step-dad, he was pretty clearly a mysoginist. They had 10 kids together. (Mom got pregnant with me in high school - so I made 11).

Yeah see, if I were God, I'd be pretty pissed off at these followers of mine, because they seem to think I'm some kind of mindless bigot instead of the omniscient creator who loves everyone equally.
Sadly, because that is who I'd be, I'd have to forgive these prats.

Can you say The Handmaid's Tale?

In my mind, 90% of the world’s ills stem from organized religion. Certainly one is hard pressed to find a religion which doesn’t at its very core put women under the rulership of men and make women the scapegoat for all evil. It is as if Woman is Satan’s personal concierge to humanity. As strongly as I feel this, I also want to keep perspective.

I started to write this with the idea of connecting this group with the philosophies of the social purity feminists of the first wave. They too believed strongly in the family unit and the traditional division of roles. They believed that women had unique perspectives into morality and unique abilities to raise children into good Christian soldiers. They used this belief, and hysteria surrounding the growing immigrant population, to convince lawmakers that they should be given the vote. After all, they were educated and moral, and with all the immoral, uneducated immigrants coming in, the good god fearing men would need their vote and support. At least that’s how it happened here in Canada.

My hesitation in making this comparison comes from the fact that the maternal feminists of the first wave were asking for equal respect for their role as mothers, wives, and society’s guardians of morality. I am not sure I can say the same for these women; I’m not sure I cannot.

I was frankly shocked when I learned about social purity and suffaragism’s connection to it. I always had an idealized image of the suffragists. Now, I look at them with respect for their drive and determination and for what they were able to accomplish, even while I loathe some of those very same ideas- prohibition, the idea that one group of people has a right and an obligation to decide what is best for the masses…etc.

I wonder if I will be able to find the same respect for these women’s strength when their army takes over the world.

I happen to love kids, but isn't having this many children a little irresponsible?? What will happen is the older ones will have to become parentified and take on heavy responsibilities as their "godly" mother continues squeeze out more babies. In a way won't they miss out on their childhood and adolescence if their primary function is to take care of the younger kids. Well I guess it's a good way to prime the girls to follow in their mother's footsteps.

Wouldn't it be better for these ladies to ADOPT? Wouldn't God approve of taking in a child in need and giving them a loving home where they can prosper?

"In my mind, 90% of the world’s ills stem from organized religion. Certainly one is hard pressed to find a religion which doesn’t at its very core put women under the rulership of men and make women the scapegoat for all evil. It is as if Woman is Satan’s personal concierge to humanity. As strongly as I feel this, I also want to keep perspective."

Ken, I know you took a very respectful tone in your post, but your comment made me want to respond, so I will :)

I've heard lots of people say (frankly, too many, in my opinion) that religion is the root of evil, sexism, racism, etc. This idea really irritates me. If this is so, then it must follow that there are no sexist or racist atheists. Yet I've met many atheists who hold disgusting views about women and minorities. Hell, Charles Darwin and plenty of evolutionary scholars after him pursued racist goals as the basis for the "scientific" study of evolution (obviously we've come a long way since then; I'm just pointing out that religious folks are not the only racists to contend with).

The problem is not Christians, or Jew, or Muslims, or Hindus, or any other religion. The problem is sexism. The problem is racism. That people are able to rationalize their evil by appeal to religion does not speak ill of the religion itself, but of its adherents. At worst it may bespeak doctrinal weakness -- but not malice. As a Christian, I find that my faith is what *drives* me to be a stronger feminist. It's the reason I care about other women and not my own selfish goals. It's the reason I care about minorities' struggles with social oppression, even though I am white and could easily live my life in white ignorance. Religious people have done a lot of harm, to be sure. But religion can also do one fuck of a lot of good, and I think I'm an example of that.

Pointing to, for instance, sexist portions of the Bible only suggests sexism on the part of literalists and authors (and I'm including the Council of Nicea, et al, as "authors" for these purposes). It does not make Christianity a sexist religion (indeed, there's a great argument that Jesus was a feminist). It just means that many of its adherents view it through sexist eyes. The answer is not, as Elton John ignorantly suggested recently, to abolish religion. The answer is to help religious folks remove their blinders and gain a better understanding of their own faith. I promise you there is good in Christianity, if you bother looking for it instead of judging it because of the imperfect execution. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Religions have been the cause of many wars.

Oh. My. God.

