oh yeah, 3 is the new 2. And 4 is the new 3. Heard that before.

Perhaps I'm too optimistic about people in general, but I just don't believe that people are so plastic that they have kids for status reasons or to compete.

I see this as an offshoot of the post-9/11 conservative trend. I would also hazard a guess that marriage rates are increasing, and family size is increasing among all ranks, but I don't have the data to back it up. But anyone who has any power of observation must notice how palpably the mood of the country changed after 9/11 when it comes to family values.

And having a big family doesn't necessitate the woman staying home. I have one sucessful female friend with a family of four. But she's so successful that she has household staff that takes care of everything, including childcare, cooking and cleaning. I have two other successful female friends who each have three children. Their husbands stay at home. This is commonly accepted, and pretty normal where I live.

I stopped at 2 because I don't follow trends and I can't be bothered to change diapers in my 40s, but that's just me.

I hate these kind of articles, because they're usually targeted at women, they usually have an undercurrent of "let's all blame women for this" and they're usually based on about three people the journalist knows. Maybe they just like having kids? Is that a bad thing?

Now if only these moms would start retouching the "imperfections" out of their babies' photos, they could bring about Armageddon.

Ugh, that's a sick excuse to have children. Just so you can be viewed as miss supervag in the neighborhood and one up someone else with baby number 5. Of course, I guess money really does make it better, but I would rather have a heart attack than make 4 children the center spectrum of my social and work circle. Or my career for that matter.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. My mother dryly noted of her mother-in-law, "Your grandmother was a highly-educated woman of great administrative ability who directed all her energy at her family, driving them all crazy in the process."

SarahMC: ROFL!!!

My sister lives in a tony suburb in Chicago, and she noticed this phenomenon when she first moved there. She calls it the "Wheaton Four," and says her neighbors expressed mild surprise when she said she was stopping at two.

As I see it, there are two forces at work in the babies-as-status-symbols phenomenon.

One is economic. These are upper-income women who are presently choosing to have more babies. It is only for women of this income class that "more children" does not mean bankruptcy. Therefore, it is only for women of this income class that "more babies" is truly a viable option. There are two "new" aspects to this economic trend. One is that the middle-class tradition of having few children and educating them well -- a kind of thrift -- has vanished from these women's ethos, making them more aristocratic than middle-class. (Who needs education when you've got inherited wealth?) However, the "old" aristocratic tradition generally included hiring a governess. To the degree that the "nanny" is not a part of the babies-as-status-symbol trend (and has somebody measured this?), it is indeed a "new" aristocracy, not an old one.

And of course, the second force is sexism. A family with "more babies" as status symbols is not necessarily a family in which it is the father who "opts out." No, it is still more often the mother who does. She therefore does not advance as far in the corporate world as the man, and the upper crust of the corporate world remains male. Rather than bringing Daddy home to care for the children, the family chooses either to draft Mommy or a nanny -- another woman, of course.

Now, let's put the economics and the feminism together. Child-rearing was once a feudal duty assigned exclusively to women. As such, it was as poorly paid as the peasantry. Nowadays, child-rearing (arguably the most important work there is) has diverged into two paths: a market-based one (capitalist) in which child-rearing is more or less poorly paid, and a home-based one (feudal) in which it is more or less unfairly divided among male and female caregivers.

Sorry to be so long on diagnosis and short on cure!

Competitive birthing is disgusting, just like any other type of competitive consumption. And it's sick, just as sick as it was in the 1950's, for bright, capable women to try to channel all their energies into little Johnny's development (no pressure on little Johnny, not at all).

I'm sure I'm a bad feminist for saying this, but it makes me really sad that bearing children has become an elite hobby instead of a natural part of life. I can't help thinking that's what happens when sex is as far removed from pregnancy as it is today. The option of using birth control, which is a wonderful thing, has become an imperative for the poor chumps who can't afford to raise children. You see this all the time on discussions of social services and welfare for children: "if you can't afford them, don't have them," as if childbearing were not a natural process or necessary for the perpetuation of the human race. That's why I think it's as important to talk about reproductive rights as about abortion rights.

Ok, anecdotal evidence only, but I think there's something to this. My sister is in the wealthy suburbs of North Jersey and she says she feels a lot of pressure to have a third and fourth child (cry me a river). She wanted to stop at two but is now not sure. What she says, however, is that these other stay-at-home-moms who are her friends all have full-time nannies too (she doesn't have one because it would be ridiculous - and a 6000 square foot house for 4 people isn't???, but I digress). So, to Jakob's point, I don't think we're too far off from the old aristocracy.

