Mike:
William Bradford Shockley (February 13, 1910 – August 12, 1989) was a British-born American physicist and inventor. Along with John Bardeen and Walter Houser Brattain, Shockley co-invented the transistor, for which all three were awarded the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics. Shockley's attempts to commercialize a new transistor design in the 1950s and 1960s led to California's "Silicon Valley" becoming a hotbed of electronics innovation. In his later life, Shockley was a professor at Stanford, and he also became a staunch advocate of eugenics. (Ref: Wikipedia)
Eugenics: a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of a hereditary qualities of a race or breed. (Ref: Miriam Webster)
Hypocrisy is one thing, degenerate Southern Baptist preachers impregnating poor black girls in the Mississippi delta region falls into a different category.
I am still not sure of the point your were trying to make.
The biology and ecology I studied in high school leads me to believe that any mature ecological system, with time, it tends toward less productivity and more complete consumption of the available resources. For example, a corn field is an extremely productive ecosystem. At the end of the growing season, there is hopefully a bountiful harvest of that excess production, unless the insects and birds move in and eat the crop. On the other hand, a southern climax hardwood forest ecosystem is an extremely non-productive ecosystem. Every ecological niche is filled, every acorn eaten, every decayed plant recycled and every plant and animal there has a niche that supports their presence, or else they become extinct.
If you leave 5 pounds of seed scattered around your yard every day, you will attract birds and rodents who will take advantage of the food and the ecosystem shifts until it all gets eaten. Soon you will have a yard full of all the varmints you can feed. If you support social liberalism in general and make available, specifically, an ever-escalating smorgasbord of free entitlement services, like medical care (Medicaid), aid for dependent children, food stamps, unemployment benefits, etc. (all, in the proper context, potentially very good things), the ecosystem shifts. A population soon fills the niche made available by provision of these goods and services. Keep supplying more and more, and the population will increase more and more. And what might you expect to happen if squirrels were given the right to vote and could pass laws requiring homeowners to install and abundantly replenish more bird feeders in every neighborhood?
So, here are my (counter) points. Human life is sacred. The breeding habits of human beings are an individual responsibility. They are not something I wish to control (except for my own) or to have anyone else, governments in particular, control -- whatever their best intentions. I think a strong economy and the potential for gainful employment is much preferable to an expanded "wealth" of social services available to the American underclasses. Services that are funded by government taxes that are disproportionately levied on the most productive of our businesses and citizens, and that are eagerly supported by the "squirrels in my back yard" and the liberal politicians, like Obama, who pander to them.
Now again, what exactly was your point before you digressed into the degenerate southern preacher thing?
PS: We have always practiced religious freedom in the South. You can worship in almost any way you want to, without fear of recrimination or persecution, just as long as you call yourself a Baptist (humor intended).