I just read this article on the "Quiverfull" movement where the idea is to have as many kids as possible and that "God is the only one who can open or close the womb". Some of these idiots have 12, 18 and 20 kids.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'll just assume that everyone on this forum is intelligent enough to know the reasons why this is a really bad idea, such as our severely dwindling environmental resources, for one.

On a more mundane level, every time someone complains about a new development going up behind their house, or long lines at the supermarket, or horrible traffic, I feel like screaming "that's because people are having too many *bleeping* kids!

It makes me so mad that people are so dumb.

I have been reading over this thread with fascination and I confess that I find that I have ended up in a state of confusion. Let me say that with respect to my own lifestyle and values, I sit fairly squarely in Sunta's camp. I am childless by choice, I am concerned about environmental issues, and I am an atheist. I should point out that I chose not to have children because I never wanted them, and not out of concern for the environment. Though this was an easy decision for me to make, it has been a hard one for me to carry out. It was impossible for me to find a doctor who would sterilize a childless woman and I have received a lot of pressure over the years to have children from all sorts of folks. Most people really don't like to see a person who could have children opt not to.

I am also, like Sunta perhaps, uncomfortable with the growth of the extreme religious right and their attempts to hi-jack the government and thus the civil rights of the rest of us. Modern society is a plurality and the rights of everyone cannot be respected as long as there is one group with one agenda in the driver's seat.

But when it comes to the issue of the size of other folks' families, here I find myself becoming less militant. As many of us may have heard in the media the birthrate in the industrialised countries of the west is plummeting. Though the American birthrate continues to remain at replacement level, this is not true for Europe, nor for Canada. These countries will be forced to look at immigration in order to replace their ageing populations. This means, for any of you who are racists, that the complexion of these countries will begin to change, and so may the cultural and religious habits. At any event, over-population will not be an issue.

What is a bigger issue with respect to our environment is our lifestyle. It is not just question of how many kids you have but how you live. One might argue that a big family might leave a smaller footprint per capita because their resources will be more limited and thus they will manage them better. Certainly the childless couple with all the expensive fossil fuel burning toys brings no joy to the environment.

And as many of your varied posts have stated, it is possible to be a member of a large family and to experience great joy just as it is possible to be a member of a small family and suffer from family dysfunction. Our early years are kind of a crap shoot, aren't they?

That's such a shame. The meaning just isn't there.

I wonder how the pastor & members of that church would feel if we erected a huge likeness of the crucified Jesus, palms facing upward, with a pizza in one hand, a vibrator in the other, and a beer helmet in place of the crown of thorns.

My opinion on the subject of people having kids/having too many kids is kind of an opinion that really has no way of being worked out, which is probably why it hasn't happened.

I think people should need some kind of license to be able to have a kid. Take some classes, prove that you know what you have to do to raise one... And then after that, I don't know whether quantity should be regulated or not. And I agree with the people who said they don't want our government handling this, which is why I say there's really no way to work it out.

There are lots of large families that have lots of love, and everyone gets along and they wouldn't want it any other way. There are others that feel very detached from their older siblings, or any of them at all. And still others that have a host of issues because the parents couldn't/wouldn't pay attention. All of which another reason my idea wouldn't work, especially not in deciding who could have a whole bunch of kids.

That's such a shame. The meaning just isn't there.

I wonder how the pastor & members of that church would feel if we erected a huge likeness of the crucified Jesus, palms facing upward, with a pizza in one hand, a vibrator in the other, and a beer helmet in place of the crown of thorns.

Or a rainbow flag and a Black Sabbath cd?

I wonder how the pastor & members of that church would feel if we erected a huge likeness of the crucified Jesus, palms facing upward, with a pizza in one hand, a vibrator in the other, and a beer helmet in place of the crown of thorns.

You made me spit water all over my computer monitor!

I like the statue.

Marimaru, I'm in kind of the same way. I think parents need to prove ability to care for the child on their own. Financially, stability -- you know, all the same things they look at if you want to adopt. *sigh* How to do this - good question. But I would love to see it done.