Having said all that, I'm sick of articles like this focusing on the women too - i.e.women's pathology, women's selfishness, women's excuses, etc. Why isn't the article about men having large families to compete with each other or to justify their existence as "breadwinners" who are never home and not involved with their families? That would be quite a different article.

I think people who have large families should be commended(assuming they can handle it). Several states have a population crises. I was just reading that Vermont is going to be in big trouble in a few years as the population gets older and older. I think saying these people are using kids as status symbols is making an unfair assumption. Maybe these people actually enjoy raising a family and love their kids.

These are upper-income women who are presently choosing to have more babies. It is only for women of this income class that "more children" does not mean bankruptcy.

That's completely untrue. There are ways to make less money and have more kids if that is what you want to do of your own accord. (I am not OK with the social pressure to have more kids but some people genuinely want them.) The question is, what sacrifices are you willing to make? Because if you want all the toys and the expensive house and car and you're not good with money, ONE kid could send you bankrupt. NO kids could send you bankrupt. It's not how many kids you have, it's the financial choices you make.

I refuse to believe some of these so-called "upper-class" people are not on the edge of bankruptcy themselves. 6000 sq. ft. home? Two SUVs? Tony part of town? Yeah, right. Real wealth is best accumulated when one watches one's spending, NOT when one spends to the gills. But again, it's not the number of kids. It's the financial choices.

Also, I agree with Kali Ma about why men's choices aren't studied as closely as women's are. It makes the claim interesting that kids do best when their parents are married. But what's the difference between an unmarried mother and a married one whose husband is constantly at work? Believe me, not much. I'm not married to my girl's father but we see more of him than some children of marriages ever see of their dads. He makes the effort.

I live in a suburb of Dallas and work retail nearby.

Every weekend I see these "white" mostly huge families come in with their large number of little blond loin fruit. They are all so white and programmed in their little Kill the Queers Camp Christian soldier for Jesus t-shirts.

There is something scary working here. these kids are part of something called the "quiver full" movement. It is preserve the white race because the non white people are out breeding us and build a theocratic army to impose god's will on earth.

It is bolstered by the sermons they hear in the McMegaChurches and is accompanied by a strong tendency to define women by gender roles. A woman is subserviant, does not compete with men. Is a virgin until marriage and bears as many children to man this army for Jesus as she possibly can.

Most of these families are invisible unless one sees the herd all together. Others have cult clothing that is almost as distinguishable as certain forms of Muslim dress.

The defining of woman as socially constructed role rather than simply adult female means that any woman who wants a role other than wife/mother/daughter with in the rigidly defined gender role becomes an outlaw.

The Taliban Christian ideas for dealing with women who stray is very similar to those under Sharia.

There also seems to be something working that was hinted at during the last POTUS election and that was "we will impose our will by breeding more of us than you heathen infidels". This is not unlike the Aryan Nation breeding programs I've read about in Southern Poverty Law Center's magazine.

Hah! Maybe those aristocratic, olde East-coast families will go the way of the Merovingians.

Sorry, I grew up in a really poor family. I'm the first to go to college, even among aunts and uncles and older cousins. Sometimes the learned bitterness toward rich people just slips out.

Oh, Ick...

Peer pressure to procreate...It's "In Fashion"...it symbolizes the fact that they have more money...it justifies the choice to stay home to raise the kids... These are things that the women who are doing this are saying, not what the reporters are saying. THAT is what I find so disconcerting.

I'm sure some women have big families for reasons other than status, but this particular piece speaks only to the so-called 'Country Club Set'. As if the BMW Crossover, Baby Gap wardrobes, and lunching at the Club after two sets of tennis weren't enough, now having it all means having even more kids. A big family is fine, but when "Four is the new Two" is thrown around, I start to feel green around the gills.

You see this all the time on discussions of social services and welfare for children: "if you can't afford them, don't have them," as if childbearing were not a natural process or necessary for the perpetuation of the human race.

I really hate this argument for having children. The human race is in no danger of dying out. There would have to be a seismic shift in our culture in order to trigger such a low number of births as to actually put our country in jeopardy, let alone putting the whole human race on the line.

