CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Why a Conscientious Christian Could Not Vote For the Greens

Aug 18, 2010

On August 10 Fr Frank Brennan published an article entitled, “Why a conscientious Christian could vote for the Greens”. It has since appeared in various places, including onlineopinion. While I have spoken to it in part previously, I decided to write a fuller response, which has also appeared at onlineopinion. Below is what I submitted:

(Author disclaimer: I did not pick this fight. But since someone had – in my view – the audacity to suggest that somehow the radical secularist Greens are the party of choice for Christian voters, then I as one Christian felt compelled to give the opposing case.)

Biblical Christianity is ultimately of course above all party politics. It cannot be contained by any one political ideology. Having said that, there are various policies and platforms which may be closer to biblical ideals than others.

No one party will have all the goods, but some may be more on track than others. And some issues are more clear-cut in Scripture than others. Take the issue of social justice, a phrase heard regularly from the religious left. They seem to want to occupy the high moral ground here, and claim they are in fact closer to the Christian position.

Indeed, it appears that believers on the left think they have some sort of monopoly on social justice matters. But if social justice has to do with economic and politic policies which are to help all people, then it is not so clear that the left side of politics can claim all that much here.

Yes there are plenty of biblical passages speaking to these matters. But the key point is this: which political and economic mechanisms best secure this justice? Why do we assume that only leftist policies are in fact so good for people, especially the poor? Why suggest that the Greens are best placed in this regard?

The truth is all political parties deal with such issues, and it is a question of which policies in fact really do benefit all Australians. Indeed, the real question to ask is not, is this party concerned about the poor, but, what economic policies will in fact best help them?

Does a more or less free market approach in fact best address issues of poverty and wealth, or the more statist or socialist model? These are empirical questions which must be assessed according to fact, rather than theory. So one needs to set aside rhetoric here, and examine how actual policies impact on all this.

Moreover, it does very little good to carry on and on about social justice when we kill 100,000 unborn babies each year. Where is their justice? How are they shown compassion and acceptance? Sadly, the Greens are woefully cavalier about human life, whether in the mother’s womb, or towards the end of life.

Leftist rhetoric tends to speak of humanity in general terms, or in class terms, whereas a Christian ethic of justice should consider actual people, especially the most vulnerable. Scripture speaks much to this. Consider for example the following passages:

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

While these texts do not speak solely to matters such as abortion, they surely are key texts about this which cannot be ignored. Parties like the Greens which minimise or ignore the right to life of our most vulnerable and defenceless citizens surely must be queried in terms of their Christian ethic. We certainly have a right to call their bluff on social justice.

And we must not forget just how radical and dangerous the Greens really are in terms of this most fundamental of human rights – the right to life. Recall that the Greens actually had Peter Singer run as their Senate candidate in the 1996 election.

Singer of course is famous – or infamous – for his ultra-radical pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-infanticide, animal rights stance. Indeed, he has made it explicitly clear that while he abhors eating animals, he thinks it is quite alright to have sex with them. And these guys are a mainstream party? This is a party Christians should flock to?

Nor should we forget that the Greens leader, the secularist homosexual Bob Brown, proudly co-authored a book with Peter Singer on Green beliefs and values. So he certainly shares with Singer in these ungodly and appalling beliefs. Yet somehow we are supposed to embrace him and his party as the epitome of Christian conviction.

Now I am not suggesting here that an atheist like Gillard or a secular humanist like Brown cannot be the proper candidate for the Christian vote. If, for example, I had to choose between a candidate who was not a Christian, but had godly values and wanted to promote godly policies, and a Christian candidate without godly values and policies, then yes, I would vote for the unbeliever.

But our choices here are much more pronounced. Rather vacuous rhetoric about social justice and saving the trees must be balanced by this party’s decidedly pro-death stance. Indeed, the Greens seem to care more about plants and animals than they do about human beings.

Plenty of other core biblical concerns could be mentioned here. The very first social institution God created was that of marriage and family. Of course the Greens want to completely gut these and replace them with their own radical social experiments.

The push for same-sex marriage and adoption rights is bad news for plenty of reasons (as I have documented elsewhere), but just how Christian is it to deprive children of one of their most fundamental rights: the right to have their own mother and father?

The truth is, I need not say much more. Simply looking at the Greens’ website will demonstrate to concerned Christians that this party has very little at all that they should approve of and promote. On some of the most basic and core teachings of biblical Christianity, the Greens are radically deficient.

While there is no perfect political party, and while all the other challengers have their shortcomings, I for one would not recommend to any believer that they favour a party which is so fundamentally at odds with basic Christian values and concerns.

www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10815
www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10851

[1070 words]

67 Responses to Why a Conscientious Christian Could Not Vote For the Greens

  • Given the policies of the Watermelon party (Greens) it astounds me that any so-professing Christian would consider voting for them.
    – legalise widespread drug use (that’s going to be great for our teens)
    – they clearly state that their order of priority is animals, then people.
    – when it comes to providing access to education they’re overt in discriminating according to socio-economic background not academic results.
    – they’re willing to throw billions at any scheme that sounds eco-friendly like wind turbines etc. regardless of the relative efficiency of costs of production of these items – sort of like the people who push eco-cars who neglect to mention that the eco-footprint in producing a prius and the very marginal benefit it offers takes something like 33 years to balance out. Some other party (ALP) was stupid enough to recommend throwing away your existing $2000 car just to support the building of a new $36,000 prius in replacement… oh the irony (and no doubt the kick-backs from toyota given that julia has overtly supported them for no good reason before).
    – and last, but certainly not least, the Watermelons want to impose a Carbon Tax on business which will immediately and irreversibly make Australia less-competitive on the world stage and increase prices wholesale, all on the basis of a global warming theory that has been debunked and from the same people that can’t tell you whether it will rain on Friday or not (yet they can tell us without a shadow of a doubt that we’re all going to be underwater in 20 years). In their religious fervour, these CO2 haters, essentially want to reduce global greening since CO2 is essential in plant growth.
    – they’re constantly attacking Christian fundamentals such as marriage between a man and a woman, prayer in parliament, they want to reduce the age of consent, and want to see more children being put into the arms of two men even though the instances of sexual abuse in such parenting situations is grossly (and sadly) disproportionate to the numbers. It just gets hushed up in the media.

