You Can Fool Some of the Christians Some of the Time…
Both the Labor Party and the Greens are seeking to win Christian votes by claiming to be the real deal in the faith stakes. Julia Gillard did an interview with the Australian Christian Lobby seeking to convince gullible believers that even an atheist like her would be good news for the faith community.
Since she came into power, having taken over from the assassinated Kevin Rudd, the ACL has done a second round of talks to get her version of events. There are a few problems here however. The most important moral issue of our time is not climate change, as Kevin Rudd foolishly claimed, but abortion.
Yet for some odd reason abortion did not seem to be on the list of questions directly asked of Julia, or of Kevin and Tony earlier on. This seems to be quite an oversight indeed. Perhaps no other issue is so paramount and so vital to biblical Christianity than the war against the unborn.
Gillard did make some Christian overtures, such as on chaplaincy funding. But what she did not tell the ACL was that the whole policy is up for review by Labor at the end of next year, and that as Education Minister she said she wanted the whole program to be secularised.
But as I have documented earlier, Julia is seeking to distance herself from her atheist and socialist past, and make herself look like she is mainstream and a centrist. So she is willing to say and do anything to increase her election chances.
But it is the Greens that really take the cake for trying to dupe the Christian voting bloc. Two recent pronouncements by the Greens show how they will go to any depths to deceive the public, seeking to get them to believe that the Greens are actually somehow a Christian party!
Greens leader Bob Brown for example tried to argue that he and his party are more Christian than Cardinal George Pell. I kid you not. He claimed for example that the majority of Christians support same-sex marriage, so Pell should get on board. I am not aware of any research documenting Christian majority support for SSM.
And even if the majority did, that simply would tell us most believers have rejected their own Bible for trendy social engineering agendas. Brown also claimed the disastrous BER (Building the Education Revolution) scheme was somehow a Christian scheme!
Then we recently had another Greens member also seeking to claim that the Greens are really in God’s camp. Greens Senate candidate Lin Hatfield Dodds boasted of being a lifelong Uniting Church member, which is to somehow show us how Christian the Greens really are.
Of course the Uniting Church is the most theologically liberal and even at times heretical mainline denomination in Australia today. It has jettisoned many historical Christian teachings, and has basically abandoned the Bible as the primary source of Christian truth and revelation.
So for her to boast of such “Christian” credentials is quite telling indeed. It informs us that only those who have long ago rejected the historic Christian truth claims can easily fit in a radically secular humanist party like the Australian Greens.
According to one media account, she would have us believe that the Greens’ main tenets are directly in sync with the teachings of the Christian faith. “The Greens’ four pillars are social justice, environmental sustainability, participatory democracy and peace and non-violence.”
All four of these phrases are slippery terms at best, and humanist weasel words at worst. ‘Social justice’ is one of the most overused and under-defined terms going around. What one person means by ‘environmental sustainability’ can be light years away from what another means, let alone from the biblical understanding.
What exactly does she mean by ‘participatory democracy’? And the biblical notion of peace is a far cry from the radical and unbiblical pacifism of the Greens. On all four fronts she is seeking to highjack biblical Christian teachings and transmute them into radical humanist green agendas.
I have written at length about these concepts elsewhere, so will not repeat myself here. Indeed, the main way in which we can get beyond the Green’s subterfuge and smokescreens here is to simply look at what their actual policies are, as outlined on their own website.
I have done that twice recently, and urge readers to refer back to these posts:
By their own words they condemn themselves, showing just what anti-Christian agendas they are seeking to foist upon the Australian people. And in many respects Labor is not much better. But now that we have in effect a Labor-Green coalition, a vote for the one is a vote for the other.
Believers were told by Christ to be harmless as doves yet wise as serpents. That is certainly the case with this federal election. Here we have atheist, socialist and pro-abortionist Julia Gillard trying to claim the Christian vote. And here we have secular humanist homosexual Bob Brown pretending his party somehow is on God’s side.
Beware of both. If we ever needed strong biblical discernment, today is the day.
69 Replies to “You Can Fool Some of the Christians Some of the Time…”
We have to keep reminding them – August 21st, not April 1st!
I encourage Christians to view this Youtube link as it explains in brief how the Senate will fall to ‘The Greens’ by default this election unless their first preference vote is used in a considered way.
One vital point, however:
..the Uniting Church is the most theologically liberal and even at times heretical…
At times??!! Bill, “theologically liberal” and “heretical” are convertible terms! Liberalism in its classical form is simply unbelief in a clerical collar. Have we so soon forgotten the likes of Bultmann, Conzelmann, Wellhausen, R.H. Pfeiffer, H.H. Rowley, Tillich, and all the other “higher critics”, who dismembered the Bible, threw out the miracles, dismissed the Bible story as so much myth and legend, and changed the message to one of “social gospel”, about helping brother man and dismissing eternal values.
I’m sure you would concur here, but let’s call a spade a spade: the UCA as a denomination is not a Christian Church, but a quasi-religious club. There are notable exceptions among certain congregations, to be sure, but in its official statements and definitions, such as the Basis of Union, there is little of historic Christianity discernible. It is a CINO denomination: Christian In Name Only.
As to Labor and the Greens, how can either of them, the latter in particular, with a straight face call themselves Christian-faith-friendly when they are locked into the PC programme, a constituent part of which is erosion of religious liberty and free speech in the open arena?
“Social justice”, on analysis is merely a euphemism for Marxist redistribution of wealth through coercive taxation, because financial inequity is held to be unjust. You know, the Marxist shibboleth, “From each according to his means; to each according to his need.” Sounds good in theory, and tugs at many heartstrings, but it is a deceptive maxim. In particular, this is far from anything Christian, which stresses generosity to the poor on the part of the godly (cf. Psa.112:5). When money is taken from our pockets under state legislation, and given to others on the pretext of care for the poor, is it any longer “generosity”? No! What we have instead is legalised theft. And to the politician’s plea in the face of excessive taxation that they need the money for all these programmes, since when does a need confer a right??