I think there may be some classism issues in the "if you can't afford them, don't have them" argument, as I've heard it said that no one is ever *really* able to afford children. Your standard of living is going to change by adding the financial needs of another person in your life. However if you're already hardly able to feed yourself and pay the bills after already trimming all the extraneous expenses from your life...bringing another child into the world probably isn't the best idea at that point. For everyone's sake.

I saw a book in Borders a few weeks ago titled Momzilla, it is a fictional novel based on the experience of the author about this exact subject. Sick.

4 kids is "competitive birthing"? Weak. My grandmother had 20 kids.

What next, are rich people going to call taking shots of Zima "competitive drinking"?

Hm. I know it's been awhile since I lived in/around a wealthy community, but I hadn't realized so much had changed. As I recall, the upper class set had two kids, max, and massive homes that could house small armies. Kids were still used as a status symbol ("show ponies"), but having more than two was rarely (if ever) done.

"I think people who have large families should be commended(assuming they can handle it). Several states have a population crises. I was just reading that Vermont is going to be in big trouble in a few years as the population gets older and older. I think saying these people are using kids as status symbols is making an unfair assumption. Maybe these people actually enjoy raising a family and love their kids."

Sorry, I don't commend people who have small litters. And the "population crisis" argument kills me-- our worldwide population is bursting at the seams (to such an extent that in fifty years, we'd need three earths to support our rate of consumption), but a few of the more industrialized societies happen to be slowing down. Oh noes! Guess we'll have to start letting people immigrate! No, wait--I forgot about xenophobia. Guess we'll have to start making lots of American babies (preferably white)! Don't want the undesireables to overwhelm us! Yeah, that's it. Good plan.

Sorry, Nicole, not snarking you specifically. The idea is just so grossly disproportionate with the true nature of our population situation, and it's maddening to hear the sensationalistic "population crisis" as an excuse for having excessive amounts of children.

I think we need to take the idea that these women have children purely for the status of it with a grain of salt.

When they say they feel more justified staying home with more children, they may be making an observation as opposed to stating their actual motivations. For example, I feel like I get treated more like a "real grownup" now that I have kids. But that's not why I had them.

Status may well be a factor and in certain circles there is way too much pressure to be a SAHM, as if that's the only way to be a good mother.

But I don't think it's fair to have our first conclusion be that these women are disgusting, self-serving bitches whose children are nothing but props. Motivations are always a complex combination of what we want and what we think we should want and what we think others will think of what we want.

Or to turn this around, what does it say about our society that having more kids and staying home gives you social status as opposed to being a value-neutral personal choice?

Here's a site. The first one Google brought up regarding the "Quiver Full" Movement.

http://www.quiverfull.com/

chingona, I agree completely. It's the perpetuation of the Mommy Wars that makes women feel inadequate, and our feelings of inadequacy can influence even the most important decisions.

Increased child-bearing and wealthy women "staying at home" to raise children is historically cyclical. Judith Warner wrote about it in her book "Perfect Madness Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety." I don't have the text on hand, but this "focus on the home" and the increased "worth of a mother" who has children and stays home with them (read: raises them 'herself') is a rebirth of past visions of wealth.

Couple that with our "Too Much Information" society and willingness to share even our darkest motivations and I think you'll find this phenom is nothing new... if not still disturbing.

I see this as an offshoot of the post-9/11 conservative trend

I don't understand why having a big family is associated with being conservative. I've seen similar statements from conservatives who assume that liberals have something against big families. In addition to a status symbol, since when did family size also become a political statement? I'm about as liberal as they come, and not wealthy by any means, and I plan on having three children. If I had started in my 20's, I would seriously consider having four. My reason is that when I'm old and gray I want to be surrounded by a big family with lots of grandkids. I guess I better turn in my blue card for a red one. Please stop with these mindless assumptions people.

I saw a book in Borders a few weeks ago titled Momzilla, it is a fictional novel based on the experience of the author about this exact subject. Sick.

The Momzilla author is actually interviewed in the NPR piece.

And DallasSuz, we've posted on the Quiverfull movement a few times before.

"I think there may be some classism issues in the 'if you can't afford them, don't have them' argument, as I've heard it said that no one is ever *really* able to afford children. Your standard of living is going to change by adding the financial needs of another person in your life. However if you're already hardly able to feed yourself and pay the bills after already trimming all the extraneous expenses from your life...bringing another child into the world probably isn't the best idea at that point. For everyone's sake."

