Anglican Church accused of paganism, advocating genocide
As I noted in my earlier miscellaneous comment and as was reported in the Melbourne Age of 9 May 2010, the Anglican church has rightly called for both a decrease in natural population growth and a decrease in Australia's current record high rate of immigration. The Citizens Electoral Council, which believes that not only Australia, but the whole world, is underpopulated, responded, on 11 May 2010, with one of its typical hyperbolic media releases. The CEC accused the church of promoting the British Royal Family's secret plan to cull the world's human population. It also accused it of promoting pagan beliefs in support of preserving the natural world, rather than what it held to be true Christianity focussed solely on what is (supposedly) good for the human species.
Below I reproduce the whole media release, together with my responses.
The Anglican Church General Synod paper can be downladed from here (pdf 277K),
#dfdfdf;">The Church of England in Australia is pushing the agenda of its church leader, Queen Elizabeth II, and her husband Prince Philip, to cull the world's human population.
#dfdfdf;">In a March discussion paper, the Anglican Public Affairs Commission has echoed Prince Philip's call for genocide to preserve ecology, linking overpopulation and ecological degradation:
My response: A human plague would cause "genocide", not population targets.
Out of care for the whole of creation, particularly the poorest of humanity and the life forms who cannot speak for themselves ... it is not responsible to stand by and remain silent, the commission paper said. Looking for a practical application of their genocide doctrine, the Anglicans called for reduced immigration and an end to childbirth incentives.
My response: Letting people live in their own country is their definition of "genocide"? Family planning is not "genocide". How can those not even conceived be killed?
All policies of ‘population-control' or ‘population-stabilisation' are genocide,"Mr Isherwood charged.
My response: How does this logic work? Genocide by definition is: "The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group". On the contrary, mass immigration is blurring national boundaries and ethnic and national groups. Stabilising population is about protecting human lives, of now and future generation, and is in our best interests.
The sanctimonious Synod won't admit that in polite company, but the British monsters who cooked up this evil--from Malthus to Prince Philip--are explicit about it.
My response: What's Prince Philip got to do with Australia's immigration policies?
Anglican Parson Thomas Malthus, was on the payroll of the rapacious East India Company when he wrote his 1798 essay The Principle of Population, with its popularised fraud that because human population grows geometrically, it outstrips food production which only grows arithmetically; the solution, the devout churchman said, was to make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. ... and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate [condemn--Ed.] specific remedies for ravaging diseases ... .
My response: How are humans different from any other species without predators and natural enemies to stop their destructive over-population? Malthus was ahead of his times. Overpopulation is the cause of terror, wars, diseases, conflict and famine.
Prince Philip, the husband of the Church of England's "Defender of the Faith", was as explicit as Malthus: You cannot keep a bigger flock of sheep than you are capable of feeding. In other words conservation may involve culling in order to keep a balance between the relative numbers in each species within any particular habitat. I realise this is a very touchy subject, but the fact remains that mankind is part of the living world. ... Every new acre brought into cultivation means another acre denied to wild species.
My response: Since when did environmental responsibility and not overstocking the paddocks become "culling"? Once the paddock is full, it is negative returns for the farmer.
Mr Isherwood said the Synod's position on this issue was paganism:
This is not Christianity; it is the Cult of Gaia--Mother Earth--worship, an age old superstition used by the oligarchy to subdue the masses, he said.
In true Christianity, human beings are not animals, but each individual is created in the image of God, and each individual human life is sacred.
My response: The "image of God" was in Genesis, before the Fall, not now! If we are in the state of sin, we are not "sacred". That's why Jesus had to die on the cross - as a redemption.
#dfdfdf;">That Christian idea actually expresses the unique human quality of creative reason, by which human beings make the scientific discoveries which produce the new technologies that enable humans to support expanding populations.
My response: Our finite planet, and natural resources, won't keep expanding, and this is clear today. There is no biblical basis whatsoever for this idea.
Australia isn't overpopulated--what a sick joke! Australia is grossly underpopulated, and if we unleash the creativity of Australians and the people who wish to become Australians, to develop large-scale water infrastructure, green the deserts, harness nuclear power, pioneer nuclear fusion, launch a space program and everything else we could do, there is absolutely no limit to our nation's growth.
My response: The degradation of soils, waterways, the Murray river, loss of biodiversity, climate change, peak oil and peak everything are signs that Australia is already overpopulated -- as is the rest of the planet. Basing human population growth policies on yet to be achieved scientific achievements and exploration is dubious policy-making, to say the least!
Adhering to and preaching obsolete ideals, even when those ideals fly in the face of the mathematical and scientific reality, and is mis-representing Christian doctrine and our responsibility to care for Creation.
There is no God-given mandate that permits humanity to liquidate ecosystems that are needed for our shared survival just because of our economic and social systems demand growth. Already we have ecosystems and finite natural resources being consumed at peak levels. Ecosystems, including forests, water, oceans, fish stocks, waterways, wetlands are under stress, and with the overlay of climate change, could collapse large portions of the Earth and cause famine and drought - and ultimately become uninhabitable. We could be the next threatened species!
“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
– Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society
Recent comments