Murray R Adamthwaite
Yes I agree the abortion issue should have been raised by ACL to the leaders – it needs to be brought up now – for this issue is not going away – as even as I write there is a program addressing abortion and its negative effects on people physically, emotionally, and spiritually, without mentioning the termination of a life. Good article Bill.
The Wermacht in WW2 continued to wear their traditional German belt motif “Gott Mit Uns” – God is with Us – even though under an oath of loyalty to Adolf Hitler.
With the exceptionof some very courageous individuals most German Christians were charmed into following along for the ride.
Bill the program on abortion was focussing on the parents of the baby primarily, not the baby.
The ACL didn’t ask about abortion? I sent an email explaining my grief (linked to http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-signpost-at-the-crossroads in the body of the message).
Thanks very much Bill, wonderful essay. I was just over at Cathnews, that redoubt of inane leftism, and there were so-called Christians claiming they could vote Green. God help us.
We can kiss marriage, religious freedom, affordable families, and civil peace goodbye by sleepwalking into giving these extremists political power.
We should all think about where preferences go to. A Party like The Greens, I will personally be putting last. Another way, while it takes time is to number ALL the boxs below the line for the Senate. That way, by not being lazy and numbering one box above the line, you are deciding YOUR preferences, not that of the political party. It will also insure that I will put those Far Left where they belong, last!
P.S. If you make a mistake as I have done on a couple of times, you have the right to get another voting paper.
I am glad you mentioned that abortion seems to be skipped over, even by the ACL. As a Chrisitian I can think of very little else more important then life given to us by God and for no one to be mentioning abortion and the lives it takes frustrates me greatly.
We need someone to stand up and fight for the unborn just as William Wilberforce did for the slaves. It is a battle just like his one that we can not stop fighting.
The ACL has just posted a response from the Catholic diocese in regards to the claims Bob Brown has made.
As evidence of the parlous state of the Australian church, our electorate is offering as its Greens candidate, somebody whom I know personally as a born-again Christian. A former Bible college lecturer, my friend is presently a tireless social worker. Must I conclude that, like a herd of lemmings, the so-called church seems hell-bent on self-destruction.
This is an excellent and comprehensive article on the problems Christians face today with the subtefruge from the Left. I have long held the belief that the so-called Uniting Church is a carbon copy of the former and now mercifully disintergrated Australian Democrats. The politics of both orgnizations are and were those of the perpetual undergraduate. Poor old Bob “Green” Brown is good for a laugh if he thinks that he is more “Christian” than Cardinal Pell. Brown’s suggestion that the Cardinal should “come on board” in relation to same sex marriage is a side splitter. If God, the great Creator intended those of the same sex to marry, then He certainly has some shortcomings on plumbing skills. I must say though, It is a great shame that a number of Christians have been taken in with the pantheistic phony “religion” of the green enviroment. They are enviromentalists first and Christians fourth. I hope a sufficient number of Christians will not be sucked in by this Leftist sham, but I’m not counting on it.
Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld
Thank you Bill for stirring embers of fiery faith in many of us.
References to abortion in this and other of your articles prompted me to record God’s supreme provision for womanhood in the reproduction of life.
One sperm cell (200-500 million available) fertilising one ovum, with an exchange of 23 chromosomes,launches God’s creative life. Our Creator begins to loosen the back ligaments of each pregnant person, and stretch marks show the abdomen distension.
The uterus distends to allow the 3, 4 or 5 Kg babe a comfortable home, while the cervix prepares for its ultimate enlargement for the passage of a full-term child.
The child has its own staggering, unique blood system.
Breast enlargement prepares for the flow of mother’s milk for the babe: perfect balance under hormonal control. The ductless glands, pituitary. thyroid, thymus, suprarenal, ovarian aggressively adapt to this marvelous reproductive innovation. Don’t interfere. (God treads here) with such delicate infrastructure. God’s blueprint.
For nine months the mother feels the child, who hears every word, hence the mother tongue, never the father speech) willingly undergoes the painful, trial of delivering the child.
It is the ultimate insult to our glorious Creator to manipulate this process by shutting down these refined developments. ‘I trample on your creative genius’. TOP is a blasphemous abbrev iation, on operating lists.
Depression inevitably follows this God-rejection, for His momentous womanhood provision is jettisoned. Broken-heartedness flows from guilt, memory of the rejection of a life now in the glory land. Calvary love is the cleansing of memories for the woman cajoled into such.
Stress this for those who were pressured into such.
http://www.biblestories.stellaris.com.au covers other aspects.
Hi Bill, the whole interview by the ACL presents as wishy-washy at best, at least to me. The list of topics prioritized by ACL as appears in the news article are these: “indigenous welfare, prayer in Parliament, refugees, marriage, school chaplaincy, sexualisation of children, climate change and the reliability of commitments should the Greens control the Senate”. As you point out, the most crucial moral issue, abortion, is not mentioned and although they do mention marriage in general, where is the mention of same-sex marriage and the further implications of children being raised in such an environment?
One of the commentators at the ACL website had this to say:
“ATHEIST Julia and her party have made a preference deal with the greenies which could see them holding the balance of power. Enough said.”
It would seem that there has obviously been some handshaking going on behind the scenes. If the majority of Christians are asking the hard questions, this should horrify us all in itself. It makes you wonder what it’s going to take for our pastors and other leaders to take that stand and ‘teach my people the difference between the holy and the profane, and cause them to discern between the clean and the unclean’ as Ezekial states the duties of a priest as being (Ez. 44:23). If the leaders of groups such as the ACL can’t hold up Biblical standards to governments, and ask the pointed questions on the issues most clearly spelled out in the Bible, then who will?