Especially for the children's sake. Is it really anti-poor-people to recognize that poverty can hurt people a lot and to think that no one deserves to be hurt including children?

"Oh noes! Guess we'll have to start letting people immigrate! No, wait--I forgot about xenophobia. Guess we'll have to start making lots of American babies (preferably white)! Don't want the undesireables to overwhelm us!"

It also seems like a race to the bottom ("Oh no! Those people over there live in more squalor than we do!! We'd better catch up on overcrowding our families!!!").

"I don't understand why having a big family is associated with being conservative."

As for the *largest* nuclear families, it's pretty hard to have 100+ kids without having multiple wives at once. It's even harder if one isn't keeping his wives pregnant as often as possible from menarche to menopause. Polygamy and child marriage both tend to be promoted more by ultraconservatives than others.

Of course, that trend doesn't scale down so evenly.

However, some people out there probably make the mistake of assuming that if having an very large family is very conservative than having a moderatly large family must be moderately conservative and so on. They don't get that someone with 7 kids may be just as liberal as someone else with 3 kids, someone with 0 kids may be just as conservative as someone with 4 kids, etc.

It's true that the world's population is rising, but certain places in the industrialized world aren't even at replacement level. Europe will probably be an Islamic theocracy in a century becuase its population is dying off. I don't think most Americans want that to happen here.

As yuckola as this trend is, there's more of a chance the kids of such people will be liberal-leaning. I guess in that way it's fine...if the quiverfull and other similar religious-based movements are loosing their spawn upon the earth, then the status moms are more than welcome to create a balance.

But yeah, our population is already at a disgusting level, so I don't even know how to address this. It's not like most of our generation lives on farms, or expects at least 3 kids to expire before age 12 like in previous generations.

On a related note, TLC's entire series about couples with 27 children deeply disturbs me.

"Europe will probably be an Islamic theocracy in a century becuase its population is dying off. I don't think most Americans want that to happen here."

Indeed. For example, restricting reproductive choice in the name of promoting population growth is too damn close to Sharia law for me.

"It's true that the world's population is rising, but certain places in the industrialized world aren't even at replacement level. Europe will probably be an Islamic theocracy in a century becuase its population is dying off. I don't think most Americans want that to happen here."

You did not just say that.

No...no. You did. But I'm having trouble believing my eyes.

Perhaps you're not aware of the implications of that comment? Please tell me you're not trying to say, "All the good Christian white folks better hurry up and make babies so the evil Muslims don't take over."

Nicole, if you're really concerned about population depletion, why don't you support widespread emmigration into underpopulated areas like Vermont?

Maybe you could support incentives to bring young refugee families into these areas. There are thousands, if not millions, of people who might love to move to Vermont from areas of civil conflict, famine, war zones etc etc, especially with patriotic people like yourself helping make their relocation easier.

Oh yeah, that's right, some of them might be too "tan" for Vermont.

And maybe, just maybe, they won't have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal saviour. Damn.

Nicole, the things you say get more entertaining and bogus by the week.
But you're right; I don't want to live in a theocratic state, whether it be Islamic or Christian. And insisting that white, Christian women should hurry up and breed in order to beat the Muslims sounds pretty damn theocratic to me.

Here's a slightly different take on this since we've gone the route of discussing population. Although individual states in the U.S. may have population "issues," if we expand our view to the global, creating more Americans is just a bad idea. We are very hard on the planet and its resources because we use way more than our share of everything (energy, food, pollutants, economic resources, landfills and so on). Each new U.S. baby leads to depleation of resources at a much greater rate than babies born many, many other places. We tend to point "over there" to China and India specifically as the root of a population problem, when the roots are at home. Population "problems" aren't always about the population. They can be about how resources are distributed unevenly.

"We tend to point 'over there' to China and India specifically as the root of a population problem, when the roots are at home."

OTOH, can't more than one population problem happen at the same time?

If a kid's starving because her or his family can afford enough food for 3 kids to stay healthy but the head of the family insisted on 6 so far instead, then that household's most likely overpopulated...even if all 8 of them together use less electricity than a 2-person household somewhere else wastes.

