If Quiverfullers intend to take over the USA, then how...?

[FloraDoraDolly]

We often hear talk of how the Quiverfull movement will take over the USA and turn it into a Christian theocracy. We hear about these families with their 200-year plans and whatnot. But what I don't understand is how do these people intend to accomplish all this when their kids are so poorly educated? Can someone please explain? It makes no sense to me.

 

Josh Duggar is a prime example here. As a teen, he said he wanted to be a lawyer. You'd think a politically ambitious Quiverfull dad like Jim Bob would do everything possible to get his son into a good college and then into law school. Eventually, Josh could launch a political career and help take back America from the godless commies who kill babies and yadda, yadda, yadda. But, no. At an age when many young adult are starting their first year of law school, Josh has a wife and two kids and works as a used car salesman. Yeah, I know there's College Plus, but that's not going to get him anywhere. Like Jim Bob, Josh might get elected to a local or state office but he'll eventually hit the ceiling when he finds himself up against candidates with more education, more world experience, and better connections. I mean, if you're voting in the GOP primary for the Arkansas governorship, who would you pick-- a Duggar or one of Mike Huckabee's kids? (Yeah, I know almost everyone here is a Democrat, but you get my point.)

 

Looking at the blogs of other Quiverfull families, I see the same pattern repeated over and over again. The kids graduate from the School of the Dining Room Table when they're about 16 and then they receive little or no additional education. Even Christian universities are too worldly for them. They aren't allowed to join the military, either. Thus, the Quiverfull boys end up selling/towing/fixing cars, painting houses, cutting down trees, and working construction. The girls might get to be a doula or a Gothard camp counselor. The more elite among these young people might grow up to sell their self-published books at homeschooling conferences, record gospel CDs, or make bad movies starring Kirk Cameron.

 

Now, I'm not knocking people who fix cars or play the banjo for a living. If that's what they want to do, then that's where they should be. But if the Quiverfull leaders seriously wish to take back the country and the culture, they need to be aiming their arrows at the elite universities. They need to train up lawyers, doctors, politicians, bankers, stockbrokers, computer programmers, business moguls, four star generals, etc.

[DamnPrecious]

Eventually there will be enough to vote each other into offices?

[maybeizfundie]

It's not going to happen.

Just in case anyone was worried. :)

I don't think it even altogether likely if those types of families suddenly went all out for further education and those types of jobs.

I do think all of it is part of a peculiar manifestation of religion and nationalism melded together. It bugs me and I think if God is taking sides, he's probaby not in favor of the kind of American nationalism that is so popular among many fundamentalists.

[Buzzard]

Especially considering that JD has already run for office (even if it was a minor one)... They really stand no chance of being part of anytime of transformative force unless they educate themselves.

[FloraDoraDolly]

Eventually there will be enough to vote each other into offices?

But even there, the Quiverfullers are dropping the ball with their stay-at-home daughters.

[LynnKaboom]

Zerg rush. They're going to wait until they outnumber the rest of us, and then all at once, they'll attack and forcibly take over.

At least, that's the impression I get from their rhetoric.

[Austin]

I'm not worried that the dominionists are going to outbreed everyone else and take over the country.

I am worried about how they and all of their bedfellows on their religious right are working so fervently to deprive this country's citizens of the rights we already have through their political muscle. And they have had [limited] success at that, and they are willing to stop at nothing to accomplish their goals.

FDD, I agree that we don't have any worries about any incredible brain trust they may be in possession of now, judging from their current crop of young adults. I wonder why more of them don't go to Patrick Henry college. I thought that's exactly who Patrick Henry was created to attract.

[liltwinstar]

They believe that "character" will take them further than actual skills/education.

And sure, character is good - it keeps you from embezzling money, for example. But without training/skills as an accountant, you're never going to be in a position where you could embezzle money even if you wanted to.