I have been following the debate on Cath News and am shocked at the attack on Cardinal Pell. One only has to read the Greens web page to understand where they are coming from and it certainly isn’t ‘love thy neighbour – even if they are Christians”.
This election could see the total downfall of our once ” Great South Land of the Holy Spirit”. Let us promote prayer and action…pray that people will realise Australia is at risk like never before and action by putting the Greens last and Labor second last on the ballot paper.
Thanks for writing about Bob Brown’s outrageous statements Bill. I nearly fell of my chair in shock at how blatant and arrogant his lies have become. I tried to find the article on The Australian news website but it seems to have disappeared. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/greens-policies-more-christian-than-cardinal-george-pell-says-bob-brown/story-e6freuzr-1225902803908
I just listened to an American Vision podcast today which was talking about at least four of the fallacies that can lead to Christians rolling over and giving the world over to the enemies of Christ. I would encourage people to listen to it.
The podcast concluded with Gary DeMar reminding the listeners about a common statement made by Christians that goes something like this: “Jesus did not call us to clean the fish bowl but to catch fish.” I have heard it a number of times, as I’m sure many readers of this blog have. Gary goes on to say though that if we do not clean the fishbowl the fish all die. We have a determined group of people bent on dirtying the fish bowl (God’s fish bowl in fact), and many Christians cannot see it happening because they either hold some perverse desire to be the persecuted minority or think the bowl is mostly irrelevant to the “more spiritual” matters they are attending to.
I’m not sure if it was Cornelius Van Til or Francis Schaeffer who reminded us that there is no neutrality, it is either God’s kingdom or it is not. Abraham Kuyper proclaimed that there was not one part of life that Jesus did not claim as His own. We and all we have belong to Christ – including our nations. Let’s not give it over to those who have no intention of honouring Christ or his rightful statutes.
We have to be careful, also, of organisations (commercial, and others) who proclaim their “Ethical” status, and particularly those with a secularist/left wing/”Humanist” tradition. Here in Britain, we have the Co-operative movement (shops, banks) which flaunts its high “ethical” nature, claiming the moral high ground – in reality the hypocrites support the abortion industry (I know, because I asked them myself; it’s a good idea for organisations like this to be probed, and questioned).
John Thomas, UK
ACL has long stood for Appeasers Campaigning for Labor.
Jonathan Sarfati, USA
It is very interesting to look at the Greens responses at
Their refusal to answer certain key questions is very telling!
As for Labor, their response to the question about same-sex surrogacy and ART is very worrying:
” * State and Territory governments have responsibility for surrogacy laws. The Australian Government supports States and Territories working together to create nationally consistent laws as far as this is possible.
* The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) has recently agreed to model provisions and model principles for jurisdictions to apply in this area.
* These principles and provisions are gender neutral. This means that it is up to individual jurisdictions to determine how to regulate surrogacy by same-sex couples, which the Australian Government believes is appropriate.”
Compare this to the no-nonsense response given by the Lib/Nat Coalition. Labor is basically in favour of children being purchased as commodities by same-sex couples. In 2008, the Victorian Labor government made it possible for lesbians to access IVF.
Putting this together with Labor’s openly pro-abortion stance, it is a mystery to me why any informed Christians would vote Labor.
By default then, you are implying the greatest (and seemingly only) “Christian” alternative, are the Coalition aren’t you?
That seems dangerous, narrowly defined and quite wrong.
There are many ways we express our Christian faith, and to try and duckshove all your values as the only way to go so emotively is deeply disappointing.
This is not a good or balanced look at the issues involved
Thanks Bill, for your informed article, it would seem to me that true Christianity is confronting the spirit of deception, the anti Christ spirit. True Christians need to Pray in the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth for a God Intervention. It is Righteous people that lifts a Nation. I have serious doubts about the ACL.
Bill: Did you hear Tony Abbott yesterday? He was asked directly if he would end Medicare funding for abortions or make it harder for Australian women to have access to RU486, and his answer: I will not change anything in regards to how it now is. Let’s condemn the Labor Party and the Greens for holding the exact same position on abortion that Abbott holds!
Carl: so you are actually going to put the Australia Sex Party before the Greens as you vote below the line?
Paul Wakeford: are you aware that William Wilberforce was hated in his day by conservative Christians? He was seen as undermining the British Nation, allowing the French to get the upper hand on world trade and finance; underminging business interests as he wanted to regulate and use law to control certain business activities and even ban them; and of all things: he was an animal liberationist and started the RSPCA! Conservative Christians were some of his strongest critics. Interesting how a couple of hundred years later the conservatives treat him like a pin-up boy!
Everyone: I have come to learn that what Martin Luther said was right: a leader of a nation does not have to be a Christain. They have to be a good leader who will rule well. (Calvin disagree with Luther on that interestingly, as he ruled over Geneva and oversaw the execution of citizens who committed crimes like heresy, adultery, and witchcraft). But Luther knew that just because someone says they are a Christian does not make them automatically a good leader. And just because someone says that they are an atheist, does not make them a bad one. if they rule justly and wisely, it is okay for a non-believer to be in leadership. And, I would add, just because someone is gay (like Bob Brown) does not make him a bad Senator either.
I do agree with something you said above Bill: people should read the party web sites for themselves and look at the party policies for themselves. For those interested the Greens web site is greens.org.au;
Thanks Jon Owen
No not at all. If you read all my writings on this topic, you will know that I argue there is no perfect or Christian party in a fallen world. Yet we have to carefully and prayerfully vote for – at times – the lesser of various evils as we exercise our Christian duties before each election. As I have tried to point out in my various articles, some parties and policies are a bit closer to the biblical ideal than others.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Since the media often asks for full disclosure at election time, let me inform readers that you are of course a long-standing member of the Greens.