Either there is a serious lack of birth control on the market today or having a child is the new in thing. I never saw a pregnant woman other then my sister growing up, never knew a family with more then 3 children and was always told having children was a negative thing. Now after having a child at 19, unmarried, I feel like the pressure is on to have another. Less then a month after my daughter was born, people asked me when I was planning to have the next one. I'm not sure how to respond to that. I would assume it's obvious that I wasn't planning to have this one, but I guess in today's society getting married and having children young is typical as if this were the 1950s. I run into women with children all the time in my community, women ranging in age from 18-40 with newborns. My boyfriend's aunt who is in her mid-40s is pregnant, as well as a friend in her late 20s, another friend who isn't even 21 seems to be trying to get pregnant (keeps having miscarriages) and the whole Nicole Riche getting pregnant thing really through me. Women in mom message boards, especially young women are saying they are not taking birth control and letting things play out according to god's will. Honestly, be raised in a family of four, having a sister with 6 children, I am in a rush to get sterilized rather then have another child and join in on the race to have two under two. Breeding, competitive or otherwise is happening at an alarming rate these days.

I read that a lot of SAHMs are women who were deeply unsatisfied with their jobs. When they got pregnant, they had a socially acceptable reason to stop work that they never really liked in the first place. Often, their husbands aren't much happier in their jobs, but it's not socially acceptable for a man making $200,000/year as an attorney to stay at home with the kids.

The extra kids are really just cementing the excuse to not go back to a crappy job.

Ideally, women would find work that they like or realise that it's called "work" for a reason.

Is anyone going to seriously deny an Islamic desire to turn governments into a theocracy run by the caliphate? Would any of you want to move to Iran? I don't want to live in a theocracy ever, and we don't now. It is absurd to compare this nation in any way to the countries that are stoning people for being infidels. Also, Islamic states tend to discourage feminists to say the least. Might want to think about that.

What about comparing stoning infidels to torturing political prisoners, flouting the Geneva convention and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in an illegal invasion?
Can I do that?
Oh, wait, I just did.

A Christian theocracy would discourage feminism too, Nicole. But you're arguing with a strawfeminist here. Because none of us are advocating for an Islamist state! But we are not going to breed just to increase the number of white folks on the globe.

I'm not sure i believe Nicole is a real person. If she is, I apologise, but there's something fishy about her comments.

Nicole, I would recommend that you desist from making such blatantly prejudicial statements. I don't know what 'kind' of Muslims you know, but those I'm acquainted with have very little desire to organize a "coup d'etat" and implement a theocratic state.

Your opinions are based on conservative propaganda and fear-mongering, not facts (unless you happen to have access to a Muslim manifesto with indexes discussing the widespread plans to silently conquer Europe). It appears you are still proposing that we breed "white army" to conquer the "invading Muslims". Again, unless you have facts to back up your claims, I ask that you refrain from making such elitist, discriminatory, ethno-centric commentary.

"I don't know what 'kind' of Muslims you know, but those I'm acquainted with have very little desire to organize a "coup d'etat" and implement a theocratic state."

That's exactly what they want you to think. I'd better get my tin-foil hat on, who knows how far this goes!

I, for one, loathe children and see my choice not to have them as perfectly sound and reasonable. I can't imagine caring what my neighbors think about my broodless home. I am in my mid-thirties, college educated, upper middle class, married and if I want to "opt out" of the work force, I definitely don't need to pop out a few progeny to justify that choice. This entire piece hinges on the idea that all women need and want children to feel sound in society. There are many of us out and about in the world who have no desire to have even a single child. I am sure there are readers of this blog who feel similarly, though why some women are ashamed to admit this escapes me (especially in this day and age). Thank God (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) for Roe v. Wade.

Interestingly, when I wanted to get a hysterectomy at 33, my GYN fought me for months because I was in the prime of my reproductive years and regardless of the fact that I told her I didn't want children and that my husband had already had a vasectomy.

hum... so away from the pending islamic crusade, um, I mean invasion (TM), if the white-upper-classers can have a min of four kids, does that mean that I (as a rather lower middle class lesbian) can finally have that pack of 9 or 12 jack russel mixs that I have always dreamed of?

"And DallasSuz, we've posted on the Quiverfull movement a few times before."

I only became a daily reader about 3 months back.

I got here from Pam's House Blend

I realize there was a lot to say about Nicole's offensive comments, but oenophile, are you serious? Women stay at home with their children because they don't like their jobs? It's a good excuse? Seriously? These women need to "realise it's called work for a reason?"