Apparently, it's not enough that the world is grossly overpopulated and misogyny is still apparent everywhere on the globe. Nope, that's not enough for these right-wing nuts.

I'm not going to say anymore at the moment because I'm so extremely pissed off at these idiots and I need to get back to work anyway.

But let me just say that the quiverful concept has me extremely disturbed. And you know that when they talk about the arrows, they're talking about male children only. Because all we women are good for is making babies.

God, why do these right-wing Christian women do this to themselves?! Don't they realize that they're preventing themselves from living a full, enriched life? I just can't fathom it.

They have nothing else to live for or they don't know any better.

Law Fairy: Of course Jesus was a feminist. But most Jews, Christians, Hindus, Muslims and Pagans before and since have used religion to oppress women and minorities. The fact is that it is much easier to oppress someone if your god tells you to than if you don't believe in god. Good people, on the other hand, don't need religion to be good. Organized religion, is, on the whole, a bad thing for women, minorities, and thinking people.

You are right on so many levels, and I apologize if I offended you. Certainly religious people and some organizations do spawn a lot of good in society; spirituality can be a driving and sustaining force. The sexism in the bible may in fact result from attitudes written in by authors and/or translators and church leaders contemporary with the time in which it was written. I believe this. However, regardless of how the sexism has been written in, organized religion as a body has used this scripture (and their own sexist filter when interpreting) to justify all manner of atrocities- from the crusades to witch burnings to the prohibition. This is what I was referring to as the ills being caused by organized religion. As you suggested, organized religion certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. etc. but it has throughout time proven to be an effective vehicle for their expression. I don’t blame the participants individually, except when I come across attitudes such as are expressed in the article, but I cannot help but point accusing fingers at church leaders and the political bodies they represent. Please accept my apology, I did not mean to attack you or your beliefs, and I certainly did not intend to disparage your and others’ work.

I think in his post, Ken made an important distinction by talking about "organised religion". I don't think he was talking about religion itself as much as about the (frequently dogmatic) institution of religion. I think spirituality can indeed be a driving force and prompt us to be "good" (even though the same could be said of a humanistic approach to life), the problem lies in the fact that 1) religious leaders or officials often "interpret" holy texts to their benefit and 2) people who are convinced they hold the Truth tend to be narrow-minded because they think they're on the right path and everybody who disagrees is on a highway to hell. Thinking you're one of the chosen few or "righteous" doesn't help you become more tolerant. I spent many years in a Catholic school and I do agree that there is a lot of good to be found in the Gospels and Jesus was truly an example of tolerance. The problem lies in the fact that the Catholic church has twisted his message beyond recognition.

Ken, of course, I wasn't taking offense at your post -- your points are quite valid, and I really appreciate how respectful you were/are in raising them. I agree with you -- on the whole, I would say my religion has been bastardized by most of its adherents (hell, I was indoctrinated/brainwashed in my youth but fortunately overcame it).

My comment wasn't so much aimed at anyone here as just sort of a general plea to be understanding when talking about religion. I know it's easy to heap blame on organized religions, as they've done a lot of bad. But in my life and those of many, many people I know, they've also done a LOT of good. I have liberal feminist friends who are devoutly Christian, devoutly Jewish, devoutly Muslim. I just want to make sure we don't get so caught up in our condemnation of right-wing Christianity that we forget that it's not always a bad thing.

Again, I don't think you were doing this, Ken. Your comment just brought to mind some unfair malignment of the church I've heard from people time and time again, so I decided to shoot my mouth of, as I often do :)

You are right on so many levels, and I apologize if I offended you.

This happens so much-- just because your stated opinion happened to involve religion, you feel the need to apologize for it. Would you have apologized if your opinion on, say, politics or the economy had "offended" someone? Why does only religion get this velvet-gloves treatment?

Richard Dawkin's new book, The God Delusion, is great. One of my favorite parts is where he says it's time to cut the bull, and quotes Douglas Adams:

Religion . . . has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, ‘Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? – because you’re not!’ If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday’, you say, ‘I
respect that’.

Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows – but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . . . no, that’s holy? . . . We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.

So, rant on, Ken! This "quiver" concept is appalling, and we have religion and nothing else to thank for it. My solution is to tax the bejebus out of any family with more than four kids. It'll happen eventually, if people are half as smart as I think they are.

