Read the story below at Faith and Freedom Network. Know where the battle is coming from ladies. Pray and be ready to face this attack. It maybe on many of our doorsteps soon (friends, neighbors, relatives, even pulpits). Do not let these alarmist change your mind about your family size. Do not let fear of man change your mind about family size. I realize not everyone who reads this blog maybe lead to trust God with their family size/birth control, but I hazard to guess that most of you are keen to have or have had more than the "replacement value" family size.
I would love to see a study done that compares expenses and carbon output of that family with two children, verses a large family. Not based on per family unit, but broken down per person. To my knowledge, larger family's usually live in less square footage "per person" than the smaller family (you know, divide your homes square footage by the number of people living in your home - we lived in 1900 sq. ft. with 13 in our family, which is a modest 146 sq. ft. per person. A family of 4 living in a typical starter home probably is living in close to 1200 sq. ft, a whopping 300 sq. ft. per person!) . The larger families may use a larger vehicle, but like us, we have 14 people in that vehicle which makes it more economical and "earth" friendly than putting our family into three "efficient" cars that seat 4-5 people. Most large families learn to make things from scratch, eat out less, are very frugal and re-use or buy used items than that two income, two child family. Yes, more children cost more, but I think if you break it down and divide the costs per person over the 2 child family, the larger families are much more cost efficient, and would even be "greener" . So, limiting the amount of children you have to "save the planet" would seem to be totally debunked. What do you think?
Just when you think you’ve heard it all – you discover you haven’t.
When singer Sheryl Crow suggested that people use less toilet paper in order to save the planet, I thought that might well be the low point in the eco-movement.
But it wasn’t.
I personally wouldn’t have paid much attention to a report that was released a couple of weeks ago by a small environmental research group in Britain except that major news sources around the world have ended up carrying the report.
Optimum Population Trust (OPT) is now saying that in order to stop global warming, people should not only drive smaller cars, recycle, etc., but now, “must limit the number of children one has.” (Click here for story). They say, “The most effective national and global climate-change strategy is limiting the size of the population.”
The zero population idea is not new. There were those pushing that idea in the late 60’s – maybe before that, but now it has a new home. It fits comfortably with Al Gore’s global warming movement – and the press is loving it.
And speaking of Al Gore. I guess he, too, would be out of step with this new-found friend of the extreme left. He has four kids. But then, he also creates a little more carbon than the average person in his private homes and travel.
OPT says, “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do. Such as switching off lights. The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account.”
When life is devalued, as it is in our so-called pro-choice culture, these kinds of ideas are not only birthed, but promoted. We are created in the image of God and to suggest that the planet would be better off without us contradicts the design of the Creator.
These kinds of ideas view people and animals as equals and now we the people have altered the balance and that makes us bad.
There is something fundamentally wrong with seeing everything on the planet as “natural” except for humans.
This is the extreme, bizarre end of the environmental movement that denies the Creator. A part of this is humorous; a much greater part is not.
This kind of global warming alarmism is less a scientific issue and more a political issue.
With Sheryl Crow calling for people to use less toilet paper, Al Gore on Capitol Hill predicting “the end is near," and Congress considering a bill that would mandate what light bulbs we can use, it’s time to recognize this for what it is. It’s a political eco-movement with the hopes of getting some of the most extreme among us elected to office.
A biblical world view calls for environmental stewardship with a natural order that gives mankind dominion or responsibility for the creation. To suggest that humans are alien and have been merely dropped off on the planet by some evolutionary process is far more dangerous than any amount of carbon dioxide.
We are seeing the results of the push for a secular society in this kind of nonsense.
Gary Randall President Faith & Freedom
5 comments:
I'm at a loss for words. All I can say is, "WOW". =0|
I know I'm much more efficient in just about every way imaginable now that I'm growing our fourth child than I was when we had just one. In fact, I believe we are better for the environment now than I was all by myself. I've never understood what it is about large families that just seem to be so attractive to those who want to attack with these strange statements.
Large families are very good for the economy. We need more items, therfor there are more items sold and more jobs out there!
Part of me just gets so mad at these false reports, but really its just a sign of the end times. One day closer to Jesus returning, but its also one day closer to the chaos and horror that is going to happen before His return.
Are you so busy with wedding plans that you don't have time to blog?
Its been awhile!
Jerri,
Interesting thing I heard on NPR about Global Warming that you would think is funny. Evidently studies show that one moose's droppings per year equal (I think it was) 4 suvs emissions per year. Perhaps we are kicking ourselves by outlawing moose hunting. ;-)
Post a Comment