Excerpt from Breakpoint http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/18531 Jan 11,2012

Dr. Stephen Anderson teaches philosophy at A.B. Lucas Secondary School in Ontario, Canada. His students had just finished a unit on metaphysics and were about to start one on ethics.

To jump start the discussion and to “form a baseline from which they could begin to ask questions about the legitimacy of moral judgments of all kinds,” Anderson shared with them a gruesome photo of Bibi Aisha, a teenage wife of a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan. When Bibi tried to get away from her abusive husband, her family caught her, cut off her nose and ears, and left her to die in the mountains. Only Bibi didn’t die. Somehow she crawled to her grandfather’s house, and was saved in an American hospital.

Writing in Education Journal magazine, Anderson relates how he was sure that his students, “seeing the suffering of this poor girl of their own age, [they] would have a clear ethical reaction,” one they could talk about “more difficult cases.”

But their response shocked Anderson. “[He] expected strong aversion [to it], … but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused . . . afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize,” as he said, “any situation originating in a different culture. They said, ‘Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.’”

Anderson calls their confusion and refusal to judge such child mutilation a moment of startling clarity, and indeed it is. He wonders if it stems not from too little education, but from too much multiculturalism and so-called “values education,” which is really just an excuse for moral relativism.

Wow! As CSLewis said in those memorable 3 lectures at Durham University in 1943 now titled The Abolition of Man, the move away from moral values in teaching would lead to “men without chests”, lacking moral formation and moral character.

J I Packer, in his brilliant article Surprised by Lewis in Christianity Today Sept 1998, writes:

The Abolition of Man was the waving of a red flag at an oncoming juggernaut that would reduce education to the learning of techniques and so dehumanize and destroy it, tearing out of it that which is its true heart. The attempt was ignored, and today we reap the bitter fruits… The inner desolation and desperation that young people experience as subjectivist relativism and nihilism are wished upon them in schools and universities is a tragedy.

Lewis, in his lecture, writes:

The practical result of (such) education… must be the destruction of the society which accepts it. Stepping outside the (moral values), they have stepped into the void.  Nor are their subjects necessarily unhappy men.  They are not men at all: they are artefacts.  Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of man.

So, parents, Christian teachers – in all schools – Sunday School teachers, leaders – whoever you are – be not afraid! Hold your Christ standard high. Let Jesus be our example in tolerating tax collectors (!) and sinners, not condemning the woman taken in adultery, not condemning the criminal on the cross or other penitents, but very condemning of the leading astray of the people by the Pharisees, very condemning of any who would cause a little one to fall or who would seek to impose their own lack of moral values upon others.

Lachlan Dunjey. 14 Jan 2012.

I’m pretty sure the first thing I knew about Lachlan Dunjey speaking on “Good News” was when I saw the program on the web. Now hang on guys, why not pick on Job or Jeremiah? Hey Jeremiah – we’re sick of all this stuff you’re blogging, how about telling us some good news! Yeah, well they did say that to Jeremiah too and they shoved him a well. You’ve read my blogs on grief and mourning and warnings to the churches. You know I don’t bring good news – I bring bad news and warnings of more to come.

Well that’s not wholly true. I have also informed you of the various declarations including the recent San Jose Articles and today I will tell you about the Doctors for the Family and other items.

But it is also true that I have written about grief and the fact that we all should have an appropriate sense of grief for what is happening here and overseas – far worse – but we hold this in tension with the fact that every day is a new day – allegedly hotter but we will all be cooled by the rising sea levels anyway – and that we live in the luckiest country in the world even though we will all get skin cancer from the sun and if we cover up we will all be vitamin D deficient and get osteoporosis and crumble into a heap of dust but if we take vitamin B12 as well as D at least we may reduce our Alzheimer’s and able to torture our children for even longer by having them support us – now, where was I?

Yes, we do live in the lucky country. Europe is in free-fall financially, demographically and more importantly morally. The USA has signs of hope – the pro-life movements are stronger than ever; the younger generation – and I believe this is true here too – has an intrinsic concept that life does actually begin at fertilisation, that un-born babies actually are human too, and that a “person’s a person no matter how small” (where is that from? From the movie Horton Hears a Who by Dr Seuss – and there have been a lot of other good news movies out recently including pro-life), and that Roe v Wade should be overthrown. Yes, there are winds of change in the USA.

We are servants of the King. The King is returning and before Him every knee shall bow. Hey, the news doesn’t get any better than that. How lucky are we to be His children and His servants – well, it’s not luck at all but you know what I mean.

We can of course hold grief and joy in tension. Grief for the world as Dietrich Bonhoeffer (have you read Eric Metaxas’ book on Bonhoeffer? You must – that is very good news) wrote from prison shortly before his execution “…taking on not just our own sufferings but those of God in the world, watching with Christ in Gethsemane,” but also having joy for today in all that God gives us.

And as we consider the things that are wrong, God reminds us Who is in charge.

God answered Job from the eye of a violent storm.
Who set the cornerstone
While the morning stars sang in chorus
and all the angels shouted praise?
And who took charge of the ocean
when it gushed forth like a baby from the womb?
That was me! I wrapped it in soft clouds,
and tucked it in safely at night.
Then I made a playpen for it,
a strong playpen so it couldn’t run loose,
And said, ‘Stay here, this is your place.
Your wild tantrums are confined to this place.’

And yes, much of our good news is reaction to bad things happening as immortalised by Dicken’s famous lines “it was the best of times; it was the worst of times” from Tale of Two Cities.

It is good news that you’re here today. Because at least you know not only who to vote for but how to vote – and so many still don’t understand our preferential voting system and think their vote will be lost if they put us first. They get scared at the last moment and put their major party of choice no.1. They also fail to realise their Christian responsibility in looking at what I call DEFINING ISSUES. When governments legislate to permit evil that is a defining issue. Worse, when governments not only permit evil but legislate to compel evil – as did the government of Victoria in the 2008 abortion legislation – that SURELY IS A DEFINING ISSUE. And the good news is that the bad MPs were targeted in the next election and the government was changed although many of Victorian Liberal are also on the wrong side of life.

But the bad news is that these things were pointed out prior to the federal election, that Emily’s List MPs played a significant role in Victoria as Candy Broad who introduced the abortion bill is a founding member of Emily’s List, and that Julia Gillard was not only a founder but wrote its constitution, that Julia Gillard would almost certainly be beholden to Bob Brown should she win and would therefore compromise on issues like same-sex marriage and instead of ruling a change to the Marriage Act out would cave in to a conscience vote – all this was pointed out but we had great difficulty in making it known. It was a matter of great frustration that Christian magazines published nice articles about how Christians could look at elections but failed to point out these issues.

I thank God for the Australian Christian Values Checklist www.christianvalues.org.au/ and for the people that helped put this together. That’s good news. If there’s a choice between being nice and telling the truth, surely we must tell the truth. I thank God for Saltshakers and Family Voice and Life Ministries and Bill Muehlenberg.

Have you read Bill’s book? You must. It tells the truth about bad news but its good news that it is now out there. Has the main stream media (MSM) taken any notice? No, it is silent – that’s bad news.

“Can you catch the eye of the beautiful Pleiades sisters,
or distract Orion from his hunt?
Can you get Venus to look your way,
or get the Great Bear and her cubs to come out and play?
Do you know the first thing about the sky’s constellations
and how they affect things on Earth?
“Can you get the attention of the clouds,
and commission a shower of rain?
Can you take charge of the lightning bolts
and have them report to you for orders?