    All this from the man voted Humanist of the Year, a gay man who promotes the sexualisation of our children in schools.

    Garth Penglase

  • The most frustrating thing for me is not the Greens, nor those who would vote for the Greens out of ignorance, but those who call themselves Christians and strongly defend them. In the past 4 months I have ended up in conversations with Christians where they end up claiming the moral high ground as they upheld abortion, homosexuality, Islam and insane economic policies that effectively amount to believing money grows on trees. You try to reason with them, but all you get is the ABC/The Age/leftist pre-programming recording instead, along with personal attacks.

    I had one conversation with a girl who was convinced that Jesus cared more about the poor than He would about unborn children getting dismembered. Too bad she couldn’t see that concern for the living assumes an inherent value of life first. I have to admit that conversation rattled me more than any other I have had in the last 5 years. It feels like betrayal when you encounter that.

    ‘Social justice’ begins in the womb, otherwise it is just a meaningless slogan, since some are excluded. How guys like Brennan could sleep at night when they hold to such irrational and immoral views, is beyond me.

    Mark Rabich

  • Thanks Mark

    Terrific line: “’Social justice’ begins in the womb, otherwise it is just a meaningless slogan.”

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I hear a common argument in favour of Christians voting for the Greens: Yes they have a couple of policies that aren’t so good, but their concern for the environment, peace and refugees far outweighs these bad policies.

    This falsehood needs to be put to rest.

    Here is a summarised list of what the Greens publicly stand for.
    1. Christians not allowed to voice their values and beliefs in public discourse
    2. Public cricitism of other religions and homosexuality to be outlawed as “vilification of minorities”
    3. Abolition of tax exemptions for Christian organisations
    4. Abolition of selective employment privileges for Christian organisations
    5. Funding removed from Christian independent schools
    6. All schools forced to teach secular values, secular morality (including “gay = normal”), and evolutionism
    7. Replacement of school chaplaincy and Scripture classes with secular equivalents
    8. Non abstinence based sex education
    9. Universal, free, Medicare funded abortions from conception to full term
    10. Legalisation of euthanasia
    11. Legalisation of human embryo research and therapeutic cloning
    12. Gay and lesbian marriage
    13. Adoption of children by same sex couples
    14. Medicare funded assisted reproductive services for same sex couples
    15. Christian churches, hospitals, and agencies forced against conscience to participate in abortions, same sex marriage and same sex adoption
    16. Easier access to X-rated pornography, especially in emerging media (eg. PC games, the internet)
    17. Decriminalisation of drugs, safe injecting rooms

    I’d really like someone to explain to me how these one or two “minor” bad policies (all 17 of them) can be outweighed by the Green concern for the environment and refugees. I’ve tried to look at this from the left, right, top, bottom, back to front, and upside down, and I just cannot get the argument to work. Jesus commands us to giv e a fair hearing to everyone who claims to be on the side of righteousness; but with all due respect to Christian Green supporters, Jesus does not command us to be downright stupid!

    Jereth Kok

  • Thanks Jereth

    Yes exactly so. There are so many believers who seem to have lost their moral compass here, and are clearly not operating from a biblical worldview. They do not seem to mind slaughtering babies in the thousands as long as we can keep hugging trees, and offer rather vacuous rhetoric about boat people.

    And we can’t forget the great line by Mark Rabich: “’Social justice’ begins in the womb, otherwise it is just a meaningless slogan.” If these guys are happy to massacre the unborn, then I do not believe them for a moment when they carry on about the rights of this or that group of people – or animals.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Refusing to be distracted from discussing the murder of the unborn is the best way to engage with Greens (and Labor) apologists. Once a Christian allows the conversation to move to less important issues such as the economy or refugees then he has already implicitly admitted that other topics are relevant to the question of whether a Christian can support the Greens. It is at this point that the Green wins his greatest victory – an admission that the murder of the unborn isn’t an absolute after all.

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Thanks Bill for your article. I can see the likes of Jim Reiher (et al) is very much in mind.

    Jereth: thanks for your post, and the 17 items which specifically oppose Christian values. I could add others which are just plain crazy, and which illustrate their war on science, reason, and ordinary common sense (alas, no longer common).
    But you, Garth, and Mark complain about Green supporters as Christians. If they support these wicked policies they are NOT Christians. It’s time we called a spade and spade: not all those who take the name are really such. There have been many who have claimed the name for themselves, for various personal reasons, but are none of His. What does our Lord say, when on the Day of Judgment many plead that they have done X, Y, and Z in His name? “I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practise lawlessness!'” (Matt.7:22-23).
    Christ fully submitted Himself to Scripture; these people do not, but only when Scripture suits their preconceptions. Christ came into the world to save sinners, and to redeem them from a profligate life. According to these people He came to condone their evil lifestyle. Christ came to call sinners to repentance: these people want to have one foot in the world, and the other foot in Christ’s Kingdom. Consequently they rationalise their wickedness.

    “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers.
    But his delight is in the Law of the LORD, and in His Law he meditates day and night.”
    Psalm 1:1-2

    Mark, why not ask the next leftist you debate with how much serious Bible study they do? They seem rather to get their ideas from the scoffers, and outright sinners and loose-livers of this world.

    Again:
    “The wicked strut about on every side, when vileness is exalted among the sons of men.” Psalm 12:8
    How does a Green leftist respond to that? In our present time vileness is indeed exalted among men as we have not seen it before.

    Murray R Adamthwaite

  • Yes Bill, and Mark.

    Look, if left leaning Christians really want to vote Labor that is fine by me. I disagree, but I do not regard that as a heinous sin. From time to time Labor has something alright to offer, and their pro-death pro-secularist stance is not nearly as aggressive as that of the Greens.

    But to vote Greens is, quite frankly, to vote for the Devil himself. There are no two ways about this. And I think that enough has been said now that Christians cannot plead ignorance. Any Christian in Australia who votes Green must do so taking an immense burden onto their conscience. They must do so knowing that Jesus is utterly displeased with such an action, and that they will have some explaining to do on the day of Judgment. 2 Corinthians 5:10.

