Sometimes it’s instructive to read articles like these. To summarize: a leftist, anti-religious writer for the on-line version of the SF Chronicle finds it offensive that a woman just had her 16th child.
We keep on hearing from the secular world about how intolerant and judgmental we Christians are. Hmmm. Tolerance from the fanatically secular? Not likely.
What a “tolerant” liberal that columnist is. He displayed almost every vile characteristic of which liberals accuse conservatives.
Usually I’m all for liberal skewerings of right-wing lunacy, and to be honest, 16 kids does sound a little extreme (I can well imagine that on occasion one of those siblings does think, “boy, it would be nice if I were more, you know, ‘unique'”), but still….
….that article is nasty, and the columnist should be ashamed.
Still, is there anything new about it? It’s easy to find excess and hypocrisy on both sides of the spectrum.
A truly appalling article.
“What a “tolerant” liberal that columnist is. He displayed almost every vile characteristic of which liberals accuse conservatives.”
I’m pretty sure this is by design. If you dig around a little you’ll see that this columnist has carved out the intolerant, angry liberal niche for himself. He proudly places this quote at the top of his archive page:
I guess it sells papers (in SF, at least).
Even considering all that, it’s a terrible piece.
I’d never before seen a complaint about a family being all of one race.
John, that was what stuck out to me, too. It’s so disgusting how non-diverse those kids are.
Not only are there 16 of them, but they have “alarmingly bad hair.” Must be one of the 7 deadly sins of SF. Disgusting article.
I have always said the political spectrum is actually a circle and when you get to the far left or the far right you realize you are both standing in the same place.
Ben,
Having come from a family of seven, I think there actually might be some relation between family size and “alarmingly bad hair.” The four of us boys really did have bad hair, way into high school (some of us still do!). As for the three girls, their hair was certainly better, and at least consistent with “1980s little girl Utah hair.” (In other words, possibly bad hair, though probably not “alarmingly” bad.) Good thing my parents did not have even more kids!
Davis, #3, I agree with you that hypocrisy is everywhere (I’ve been guilty of it myself every once in a while). And there have been times I’ve been guilty of being too judgmental. Unfortunately, this article is symptomatic of some things that are remarkable. The first is that the SF Chronicle is not a small newspaper. It is one of the 10 largest in the United States, the largest by far in Northern California (where I grew up and went to school). It is very influential in its sphere. Articles like this are approved by editors. So, to me it is extraordinary that nobody at the Chronicle was capable of saying, “wow, don’t you think this column goes a bit far?” Imagine if every stereotype in the article were aimed at gays, for example. Can you imagine any editor approving it and allowing it to run? There are comments that are not acceptable in polite company these days. You can’t insult people because of their race or because of their sexual orientation (and I think that’s a wonderful change, btw), but it IS OK to insult Christians, and that’s shameful, frankly. The other point is that there is apparently an audience out there that will agree with this writer. In fact, based on my experience, a rather large audience. And that is truly scary.
I have to admit I got a kick out of the fact that he presumes to insert in his article what God wants – yeah, like you’re the best person for that…
I don’t read carefully, not on purpose, a comprehension problem, so I may have missed something in his article. I agreed with what I did get. I think Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are a joke, too.
But you know, 16 kids just seems crazy to me. I heard about that on the Today show awhile back and I thought, “those people are crazy.” I can’t imagine why on God’s green earth a woman would want to go through that 14 times. It hurts, you guys. Plus it’s really hard on your body. She must truly be a superwoman or her older kids must help a lot.
I’d like to see how those kids are doing in twenty years. I can’t remember which is the rule, spell out small numbers or large ones.
I don’t see this as a liberal or conservative thing, just a common sense thing. No offense to anybody who has large families. But this is not a large family. It’s a gigantic family.
Nothing in this article was at all surprising to me.
20 years ago it would not have run. But today in the secular section of American society this type of thinking is not uncommon. LDS families with 3-5 children get a negative reaction from securalists all the time. My wife and I get negative comments from time to time while out with our 4 kids 5 and under. We generally get positive comments from older people and more negative comments from younger people.