Serious bad news is that UN agencies are pushing abortion to third world countries as allegedly UN policy. This is untrue and it is because of this that the San Jose Articles were drafted http://www.sanjosearticles.com/

It is now commonplace that people around the world are told there is a new international right to abortion.

Those who receive this message are people who have the power to change abortion laws; parliamentarians, lawyers, judges and others.

Those delivering this message are influential and believable people; UN personnel, human rights lawyers, judges and others.

The assertion they make is false. No UN treaty makes abortion an international human right.

Even so, the assertion is gaining traction around the world. The high court of Colombia changed their country’s abortion laws based on this false assertion. More are considering such a change.

The purpose of the San Jose Articles is to provide expert testimony that no such right exists. The San Jose Articles were prepared by a group of 31 experts in international law, international relations, international organizations, public health, science/medicine and government. The signers include law professors, philosophers, Parliamentarians, Ambassadors, human rights lawyers, and delegates to the UN General Assembly.

San Jose Articles

• Article 1. As a matter of scientific fact a new human life begins at conception.
• Article 2. Each human life is a continuum that begins at conception and advances in stages until death. Science gives different names to these stages, including zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult. This does not change the scientific consensus that at all points of development each individual is a living member of the human species.
• Article 3. From conception each unborn child is by nature a human being.
• Article 4. All human beings, as members of the human family, are entitled to recognition of their inherent dignity and to protection of their inalienable human rights.  This is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and other international instruments.
• Article 5. There exists no right to abortion under international law, either by way of treaty obligation or under customary international law.  No United Nations treaty can accurately be cited as establishing or recognizing a right to abortion.
• Article 6. The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) and other treaty monitoring bodies have directed governments to change their laws on abortion.  These bodies have explicitly or implicitly interpreted the treaties to which they are subject as including a right to abortion.
• Treaty monitoring bodies have no authority, either under the treaties that created them or under general international law, to interpret these treaties in ways that create new state obligations or that alter the substance of the treaties.
• Accordingly, any such body that interprets a treaty to include a right to abortion acts beyond its authority and contrary to its mandate. Such ultra vires acts do not create any legal obligations for states parties to the treaty, nor should states accept them as contributing to the formation of new customary international law.
• Article 7. Assertions by international agencies or non-governmental actors that abortion is a human right are false and should be rejected.
• There is no international legal obligation to provide access to abortion based on any ground, including but not limited to health, privacy or sexual autonomy, or non-discrimination.
• Article 8. Under basic principles of treaty interpretation in international law, consistent with the obligations of good faith and pacta sunt servanda, and in the exercise of their responsibility to defend the lives of their people, states may and should invoke treaty provisions guaranteeing the right to life as encompassing a state responsibility to protect the unborn child from abortion.
• Article 9. Governments and members of society should ensure that national laws and policies protect the human right to life from conception. They should also reject and condemn pressure to adopt laws that legalize or depenalize abortion.

Treaty monitoring bodies, United Nations agencies and officers, regional and national courts, and others should desist from implicit or explicit assertions of a right to abortion based upon international law.

When such false assertions are made, or pressures exerted, member states should demand accountability from the United Nations system.

Providers of development aid should not promote or fund abortions.  They should not make aid conditional on a recipient’s acceptance of abortion.

International maternal and child health care funding and programs should ensure a healthy outcome of pregnancy for both mother and child and should help mothers welcome new life in all circumstances.

Hey, this is very good news. I think from memory they have also been presented to the British Parliament.

Bad news is that homosexual marriage (let’s be real about this and say homosexual instead of same-sex marriage) may be allowed federally but the good news is the collective voice in opposition. If we do manage to preserve the Marriage Act 2004 definition of marriage being between a male and female voluntarily entered into for life, the bad news is that it will only be a little while before the Greens try again.

The good news is that the ACL now has 73000+ names for the Save Marriage Petition.

More good news is that just this Wed evening (16 Nov 2011) Doctors for the Family was launched www.doctors4family.com.au (and you might recognise the handiwork of Guennadi Moukine in this).

The very good news is that God definitely has a sense of humour in created beings:

“The ostrich flaps her wings futilely—
all those beautiful feathers, but useless!
She lays her eggs on the hard ground,
leaves them there in the dirt, exposed to the weather,
Not caring that they might get stepped on and cracked
or trampled by some wild animal.
She’s negligent with her young, as if they weren’t even hers.
She cares nothing about anything.
She wasn’t created very smart, that’s for sure,
wasn’t given her share of good sense.
But when she runs, oh, how she runs,
laughing, leaving horse and rider in the dust.

Especially good news that you already know about is the formulation last year of the three – nay, four – great declarations.

The Manhattan Declaration http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/ set the scene, the Westminster http://www.westminster2010.org.uk/ followed and the

Canberra Declaration http://www.canberradeclaration.org.au/ followed again – each one establishing the intrinsic value of human life, the need to uphold marriage and to preserve freedom of belief and speech.

I said in Brisbane earlier this year:

Humanity’s greatest crisis is the rebellion against what it means to be created in the Image of God, a rejection of who God is and what it means to be human – and I agree with Sven that the frontline of this battle is abortion. Congratulations Sven (good news from Sweden) on what you are doing in showing what abortion is. And Bill (Muehlenberg) highlighted the country’s knee jerk reaction to the horrifying images of cattle slaughter. I wrote 2 years ago about the dolphin slaughter in Taiji, Japan and abortion

How can it be that we betray the most helpless of humans? Our animal activist friends get really upset when they see a dolphin or whale foetus cut from its mother and rightly so. Yet these are frequently intact and have not been shredded or pulled apart. How can it be that our society is so schizophrenic that we get upset about dolphin slaughter yet rabidly defend our right to kill our unborn babies? How can this be?

It may be that this battle too may be won with word pictures and visual images and a new generation will thank us and wonder why the truth was withheld for so long.

So, thankyou Sven. And, by the way, I think we are changing the culture on this one – I sense we are winning. OK, that’s humanity’s greatest crisis.

Society’s greatest risk is the threat to marriage and family, the move to re-define male and female and thus ultimately destroy the fabric of society.

And the third great risk is to freedom of belief and to speak of what we believe – to even speak or show the truth re abortion or marriage or even quote scripture – and includes freedom of religion and liberty of conscience and that brings us to medicine’s greatest challenge.

And as we said yesterday these three core elements are the basis of the Manhattan Declaration, the Westminster  Declaration and the Canberra Declaration.

But I said there were four declarations and the fourth is the Conscience in Medicine Declaration http://www.conscienceinmedicine.net.au/

We, the undersigned, seek to maintain the ethical independence of the medical profession and the liberty to practice medicine according to our conscience.

• We believe it is in the patient’s best interests for doctors to adhere to a code of ethics that is independent of any standards set by governments or practices that may be permitted by legislation.
• We believe that as health professionals we have a duty to educate and inform fully so that best management decisions can be made and that such may include a refusal to comply with patient demand where such is inconsistent with good medical practice.
• We further believe there are times when the patient request cannot be complied with because it conflicts with our integrity and ethical stance.
• It is our right and obligation to practice medicine according to our conscience. We will not engage in or facilitate procedures or practices that we believe are in conflict with our conscience.

