I’m an agnostic—I have the quiz score to prove it—but I’m not an asshole about it, which is to say that I respect the religious beliefs of others enough to not proselytize, and I almost never mock (unless those beliefs include teachings about spaceships and wedding vows in which the man promises his bride “a pan, a comb, perhaps a cat”).
So, when I read this article from The Nation about fundamentalist Christians who have a whole lot of babies for the purpose of creating conservative voters and a large bloc of consumers dedicated to boycotting companies that, I don’t know, offer medical benefits to the gay partners of employees, I endeavored to keep an open mind. It wasn’t easy. I do feel that the “Quiverfull” movement’s connections to Holocaust deniers and white supremacists diminish their Christian credibility somewhat. It’s hard to say how Jesus might feel about revisionist historians, but, you know, he was a Jew. I do feel that I am on firm theological footing when I say that Jesus is definitely not interested in the continuing existence of the white race. Jesus has many instructive and, I would argue, pertinent encounters with outsiders—by which I mean women and non-Jews—in the Gospels, and Paul is quite explicit about the fact that race has no meaning in the Kingdom of God.
I can’t really argue that the movement’s conception of children as “arrows for the war” is theologically problematic. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was not pro-family, and some versions of Jesus are pretty militaristic. Nevertheless, being the worldly individual that I am, someone who believes more in creating joy and love in this life than saving up for the next one, I can’t help but feel incredibly sad for the children whose father said this: “If you don't invoke God's word, then there's really no reason… Kids are great and all that, but in reality, it's all about the Bible.”
[THANKS TO TED FOR SENDING ME ARTICLE LINK.]