Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Two Kids!?



Yesterday, the chairman of Britain’s Sustainable Development Commision, Sir Jonathon Porritt, ventured into new frontiers of Green movement nuttiness.
Mr. Porritt gave the press a preview of the main conclusions of his commission’s proposals for England’s environmental policy, to be released next month.
He says curbing population growth, through federal investment in contraception and abortion, and encouraging citizens to recognize their moral responsibility by limiting their procreation to a maximum of two children per couple, must be at the heart of Britain’s global warming policies.
The only way to understand how such a mainstream scientist could fall into the clutches of such unscientific ideology, is to consider the nihilistic philosophy of life prevalent among many of the cultural elite of Western Europe and to some degree of America too.
They have not only rejected the sacredness of human life by denying the Sacred; they have emptied human life of all transcendent purpose.
Keep in mind as you read this that Mr. Porritt is not an irrelevant mad scientist on the fringes of society.
He is employed by the British government to draft policy. Here are a few of his most salient quotes, as reported by The Sunday Times: “I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate.” “I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” [procreation] word.”

His deduction is almost logical if you support two arguments: 1) you believe all the catastrophic global warming predictions, including who is to blame (humans) and 2) if you share the world view that humans exist to be at the service of a sacred earth, and not the other way around.
The internal, twisted logic goes like this: The environment is sacred; we know with certainty global warming will be devastating for the environment; it is undisputable fact that global warming is mostly caused by humans; reversing human behavior may save us from our imminent demise; therefore, the best solution is to get rid of some humans, beginning with the undesirables.

Yes, beginning with the undesirables, as defined by Mr. Porritt. Apparently oblivious to the declining birthrate among Britons (currently 1.7 children per family) and appalled by teenagers who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, Mr. Porritt complains: “We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.”
Did I hear that right? We should make sure teenage mothers abort their children, for the sake of the environment? And it’s the British government’s responsibility to convince these women to choose that they don’t really want to become mothers? And, simultaneously, the government should convince the liberal, educated elite (the only ones who will pay attention to such government warnings), to limit their procreation to two children per couple, for the sake of the environment?
Is there no thought given to the horrors of government sponsored eugenics? Or to the need for human intelligence in the development of green technologies? Has Mr. Porritt considered who will take up his cause when he passes away? The only way to understand how such a mainstream scientist could fall into the clutches of such unscientific ideology, is to consider the nihilistic philosophy of life prevalent among many of the cultural elite of Western Europe and to some degree of America too.
They have not only rejected the sacredness of human life by denying the Sacred; they have emptied human life of all transcendent purpose. They have replaced man’s natural search for inter-personal righteousness with a new and easy godless ethic of “Green,” where the earth is the victim of human existence, and humans, ironically, are the only ones who can save it.

Yes, the tale of the new Green superhero–the one we are creating today by accepting the prophets of environmental doom–can only end with a man standing naked on the edge of a cliff, having freed the earth of every other human aggressor, and every other evil product of his making, and having the great courage to jump into oblivion.
God bless,
Father Jonathan

3 comments:

D.Richmond said...

My FORMER Pastor was pursuing a Doctorate in Environmental Science and once told me in a bible study class
1. one way to fight poverty in Africa was to limit human reproduction
AND
2. Americans should consider having less children in order to sustain the environment.

How can a person supposedly ordained by God actually preach the world's agenda over God's truth and not feel guily about it or fear God's retribution?

John, Sandra and Sofia Seaman said...

sustain the environment? His ideology is mistaken and out of order from God's purporse. I'm glad he's your former pastor.

Brook B. said...

These people whom share this belief of limiting population are
1. God's lost children who have not found him or his truth yet.
2. Not the most intellegent people (such as Nancy Pelosi) seeing as the biggest economic problems America faces are the housing market and car dealerships failing and what will it take to turn these businesses around... MORE PEOPLE to be able to purchase them.

I found it even funnier that the democrats in America and Nancy Pelosi were able to twist it into there mind that this suggestions should fit into the 819 million dollar stimulus package.