And in yesterday’s good news there was a blog from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) in England announcing in response to a meeting in London to be addressed by none other than our own Dr Philip Nitschke there will also be a meeting in York with Dr John Patrick from Canada – a tireless campaigner for good who has been to Australia at least three times. So, remember, next week Nov 23 in Clifton Parish Church in York at 7.30pm for those who might be taking a quick trip to England.

More good news from the USA just to give some figures:

During the Clinton years, 56 percent of Americans described themselves as pro-choice, while only 33 percent of us self-identified as pro-life. But in just a decade and a half, the numbers have completely shifted.

According to the most recent Gallup polling, pro-lifers edge out those in favor of legal abortion by 47 to 45 percent. Half of all Americans agree that abortion is morally wrong.

And the news gets even better. Following a ground-breaking Nebraska law last year that bars late-term abortions because of the risk of fetal pain, five other states have passed measures outlawing nearly all abortions after five months of pregnancy. Legislatures in Kansas Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, and Oklahoma this year have enacted abortion bans after 20 or 21 weeks. The laws allow for exceptions when the mother’s life is at risk or she faces severe physical impairment. (from Breakpoint)

Just three months ago I highlighted the contrast between the celebration of Emily’s List at the rejection of amendments to the Victorian abortion bill

• parental consent for girls under 18 years
• mandatory reporting of suspected sexual abuse
• a “cooling off period” for women considering late term abortion
• provision of medical care for aborted babies born alive
• anaesthetic for babies aborted late term
• compulsion of doctors to refer for abortion to a doctor who they know will be in favour
• banning of partial birth abortions

Arizona on the other hand has passed a law that requires

• parental consent for minors
• a “cooling off period” of 24 hrs with provision of full and accurate information by a doctor
• medical professionals cannot be forced to perform abortions if it contradicts their religious or moral beliefs

noting that partial birth abortions are banned in the US anyway.

Amendment rejection: “victory for women” Emily’s List.

Amendment acceptance: “victory for women” in Arizona.

It is hard to understand the opposition of Emily’s List women to the proposed amendments. They all made sense. Surely one would want to anaesthetize a late-term baby about to have its brain sucked out by a partial birth abortion. Surely for a 14 year-old schoolgirl one would want to look at the possibility of abuse and the reporting of same. Such opposition I think will be thought very strange in years to come.

Now remember: just under 60% of female Labor MPs across Australia are members of Emily’s List including two state premiers – Anna Bligh in Queensland and Lara Giddings (another founder) in Tasmania – and our Prime Minister. They are a significant force in our nation and it is going to become increasingly difficult for any non-member female to gain pre-selection. Can we turn this situation around and let Labor know we will not vote for any candidates supported by Emily’s List? Or is it too late?

“Who do you think set the wild donkey free,
opened the corral gates and let him go?
I gave him the whole wilderness to roam in,
the rolling plains and wide-open places.
He laughs at his city cousins, who are harnessed and harried.
He’s oblivious to the cries of teamsters.
He grazes freely through the hills,
nibbling anything that’s green.

We are getting slightly better at propagating truth but there are serious limitations. We can show pictures of slaughtered animals but not of slaughtered babies. The “possible” evidence that abortion can give an increased risk of breast cancer by up to 1/3 is unreasonably repressed and denied as is also the evidence for post-abortion syndrome but in Sept this year the British Journal of Psychiatry published an article (Dr Priscilla Coleman) showing that abortion increases the risk of severe mental disease by 81% and that almost 10% of all women’s mental health problems are directly linked to abortion.

Good news that we are getting the truth out there.

CMDFA has published a booklet on euthanasia and the ethics committee is currently finalising one on conscience.

http://www.christianconcern.com/ the Christian Legal Centre is an organisation in UK that is well worth subscribing to. On that site you will read that the Christian couple fined 3600 pounds for refusing B&B accommodation to a homosexual couple are now being heard in court; that 83% of church-goers are opposed to the Conservative Party plans to legalise homosexual marriage; and parents are rebelling against their children being exposed to lessons on sex for pupils aged four and plans to teach homosexuality to six-year-olds.

There’s more good news. Fred Nile and Paul Green were elected in NSW election. Fred is amazing – 30 years in NSW parliament and he pours out press releases several times a week it seems – and they are good. We are grateful to God for the life of Elaine Nile who died just recently 17 October and who herself was in parliament for 14 years. A wonderful and honourable lady.

Paul Russell in SA of http://www.noeuthanasia.org.au/ has been able to work with other movements (SA lawyers, MBA of SA, Medicine With Morality, CMDFA) and provide significant opposition to the moves to legalise euthanasia. We have provided confusion. They introduced a series of amendments in a hurry to convince everyone that the euthanasia bill had nothing to do with euthanasia but then we pointed out that the amendments would seriously impact on palliative care and so they equally suddenly pulled all the amendments.

Seriously incompetent is the only word for it. And the worrying thing is that there is another bill already in the wings. What do you do with incompetent politicians who are not willing to listen and understand? You throw them out.

The tide is surging in Mississippi where just this week a vote was being taken to amend the constitution of that state stating that “person shall include every human being from the moment of fertilisation” – the Mississippi Personhood Amendment. Unfortunately it was rejected after severe opposition by abortion lobby.

“Have you ever travelled to where snow is made,
seen the vault where hail is stockpiled,
The arsenals of hail and snow that I keep in readiness
for times of trouble and battle and war?
Can you find your way to where lightning is launched,
or to the place from which the wind blows?
Who do you suppose carves canyons
for the downpours of rain, and charts
the route of thunderstorms
That bring water to unvisited fields,
deserts no one ever lays eyes on,
Drenching the useless wastelands
so they’re carpeted with wildflowers and grass?

Hey, we changed state government with our preferences and 5 new pro-life people got elected.

We defeated cloning in WA.

We defeated euthanasia in WA.

And Jamie van Burgel got a magnificent vote.

Let us be very clear – Christian values are under attack. We must defend them

Jesus made it very plain in His prayer in John 17 that we will be hated for who we are, merely because we are Christians. We will be hated for what we stand for, the upholding of truth, and this year for simply stating the truth that marriage can only be between male and female.

Values that we hold to be “self-evident” and established securely in the international covenants like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – that came to be to ensure that the atrocities of WWII and Nazism would never, ever be repeated – are being discarded and ignored where they do not suit these agendas. At risk are liberty of conscience, freedom of speech and belief, and the intrinsic value of all human life including the unborn. Eugenic selection with abortion of even minor congenital abnormalities is now commonplace. What is wanted is complete control over life and death. Freedom of speech on issues that concern our faith and moral values in society is probably the most serious that will impact on our future as we will not even be able to declare what we believe. Also under threat is the freedom to choose teachers of like-minded values for our children.

We are in a war zone. Yes, it involves us in a battle but our weapons are weapons of peace and prayer and faith and perhaps most of all to tell truth.  There is no violence here nor any incitement to violence – our weapons are the antithesis of violence.

And we know where the battle is going. We know the consequences of wrong actions in our legislatures yet many MPs have no idea or they keep ignoring the realities.

What do we need to do?

It sounds like a truism but first and foremost we need to be informed. Then and only then can we understand the times, and – like the men of Issachar – know what to do. Those who understand need to inform others. I have compiled a Chronicle of Shame for our nation. It makes for sobering reading.

