Re: [asa] Dobson

(a) What Malthus and the later environmentalists missed was the rapid
growth of technology. Technology has always grown faster than
population. Feeding the world isn't a scarcity problem, it's primarily a
corruption problem. (And as a science fiction aficionado, George, I'd think
you'd understand that humanity will find ways and places to live however
much the population expands).

(b) But the grim reality is that when population control is made a political
priority, the resulting policies *always* include the promotion of abortion
as a form of birth control. Moreover, the net result usually is a further
devaluing of women in societies that adopt such policies.

(c) Personally, I agree with you. However, many of my Christian brothers
and sisters think otherwise, particularly the 1 billion or so Catholics
around the world (at least to the extent they are faithful to the
Magesterium). This brings up another grim reality of population control
policies: they always go hand-in-hand with religious intolerance.

An environmentalism that is linked to government population control
policies, IMHO, has to be rejected.

On 3/5/07, George Murphy <gmurphy@raex.com> wrote:
>
> Apropos the statements below on population control -
>
> a) x^n grows faster than nx - Malthus was right, though the time scale
> may be difficult to predict.
>
> b) The fact that abortion may have been used for birth control in China
> doesn't mean that it's the only means, or even the only ethical means - as
> even the Vatican
> recognizes.
>
> c) I know of no good theological argument against birth control
> (excluding abortion!) which is practiced voluntarily by a married couple.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> *To:* Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
> *Cc:* asa@calvin.edu
> *Sent:* Monday, March 05, 2007 8:44 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [asa] Dobson
>
>
> Well, it was pretty stupid of Cizik to mention population control. That
> feeds the worst fears of folks like Dobson. Frankly, it scares me as well,
> and I think Dobson's comment about forced abortion and infanticide in China
> is right on point. Christian environmentalists need to acknowledge that the
> environmental movement was dead wrong about the "population explosion" and
> must distance Christian responses to problems like gobal warming from the
> "secular" environmental movement's untoward emphasis on population control.
>
> On 3/5/07, Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dobson seems to have followed Falwell in dissing Global Warming.
> >
> > Burgy
> >
> > Date: March 5, 2007
> > From: Focus on the Family
> >
> > Dr. Dobson, Evangelical Leaders
> > Challenge Global-Warming Rhetoric
> >
> > Letter urges National Association of Evangelicals to restrain its D.Cspokesman.
> >
> > In a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), James C.
> > Dobson, Ph.D., chairman of Focus on the Family Action, joined other
> > pro-family leaders in urging the NAE to refrain from taking a position on
> > the controversial and divisive topic of global warming and other issues.
> >
> > NAE official Richard Cizik, who works in the group's Washington, D.C.,
> > office, has told the media it's indisputable that human activity has
> > contributed to global warming and has encouraged evangelicals to make it a
> > top issue. On other occasions, he's said evangelicals "must confront
> > population control."
> >
> > "We ask," Dobson and the others wrote, "how is population control going
> > to be achieved, if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to
> > the young and even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where
> > Richard Cizik would lead us?"
> >
> > To demonstrate that not all evangelicals are on board with
> > global-warming alarmism, the letter references a statement by the Interfaith
> > Stewardship Alliance that challenges common assumptions about global
> > warming.
> >
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Mar 5 22:41:37 2007