Green Party Faith
Freedom of Religion

Green Party: Christians welcome, but only if you ignore your faith

 

Last Sunday I was invited on to BBC Radio Suffolk to discuss a poll they had carried out asking General Election candidates in Suffolk to state their faith. The breakdown is as follows:

28 of the 35 candidates who have declared they are standing replied.

  • 57% (16) said they are Christians.
  • 21% (6) said they are Atheists
  • 14% (4) said they are Agnostic
  • 4% (1) said they are Buddhist
  • 4% (1) other (‘individual spiritualism’)

By Party:

  • Conservative – 6 out of 7 replied: all Christians.
  • Labour – 5 out of 7 replied: 3 Christians, 1 Atheist, 1 Agnostic.
  • LibDems – 4 candidates declared so far: 3 Christians, 1 Atheist.
  • Ukip – 6 out of 7 replied: 4 Christians, 1 Agnostic, 1 ‘individual spiritualism’.
  • Greens – 7 out of 7 replied: 4 Atheists, 2 Agnostics, 1 Buddhist.

It needs to be remembered that Suffolk, like much of the East of England, is not a particularly diverse place when it comes to multiculturalism. According to the 2011 Census, Suffolk is 61% Christian, which was roughly the same as the national average. But for other religions it was significantly lower, at 2% for them all combined. Therefore the candidate averages are roughly in line with the population, and, for my part of the world at least, it’s another reminder that Christianity is alive and kicking, despite the rhetoric of those keen to dismiss it as a spent force.

But the most interesting statistics are the party breakdowns. In my interview, we spent much of the time discussing the relationship between the Conservative Party and Christians. There is a popular and well-worn line of thinking which suggests that Christians, due to the Bible’s concern for the poor and disadvantaged, are intrinsically left of centre. Church of England bishops have a habit of reinforcing this perception with their increasingly regular forays into politics, but the truth of the matter is that Christians are more likely to vote Conservative than the rest of the population. In a major poll by Populus taken last month of 14,000 people, 68% of those intending to vote Conservative were Christians. This compares to 48% for Labour, 54% for the LibDems and 60% for UKIP. The Greens trail in at 24%, which still might sound a lot but this only equates to 2% of Christians.

So the Conservatives continue to attract strong support from Christians (it actually appears to be increasing). But, for the Greens, it is the opposite – although they probably don’t see that as much of a concern. The fact that in the Suffolk poll, not only do the Greens have no Christian candidates but also twice as many Atheists as the rest of the parties put together, speaks volumes about the Greens Party’s attitude to religion and to those who profess a faith more generally.

Back in 2012 Christina Summers, a Christian who was a Green councillor in Brighton, was expelled from the party. The grievous offence she committed was to vote against a motion in support of the Government’s plans to introduce same-sex marriage at a council meeting. For the Green Party, this was a red-line issue: support full equality or you’re out. According to their policy unit, “Everyone has the right to follow and practise the religion of their choice without facing discrimination. Equality and antidiscrimination laws should apply to all organisations, including religious ones”. This effectively means churches, mosques and other religious premises would be forced to conduct same-sex weddings if the Greens were in charge.

In response to her removal, Councillor Summers issued a statement:

In view of the Green Party’s own special interpretation of equality, my expulsion from the Green Group of councillors should not, in the end, come as a surprise.

Nonetheless, I can’t help but feel crestfallen. After at least two intimate years of campaigning and then serving together in administration, my own colleagues, who should know me well by now, have chosen to believe a lie.

Party policy, however vague, is sovereign. It’s discriminatory against Christians. It’s a typical symptom of prejudice, blatant prejudice.

It raises a big question – can Christians serve in the public realm? They are saying don’t bring your faith into politics.

And she’s not wrong. Even if Christians who have chosen to fully accept same-sex marriage want to get on board with the Greens, there’s a whole host of other policies in place which might be serious moral stumbling blocks.

The Green party has decided that religious organisations should not be involved in the running of state-funded schools. All of our church schools would therefore be abolished. They are fully behind the introduction of euthanasia and want to do away with the current law that requires the consent of two doctors for an abortion. Their hostility toward the State of Israel and their desire to abolish the Monarchy aren’t going to help either.

The themes of equality and freedom from discrimination run through the Green Party’s website, yet that freedom is nebulous. For those who disagree with party policy, there is no freedom of thought or conscience. While the mainstream parties have given their MPs free votes on same-sex marriage, the right-to-die and abortion legislation, anyone serving the Greens must agree to have their moral minds made up for them by the in-house thought police. Dissent is not tolerated.

