They say that university campuses are the driving force behind all the major political movements these days…well at least those on The Left. I was waiting for this to happen though:
Sydney’s Cardinal Pell heavily criticized an Australian medical journal for publishing a professor’s letter calling for a tax on children of $5000 per child and $800 yearly for each child after birth, as punishment for parents who have families larger than two children.
…
Dr. Barry Walters condemned Australia’s “baby bonus” program, writing that “showering financial booty on new mothers” encouraged “greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour” and that Australia should adopt population plans similar to those in India or China. Trees should be planted to negate the ecological effect of every child born, he said.
But Cardinal Pell said that anti-human environmental proposals from extremist minorities were the real cause for concern.
Sadly, extremist minorities, the likes of which we saw around here courtesy of Atheism’s American high priest, soon become oppressive majorities after they use their influence in the education system to brainwash enough young voters to militantly support the agenda in question.
Just for the record as well, it’s not like India (whose culture is known to mimic ancient Rome’s and prefer male babies while slaughtering its daughters — feminists? feminists?!) or China export there excess human capital to other nations like our grande immigration scheme in this country likes to imagine. The bodies pile up pretty fast.
This professor’s letter also begs the question of what would happen if expectant parents aren’t able to pay a sickening carbon tax on newborns. Does the state then empower itself to violate the mother physically and abort the child? (Feminists? Feminists?!) The only crime that I can see the armies of The Left truly convicting this professor of is demonstrating modern liberalism’s true agenda of pursuing a Utopian world (which won’t work under real-world circumstances) through means that would make Hitler, Stalin, et al blush in jealousy. At least the ancients, as primative as I’ve been told they were in comparison to our highly evolved brains and culture, were honest enough to admit when all they wanted was a good old genocide to appease their blood-thirsty gods!
dalton wrote:
So a professor writes a letter to a journal, and this is indicative that “the Left” is calling for “genocide to appease their blood-thirsty gods!”
I’m not sure you’ve really established a very compelling logical connection there, Matt.
I read a letter in the weekend Citizen disputing the need for a handgun ban in Ontario, by which I suppose I could conclude, with equal logic, that “the Right” is trying to promote Wild-West style massacres and Gun Battles In Our Streets”. But that would be a silly, hysterical hyperbole, generated without logic from an insufficient sample. So I won’t.
Do thou likewise.
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 5:52 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
I have no idea where the secularists are taking us but they are fighting fire with fire. What the State gives, the State can take away. The non-secularists should appreciate that if they demand “baby bonus” payments by the power of the State, the secularists can exercise that same power in reverse.
The non-secularists should start using their own power in their own houses. I prefer taking this:
Cardinal Pell to Pro-Abortion Politicians: “How come you feel that you’re able to go to Communion?”
one step further and I ask “How come you priests give communion to pro-abortion politicians?”
I do not want to be too narrow-minded and focus my comment on Catholics alone because all Christians generally condemn abortion. Christian leaders of all denominations should join hands and call out pro-abortion politicians. Why is that not happening???
It would be marvelous to hear news headlines of high profile politicians being ostracized by their own churches.
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 6:35 am | Permalink
jmrSudbury wrote:
Churches have been worried about shrinking attendence for decades. Ostracizing high profile politicians worry some about pushing more away from the church. Too bad it is actually opposite in that not ostracizing makes them look like hypocrites that won’t practice what they preach.
John M Reynolds
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 9:39 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Charles Anthony,
You’re right at least about how churches need to step up their actions to match their words — no complaints here! However, I’d bet $5000 on the spot that as soon as one church did such a thing, the Secularist dogmatists would be screaming blue murder, how this was the same as Islamic terrorism, there should be a separation of church and state, yada, yada…
As for the baby bonus argument, that kind of logic sets a very dangerous precedent. Again I ask, can the government force an abortion on a woman whose family cannot pay such an outrageous tax? What of the young girl who truly does want to have a baby and can afford to go through with the pregnancy, but not if an extra $8000 is tacked on? Is human life now worth $8000?! Since when does the government have the right to tax my very existance?
Look, I know many governments in history have done just such things, including tax as you have suggested. I’m saying though that this is the most morally reprehensible act of environazism that I have seen yet, and it’s all going to appease the earth goddess that the granola crowd is shoving down our throats as we speak (so much for separation of church and state, eh?).