We need to get among God’s people and inform them. We need to take the “watchman” role – telling the truth, informing, challenging, to be ambassadors committed to help others to understand the times

• In our homes as husbands and wives, as mothers and fathers, as grandparents
• In our everyday work
• In our churches
• In “mountains of influence” inside our work and in the community and recruit those already in mountains of influence
• Public role – in the village square and marketplace; to be a visible Christian presence and to have an audible Christian Voice

There is a significant role for the Mighty Men’s Conference in this, for mighty men to be watchmen to overcome the paralysis within our churches that hinders us in being effective politically. Many leaders seem to have a fear of alienating people when telling the truth about what is happening, that they will be seen as telling people how to vote. But a practical outworking of the informing role is to understand political policies and “hidden” agendas; to understand our responsibility in voting and of our preferential voting system so that votes are not wasted.

There is an object lesson for Christians in the failure of intelligence to warn of September 11^th.  The US Congressional inquiry found that there was a failure to realise the threat, a failure to be organised and watchful, a failure of communication, a failure to share information, and a failure of imagination.  But all of this is dependent on the need to realise the depth of evil.  The co-chairman said: “The fact is we just didn’t get it… we could not comprehend that people wanted to kill us…”  This in spite of the statement in a 1998 staff memo by an intelligence head that said: “We are at war.”

And we need to be the Voice that continues to stir.

I close with God’s word to Jeremiah when he was tired

“If you have raced with men on foot and they have worn you out, how can you compete with horses? If you stumble in safe country, how will you manage in the thickets by the Jordan?”

Oh dear! But God has the last word:

“Are you the one who gave the horse his prowess
and adorned him with a shimmering mane?
Did you create him to prance proudly
and strike terror with his royal snorts?
He paws the ground fiercely, eager and spirited,
then charges into the fray.
He laughs at danger, fearless,
doesn’t shy away from the sword.
The banging and clanging
of quiver and lance don’t faze him.
He quivers with excitement, and at the trumpet blast
races off at a gallop.

“an historic moment for the recognition of women’s rights in Victoria” Emily’s Notes Dec 2008

“a major victory for Arizona women” August 2011

In an editorial on Emily’s List 14 October 2008 the passing of the Abortion Law reform Bill was hailed as “an historic moment for the recognition of women’s rights in Victoria… that women in all areas of Victoria will be able to access safe, legal terminations free from persecution… free from harassment.”

It is not surprising that the original link to that has disappeared from the Emily’s List website. It then became available through another link (hard to find!) on their website but that has now also disappeared. However there is a link as above to Emily’s Notes and at the foot of this page.

Emily’s List further hailed the defeat of “numerous regressive amendments” (same link). Those amendments included

• parental consent for girls under 18 years
• mandatory reporting of suspected sexual abuse
• a “cooling off period” for women considering late term abortion
• provision of medical care for aborted babies born alive
• anaesthetic for babies aborted late termcompulsion of doctors to refer for abortion to a doctor who they know will be in favour
• banning of partial birth abortions

Arizona on the other hand has passed a law – upheld this month by the Arizona Court of Appeals – that requires

• parental consent for minors
• a “cooling off period” of 24 hrs with provision of full and accurate information by a doctor
• medical professionals cannot be forced to perform abortions if it contradicts their religious or moral beliefs

noting that partial birth abortions are banned in the US anyway.

Amendment rejection: “victory for women” Emily’s List.

Amendment acceptance: “victory for women” in Arizona.

It is hard to understand the opposition of Emily’s List women to the proposed amendments. They all made sense. Surely one would want to anaesthetize a late-term baby about to have its brain sucked out by a partial birth abortion. Surely for a 14 year-old schoolgirl one would want to look at the possibility of abuse and the reporting of same. Such opposition I think will be thought very strange in years to come.

The tide seems to be turning in a more rational direction in the US. “Following a ground-breaking Nebraska law last year that bars late-term abortions because of the risk of foetal pain, five other states have passed measures outlawing nearly all abortions after five months of pregnancy.”

And according to a recent Gallup poll “majorities of Democrats as well as most Republicans favor informed consent, parental consent, 24-hour waiting periods, and a ban on ‘partial birth abortion.”

(from Abortion Abatement – Keep Up the Momentum August 18, 2011).

Application to consider: just under 60% of female Labor MPs across Australia are members of Emily’s List including two state premiers – Queensland and Tasmania – and our Prime Minister who was also a founder of the list and wrote its constitution. They are a significant force in our nation and it is going to become increasingly difficult for any non-member female to gain pre-selection. Will you vote for them next time? Can we turn this situation around and let Labor know we will not vote for any candidates supported by Emily’s List? Or is it too late?

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/docs/2010/emilysnotes_dec2008.pdf

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/11/arizona-court-upholds-pro-life-law-with-abortion-limits/

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/bobbeauprez/2011/08/21/courts_come_through_with_back-to-back-to-back_home_runs/page/full/

http://sonoranalliance.com/2011/08/11/victory-for-life-advocates-arizona-court-of-appeals-upholds-abortion-consent-act/

http://links.mkt3980.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MTg2NjA1NwS2&r=OTQ0MjMzNTcyS0&j=MzA1NTM3MjUS1&mt=1&rt=0

Lachlan Dunjey. August 2011.

http://www.medicinewithoutmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/09/Notre-Dame-Law-and-Ethics.pdf

Last week the WA Labor Party conference passed a motion supporting same-sex marriage. NSW is now the only state that is yet to vote on this but is widely expected that it will follow the same line. This means that our PM is under enormous pressure to change her stand and allow a conscience vote federally. The definition of marriage and Labor Party support of the bi-partisan 2002 Marriage Act will come up for discussion at the December federal conference.

But there is far more at stake than just allowing gays to marry.

Truth is at stake. The essential nature and truth that marriage is between male and female, the biological truth of which leads to procreation, the truth that children ideally require and need both mothers and fathers for nurture and growth into responsible adulthood – all of this at risk.

In line with other ethical and moral legal permissions that become compulsions there are consequences to losing this battle in that we are then compelled to go along with the lies that have become enshrined in law. Our freedom to speak truth to society and to our children is at risk and will be interpreted as vilification and intolerance.

Incremental same-sex changes that we are already seeing here – inclusion of books in school libraries, education in schools, forcing of adoption agencies, changing of birth certificates to Party A and Party B, access to church camp sites – will be legitimised by re-defining marriage in federal law. Changes that have occurred elsewhere – the forcing of foster parents (and indeed natural parents) to comply with approved education, compulsory performing of marriages by marriage celebrants and then by ministers of religion.

Canada seems to be leading the way in much of this. The Toronto school board, one of the largest in North America has forbidden parents from withdrawing their children from pro-homosexual education. Permission will not be granted because it violates their human rights policy.

Once we have lost this battle federally I believe there will be no chance of turning back the clock. We must not tire in our efforts and our prayers to preserve marriage as the most fundamental part of our heritage and society.

Please consider and sign the Canberra Declaration.

And the Australian Christian Lobby petition http://www.makeastand.org.au/campaign/index.php?campaign_id=39

Also look at this recent paper from NSW churches

http://www.nswchurches.org/Resources/Papers/Revising_Marriage_politicians.pdf (pamphlet)

http://www.nswchurches.org/Resources/Papers/Revising_Marriage_pastors.pdf (full paper)

and this powerful comment by John Piper

http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/my-eyes-shed-streams-of-tears-thoughts-on-the-new-calamity

8^th World Conference of the World Christian Doctors Network, Brisbane June 11/12, 2011

Dr Lachlan Dunjey from Perth, Western Australia, founder of Medicine with Morality and the Liberty of Conscience Declaration said that the devaluation of human life, the blurring of what it means to be human is humanity’s greatest crisis.