Also, this is a sweeping generalization here, but a lot of people in this country seem to be leery of education anyway - I guess I'm thinking of the popularity of Sarah Palin who seems to capitalize on her ignorance (in my opinion). President Obama has been criticized for his "professorial" tone, saying that it makes him seem "inaccessible." What a lot of people fail to recognize is that education makes you more able to communicate with a wide variety of people, not less able. In my work, when I'm talking to someone who obviously has less education or fewer communication skills, I'm able to tailor my questions to the situation, use less complicated sentences, etc - in order to help both of us communicate better. Someone with limited education can't do that as effectively, but I don't think that people realize that.

[Austin]

They believe that "character" will take them further than actual skills/education.

And sure, character is good - it keeps you from embezzling money, for example. But without training/skills as an accountant, you're never going to be in a position where you could embezzle money even if you wanted to.

Also, this is a sweeping generalization here, but a lot of people in this country seem to be leery of education anyway - I guess I'm thinking of the popularity of Sarah Palin who seems to capitalize on her ignorance (in my opinion). President Obama has been criticized for his "professorial" tone, saying that it makes him seem "inaccessible." What a lot of people fail to recognize is that education makes you more able to communicate with a wide variety of people, not less able. In my work, when I'm talking to someone who obviously has less education or fewer communication skills, I'm able to tailor my questions to the situation, use less complicated sentences, etc - in order to help both of us communicate better. Someone with limited education can't do that as effectively, but I don't think that people realize that.

The growth/spread of anti-intellectualism sentiment in this country is truly chilling to me.

[kb2]

It's not really an efficient way to take over the country, it's an efficient way to keep a bunch of women down, gives some small-time leadership to a bunch of idiots, and also makes those idiots a bunch of money.

The fundie-lites though, I think they may be capable of screwing everything up.

[GenerationCedarchip]

I'm not so much worried about some of the folks we see on the blogs, but there are plenty of quiverfullers who actually are getting an education at places like Patrick Henry College or Liberty U. It may not be what most of us would call a GREAT education, but it gives them the credentials and connections to find their way into policymaking positions.

[Lillybee]

Bush did appoint a lot of Liberty U's law school grads to important positions in the Justice dept.

[Cassandra]

The growth/spread of anti-intellectualism sentiment in this country is truly chilling to me.

A very conservative friend and I were discussing 9/11 and it's aftermath, here's what she said (paraphrased):

"It's a good thing we elected Bush instead of Gore. Bush acted immediately after we were attacked; Gore just would have sat around and discussed what we should have done instead of immediately retaliating."

...She had no idea why I thought there was so much wrong with that sentence. Why is sitting around and discussing a major political move a bad thing?

[Rosa]

Have you ever asked her, in retrospect, if the Iraq war seems worth it for that quickness of action?

I think Bush II was the height of the Dominionist movement. Unfortunately, the institutions they started - including Blackwater/Xe and the evangelizing of thousands of servicemembers with literalist Bible interpretations - are going to be with us a long time.

I mean, the Roloff Homes and all their spinoffs (and the similar Teen Boot Camp type places) were something that came out of the anticult/counterculture backlash of the '70s, and we're still dealing with them now.

[Childless]

Futhermore, how did she know that Gore would not have acted immediately? My dad once pontificated on how Gore would have made the wrong decisions after 9/11 when he felt Bush made the right decisions. I asked him how he knew what Gore would have done. No one can predict what Gore's actions would have been because he was never put in that position. Hell, he may have made the same decisions Bush did or he may have made completely opposite decisons. The fact remains that he was never president. Even Gore himself couldn't predict what he would have done. Sure, he can say I would have made decision X instead of decision Y, but without being in the situation, he can't really know. Saying that Gore would have made bad decisions just makes a person look stupid.

[Austin]

I'm confused by this argument (Bush's incredible decisiveness). We didn't strike Afghanistan until October 7, 2001. It (quite reasonably) took time to figure out who was behind the attacks, how they occurred, where the people who called the plays actually were holed up, and come up with an appropriate response. So clearly, Bush did "sit around and discuss it", at least for awhile. It wasn't like he re-appeared in the Capitol right after 9/11 and ordered immediate military action.