No matter how you cut it, a head tax (and that is exactly what it is!) designed to promote the moral belief that humans are harming the balance of nature is a law with moral fibers in it. Unlike anti-abortion laws though, which is also a morally based law, this one is of the evil that we’ve only heard of in communist and fascist regimes. Have we “progressed” to the point where unadulterated genocide is now being proposed to keep our happy little world neutered?
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 9:43 am | Permalink
jmrSudbury wrote:
What would the new parents be paying for? Is it a $5000 charge for the right to have a baby while abortions are still provided free of charge from our healthcare system? That can’t be right!
Then again, after a generation or two, only those that feel it is proper to have a family under such pressure would have kids would pony up the money and teach their kids to get rid of the law once all the secularists have won their darwin awards.
John M Reynolds
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 10:10 am | Permalink
dalton wrote:
“No matter how you cut it, a head tax (and that is exactly what it is!) designed to promote the moral belief that humans are harming the balance of nature is a law with moral fibers in it.”
Hmm. So is it your view that unlimited population growth has no negative impacts?
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 10:28 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Matthew, I agree with you that “this is the most morally reprehensible act of environazism” whole-heartedly. However, somebody has to pay for environmental damage and the secularists are technically right: with less people, there will be less environmental damage. [They would be MORE right if they said that with less government activity, there would be less environmental damage but I doubt I will get them to advocate scaling back government.]
I do not care how the heathens will react with my proposal of ostracism. If they want to scream blue murder, let them. If they want to demand the separation of church and state, well, guess what? that is exactly what I am proposing: statesmen should be separated from the Church.
“Again I ask, can the government force an abortion on a woman whose family cannot pay such an outrageous tax?”
I do not understand why you are asking that question. Technically, a government can do whatever it wants. In Canada, all you need is some appearance of a majority vote. If you are asking if a government should force an abortion, in my opinion, it should not. I doubt that surprises you.
“Since when does the government have the right to tax my very existance?”
Since the day that people expected government to be responsible for picking up garbage, recycling junk and shoveling the snow.
I find your question to be peculiar. Are you ready to advocate the abolition of government?
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 11:45 am | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Hi Charles Anthony,
Maybe this would help a great deal as well; I did a post on Marc Emery the other week and actually agree that, technically, government has the power to do all these things, including abortorape a woman to reduce the population or kill someone. I am not calling for the abolition of government but I find it very concerning, although not surprising, that we have moved from a culture that understands that we have natural rights, to one that says we have government-mandated rights, to one that gave us rights*…most of the time, but with exceptions where the government decides and now we are moving in the direction of abolishing rights altogether for the sake of the public good, or so they say. Things are coming full circle.
Mark Steyn did cover this self-destructive policy of trying to shrink ourselves via population control in America Alone (I highly recommend the book). Among the other flaws that this theory has, one is that Muslim nations and African nations are bucking the trend and are the ones that will be having population growth still as we begin to see an actual shrinkage over the next 30 years. Even if that didn’t happen though, the moral outrage of some people telling other people when and when they can’t have kids should send a chill down anyone’s spine who believes in the true concept of human rights, especially when it is predicated on *predictions* of the future.
Finally, I was wondering by your comment about church and state if you could clarify; do you mean that no person involved with a church/mosque/etc should be involved with running the state? Should all ideologies be left at the door (if so, how would a partisan go about this/is this truly democracy)? What of United Church members who actively endorse gay marriage and abortion?
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 12:58 pm | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
Before answering your specific questions, Matt, I must unashamedly make something very clear: I do not believe that statesmen have any moral prerogative to govern. I do not think we ever had “a culture that understands that we have natural rights” as you say because, in essence, the existence of government depends on the violation of rights. It is only natural for government to grow and as such, that means a creeping encroachment of freedom.
Now that you understand that I am an anarchist, my answer to your question “do you mean that no person involved with a church/mosque/etc should be involved with running the state?” should be obvious: of course not. I do not believe anybody should be involved with running a state and that includes clergy. I genuinely believe that statesmanship is immoral on principle. The fact that states endorse immorality is no surprise to me.
“Should all ideologies be left at the door (if so, how would a partisan go about this/is this truly democracy)?”
Democracy is such a variable and subjective concept that I genuinely do not care.
Now, about “United Church members who actively endorse gay marriage and abortion” as you ask, I will just say that if I were them, I would fear for my salvation. What else can I do?
Posted on 21-Jan-08 at 4:21 pm | Permalink