    Jereth Kok

  • Hi Jereth,

    I take quite a different view to ‘Christians’ voting Labor. I don’t think a Christian with a clear conscience can vote for a party which actively promotes the murder of the unborn through stated policy and its past legislation, over the many other parties which actively oppose this killing, or at least are more pro-life in practice.

    The Labor party includes in its national platform:

    Labor will support the rights of women to determine their own reproductive lives, particularly the right to choose appropriate fertility control and abortion and ensure that these choices are on the basis of sound social and medical advice.

    http://www.alp.org.au/australian-labor/our-platform/ (Chapter 6)

    Compare this to the Liberal party which, whilst far from perfect, is demonstrably more pro-life both in terms of its stated policies (where it remains silent on the issue) and in its elected members’ past voting record.

    In my opinion, the only time a Christian could vote Labor over Liberal is in a seat where the Labor candidate is known to be pro-life and the Liberal candidate isn’t.

    Mansel Rogerson

  • “If they support these wicked policies they are NOT Christians. It’s time we called a spade and spade: not all those who take the name are really such. ”

    This is correct, Murray, but I think that it is not as simple as saying all Green voters are unbelievers. The problem is that many Christians have not learned that being Christian means your first allegiance is to Christ. Many Christians have Christ as second allegiance. This takes many forms.

    I am an environmentalist first and a Christian second.
    I am an social justice advocate first and a Christian second.
    I am a Chinese first and Christian second.
    I am an American first and a Christian second.
    I am a political conservative first and a Christian second.
    I am a feminist first and a Christian second.
    I am a scientist first and a Christian second.
    I am a businessman first and a Christian second.

    and so it goes.

    Many Christian Green voters have not been adequately taught what the Lordship of Christ really means. For them, Christ is to be recruited to the Green cause rather than the Green cause being subjected to Him.

    Jereth Kok

  • Thanks Jereth

    Yes, some of these believers are hopefully just not up to speed, and with a bit of education, might be deterred from their Green support. They may unfortunately be ignorant, lacking in a biblical worldview, biblically illiterate, or just jumping on the latest trendy bandwagon. Perhaps some of these folks can be reached and informed on these matters, and maybe some will have a change of heart and mind.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Thanks Jereth.
    I don’t think we are at odds at all here. I agree that say political conservatives are not necessarily Christian. Indeed, many are just as godless as their leftist counterparts. and likewise for the other examples in your list.
    The real issue is, put slightly differently than your own (quite Biblical) formulation, that Christian leftists/Greenies/socialist-statists are trying to serve two masters:
    They attempt to be Christ’s followers AND Gaia-worshipping Greenies
    They attempt to be Christ’s followers AND State worshippers, idolising big government (you know, “Praise Gough from whom all blessings flow!”)
    They attempt to be Christ’s followers AND run with godless secularists in their programme to remove God from national life, teach evolution in our schools, and erode our historic religious freedoms
    And so on…
    I think we are really on the same wavelength.
    Murray R Adamthwaite

  • I would never vote Greens if you paid me a million dollars!! Labor is also way out of my target range….
    It’s the Coalition all the way for me…

    When the Labor feminists got on their disgusting high horse, connecting Mr Abbott’s ‘no means no’ line to the ‘anit-rape’ slogan, those women showed how downright nasty and vindictive they were.

    One comment for you ladies……..if women respected their bodies, rather than embody YOUR feminist principles of ‘doing what you want sexually’, rape would not be an issue.

    Tony Abbott was clearly shocked by their ‘smear’ tactics, and dismissed their comments immediately.

    Shame on you ladies. You yourselves have assisted in bringing about the many problems women face, through the promotion of your liberal attitudes. I would never want you in power in this country.

    Jane Petridge

  • Yes Murray, I guess I’d ask this question: can anyone who places anything between them and Jesus, or before Jesus in order of priority, be called a follower of Christ. Many call themselves Christians but the scriptures show that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New is the same and He does NOT for anything to come before Him in the lives of His followers.

    So, as just as Jereth listed a few the things that people place before God, so I’d say, we cannot refer to these people as followers of Christ, for to accept Christ a Saviour is to accept Him as Lord, or He is neither to us.

    I think the term Christian is used very loosely. It’s supposed to mean a follower of Christ, not of anything else and then Christ.

    Garth Penglase

  • Murray, we are most definitely on the same wavelength.

    Garth, all Christians have idols that are continually vying for our allegiance. None of us can claim to fully serve Christ as Lord. It may be comfort, it may be good health, it may be material possessions, it may be a career, it may be any number of other things. For some, it is green leftism.

    I would not say that someone is a non-Christian unless it was clear that they had given themself wholly to an idol and were making no effort to subjugate that idol under Christ. For some Greenies this is undoubtedly the case, but not for all. More culpable I think are the church leaders who recommend that their parishioners vote Green. Yes. It happens.

    Hi Mansel, I hope you and your (recently enlarged) family are well. I agree with you that Labor is pretty dodgy; my point was simply that they are not as abominable as the Greens and I am not going to crucify another Christian for voting for them. We all make errors; I voted Labor during my early twenties in ignorance of their abortion policy and radical social agenda.

    Jereth Kok

  • Thanks guys

    Yes in terms of those who are truly His, only God knows, and it is unwise for us to seek to assess this. Of course we are also told that we can judge people by their fruit (Matt. 7:16). Yet many believers are doing things either ignorantly or foolishly, and may eventually come around if we lovingly but firmly point out where they err. I too have done plenty of things in the past as a believer which I now cringe at.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • As some of you may know I’m a tradie (mechanic) and its worse in the workshop arena. Well no different really just the language is different. Ive asked several people in my circle of work colleagues about there point of view, the answers range from, I’m gonna write a swear word on the ballot paper to I’m gonna draw a picture on it. Ive said all i can think of to them etc if you don’t care then don’t be surprised by the results or think about the kids future. Its just so sad.
    Daniel Kempton

  • Daniel, tell em you’ll shout them a beer each if they vote Liberal. That might do the trick!
    Jane Petridge

  • Great plan Jane.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Jane and Daniel,

    And offer them two beers if they’ll preference the CDP, DLP and FF before even the Coalition. These parties are much more forthright in seeking to stop the slaughter of babies in this country and generally better reflect other Biblical values too.