As for any new announcements by Abbott, we of course must take them on board as they are made. However, there are still major differences here, with pro-abortion still part of official party policy for both the Greens and Labor, but not for the Coalition.
You are of course being disingenuous about Wilberforce. Yes some slave-owning fellow Christians attacked him. But he and his team were of course of the religious right if we can use modern terminology.
As to your last remarks, I am about to catch a plane, so cannot offer a longer response, except to say that “Righteousness exalts a nation”. Having a political leader who is living in clear unrighteousness is hardly going to bring God’s blessing on the land.
But must run!
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
An interesting question, I will be putting parties like the Greens and The Australian Sex party as low as possible. But which is worse? Is this Secular Party also just as bad or worse? But sadly parties like Family First and the Coalition are not perfect either. I don’t think there are many who will totally support my views. But at this stage the Greens are going last and The Australian Sex Party and Labor will not be far behind. Then again, I could take a punt and vote above the line. I just wish there was a better way so The Greens and that Sex party and so on can become part of Australian political history.
Thank you for your political-Christian analysis.
As a Uniting Church Minister I agree with your assessment of the Unitng Church as a liberal and at times heretical church. Murray Adamthwaite’s view is incorrect. The founding document, the Basis of Union, may not use ‘conservative evangelical’ language, but it is orthodox. The other thing that needs to be said is this. Within the Uniting Church there is an incorporated body whose bulk of voting members are congregations, not individuals. These congregations are congregations of the Uniting Church. This body is called The Assembly of Confessing Congregations within the Uniting Church. This organisation has named the National Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia as apostate in the matter of sexuality and biblical interpretation. It would help to publicly acknowledge the existence of this body within the Uniting Church, as the Uniting Church hierarchy is generally reluctant to acknowledge its existence. Who wants to announce that they are apostate, fallen away from the Truth of the Gospel?
If you want to help us fight heretical liberalism in the church, then please acknowledge the existence of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations within the Uniting Church.
Check it out on http://www.confessingcongregations.com
and may i say have a safe flight.
When I read this article, I wondered to myself, What is the difference between myself and the Christians who are more than happy to be hoodwinked by the political spin of the Labour and Greens? I do not mean to be judgmental or condescending but the gravity of voting for the Labour party or the Greens is so glaringly obvious that I still cannot understand why any disciple of Jesus Christ would even entertain voting for them. Now before anyone says “You are implying that everybody should vote Liberal”, NO I AM NOT! There is no party that is perfect but if people are honest with themselves they will acknowledge that a country needs 2 very important things for it to run successfully 1. Good and sound economic management and 2. Godly principles for daily living. At the moment, the Liberals have more of a previous track record in these 2 things than the other mob. As voters, we all need to look at the big picture, what is best for the country as a whole, not what is best of me at the expense of the rest of the country and as Christians, this is a gravely important obligation. The devil is the sole author of confusion and judging by some of the things going on in the Labour Party/Greens, it would appear that he has been unwittingly engaged as a consultant when you look at some of the garbage they seek to foist upon this country’s people.
The Greens and others have learned well from the Obama spin doctors. Lets hope we can learn from the realities now facing American Christians and not be similarly conned into selling our birthright.
Ah yes, every election, this professing Christian Jim Reiher always tried to justify his candidacy in the pro-sodomite abortion-loving Greens.
But this time, there is historic revisionism about Wilberforce. In reality, the book Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves by Adam Hochschild (2005) tells a different story. Dr Thomas Sowell, African American himself, summarizes in a review:
Conversely, the secularist slave-holders told Wilberforce to keep his religion out of politicals. Later on, the US Democrats were “pro-choice” on slavery, like “Don’t like slavery? Don’t own slaves!” Now they, like the Australian greens, are “pro-choice” on prenatal baby-butchery.
As for Reiher’s vilification of Calvin, only Servetus was executed for heresy under his rule, and these are the facts:
Jonathan Sarfati, USA
Which political leader is not a sinner Bill? We should then support them I guess. … oh… hang on … noneone….
You are reinterpreting history to suit yourself when you pretend that Wilberforce was a conservative. In his day, (and history begins there, not from our perspective), in his day he was the liberal wishy washy do-gooder who was undermining the economy with his riduculour idealism. Slavery was Biblical – both Testaments in fact can be used to prop it up – so how could he wander so far from the Biblical teaching and want to be so trendy? And his passion for God’s creatures: he was criticised for treating animals as important as some humans! What a compromising bad Christian he was! You just don’t get it: some of Wilberforce’s most fiercest critics were Conservative Christians.
PS – do you really believe it is better for a party to actually support the abortion system in place, but just never write it down anywhere, and never admit it is their position – and somehow that is more honest or better than a party that writes it down and adheres to the exact same position?
I would have at least commended the honesty of the party that says it. To not write it down anywhere, in the hope of giving the false impression that they are more moral than others, is quite deceptive in my books.
I am disgusted that you can claim to be a Christian (if indeed you do) and sit with the Greens. How do you sleep at night, knowing that your bedfellows want to secularise our nation, close down Christian schools, undermine our ability to share our faith publicly, and destroy the distinctive character of Christian organisations? Knowing that they support the murder of the unborn, the elderly and the disabled? Knowing that they are in favour of human cloning, decriminalisation of drugs, gay marriage, and the raising of children by same sex couples?
Have you thought about what you might say to Jesus when you stand at his judgment seat?
I will pray for you. I have hope, because the apostle Paul also once worked with those who sought to destroy the Church; but Jesus had mercy on him and appeared to him saying ‘Saul, why are you persecuting me?’
Jonathan Sarfati (and others):
I share your disappointment that the ACL seems to have gone soft. I have a lot of respect for Jim Wallace, and I think that his organisation has done a lot of good over the last half decade.
My assessment is that the ACL has fallen victim to several traps.
