Civil unions and calling evil good and good evil
7 December 2004
Benson-Pope, civil unions and calling evil good and good evil
Associate Justice Minister David Benson-Pope claims that civil unions “do not undermine anyone’s rights” and that those opposed to the bill are really against the folk who would benefit from its provisions. He is wrong on both counts. The rights of decent New Zealanders are attacked directly by this bill and its companion bill the Relationships bill. We have the right to live in a decent society where moral values are upheld by civil government. When the government undermines the moral values of a society, as they are doing in promoting these bills, they are attacking our rights.
When they introduce a parallel form of marriage for homosexuals, heterosexual marriage is debased and tarnished. This too is an attack on our human rights. Benson-Pope also claims that we are really just opposed to the homosexuals and not the bill itself. He must have been asleep for the last year or two. Many arguments against civil unions have been brought to the attention of Benson-Pope and other mps for months. There were over five thousand examples given to the select committee.
He also urges us to show tolerance. However this is hypocritical. We are exercising our God-given right to freedom of speech on this matter. Apparently we have to allow everyone else their opinion, but Christians are not allowed to disagree. Benson-Pope is demonstrating intolerance towards Christians and Christian ethics. No doubt he has in mind a definition of tolerance which would seek to silence the Christian voice. His government has bought into the definition of tolerance found in the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance, Proclaimed and signed by the Member States of UNESCO on 16 November 1995. New Zealand was one of the signatories. The UNESCO (an arm of the UN – an organisation that is no friend to Christianity) definition is unambiguous when it comes to excluding Christians:
1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.
Notice that this definition rejects dogmatism and absolutism. This means that it rejects any moral law that comes from God by way of fiat. This naturally outlaws the Ten Commandments found in the Holy Scriptures. Naturally it argues for the exclusion from the public square those of us who want to see decent Christian values maintained which once underpinned and characterized our civil laws and social ethics.
However, the hypocrisy of this definition is obvious, because the UN and Benson-Pope and his Labour and Green colleagues do not exclude a certain type of absolutism and dogmatism at all. The form of absolutism they retain is the “absolute” value that Christians and others who hold to absolutes in morals are intolerant, and by implication should be silenced. We will see this definition of “tolerance” pushed to its limits when the Labour government attempts to ram “hate speech” legislation through Parliament if they win the next election, which looks likely.
They will probably, for the same reasons, outlaw the current prayer used to open parliament. With a large number of atheists in their midst, they are no doubt tolerating the prayer which asserts allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ (who says He alone is the way to heaven) for political reasons and because the Maori caucus will be offended. However, if the Maori seats go to Mrs Turia Labour’s hands will be free to complete the extirpation of Christian influence in the public square. One of the ways this new UN definition of “tolerance” underpins Benson-Pope’s thinking is the way he individuates social ethics.
He pleads: "I have asked, and will continue to ask, how removing discrimination against people who do not wish to marry, or who cannot marry, impacts on the daily lives of anyone else". He is effectively proposing that we are not our brother’s keeper and we should only be worried about our immediate circumstances.
The folly of this position should be obvious to most. Since we are not personally affected by someone committing bestiality or polygamy, presumably we should tolerate those positions. After all, isn’t it the Labour/Green mantra that government should keep out of the bedroom? Christians, however, believe that we are our brother’s keeper; we are not to walk by on the other side when someone is in need, and we are to love our neighbour as ourselves and therefore want for them whatever is in their best interest.
This means that when this homosexual and feminist dominated government seeks to normalise homosexuality through civil union legislation, and therefore encourage vulnerable young men and women into homosexuality, we must speak up out of love for our neighbour.
As more are sucked into this deadly lifestyle, there will be more suicides, more deaths through AIDs and other diseases as a result of homosexual practices and more parents and other loved ones who will have their lives shattered when their children are drawn into this horrible perversion. Where is your love Mr Benson-Pope? Is it the same love that sanctions the murder of 18,000 innocent unborn infants per year? Is it the same love that makes gambling and alcohol more available in society so that more and more lives are ruined? Is it the love that legalises prostitution and which now becomes a career option and no-doubt soon will be part of the social studies curriculum in primary and secondary schools?
How many more young women have had their lives irreparably harmed since prostitution was legalised? Is it the same love that will encourage people like homosexuals in their sin, when the Bible explicitly says that such people will not attain the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor. 6:9)? Notice what Benson-Pope really wants. He wants Christians to stop publicly opposing moral evil, so that moral evil will be accepted by all. Accept moral evil, Benson-Pope asks, but do not let the compassionate voice of Christianity be heard. The lie of Satan has always been "Indeed, has God said” (Gen. 3:1).
We will always respond in the public square that indeed, God has said. Benson-Pope has also said that the word “evil” is wrongly being applied to some in this civil union debate. He argues that the language of evil “has no place in a tolerant society”. Of course it does not according to his definition of “tolerance”, but notice that the word evil is applied to the actions of those who oppose God in Scripture. The Bible does not mince its words, for its says of homosexuals and its promoters:
“ And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (Rom 1:28-32)”.
Pretty intolerant is it not? Perhaps next we will see the government outlawing the Bible. Sadly we live in a day when men call evil good and good evil. The Prophet Isaiah concludes in his day: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter (Isa 5:20) ”. Garnet Milne Campaign against the civil union and relationships bills.