Oh, concerning LBJ's failed GSP which was his vehicle for the "War on Poverty": after all that temporary spending/wasting of American tax payer dollars, all the promises, all the BS. Guess what? WE STILL HAVE POVERTY. I wish LBJ were still alive today to see the FAILURE of his idiotic policies. I guess it wouldn't matter anyway, he'd still blame the repubs for HIS failed ideas.

I think you meant "Grate" or "Greight" society right? They (the Demunists) were going after the not-so-brightest of the bunch, gotta get the voters to believe that getting "free stuff" is better than earning it yourself. Why be concerned with education when LBJ's "Grate Society" will provide everything for free?

except in GB, this isn't the case. Children across all ethnicities are just not happening. It's true in the US as well. Overall birth rate decline. You are correct about minorities and dads however.

I guess everyone missed the point that the minorities are breeding like rabbits. The once very conservative minority family has gone the way of the dinosaurs in exchange for welfare benefits. Thanks a lot, LBJ, and your "Great Society Program?.

Ok, but having lots of children when you can't afford them just because the Bible may encourage you to procreate is irrational. I will agree with you that the lack of "dads" seems to be tied to a lack of responsibility for ones actions and lack of consequences. There is a correlation to welfare state here, but for argument sake, let's remove that from the discussion. Children are a joy. They are responsibility and work, but a rational man does not shirk the responsibilities of his creation and lives the joy of his creation. This is directly tied to his well-being, if making the choice to have a child or children. Why so many children without dads? First, it does not presuppose the child is in actual wanting, but desirous. Second, if "dads" are truly abdicating their children, that is wanting. THis goes against wellbeing, so therefore is irrational. I am not saying that man cannot behave irrationally; I am saying God and faith do not have to be in the mix to ensure happy families with individuals accepting responsibility for their children and deciding to have more children.

So people can either accept something is good because the bible/god say it's so or view that something as a burden? That's a false dichotomy.

The skepticism you refer to is GOOD because it means the individual is considering what those concepts mean TO HIM. The skepticism ONLY becomes negative when the individual is told the only way through it is to shut off his mind and not think his way through it.

OK, I should have clarified my second sentence. I am referring to periods of downturn-say a decade not, say 1st world, second word countries. The cause in number of children born overall, is directly attributable to how poor the wealth of a nation's citizens, not to belief in God. Poorer countries have population explosions because children are seen as an insurance policy and free labor to that family, not Faith. See below:
http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&t...