[Vision2020] Population

[Tom Hansen]

Chasuk stated:

"I'm just saying that the reason for Tom's mockery in this case is deserved,
or at least understandable."

The posted signature on several of my postings is NOT a mockery, Chasuk.  It
is simply a direct quote from Douglas Farris - nothing more, nothing less.
The intended purpose of adopting this signature is to reflect on one of the
many stated concepts supported by Douglas farris.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"As more and more heathens 'choose' to not have children the number of Godly
souls will increase. If the number of Christian births out number the number
of Islamic births the battle will be over in 3 or 4 generations."

- Doug "No-Clue" Farris (March 10, 2007) 

-----Original Message-----
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Chasuk
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:27 PM
To: Pat Kraut
Cc: vision2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Population

On 3/17/00, Pat Kraut <pkraut at moscow.com> wrote:

> I am not sure why you keep posting this quote from Doug but you need to
know
> that a good many are looking at this sort of demographic.

You make a good point, Pat, but I think I know the answer.  The quote
from Doug is reproduced below:

> "As more and more heathens 'choose' to not have children the number of
Godly
> souls will increase. If the number of Christian births out number the
number
> of Islamic births the battle will be over in 3 or 4 generations."

Your own contribution, from Philip Jenkins, Professor at Penn ST U.,
much more acceptably states:

> "In just 20 or 30 years Iran has gone from six children per woman to two.
In
> other words, the U.S. now has a higher fertility rate than Iran. Now
that's
> of interest in its own right, but it also means that in 15 or 20 years,
> you're going to have far fewer young men of the sort who represent the
> violent , active militant groups. It's quite likely that there will be a
> decline of religious conflict."

It is all a matter of wording.  "Heathen" is generally pejorative.  It
has been used by followers of Abrahamic religions (such as of Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam) to refer members of other faiths, but almost
universally in a negative context.

Suppose Doug had written:

The birthrate in most Muslim countries is declining precipitously,
especially in those countries which seem to produce the largest
numbers of Muslim fundamentalists.
If this continues for 20 years, the Christian West will have nothing
to worry about."

The first seems designed to antagonize, the second is carefully
neutral.  Which is more constructive for reasoned dialogue?  I'm not
picking on Doug.  I agree with him a fairly significant portion of the
time.  I'm just saying that the reason for Tom's mockery in this case
is deserved, or at least understandable.

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================