(1) The irrational fear of being branded “religious right” (a.k.a. “Republican”), and consequently the impulse to look as centrist as possible by (almost tokenistically) harping on about social justice issues alongside the “core” moral values such as abortion, embryos, marriage and family
(2) Being hypnotised by KRudd and the myth of Bonhoeffer-esque Christian Leftism. (I suspect, though, that as KRudd sinks into oblivion this spell will wear off; their current good-will towards Gillard is simply the effect of inertia.)
Let’s remember with gratitude that the ACL has taken the correct stand (*against* the ALP) on several key issues, such as the Human Rights Charter, religious vilification laws and equal opportunity laws. And let’s pray that after we have had to endure 3 years of Gillard/Brown rule the ACL will sing a somewhat different tune around the 2013 election.
A comment from a Judge recently that social justice is helping the minorities like the Muslims and homosexuals have their say.
Sacrificing babies has brought about the destruction of pagan civilizations in the past. All these things will eventually have consequences. The growing lack of discipline and values will impact on society. The greens and labor have no wisdom when it comes to the long term consequences of their policies.
The same policy? Terrific. Jim you can help readers right now by explaining how the intrinsic dignity of human life as the pre eminent foundation of the natural moral law has been accepted as true but so carefully hidden by the greens for so long. Tell us where on the website this commitment can be read!
Because you know, if radical political liberals didn’t dominate mass media and distort natural law teaching as imposing Christian morality then Mr Abbott would not have to self censure. The Greens however self censure in the opposite direction – against revealing the desire for the legal availability of even more ‘choice’ for the practice of human abortion.
Isn’t it interesting that concern for God’s creation and the duty to leave a legacy for future generations began in a Judeo-Christian society? And that the atheist Soviet Union with a very similar world view to the greens wreaked havoc on the environment. But your group would seek laws that teach humans have no intrinsic dignity, (the really new thing brought by the Christian revolution) no special resonsibility to ourselves and the animals but are merely a more complex one. Your group would seek to destroy any rational ground for why humans deserve special protection and at the same time expect these same humans (once the teaching has had a generation to replace the old one) to extend care to inanimate geographies?
You people are the worst kind of irrational power seekers. You saw off from the tree of the natural moral law the very branch you sit on – the good of environmental stewardship.
Your group would slash and burn old growth social forms and meanings of the human person because you have an irrational animus toward their traditional and time tested provenance. You would even seek to destroy in legislation the complementarity of the sexes in your same sex marriage proposals, destroy the rights of children to have a mum and a dad.
Adult desire and selfishness is what you appeal to and why in these selfish times you increase your vote.
Your group puts on a moral front, but you are arch destroyers who admit of no settled human nature but expect to be taken seriously when you speak of settled, sensitive and mutually independent ecosystems!
You’re the group for those with guilty consciences who rather than face up to their personal moral evil would do anything to cover themselves with a moral veneer.
I would like to add too, that Tony Abbot is pro-life, where as the Greens are so anti-life, it is scary.
Here is one of their disciple’s, Dick Smith.
Dick Smith says he has a million reasons Aussies should work out ways to eliminate each other.
This is not an issue Dick is pushing lightly. He is the latest and loudest recruit to the campaign of Kelvin Thomson and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) to depopulate Australia. “I’m a disciple of Kelvin Thomson” he told Channel 10’s (9th of August) the 7pm. Project.
(And what appears to be the first-ever case of paid advertising on the ABC, Dick Smith has paid part of the production costs for the doco the ABC will air about his campaign on Thursday night.)
Founded in 1963 by the cranky old coot – Prince Philip – whose fantasy is to be reincarnated as an Ebola-type virus to exterminate people, the ACF in recent years spun off Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) (sound familiar?) to spearhead a campaign to get rid of Australians. Open about its desire to “reduce” the population, SPA advocates a Chinese-style one child policy as one method to achieve it.
The ALP member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, works closely with SPA, and encourages Australians to join SPA as members. Thomson’s pet mantra – that we can’t reduce our carbon footprint without reducing the number of footprints – echoes SPA’s stated goal.
Thomson, who stars in Dick’s doco, has also thrown his weight behind the ACF”s campaign to lobby Environment Minister Peter Garrett, to legally classify human population growth as a “keey threatening process” to biodiversity, under the same classification as feral cats and cane toads.
Anne van Tilburg
Bill – Your comment, “Julia Gillard did an interview with the Australian Christian Lobby seeking to convince gullible believers that even an atheist like her would be good news for the faith community.” Of course, in a perverted way she is right: we will all be praying more …!!!
Sadly, but as is so often the case, you manage to completely miss the point. Where exactly did I say only a non-sinning individual could be a political leader? In a fallen world, no one is sinless. But the Bible of course has plenty to say about righteous leaders, in both Testaments. You would – or should – be familiar with the numerous texts which speak about this. But you seem to have so fallen for the spell of the radical Greens that you are now actually trying to convince us that a secular humanist homosexual is just as righteous and godly a leader as any born-again Bible believing Christian is. Absolutely incredible! I really do not have to reply here. The more you write, the more you seem to dig yourself further into a hole!
I of course expect the Greens to rewrite history to push their own ideology, but I do not expect those claiming to be followers of Christ to do so. Just how far will you go in your historical revisionism? Trying to suggest that Wilberforce, Pitt and the others were the religious lefties of the day is simply bizarre. They were members of the landed aristocracy for heaven’s sake! Fat cat capitalists, the very symbol of green disgust!
And a paraphrase of you would be far closer to the truth: ‘some of Wilberforce’s most staunch supporters were Conservative Christians.’ They were so conservative, as in the Burkean tradition, that they were rightly concerned about not allowing abolition to spark social revolution, so the proceeded quite carefully and cautiously here.
And spare us this absolute nonsense that having a quite proper concern for animal welfare and being a founding member of the RSPCA makes Wilberforce a tree hugging, Gaia-worshipping, human-hating fruitloop. It really is getting laughable – and sad – how you are playing fast and loose with the historical record here.
