(delivered Albany WA August 14, 2010 one week prior to the Federal Election)

Two cameos from the Old Testament at times when evil seemed to have the upper hand with two significant contrasting responses.

^{1 Kings18:19} Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”

So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 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.

^{1 Chron 12:22} Day after day men came to help David, until he had a great army, like the army of God. 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:

v32  …men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what to do

Now I realise that for some of you the information I give will be new, it will be strange, you will find it hard to believe and it will sometimes be shocking. As you may know I head up Medicine With Morality in Australia, an organisation of doctors to defend human life and defend liberty of conscience in medicine. Now you would think that all the doctors who have signed in to this – so that their signatures appear on the letters and submissions we write – would already be fully informed as to what is going on. Not so. I have been surprised when doctors have written back and said “I didn’t know”. Others, particularly non-medical, have reacted with disbelief, like the German people in Hitler’s time when confronted with the fact of Jews being taken to concentration camps who said “no, no – that is not possible. We are German.”  OK, it’s not as serious as that but what I shall present to you today will probably be new to most of you and you will shake your head and say “how come we didn’t know?” What I am going to give you is information. You will need to deal with it as you choose.

Although I have been directly involved with the ethical and moral issues for more than two decades and written on abortion and euthanasia in particular, I have only been heavily involved since 2002. I look back with dismay at how far we have come in just eight years.

The voice of the church in the public square: is there such a thing as a Christian vote?

I can summarise today’s talk in just two sentences – a statement of fact and a question:

Statement: In Victoria we have unrestricted late-term abortion, unrestricted eugenic selection of anything regarded as imperfect through to birth, and legal compulsion of doctors to act against their conscience – all this significantly due to the influence of Emily’s List of which our PM Julia Gillard is a founder.

Question: If it is absolutely clear that a political party leader is deliberately leading the country in an un-ethical and anti-God direction, can we trust that leader or that party in other non-God areas?

Now you may at this point choose to walk out with an indignant “you should not mix politics and religion” in which case I shall shout back at you “when Jews were being killed in Germany in their hundreds – not yet thousands – the church refused to speak out – would you too have refused?” Dietrich Bonhoeffer argued against those who “shrank into their sanctuaries of private virtuousness” but still failed to get the German church to speak out when they said “we will not discuss the Jewish question”.

Indeed a similar wording to sanctuaries of private virtuousness is in the Canberra Declaration of only two weeks ago which declares that when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression, not just confined to so-called sacred spaces but in the public arena as well, society is richer and healthier.

So, a serious question – the question everyone one is asking – should religion be kept out of politics?

Can religion influence affairs of state?

Can religion and politics mix?

Should Christians be involved in politics?

Should pastors teach regarding matters on which voters might make a choice e.g. Biblical justice?

If you have a good person in a bad party should you consider voting for that person despite the party being bad?

If you have a bad person in a good party should you consider voting for that party despite the person being bad?

Should a Christian vote at all?

If we are going to vote how much should we be voting for or against the Prime Minister to be – the next leader of our country and significantly responsible for our direction – as opposed to the party he or she leads?

There are other related questions:

Can government legislate for morality?

Should the church have a voice in politics when there are serious ethical issues at stake?

Can the church even have a public voice – not political – when there are serious ethical issues at stake?

What is the role of the church in the public square?

What is the role of individual Christians in the public square?

So, the voice of the church in the public square: is there such a thing as a Christian vote? Well, let’s look first of all at what the Bible might say about any view or action.

What is the Biblical justification for any action we might take in what is happening in our nation?

• We are created in the Image of God.  All humans have intrinsic value because of this. It is something that should be encouraged, nurtured and restored.
• 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).

Much has been written about the Christian vote.

Sensible stuff like an opinion piece written just a few days ago (29 July) by Dr John Dickson (a director of the Centre for Public Christianity) titled “In the political realm, birds of a feather don’t necessarily flock together” from which the following is taken:

Finally, Christians will mainly have in mind the poor and powerless. The mandate for this throughout scripture is overwhelming. Voting for the underprivileged in Australia has traditionally been seen as a vote for Labor. Others argue the most effective way of helping the poor and weak is to increase prosperity at the top so that wealth can trickle down to those who need it most. This has traditionally been put by conservatives.

I don’t make a judgment about either model but underline that a Christian vote is one sincerely motivated by a concern for the disadvantaged – be they elderly, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, unemployed, homeless or seeking asylum.

Christians ought to resist the temptation to vote for the party they think will shave more off their tax bill or add a percentage point to gross domestic product. They should be thinking of others. Nothing else can be called a Christian vote.

Does Dr Dickson reach any conclusion about who we should vote for? No, of course not – I am tempted to say because that’s not what good leaders should do – but it is a good article and it is all relevant when there is not so much of a choice between good and evil but choices between good and better or bad and not-so-bad according to our personal views and beliefs.

And we can discuss these matters – and we have done in the past – until the cows come home.

But this year is different. 2010 is a pivotal year. It is a watershed. The Christian issue is more clear than ever before in our country

This year there are two elections – the federal this month August 2010, and a state election due in Victoria in November. You might think there is no connection but there is. A big connection.

Let’s look at Victoria first where people are facing a state vote this November.

In 2008 abortion became fully legal in Victoria right through to term. Up till 24 weeks this simply requires the mother’s wish and an abortionist to do it. After 24 weeks it requires one extra doctor to agree. There are no legal restrictions and babies can be aborted for readily correctable abnormalities (such as cleft lip) and even for sex selection. Please let that sink in…

In Victoria according to government figures for 2007, 54 aborted babies were “accidentally” born alive and then left to die.  Please let that sink in…

Can we call what has happened in Victoria evil? If not, why not?

What is it that we don’t get?  When in our attempt at perfection we eliminate all that are imperfect e.g. at 34-weeks of pregnancy by partial-birth abortion when scissors are put in the back of the baby’s head and its brain is sucked out so that the skull will collapse and there is an easier delivery through the birth canal – this procedure having the “advantage of delivering a dead baby”? And this execution requires no anaesthetic. And at the Senate hearings into mid-trimester abortion where I had the privilege of giving evidence I heard a senior doctor say this procedure – because it did not involve the usual full labour process – had the advantage of the woman waking up “non-pregnant” – as if she could turn back the clock and never have been pregnant. You didn’t know about all this – no, of course you didn’t because it’s not “nice” to say so. The media won’t listen because they will defend the woman’s right to choose over and above everything else.

I plead with you to not lose the sense of horror.

We live in a world that has forgotten how to shudder. That phrase forgotten how to shudder is from Leon Kass writing in The Wisdom of Repugnance in 1997 when he says “repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder”.

But it’s worse. 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. Now it is one thing to pass a law that permits evil but it is something more to pass a law that compels evil. Please let that sink in…

So what’s the connection between the Victorian election and the federal? The connection is Emily’s List. (How many of you have heard of Emily’s List?)

The Victorian abortion legislation owes much to the influence of Emily’s List. Founded in 1996, Emily’s List aim was to get Labor women into parliament and from its beginning it was to be pro-choice. This extremely pro-autonomy (seemingly at the expense of any consequences to society), pro-choice (read pro-abortion), pro-euthanasia organisation boasts of the great victory of the Victorian abortion legislation with unrestricted abortion through to term “free of harassment”. This 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.

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.

For the Victorian election the choice will be startlingly clear cut between good and evil. Repeal Section 8 is a website devoted to this and I will be writing to all candidates asking whether they will support a move to repeal this section that compels doctors to be a part of the abortion process. Any politician who supports the overruling of conscience of doctors who believe that abortion is wrong – as per the Hippocratic Oath – is supporting evil whether or not they personally believe that abortion is wrong. The abortion issue is to a certain extent secondary in comparison to this huge ethical jump in our world – it is the compulsion that is evil whether it applies to abortion or physician assisted suicide or euthanasia.

We will publicise which candidates will or will not support such a move and I would expect people of conscience to vote accordingly on this very specific litmus test as to whether they – the voters – will condone evil in the candidate. I consider – if we can get support in this – that we can change the government. In my view we should make a concerted effort to throw out every Emily’s List endorsed candidate in Australia.

And that includes our Prime Minister.

For Julia Gillard is also described as a founder of Emily’s List and wrote its constitution.

So now we have explained the statement at the beginning of this talk:

Statement: In Victoria we have unrestricted late-term abortion, unrestricted eugenic selection of anything regarded as imperfect through to birth, and legal compulsion of doctors to act against their conscience – all this significantly due to the influence of Emily’s List of which our PM Julia Gillard is a founder.

Now remember it was reported last year that the Federal ALP Conference had upheld the Marriage Act but quietly in the background a whole section was deleted in the federal ALP Policy Statement including “marriage is between a man and a woman” and the statement that future same-sex union “should not mimic marriage”.  What does that say about ALP future direction in this area and being led by a woman who does not believe in God or even marriage for herself let alone what deals she might have to make with the Greens to get other legislation passed?

And in the face of deals with the Greens can we rely on her to defend Christian chaplains in schools or our right to choose Christian teachers in our Christian schools?

And if it is absolutely clear that a political party leader is deliberately leading the country in an un-ethical and anti-God direction, can we trust that leader or that party in other non-God areas?

I am aware that I will be interpreted as being critical and negative and yes, I am making a critique in presenting factual information but if we are really concerned about being perceived as intolerant and judgmental remember the worm

…and the worm went down

(a reference to the live polling of opinion from the studio audience during the Gillard/Abbott debate when the worm-line went down when Tony Abbott was perceived as being critical of policy)

Does that mean we can never tell the truth??

Does it mean we can’t point to the record about what people have done and have failed to do?

Can telling the truth about a party’s policy – taken straight from their own publications – be construed as being negative? Some people simply do not want to hear the truth and so just make the accusation of being negative.

How would a debate between an evangelical Christian leader and a Buddhist priest fare? The worm would certainly go down.

Jesus was not reticent about condemnation or action when this was appropriate. Look at what He said about Chorazin and Bethsaida (Mt 11:21) and the teachers of the law (Mt 23:13) and overturning the tables in the temple. Would the worm have gone down?

Let’s continue to tell the truth.

Now, two cameos from the Old Testament with two significant phrases.

^{1 Kings18:19} Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”

So Ahab sent word throughout all Israel and assembled the prophets on Mount Carmel. 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.

The people were silent.

^{1 Chron 12:22} Day after day men came to help David, until he had a great army, like the army of God. 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:

v32  …men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what to do

Where are we going?

Voluntary eugenic screening and elimination of any imperfection that might cause an extra cost to the community will become compulsory. Already parents who do not agree to have their babies “de-selected” are labelled “genetic outlaws” and face the accusation “how dare you bring this financial impost on the community.”

There is also a push for infanticide of imperfect newborns – already occurring in Holland – up until the time they become self-aware – and therefore persons. It has been said that keeping infanticide illegal unfairly discriminates against the normal child by forcing a late abortion when major abnormality is suspected but not proven – in recognition of the fact that some babies aborted because of suspected abnormalities are in fact completely normal and have been aborted “unnecessarily. The logic is that if infanticide was legal then we could allow the baby to be born before making the decision to kill it.  At least then the baby would then have the benefit of anaesthesia. So there are two reasons for supporting the legalization of infanticide – we can then be sure of the diagnosis and we can anaesthetize the baby.

But we have only just started the nightmare.  There are prominent world voices – Professors of Ethics – already calling for the use of organs from later-stage foetuses and infanticide of new-born babies up to 4-6 weeks after birth before they become self-aware if they are found to be defective.

And then there is the issues of pain experienced by the unborn baby. At least In the US state of Nebraska a law has been passed banning abortions after 20 weeks – it is called the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Yes the facts are disputed but can we be absolutely certain think that an 18-week unborn does not feel excruciating pain when it is ripped limb from limb to extract it? To pretend that a 32-week unborn infant does not feel that stab of the scissors in the back of the neck prior to its brain being scrambled and then sucked out is mind-boggling in its denial.

This is not a time for Christian people to remain silent. We must not waver between two opinions as the people of Israel did. It is a time for decision that will determine our future.  The men of Issachar knew what to do because they understood the times.

And those of you who get my emails will recognise one of my signature lines

Sometimes you just gently teach

Sometimes you preach with invitation

Sometimes you confront and challenge

Sometimes you have to condemn

Sometimes you have to drive the money-changers out of the temple

Sometimes you have to walk to Calvary.

Lachlan Dunjey. August 2010.

Re Julia Gillard as founder of Emily’s List and writer of its constitution .

^*http://history.law.unimelb.edu.au/go/people/politicians/julia-gillard/index.cfm

^**The Making of Julia Gillard Jacqueline Kent, Penguin Viking 2009

The Christian Values Checklist is a very useful resource.

It is extremely important to support The Canberra Declaration www.canberradeclaration.org.au

Also see www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au food for thought.

In Victoria: unrestricted late-term abortion, unrestricted eugenics, legal compulsion of doctors to act against their conscience – significantly due to the influence of Emily’s List of which Prime Minister Julia Gillard is a founder.

If it is absolutely clear that a political party leader is deliberately leading the country in an anti-God direction, can we trust that leader or that party in other non-God areas?

In 2008 it became fully legal in Victoria for babies to be aborted for readily correctable abnormalities (such as cleft lip) right through to term and even for sex selection if the abortionist and just one other doctor agree.

In Victoria according to official government figures for 2007, 52 aborted babies were “accidentally” born alive and then registered as neo-natal deaths.  Please let that sink in…

What is it that we don’t get?  When in our attempt at perfection we eliminate all that are imperfect e.g. at 34-weeks of pregnancy by partial-birth abortion when scissors are put in the back of the baby’s head and its brain is sucked out so that the skull will collapse and there is an easier delivery through the birth canal – this procedure having the “advantage of delivering a dead baby”? And this execution requires no anaesthetic.

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

Such is the influence of Emily’s List. This extremely pro-autonomy (seemingly at the expense of any consequences to society), pro-choice (read pro-abortion), pro-euthanasia organisation boasts of the great victory with unrestricted abortion through to term “free of harassment” as a result of the Victorian abortion legislation in which all amendments were defeated. This legislation was introduced by MLC Candy Broad, a founder of Emily’s List. The webpage also boasts of having helped elect 139 Labor women in parliament.

And Julia Gillard is also described as a founder and wrote its constitution*.

And remember it was reported last year that the Federal ALP Conference had upheld the Marriage Act but quietly in the background a whole section was deleted in the federal ALP Policy Statement including “marriage is between a man and a woman” and the statement that future same-sex union “should not mimic marriage”.  What does that say about ALP future direction in this area and being led by a woman who does not believe in God or even marriage for herself let alone what deals she might have to make with the Greens to get other legislation passed?

And in the face of (probably essential) deals with the Greens can we rely on her to defend Christian chaplains in schools or our right to choose Christian teachers in our Christian schools?

Will Church Leaders speak up and give a lead? Will you help your people to understand the times so that they know what to do? Much has been written about the Christian vote but the 2010 Federal election is a pivotal year in that the good/evil parameters are clearer than ever before. This is now a time for the church to inform.

Please encourage your people to further look at these issues on the Christian Values Checklist and to support The Canberra Declaration.

Lachlan Dunjey lachlan@medicinewithmorality.org.au for other background also see http://vimeo.com/7809169

^*The Making of Julia Gillard Jacqueline Kent, Penguin Viking 2009

PS. An immensely practical point!  Please help people to understand when voting for a minor party candidate to put that person [1] on the voting slip and the major party of choice [2].  Should the minor candidate not win the vote goes on at full value. Major parties will sometimes change policy or select candidates that represent similar values in order to gain these preferences.  And as you may know I would have been in WA upper house since 2005 if only 91 people voting for Liberal had put me [1] and Liberal [2].  That was in God’s hands and I have no regrets but it is a good object lesson on the importance of understanding the preferential voting system.

PM Julia Gillard has declared herself, in response to the accusation that she is pro-abortion, to be “pro-choice”. But what does that mean?  Is it not really – for the majority of pro-choice activists – pro-abortion?

Imaginary conversation with a pro-choice activist:

So what about the baby?

Yes, it’s a hard choice – no one takes it lightly.

So the baby has no choice?

As I said, it’s a hard choice. It must be the woman’s choice over the embryo.

You’re not actively pushing for abortion?

No. But it needs to be made freely available throughout Australia.

Aren’t you a little concerned that the majority of abortions, probably 95% or more of the 90-100,000 per year – but for the sake of argument let’s just say the majority – are performed almost as a secondary means of contraception?

Yes, that is a concern and underlies the necessity for good sex education.

Yes, education and information at the appropriate times is essential, but you want abortion to be even more readily available in Australia?

Well, there should not be any interference with availability wherever you live.

It seems that the pro-choice lobby is all too ready to encourage – some would say persuade – the pregnant woman to go for abortion.

I don’t agree that that is true.

Then why does the so-called pro-choice lobby object so much to cooling-off periods to allow reflection?

Well, the woman with the unwanted pregnancy is already distressed and will become more distressed if made to wait. She may even change her mind.

She may indeed and that seems to upset the pro-abortion lobby.

It’s not pro-abortion, it’s pro-choice and I am pro-choice.

Then why do the pro-choice people get upset when a pregnant woman, exercising that choice, changes her mind after a cooling-off period?

Because the poor girl may now be saddled with a pregnancy that she didn’t want.

And a baby that is alive. So why do they insist that the ultrasound machine be turned away so that the woman cannot see the screen?

For the same reason. It might distress her.

So she won’t see that it is a real baby that she is going to kill? Isn’t this about informed consent?

Oh, they already know – but it’s not really a life.

Try telling that to the girl watching the video screen. And if it’s not a life then what about the second trimester abortion that goes wrong and a live 22 week baby is born and left to die as in Victoria where 54 babies were left to die according to 2007 government figures?

Well, that is incompetence and it shouldn’t happen.

Well maybe it’s better than being torn apart limb from limb at 18 weeks without anaesthetic. But if the 22 week baby is patently a live human baby what about the 33 week baby killed because it is thought to be abnormal in some way? Are you pro-choice with that?

I think each case has to be decided on its merits.

And if the baby is 36 weeks and killed by a sharp stab in the upper neck so the sucker can be inserted to suck the brain out and collapse the head so it can be delivered easily, are you pro-choice then?

As I said before I think each case has to be decided on its merits.

But the baby has no choice in this brutal execution without anaesthetic – how do you resolve this conflict of rights?

I think you have to be careful of your language in using such emotive terms but yes, it must be the pregnant woman’s choice.

You mean women are going to get upset by being told the truth?

There might be women who have had no choice but to get an abortion who would be upset by that language.

“Women who have had no choice”? You mean some who felt they had no choice and yet exercised that choice you are promoting but would have chosen otherwise had they been told the truth in a context of informed consent? What about all the women in later life who count off the birthdays of their aborted children with tears and regret?

I think they’re only made to feel that when pro-lifers like you make them feel that way.

Wow! That’s a pretty damning statement against the independent female that she can only be made to feel guilty by people who are pro-life. I prefer to think more highly of women than that and that she has become more and more aware of what she did so quickly so many years earlier and was encouraged in the quickness of that decision by pro-abortion – sorry, pro-choice – people who simply want them to get their abortion over before an opportunity for fully informed consent.

That’s just your view. Mine is different. I am pro-choice.

So you’ve said. And we’ve had this conversation without even considering the vexed issues of medical complications, subsequent infertility, premature labour with its increased frequency of cerebral palsy, and last but not least a possible 30% increase in breast cancer as shown by the latest survey.

Now you’re really loopy. There is no evidence for any of that. I’m finishing this conversation.

But all of these issues should at least be discussed in fully informed medical consent even if they are in dispute. You have shown your colours very clearly, that in fact by suppressing informed consent of these issues, by turning the ultrasound away and taking away any chance of the woman changing her mind by refusing any cooling-off time in legislation, you are clearly pro-abortion.

I haven’t refused cooling-off time in legislation.

Maybe you haven’t but Emily’s List was instrumental in that notorious Victorian legislation in which all amendments were defeated and which was touted as a great victory for women “free of harassment” by the clearly pro-abortion Emily’s List that now boasts 139 women in parliaments across Australia.

Well it was a great victory for women’s choice.

And it eliminated any choice the doctor might have as it compels doctors against their conscience to participate in this process.

Yes and rightly so. We must not have any obstructions put in our way.

Even though this is the first time in history since Nazi Germany that a Western country has compelled doctors to participate in a medical process that some of them regard as evil – even a 32 week baby that will be killed by its mother for something as simple as an easily repairable cleft lip?

Yes, I believe in women’s choice.

I can see we are poles apart. I have no further questions. I feel heaviness for our society and for our world when it has come to this. And PM Julia Gillard* is described as a founder of Emily’s List.

A great day for women!

*http://history.law.unimelb.edu.au/go/people/politicians/julia-gillard/index.cfm

Lachlan Dunjey. July 2010.

(a reference to the live polling of opinion from the studio audience during the Gillard/Abbott debate when the worm-line went down whenever Tony Abbott was perceived as being critical of policy)

Does that mean we can never tell the truth??

Does it mean we can’t point to the record about what people have done and have failed to do?

Can telling the truth about a party’s policy – taken straight from their own publications – be construed as being negative? Some people simply do not want to hear the truth and so just make the accusation of being negative.

How would a debate between an evangelical Christian leader and a Buddhist priest fare? The worm would certainly go down.

Jesus was not reticent about condemnation or action when this was appropriate. Look at what He said about Chorazin and Bethsaida (Mt 11:21) and the teachers of the law (Mt 23:13) and overturning the tables in the temple. Would the worm have gone down?

Let’s continue to tell the truth.  Lachlan.

Following on from the Manhattan Declaration and Westminster Declaration the Canberra Declaration – a call for Christian Conscience and renewal of Christian Values in Australia – was released today, Friday 23 July 2010, in Canberra.

Below is from the media release:

In the lead up to the federal election to take place on Saturday 21^st august 2010, an historic gathering is taking place at Parliament House. On Friday, at 12.45 pm the historic Canberra Declaration will be released at the Government of God Conference on the lawns of Parliament House, Canberra.

Indigenous leader Ps Norm Miller will lead prayers and the declaration will be read by Dr Graham McLennan from the National Alliance of Christian Leaders. Over 20 Christian leaders have helped in the drafting of the document and organisers expect many hundreds more leaders to become signatories to The Canberra Declaration in the coming weeks by registering at www.canberradeclaration.org.au

I encourage you to please read and sign this important document.

Lachlan Dunjey.

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

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.

(The situation demanded a decision, but the people were silent)

1 Chr 12:32  …men of Issachar, who understood the times and knew what Israel should do

(The men of Issachar went against King Saul and supported the opposition.  They followed David in defiance of the king.  Did they break the law?  Would you break the law to support that which is right?  I leave that thought with you.)

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 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 then and far too late now. This now has legal sanction in Victoria and doctors have no choice but to refer to a doctor who will be supportive of abortion if asked by a patient.
• Experimentation on embryos?  Almost too late.  Far too late now
• Euthanasia?  Far too late in other places and only narrowly defeated in SA recently (1 vote)
• Euthanasia without consent?  Far too late in Holland.
• Cloning?  We were close to it then. Now cloning is in nationally and in most states but in WA we rejected it.
• Cloning for reproductive purposes for infertile couples?  It’s only a matter of time – the argument will be that it would be discriminatory not to.
• Harvesting of organs from clones?  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.
• Cloning for special purposes?  Once we’ve gone as far as the above, this is inevitable.
• 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.

So, what will it finally be that drives us to walk into Perth carrying our placards?

Will we be silent like the people before Elijah or will we understand the times and know what to do?

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 including: will you come when…

• We are using 12-week embryos for their formed livers as argued by Will Saletan in “The Organ Factory:  The Case for Harvesting Older Human Embryos” and by one of our Aussie expatriates Oxford Professor Julian Savulescu?
• We are using babies with other defects that are less than 4-weeks old (after birth) for their hearts and livers consistent with the ethics of another famous Aussie expatriate Professor Peter Singer of Princeton who argues that destruction is even acceptable up to about six weeks after delivery before the baby becomes self-aware and therefore defined as being a person?
• When in our attempt at perfection we eliminate all that are imperfect at 34-weeks of pregnancy by partial-birth abortion when scissors are put in the back of the baby’s head and its brain is sucked out so that the skull will collapse and there is an easier delivery through the birth canal – this procedure as we were told by a NHMRC committee in 1995 having the “advantage of delivering a dead baby”?
• And when mothers who object are labelled – as they are labelled now in UK if they object to selective abortion of a foetus with a possible abnormality – as ‘genetic outlaws’?
• Or when the elderly are faced with the ‘duty to die’ because of the cost of terminal care or nursing home care?

We now need to update…

British researchers in 2006 (http://www.lifenews.com/nat2191.html) concluded that premature babies around 20 weeks did actually feel pain when withdrawing their feet with heel prick rather than this just being a reflex action. Surprise, surprise, but before this the withdrawal was just regarded by some as being reflex.  How did we even think they might not feel pain?  We do not know and to pretend that a 32-week unborn infant does not feel that stab of the scissors in the back of the neck prior to its brain being scrambled and sucked out is mind-boggling in its denial.  Nerve pathways are laid down from around 7 weeks.  How could we think that an 18-week unborn does not feel excruciating pain when it is ripped limb from limb to extract it?  (I am fed-up with mollycoddling these issues so people won’t be upset.  Yes, the facts are deeply disturbing but if you leave here without being disturbed then I have failed.)  At least the US state of Nebraska has recognized that babies of 20 weeks are capable of experiencing pain having this year passed a law banning abortions after 20 weeks called the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.

In 2008 it became fully legal in Victoria for babies to be aborted for very minor readily correctable abnormalities right through to term and even for sex selection.  And this execution requires no anaesthetic.

Now some babies that are aborted because of suspected abnormalities are in fact completely normal and have been aborted “unnecessarily”.  This of course is regarded as being undesirable and so it has been said that banning infanticide unfairly discriminates against the normal child by forcing an abortion when major abnormality is suspected but not proven.  The logic is that if infanticide was legal then we could allow the baby to be born before making the decision to kill it.  At least then the baby would then have the benefit of anaesthesia. So there are two reasons for supporting the legalization of infanticide – we can then be sure of the diagnosis and we can anaesthetize the baby.  Yeah, right…

But indeed we have a new infanticide here in the land of Oz.  In Victoria according to figures from the state gov’t for 2007, 54 aborted babies were “accidentally” born alive and then left to die.  Please let that sink in…

We are reassured by prominent Professors of Ethics that infanticide of the new-born up to 4-6 weeks old after birth is OK as they are not yet self-aware.  And these same people are calling for the use of organs from late-stage foetuses and the new-born.

There is an election due in Victoria this November.  The Victorian people have an even more clear choice between good and evil in who they vote for this year because of what they have allowed.

It is worth noting that after that second challenge to Baptist Churches Assembly I asked for people who weren’t getting my ethics emails to email me so I could add them to the list.  How many requests did I get?  One.  OK, maybe half the leaders there were already receiving them.  Maybe…

What is it that we don’t get?  If we cannot call this evil then what can we call it?  What is it that stops us from calling it evil? What is it that makes people continue to vote for the people who promote or condone this evil?  When will people speak up? Will we be like the Israelites who remained silent in the face of Elijah’s challenge or will the mighty men and women of God condemn this evil and those who promote it?  And if not now, then when? How much worse does it have to get?  And will we then still have the freedom to condemn?

At least at this point in Australia we have banned the mixing of human genes with animal eggs but in England they have recently approved this citing the fact that the public are now more at ease with the concept of hybrids or chimeras as long as they are also destroyed at 14 days. 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.  Also in England there has been a move to abort male babies where there is a family history of autism because it is more likely to go through the male line.  Where would you stop along the Autism Spectrum Disorder line?

Have I persuaded you yet?  Please put up your hands for a moment if you agree that these things are evil.

But wait, there’s more. It’s worse. 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 participate in the process of referral for abortion when asked by a patient.

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 reason other 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 medical 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 legislation – 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.

Now your reaction to this may be that it cannot be this bad.  I can assure you that it is.  It is the first time in the Western world since Hitler’s Germany that doctors have been forced by government legislation to participate in evil.  If we refuse then we are breaking the law.  Please let that sink in…

Now here in Western Australia we are facing a vote for euthanasia.  Every MP in the upper house where the vote will take place has been given evidence that all committees set up in the world to decide whether voluntary euthanasia can be legalised without it progressing to involuntary has found this to be impossible.  So every MP voting for euthanasia knows that the WA legislation will also fail to protect against this.  Now there may be some who might argue that compulsory involuntary euthanasia is OK in certain circumstances but I only have one word for this and that is evil.  And if you agree with me that this is evil and you knowingly vote for a candidate who supports euthanasia then you are voting for evil.  This is a watershed on which each of us must make a decision.  There is no escaping this – we each have to vote.  The Israelites were silent in the face of the challenge but after Elijah’s confrontation with the priests of Baal they had no option.  Neither now do we.  To read more on why euthanasia should not be legalised go to the submission from MWM www.medicinewithoutmorality.info and look at the top paper.

Two other matters that we need to watch federally are the encroachment on Christian ministries through anti-discrimination and human rights legislation and also marriage.

Would it not concern you if your school was forced to employ a teacher that was in opposition to the values that your school seeks to instil in the children?  For instance if he or she was a promoter of sex with children?  Or, if he has an openly active and profligate homosexual lifestyle?  It will be and is argued that such teachers should be employable on the grounds that refusal is an infringement of their “right” to work.  And although any bill of rights is for the present dead in the water it is now proposed that there be a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights called the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill and the committee will scrutinise whether bill trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties as interpreted by UN committees headed up by countries like Libya.

It was reported last year that Federal Labor had upheld marriage as being between a man and a woman but quietly in the background a whole section was replaced in the federal ALP Policy Statement and the section stating “marriage is between a man and a woman” was deleted as also was the statement that future same-sex union “should not mimic marriage”.  So what does that say about the ALP future direction?  And what does it say about Mr Rudd’s ability to reign in the anti-marriage left? (Postscript: too late – he has lost further opportunity now that Julia Gillard is PM. And do you realise that Ms Gillard was one of the founders in Australia of Emily’s List that now boasts that they have helped elect 139 women MPs across Australia? Have a look at their website and also at The Ethical Crisis in our Parliaments.)

I hope you then will be like the men of Issachar and understand the times.  But do you know what to do?  There are so many ways that you can be involved but that is a subject for another time except for two things.  Firstly 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.  Secondly, you need to know how to vote.

You must clearly not vote for those who support that which is clearly evil.  How else do you decide?  The most valuable aid is the Christian Values Checklist.  You can Google this or go to http://www.christianvalues.org.au/check_list.html or http://www.christianvalues.org.au/CheckList_Federal_Elections_07_FINAL_WEB.pdf for old lists.  Watch as we come up to election time for a new list.  Please do not fail to see where Green’s policies stack up on this list.  Yes, Christians too have a responsibility to the environment but must not in conscience give the Greens the opportunity to further their evil social agendas.

Now feel free to get angry with me.  Argue with me if you disagree.  But please do not just turn away and be silent.

How else do you make a decision?  What did the men of Issachar do?  They trusted David to lead them.  Maybe now is the time to trust those at the forefront of the present battle and to support us when we stand for election by giving us your vote.

Now – an immensely practical point!  Please remember when voting for a minor party candidate (that’s us – vote for us) to put that person or party [1] on your voting slip and your major party of choice [2].  Your vote goes on at full value should your minor candidate not win and becomes very significant in who then gets elected.  Major parties know this and will sometimes change policy or select candidates that represent similar values.  And as you probably know I would have been in state parliament for the last four years if only 91 people voting for Liberal had put me first and Liberal second.

We of course want your prayers. Use the web.  See “food for thought” on the Choose Life Australia website.  Sign in to updates through facebook or twitter.  Stay alert.

Lachlan Dunjey

http://chooselifeaustralia.org.au

http://medicinewithmorality.org.au

http://thebeltoftruth.org.au

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

http://www.repealsection8.net.au/

Please also see

http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/open-letter-to-the-people-of-god-in-victoria/

http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/will-you-vote-for-good-or-evil/

http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/life/the-ethical-crisis-in-our-parliaments/

Hannah Arendt writes of Adolf Eichmann “His conscience was indeed set at rest when he saw the zeal and eagerness with which ‘good society’ everywhere reacted as he did.  He did not need to ‘close his ears to the voice of conscience’ as the judgment has it, not because he had none, but because his conscience spoke with a ‘respectable voice,’ with the voice of respectable society around him.”

Is that not a frightening analysis?  The voice of conscience submerged by the desire to conform, to be part of respectable society, to be successful.

(Fr Sean Fernandez writing on anti-Semitism. The Record 16 June 2010)

“At this point in Australia we have banned the mixing of human genes with animal eggs but in England they have recently approved this citing the fact that the public are now more at ease with the concept of hybrids or chimeras as long as they are also destroyed at 14 days. 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.”

From Confessing Christ in a Culture that has Forgotten how to Shudder (rev. June 2010)

A state election is due in Victoria in November this year. Will you vote for good or for evil?

Now I know some of you will be bristling already

How dare you label our potential voting evil.  Who do you think you are putting our needed decisions into those categories.  Anyway, you must not mix politics with religion.

OK, you can stop reading at this point but I hope you will reason this through with me.  We need to look at which party or individual policies and standards are more honouring to God and which are outright opposed.  I am well aware this is a contentious subject.

This Victorian government has done some extraordinary things in recent years.  It passed the Victorian Charter of Rights – a charter or “bill of rights” based on the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  But even though the latter speaks of the inherent dignity and rights of all human life, reinforced by the 1959 UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child that spells out the rights of the child before and after birth, the Victorian charter has included the end-note that none of it will apply to abortion.  This explicit exclusion from the protection of the charter of that stage of human life that should have our utmost protection – the child before birth – would be like excluding groups based on ethnicity or disability.

But wait, there’s more. Two years ago Victoria passed the most liberal abortion laws in Australia permitting abortion through to 24 weeks for any reason without any approval except finding someone to do it and over 24 weeks it only requires the approval of two doctors for any reason that those doctors may approve.  No counselling is required, nor is there any “cooling-off” period.  There is no restriction as to method of abortion including the horrific partial birth abortion, nor are there any guidelines re abortion for foetal abnormality.  Abortions for minor correctable abnormalities such as cleft lip have crept in under the radar in Victoria and now have legal sanction.

There is now implicit state approval of eugenic selection – for even minor imperfections – in Victoria.

How did we get this far?

Because you, the people of Victoria either did not vote for good candidates or there weren’t enough of them to vote for – and if not, why not?  Did you not realise that Christians need to stand up in our society for that which is right?  Or was it because the issues were so muddied that you could not separate good from evil?  Or was it because you were tired of debate and you thought “I’m just going to vote for that which is significant to me”?

So are there candidates standing for Christian principles and values in this next election in November?  If not, is God calling you??

But wait, there’s more. In that abortion legislation is the provision to force doctors – even when such is against their deeply held convictions and conscience – to participate in the process of referral for abortion when asked by a patient.

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 – yes, state approval of this should shock us out of all complacency – but the other, more sinister and greater, evil is to compel medical 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.  Why??  As Emily’s List website shamelessly proclaims, so that women will be “free from persecution… free from harassment” when they go to a doctor.

Now your reaction to this may be that it cannot be this bad.  I can assure you that it is.  It is the first time in the Western world since Hitler’s Germany that doctors have been forced by government legislation to participate in evil.  If we refuse then we are breaking the law.  Please let that sink in…

For the coming election candidates will be asked whether they will support a move to repeal this part of the Victorian abortion law.  Will you vote for those who say yes?

But we mustn’t mix religion with politics you say?  Well, this isn’t just religion.  The Hippocratic Oath, from which the ethical base of medicine comes, is not Christian anyway and your action in voting is a clear choice between good and evil that affect the whole of society’s future.  You cannot escape your individual responsibility in the cultural direction that our society takes.

Can you not see where this takes us?  The votes against euthanasia recently in our parliaments have been very close.  Can you not see that one day in the future palliative care will be limited as it is in societies that have approved of euthanasia and as it is in Oregon where health benefits are restricted for cancer treatment but allowed for the cheaper physician-assisted suicide?  Can you not see that such medical participation may also be made compulsory particularly for the doctor who has been caring for the patient during their last illness?  Can you not see the consequences for medicine?

This is not just an issue for Victoria but an issue for each state and the nation.  Indeed it is a world issue

and one of the most significant of our time. Christian institutions in Victoria are also under threat with the recently introduced changes in equal opportunity laws.

The Westminster Declaration 2010 reads (also see The Manhattan Declaration)

We will seek to ensure that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are unequivocally protected against interference by the state and other threats… We call upon all those in UK positions of leadership, responsibility and influence to pledge to respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold these beliefs and to act according to Christian conscience.

These issues are extremely serious and the decisions we make now will affect the future of our nation.

For the coming state election in Victoria candidates will be asked whether they will support a move to repeal this part – section 8 – of the Victorian abortion law and voters will need to decide very clearly whether they regard this matter – the compelling of evil – something that they should support or vote against.  Each person has a clear choice.  Each person must make a decision for good or evil.  It will be very clear cut. The warning is clear – if doctors can be compelled to participate in the process of abortion through to term for any reason then they can be compelled to participate in other processes against their conscience.

Now, a practical matter: please remember when voting for a minor party candidate to put that person or party first on your voting slip and your major party of choice second.  Should your minor candidate not win your vote goes on at full value and becomes very significant in who then gets elected.  Major parties know this and will sometimes change policy or select candidates that represent similar values in order to gain these preferences.

In Western Australia the distribution of preferences from Christian parties resulted in the election of five new MPs with values supporting the intrinsic value of all human life and has changed the direction of government.

So in this coming election you have the opportunity and responsibility to elect candidates with values that espouse good and not evil – and who will support the overthrow of section 8 of the abortion law reform legislation that compels evil in medicine.

There is no higher responsibility.

Apart from this very specific choice the most helpful decision-making aid is the Christian Values Checklist.  Use this for both state and federal elections.  Also see previous lists and watch as we come up to election time for a new list.

For the federal election watch Australia Votes with Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott answering questions from church leaders.  This is a web-feed on June 21 from Old Parliament House in Canberra.

(Dr) Lachlan Dunjey.  May 2010.

Convenor Medicine With Morality: defending human life; defending liberty of conscience www.medicinewithmorality.org.au

Conscience Laws and Healthcare – The Coercion of Doctors Melbourne Conference July 2009 http://vimeo.com/7809169.

http://www.medicinewithoutmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/02/TheCoercionofDoctorsMelbourne.pdf

The Ethical Crisis in our Parliaments http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/

Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities

http://www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au/human%20rights/the%20victorian%20charter%20of%20human%20rights%20and%20responsibilities/

Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

The UN General Assembly Declaration of the Rights of the Child November 20, 1959 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://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/k1drc.htm

http://www.iachr.org/Ninez/pdf%20files/Declaration%20of%20the%20Rights%20of%20the%20Child.pdf

Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubLawToday.nsf/a12f6f60fbd56800ca256de500201e54/6dd27aaaaa5956a7ca2574eb00016845/$FILE/08-58a001.pdf

Partial Birth Abortion (warning: disturbing) http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/diagram.html

Emily’s List editorial http://www.emilyslist.org.au/news/editorial.asp?id=257

The Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience 2009 http://manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

Westminster Declaration 2010 http://www.westminster2010.org.uk/declaration/

Repeal Section 8 http://www.repealsection8.net.au/

Christian Values Checklist  http://www.christianvalues.org.au/check_list.html

Previous lists http://www.christianvalues.org.au/CheckList_Federal_Elections_07_FINAL_WEB.pdf

Australia Votes http://webcast.australiavotes.org/

In a previous article The Ethical Crisis in our Parliaments* I concluded “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”.

Clearly this means we have to know who to vote for.  My challenge then to all people – Christians in particular – is will you vote for good or for evil?

Now I know some of you will be bristling already. How dare you label our potential voting evil.  Who do you think you are putting our needed decisions into those categories.  Anyway, you must not mix politics with religion.

OK, you can stop reading at this point but I hope you will reason this through with me.  We really have to look at which party or individual policies and standards are more honouring to God and which are outright opposed.  I am well aware this is a contentious subject.

As it happens people in Victoria will have a relatively easy choice in their state election due this coming November.  You will recall that two years ago Victoria passed the most liberal abortion laws in Australia permitting abortion through to 24 weeks for any reason without any approval except finding someone to do it and over 24 weeks it only requires the approval of two doctors for any reason that those doctors may approve.  No counselling is required, nor is there any “cooling-off” period.  There is no restriction as to method of abortion including the horrific partial birth abortion, nor are there any guidelines re abortion for foetal abnormality.  Abortion for minor correctable abnormalities such as cleft lip have crept in under the radar in Victoria and now has legal sanction.

How did things get this bad?

Because the people of Victoria either did not vote for good candidates or there weren’t enough of them to vote for.  Did they not have the foresight to realise that Christians need to stand up in our society for that which is right and that may include standing for election?  Or was it because the issues were muddied and they could not separate good from evil?

But there’s more.  In that abortion legislation for the first time in Western civilisation since Hitler’s Germany is the provision that doctors are forced – even when such is against their deeply held convictions and conscience  – to participate in the process of referral for abortion when asked by a patient.

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 but the other, more sinister and greater, evil is to compel medical 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 is – 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.

For the coming election in Victoria candidates will be asked whether they will support a move to repeal this part of the Victorian abortion law (see http://www.repealsection8.net.au/) and voters will need to decide very clearly whether they regard this matter – the compelling of evil – something that they should support or vote against.  Each person has a clear choice.  Each person must make a decision for good or evil.  It will be very clear cut. The warning is clear – if doctors can be compelled to participate in the process for abortion through to term for any reason then they can be compelled to participate in other processes against their conscience e.g. euthanasia.

This is not just an issue for Victoria but an issue for each state and the nation.  Indeed it is a world-issue.

The Westminster Declaration 2010 reads (also see The Manhattan Declaration)

We will seek to ensure that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are unequivocally protected against interference by the state and other threats… We call upon all those in UK positions of leadership, responsibility and influence to pledge to respect, uphold and protect the right of Christians to hold these beliefs and to act according to Christian conscience.

Christian institutions in Victoria are also under threat with the recently introduced changes in equal opportunity laws. In Western Australia another euthanasia bill has just been introduced into the Upper House.  It is unlikely to have been voted on by the time of this printing but when it is we need to remember how they vote.

How do we make these decisions for the federal election? The most helpful aid is the Christian Values Checklist put together by several organisations including the Australian Christian Lobby. You can Google this or go to http://www.christianvalues.org.au/check_list.html or http://www.christianvalues.org.au/CheckList_Federal_Elections_07_FINAL_WEB.pdf for old lists.  Watch as we come up to election time for a new list.

Also check http://webcast.australiavotes.org/ for a web-feed on June 21 from Old Parliament House in Canberra with Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott answering questions from church leaders.

Please remember when voting for a minor party candidate to put that person or party [1] on your voting slip and your major party of choice [2].  Your vote goes on at full value should your minor candidate not win and becomes very significant in who then gets elected.  Major parties know this and will sometimes change policy or select candidates that represent similar values.

We will soon be facing a federal election.  Please consider these things and be sure to cast your vote for good and not evil.   If you still cannot be sure just put CDP [1] for everything!

*The Ethical Crisis in our Parliaments http://www.chooselifeaustralia.org.au/

Lachlan Dunjey