Quoting Quiverfull: Outbreeding ‘Others’ to Have a Wholely White Christian Nation

Quoting Quiverfull: Outbreeding ‘Others’ to Have a Wholely White Christian Nation June 3, 2014

by Mary Pride from her book The Way Home page 80 – Evangelism Through Reproduction

We Christians can sometimes be inconsistent. We’d fight and scream if someone tried to stamp out our evangelistic efforts….Let’s say that Christians are 20 percent of the US population. If each Christian family had six children, and the humanists, feminists, and others kept on having an average of one…..then in twenty years there would be sixty of us for every forty of them. In forty years, 90 percent of America would be Christian! That is without outside evangelism. All we’d have to do would be to have children and raise them for Christ… [T]hen in two generations…we would be over 40 percent of the population.

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.

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • That_Susan

    I see that she’s promoting having more kids to make America more Christian — but I don’t see where the adjective “white” comes into the particular section of her writing that you quoted. Has she talked about this elsewhere?

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    She’s used the banned “N” word in her writings and made very racist statements on her Facebook page about blacks and hispanics. Nancy Campbell has also stated that the secondary reasoning for quiverfull is out breeding hispanics and blacks, keeping the world white Christian.

  • tulips

    Militant fecundity is certainly not a new concept, I’m just continually surprised it never occurs to the proponents of it that children who have unhappy experiences of the fantasy ideal are not terribly receptive to the rhetoric.

  • That_Susan

    Thank you for clarifying, Suzanne. I had figured that there
    must be some racist content in her writings (otherwise you wouldn’t have added the word “white” into the
    title) and maybe everyone who reads here is already well aware of this.

    I am personally not so familiar with Mary Pride myself, though, and I am concerned that if people unschooled in Quiverful stumble across this site, seeing a title like the one you gave this article coupled with a quote that says nothing about
    her racist agenda can give the impression that you’re putting words into people’s mouths.

    Since she clearly has made racist comments herself, why not add in one of those quotes, too, so the title will make more sense to those of us who are ignorant of Mary Pride?

  • JeanPing

    I agree; I’m not that familiar with Mary Pride and had no idea that she had ever said anything about any such thing. I’m a homeschooler, and I know here name, but I’m not an evangelical and I’ve never read anything by her.

  • texcee

    Hitler had a plan like this. It was to breed the pure Aryan Master Race by having acceptable German women have as many children as possible. Why does Mary Pride’s plan sound so similar?

  • Whatever happened to “God doesn’t have grandchildren”?

  • Suzanne Harper Titkemeyer

    I did. Yesterday’s post from Homeschoolers Anonymous has a quote of her using the “N” word. I’ll have to scare up some of the quotes hating on different races by her. They were posted here long ago.

  • That_Susan

    Looking at this from the standpoint of someone who might drop in and read just one article, and see some discrepancy between the title and content of that one article, I am just saying I think that if you’re calling someone racist in the title, it should be backed up by the actual content of that same article.

  • Thank you. I’m glad someone is finally realizing what is going on here. The whole point is to have the ‘right’ kids (read white). Mary Pride is one of the leading supporters of Ron Paul, who is backed by such luminaries as Stormfront, and so forth and so on. There is a very nasty streak of white supremacism running throughout the whole Ron Paul movement. One of the reasons I began studying the quiverfull agenda, then began referencing Christian Reconstruction is because of the work I’ve been doing since about 2005, tracking the movement of the nastier kind of racists, (John Birch Society, KKK, Neo-Nazis, etc). Unfortunately Christian Reconstruction, which was created by R. J. Rushdoony is patterned after the structure of the John Birch Society, of which he was tight.

    Gary North, Rushdoony’s son-in-law, is tight with Mary Pride. North is also the brains behind Ron Paul’s entire political movement. He has been writing a home-schooling curriculum for Ron Paul. From what I gather, Pride has been advising them. Gothard was part of Rushdoony’s group, but had a falling out with him over divorce. It’s that bad, that nasty, and that insidious.

    (‘Scary Gary’ is the one who is advocating for the execution of children who don’t behave. BTW)

    The white supremacist ties to the Christian Reconstruction movement run quite deep. They are always there, simmering, just under the surface. Unfortunately, with their agenda of literally taking over the country, to put godly men in power, and bring about heaven or earth. According to Rushdoony, and even North, democracy is heresy.