I'm in the camp of Religion: Good, Fundamentalist (of any stripe): Bad myself.
It's important to remember that religious beliefs can go either way--if you take the positive messages to heart, then you'll likely end up with someone like Mother Teresa. If, on the other hand, you use your religion's teachings/holy book/dogma to, say, legitimize and render unassailable your own personal prejudices, then you get these fundie asshats.
I always found it interesting how some have done enough close Bible-reading to be able to quote obscure Old Testament passages about Sodom and Gomorrah in order to "prove" that "God hates teh gays" and yet somehow manage to miss more positive New Testament messages like that lovely "love thy neighbor" one--these insular hatemongering fundie groups always seem to forget about THAT one when ranting about the evil queers/feminists/Jews/blacks/
whatevers. Funny, that.
In short,it's the people, not the beliefs, that are bad. Bad people justify their bad behavior with religion, and good people cite their religion as the inspiration for their good behavior. It's all selective--no one ever said, "I actually really like blacks/women/Jews/gay people, but my religion tells me I have to hate them, so I guess I gotta." People take away from religion what they choose to take away from it.

Just my 2 cents.

On a semi-related side note--does anyone else really hate the whole linguistic construction of man = weapon and woman = container for weapon (i.e. arrow/quiver, sword/sheath) that keeps cropping up in the English language (maybe in others, too)? It annoys the heck out of me.
A penis is not a weapon, and a woman is not a designated penis/weapon receptacle, dammit.

The TV is on in the other room, and I just heard a commercial for Activia, the yogurt that'll regulate your digestive system in 2 weeks. After reading this article, I might have to go buy some.

Hell, Charles Darwin and plenty of evolutionary scholars after him pursued racist goals as the basis for the "scientific" study of evolution (obviously we've come a long way since then; I'm just pointing out that religious folks are not the only racists to contend with).

Actually, Darwin was fairly progressive by 19th century standards. And the earliest proponents of abolition of slavery and universal suffrage viewed the king and the priest as the cardinal oppressor.

The problem is not Christians, or Jew, or Muslims, or Hindus, or any other religion. The problem is sexism. The problem is racism. That people are able to rationalize their evil by appeal to religion does not speak ill of the religion itself, but of its adherents.

The problem is sexism. The problem is racism. And the problem is religion. Praising Christianity because some of its adherents are not sexist makes as much sense as praising Nietzschean existentialism because many of its adherents recognize religion as a sham.

"In short,it's the people, not the beliefs, that are bad. Bad people justify their bad behavior with religion, and good people cite their religion as the inspiration for their good behavior. It's all selective--no one ever said, "I actually really like blacks/women/Jews/gay people, but my religion tells me I have to hate them, so I guess I gotta." People take away from religion what they choose to take away from it."

Vervain, precisely. I could not have put it better myself :)

Alon, what do you think is gained by disparaging an entire population of people because of what you *presume* we believe? I tell you I'm a Christian and, rather than inhibit my feminism, my Christianity *drives* my feminism. You tell me my religion is a "problem."

You're just being offensive with no point to it. You're saying to me "I understand what you believe better than you yourself do, and people like you are the problem with this world." How is this productive? What does this add to the discussion? For many people, religion is as integral a part of who they are as their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, their national origin. I'll grant that many people have had bad experiences with religion, but many people have had good ones too. Was Mother Theresa evil? Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a bad person?

It would be far more mature and productive if you would leave your bigotry at home and not judge people for their religious beliefs. If you bothered opening your eyes, you'd notice that there are plenty of Christians, Jews, and Muslims out there who criticize our fellow believers for misinterpreting the religious texts. But of course, it's so much more fun to focus on the bad and paint with a broad brush. Subtlety is just so much work.

Vervain, that's an argument I can only accept if pro-religion people can accept the opposite: it's the not the beliefs that are good, it's the people.

I often lose patience when the pro-religious argue some version of "All that violence and hatred isn't reeeeaaaalllly Christianity/Islam/Judaism/the true path of Zeus--it's just that bad people use it badly and misunderstand it." It seems to me that if a given doctrine has inspired the kind of bloodshed and oppression that say, Christianity has over the past thousand years, those negative effects and that violent interpretation are as "real" and "authentic" aspects of the religion as any of the positive, peaceful aspects you care to mention.

Oh, and, um, thanks! I wish I could take credit for that joke, but I think one of my grandparents told it to me!

Was Mother Theresa evil? Was Martin Luther King, Jr. a bad person?