We didn't invade Iraq until March of 2003. So even assuming that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (which I sincerely doubt), there was not that much urgency there, was there? I personally feel like GWB was determined since before he was elected to invade Iraq, and he would have used whatever political and military strife was happening in the world to make it happen at his appointed time. 9/11 provided the perfect cover b/c many Americans were willing to accept Bush's weak explanations in the wake of 9/11 than under typical circumstances.

So yeah, I have a hard time making sense of the conservative view on this issue.

[bananacat]

They're both naive and delusional, and they simply don't realize that their water-downed joke of a homeschool curriculum isn't nearly as good as they think it is. They've been sold these different curricula by con-men who tell them that it's so superior to evil public school and even mainstream homeschool, but they really get a bunch of crap. They've also been sold the lie that homeschooling is the answer for every family. Some parents just aren't cut out for homeschooling, especially if they a dozen other kids to care for, and in those cases even the best curriculum wouldn't be enough. So they have all these fantastic dreams of creating a dozen lawyers and senators, but the homeschool stuff that Gothard sells them just lets them all down.

There's really a lot of magical thinking among the fundies, and they think if they perform the correct rituals, God will magically make their kids successful regardless of their lack of education. Just think of the "sin in the camp" incident. Failure wasn't blamed on lack of qualification, bad campaigning, or even just not appealing to voters. It was blamed on a superstition that a child's indiscretion would have more impact than any of the actual factors. All that they know is that someone said God wants them to homeschool, so if they do it the correct way and wish really hard, it will just magically work out.

[FloraDoraDolly]

Also, this is a sweeping generalization here, but a lot of people in this country seem to be leery of education anyway - I guess I'm thinking of the popularity of Sarah Palin who seems to capitalize on her ignorance (in my opinion). President Obama has been criticized for his "professorial" tone, saying that it makes him seem "inaccessible." What a lot of people fail to recognize is that education makes you more able to communicate with a wide variety of people, not less able. In my work, when I'm talking to someone who obviously has less education or fewer communication skills, I'm able to tailor my questions to the situation, use less complicated sentences, etc - in order to help both of us communicate better. Someone with limited education can't do that as effectively, but I don't think that people realize that.

I see both sides of that argument. Palin does capitalize on her ignorance, that's true, but I have also come across far too many elitist Ivy League snots who blame her stupidity on the fact that she "only" went to a state university. There are plenty of brilliant people with degrees from state universities. There are also plenty of people who aren't particularly intelligent but managed to get into Ivy League schools because they are connected to the "right" people.

I agree with what you say about education making one more able to communicate with a wide variety of people, but I think there are social and emotional factors at play there as well. The speaker has to know his or her audience. The speaker also has to respect that audience. People don't like it when they feel as if someone is talking down to them, which is part of Sarah Palin's appeal-- she does not lecture her audience or speak to them as if she is the all-knowing while they're just a bunch of dumb hicks from flyover land.

[SamuraiKatz]

I mean, if you're voting in the GOP primary for the Arkansas governorship, who would you pick-- a Duggar or one of Mike Huckabee's kids? (Yeah, I know almost everyone here is a Democrat, but you get my point.)

If my choices were a Duggar or one of the Hucksters sons, it would be a Duggar for sure. One of Huck's son's tortured stray dog to death at a boy scout camp...and I think the same son was arrested for trying to board an airplane with a gun in his carry bag...He "forgot" the gun was in there. How the hell could you pack a bag and miss the damn gun???? My preference is to vote Democrat when I can though.

Embarrassed to admit I'm from Arkansas. :oops:

Samurai Katz

[SquirrelySquirrel]

You all are reminding me of my all-time favorite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQn3vBSxdZE, with this talk of education. I prefer my elected officials to be well-educated and well-spoken, thanks.

