>What constitutes moral values and how important are they to the life of the community?


Every western community that I am aware of has rules and regulations, which help keep things in balance.

If there were no laws our society would resemble something like what we saw in the Mad Max movies, or even more recently, The Book of Eli.

Laws, rules and regulations are in place for a specific purpose. Without them it would be perfectly all right to kill, maim, and take whatever you wanted from your neighbour and the local store etc. People would have no rights, no freedoms, unless you consider the taking of another human life to be a freedom? If you have something I want, and you will not freely give it to me, then I will kill you and take it from you – end of story.

If I amass power, because I am physically stronger than you, and there are no checks and balances (laws) in place to prevent me from doing this, then a state of anarchy would exist.

If laws that have been in place for centuries, suddenly get ‘thrown out’, like so much ‘bath water’, what does that say about our society? Laws give us ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’, you cannot have one without the other – a series of checks and balances.

In Democratic Societies, we have developed a process whereby we (ordinary people) elect (other) ordinary people, to represent us in governing our communities. They (the elected ones) have a responsibility to see that our communities are governed wisely and legally, upholding the moral values that have been handed on from generation to generation.

Different countries have different time periods whereby those elected into government serve us. When that period of service is complete, new elections are called and, we the (ordinary non-elected) people vote once again to have a representative serve us in government for the following ‘x’ number of years.

One law that has held fast through the eons of time says that murder is a crime. As such, this crime is unacceptable to society and perpetrators of this crime are to be punished accordingly.

Like with all things that constitute the ‘law’, there are various definitions that play around the theme. Murder as defined is to kill intentionally and with premeditation.

There are “sub classes” of murder, such as unintentional killing, which may be defined as manslaughterunlawful killing without intent to kill. It can be voluntary (such as a deadly fist fight) or involuntary (such as an accident caused by a speeding car).

I wonder now if new ‘subclasses’ are going to be brought into law?

If murder is killing, either intentionally (premeditated) or unintentionally (non-premeditated), then exactly where would the issues of induced abortion, infanticide and euthanasia stand on the ‘murder spectrum’ (sub class)?

For the purpose of this blog, Induced Abortion is defined as: the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a foetus or embryo, resulting in its death.

Infanticide is defined as: the practice of killing an unwanted or defective infant, used in the first and second century to limit the number of girls. Unfortunately, it is still practiced today in some cultures.

Euthanasia is defined as: the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering.

Our Society does not condone the taking of human life for any reason. If you pull a gun or a knife on another person, inflicting injury resulting in death, you are caught, arrested, tried and usually found guilty of murder. There is a penalty to pay. Prison time normally ensues, resulting in the loss of your freedoms and rights. This is what society expects, this is why we have laws, statutes and regulations. This is why we elect politicians into government to ensure these laws are upheld.

And yet in Australia we have already allowed the killing of unwanted babies to be passed into law. It is a matter for each State in Australia, to decide the criteria for allowing the termination of ‘unwanted’ pregnancies. There is very little in the way of argument about this form of killing these days in the public arena. It seems to have slipped into the ‘norm’ and been accepted by most of the younger generation.

When it comes to the question of Infanticide – the killing of an unwanted or defective infant – there is a scream of terror when you mention that this maybe on the future political agenda.

Australian Green’s Leader Bob Brown and his close ‘humanist’ associate Peter Singer have well established views in this regard.

Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—”rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”—and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”

These views are not Christian views – not moral views which would be held by the majority of Australians. Mr. Brown describes himself as a ”lapsed Presbyterian”. Others would consider Bob to be an atheist.

“Bob’s atheistic views have found expression through his petition against the recitation of Christian prayers at the beginning of parliamentary sessions. More recently he has announced a plan to replace the national schools chaplaincy program with a scheme to help schools employ counsellors and community liaison officers. In putting forward this idea Senator Brown said, the chaplaincy program, introduced by the Howard government in 2007 and continued by Rudd was, ‘a very old idea, very much short of meeting the needs of schools in 2010. It has a religious basis whereas we must fund the program according to the needs of students’.”

They (the Humanists) also praise him for many other outstanding qualities: “In 2007 he introduced a Private Members Bill into the Senate to overturn the 1997 Andrews Bill that had cancelled the Northern Territory Bill permitting voluntary euthanasia. He had previously introduced a private Members Bill supporting dying with dignity into the Tasmanian parliament when he was a state M.P. 1983 – 1993.