Yes and no, respectively. Mother Teresa worshiped suffering and practiced charity accordingly. MLK was a saint, but that doesn't legitimize religion. After all, Lincoln was a racist who derived his opposition to slavery from thinking whites and blacks shouldn't mingle, as were many abolitionists; and still, racism is a bad thing.

If you bothered opening your eyes, you'd notice that there are plenty of Christians, Jews, and Muslims out there who criticize our fellow believers for misinterpreting the religious texts.

I've noticed that, actually. I take people who say Jesus was a liberal seriously to the same degree I take seriously people who say communism isn't bad because mass murderers like Stalin and Mao perverted Marx's original teachings.

A good reason why the "true Christianity is left-wing" argument holds no water is the historical development of Christianity. The original Christians were a fairly radical sect that promoted relative gender equality, a liberal Jewish theology, and abolition of slavery. Then there was the split between the gnostics and the more authoritarian bishops. That Christianity started growing right after the bishops won out and purged the gnostics should tell you about how relevant its anti-authoritarian character is.

You know, I don't know if my parents would specifically consider themselves "quiverfull" parents, but they were serious Catholics with many children. I'd have to agree with Elissa regarding her child abuse comment. I've gotten to the point that I think religion itself is a form of child abuse. Many of my siblings have dedicated themselves to having more children than should be humanly possible (leave it to the animals who can have 3 or more in one go, I say) and I am really concerned for their mental health and that of their children. For my part, I'd like to stay childfree for as long as possible...

man = weapon and woman = container for weapon (i.e. arrow/quiver, sword/sheath)

Ew and here I was thinking quiverfull meant a house full of kids.

It seems to me that if a given doctrine has inspired the kind of bloodshed and oppression that say, Christianity has over the past thousand years, those negative effects and that violent interpretation are as "real" and "authentic" aspects of the religion as any of the positive, peaceful aspects you care to mention.

Religion has been an excuse for evil.

man = weapon and woman = container for weapon (i.e. arrow/quiver, sword/sheath)

Ew and here I was thinking quiverfull meant a house full of kids.

It seems to me that if a given doctrine has inspired the kind of bloodshed and oppression that say, Christianity has over the past thousand years, those negative effects and that violent interpretation are as "real" and "authentic" aspects of the religion as any of the positive, peaceful aspects you care to mention.

Religion has been an excuse for evil.

I'm not going to try to justify my existence to the anti-religion folks any further. I'll just ask you to ask yourselves, what does this possibly add? What good does it do to tell liberal feminist Christians that his/her core values are inherently bad? Believe what you want, what are you adding to the discussion? I don't go around trying to convert people, or saying they're evil for not being Christian, so what's the point of doing, essentially, the same to me and others? I can't see how beating up your own comrades is ever productive, but to each his/her own I suppose.

Christianity has brought great good to millions. It has also been misinterpreted to promote evil.

I'm not beating up on you, my friend. Hate the sin, not the sinner. Just kidding.

I'm so tired of this "Jesus was a liberal/feminist/whatever-progressive-thing-I-am" bullshit. Have these softy Christians ever READ the Bible? Jesus was the first person in the Bible to even MENTION Hell and he talked about it endlessly. All that crap about "Fear the God in heaven who can destroy both body AND spirit in hell if you piss him off" stuff puts me right off. Yeah, domination through fear - now THAT is progressive.

I was a Christian for the first 20 years of my life and I read my Bible back to front more times than I can count. The day I gave up Christianity was the day I didn't have to be afraid anymore. Anyone who thinks Jesus didn't believe in Hell and eternal damnation needs to read further than the fucking Beautitudes.

Peace out.

lol, donna, I didn't get the sense you were. A few comments here have denied that religion can have value, and yeah, that kind of pisses me off. It is a personal attack to say that something that defines who I am just as much as my gender, is so vile as to get lumped in with sexism and racism as one of the world's great evils -- but I didn't read what you said that way.

Oppression sucks, no matter where you find it. Referring to Christianity as a group is problematic because of the many different beliefs within the Christian religion. Starting with the basics, Catholic vs. protestant, and moving on to more separations, Baptist, Four-square, Pentecostal etc., you will find varying degrees of politicization, patriarchy, charity and good will. Even within groups known for their harsh ideas, at the individual and family level will be people who choose to focus on positive aspects and people who choose negative ones. The question then becomes, how do we critique the many oppressive forms that Christianity takes (which is what I was trying to do) without alienating those Christians who are not attempting to mold the world in their own image? Should we even bother trying to be sensitive?