Good God. That is such a load of shit I don't even know where to begin. I'm a working mom but by no means can I sit back and let SAHMs get slammed like that. First of all, wanting to stay at home and take care of your children is something MORE women should be able to do. Unfortunately, lack of health insurance, poor school districts, lack of flexible work schedules or part time work send most moms back into the workforce when they'd prefer not to. Stay at home moms get no pay for the work they do, no 401K- they face a stigma should they try to return to work and crap judgments about their "motivation" as women because of the choices they made for their families. Have you ever watched a child all day? Ugh, I guess I can't explain it to you.

Visit Momsrising.org to get a better idea about issues facing mothers today. A remember that issues mothers have in the workplace, or as SAHM, or in the media that fuels the "media wars" and makes it possible for people to read absolute bullshit about stay at home moms being unhappy in their careers possible is a feminist issue as much as a motherhood issue.

sorry, I meant "mommy wars".

"What about comparing stoning infidels to torturing political prisoners, flouting the Geneva convention and killing hundreds of thousands of innocents in an illegal invasion?
Can I do that?
Oh, wait, I just did."

First of all, the Geneva Convention only applies to combatants of a recognized military.You're also comparing insurgents to women who commit adultery. No one in the U.S. is being randomly pulled off the street and raped like women were by Sadam Hussein. Torture far worse than loud music and sleep deprivation is aloud under Islamic governments without consequence. It's apples and oranges. Women can't show their necks in Islamic society. People can be tortured and executed for the dumbest things. I don't know anyone who's been sent to Gitmo for stating their opinion the way Saddam had his citizens obtained. You'd have to be crazy to compare the two societies!

I don't want a theocracy of any kind, but you people seem like you'd prefer an Islamic over Christian one. That's insane! Christians don't want to make women cover every inch of their body or be raped. Christians don't throw massive violent riots over a silly cartoon. Christians don't teach that God will reward suicide bombers with virgins in heaven. Radical Christians are annoying. Radical Muslims are dangerous! I know their are some moderate Muslims that don't support such radical ideas, but they are not the leaders of the religion. The hate coming out of London Mosques proves this. Anyone who says there are not millions of muslims who want to destroy Western Society are living in lala land.

Here's what us little women will have to look forard to in an Islamic Society:
"In Islam there is a strict hierarchy of subservience. First and foremost, all humans are required to be the slaves of Allah. In Muslim societies, all children must obey their parents. Beyond this, women and girls must obey and serve without question their male guardians and especially their husbands. This decree of marital obedience is not in any way reciprocal.

A woman in Islam is not competent and must always have a guardian. The responsibility of guardianship may pass from father to brother to uncle before a girl is married off, at which point she must answer to her husband. Marriage is typically arranged, with no choice given to the girl, and there is often an exchange of money in the process. Thus, under the religious rule of Islam, it is still common today that a woman's rights are essentially sold to a man she may not know, and most likely does not love.

As for education of girls under Islam, there is a clear program of indoctrination of inequality. Under Islam, education is the passing on of the rules of submission to the will of Allah. Intrinsic in this "education" is the dictation of gender roles. Girls are instructed in subservience first to God, then to the family and finally to the husband. There is strict emphasis on modesty, defined by virginity. A Muslim girl is taught to guard fiercely her virginity as an expression of loyalty to her creator and to her family and husband.

This form of education hampers her chances of ever becoming self-reliant or financially independent. A woman's lack of social equality and freedom is a direct consequence of the teachings of Islam. Under Islam, a wife must always ask her husband for permission and she must obey indefinitely. This stricture is lifted in the unique event that he asks her to forsake God, wherein she is allowed the right of disobedience. While it is true that in Islam, technically speaking, women have the right to trade and own property, the condition of total obedience to guardians makes this "freedom" hypothetical, at best."

http://www.islam-watch.org/AyanHirsi/My-View-of-Islam.htm

First of all, the Geneva Convention only applies to combatants of a recognized military.

Actually, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to civilians and combatants. They were designed as an interlocking framework of rules applicable, pursuant to their Common Article 3, to all armed conflicts, whether international or not. One of the innovations of the 1949 Conventions, which were intended to outlaw the atrocities of the states defeated in WWII, was to ensure that all persons were protected.