    I think that is the most frightening part of the entire terrifying movement. They truly do want to bring about an end to democracy as we know it. It is one of those follow the bouncing ball things. Rushdoony influenced North, who is the brains behind Ron Paul, who is tight with Mary Pride.

  • I guess it’s because Mary Pride is tight with Gary North, who is the brains behind Ron Paul, who is supported by Don Black (a neo-Nazi) who runs the infamous Stormfront forum. Yes, these people really do exist.

  • Joy

    I’ve never heard that saying. Is it common?

  • THAT assumes that the kids all toe the line and turn out to be good little god-clones. Or, they could do what my family did and each end up going his/her own way. AFAIK, the only one who is still fundy is my youngest brother and he’s more fundy lite.

  • Fledgeling Feminist

    It’s common in denominations that emphasize personal salvation experiences and baptism for believers, as opposed to assuming children of believers are part of God’s covenant and baptizing them at birth.

    Could also be said “You can’t get to heaven based on your Mama’s faith.”

    But in reality, many evanglical churches will happily baptize a 4 year old if the child can give “correct” answers, so in practice, there’s not so much difference.

  • Anonyme

    DAFUQ did I just read?

  • Nea

    Gary better be careful. If he wants to bring back biblical execution, he’ll be first against the wall for his multiple false prophecies. Some of us printed out his Y2K scaremongering. (We read it out loud at the New Year’s party and pointed and laughed.)

  • Nea

    A whole bunch of bovine byproduct. That’s what you read.

  • Nea

    Wow. That is so patently, obviously, ridiculous that I’m shocked that anyone buys it.

    Let’s unpack some of this and take a look. First, let’s see what ~240 years of American history shows to be reality:

    1) Far more than 20% of Americans identify as some variation of Christian; they’ve been the majority since before our founding… and yet they haven’t yet managed to outbreed the brown people copulate the Constitution to death push out every other adherent of every other idiology.

    2) Or stop “nones” from being the largest growing segment of the religious population, despite most parents raising their children in their own (still majority Christian) faith. Kids will walk away if Mary wants to admit it or not.

    3) The average modern family size remains ~2 children these days. Yes, that includes “atheists” and “feminists” having more than one child. Census data available shoots down Pride’s wishful thinking that the majority of her enemies have no or the minimum number of kids.

    Now let’s look at the uglier underbelly of her math. She assumes that:

    — All of her Christian kiddies will stay Christian.
    — All of her unvaccinated, herbally healed kiddies will survive to breed the next generation
    — All of the girls who survive the illnesses and the beatings called training and the lack of schooling and the “militant fecundity” will be healthy enough to produce healthy offspring able to repeat the pattern… And repeat the pattern… And repeat the pattern down the unending, ever-growing generations.
    — None of her enemies will ever use that newfangled doctorin’ to keep their children healthy
    — The fact, constantly proven around the world in every culture, that educated women who space their pregnancies are healthier and have healthier babies will magically not apply in America.

    Okay, other than all that, her plan makes total sense.

  • Allison the Great

    I’ve been studying the same thing for years. It’s good to know that I’m not the only one who’s terrified of these extremists taking over the country.

  • Allison the Great

    Yeah, they have plans that are so like the Nazi’s it’s sickening, and then they have the gaul to compare different democrats to Hitler.

  • Saraquill

    Note how she doesn’t say how all those children will stay full, clean and in loving circumstances.

  • Independent Thinker

    I just wanted to update something from your post. Ron Paul’s homeschooling curriculum is already available and no longer in development. That project has been completed but most likely will be modified in the future.


  • Independent Thinker

    She also forgot about H-B1 Visas.

  • Trollface McGee

    Thank you for that. I knew about some of Paul’s white supremacist connections but hadn’t heard of the others and any of the Reconstructionist ones. That’s truly scary, especially since he and his son are often considered the “Libertarian” candidate and the less-scary Republican option.

  • Allison the Great

    I actually didn’t know about Ron Paul until after I had been introduced into Reconstructionism, probably because I was sort of introduced the ideology in high school and Rushdoony and North were mentioned. Then when I heard that North (who is a HUGE fan of stoning people by the way, he said something about rocks being cheaper, the fucking asshole) was Paul’s campaign advisor I was weary of him and his son. It is because of their connections to Reconstructionism that I never understood the support they got from people in my age group in 2012.

  • Not in my church, where we have infant baptism, but I’ve seen references to it on other blogs.