Humanists are pleased to honour the valuable humanistic work of this outstanding Australian. The award was presented to Senator Brown at the dinner held at the College of the Arts, Brisbane on Saturday 15 May 2010.” They also mention “gay law reform” as another of his many outstanding achievements.

All biblical Christians should recognise that the Greens’ leader is bad news, and shares nothing with the values and ethos of historic Christianity. But incredibly, there are Christians going around either completely ignorant of what the Greens and their leader stand for, or are willingly blind to, or unconcerned about, their anti-Christian crusade.

One simply has to recall that Bob Brown and Peter Singer have long been in bed together (not literally). They co-authored a book on Green values and ideology in the mid 1990s, and Singer even ran as a Greens candidate for the Senate in 1996.

Just in case his name does not ring a bell, Singer is notorious for his strong defence of pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, and pro-infanticide positions. He is also of course a gung-ho animal rights crusader. And believe it or not, he has made it quite clear that while he abhors eating animals, he thinks it is perfectly alright to have sex with them. I kid you not.

And these guys are claiming to be a mainstream party? This is the party some Christians are recklessly flocking to? What in the world has happened to biblical discernment? Where has common sense gone to these days? Brown and Singer are two atheist whackos who do not deserve all the attention and promotion they are getting. But they do deserve each other.

The Green ethic, as Bob Brown has written about it with Peter Singer, is that humans are simply another smarter animal, so that humans and animals are on the same or similar levels depending on their level of consciousness. This is to replace the Judaeo-Christian beliefs at the heart of Australia’s values with the law of the jungle. It can be seen in the Greens’ enthusiasm for abortion and euthanasia, which is bad news for the weak and the vulnerable, especially at the beginning and the end of life, and thoroughly anti-Christian.

Bob Brown also claims that he is in touch with mainstream Catholic and Christian majority and that they favor homosexual marriage. This would be news to most Australians. If this really were the case it is unlikely that both major parties would have gone to the lengths they have to rule it out as an election issue. It is telling that the Greens have no dedicated family policy on their website.

The economic consequences of the Greens’ policies will increase the cost of living, making food and energy more expensive, which will make the situation of the poor and the battlers even harder.

Why has this blog devolved into an ‘anti Green’ write-up?
Simply because it is my understanding that (a) the Green’s now hold the balance of power (elected) in the Australian Senate, and (b) their stance on the issues of abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, same sex couple marriage and adoptions etc, etc, all go against the moral code of ethics, we as a Nation uphold.

When did we decide we could have our cake and eat it too?
If we want our Nation to be a safe place to live in, for ourselves and our children; if we want the laws to be upheld and our freedoms protected, and if we seek to live in peace and not in fear – then I strongly suggest we cannot have political parties – such as the Australian Greens pushing a pro euthanasia agenda, and allowing it to be passed into law.

If we feel strongly that our children’s future is secure, then we cannot allow the Green’s to be pushing their same sex couples agenda for marriage and adoption. The act of love which enables a child to be conceived can only be accomplished with both a mother and a father – female and male. This is how we are made.

We are an intelligent species, far higher in intelligence than the primates. We have a body, a mind, a soul, a spirit. We are made in the image of our Loving Creator. I personally refuse to believe that I crawled out of some primordial soup and ‘evolved’.

God had a purpose in mind when he created us.

The gift of life is a precious gift from God, one which humankind deeply values, otherwise why do we have laws and statutes that imprison those who kill other people? Thou shall not kill.

For the next three years we will have a Green’s majority in the senate, and it will be our responsibility to see that they do not push through any laws which will enable the killing of innocents, the corruption of family standards, the marriage of same sex couples and the limiting of religious freedoms in Christian schools.

Learn as much as you can about the Green’s Agenda, believe you me it is not simply about trees, and dams, cuddly koala’s, cleaner rivers and waterways.

And pray for guidance – for yourself and for the members of the Australian Government.


About JustMEinT Musings

I like writing, reading and expressing my opinions. I prefer natural health and healing to pharmaceutical drugs. Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour.
This entry was posted in CHRISTIAN, GENERAL MUSINGS. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to >What constitutes moral values and how important are they to the life of the community?

  1. Friend says:

    >Every western community that I am aware of has rules and regulations, which help keep things in balance.But……………An Obituary printed in the London Times Interesting and sadly rather true.Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;- Why the early bird gets the worm;- Life isn't always fair;- and maybe it was my fault.Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, by his wife, Discretion, by his daughter, Responsibility, and by his son, ReasonHe is survived by his 4 stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, Someone Else Is To Blame, and I'm A VictimNot many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on.

Comments are closed.