For the last few years, NAE's Vice President for Government Affairs has been adding fuel to the fire of the global warming debate and giving the impression that not only NAE but Evangelicals at large agree with the hysteria of the global warming crowd. While there is growing consensus that the earth is warming slightly, there is no consensus that humans are the main cause. Those pushing global warming are proposing a radical agenda as the solution to a problem that is not yet fully understood. In part, this solution calls for population control, which is code for abortions, condom distribution and mass sterilization.
Here is what NAE's Vice President, Rich Cizik, said at the World Bank last year:
"I'd like to take on the population issue...Population is a much more dangerous issue to touch... We need to confront population control and we can-we're not Roman Catholics-but it's too hot to handle now."
After a press report last month that said NAE was in an unprecedented collaboration with scientists to advance policies to address global warming, NAE released a statement saying that only Mr. Cizik was involved in the effort. The confusion in the press is understandable. We've asked NAE to make its positions clear and to ensure their representatives in Washington represent their official position not their own personal priorities.
Comments (4)
The point about population is valid. Its really the elephant in the corner. A problem, a really big problem thats not going away, but that noone wishes to recognise because when it is eventually tackled the means required are going to be unpleasant.
The earth is finite. Its resources are finity. Sooner or later, global population is going to reach not just the maximum sustainable limit but the maximum limit, period. If it isn't stablised by artificial means before that point, then it will be limited by natural means. That is, disease and starvation.
Its not a serious threat now, but another fifty or a hundred years and there will be an urgent need to do something. The only really successful program for now is that of China, and thats a little too oppressive really. Better than no attempt at all, but I think it can be bettered.
March 6, 2007 2:49 PM | Comment Permalink
I'm fairly optimistic about both global warming and population.
I do believe that global warming is real, and that human activity is driving factor. But I think technolgy will be able handle it.
As to population, the developed world seems to be more concerned about their stable or falling rates than overpopulation. I believe the US could use more people not less, but we don't have to ramp up pur birthrate since we can absorb a lot of immigrants. And our immigrants reduce the population of the countries from where they come.
In the developing world, I think once these countries become wealthier, their populations will stabilize.
I don't know about China and India, though.
March 6, 2007 4:35 PM | Comment Permalink
I agree completely with the views of the FRC on global warming. Frankly I don't have much regard for my children's future either. I'm here now and that's all that matters. God works in mysterious ways, and the slow death of the Earth and its' inhabitants is just one of those ways. Godspeed Tony!
Joey Fredrick
March 9, 2007 7:09 PM | Comment Permalink
There is a lot of discussion on population control- which of course is a factor, but what about the way we eat? Look at the biblical diet. You will see some mention of meat eating, but always in a ceremonial/celebratory fashion. The way most people ate was quite simply a predominately vegetarian diet- whole grains, legumes, fruits and some vegetables.
I'm disappointed in the FRC's 'stand' on global warming. What is there to be afraid of? Besides global warming, of course. The fact is that we are already seeing shifts in temperature and damage to the environment- the people that are seeing it the most are those that are the least responsible for it. I see the focus of the religious right as a very self-centered, almost idolatrous focus on humans and our 'right' to USE, and use up whatever the cost.
I love babies. I have four boys of my own, and wouldn't trade them for anything- but we are raising them to be respectful of the precious natural world that God gave us to care for. And here is my point- if we don't have a world that is livable, we won't need to worry about any other agenda. Is that the idea the FRC is putting forth?
And I dearly hope that Joey Frederick is joking in his comment- of course, his is a prime example of the idolatrous focus that I put forth earlier.
March 15, 2007 9:57 AM | Comment Permalink