“The attempted manipulation of life and death is the most significant issue of our time. When does human life begin and when does it have value?  What does it mean to be human?  The answer to this is critical to our thinking with respect to abortion, destructive embryo research, cloning, eugenics and euthanasia.”

He said that this devaluation, especially evident since the beginning of this millennium, was forced into clear focus by destructive embryo research to extract stem cells, although the issues have been with us for a long time.

He highlighted the views of some ethicists and scientists who argue that it is OK to take formed organs from the more mature unborn and others who argue that it is OK to sacrifice a newborn baby up to 4-6 weeks of age before it becomes self-aware using self-awareness as the criterion for personhood.

Dr Dunjey said:

“Concepts of value and worth and disability and personhood and self-awareness are too arbitrary and subject to the opinions and whims of the day on which to base decisions regarding life and death.  Nations may decide that certain states of mental and physical capacity determine that individual’s right to exist or not exist, and then it may be re-defined to include or exclude varying physical characteristics that are deemed acceptable or of worth to society.  That should sound terrifyingly familiar.

“And if that sounds familiar then what do we need to protect the human race and to protect fundamental human rights that we believe to be self-evident? Well, the nations of the world worked that out in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to ensure that the atrocities and beliefs that came out of WWII and Nazism would never be repeated.”

He said that the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child applies both before and after birth, and yet the ACT charter excludes rights for the unborn and the Victorian charter excludes abortion and child destruction.  “It is said that we forget the lessons of history but in this we have blatantly rejected the lessons of history.”

He highlighted the fact that the foremost proponents of physician assisted suicide also want this available for the non-dying including the “troubled teen”.

Dr Dunjey listed a Chronicle of Shame of legislative changes that have been made in Australia about which we should feel great shame, the worst of which was the 2008 Victorian abortion law which virtually allows unrestricted abortion including for eugenic reasons by any method through to term. This has allowed parents to abort children with simply corrected abnormalities such as cleft lip and more than 90% of Down Syndrome children are aborted. Some aborted babies “accidentally” born alive are then left to die “because they should not have been born alive”.

He said that mothers deciding to keep their pregnancy going after a diagnosis of abnormality can be labelled as ‘genetic outlaws’.

Dr Dunjey also commented on the fact that some babies with suspected abnormalities are aborted and subsequently found to be normal and this is used as an argument for legalising infanticide. He added: “and so it has been said that banning infanticide unfairly discriminates against the normal child… The logic is that if infanticide was legal then we could allow the baby to be born and be properly examined before making the decision to terminate it… we can then be sure of the diagnosis and the baby gets the benefit of anaesthetic…and use good organs for transplant purposes.”

He cautioned us against thinking that any of these things were impossible.

End.

Full script:

http://www.medicinewithoutmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/09/Human-Life-as-the-Imago-Dei.pdf

8^th World Conference of the World Christian Doctors Network, Brisbane June 11/12, 2011

http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2011/s11060055.htm

Dr Lachlan Dunjey from Perth, Western Australia, founder of Medicine with Morality and the Liberty of Conscience Declaration, commented on the Section 8 provision of the 2008 Victorian abortion bill that compels doctors to be complicit in the referral process and said

“Until it is reversed, the refusal of doctor’s right of conscience has paved the way for compulsory participation in other un-ethical procedures such as physician assisted suicide.”

“Infringement of conscience is a serious challenge facing modern medicine.  Medical codes of conduct must never be subject to degradation by government. Governments may legislate to permit certain practices or procedures but governments must never force doctors to violate their conscience by compulsory engagement in such practices or procedures.”

He quoted J. Scott Ries, MD: When legal code supersedes moral code, the slope of a culture’s decline is steep and swift.

He reminded us that on the fiftieth anniversary of the Nuremberg medical trials in 1996 at a conference titled “Medicine and Conscience” doctors warned of the threatening separation of medicine from morality and that physicians must be above state-decreed strategies.

“The remarkable thing is that although the 2006 Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities clearly states the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief and that this must not be limited in observance or practice, the Victorian government in passing the Section 8 provision failed to heed its own charter. This was even more remarkable in light of the fact that the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee drew attention to this breach and put two questions to Parliament neither of which was answered. The Victorian government spectacularly failed to uphold its own charter just two years after it was passed.”

He also reminded us that this was also in breach of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights which has the right to this freedom as one that is non-derogable that cannot be waived even in national emergencies, thus showing how significant freedom of conscience is.

“Likewise the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, formulated to ensure that the atrocities and beliefs of those preceding horrific years would never be repeated also states this right. How can it be that we dismiss these warnings so readily and discard the lessons of history?”

“It is one thing to pass a law that permits evil but it is something more to pass a law that compels evil. The government of Victoria remains condemned and its people on the whole do not understand what their government has done. It introduced a charter that excluded abortion and child destruction with flagrant disregard of the international charters and then failed to apply what was good in the charter to liberty of conscience.”

A previous speaker had commented on the Australian government’s quick reaction regarding the inhumane slaughter of cattle and that it was a pity that the government would not also react with respect to abortion. Dr Dunjey commented:

“Our animal activist friends get really upset when they see a dolphin or whale foetus cut from its mother and rightly so. Yet these are frequently intact and have not been shredded or pulled apart (as the baby is). How can it be that our society is so schizophrenic that we get upset about dolphin (or cattle) slaughter yet rabidly defend our right to kill our unborn babies? How can this be?

It may be that this battle too may be won with word pictures and visual images and a new generation will thank us and wonder why the truth was withheld for so long.”

He highlighted that infringement of conscience was also significant with respect to routine pre-natal diagnosis of abnormality with implied subsequent abortion, unrestricted euthanasia and physician assisted suicide – even for the non-dying and the “troubled teen” as Dr Nitschke has suggested – and the connection of all these matters with respect to truly informed consent.

Dr Dunjey said: “Liberty of conscience is critical for individual doctors as it lies at the very heart of our integrity.  It is conscience that must compel doctors to refuse to participate in treatments they believe to be un-ethical. It is not enough for doctors to simply be providers of medical services on demand from consumers or third parties, providing all that is legal whether or not it is consistent with their ethical base. To sacrifice conscience and be concerned only with service provision is to destroy the heart and soul of medicine.”

End.

Full script

http://www.medicinewithoutmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/09/Liberty-of-Conscience.pdf

See Charles Colson’s Breakpoint commentary of 12 May 2011 http://links.mkt3980.com/servlet/MailView?ms=MTA2MDY1OQS2&r=OTQ0MjMzNTcyS0&j=MjczMzYzNDIS1&mt=1&rt=0

Our future is under attack in three critical areas with interlocking themes of risks to freedom of speech, belief and conscience, the manipulation of life and death, and the re-shaping of Australian society by minority group pressure.

Humanity’s Greatest Crisis

is the blurring of what it means to be human, the rebellion against what it means to be created in the Image of God, the distortion of truth as to when life begins and ends and when it has value. Ultimately, as CSLewis predicted in 1943 in that remarkable series of lectures at Durham University, this distortion results in “The Abolition of Man”.

In the attempted manipulation of life and death we are facing the most significant issue of our time. This is critical to our thinking with respect to abortion, destructive embryo research, cloning, eugenics and euthanasia. And, once again, we have a legislation review committee to look at cloning, egg donation, and animal/human hybrids.