  • Trollface McGee

    Yeah, that definitely takes it to a whole other level of crazy. I think the idea that they’re progressive comes from their opposition to the war and for marijuana legalisation but everything else is even more reactionary than most candidates.

  • Jackie

    Doesn’t matter how often I hear “fundy lite,” I still laugh out loud every time someone uses it. Well said.

  • Nea

    That’s because the only two things that count are that they have the right religion and they breed. You don’t need to be full, clean, or loved for that.

  • gimpi1

    I’ve never gotten this “outbreed the unbelievers” idea. Religion isn’t genetic. People can and do change their minds about beliefs. If fact, the whole “Joshua Generation” bust pretty much indicates her theory did not prove up.

  • gimpi1

    Wow. I thought I had some grounding in the roots of Christian Reconstruction, but I didn’t know about the Pride-Paul connection, the North-Pride connection and the North-Paul connection. I also didn’t know Gothard was in Rushdooney’s circle. The bouncing ball led to places I didn’t expect.

    I agree, they are frightening. I feel they are trying to use the democratic process to take over, and then put laws in place to force compliance with their doctrines. I also feel many conservative Christians don’t take this anywhere near seriously enough. I have spoken to people who say there aren’t Christian movements to criminalize birth-control, to deny women voting-rights, to prosecute or deport non-Christians and eventually to put an end to the democratic process and install a theocratic monarchy. They refuse to believe “good people” would be party to such things.

    As as aside, do you know if any of these folks are linked to the Christian Identity movement? I know Identity is deeply racist, anti semitic and violent.

  • gimpi1

    OK, that answers my question. They are in with Neo Nazis. Yikes!

  • Yes– I read The Way Home and there’s nothing in it, as far as I recall, about encouraging only white Christians to breed. The idea was about all evangelicals.

  • Allison the Great

    There are no “good people” who are party to such things. There horrible people who are aiming to do that, and they keep bringing up the hot button issues to stay relevant. They’re winning with creationism in schools (40% of Americans believe in creationism) and climate change denial. I don’t think they’d win with birth control or repealing women’s rights though.

    My father has always told me that while yes, we are getting more crazies on the ballots than before, once we realize their true agendas and we see the devastating impact that it has on the country, people won’t stand for it. I want to believe him, oh I want to believe him. We’ll have to see.

  • Allison the Great

    I have seen some of the quotes about this woman, and she does seem less than fond about minorities and people of color. If she’s making racist comments on her Facebook page, I can guarantee that she does mean only white people. I think Suzanne is right on this one.

  • gimpi1

    What I meant by “good people” is those in fairly conservative churches that have no truck with the Christian Reconstruction movement, yet often unknowingly support their goals.

    They may, for example, have fairly patriarchal views, but have no idea that there is a move to strip women of rights in law – they view their “headship” beliefs as personal. They don’t understand how their views are being used by groups that want to return women to being little more than chattel.

    They have conservative “small government” views, with no idea of how powerless their small government would be in the face of international corporations that would run roughshod over the environment and small landowners.

    They consider themselves “patriots” and would find Reconstructionist views about democracy horrifying, if they knew what they were. But they don’t.

    The Christian Reconstruction movement is awfully good at stealth. They run candidates that people who consider themselves conservative vote for – mostly because they are Republican – with no idea they are electing radicals that truly wish to destroy our democracy.

    I hope your dad is right. I want to believe him, too. The 2012 election-cycle saw some of the mixed nuts rejected, but by no means all. I think the jury’s still out on weather or not the Reconstructionists can fool a majority of the people long enough to seize power.

  • Try this link. The sources are excellent. It will be a good starting place. Just don’t click on a full stomach. When I first started researching this sh*t, I was physically ill. It’s that bad. http://www.talk2action.org

  • Allison the Great

    I think that’s what my dad was driving at, is that these people cannot wear the mask long enough for the people to want to vote for them. Eventually they slip up and the crazy comes out.

  • bekabot

    Sure. All you’ve got to do is make sure that your kids’ opinions never differ in any important respect from your own, and that they’ll all want to have six kids too when their turn comes ’round.

    Good luck with that, sweetie.

  • Hattie

    Word. Follow this vision and you’ll just end up with lots of pissed-off people who disagree with you.

    I guess this could work in cult-format, but that would have other drawbacks…

    Which reminds me that somebody needs to tell homeschool parents about those drawbacks. I don’t believe they’re aware.