    To send a signal to the major parties that these issues matter, it is important to give these minor parties your first preference. And if they’re not elected, your vote will pass down in full to the Coalition anyway.

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Thanks Mansel

    This plan keeps getting better and better!

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Daniel, Jane, Mansel, and Bill, just a word of caution.

    I know that the “shouting a beer” was to emphasise a point, but I think the Electoral Act forbids offering an inducement to a person to modify their vote.

    Keep it light-hearted, and in the forum only. 🙂

    John Angelico

  • I have only one argument with your article. Frank Brennan (I refuse to call this man “Father”) is not a Christian leader. He is way off any orthodox Catholic view or beliefs and certainly does not speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. He is the leader of only himself.
    Frank Bellet, Petrie Qld

  • Miranda Devine has a good piece on the green bully tactics that has destroyed the Tasmanian timber industry (although we must remember too that Latham sold the timber workers up the creek for the sake of the greens back in 2004 as well. Labor is no longer the party of the working class but of the chattering, latte sipping class);

    “But the international green movement and the Australian Wilderness Society fought a relentless campaign to bring the company to its knees and destroy Gay.

    They let loose violent feral protesters who chained themselves to trees and sabotaged logging equipment; protesters with placards picketed the ANZ Bank, which had undertaken to finance Gay’s proposal for a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley, but pulled out at the last minute.

    And they had environmentalists in suits successfully traduce Gay to cowardly institutional investors who earlier this year dumped Gunn’s shares, halving the value of the company in a week.

    Greenies in suits also went to Japan, destroying Gunn’s markets for its woodchips, threatening – in an oh-so-reasonable way – companies which used pulp sourced from Tasmania’s forests to make paper.

    Afraid their brands would be trashed, Gunns’ Japanese customers dropped Tasmania like a hot potato.

    Then there was the personal vilification. Gay describes it as ”torture” for his wife, Erica, and adult son and daughter, with his home under assault two or three nights a week for years – from smoke bombs under the house, stink bombs at the front door, dead possums in the yard, people rattling the gates late at night and screaming abuse from the street.”

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/felled-by-an-invidious-green-plot-20100818-12f2r.html

    Damien Spillane

  • I was just reading through this with great interest. I agree with Bill’s articles and will certainly not vote for anyone who promotes abortion and other anti-life policies.

    However I am trouble by Jane’s statement here and am disappointed that I am the first to challenge it:

    “One comment for you ladies……..if women respected their bodies, rather than embody YOUR feminist principles of ‘doing what you want sexually’, rape would not be an issue.”

    How is women respecting/not respecting their bodies causing men to rape them?

    Anna Harrison

  • On Saturday we vote and on sunday will anything have changed . It is good to have a concience at times like these but doesn’t say in the last days it will be a godless society anyway . I don,t think Jesus took the high moral ground . Reguardless of who wins and saying to God I did my bit for you when I ticked that box , let our concience be pricked 24/7 to do good for God everyday . When we see thru Gods eyes all judgement disappears
    Kevin Christensen

  • Thanks Kevin

    Yes you are right that every day we should seek to live a life pleasing to Christ. But I don’t follow the rest of your remarks. Are you really suggesting that we have no Christian obligations to vote responsibly? Or that there are no differences at all between, say, a pro-life, pro-family, pro-faith party (eg CDP), and one that is anti-life, anti-family, and anti-faith (eg Greens)? If so, we certainly differ here big time.

    Indeed, I have sought to demonstrate in numerous recent articles that there will be a world of difference between a Labor-Green government and a Liberal-National government.

    And I am not sure what your last line means. We are told throughout the Bible to judge, discern, make moral evaluations, test the spirits, and so on. To seek to suspend all judgment is to stop acting like a biblical Christian. And it has absolutely nothing to do with ‘taking the moral high ground’.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • God is not democratic and He does not need to be voted in. He will never be voted out. People can say what they want, but in time the godless are “blown away” like chaff before the wind. Where is the once apparently omniscient and globally threatening nazi party now? What has become of the regimes of fearsome dictators of our day like Castro, Ghaddafi and Stalin? What is the long term fate of North Korea. When we are all long gone, the only thing remaining will be the truth – and whther we voted for that with our lives or not. “The fear of the Lord is CLEAN enduring forever.” It is the fear fo the Lord which keeps men from sin. Since this is not widespread today sin has become the ultimate growth industry. But not long term. As someone said once, those who will not learn the lessons of history are condemned to prove it again. And the great lessons of history are that (1) righteousness IS the only way and (2) history is really His Story.
    Stuart Reece, Brisbane

  • Greetings,
    There is an old DVD called “Time Changer” about a Theological lecturer around 1890 who is writing a book on morals. He gets transported a hundred years time to see how the church has progressed. He gets quite a shock!
    The purpose of the DVD is to show that you cannot expect a moral society without a Christian influence. Present pollies and voters should take note.
    Ray Levick

  • Hi Jereth,

    Sure, ignorance of political parties’ policies abounds amongst Christians, and even those of us who take a keen interest do not have perfect knowledge or motives and will still make mistakes. But I think given the great responsibility that comes with choosing our leaders, Christians are still morally culpable for not thinking carefully about priorities and neglecting to do their political homework.

    But, of course, a Christian who votes Labor out of ignorance is not half as morally culpable as one who knows the differences, but still values their left wing pet issues over really important ones such as protecting the unborn.

    So I don’t think we should be complacent if Christians are voting Labor, or rest easy because at least they’re not voting for the Greens. There are much better Christian alternatives available and we should make it our business to explain these important differences to them.

    Mansel Rogerson

  • There are some Christians who hold strongly to the viewpoint that as we are citizens of heaven and God’s Kingdom is not worldly, and, just as the Jews continued looking to an earthly Kingdom instead of the one that Jesus ushered in, that we should be concerned more with the battle in the spiritual than the daily gyrations of politics, economics & national interests. On the other hand we are called to defend the defenceless and uphold the poor etc., and praying for change and acting out that conviction seems to be part of our Christian duty. Each Christian has to come to an understanding of where they fit into this paradox – that of being in the world but not of it, and what that looks like to them.

