Revelation Movement :: Dr Vishal Mangalwadi on the Political Spot by Vishal Mangalwadi

Dr Vishal Mangalwadi on the Political Spot

Posted on October 21, 2011 by Vishal Mangalwadi

Dr Vishal Mangalwadi - The history and significance of the Conscience Vote

Katherine Spackman: Welcome to the political spot I'm Catherine Spackman. The Australian Christian Lobby recently held its conference in Canberra, themed: “Putting kids first”. One of the guest speakers was Indian philosopher, Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi and I asked him about the significance and history of the conscience vote

Dr. Mangalwadi: Conscience is an idea which is rooted in what the Bible describes a human being is, that is: a spiritual being made in God's image. God is someone who makes distinctions between what is good, what is bad, between what is true, what is false, between what is beautiful, what is ugly. And he made us in His image so we make distinctions between what is good and what is bad. That is, our conscience may get corrupted by false teaching, false beliefs, and it always needs to be refined. We don't see what is wrong in us, but it is God's image in us, God's voice, God's law, written in our hearts and conscience has been very important for western civilisation because the idea of personal liberty is dependent on conscience. That since I am made in God's image, God created me and God will judge me, I'm accountable to him therefore the state cannot force me to go against my conscience. The state has to respect my conscience because the state does not own me. The state didn't give me my life, it didn't create me. God created me. He's my ultimate judge so even if the state disagrees with me, the state has to respect my conscience. That's the core of individual liberty, and it came from the New Testament, but it became part of western political philosophy through the Westminster confession which was written in the1640's. But suppose I'm not made in God's image, I have evolved from monkeys by accident. I'm really an animal, then the idea of conscience is a myth, because in that case, conscience is only chemistry – my brain is chemistry which has been conditioned by culture and therefore culture has no obligation to respect my conscience. If my conscience disagrees with the state or the ruling party then the ruling party can throw me in jail. That is why no atheist country has ever given freedom of conscience. It's totalitarian because atheism doesn't respect the fact that I'm made in God's image. Atheism thinks that I have to conform to what they believe, what atheists believe. They can't respect my freedom to say that for example, homosexuality is sin because atheism has to be totalitarian because I am the property of the state. - There is no God.

Katherine Spackman: What issues should constitute a conscience vote?

Dr. Mangalwadi: Well, it's very important that if conscience is God's image and if God is going to hold me accountable that I do not sell my conscience to the party, to the leaders, to money, but my conscience is renewed, sharpened, by the word of God. So every legislative issue has to be submitted to one question: Is it right or is it wrong? This is the only reason why parliaments got to be respected. Parliaments used to be, in the beginning of the 19th century, Parliament was a gentlemens' club, run in the interests of the club members. Sir William Wilberforce, for example had to fight for decades against slave trade, because the beneficiaries of the slave trade were members of parliament. They were the shareholders in the House of Commons, the House of Lords, in the East India Company, and the British Africa Company, which were trading in slaves. So to say that the slave trade was wrong was hurting the economic interests of the members of parliament. It was hurting the economic interest of the state government I mean the nation of England, but the question “Is slavery right or wrong?” is more important than “is slavery profitable”. What is good for the nation in economic terms is not the issue. What is good for the nation is to obey God, to do what is right, so people, Christians such as William Wilberforce, and all those who followed him right up to Shaftsbury, they transformed the definition of what a parliament is. From being a gentlemen’s club, run in the interests of the gentlemen, to becoming the conscience of the nation. So parliamentarians specially have to be very rigorous in debating whether this is not in my personal interest or the interest of my colleagues or my party or my prime minister, but is this God's desire, because as a Christian, I pray “Your will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.” So in Australia, God's will should be done. That is what conscience is all about. If you give this up, if we don't believe in God, we are not going to pray that God's will be done in Australia, we want our economic interests, then the world has no reason to respect Australia, and Australian young people have no interest to respect the members of parliament if what you are interested in is your economic interest or the economic interest or political power of your party, then parliament will be hated just as monarchy was hated in France and led to the French revolution. If journalists cease being interested in truth, if they are only interested in power and popularity and prestige, then press loses its credibility. The only reason that the press became the forth state is if it is investigating truth. What is right, what is wrong. So, secular democracy, once it gives up God, gives up conscience, gives up morality and ethics, then secular democracy loses any rationale any claim to respect and obedience. So the question right now is whether parliaments in Australia will remain the conscience of the nation or will become tools of powerful western interests, in promoting immorality, in promoting, in putting economic interests over what is right and wrong? This is the heart of the issue, and on this would depend the continuation and respect for the institutions such as parliament and free press. All judiciary for that matter that is judicially there to determine just and unjust, right and wrong. Or are we going to say there is nothing right or wrong, only power matters?

Katherine Spackman: That was Doctor Vishal Mangalwadi talking about the significance and history of the conscience vote.

Discussions

OOPS! This content is reserved for members with active subscriptions
Please Sign In or Join Now!