Christians voting Green?

Jeremy on Sydney Anglican’s shared this link.

Like Cardinal Pell and Jim Wallace, I part company with the Greens on issues like abortion, stem cell research, same sex marriage and funding for church schools. But on none of these issues will the Greens carry the day given that policy changes in these areas will occur only if they are supported by a majority from both major political parties.

and of course:

If all the Greens’ policies were truly classifiable as ‘anti-Christian’, I would have no problem with church leaders urging people to vote for another party. But given that some of their policies, and on issues which will be legislated in the next three years, are arguably more Christian than those of the major parties, I think it best that Church leaders maintain a discreet reticence about urging a vote for or against any particular political party.

via Bring me my burqa! | Culture analysis | Sydneyanglicans.net.

So strategically thinking we might do better with the Greens there voting on issues that WILL come up, than if they weren’t there because of ‘anti-Christian’ greenie policies that won’t come up anyway.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Christian, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Christians voting Green?

  1. specialletters says:

    Run that past me again. The Greens have anti-Christian policies but these will never happen because the major parties don’t support. So that means ok to vote Green as the bad things they want will never happen. So are there really good things they want? Which policies are their prime platform?
    Answer not needed Question: if they have a balance of power can they not do deals to get the bad things into the agenda. This has happened before.

    The whole basis of that article by Fr Brennan from the link was don’t let the Government have power in the senate otherwise you get things like Workchoices. Ensure that the Greens can stop the Government governing. So no one delivers what they promise unless this minority party agrees.

    But I agree I don’t need church leaders telling me who to vote for.

  2. eclipsenow says:

    Yep, that’s pretty much it. Some of the ‘negative’ stuff is so out there that neither party will vote it through, but their more compassionate stance on asylum seekers might stop the abuse and neglect of children in detention centres.

    Australia could quadruple our asylum seeker quota easily, without ‘being invaded’ the way some racists fear. The REAL immigration threat to a sustainable population in Australia is our perfectly legal theft of developing nations doctors and plumbers. We entice their skilled workers with our lifestyle and rewards, and then their home country struggles to catch up with our level of doctors and tradespeople per capita.

    So there’s refugees, global warming, peak oil, etc. They take that stuff pretty seriously. I think they are the only party to keep mentioning peak oil.

  3. specialletters says:

    Let us suppose they are actually genuine on those concerns. On basis of original argument re their bad policies then they will not get anywhere with their supposedly good policies. So what is point of voting for them? Especially when by voting for them one is by association supporting the bad policies.

    Now I wonder about Gillard and not supporting a Big Australia. I too assume we can take more people. Yes serious business taking doctors etc from developing. I was most impressed to meet an engineer on a flight to India who was returning to country of his birth to use the skills he had. I was amazed at the Hero status conferred on that doctor who got mixed up in the terrorist business – he was working in Australia – why?
    The question of invasion for me concerns people who might want to impose their bad laws when they achieve larger numbers.

    What will Greens do about Climate Change – they opposed ETS will they support Abbott plans? And peak oil they plan what?

  4. eclipsenow says:

    The Greens are the only ones I can see with sensible town planning policies in preparation for peak oil. So for now I can forgive their pro-renewables, anti-nuclear stance because getting public transport and town planning right is an even bigger contribution towards preparing for peak oil.

    Sustainable Planning and Transport | The Australian Greens.

  5. eclipsenow says:

    One only has to look at the CPRS wiki to see what a mess that whole business was. Go straight to the criticisms and read the statements by the likes of Professor Barry Brook!

  6. specialletters says:

    Their policy reads like “if we become the government” which is what I meant they will not become the government so what policy items do they have that they can do something about – I like “remove GST on public transport” – can they get that done?

    I’ve noticed lots of people “the electorate” commenting around the traps about the need for nuclear. So why are the Greens opposed.

    They still have actual bad items on their agenda – so I would not want to support them whilst these things are around.

    • eclipsenow says:

      The Greens party, like many Greenies, are influenced by the likes of Helen Caldicott and other anti-nuclear activists running on outdated information. YES there are a few tiny risks, but no where like the reactors of just 10 or 15 years ago. I’d rather live next to an AP-1000 than a coal power plant any day! I’m amazed that I still hear greenies complaining about nuclear waste that must be managed for a hundred thousand years. Are they dumb, or are they lying? I just can’t figure it out. They should all know by now that various prototype GenIV reactors that eat waste are being built right now in Russia and China, and that, as my poster says, waste is not the problem but the answer! (Because just today’s waste could run the world for 500 years).

      But when people like Amory Lovin’s have put out ideologically driven anti-nuclear papers, what chance does the lay reader have? He used to convince me that they were just plain far too expensive! Now I realise he’s included many reactors that failed because of anti-nuclear activists that caught them up in long expensive legal wrangles and challenges, and then basically bankrupted the company! That this can happen amazes me: I always thought it was the other way around with most corporations winning against small-time greenies. I guess some greenies are not so small time!

      I guess the main point about the bad policies is that IF the Greens hold the balance of power, and were dumb enough to fight every bit of legislation unless it authorised gay marriage, banned scripture in schools, etc… then we’d pretty soon end up in a double dissolution election. People would never vote for them again.

      The bad ‘policies’ of the Greens are an impotent threat. They simply will not happen without the support of the major parties, and WILL NOT get through. The major’s would not stand for it. And the Australian people would castrate the Greens at any double-dissolution election they brought on by such pedantry.

      However, right now we have the risk of very real policy threats from both the Labor and Liberal parties that ignore practically every major issue of our times. One small railway from Epping to Parramatta gets so much attention, when we actually need to start upgrading rail right across the country!

      The geology of peak oil might just be debated more in the Senate if the Greens are in the balance of power.

  7. specialletters says:

    Many people voting for the Greens like the bad policies. And the Greens would think the others were as well – how would they know a vote was only for “fast rail” or “no GST on fares” or whatever. And it depends on the balance of power they have. So why not force a “bad” but main policy item on the major party in a deal. Double dissolutions are rare. Many are saying Kevin should have DD over ETS BUT he didn’t. Julia when asked about same sex marriage said “We” rather than “I” so perhaps she might suddenly see the light if it mean getting ETS or NBN or whatever passed.

    I agree re Epping Railway – its a big attempt to try to keep Bennelong. Just a few weeks ago State Minister was saying never. So I view it as a last step cynical try and that it will not happen.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s