Sorry Jim but I am just not buying your desperate attempts to somehow enlist Wilberforce into your pro-abortion radical left party. Indeed, a biblical Christian like Wilberforce would have the greatest of contempt for a party which has such a low view of human life. How could anyone who worked for 43 years to see blacks treated as human beings and not as second class citizens come even remotely close to a party which sees unborn babies as second class citizens, and not real human beings? And the Greens waffle on and on about social justice! The culture of death that oozes forth from the Greens is the most freakish example of so-called social justice I have yet to witness.
As to your rather odd PS: any party which has as its stated policy support for abortion on demand is abominable in my eyes. The simple reason the Coalition does not have it written down is because it is not its official policy. There is a world of difference between the two.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
The sneaky and spineless Greens refused to answer most of the questions given to them by the ACL, so they have done what the Greens refused to do: report on actual Green policies on a number of issues: http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2010/08/greens%E2%80%99-policies-exposed-on-issues-they-sought-to-hide-from-christian-scrutiny/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Bill Cardinal Pell has warned Catholics of the Greens’ “sweet poison”. Naturally enough he has caused a stir, but if Christians followed the principal “you shall know them by their fruit” there would not be a misunderstanding. It would be obvious to all what a danger this political party poses to our freedoms and safety.
Bill: since when is Tony Abbott a “born again Bible believing” leader? Who is rewriting reality now?
You are still missing the point about Wilberforce. You are right to say he was from the rich noblity, but he was a radical from that class: most of his peers opposed him for years and years.
If Wilberforce was here today, I think you are right: he would be opposed to abortion, and he would be honest enough to say that liberal and labor and green all have the same position on it: leave the system as it is. You do not share his honesty.
If he were here today, I would also suggest he would be an advocate for treating refugees with compassion. But I am sure you disagree with that too: he would want to “turn the boats back” and let them drown at sea. For “border security” reasons. Right? The good Christian that he was!
And Bill: it has been a long time since I wrote on your site. Sadly your style of arguing has not changed. You are still doing it: When your ideas get threatened, you resport with exagguration, and bullying. Re-read your last rant and rave. It is woeful.
None of the writers here have had the courage to even admit that Abbott wont change a thing about abortion because his party supports the current system just the same as labor and the greens do. What a disappointing conversation. He said it yesterday for all to hear. It was definite: no changes to the abortion system in Australia. Do you think he was lying (and is that then okay – to lie and deceive?). Do you think he secretly will end medicare funding? What do you think the Liberals will do about abortion besides pretend they care?
Once more I make a mental note: never waste my time again on a site like this. It has a small band of committed like-minded harsh-tongued, people all propping themselves up by hearing each other rant and rave. Enjoy talking to yourselves folks.
Even though the ACL did the right thing by exposing the Watermelon policies (Green on the outside, Red on the inside), they betray their own leftard policies. E.g. they praise “compassionate policies on foreign aid”, which really means confiscating more from poor people in Australia to give to rich despots in poor countries, which has proved far from compassionate to the ordinary people. Thomas Sowell calls it “Foreign harm” rather than “foreign aid”, but leftards care more about feeling morally superior than achieving good results.
Jonathan Sarfati, USA
To support Bill M and Dr Kok about the abhorrence of the Greens, even the 19th century feminists opposed abortion, calling it “child murder”. They also denounced the hypocrisy of complaining that women were treated as property while at the same time treating their unborn as property. Now we know far more about the humanity of the unborn than they did, so the case against abortion is even stronger. But the modern Greens, with Jim Reiher’s “Christian” blessing, regard this “child murder” as a “woman’s right”.
Reiher would also do well to read about the constant Christian opposition to slavery. Rodney Stark writes, ‘The problem wasn’t that the [Church] leadership was silent. It was that almost nobody listened.’ There was also a strong Christian opposition to slavery in America. Where Christians fell down was in trying to twist Bible to fit this worldwide social institution, or at least live with it. Reiher is their worthy successor, trying to convince Christians that they should support or at least live with the modern abomination of abortion.
Jonathan Sarfati, USA
Just took a look at Wikipedia’s article about Wilberforce. I think Jim’s telling porkies.
It seems it is almost universal that most believers think that children under the ‘age of accountability’ (a concept rarely talked about at church – but assumed it seems by most) go straight to heaven when they die.
Therefore i vouch that we create the biggest revival in human history – Let’s have all people under the age of ’12’? killed right now! Yes right now!
and everyone is to have abortions from now on of ALL babies!!….Yes, the human race will go extinct soon…but all for the good of knowing so many more people will go to heaven !!
Now i am being sarcastic of course but some people have acted on this literally…and in one sense they are being very logical and consistent – not wanting any of their children to possibly go to hell – Remember Andrea Yates who murdered all her children in 2000 because she was afraid of them going to hell ?
So in one sense of course abortion is totally wrong and must be stopped for the sanctity of human life, but according to most christian belief the greater good of them going to heaven should mean that they don’t really mind if no one reached about 12!
The real good Samaritan:
“when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’” (Luke 10:33–35)
The churchian leftard’s good Samaritan:
“when he saw him, he had compassion for the poor victims of society who robbed him; they clearly need help. He then demanded that the government raise taxes so the public health system could bind up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he commandeered another traveller’s donkey, set him on it, and told the owner to bring him to an inn and take care of him. And the next day the Samaritan gave some government health reimbursement forms to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, the government will repay you as long as you complete the forms accurately.’” (Liberalism 10:33–35)
Jonathan Sarfati, USA
Father Frank Brennan, who headed the National Human Rights Consultation, has also weighed into the debate with an article entitled, ‘Why a conscientious Christian could vote for the Greens’. You be the judge: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=22755
Brennan is of course is a long-standing lefty who manages to get most things wrong, including the dreadful Bill of Rights concept. I am however glad he retains a smattering of Catholic thinking yet, as on the abortion issue.