Also see http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/killing-is-never-a-solution-for-misery/

Submission  to Legislative Review Committee http://www.medicinewithoutmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2011/03/Medicine-With-Morality-Cloning-Review-March-2011.pdf

Medicine’s Greatest Challenge

is to freedom of conscience in practice where the doctor is forced from being professional advisor to mere service provider at consumer demand, where doctors are compelled to do all that is legal whether or not it conforms to medical ethical standards, and where government becomes the arbiter of ethics and direction of medical research and practice. Such not only destroys the heart and soul of medicine but gives free reign to unimaginable evil as we saw in war-time Germany. We have seen the first legal evidence of this slip in Section 8 of Victoria’s 2008 abortion legislation.

Also see http://www.conscienceinmedicine.net.au/

http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/one-more-thing-%E2%80%93-the-victorian-pathway-to-a-new-dark-age/

Society’s Greatest Risk

is exemplified by the push for gay marriage. Legislation deliberately locked in at federal level both here and in the USA to preserve marriage as between male and female with children having mothers and fathers is under threat. Despite the obvious Alice-in-wonderland distortion of language and truth that is evident in such sociological engineering the public seems to be gradually accepting this in the interests of alleged fairness or just inertia what does it matter? But we need to show the widespread consequences to such a change, of why it does matter and matters a lot. Essential democratic freedoms are at risk: freedom of speech, freedom to believe, freedom to even pass on our values to our children, and even democracy itself – as the article at the top illustrates.

Also see http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/will-the-australian-government-re-define-marriage/

http://www.thepeoplescharter.net.au/

“Anyone who thinks that same-sex marriage is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts” http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

Do these matters disturb you? They should. Please do not write them off as too hard to deal with. Talk about them to your friends. Direct them to the links. Ask your pastor to preach on the Biblical principles in creation, of being created in the Image of God, of being male and female, and of being stewards of creation. 2011 is shaping up as a year of great risk. Please do not tire this year.

Lachlan Dunjey, May 2011.

PS if you haven’t signed the Canberra Declaration please join the 30,000 and more.

Understanding the Times and knowing what to do.

Ellenbrook Baptist Church WA, March 2011.

The Bible is wonderful. I’m sure you can read it forever and still get surprises. Here are two almost throw away lines in two separate stories…

1 Kings 18:21 Elijah went before the people and said, “How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”  But the people said nothing.

Now let’s look at the background. The nation had fallen into sin with a wicked king and queen and Elijah was being blamed for the drought and famine that devastated the land and finally it came to a point of confrontation between Elijah and the priests of Baal. Elijah challenged the people… The situation demanded a decision, but the people were silent.

Roll back several hundred years to the time when King Saul was pursuing David to kill him. 1 Chronicles 12:23,32.

These are the numbers of the men armed for battle who came to David at Hebron to turn Saul’s kingdom over to him, as the LORD had said: men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do

The men of Issachar recognised evil in the land and opposed the King.  They followed David in defiance of the king.  They understood the times and knew what Israel should do. Did they break the law?  Would you break the law to support that which is right?

So here we have two examples of evil in the land at the highest levels and two ways of responding: inaction with silence on the one hand – and on the other hand action underscored by understanding the times and knowing what to do. Well things can’t be that bad here – or can they? Let’s have a look…

The first decade of the 21^st century has brought almost unimaginable threats from both within and without our society.  And it may be that what we do with the threats within that will finally determine the result of the threats from without.

In 2002 I challenged Baptist Union Assembly here in Perth to see who would come with me on a march into the city holding our Shame placards if the Senate passed the legislation to allow stem cell research on embryos.  I guess I was relieved when only 1 or 2 put up their hands.  But I left them with the challenge: how and when will we know that is what we have to do?  What will it finally be that drives us to that conclusion?  And will it be too late?

What will it be?

• 100,000 abortions per year as a means of contraception?  Too late.
• Partial Birth Abortion?  Too late.
• Experimentation on embryos?
• Euthanasia?  Far too late in other places. We are winning here but for how long?
• Euthanasia without consent?  Far too late in Holland.
• Cloning?  For embryo research. For infertile couples reproductive purposes? It’s only a matter of time – the argument will be that it would be discriminatory not to. For special purposes? It’s only a matter of time.
• Harvesting of organs from clones (as per the movie The Island)?  Highly recommended by prominent ethicists and continuing to be recommended. It’s only a matter of time. Actually now we’re hearing the recommendation to harvest organs from people being euthanased.
• Termination of life according to certain criteria – states of self-awareness, personhood, quality of life, ability to be productive for society, or just age?  Only a matter of time unless God intervenes.

What will it finally be that drives us to walk into Perth carrying our placards?

And will we still be able to?

Four years later in 2006 I was back at Assembly once again with my Shame placard with an updated challenge.

Continuing with the shame theme I have borrowed the title – a Chronicle of Shame – from Nazi Germany

As we go through this chronicle I want us to ask ourselves

• Does it matter that governments legislate for evil?
• Does it matter if governments compel evil?
• Are these matters “defining issues” as to how I should vote for politicians or parties that have supported these matters? (And, if not, then what is a defining issue?)
• Is there a role for this church and for the body of Christ as a whole?
• Will these matters make a difference in my ordinary way of life? Will they make any difference as to how I spend my spare time?
• Will they make a difference as to my future directions, even occupation?

Keep in mind the following:

• If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Martin Luther

• When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin.  You must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy with all the fire of your faith. Abraham Kuyper

The Chronicle of Shame

1996: euthanasia laws introduced NT

1997: vetoed by federal parliament – the Andrew’s bill exercising the federal right to overrule territories. Now with the unholy alliance between Bob Brown and Julia Gillard this is back on the agenda with a move to rescind the power of veto thus allowing euthanasia in the NT and same-sex marriage in the ACT – very clearly part of the agenda. It is not about state’s rights and the origin of the ACT at least was never to be a state.

1998: abortion through to 20 weeks in WA; after 20 weeks to a committee. We are now in the 40 days of prayer for abortion campaign which is worldwide and which the APN has also called for prayer for our nation. 10,000 abortions in WA since that time.

2002: destructive embryo research on so-called spare embryos mainly for stem-cell research. Now when confronted with the fact that such research had crossed a bridge too far and that this would lead to the deliberate creation of embryos for destructive research Senator Kay Patterson said in 2002

“it is disingenuous (insincere/wrong) to suggest that approving this research will open the door to further killing of living human beings… it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research. It is not morally permissible…”

And then three years later this same senator moves the cloning for research bill. A perfect example of the slippery slope and that there are certain absolutes that must not be ignored. The fact is that that which is unthinkable to one generation becomes acceptable to another.  In England they have approved the mixing of human genes with animal eggs citing the fact that the public are now more at ease with the concept. Note the justification – the public are now more at ease with this.  This is frightening – we are becoming desensitized to things we would never have contemplated.  The slippery slope is real. Some will call it “progress”.

2004: ACT bill of rights (passed 2 Mar 2004) excludes the unborn. http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2004-5/current/pdf/2004-5.pdf

9 Right to life

(1) Everyone has the right to life. In particular, no-one may be arbitrarily deprived of life.

(2) This section applies to a person from the time of birth.