This is why I hate the likes of Sarah Palin. It's not because she's a nitwit; It's because her ilk wants to make current and future generations grow up to be nitwits.

[lilah]

I keep coming back to Bachmann who went to Oral Roberts U for her law degree. She's pretty fundie-lite but had 5 kids, and claims to have raise 23 more foster care kids (raise being a generous fiction, she did foster care for 8 years and most of her wards lived at her house for a year, tops) She home schooled her kids but also felt fit to try and change the curriculum on her public school to include christian teachings, (her first election was getting elected to the school board) is staunchly anti-gay rights despite having a lesbian sister, anti-abortion (naturally). Oh and her husband is virulently anti daycare. While thier kids were young, both Michelle and Marcus were in school full time, Michelle getting an advanced law degree from William and Mary, Marcus getting a degree in christian (nouthetic?) counseling from Regetns and I guess either they had their kids in day care and so Marcus wrote a thesis about the evils of daycare.

[FaustianSlip]

I see both sides of that argument. Palin does capitalize on her ignorance, that's true, but I have also come across far too many elitist Ivy League snots who blame her stupidity on the fact that she "only" went to a state university.

I have to say, I've heard many criticisms leveled at Sarah Palin, but I've never heard anyone try and say she's stupid because she went to a state school. Now, I'd say she went to, like six different schools because she's not the sharpest knife in the drawer (and/or because she seems to have some major issues when it comes to finishing what she starts). Of course, she started out at Pacific University of Hawaii, which isn't a state school at all.

I work in a job where there are a fair number of Ivy Leaguers around, and I've never heard any of them insinuate that people who went to state schools (or lower-ranked private schools) are less intelligent or even got a worse education than they did. In part because a lot of us went to graduate school, anyway, so who really cares where you did your undergraduate work, and in part because there are also a lot of us who are state school grads, who also got into this line of work, which has a pretty rigorous selection process. That's not to say that the Ivy League snobbery thing never happens (I met a few guys from Dartmouth at a quizbowl tournament who were royal douchebags), but based on my experience, I think it's kind of overblown. Most of the Ivy grads I've met have been cool, smart, funny people that I like to hang out with, and I wouldn't feel that way if I thought for a second that they were basing any judgments of us on where we went to school.

And honestly, I think the George W. years were a sobering reminder that going to an Ivy doesn't make you brilliant any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car.

Of course, I also think that as far as Palin not talking down to people and/or acting as though she's all-knowing, she certainly seems to think she knows what my views, behaviors and cultural norms are based on the fact that I generally vote a Democratic ticket, and she's not at all afraid to presume that she knows what's best for my body and my womb. So who's really condescending to whom here?

[Austin]

You all are reminding me of my all-time favorite http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQn3vBSxdZE, with this talk of education. I prefer my elected officials to be well-educated and well-spoken, thanks.

This is why I hate the likes of Sarah Palin. It's not because she's a nitwit; It's because her ilk wants to make current and future generations grow up to be nitwits.

Bingo!

BTW, I am state-university-educated, as is my husband, and as will probably be all our children. I never even entered my mind to despise Sarah Palin because she is state-university-educated. It's for the reason stated above.

Well, that and also that I think she's a grasping, skeezy grifter who wouldn't know the truth about anything if it whacked her right between the eyes.

[Swamptribe]

Honestly, I think that's part of the plan. Breed lots of little voters, and keep them ignorant so they don't know any better. It's almost a set up for a system of Lord and serfs.

[Rosa]

Honestly, I think that's part of the plan. Breed lots of little voters, and keep them ignorant so they don't know any better. It's almost a set up for a system of Lord and serfs.

I agree - except it makes more sense when they pull their own kids out into good private schools and attack public education. Pulling your kids out and giving them Character Study workbooks seems like it's setting them up to be the serfs.

And of course educating your girls to only have home-based skills they can't make cash with and not allowing them to have the freedom to leave and choose a new "boss" is actually replicating serfhood conditions, just in a religious instead of secular legal system.