In the pre-1949 Conventions system, persons not falling within one of the limited status descriptions of the then-applicable treaties and customs, could be declared "unlawful combatants" (especially popular with Germany) and summarily excuted. Under the 1949 Conventions, there are two basic possibilities: either one is a combatant, in which case one is entitled to POW status under the Fourth Convention and to "combatant privilege" (the right to engage in hostilities without criminal liability, except in the case of war crimes), or one is a civilian, in which case one is entitled to protections similar to those of the Fourth Convention if one falls into enemy hands, though one is liable to criminal prosecution if one takes part in hostilities. It is a binary proposition; either a person is a noncombatant (protected under Convention IV) or a combatant (protected under the other three Conventions). There is no legal grey area.

The Conventions also place severe restrictions on occupying powers, and protect civilians and civilian facilities, wounded and shipwrecked personnel, and limit the weapons and tactics permitted in war.

Erratum: should read "...or one is a civilian, in which caseone is entitled, under the Fourth Convention, to protections similar to those of the Third Convention..."

Thanks for that, Elise.

I was being tongue-in-cheek with my comparison, to highlight the hypocrisy of the zenophobia Nicole spouts. Of course two wrongs don't make a right, and of course I don't want to live under a Theocracy, of whatever religion.
I just think people like Nicole (if she really exists) need a little perspective when they start their hate-mongering.

I just thought it worthwhile to correct that particular inaccuracy in Nicole's statement since it's so frequently heard in the media.

Hi Nicole, this comment from Europe.

No.

Please don't assume that a small number of radical mosques adds up to millions of angry "muslims" who want to turn the continent into an Islamic theocracy. I sincerely doubt you've ever been to Europe, and I also doubt you've ever met any muslims.

I don't know anyone who's been sent to Gitmo for stating their opinion the way Saddam had his citizens obtained.

Actually, there are two journalists known to be held in the Guantanamo camp, and the occupation forces in Iraq have expressed a particular interest in "disappearing" journalists who do not support the invaders' views.

Not to shoot a million holes in your argument Nicole, but...

"Christians don't want to make women cover every inch of their body or be raped."

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Deut. 22:5

Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes. Gen 19:8

"Christians don't teach that God will reward suicide bombers with virgins in heaven."

And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was... thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him. Exodus 31:32, 35

"...women and girls must obey and serve without question their male guardians"

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. I Tim. 2:11-12

"Marriage is typically arranged, with no choice given to the girl, and there is often an exchange of money in the process."

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. Exodus 22:16-17

"Girls are instructed in subservience first to God, then to the family and finally to the husband."

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. I Cor. 11:7-9

"There is strict emphasis on modesty, defined by virginity."

And he shall take a wife in her virginity. A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, or an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. Lev. 21:13-14

My personal favorite:

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast the first stone. John 8:7

Perhaps advice you should take before comparing the "evils" of Islam to the Christianity.

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast the first stone. John 8:7

Perhaps advice you should take before comparing the "evils" of Islam to the Christianity"

Ok...Let's sit back and let the terrorists do their work...Who are we to judge?

All the quotes from the bible would actually present a point if Christians were forcing that onto others the Islamic Fascists in the Middle East do to their citizens! In the United States(where Christianity is the majority religion) no one is forced to worship or follow Christian guidelines. People are not randomly pulled off the Streets of New York for criticizing the Admin.. Do you think the press would get away with calling saddam an idiot? We have it pretty good. If it's so bad how so many people want to come here? Even though insurgants are not the same thing as innocent civilians, the mistreatment of these violent individuals is nothing compared to the way innocent people have been slaughtered and tortured(actually tortured..not just loud music). Two gay teens were hanged in Iran. Saddam's sons had rape rooms. This culture is starting to spread. The fact is that video footage from London Mosques do reveal an insurgance of hate towards western society, and very few "moderate" Muslims are speaking out. 25% of young U.S. Muslims believe suicide bombings can be justified. Muslim gangs raping women because they aren't wearing head scarves is happening more frequently in Sweden and Denmark. This is not something that won't affect us.

I just can't understand why so many people are quick to defend Islam here and frequently mock, ridicule, criticize Fundamentalist Christianity, Catholicism, and Mormonism. Even the most conservative elements of these faiths aren't nearly as strict as Islam. I don't think even Billy Graham or the Pope would support hanging homosexuals, stoning adulterers, or violently rioting embassies over a silly cartoon.

If you don't believe me:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/youtube-has-uks-undercover-mosque

Even though insurgants are not the same thing as innocent civilians, the mistreatment of these violent individuals is nothing compared to the way innocent people have been slaughtered and tortured(actua