    I know you’ve referred to this in other articles Bill, maybe Kevin was referring to that. Of course it is always the correct thing for us to ask God what to pray & do so as to be in His will regarding all things – sometimes that may not be what we would consider the obvious path. The question was posed by a US writer recently asking was it right for Americans to be praying for God to save America when America had turned from God and His mighty hand was removed from America. It is a fair point, for it was God’s will to destroy Sodom & Gomorrah once their sin became too great, yet on the other hand, when pressed by Abraham, God was still willing to spare it for the sake of 10 people.

    While it is true that Jesus wasn’t a moral crusader, and certainly not at the expense of His primary mission, I am also a bit confused by the statements “I don’t think Jesus took the high moral ground” (um ok… then what ground did he take?) and “When we see through God’s eyes all judgement disappears”. But you have answered that Bill.

    Garth Penglase

  • Hi folks

    Just thought I’d drop in a word as a would-be conscientious Christian who has been considering a vote for the Greens.

    1. I can’t remember if anyone mentioned it, but Frank Brennan’s proposed Greens vote is a Senate vote only. There is more nuance to that than a wholesale endorsement of the Greens, just as a Big Two vote need not be a wholesale endorsement of Liberal or Labor.

    2. Speaking personally, I am ambivalent about the Greens as a party, but I’ve found that a Greens vote can be a legitimate protest vote. I’ve been blogging through some of these things if you’d like to hear more.

    Cheers

    Arthur Davis, Melbourne

  • Thanks Arthur

    Sorry but I am not buying your reasoning here. Will you also encourage people to vote for, say, a racist party, a pro-pedophilia party, or a neo-Nazi party, simply because it is a “protest vote”? If you are really interested in sending a Christian message to the major parties, why not vote for the CDP, DLP, or FF, as a protest vote? One might as well argue that German Christians in the 1930s should have voted for the Nazis as a protest vote, even though they did not agree with everything the Nazis stood for. I fail to see much biblical sense in such a stance.

    And there are of course Greens running in both houses, not just the Senate. Lindsay Tanner’s seat is a prime example, and may in fact be where you live. If you are in the Melbourne electorate, will you be voting Greens there? If so, spare us the disingenuous plea that it is just the Senate Greens you are favouring.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Jereth, while we all seem to be on similar turf here, your juxtaposition of “all Christians have idols that are continually vying for our allegiance. None of us can claim to fully serve Christ as Lord.” is a big leap. In my mind, there’s a solid difference between, on one hand, the temptations that we experience and at times fall to, us straying from God and other such errors in our walk with God, and on the other hand placing an idol in our life. God made it clear that idolatry meant separation from Him and that he would not countenance it for long, and Jesus made it similarly clear that we can have no other God’s before Him. Clearly we cannot serve two masters. When our decisions mean continually and staunchly choosing something over God and His truth that we know, then we are separated from Him.

    Your statement “I would not say that someone is a non-Christian unless it was clear that they had given themself wholly to an idol and were making no effort to subjugate that idol under Christ.” is not a judgement I would rush to, nor am I questioning where someone is before God based on their vote in this election – we all come to different knowledge at different times, though I do believe a person who is seeking God and His truth would eventually come to the knowledge that socialism and humanism is anti-God and this should ultimately affect their voting choices.

    My point is that a clearly stated/understood priority in a person’s life which is before God places them at odds with God, for that thing will quickly result in a *choice* between it and God. Your statement “For them, Christ is to be recruited to the Green cause rather than the Green cause being subjected to Him.” is an example of, and entirely true in, this regard. When we (continually) choose other than God we turn from Him – we are not followers of Him. Too many people claim God’s participation in their pet projects or crusades, we see it all around us.

    The scriptures make it clear that it is God’s desire that all would be saved, also that many are called and few are chosen, and that Jesus does not recognise many who believe themselves to be of Christ. Placing something solidly before God is a clear distinction. As to where that places each person is between them and God, but fruit eventually decides the issue for them (and others). As such that’s why the epistles tell a pastor to excommunicate someone who refuses to correct certain actions. They have chosen.

    Garth Penglase

  • Good news all,

    Although i felt my words fell on deaf ears, with there comments like drawing a picture on the ballot paper, turns out there was a big discussion amongst themselves while i wasn’t there. Apparently they all got together said what mattered to each of them. I’m not sure where there vote will go but I’m grateful their at least talking about it.
    I also learnt something, patience.

    Daniel Kempton

  • One thing I haven’t seen brought up in these comments re: a Christians view on political parties (although I just may have missed it) is where the parties stand on the United Nations agenda. Many don’t realise that apart from the rather obvious global socialist base of the UN they also have very clear and frightening ideas about religion. And the religion they push is a green Gaia interfaith “Babylonian”concept which is very antagonistic towards Biblical Christianity. A political parties views on the UN and it’s subsidiary organizations, eg Alliance of Civilizations Agenda 21 etc are essential for Christians to take note of IMO.
    Glenn Christopherson

  • When you see the swing to any political party that seems to offer a better way beware, we cannot neutralise their evil policies by saying “Yes but look at the good things they offer”
    Every one that comes before us bearing gifts to conceal their evil must be tested before the Lord. It’s simple really. You cannot kill the children then nullify that crime with the promise to ban asbestos mining.
    If I were to ask Bob brown if he will work towards banning abortion I know his answer will convict him. If I were to ask God for some bread would the loaf contain a viper?
    Test them against Gods laws and the words of Jesus and know thine enemy.

    Dennis Newland

  • Well said Frank Bellet, the poor man needs our prayers I think. He’s been losing the plot for some time and should be listening to what Cardinal Pell has to say about the greens. Fr. Frank does not have the excuse of ignorance, quite the reverse in fact. The appeal of convoluted theoretical argument, so attractive to intellectual theorists, weighs nothing against the appalling weight of slaughter, perversity and loss of religious freedom. Perhaps Fr. Frank should spend a morning in an abortion clinic, maybe emptying their “garbage” instead of attempting to defend the indefensible, would wake him up and change his perception on the acceptability of voting Green. At my church we have been praying for the wisdom to elect a leader who will lead us “with honesty ,integrity and Christian values”. I will be handing out CDP material at a polling booth this Saturday and praying for a Godly outcome.
    Anna Cook

  • Hello Bill.

