Quoting Quiverfull: No Money For Public Schools?

Quoting Quiverfull: No Money For Public Schools? July 15, 2013

by Kelly Crawford of Generation Cedar – Hypocrites and the Food Stamp Comment

I recently posted on Facebook, about an interaction I had:

“He says to me, ‘Well, if you can feed them without my tax $$ I guess it’s great if you want to have lots of kids.’ Me, thinking: ‘I appreciate your permission to reproduce on God’s timetable. We have never stolen your tax $ to feed our children. You, on the other hand, don’t mind stealing mine to educate your children. Somehow, I’m not allowed to bring that up though.’ *Inconsistency bugs me*

Because it does. I have much more respect for a person I may disagree with yet who thinks and behaves consistently.

Read the rest here

Comments open below


QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Breaking Their Will: Shedding Light on Religious Child Maltreatment‘ by Janet Heimlich

Quivering Daughters‘ by Hillary McFarland

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement‘ by Kathryn Joyce


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • i’m trying to figure out what about this bothers me. because, on one hand, they have a point. but on the other; yes, your husband gets money taken out of his paycheck to pay for my 2 kids’ school vouchers. however, both me and my husband’s incomes are taxed to feed your 14 children. and will continue to do that for the next 3 generations of your family.

    i think that’s what it is. the inequality. and nowhere does the author admit how difficult it is to feed a large family on one salary. nor does she mention how (at least here in kansas) how many quiverfull families get food/healthcare/rent/property tax ‘assistance’, simply because the ration of household earnings to family members is so, so small.

  • Trollface McGee

    Because there is a big difference in paying taxes for something that benefits the common good versus paying for someone to engage in personal choices that they know are unsustainable.

    I don’t have kids, I probably never will but I have no problem paying taxes for public schools because having an educated populace benefits me (less crime, people living in better standards, etc) and if I do have kids, I’m glad I won’t have to worry about making sure that school exists for them. The same way I’m glad to pay to pave and maintain streets I will personally never drive on, because paving and maintaining my own street would be a huge pain and a huge cost.

    On the other hand, having lots of kids that you can’t support? How does that benefit anyone but yourself? I mean, we’re all about personal responsibility right? There’s little difference between these people and Octomom – except Octomom didn’t cloak her irresponsibility in religious terms which is why she got the huge outcry about how horrible and irresponsible she was.

    Also, using tax dollars isn’t stealing, unless you’re appropriating them for huge projects that benefit a small amount of people. Funny how those politicians giving tax breaks to their pet causes and megachurches that make millions using tax breaks they don’t need aren’t stealing but someone sending their kid to public school is.

  • She takes “feed” too literally. Feed is shorthand (even in the time of “give us today our daily bread”) for providing for needs. “Feed” does not only refer to food stamps.

    The simple fact is that everyone in a country like the USA is an indirect recipient of tax spent: The roads, the police, the courts, etc. that you use or may need is paid for with taxpayer money.

    A middle class family with two working parents and two children usually pays more in taxes than the services kept up for their benefit cost. (50% of the people in such a home are tax givers, 100% tax users). A quiverfull family with one working parent, one at-home parent and 8 children has only 10% tax payers and 100% tax users.

    In short, the “ordinary” guy who have two children and two parents providing for those two, resent it when another family have half as many taxpayers (2 versus 1) and 4 and a half times as many non-taxpaying tax recipients(2 versus 9). He don’t like paying taxes at all (who does?) but begrudge it the most for those who take most, compared to what they give.

  • You said more succinctly what I was trying to. 🙂

  • Independent Thinker

    The no money for public schools thing is already in place in countries like Nepal, Chad, and Sudan. The results are terrible. No need to try that approach in the US.

  • Theo Darling

    I really, really hate the demonization of people in government assistance programs. And I don’t begrudge anyone the benefits they get, quiverfull or not (although in the quiverfull and other conservative Christian subcultures, such government reliance is so blatantly hypocritical, given the requisite “small government! no taxes!” talking points). I don’t begrudge drug addicts either (who account for a VERY small minority of food stamps users). Quiverfull kids need food just as much as any other kids.

    I guess I just feel a little uncomfortable with the potential this post has for inciting the reaction that “we deserve to educate our children with your tax dollars, but you don’t deserve to feed your children with ours.” Maybe my touchiness on this subject is just because I get SNAP benefits myself, but I honestly don’t see a “big difference,” socially, in feeling entitled to eat food and feeling entitled to an education. I don’t see how to deny (even irresponsibly large) families in need the resources they need to eat food is disconnected from the greater good, any more than locking some children out of good educational opportunities is.

  • Madame

    I agree, Theo.
    Children have the right to an education and food. And they shouldn’t have to work for that food!

    One commenter on that blog says they live by “you don’t work, you don’t eat” and has let her teens go hungry for not working. I don’t believe in making a child go hungry.

  • Sara Lin Wilde

    I think when you factor in the levels of unemployment these days, “you don’t work, you don’t eat” becomes extra problematic. I know lots of people in their twenties and thirties with multiple degrees who are working in retail and fast-food jobs, pushing teens out, because they themselves have had to compete for entry-level jobs against older adults who were in the workplace for decades before their positions dried up or got downsized. I know lots of people who would work if they could . . . but the jobs aren’t there.

  • Madame

    I think this woman makes her children go hungry if they don’t do their chores, which sound like quite a lot of work, considering they are homeschooling, QF and growing their own food.

    But you make a good point.

  • Sara Lin Wilde

    Ah, got it. I was failing to make the distinction between the QF context and a more secular “get a job” attitude towards one’s own children (and, for that matter, everyone else’s children). I think it’s interesting, though, how attitudes seem to parallel. If even your own children can’t get fed for free BY THEIR PARENTS, you’re not likely to be especially sympathetic to the needs of people who lack employment.

  • Madame

    I’ve made that observation too. I believe my children have the right to adequate food, even if they are having a lazy day. I think we send a better message if we reward children for completing jobs.

    ETA: I agree with your point, too.