Consider how feminism is grouped by its opposition under a single image of the man-hating, anti-family variety. This simplification doesn’t even capture Separatism fairly, and it certainly is horribly inarticulate of Liberal feminist ideals. Yet every feminist has come across these attitudes and is subjected to them. So when we view ourselves on the receiving end of bigotry, perhaps we can empathize with the Christian adherents who find themselves subject to the hostility engendered by other practitioners of their faith.

So again, while it is necessary to discuss and focus on oppressive structures, how can we do this in a way which still respects the individuals and groups who try to avoid such oppression?

I know this is a minor point, Law Fairy, and I think your posts are otherwise good, but as biologist who has had a (Christian, evolutionist) family member sued by creationists, I have to say that this:

'Hell, Charles Darwin and plenty of evolutionary scholars after him pursued racist goals as the basis for the "scientific" study of evolution'

does not support your argument, because Darwin (and probably all those other evolutionary scholars) was very much a Christian. Don't let the creationists tell you otherwise.

But again, why is the interpretation of Christianity that posters here like (peaceful, positive), the correct one, and the violent, misogynist, xenophobic one that has been responsible for millions of deaths being written off as a "misinterpretation"? Surely there are just as many right-wingers who'll claim that any interpretation of Christianity that condones feminism, same-sex sexual relationships, etc. is a "misinterpretation" as there are liberals who consider that the one true reading.

Law Fairy,

I won't weigh in on right/wrong interpretations of religion. Nor do I think you would. I just wanted to give you some props and support. I too am a feminist Christian. A scientist, to boot. It ain't the easiest road, and some will tell me it's a stupid road, but I stay on it, keep working for social justice and so on. Such is the nature of faith. I don't always agree with everyone in my church about everything, but we feed more people as a group than I ever could alone.

Consider how feminism is grouped by its opposition under a single image of the man-hating, anti-family variety. This simplification doesn’t even capture Separatism fairly, and it certainly is horribly inarticulate of Liberal feminist ideals. Yet every feminist has come across these attitudes and is subjected to them. So when we view ourselves on the receiving end of bigotry, perhaps we can empathize with the Christian adherents who find themselves subject to the hostility engendered by other practitioners of their faith.

Generally, Christianity has been great on a micro level. Look at The Law Fairy and your liberal Christian friends. Christianity has been among the worst macro-level religions: The Inquisition, The Holocaust, Manifest Destiny, American slavery, the War on Terror and the religious right-wing operated in the name of Jesus Christ.

I'm not going to try to justify my existence to the anti-religion folks any further. I'll just ask you to ask yourselves, what does this possibly add? What good does it do to tell liberal feminist Christians that his/her core values are inherently bad? Believe what you want, what are you adding to the discussion? I don't go around trying to convert people, or saying they're evil for not being Christian, so what's the point of doing, essentially, the same to me and others?

For a start, Christianity is based on a misinterpretation of reality. That's reason enough to criticize it. While some good has sprung out of it, it's done enough evil that I criticize it when people brush that evil off as irrelevant.

For a related example, consider evolutionary psychology. It's done a lot of good, in terms of debasing religion and explaining how human morality is evolved rather than revealed. The original people behind it are also very liberal; Wilson and Dawkins care little for pseudoscientific racism and sexism, as far as I can tell. But when people bring EP-inspired sexism up, I don't complain that they shouldn't criticize EP because it deprives them of valuable allies.

Don't forget advanced capitalism i.e. the misery and malaise we and much of the world live in now is a direct result of Christianity more specifically Calvinism (c.f. Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism).

I'm not sure I buy the thesis that extreme capitalism is a Protestant thing, but Calvin's hierarchism was certainly one of Christianity's evils.

By the way, American slavery was a joint Christian-Muslim problem: Arab merchants enslaved blacks and sold them to Christians.

On the other hand, much of the genocide of the Native Americans was explicitly inspired by Christianity. The puritans in Massachusetts didn't slaughter the native population for economic reasons; they slaughtered it because they believed God intended that patch of land to belong to them.

"But when people bring EP-inspired sexism up, I don't complain that they shouldn't criticize EP because it deprives them of valuable allies."