    Thank you for your excellent blog. It is an inspiration to me.

    Regarding support for the Greens, this is part of a media release by the ACL (Australian Christian Lobby). My humble opinion is that the Greens should not receive one bit of praise. Why? Because there may be some babes in Christ, who will vote for the Greens as a result of this media release, because they do not know the full truth about the Greens.

    Yours in Christ’s Service,
    Paul Copeland

    Here is the link to the media release:
    http://australianchristianlobby.org.au/2010/08/christian-lobby-congratulates-act-greens-on-first-steps-to-combat-sexualisation-of-children/

    The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) today congratulated ACT Greens Party Convener, Meredith Hunter, on moves to introduce a voluntary code of conduct for retailers to help combat the sexualisation of children as well as a proposal to educate students on the dangers of sexualised images on young minds, but said more needs to be done to seriously tackle the wider sexualisation of culture.

    The ACL’s ACT Director Nick Jensen said he supported moves for the ACT to become a leader in the fight against the sexualisation of children and welcomed Ms Hunter’s motion calling on the ACT Government to take action on the issue.

    “While Ms Hunter’s motion is welcome, it would be great to see her concern extend to Federal Green policies, where there is a push for X-rated material to be sold throughout Australia, support for girls to sell their bodies for sex in prostitution legislation, and opposition to ISP filtering measures to stop child pornography on the internet.

  • Firstly, thank you so much Bill for all the work you do in informing and raising our awareness of current issues. We look forward to reading your posts and comments and along with my family enjoyed your recent presentation in Hobart.
    Sadly in our electorate, which may possibly be one of the “darker” ones in the country, we have been left in an untenable situation. We have Labor, Greens, Socialist Alliance, Independent and finally a Liberal candidate who has spoken publicly of his intention to “cross the floor” in support of “Gay Marriage”. Thankfully we do have Christian candidates to vote for in the Senate.
    We along with many others here are much in prayer and really do appreciate the like mindedness which we read on this valuable blog. Keep up the good work Bill.
    Just to finish on a positive note, Jesus said, “In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.”
    John and Kim Holmes

  • Hi Arthur,

    I note in your blog that you believe Christians should not use their vote to favour themselves, but should use it for the benefit of others. You state “What about the voiceless? I think that’s the deciding factor and, if it comes to it, I will put that ahead of other concerns.” I agree with you 100% here.

    But tell me; the Greens policy is to “ensure that all women have access to legal, free and safe pregnancy termination services including unbiased counselling.”
    http://greens.org.au/policies/care-for-people/women

    In other words they want to use taxes to fully fund the murder of babies. Now do you think that this policy of theirs would result in more babies being killed in Australia or fewer? Do you think that if the Greens do get to hold the balance of power in the senate this might just allow them to put real pressure on the government to move closer to this goal? Do you think that if the major parties see the Green vote go up they will be pressured to move their own policies closer to the Greens next election to remain competitive?

    Sorry to be blunt, but if you really are a Christian you have a lot more thinking to do here. Don’t the 100,000 unborn babies killed in Australia every year count as the voiceless you want to use your vote to protect?

    Mansel Rogerson

  • This article is a great way to lead Christians to a better understanding of how their vote can be effective in stemming the tide of evil in this country. Another thing is to educate Christians on what & how to use *preferential voting* – I have found that many don’t understand the concept and feel that they will ‘waste’ their vote if they don’t vote for one of the big parties. I see on the Greens website that they are aware of the need to educate voters for their benefit, maybe we could let our friends etc know more about this.

    From the Electoral Commission:
    A preferential vote count is used to elect members of the House of Assembly requires a candidate to obtain an absolute majority (50% plus one) of the total formal votes cast in an electoral district to win a seat in parliament. If, at the first count, no candidate has gained more than 50% of the votes, the candidate with the least number of first preference votes is excluded. His/her ballot papers are then distributed to the remaining candidates according to the allocation of the second preference (marked with a number 2 on the excluded candidate’s ballot papers). The process of excluding the candidate with the least number of votes and distributing the next available preference continues until one candidate is elected by gaining more than 50% of the vote.

    Since 1976 all House of Assembly election counts have continued until only two candidates remain, regardless of any one candidate gaining an absolute majority earlier in the count.

    Garth Penglase

  • I’ve read this article and nearly all of the posts.

    As to your version on online opinion: an important issue arises: Many of the posts have been made by persons who appear not part of the minority group (Christians) to whom the author specifically intends to address.

    Bill categorically states that he’s writing “to Christians”. The great difficulty for persons not adhering to the Christian faith or Christian ethic is that their paradigms are likely to be diametrically opposed to the author’s and therefore, rational debate on the issue is unlikely to work and moreover, likely to result in confusion, misunderstanding or even anger.

    He is not wishing to debate or justify his paradigm (Christianity). That is already well established.

    Importantly, underlying the Bill’s values are what are generally defined as moral issues – issues that a non-Christian would simply dismiss as totally irrelevant or worse (particularly when informative debate is the desired outcome of posting his article) derides.

    If a member of the Fabian Society for example wrote an article advising its members which party (or which candidate) to vote for, then it would be ludicrous for a non-Fabian or (worse) and anti-Fabian to enter into commentary. The originating article and its associated commentary (“posts”) are relevant only for its intended audience.

    With this in mind, it might be more productive for non-Christians to take their comments and expend their energy elsewhere and for Christians (the intended audience) to contribute to this debate.

    It seems that many of the posts have clearly not very been genuine comments, insofar that many of them have resorted to ridicule, vilification and are simply not respectful. Such posts are not ever conducive to intelligent debate nor does vilification or ridicule ever achieve change in attitude – moreover the opposite. If this is the case (to those to whom this paragraph addresses) why continue for it is destructive to your own “cause” and a waste of your time.

    Finally, (for those who might choose to debate what Bill means by “Christian”), the author’s website is quite clear about what he means by his denotation of that (rather critical) terminology.