Can't remember the title now, but there's a book I read in school a few years ago. The class was "redefining human life" and covered topics like overpopulation, cloning, chimerism, etc. This book was for the overpopulation part of the class. The premise was that in the future, women are sterile until they take a fertility pill, kind of like reverse birth control, and that certain criteria had to be met in order to get the pill.

It's killing me that I can't remember the author/title, because if you'd asked me 10 minutes ago I could have plucked it right out of thin air.

That statue bothers me greatly. And I am a church-attending Christian.

The Statue of Liberty, to me, symbolizes the freedom those of us who came here from other places have. Putting specific religious symbols in her hands is not part of that, IMHO.

I wonder how some would feel if she were holding a Koran?

I don't like the statue either. Imagine what it cost and what could have been done with those $$'s.

What I get from it is that some believe (me included) the USA was founded upon Christianity, and they simply want to get back to that. It is their right to erect it just as it would be your right to erect a statue such as Wheetsin suggested, on your own property. I may find it disgusting but I can always look away.

What I get from it is that some believe (me included) the USA was founded upon Christianity, and they simply want to get back to that. It is their right to erect it just as it would be your right to erect a statue such as Wheetsin suggested, on your own property. I may find it disgusting but I can always look away.

Of course it is anyone's right to erect such a statue on their property. I don't have a right to tell them not to. I do have a right to state my opinon.

I disagree, BTW that the USE was founded upon Christianity. It was founded by some who were Christians, but I don't believe it was intended to be a theocracy.

If you get a chance to check out the ersatz Statue of Liberty with the list in her hand, you might want to check out Commandment Number Nine.

my attempt at humor didn't go so well. sorry. I thought you might enjoy a smirk, didn't work. I'll quit trying to be funny.

So seriously, I may have next year's holiday decor ideas!

I'll share a story that will help explain that.

We live in a middle class neighborhood that thinks it's upper class. It's in a conservative part of town and the local population is dominated by the local Baptist megahugewhoppingwarehouse church. For our first holidays in the house, we decorated it like a gingerbread house, kind of. We cut out plywood gingerbread men and I painted them brown/white, and we lined the edge of the front yard with them. I made lights that looked like strings of giant wrapped candies. We made oversized lollipop "gardens" in the yard, and had big huge "kisses" on each stair up to the front door, and wrapped our door up like a stick of chewing gum. We do acknowledge the holidays, just not the religious aspect of the holidays. We put up a solstice tree. We thought our decorations were cute and creative.

About 4 days after we put the decorations out we got an anonymous note "from the neighborhood" telling us that our decorations were blasphemous and that we hadn't remembered "the reason for the season" (yes we had, our solstice tree was up!) The letter went on to say that the candy house was inspired by Hansel & Gretel, which was a pagan story of god's children being consumed by the devil, and how we needed to take down our symbols of blasphemy immediately. We knew the note had come from the people directly across the street from us, who - at the time - were also one of only about 6 other families in our neighborhood (new development).

So you know what we did? We left the fuckers up for 7 more months.

In February, my little gingerbread men got plywood candy hearts pinned on their chests. In April - rain slickers and rubber duckies. In June we put swim trunks on them. Shamrocks for the luck o' the Irish. We finally took them down in July, after painting them red, white and blue. My little cookie cutter companions were starting to deteriorate, and I felt a proper burial was in order.

So then as superwhoppingmegachurch began to grow, and had to add a fourth parking lot and new wing to accomodate the patrons, we started getting the door to door. EVERY weekend morning, and quite often in the evenings. You see - when they cross-checked their list of members against the list of addresses in the neighborhood, ours popped up as one of the people who didn't match, so they had to come and solicit.

So our front door got this:

We do acknowledge the holidays, just not the religious aspect of the holidays. We put up a solstice tree.

Hi Wheetsin,

I'm not trying to be smart, really - I'm just wondering what is it that you are celebrating when you say holiday, if it is not religious, meaning the birth of Christ? What is a solstice tree?

Once again, I am genuinely curious, I'm not trying to start anything, okay?

No one said they don't have the right to erect it, just that some are of the opinion that it's -- missing the point. To some it's going to be what the point is all about.

To some, that statue might be seen as mockery, just like my idea would be to people for whom the crucifix has significant symbolism. Lady Libery is no different.

Viva le France! And croissants!