Well, the difference is that I'm not saying Christianity isn't fair game for criticism -- absolutely, I'm not denying that the church has done a lot of harm under the guise of "God's will." I'm just saying that, as with EP, there can be value from religion as well, and I don't think it's any more right to group Christianity with racism and sexism as it is to group EP with them. People are racist and sexist no matter what excuse they use to justify it. Someone (I think in this thread) put it more eloquently than I could: you don't tend to hear about people saying "I would be in favor of gay civil rights, except that the Bible prohibits it. Darn it!"

First, criticizing religion can actually do a lot of political good.

Second, Christianity is comparable less to sexism and racism than to communism and fascism. Communism has done some good things - for example, American communists supported desegregation long before mainstream liberals ever did. But what radicals do out of power bears no relation to what they do when in power. It's nice that in the 1860s and 1960s, Christianity inspired social movements that partly reversed the evils it caused throughout the 1600s and 1700s. But after a few genocides and massive oppression, I reserve the right to declare fundamentalism an explicitly Christian problem.

I'm not sure I buy the thesis that extreme capitalism is a Protestant thing, but Calvin's hierarchism was certainly one of Christianity's evils.

c.f. Weber's very plausible theory in Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.

I know about Weber's theory - I'm just not sure I buy it.

Why not? It makes sense to me.

I haven't looked that much into it, but the acceptance of capitalism in East Asia suggests to me that even if religion does influence the development of economic theories, many more religions/philosophies are amenable to capitalism than just Protestantism.

Fair enough although my understanding is that that work described the development of capitalism.

Weber wrote that capitalism evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant ethic was a force behind an unplanned and uncoordinated mass action that led to the development of capitalism.

Weber argued that religion was one of the non-exclusive reasons for the different ways the cultures of the Occident and the Orient have developed, and stressed importance of particular characteristics of ascetic Protestantism which led to the development of capitalism, bureaucracy and rational-legal state in the West.

"First, criticizing religion can actually do a lot of political good."

Absolutely.

But criticizing or demeaning individual people of faith who have done nothing wrong, and who draw strength from their faith to do good is bigotry.

As an athiest, I ask you:

How is your certainty that God does not exist (and your obvious disdain for those who believe) any different from the religious nut's certainty that God does exist (and their obvious disdain for those who do not believe)?

Raging Moderate’s insightful post prompts me to ask again: Is it possible to critique the legitimate problems and issues of a group without maligning individual members of this group? As a man and a feminist floating in a sea of patriarchy, I have a personal interest in this answer, and if we can develop the sensitivity necessary do to this, then perhaps we ca begin to bridge the philosophical divides which separate us- rather than increasing that separation.

Cheers!

Ken, I believe that we can. There are lots of problems with numerous religious doctrines and those can and should be criticzed without heaping blame on individual members of those religions. However, this means being open to the possibility that there is something salvageable about religion, that it can have value (and sometimes even, that it does). I think there's very little in the world that's black and white, and religion is no exception. But when people like Elton John say we should just ban religion outright, it's counterproductive and offensive. So that's a kind of description of where I think the line should be.

Ken -
Personally I try to avoid generalization. That usually works. Try to be specific, and when possible back up your opinion with facts or logical (as opposed to emotional) reasoning. If what you say is interpreted as a rational observation rather than a personal attack, the listener is less likely to be on the defensive and more likely to hear what you're saying.

For the record, I'm not Christian myself, or even especially spiritual. I'm somewhere in the agnostic/deist/freelance pagan category. I'm about as far from organized religion as you can get. But whether or not your beliefs (or lack thereof) have a recognized name to hang on them, I think everyone has a right to have them, and not have to constantly defend them.

Religion can be good OR bad, depending on the kind of behavior it motivates--and it doesn't have a lock on that kind of influence, either. People use lots of excuses to be crappy to each other, but any excuse you can use to do what you were inclined to do anyway will do. Religion just happens to be an especially popular one, because "God told me to do it" transfers the responsibility to someone (something?) that can't actually be held accountable. It's like "I was only following orders" on a grander scale.

The fact is, people cherry-pick their religious beliefs to coincide with attitudes they already hold--so if someone's being an intolerant asshole, blame the asshole, not the religion s/he uses to justify their assholery. If you abolished all religion, they'd just find another excuse.

"Religions have been the cause of many wars."

Far more people in the last century will killed at the hands of their secular/athestic governments than were killed in religious based wars. Centralized governmental power that destroys the existing instituions (like religions) of society is the biggest danger to people worldwide. Every stat for the last 150 years support that.