As to the slippery ‘social justice’ mantra and rhetoric of the religious left, I have discussed that numerous times on this site.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I have seen your reply to me, and I am moved to give a response, but as I have to rush out it will have to wait for later today. In short, I acknowledge the existence of the Assembly of Confessing Congregations (ACC). All I would say now (until later) is that they are little more than cuckoos in the UCA nest.
Murray R Adamthwaite
Thanks again Jim
Please tell us where I said Tony Abbott was “born again Bible believing”. My point of course was simply to say that godly, biblical leaders – whoever they may be – are light-years removed from someone like your beloved Bob Brown.
As to ‘ranting and raving’ I will leave it to the readers to decide just who is guilty of this here.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi, Jonathan Sarfati,
Was that Rodney Stark quote on slavery from his book The Victory of Reason?
To Jim Reiher, “a small band of committed like-minded harsh-tongued, people all propping themselves up by hearing each other rant and rave”. Well all I can say to you is this – JOIN THE CLUB! You seem to be the one doing all the raving! Your arguments are as shallow as a wading pool, you seem to be implying that if anyone had a concern about “boat people” then that makes them suspect in the compassion department. The insertion of the comment about them drowning at sea can be seen for what it is – a feeble guilt trip and you seem to be pretty polished in this sort of stuff judging by your other comments on this forum. However I will not fall into the trap of condemning you simply because I disagree with you. Lastly, to accuse Bill of being a bully is a bit rich!
Jim (if you’re still here)
I don’t think any of us consider Tony Abbott to be the Messiah (the way many on your side of politics consider B. Obama, KRudd and Bob Brown to be the messiah). We acknowledge that he is a mere man and has all the failings of a mere man. We’re not waiting for him to win the election and usher in a thousand year reign of peace, prosperity and renewable energy.
Nevertheless, he has made his personal views about abortion very clear. He considers abortion a grave immorality and a grave tragedy. As health minister he kept RU486 out of this country for many years, against the wild yelling of your Green mob, no doubt saving thousands of unborn lives.
As leader of the parliamentary Liberal party he cannot simply convert his personal views into party policy, any more than Penny Wong can convert her lesbianism into Labor party policy. He has to play along with the rest of the Liberal party, and if the rest of the Liberal party lack the moral fibre to re-criminalise abortion in this country (to their shame), there is not much he can do about that.
None of this changes the fact that your Green bedfellows (and Labor) take abortion-on-demand as a matter of official policy, while Liberal does not. And as an official representative of the Greens party, you will have to explain this to Jesus when you stand before him one day. (May this be an encouragement for you to leave the Greens.)
And for your information I suspect most of us who read this blog will not be voting 1 – Liberal in any case; we will be voting 1 – FF, CDP or DLP. In other words, parties which ARE officially anti abortion.
Sorry, but your bluffing won’t get you very far.
Yes quite right. To point out the abominable and godless agenda of the radical Greens is not to automatically default to Tony Abbott and/or the Liberals. On balance the Coalition is far preferable to the Labor-Green machine on many fronts, but biblical Christian principles seem best to be exemplified to a large degree in the smaller pro-faith and pro-family parties. A quick look at the Christian Values Checklist will clearly demonstrate this.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
I have just returned from a day out at meetings, but I am constrained to respond to the historical nonsense peddled by the Greens candidate Jim Reiher on this thread, although it appears he has given up in disgust from reading this blog.
His attempt to co-opt William Wilberforce to the Greens’ cause on the face of it seems so farcical it does not warrant a reply, but in our climate of post-Modern relativism and non-reason literally any wild or ridiculous theory can be put up as a serious option. What are some relevant facts (if Mr Reiher is at all interested in such tiresome things)?
1. Not long after his conversion Wilberforce was deeply concerned about the widespread degradation of England’s youth in particular. There was drunkenness, prostitution, blasphemy, debauchery and general licentiousness abroad. While in his “Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System…” he acknowledged that the only real way to change this was to “change the hearts of men”, he still believed that the legislature should “at least so far remove the obtrusiveness of the temptation, that it may not provoke the appetite.” Hence laws should be passed to promote Sabbath-keeping, and forbid on pain of harsh penalties drunkenness, obscenity, and lewd behaviour. Accordingly in 1787 the Proclamation Society was founded with Wilberforce’s full support, later the Society for the Suppression of Vice. Many at the time saw this as a monstrous infringement of individual liberties (ring any bells??). Now support for this sort of thing today would firmly place a person on the ‘right’, a ‘redneck’ indeed. It is certainly not something dear to the heart of the left, and definitely not to the Greens!
2. In 1797 Thomas Paine published his scurrilous book “The Age of Reason”, a full-scale attack on Christianity. Both Wilberforce and the Proclamation Society viewed this rather ephemeral book (as it turned out) with deep alarm, and succeeded in having the publisher Thomas Williams prosecuted and jailed for publishing it. Now I am not suggesting for a moment that we follow suit and call for the prosecution of all and every writer and publisher of anti-Christian books and pamphlets. My point is rather this: such a procedure hardly puts Wilberforce on the left. If anyone dared to call for such things today he would immediately be put in the “far-right loony” category!
3. If one wants to view a Wilberforce contemporary on the ‘left’, there is a prime candidate in William Cobbett, the forerunner of trade unionism and champion of the “working man”. He had no time at all for Wilberforce’s campaign, considering it merely sanctimonious humbug. He commented in 1806 (or thereabouts): “So often as they agitate on this question (i.e. the slave trade), with all its cant, the relief of 500,000 blacks; so often will I remind them of the one million two hundred thousand white paupers in England and Wales.” Around 1820 Cobbett became even more vitriolic, and complained of the “labourers’ bill of fayre in the glorious times of high prices; a gallon loaf and three pence a week for each person in a labourer’s family!” The lot of blacks on slave ships in faraway places was of little concern to Cobbett; his concern was the poor conditions of labourers in the home country. Now of course we should be concerned about both, but Cobbett was certainly not, and his style of rhetoric we still hear today from the left. Hence let the point be clear: the left’s forbears are the William Cobbets of this world; NOT William Wilberforce!