    Paul Evans

  • My view is that much of the Greens policies are incompatible with Christian teaching. One should note though that the ALP brought this problem on itself when it reduced some of its earlier and core faithful constituency’s aspirations to public ownership and to things like Medicare funded dentistry and similar things.
    Hence many people see that the Greens have stepped into this vacuum when the ALP moved closer to the Coalition on health, industrial relations etc.
    Now the rest of the Greens agenda of ETS and anti life and anti traditional marriage is of course wrong but this is the price to be paid for libertarianism in economics.
    The ALP would need to admit its errors and move towards social/family policies based on natural law, restore mild public ownership in defined areas. The Greens then would lose their influence and votes except for those who curiously believe in ETS and libertarian ‘morals.
    Michael Webb

  • Arthur, please be transparent about your intentions.

    Here’s what your blog says:

    “I’m also voting Greens in the Lower House. Earlier, I suggested voting to tilt the system. Labor and Liberal both seem locked in a battle to preserve the status quo, trying to shout over one another with the same message — and it sounds to me like a message of fear and greed. It disgusts me, and I want someone to change the game with a better vision, so I’m voting Greens to send them a message.”

    Jereth Kok

  • – And so many people just hear “concern for the environment” and think, ‘Well, that’s ok’ – but no one asks what, actually, it means. It often means trying to make nature/the world into a substitute god, an end in itself, something that’s much more important than people because (they think) it will last longer then people. But if we get rid of this materialist (yes, actually) world-view, and adopt the Judeo-Christian one, this is all nonsense. The world exists for people, and people are/will be eternal. Yes, sorry Greenies, the world and your beloved nature are doomed, passing away; science itself says so.
    John Thomas, UK

  • Thanks John

    Yes, while we are called to be good stewards of planet earth, we are not to worship it, nor treat it as an end in itself. But for the atheists and naturalists, this is all there is. It is of great value, and it is good because created by a good God, but it is only a passing flash in the greater, eternal scheme of things.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Mansel, thanks for asking.

    I agree: abortion is a big justice issue! The unborn are indeed some of those voiceless!

    I don’t think abortion is always a simple issue, nor the only one worthy of our attention.

    I don’t pretend to have neatly reconciled this either.

    One consideration: To what extent is abortion a federal matter? Health is largely dealt with by state governments. I wonder what a ‘vote against abortion’ means in this election.

    What I mean is that politics is fraught. I doubt that a vote can ever account for all the voiceless. But I hope that my vote this year might be effective in aiding some of the voiceless in a way that is currently feasible in Australian politics, and helping change the tune of politics for the better. And this is less because I believe the Greens will actually do something about it, and more because I believe that a Greens vote can serve as a warning to the Big Two for their failure to act (especially in my electorate).

    That’s where I’ve got up to, at least!

    Cheers

    Arthur Davis

  • Thanks Arthur

    But with all due respect I find your reply to be cavalier and lacking in any basic Christian ethics. Let me just paraphrase you:

    ‘I don’t think the Holocaust is always a simple issue, nor the only one worthy of our attention.
    I don’t pretend to have neatly reconciled this either.’

    Abortion is arguably the greatest moral issue of our time, and one that takes the lives of 45-50 million unborn babies every year, yet all your belief system can come up with is, ‘well, it isn’t the only issue, and I really care more about sending a protest message to the major parties.’ I find this morally bankrupt and one of the more shallow and careless remarks made by someone claiming to be a follower of Christ.

    If this is the best defence your side can come up with for your support of the godless Greens, then no wonder the church is losing the plot. You offer no biblical rationale at all, just poor secular lefty excuses. I am not impressed.

    Forget about any social justice talk if you are blasé about abortion. If you are not alive, it does not matter a hill of beans what the Greens think about affordable housing or anything else, for heaven’s sake. All social justice goods presuppose the most basic social justice good of all – life. Without life, we can just stop carping on about refugee or other pet topics.

    And consider other key biblical concerns. The pro homosexuality Greens are in effect undermining God’s institutions of marriage and family. Undermine family and we undermine society. But the religious left doesn’t seem to care about this very much either. Sorry, I can never buy such unbiblical values being promoted in the name of Christianity, or in the name of some foolish ‘protest vote’.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Bill,
    Good article. I agree too with your underlying premise though I would say it is possible for a Christian to vote Green. There are a lot of ignorant and uninformed Christians out there, and still others who claim to be Christian but have a false profession of faith which is demonstrated by their conscience on such matters.
    No thinking Christian who is informed and follows through on their convictions could vote for the Greens.
    Mihael McCoy

  • Hi Arthur,

    You say: “I don’t think abortion is always a simple issue, nor the only one worthy of our attention.”

    Really? If babies are really alive before they are born, then about 100,000 babies every year in Australia are tortured by having their limbs pulled off while still conscious and then murdered. This seems fairly simple to understand. Isn’t the scope of this evil big enough to dwarf all other issues we currently face in Australia combined? Even if the Greens were unequivocally better at helping all other voiceless groups, could this extra help compare with 100,000 deliberate tortures and murders?

    You also say: “To what extent is abortion a federal matter? Health is largely dealt with by state governments. I wonder what a ‘vote against abortion’ means in this election.”

    There are four very big ways in which the federal government greatly influences how many babies are murdered both in Australia and overseas:
    1. By authorising Medicare to fund the murder of babies in Australia (as I said in my last post, the stated policy of the Greens is to fully fund all child murders)
    2. By authorising Australian foreign aid to be used to fund the murder of babies overseas (under the last Liberal government this was banned, until the Rudd Labor government authorised it. Guess what the Green position is?)
    3. By allowing the import of drugs to kill babies such as RU486 into Australia
    4. By either enforcing or turning a blind eye to the UN Declaration of Human Rights as it refers to the rights of the child to which Australia is a signatory and that states “WHEREAS the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth” http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp

    So, please stop making excuses and face up to the fact that a vote for the Greens, or to a lesser extent a vote for Labor is a vote which has the potential to have a big impact on the deaths of babies. If you vote for these policies then the blood of these babies is on your hands.