Think of the political leanings of the paper that ran this. Just a thought.
Also this is a clash of the extremes though. 16 kids is really extreme and the writer is really extreme.
I don’t think that every article carried on SFgate.com runs in the print version of the Chronicle.
I’m pretty sure that we’re reacting in precisely the way the columnist intended us to—that is, by assimilating his patently absurd rhetoric to the more reasonable tones of the left, and thus making us look like the hysterical overreactors.
Still, though, he got my blood boiling pretty good.
I don’t see how this is a liberal/conservative thing or a secular/religious thing. It’ll take you about 30 seconds to find articles at least as rude from just about any viewpoint. Using it to bash non-religious people is just as bad as someone using an intolerant post by a Mormon to bash Mormonism.
Rosalynde is dead on — that Morford just got a rise out of you is exactly what he was hoping for, Geoff. And several dozen extra hits on the website just from M* readers.
It’s not unlike the protestors outside General Conference. They don’t expect to convert you standing there on the street; what they’re really there for is to get you mad at them. And people fall for it time after time.
As Adam already alluded, you could go to World Net Daily or others of such ilk and find just as outrageous writings on the other end of the spectrum with just as many (or more) readers.
Chad too and Adam are correct that both sides of the political spectrum can be rude and nasty.
BUT…. nastiness towards middle class families with kids is a part of the secular agenda. Check out the exit poll data from the 2004 election. A large percentage of married couples with children voted one way. It hits hard at the LDS because we are…… Middle classs with (some of us) lots of kids. If it did not have a resonance with a LDS audience it never would have been featured in this blog.
“I have always said the political spectrum is actually a circle and when you get to the far left or the far right you realize you are both standing in the same place. “
Me and the other Monarchists, when we’re celebrating Militia Week down at the John Birch Society, we always complain about them Christians havin’ big families and raising ’em Christian, plus they’re all white. That really gets our blood boiling.
[GRIN]
No, I understand the point, which is that no group is free from fools and bigots, including the right, including Mormons, including big family advocates, etc. But may I venture to suggest that this doesn’t excuse the foolishness and bigotry, or prevent us from reacting to it? It may not allow us to judge secular leftism in general, not in isolation, but it certainly does tell us something about the author–God have mercy on him–and his newspaper.
And in certain times and places, certain kinds of foolishness and bigotry are more dangerous, and therefore more culpable, than others.
Random thoughts —
1. The article is heinous, of course.
2. There are major purveyors of insulting, intolerant op-eds on both sides of the political spectrum. Think Ann Coulter.
3. This fellow is no more representative of “secular America” than the “God hates fags” nuts are representative of “religious America.”
Just look at the political implications in two generations. If their 16 kids average another 16 kids each … and they all stay in Arkansas, that’s probably enough adult voters to ensure Arkansas votes a certain way.
🙂
Meanwhile, the SF writer will have left no one behind.
The article is horrible, but while reading it all I could think of was how little time child number 7 probably gets to spend with their parents one-on-one. I wished for more time with my mom and dad, and we only had 5 kids in our family.
I never have found “well, the other side is just as bad too” a very convincing argument.
seriously, nothing wrong with having any amount of children, but i would suppose that if the family is not capable of taking care of them, then perhaps they should be counselled or something, or even better, just plain well ‘Helped!’…I am sure there are ‘problem’ children in that family, but the probability is no higher than any size family that there are problems. ADHD, depressed, bewildered, sure, all that probably goes on, but so does it happen in my own home with only 3 children with ages ranging from 10 to 16. All 3 of my children have some sort of issues, but they function and sometimes I am more than grateful for that!!
author of the article is overtly ridiculous to say that it is a ‘horrible mess’ (paraphrased), but who cares, bad hair and all, they seem pretty normal for the most part from what you could expect from a family full of 18 people!! Hey, at least they get the 7000sq. ft house — ‘sufficient for their needs’!!