2006: Bill of rights in Victoria (passed 25 July 2006) excludes child destruction and abortion http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca256e92000e23be/54D73763EF9DCA36CA2571B6002428B0/$FILE/06-043a.pdf

48. Savings provision: Nothing in this Charter affects any law applicable to abortion or child destruction,

As with many bills of rights these charters are based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which was formulated in 1948 after WWII to ensure that the atrocities and beliefs that came out of Nazism would never be repeated. Implicit in the UDHR and spelt out clearly in the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child is that those rights apply both before and after birth, yet both these Charters deliberately exclude the unborn. It is said that we forget the lessons of history but in this we have blatantly rejected the lessons of history.

2007: Christian Youth Camps Adventure Resort (CYC) at Phillip Island refused to take a booking from WayOut, a support group for homosexual youth who were doing a workshop on ‘homophobia’. WayOut took this case to the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission which said that the CYC had to allow access to the campsite and CYC was fined $5,000.

2007: In Victoria according to official government figures 52 aborted babies were “accidentally” born alive, then left to die. We don’t have later figures but they’re not likely to be less given the change in abortion law. Giving evidence at a Senate select committee I heard another doctor when asked the question “why are these babies left to die” respond with “they weren’t meant to be born alive”.

2008: abortion in Victoria,

• through to term
• by any method
• without anaesthesia for the baby
• up to 24 weeks for no reason
• after 24 weeks as long as 1 doctor other than the abortionist agrees
• free eugenic selection including the recent case of aborting twin boys because the parents wanted a girl. Eugenic selection includes readily correctable abnormalities such as cleft lip. 90%+ babies with Down Syndrome are aborted.
• compulsion of doctors to refer.

Not only has Victoria passed the most liberal abortion laws in Australia but in that legislation is the Section 8 provision to force doctors – even when such is against their deeply held convictions and conscience – to refer for abortion when asked by a patient. No Western government since Nazi Germany has compelled doctors to participate in what they believe to be evil.

How serious is this?

The overriding of conscience violates a non-derogable right – one that cannot be overridden even in national emergency – in the UDHR (remember: to ensure that the atrocities and beliefs that came out of Nazism would never be repeated) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Section 8 even violates Victoria’s own Charter of Rights http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/a-new-dark-age/ http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/one-more-thing-%E2%80%93-the-victorian-pathway-to-a-new-dark-age/

Now it is one thing to pass a law that permits evil but it is something more to pass a law that compels evil.

Do you see that there are two levels of evil here?  One is to permit killing of the unborn child for no other reason than that the mother-to-be chooses not to be pregnant and for uncontrolled eugenic selection in our society but the other, more sinister and greater, evil is to compel participation in this process.  Medicine, justly, has the highest level of ethics in the world.  It must.  And yet, here we have a government that has – quite unnecessarily in fact because there is no restriction on a pregnant mother going straight to abortion providers that advertise widely – punitively forcing doctors to act against their conscience and participate in this process.  The compelling of evil is a defining issue when it comes to politics and policies – it leaves all other considerations in second place.

After permission comes compulsion. Hear this and remember: after permission comes compulsion. We have seen this with abortion in Victoria, with euthanasia overseas and with same-sex-marriage overseas.

Incremental same-sex changes that we are already seeing here – inclusion of books in school libraries, education in schools, forcing of adoption agencies, allowing and forcing IVF, changing of birth certificates to Party A and Party B, access to church camp sites – will be legitimised by re-defining marriage in federal law. Changes that have occurred elsewhere – the forcing of foster parents (and indeed natural parents) to comply with approved education, performing of marriages by marriage celebrants and then by ministers of religion, wedding photographers, halls, caterers, private B&Bs and other accommodation facilities – will gain increased impetus here also. To speak of our belief that marriage is between male and female is regarded as “hurtful to others”, as vilification and intolerance and we can be hauled before tribunals at great cost to ourselves.

2008: Judgment delivered in favour of a homosexual couple who appeared as plaintiffs against Wesley Mission in NSW in a matter concerning the fostering of children. Wesley Mission argued that the fostering of children by homosexual couples was contrary to its religious beliefs; however the magistrate presiding at the hearing rejected the defence plea. However, the appeal was eventually upheld by the NSW Anti-Discrimination Tribunal (ADT) in Dec 2010 in a win for Wesley Mission but noting that the existing exemption ‘may be a matter which calls for the attention of Parliament.’

And as part of this Chronicle we have to add the influence of the Greens’ social engineering agenda primarily with respect to gay rights overriding everyone else’s and also the “pro-autonomy at any cost” Emily’s List. The Victorian legislation was introduced by MLC Candy Broad, a founder of Emily’s List and all amendments were defeated. The webpage also boasts of having helped elect 139 Labor women in parliament. At this point in time 29 of 41 federal Labor women are members of Emily’s List and 63 of 118 state Labor. Total 92 of 159, just under 60% of Labor women in parliament.

And Julia Gillard is an Emily’s List founder as well and wrote its constitution. The new Premier of Tasmania Lara Giddings is also a founder and Anna Bligh the Premier of Queensland is also an Emily’s List member.

Maybe all this sounds a little like conspiracy theory. But the only accusation you can make of me is that I have overplayed its significance, not that I have distorted fact. We need to keep a watch on Emily’s List and pray it into oblivion.

This is how bad it is. This is our Chronicle of Shame.

What is the Biblical justification for any action we might take?

• We are created in the Image of God.  All humans have intrinsic value because of this.
• We are to be salt and light in the community.
• We are to be the watchmen Ezekiel 33:6,7. But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet to warn the people and the sword comes and takes the life of one of them… I will hold the watchman accountable for his blood.
• We are to go down to the palace and proclaim this message to the officials and the people who come through these gates.  “Do what is just and right.  Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed.  Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood.” Jeremiah 22:1-3.
• We are to be girded with the belt of truth and this is an age when truth is denied and we need to proclaim it.
• In loving God we are to seek for Him to be glorified in our land and for our laws to honour Him.
• In loving our neighbour created in the Image of God we want to protect him from harm, to seek the best for now and the future, to see meaning in both life and death, and if we see evil being perpetrated against him to stop it, loving justice and hating evil (Micah 6:8; Amos 5:15).

So, as men and women of God – indeed as Mighty Men and Women of God – in addition to our mandate of preaching the gospel what do we need to do in the face of evil in our land?

Our first task is to understand the times.

We need to be appalled.  As Leon Kass has said we have forgotten how to shudder. We need to recover the ability to shudder, to recover our sense of horror and then shame and grief. And we need to help others to understand the times.

We need to be alert. Constantly watching. Constantly understanding. Constantly informing.

We need to be a VOICE.

In our communities and for the community. We need men and women at the highest points in society who are willing to be a voice and seek to change the ethics of the field that they are active in. I don’t know that we should seek those positions – power corrupts and it may be far more important for you to teach Sunday School instead of striving for the top in your industry or profession, but if you are already there now – and it is amazing how many Christians we have in high positions – you have an opportunity to be a voice for righteousness.

We need to be a confessing church in the sense that it was in Nazi Germany. The main part of the church failed dismally – and so did a significant part of the church that became separate – to condemn the state for its treatment of the Jews. We need to expose bad government and evil policies. We need teaching from our pulpits on what it means to be created in the Image of God and to have His law implanted within us and to be stewards of His Creation – and to know when it is necessary to condemn.