I trust that this venture into history will set the record straight, and help to show how unbelievably fatuous is Mr Reiher’s attempt to claim this Evangelical pioneer and philanthropist for the leftist agenda.
Murray R Adamthwaite
Yes it is quite incredible how some of these Green revisionists will rewrite history to support their radical agendas. If we want to find the true historical heirs to the moderns Greens, we need look no further than to the French and Russian revolutionaries of the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
We dare not forget that the Greens actually had Peter Singer – the pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-infanticide, animal lover – run as their candidate for the Senate in 1996. Fortunately he did not get, and he now peddles his pro-death agenda in the US. https://billmuehlenberg.com/1996/10/14/peter-singer-and-the-gospel-of-death/
And yet some people actually have the gall to try to convince us that the Greens are the ones Christians should be voting for! We might as well be told that Christians should have voted for King Herod, Attila the Hun, or Adolph Hitler.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
The Greens are not the only lefties trying to recruit Wilberforce to their cause: http://dicksmithpopulation.com.au/wilberforce-award/
Ewan McDonald, Victoria
Yes he also has gone off to the lunatic fringe.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Typical: most of the “overpopulation” propagandists are wealthy leftists with no intention of leading by example, either by suicide or even by reducing their own consumption.
Jonathan Sarfati, USA
Dear Bill, Thanks for pointing us in the direction of the article. I have read it and it hasn’t altered my opinion that Father Frank Brennan is a fence-sitting, disobedient priest. You can’t be against abortion and advocate voting for the Greens or Labour. To me abortion is the greatest moral challenge of our times. Even dying whales get more attention than the 54 full term aborted babies who were left to die in Victorian hospitals.
If people want to learn more about what the Greens are really all about, please check this out: http://www.greenswatch.com/
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Another interesting thing re the Greens is in the Senate where it is most likely the Greens will be elected because of Liberal preferences (they are allocated preference 32 ahead of Labour by Liberals) as per Anthony Green’s Senate calculator
based on Party voting ticket.This happens in likely event of surplus Liberal votes (as last standing liberal contender 3rd on ticket and no Family First contender left at this stage) going to Greens candidate in preference distribution. Do not think Liberals have thought this through enough – it would be better to put Labour ahead of Greens- especially in this election in Senate as we do not want them in balance of power. Hoping Family First vote is sufficient to outstay greens in distribution process.I know Andrew Evans former elected member of Family First has sent letter out to leaders advising them of the implications that the Green/Labour deal will likely have on Senate selection and the negative effect on Australia as a nation based on Christian ethics.
By the way, that was South Australia in the Senate re Preference 32 on Liberal voting ticket.
Let’s hear no more from leftists who support pro-death parties who would drag up Wilberforce for their cause. Consider the words of Gerard Wilberforce on the topic:
“I am writing as the great great grandson of William Wilberforce, who campaigned vigorously for the ending of the transatlantic slave trade in 1807, which ultimately paved the way for the abolition of slavery itself throughout the entire British Empire in 1833. I am often asked what would be the campaigns Wilberforce would be fighting if he were alive in 21st century Britain. I believe that there would be a number of different issues, among them human trafficking and the scourge of drugs. But almost certainly at the top of the list, would be the issue of abortion.”
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
“The most important moral issue of our time is not climate change, as Kevin Rudd foolishly claimed, but abortion.”
Oh. My. Goodness. It is ignorant statements like that give Christians a bad name. The world is going to hell, and you want more unwanted babies.
Does it occur to you that God loves all creatures, not just humans? Whatever happened to us being caretakers of the Earth? How about trying to repair and restore God’s Creation, and look after the world’s poor, rather than moralising about abortion? Two thirds of the world’s human population won’t have enough to eat today. Get some perspective.
One could not ask for a better example of exactly what I was talking about than your comment. Mind-boggling stuff, really. So in your version of Christianity killing unborn babies is perfectly alright, while saving a tree is the epitome of Christian ethics?
And your comment is a perfect example of a series of alarming logical fallacies. Just how exactly does opposing the murder of the unborn make me an enemy of the poor? And your stats are way off base anyway.
But leaving aside your dodgy figures, let’s just extend your “logic” here: You live in a crowded flat with 30 other people. Ten of them are poor, so by your reasoning, we should just bump them off, because we are already overpopulated. And this is your idea of Christian ethics? Which Bible exactly are you reading from?
Can I remind you that all your rhetoric about helping the poor means absolutely nothing to a person deprived of the fundamental right to life? Your solution to poverty is to kill innocent unborn babies. So much for your unbiblical and trendy Green social justice. Until your plea for social justice extends to those in the womb, all you are giving us is secular mumbo jumbo and empty rhetoric. Please spare us the notion that you are in any way promoting biblical Christianity here.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Hi Bill, my Bible says Matthew 1:18 that Mary was found with child, not ‘foetus’ yes I am anti abortion for just any reason and share it in my meetings with fellow Christians.
Cheers Peter Allard
I agree. Abortion is murder and therefore wrong. All children need to be wanted and loved. Abortion does not fix this or any other problem. It does create a culture of death for convenience and moral self delusion in affluent countries. The cruelty and poverty in some countries has to be seen to be believed. A solution to poverty is to change peoples hearts and minds so that they can not only feed themselves but, with God’s grace, repair the damage to the environment. You cannot fix evil by murdering unborn children i.e. doing more evil.