    Finally you bizarrely state: “I believe that a Greens vote can serve as a warning to the Big Two for their failure to act”

    It certainly will. It will warn them that voters want even less protection for babies and more murders. If you want to register a protest against the two big parties then why not lodge a vote for the CDP / DLP and FF first and put the Greens last. This type of protest will show the major parties that voters want more protection for the unborn, not less.

    Mansel Rogerson

  • Anyone who wants to send a message to the government, surely a more logical approach is to use parties such as Christian Democratic Party etc. or independents to send a message. A swing toward these parties will send a much better and bigger message. As it is, the Greens will be getting the preferences of both major parties, so a vote for the Greens really isn’t much of a protest vote as it’ll be lost in the wash. And giving the Greens the balance of power is plainly a dangerous thing to do, given their radical, thoughtless and Godless policies.
    Garth Penglase

  • So, Father Frank Brennan is, by implication, a warrior for human/pet intercourse, homosexual intercourse, and partial birth abortion, and for the most Marxist party in Australia.
    God bless Cardinal Pell.
    Stan Fishley

  • Something that protest voters need to realise is that the Greens stand to hold 7 or 8 (possibly more?) seats in the Senate after this election. Out of a total of 76. And Senators sit for 6 years, which means that it will be a loooong time until the damage caused by Green protest votes can be rectified. Just think what age you will be in 6 years.
    Jereth Kok

  • Glenn Christopherson asks above what is the Christian view on the parties support for the “United Nations agenda”? Speaking as a candidate and supporter of the CDP, we take a very skeptical view of the value and role of the UN. I personally see it as an illegitimate government system based as it is on a humanist agenda and constitution. This is to be contrasted with most Western government systems which, as with our own Australian example, have a government system historically based on Christian concepts which recognise themselves as being under the authority of God.

    Most other parties including the FFP seem to want to pay much homage to the UN. Why I don’t know. I suppose it’s just the politically correct thing to do these days!

    Ewan McDonald, Victoria

  • Thanks Ewan

    I for one will take into consideration your info when I cast my vote.

    Glenn Christopherson

  • Yes @Ewan, the UN is a pseudo centralised government being endorsed by Fabians the world round usurping sovereign authority from nations. Like many government concepts it was setup supposedly to be a force for peace & justice in the world, to martial united forces in peace-keeping efforts around the world, but just like the ‘war on terror’ has removed much of the protections and rights of freedom-loving people and not delivered any demonstrable safety or peace, nor is the UN much use in global peace-keeping efforts – in fact they ignore or prolong, even hold back efforts, for such a long time in countries in great distress where genocide and mass-murder is blatantly occurring that they seem more a force *against* peace and justice than for it.

    No. It is a force with one aim – to establish a new world order where power is globally centralised. This is shown by their continued pressure for sovereign countries such as ours to sign over our right of governance and taxation to them. Unfortunately, most of this has already happened, as successive Australian, governments have pandered to the UN and given away control of our resources, our environment, our freedom of religion and human rights governance and the recent attempt to solidify control of taxation which was Copenhagen Treaty. Control of taxation means ultimate control of the people. The UK, US and Australia, along with many other nations, have all signed away their sovereignty in much of these matters, and now it’s just a matter of time, awaiting the tipping point if you like, until the power is used openly to control citizens of nations around the world.

    Garth Penglase

  • Further to what I said last night: There could be 7 or 8 Greens in the Senate after today.

    3 are staying on from 2007:
    Bob Brown (tas)
    Sarah Hanson-Young (SA)
    Scott Ludlam (WA)

    These 3 will definitely get in today:
    Richard Di Natale (Vic) — he will take Steve Fielding’s seat
    Christine Milne (Tas)
    Rachel Seiwert (WA)

    These 2 have a good chance of getting in:
    Penny Wright (SA)
    Lee Rhiannon (NSW)

    Jereth Kok

  • I’ve just discovered the link to this page from the ACLwebsite in the nick of time – about to go off and vote and have been swayed from greens after reading these comments, thankyou – i really thought they demonstrated the best policies which reflect what christian should be concerned about but hadn’t realised there were so many more areas which are just too contrary to Christian values. thanks again for all of you taking the time to be passionate about this and sharing what you think.
    Rachel Ruby

  • GOOD on you Rachel,

    For me i think the biggest problem is, many people just don’t know the facts about these parties. Thank God for people like bill and all the informed people on here.

    Daniel Kempton

  • As always excellent work Bill!! I find it funny that father Brennan’s argument appears to be vote for the greens if they’re not going to win, but don’t vote for the greens if they ARE going to win. I guess it saddens me that someone who is a Jesuit, who are known for their intellectual ability and fidelity to Christian/Roman Catholic orthodoxy, can present such a flawed case.
    Joel van der Horst

  • Hopefully one day we can move towards a system of non-compulsory voting. It would prevent a bunch of people who have little or no interest in politics from stupidly voting for parties such as the greens. They could stay home and watch the footy instead.
    Mario Del Giudice

  • Thanks Mario

    And a case could be made for raising the voting age to 21.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Hi Mario,

    I agree that voting should be a freedom and not an obligation. But I don’t see evidence that countries with voluntary voting get any better governments. Consider that the US just elected Obama, and Britain just elected Cameron!

    And during my political days at Uni, and despite our philosophical stance, we always lamented that voting wasn’t compulsory so that the apathetic students interested in normal things (rather than far left ideology) might turn out to vote!

    Mansel Rogerson

  • I heard an interesting comment by one of the panelists on ABC’s Q&A last night; I think it was Peter Beatty. Along the lines of the good that may come of the recent ‘greenslide’ will be that the party will now be more out in the open and subject more & more to public scrutiny, and therefore people will hopefully come to see them for what they are.

    This reminded me of the old saying that “God moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform”. Maybe Australia needs a bit of a dose of ‘green slime’ (yes I did mean ‘slime’) to wake people up.

    I have long held the belief – from observing history – that God has designed the world and humanity to ensure that good will eventually triumph over evil. Take Europe at the time of WW2. Who could have imagined in the late 30’s that England and the allies could have triumphed over the might of the German military machine. But Nazism held the seed of its own destruction.

    Currently radical islam is on the ascendency, but I don’t believe God will permit it to prevail indefinitely.

    David Williams

  • Thanks guys

    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.”

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/mar/08033106.html

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply