The Fear-of-God builds up confidence and makes a world safe for your children. Prov 14:26 MSGWhich policies may we put into the category of “unsafe” for our children and what defines this choosing? Which policies show a lack of respect for and “fear” of God? We can generalise from the previous article #4 Fear of God: God’s Creation is a Safe Foundation that rebellion against God inevitably and crucially involves rebellion against his Creation which underpins so much of ethics and morality.
We may also generalise from the lessons of history and the underpinnings of Western Civilisation as shown for instance in the:
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTSeng-Universal_Declaration_Human_Rights
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.volume-999-i-14668-english
PRINCIPLE 1. There are zero choices other than save or kill. Saving the mother’s life is not a factor in deciding yes/no as labour can be induced without deliberately choosing to kill the baby first. See the Dublin Declaration and many of the submissions by Medicine with Morality.
PRINCIPLE 2. Legal compelling of participation in evil once the evil itself has been legalised – one evil on top of another.
As we have seen with Section 8 of the Victorian Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 doctors can be compelled by law to participate in the abortion process either by performing it or by referral to a doctor who will perform an abortion. In this, permission has become a compulsion.
Another example of this is the proposed law to criminalise so-called “conversion therapy” assisting a person who wants to change sexual orientation. Therapists (no definition yet so it includes doctors who may be involved in counselling) are only permitted to reinforce the person’s present orientation, not assist in variation. Clearly such should be left to the ethics of the various therapist’s organisations and, of course (!) the patient/client’s wishes. How dare a government say it is illegal for someone to seek counselling for change.
A further example of this compelling is the charging of parents who will not affirm their child’s wish to transgender. Also, see what is child abuse?
(By the way, there is no “need” to follow any of these links unless you wish more info.)
PRINCIPLE 3. Crushing by the law of the freedom to discuss and debate the issues concerned by “anti-discrimination”, “religious vilification” and “hate speech” legislation. Labor wants to further expand the limitations on freedom of speech.
PRINCIPLE 4. Educational indoctrination by the state of “gender fluidity”; acceptance of homosexuality as a valid lifestyle with implied experimentation to find out; choices re virginity (at least two); and access to pornographic and sadomasochistic sites with instructions how to hide from parents. Labour policy even includes funding for “gender affirming” treatments including chemical castration and mutilating sex-change surgery such as bilateral mastectomy. As a result of such ideology, we are now seeing a significant rise in the number of children presenting with gender confusion.
PRINCIPLE 5. The further erosion of parental values by the compulsion (yet again!) of private schools – that are chosen for their values – to accept teachers that do not accept those values.
I submit all the above are very clear choices influencing voting, a choice between right and wrong, good and evil, all influencing a world safe for our children.
PRINCIPLE 6. A little less clear as it may involve Parental vs. Government responsibilities are issues where the government could ensure a safe place for our children, for instance, clean-feed internet as a default that needs overriding.
Other issues that will influence voting are those that involve the “how” rather than the “yes/no” (rightness /wrongness) of the issue and include rightly concerning issues and justice
■ Indigenous health, housing and education
■ Refugee intake particularly for peoples suffering religious persecution and genocidal threat
■ The management of asylum seekers entering illegally
■ World nutrition and poverty.
While the needs may be clear there is disagreement as to their resolution and the quantity of relief. The relief of world poverty can be through non-government aid organisations or government (I prefer the former and its methods of distribution) and there are competing strategies to protect our own industries and future vs development of the nation in poverty. Christian mission and aid agencies have been at the forefront of relief and development.
Less clear however is the issue of “climate change” despite it being made into a critical electioneering issue. Yes, of course, emissions should be reduced and forests conserved. But there is appropriate disagreement as to the severity and impact of the problem and its causes, whether suggested methods of control will be effective, and will they have other negative effects and international implications that affect our future economy and industry. As with other contentious issues, people who wish to debate the current mantra are simply dismissed as “climate deniers”.
I applaud all who work for the marginalised in and out of our country and all who work as stewards of creation. I applaud efforts to have good enshrined in party platforms. These matters however with their varying solutions pale in comparison to the former principles when it comes to the ballot box. They involve the “how” rather than the “yes/no”.
Remembering, with respect to a world safe for your children, the words of Jesus “whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6 ESV).
Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling. (Psalm 2:10 NIV).
and makes a world
safe for your children.
Proverbs 14:26 MSG