Vervain, can you condense that into a bumper sticker? I think you nailed it perfectly.

To return briefly to the original article... Just as the 'quiverful' women apparently have no value to God or society other than as birthing vessels, it's equally disturbing that children, both male and female, seem to be seen as sacrifices; girls as future vessels, but boys as 'arrows'. The concept of children as soldiers is disturbing in both a literal sense (as in the child- armies in some african states, for example) but also in a related context. When are these 'arrows' to be shot? At whom? At what point does talk become actual, possibly violent action? These kids will be indoctornated to believe that whatever they are told to do is more than justifyed because God wants them to do it. Because children have so few legal rights of their own, even if any of them had questions or did disagree with their parent's teachings, they are unlikely to get much oppertunity to form any conflicting opinions. It is a family/church enclave that promotes a hive mentality at its worst- all those poor little worker bees! But in this case they are sacrificing themselves not to a queen bee but to a patriarical notion of godliness. I am curious if some kids from these families leave the religious aspects of their upbringing behind as adults and if they are still considered part of the family if they do...

Don't be absurd, Buffy. That tired old canard just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny. First of all, it's pretty telling, isn't it, that in order to even be able make that statement with a straight face, you have to limit your vision to the 20th century. Second, are you really trying to argue that the Holocaust or that Stalin's murder of Jews could have been possible with out centuries of Christian anti-semitism? Because that's really not a tenable position.

manda -
Alas, probably not. Look up "verbose" in the dictionary, and you'll find a photo of me grinning sheepishly back at you.

In fact, I think this might be my shortest comment ever...

But criticizing or demeaning individual people of faith who have done nothing wrong, and who draw strength from their faith to do good is bigotry.

It is, which is why I don't do that.

How is your certainty that God does not exist (and your obvious disdain for those who believe) any different from the religious nut's certainty that God does exist (and their obvious disdain for those who do not believe)?

It's just a question of consistency.

"I contend we're both atheists; I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you deny all other gods, you'll understand why I deny yours."

I'm certain that unicorns, elves, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy, and deities don't exist.

Centralized governmental power that destroys the existing instituions (like religions) of society is the biggest danger to people worldwide. Every stat for the last 150 years support that.

The infrastructure for eradicating smallpox existed as early as 1900, but the disease was only eradicated in 1970. In those 70 years, between 300 and 450 million people succumbed to that disease. Even going with Rummel's inflated democide estimates, for every person who died in the 20th century from too much government, at least two died from too little government.

"It is, which is why I don't do that."

Yes you do. Telling someone that their beliefs are "based on a misinterpretation of reality" is a critical statement aimed at individuals.

How is this any different from a religious nut telling you that your belief that abortion is not murder is based on a "misinterprtation of reality", simply because they disagree with you?

Aren't both classic examples of the "Because I say so" argument?

"It's just a question of consistency."

Consistency in that you are certain about all of your beliefs, or that you treat all those with whom you disagree with disdain?

"I'm certain that unicorns, elves, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy, and deities don't exist."

Ah, the close mindedness of youth. As you get older, you'll start to realize that you don't know as much as you think you do.

"As you get older, you'll start to realize that you don't know as much as you think you do."

That may be so in general, RM, but don't you be too certain of what you think you know about atheism. My grandparents and parents are all far past youth, and they have seen nothing to make them believe in any gods.

"but don't you be too certain of what you think you know about atheism."

That's my point. When it comes to God, nobody KNOWS whether he exists or not.

"My grandparents and parents are all far past youth, and they have seen nothing to make them believe in any gods."

Neither have I. That's why I don't believe either.

But those who claim to KNOW that there is no God (and have disdain for those who disagree) are no different than those who claim to KNOW that there is a God (and have disdain for those who disagree).

How is this any different from a religious nut telling you that your belief that abortion is not murder is based on a "misinterprtation of reality", simply because they disagree with you?

Factual statements can sound very similar and still have different truth values. The trick is agreement with the facts. I don't mind people who tell me my views on anything contradict reality, as long as they're willing to provide evidence (or, if the burden of proof is on me, to refute the evidence I possess). I'm certainly willing to provide you with evidence.

Ah, the close mindedness of youth. As you get older, you'll start to realize that you don't know as much as you think you do.

If getting older entails believing in elves, I'm committing suicide at 30.

One of many Christian speeches by Adolf Hitler:

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the Man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through that passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christ