My wife met a missionary on his mission that came from a family in Norway of, get this, 24 children, and he was one of the eldest. Nothing wrong with the guy though, he was a hard worker and had a great attitude, and more importantly, he loved his heritage!! Seemed to be alright for them, then why not this family in Arkansas!?!?
We had a branch president who had 13 kids in his family. They were all very well behaved, and the house was much tidier than houses I’d been in where there were “only” 3-4 kids. The branch president’s family picked a different country to learn about each month, and at the end of the month, they made a big dinner with food from that culture. No, they didn’t each have “a decent pair of designer jeans” but they knew they were loved. But if your goal is to make sure your kids have cutting-edge hairstyles, maybe you should stop at eight…Something tells me the SFgate.com writer hasn’t actually MET the Duggars to assess the mental health of their kids, and I suspect he isn’t really rated to do so anyways.
Kaimi, (#21), if this writer had written in an obscure leftist or secular magazine, I would not have linked his article. There are all kinds of kooks on the right and left who have all kinds of alarming opinions, and those opinions are not noteworthy. But please tell me that last time a MSM newspaper with a circulation similar to the SF Chronicle printed an article in its on-line edition with such vitriole. If you can find a similar article for example giving equal time to “God hates fags” writers, then I’ll agree with your #21. But I doubt you can. In the MSM, such rhetoric is reserved for attacking Christians and right-wingers.
I’m not sure if having 16 kids is something that agrees with my principles, but I’m sure I could muster more reaosnable criticism than the linked article. For example, the most cogent criticism (“If you have an interest in a huge family, why not have a bunch of your own kids and then adopt some kids who need good homes?”) doesn’t even pop up.
It’s interesting to note that nobody has commented on the fact that the Duggars are doing pretty well in one category: they are being fruitful and multiplying. Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying everybody has to have 16 kids or even three kids (every circumstance is different), but I am saying that the Lord has commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, and this particular family is fulfilling that commandment.
I had nothing but pure admiration for that family. They seem truly blessed.
Amen.
18
It’s not unlike the protestors outside General Conference. They don’t expect to convert you standing there on the street; what they’re really there for is to get you mad at them. And people fall for it time after time.
Actually, getting us angry with them causes us to lose the Holy Ghost, which is a conversion from a Spirit-led person to a contentious one like them. If you only have an intellectual belief, their stunts won’t work. But if you have a witness-from-the-Spirit testimony, they causing you to lose the Spirit by anger is a de-conversion. The things of the Spirit then become foolishness to us. What more than that could they and Satan seek?
Here are some more comments:
“We cannot have the companionship of the Holy Ghost – the medium of individual revelation – if we are in transgression or if we are angry.” – Dallin Oaks
“The Spirit of God never generates contention. It never generates the feelings of distinctions between people which lead to strife. It leads to personal peace and a feeling of union with others. It unifies souls. A unified family, a unified Church, and a world at peace depend on unified souls.” –Henry B. Eyring
“When you are angry, you no longer are seeking the truth – you are seeking to defend your own actions.” – Terri Ogden
“To hallow my life, [God] taught me to endure sorrow rather than cause it, to restrain anger rather than heed it, to bear injustice rather than inflict it. ‘Resist not evil,’ [Jesus] said in the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew 5:39.) Evil multiplies by the response it seeks to provoke, and when I return evil for evil, I engender corruption myself. The chain of evil is broken for good when a pure and loving heart absorbs a hurt and forbears to hurt in return. The forgiveness of Christ bears no grudge. The love of Christ allows no offense to endure. The compassion of Christ embraces all things and draws them toward himself. Deep within every child of God the light of Christ resides, guiding, comforting, purifying the heart that turns to him.” – Dennis Rasmussen, “The Lord’s Questionâ€
“No one can be classed as a true follower of the Savior who is not in the process of removing from his heart and mind every feeling of ill will, bitterness, hatred, envy, or jealousy toward [others].” – H. Burke Peterson
32.
(Omitted the closing quote)
29 For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.
30 Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.
(3 Nephi 11)