I’ve been encouraged recently reading Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy by Eric Metaxas. Bonhoeffer – one of God’s Mighty Men – listed three ways in which the church can act towards the state

• firstly for the church to question the state regarding its actions
• secondly to aid the victims of state action – in the case of Nazi Germany this meant to be in solidarity with the Jews; for us it at the very least means in solidarity with the victims of abortion
• and thirdly to “not just bandage the victims under the wheel, but to put a spoke in the wheel itself” to stop the vehicle.

Wow! Let’s leave the full implications of the third one on one side for the moment. But it may mean protest; it may mean marching into Perth with our shame placards – and while we’re on the subject of marches please join in the Fusion Resurrection Sunday march in Northbridge this Easter. We need to be a visible Christian voice.

At the very least we need to be a “confessing” people and stand up for and sign the Canberra Declaration (almost 30,000 people now) and for people in the medical, nursing and allied professions sign the Conscience in Medicine Declaration.

And we need to defend our right to be a voice because that too is under threat with anti-vilification laws as the two Danny’s found out. We need to support Life Ministries here in WA and Australian Christian Lobby and we also need a political voice.

We need to be political.

We need to educate MPs but I have commented before on the apparent resistance to reason that so many MPs have.  As with Emily’s List members many are of fixed view and it seems that many prefer to remain ignorant of the consequences to society of their social engineering agendas. So, a hopeless task?  Well maybe, but even if we can only change the minds of 1 or 2 that might be enough.  Foster a relationship with a MP.  Adopt a Senator.

But if indeed it is hopeless to change the minds of existing MPs then we must throw them out – like we did in WA in the last state election.  The preferences of the CDP in WA were instrumental in the election of 5 new MPs favourable to a culture of life.  (But that means we will have to teach people how to vote…)

Here in WA we have been effective in other ways too. We are the only state that did not legalise cloning for research and our rejection of the euthanasia bill was the strongest of any state – special thanks to the tireless efforts of the Hon Nick Goiran. But in SA upper house it was only rejected by 1 vote. Now every MP was acquainted with the established fact that there is no way a euthanasia bill can be introduced without voluntary euthanasia becoming involuntary, hence every MP voting for euthanasia is voting for involuntary euthanasia and therefore evil. If we cannot change their thinking through logical argument then we must throw them out.

Enter politics. Archbishop Barry Hickey says it is critical for Christians, especially young people, to enter politics and public life.

And we need to know how to vote. You don’t have a legal choice to do this – it is compulsory. Which avenue of Christian ministry you find yourself in or take up is a choice whether this is ministry to the poor, working in your church support group, ministry to prisoners, gifting to mission etc – these are all choices, we cannot be involved in all of them. But you do not have a choice as to voting – at least not in Australia unless you are going to abstain on grounds of conscience but that would be like the priest with his nose in the air passing by the person beaten up by robbers on the Jericho road.

How you vote then becomes a matter of great responsibility from which you cannot escape and it is progressively becoming a clear choice between good and evil. I hope that you have seen as we have gone through what issues are defining issues – ones that override all the varied views that Christians have on a wide range of policies – ranging from the permission of evil to the compulsion of evil.

In the Victorian election candidates were given the opportunity to say whether they would support a move to rescind Section 8 of the Abortion legislation that compels doctors to refer so the choice for voters was very clear between good and evil.

We also had a clear choice in the last federal election but it was muffed because we couldn’t get the message out clearly through our churches – they failed to become “confessing” churches.

A very helpful resource is the Australian Christian Values Checklist to help the Christian community and those who are sympathetic to Christian values make an informed choice.

And you need to understand the preferential voting system and put your minor party or person [1] knowing you will not lose your vote. It will carry on at full value if your first choice is not elected.

How else do you make a decision?  What did the men of Issachar do?  They followed and trusted David to lead them.  So if all of this is frightening and confusing for you then maybe now is the time to just trust and vote for Christian candidates and parties, knowing that we are constantly seeking what God would have us do and we understand the battle.

What will we do? Will we, like the Israelites before Elijah, remain silent? Or will we, like the Men of Issachar, join together as people of God, to be a Voice and accept responsibility for change? These are heavy times. But we are on the winning side and our Lord Jesus is at the right hand of God interceding for us.

Lachlan Dunjey.

As you know, the push to re-define marriage is on again in earnest and Labor MPs were asked to assess the mood of their electorates before the next sitting of Federal Parliament on Feb 8. To put the matter to bed so it doesn’t cause divisions for the next Labor Party Conference due in November a vote could be called as early as February.

What is the risk? The risk is that a majority of the Australian public – and MPs reflecting this mood – will shrug their shoulders and say “what’s the point in fighting this all the time and does it really matter anyway?” and support the motion for same-sex marriage just so the issue will go away. And even those fully committed to fighting for marriage as God gave it will suffer from battle-fatigue and stop fighting.

I don’t even need to remind you of the true nature of marriage or the benefits to society or the importance of children having a mother and a father but this is well expressed in a statement by major religious leaders in the USA in December 2010:

The broad consensus reflected in this letter—across great religious divides—is clear: The law of marriage is not about imposing the religion of anyone, but about protecting the common good of everyone. People of any faith or no faith at all can recognize that when the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, it legally binds a mother and a father to each other and their children, reinforcing the foundational cell of human society.

I consider that we all have an obligation to defend and uphold truth and honour in our society. Part of this I believe is to teach our people and our children and teaching our people to teach our children truth and honour. Our children need to know what real marriage is and the blessing of commitment. Further, our children need to know in their own minds the falsehoods that are being presented in children’s literature and schools about “families” consisting of two mummys or two daddys. Yes, we can preach tolerance and acceptance of those less fortunate as well as upholding truth.

This is a time when great Christian truths – that once upon a time did not need defending because they were taken for granted – must be taught from our pulpits, and that means right now, this January.

But there’s more. In line with other ethical and moral “permissions” that become “compulsions” there are consequences to losing this battle in that we are then compelled to go along with the lies that have become enshrined in law. Such consequences may be to our freedom to speak truth to society and even to our children. To speak of our belief that marriage is between male and female is regarded as “hurtful to others”, as vilification and intolerance and we can be hauled before tribunals at great cost to ourselves.

Incremental same-sex changes that we are already seeing here – inclusion of books in school libraries, education in schools, forcing of adoption agencies, allowing and forcing IVF, changing of birth certificates to Party A and Party B, access to church camp sites – will be legitimised by re-defining marriage in federal law. Changes that have occurred elsewhere – the forcing of foster parents (and indeed natural parents) to comply with approved education, performing of marriages by marriage celebrants and then by ministers of religion, wedding photographers, halls, caterers, private B&Bs and other accommodation facilities – will gain increased impetus here also.

Is this disturbing? It should be. This issue is a watershed in Australian political history. If the truth about marriage is crucified at the highest level of Australian government there will be no getting it back. You may argue there is no point in fighting it, that this is part of the inevitable decline preparatory to God’s judgment but should we not preach and teach truth to our children? Should we not attempt to speak truth to our MPs before the February deadline?

How to email your MP http://www.makeastand.org.au/campaign/index.php?campaign_id=39#polliemail

3 Minute video by Jim Wallace http://www.vimeo.com/17751518

3 minute video by Warwick Marsh http://www.youtube.com/user/ACValues

Also see 21 Reasons why Marriage Matters

“Anyone who thinks that same-sex marriage is a benign eccentricity which won’t affect the average person should consider what it has done in Massachusetts” http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html

And, please, sign and encourage others to sign the Canberra Declaration

Lachlan Dunjey 11 Jan 2011.