I find that there is not much one can do as some of the people that post on these large family boards ARE Quiverfull, and they do maintain the type of beliefs as described in the article. People like the Duggars (now pregnant with their 17th child) are glorified and idealized; put on a pedestal, as "this is what you need to aspire to". I was astounced, and continue to be astounded by what I read. What I read about constantly is about the (1) non-respect by others in the community, how others don't "understand them, (2) how family does not understand them or support them, (3) poverty (how do I stretch $20 for a week's worth of groceries to feed 10 people), (4) job loss of the breadwinner, (5) things breaking down, not having money for this or that, just abject poverty in some cases, yet another pregnancy is announced a short time later, and this is again, "one of God's blessings". (6) Going crazy trying to have more children while raising current children while homeschooling and everything else.

I've read posts with women that have almost bled to death after giving birth, I've read posts with people having cancer, brain tumor, dangerously high blood pressure, diabetes, etc., and still the thought is that the more children (and continued pregnancies) the merrier. I also read that girls are to be educated and trained as "mothers" even when they are little girls. Truthfully, if anything, I see the opposite happening. As some of these kids grow up (especially girls), they will be leaving their house and home, and some may never come back.

Verily. On a tangential note, Gregg Easterbrook is about 50% weird and crazy (i.e. "all manned space travel should be abandoned"), 50% sane and sensible and one of the things he's said in the "sane" category is that he theorizes one of the reasons Christianity was able to spread so rapidly in its early years (say, A.D. 100 to A.D. 300) was because the church fathers, early on, decided to drop any requirement that new male converts get circumcised. Might sound odd at first, but if you think about it, given the quality of early 1st-millenium surgery, adult circumcision would be a MAJOR stumbling block to a religion's appeal.

Alternately (or in addition!), I like the idea of making sterilization a condition of receiving welfare for more than say, six months, and/or declaring those on welfare for more than a couple of years to be unfit parents, and relocating existing children.

I find that idea to be shockingly intrusive, don't you? Being poor isn't a crime, and it doesn't make someone an unfit parent. For one thing, this policy would mean that people who become disabled and are unable to work for an extended time would necessarily lose custody of their children. That seems far too reminiscent of eugenic policies of the past, most of which were thinly disguised cover for some racist agenda or other.

I would never countenance mandatory sterilization. However, I could see arguments for a policy where, as a condition of receiving substantial government aid, a person would have to agree to use some safe, reversible method of contraception for the duration. The infringement on personal liberty would be minimal, and it would eliminate what would otherwise be a perverse incentive to have more children in order to qualify for increased benefits.

Also, I thought Chris' comment that breeding new believers takes generations, whereas ideas spread exponentially faster, to be especially insightful, and the perfect illustration of why free speech and open debate are so important. The question is often asked, and has been asked in this thread, how a democracy should deal with people who reject its principles and move in solely as an attempt to take it over through increasing their numbers. I think this is the answer. In a society where no idea gets a free pass from criticism, extremism has a much harder time taking hold. This is undoubtedly an important lesson to Europe, which is struggling to deal with a huge influx of Middle Eastern and Muslim immigrants and at the same time is still talking about censoring free speech to shelter religious groups from offense.

It's often said that people only rarely convert from the religion they're brought up with, and on an individual scale this is true. But the other side of the coin is that on a societal timescale, ideas can spread and gain a following with startling rapidity compared to the mean time between generations. I think our time may be witnessing such a transition, if we can successfully capitalize on it.

Also, I liked this comment by J:

Franky I think this is probably like a lot of other modern religio-political movements: A dark little core of true believers and articulators, then a vast penumbra of fringe members and hangers-on.

I would add as a corollary that the most seriously demented cults - like Scientology or the Moonies - only rarely gain any kind of societal traction, as worrisome as their beliefs are. That's because these groups, by their nature, appeal almost exclusively to the outcasts and others on the fringes of society who have found no acceptance elsewhere. Their growth is self-limiting. For a religion to shed its early cult status and move into the mainstream, it inevitably has to shed at least some of its mose bizarre ideas and become packaged and commercialized in a way that's palatable to the masses, and this tends to blunt the most radical elements of its theology. We can see this pattern play out many times in history, not least with Christianity itself.

This is a problem that solves itself. However frightening The Handmaid's Tale is to contemplate, movements like this will never gain mainstream traction in the developed world.

It's comforting to remember this anytime one is confronted with depictions of dark new tribes on the horizon.

These are fringe people, through and through. The "just 8 million families" starting point sounds GALACTICALLY optimistic (or pessimistic) to me. These people will never recruit 8 million families. They will never recruit 1 million families, at least not in the First World. I'm even highly skeptical of the "2,700 families" supposedly on that listserve (what, did they just count the number of comments or the number of posters and assume that everyone was a unique, hardcore member of the "movement"?). Franky I think this is probably like a lot of other modern religio-political movements: A dark little core of true believers and articulators, then a vast penumbra of fringe members and hangers-on. Probably a lot of mothers and fathers who call themselves "Quiverfull" people out of political frustration or even genuine religious feeling . . . and then tuck their 2.5 children into bed and go downstairs to watch a Tivo full of Desperate Housewives.

And what of those true believers who DO have 8-12 kids? If you follow the link to Womensspace that Ebonmuse gives, you'll find out that most of these families don't have the resources to support themselves. A "demographic" strategy toward winning the culture war sounds great . . . in theory. It seems to me from reading that woman's own testimony on the link that most Quiverfull folks are in such dire straits that all their energy is devoted to survival, rather than, say, penning letters to the New York Times or obtaining positions of elected power in the government, media, education, etc.

I'm worried about these people only in a qualitative, not a quantitative way; the same way I'm worried about the Aryan Nation nowadays: They're a group of people with abhorrent, destructive ideas. But they aren't a mass threat.

She has a right to. Whether she has the right to force others to do so is the bigger question. Forcing this ideology down the throats of children is wrong. Personally, I think all children should be exposed to as many religious and ideological systems as possible, along with a critical examination of all the evidence for the various claims. Of course, this would start out simple and get more complex as the children age, as (sort of) happens with education. We should never encourage any kind of unthinking acceptance of an atheistic viewpoint, but we should sure expose children to the arguments, so that when they are able to, they can freely make up their own mind.

For an atheist tv show, we have one in Austin (I can only get it as a podcast, but they are making dvds of shows available) - see http://www.atheist-experience.com/

I don't think that "Quiverfull" will ever be more than a fringe movement and they'll never compete, numbers or no, in a global, information-rich economy. I do feel bad for the thousands of children who will be born into a legacy of appalling ignorance, but I'm cynical enough to realize that this is going to happen anyway.

Get the word out. Shine the light of reason on these practices and hope for the best.

Me? I got snipped after our first and only child. In 20 years, I'll bet her university-educated mind against an entire quivering village.