Christians and the Party of Death

In 2006 Ramesh Ponnuru wrote a book entitled The Party of Death. It was primarily about the US Democratic Party, and the courts and mainstream media who side with the culture of death. They see the right to abortion as almost a religious obligation.

And it is not just abortion, but a general disregard for human life that is expressed in plenty of other policy positions. The culture of death is ever on the move, and it is not just the unborn who are at risk. As Ponnuru put it in the opening page of his book:

“The party of death started with abortion, but its sickle has gone from threatening the unborn, to the elderly, to the disabled; it has swept from the maternity ward to the cloning laboratory to a generalized disregard for ‘inconvenient’ life.”

He says the phrase is not just pejorative, but descriptive: “The party’s core members are those who explicitly deny that all human beings are equal in having a right to life and who propose the creation of a category of ‘human non-persons’ who can be treated as expendable.”

The story is the same here in Australia. We clearly have a party of death here: they are known as the Greens. They are quite open about how they embrace the culture of death. This could not be clearer than in today’s headlines: “Greens fight for euthanasia”.

The new Labor/Green government has not even been in power for two weeks yet, and already the Greens are telling us what they consider to be the most pressing issue of the day – their key priority: the right to kill off the elderly, the infirm, the suffering. And of course they will push this agenda in the name of compassion.

But it is a horrific type of compassion which says to help relieve suffering we should kill the sufferer. This has nothing to do with compassion, but everything to do with a diabolical view of human life. The Greens have bought into the mistaken notion that somehow the ‘quality’ of life is superior to the sanctity of life.

And it is always a minority of elites and technocrats who decide for the rest of mankind who should live and who should die. They tell us that the unborn are not persons, that the terminally ill are not persons, and soon that a depressed teenager is not really a person.

But what do we expect from a party which was begun with someone like Peter Singer? He and Bob Brown co-authored the book The Greens back in 1996, laying out the core beliefs, values and philosophies of the Greens. And Singer ran as a Greens’ candidate for the Senate in the same year.

Singer of course is the animal rights activist who is pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia and pro-infanticide. Yes he actually believes the newborn do not have a right to life, because they are not ‘persons’. As he and Helga Kuhse said back in 1985, “We do not think new-born infants have an inherent right to life”.

And back in 1983 he wrote, “Species membership in Homo-sapiens is not morally relevant. If we compare a dog or a pig to a severely defective infant, we often find the non-human to have superior capacities.” With a guy like this helping to set up the Greens, why should we be surprised at their consistent and insistent pro-death agenda?

Yet some might argue that Singer is a bit extreme, and does not really represent the Greens, and he is not with the Greens now. But the reason he is no longer with the Greens is of course because he left Australia in 1999 to lecture at Princeton University in the US.

And how can it be argued that he is not representative of the Greens? He ran as their Senate candidate and co-authored their manifesto! Of course his views are right in line with that of the Greens. And spare us trying to make a distinction between the two.

If some neo-Nazi managed to run for a conservative party here, it would be attacked by these very same people. “See, this is what these conservatives are really all about – they are all a bunch of closet Nazis.” Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. If they take this line on the conservatives, then they must consistently take it with the Greens as well. Trying to disassociate Singer from the Greens will just not work.

Christians and the Party of Death

Sadly at the recent Federal election many Christians actually voted for the Greens. Some even ran as candidates for the Greens! Why this is so is unclear. Were they ignorant about the pro-death nature of this party? Did they know about it, but voted for them anyway? Do they even care?

The Bible of course is full of warnings about those who are pro-death. Indeed, the very enemy of God himself, Satan, is described as being at heart pro-death. Jesus contrasted the life-affirming nature of God with the death-affirming nature of Satan: “The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10).

Jesus comes to bring life, while the enemy seeks to destroy it. We are told quite clearly in the Old Testament that those who reject God are pro-death: “All who hate me [God] love death” (Proverbs 8:36). And the protection of the innocent and those being led to death is everywhere championed:

Psalm 82:2-4: Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 24:11: Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.

Proverbs 31:8-9: Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.
Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.

Prov. 31:8: Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.

Yet incredibly some Christians thought it was a great idea to vote for the pro-death Greens. How they can reconcile their biblical faith with voting for the most pro-death party in Australia is beyond me. Sure, many will mouth off about the need to save the trees or protect the whales.

Are these things important? Yes, but even more important is the plight of the unborn and the elderly. Why are some believers more concerned about the well-being of dolphins than they are about unborn babies? Why is a tree of more value in their eyes than someone made in the image of God?

Still, some will appeal to the tired mantra of “social justice”. They seem to think that something like affordable housing is the most important issue of the day. But can I remind these believers that if you are dead, affordable housing doesn’t mean a hill of beans.

And who gives a rip about job opportunities or sustainable living if you are not allowed to even be born? When we slaughter 100,000 unborn babies in their mothers’ wombs every year, and some believers say and do nothing about it, and in fact support it, then I for one need to call their bluff. They blabber on about social justice, yet they deny the most basic social justice: the very right to life.

In my books this is hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order. These people will chain themselves to some stupid tree, thinking they are doing God a favour, while they don’t care at all about the death of God’s precious infants.

Sorry, but I call these believers phoneys and fakes. They refuse to recognise the most fundamental of truths, that social justice must begin in the womb. If it does not begin there, then all their rhetoric about social justice in my books is just that – so much empty and contemptuous rhetoric.

One day every believer will stand before their maker and give an account of themselves. That will include the way they voted. All their intellectually vacuous and morally empty rhetoric will be stripped away, and they will have to give an account for why they did not stand up for the unborn and did not defend the most biblical principle of all – the sanctity of human life.

[1405 words]

About this entry