It’s no real shock that there are no Christian Green Party candidates in my part of the country. It is certainly a party where left-wing secularist ideology reigns supreme. They may be on a roll as we head toward the General Election (gradually increasing their predicted vote share to boast more members than the LibDems and UKIP), but their growing popularity conceals a certain malignance. Anyone with a genuine faith who gets involved is going to get their fingers burnt sooner or later.

Those who keep a close eye on party politics will be fully aware of the Green Party’s narrow-minded approach to inclusion. But for those who are disillusioned with the mainstream parties and looking for a fresh political vision, going Green on May 7th would be a profound delusion. Caveat suffragator – let the voter beware.

  • John Matthews

    Christina Summers put her religion before her party.

    I’m sure if a Muslim working for M&S refused to handle alcohol we would be asking why did you take the job. The same applies here.

    The greens are a democratic party. Its members decide policy (hence all dumb shit that’s in it) therefore if you chose to represent the green party you must be aware of this.

    • The Green party in Brighton do not have a whip – they (supposedly) do not direct their councillors how to vote. Hence the farce of half of them voting against thier own budget the other week!!

      They know Christina is no anti-Gay – but they also know that they are duty bound by their own policy of mercilessly hounding anyone who even *appears* to step out of line.

      If Chirtina had not been hounded out by the other Green councillors, they would all have been hounded by local green supporters, if they hadn’t hounded them then they would have been hounded by the national Greens etc…

      Intimidation into compliance – anti-free speeh – is the Green way.

    • Christina Summers

      The Greens desperately need to sort out what they will formally recognise as issues of conscience just as other parties have (enabling a genuine free vote on those particular issues). I wrote to Natalie Bennett the day before she took the leadership position and pleaded with her to do that and she responded saying she would look at it. As far as I know, to date, nothing has changed.

      What no one has been aware of in my case (apart from my legal representatives) is what happened behind the scenes and what my Green colleagues said in the days before the council meeting. Threats and verbal abuse were in full flow, but no sign whatsoever of any leadership. The democracy they align with is a wolf in sheep’s clothing – anarchy runs beneath the surface.

      • Albert

        I’m sorry, but not surprised to hear this. Credit to you for taking the stand.

      • Anton

        May God bless you.

  • Albert

    It’s interesting that this focuses on the Green Party’s position on same-sex “marriage”. Surely a Christian cannot be part of the party that brought in the legislation in the first place (and that supports abortion etc.)? And let’s face it, if Cameron had not brought in this irrational legislation, he would probably have a bit more of a convincing lead by now. I know so many people who have said “I’ve always voted Conservative, I won’t now.” He would also have had a chance of winning more votes of ethnic minorities, as well, who traditionally, have been Labour supporters, on the whole.

  • Your point about the Greens is perfectly correct. For a Christian to vote Green is like the proverbial turkey voting for Christmas.
    However, exactly the same applies to the Conservative Party. As I have posted elsewhere, in Teresa May’s mind Christian values are not British values as we shall certainly find out if the Tories get in in May. With one or two honourable exceptions, if there are any Christians in Parliament, they seem to leave there faith at the door of the chamber.
    Martin Marprelate will be voting UKIP, not with any great confidence in the faith of Nigel Farage, but because there seems to be a greater ommitment to freedom within that party.

  • I thought that the Greens were focused on environmental issues. What has same-sex marriage got to do with this? It seems they are really just another left wing splinter party.

    • John Matthews

      If you want to understand the greens and why they are left wing have a read of Naomi Klein This changes everything. To them (not me) Environmentalism can only be solved with left wing ideas.

      • I suppose if everyone was in a same-sex marriage it would rapidly reduce the population which would be good for the environment.

        • William Lewis

          Now that’s a progressive policy.

  • Coniston

    I share some of the Green Party’s environmental concerns, but would never dream of voting for them. They are a very left-wing would-be totalitarian party. I read a number of ‘Green’ periodicals. Many articles are interesting, some irritating, a few good and quite a lot very naive. The trouble with ‘liberals’, ‘greens’ & the left in general, however well-meaning (and many are), is that they think all people are naturally good – except those with different views to their own who (they believe) are not only mistaken but downright evil, and must be dealt with, severely. The more extreme wish to introduce their idea of utopia, and heaven help anyone who opposes them.

  • Stephen Evans

    This piece is predicated on the false interpretation of secularism as being hostile to religion. The Green Party policies highlighted in the article aim to ensure the state maintains a position of neutrality between different religions, while at the same time, guaranteeing all citizens the right to profess any one of them.

    The reality is that rather than being opposed to religion, secularism takes a dispassionate view in running the affairs of the state. Opposition to religious schooling isn’t ‘anti-faith’. There are many people of faith who agree that faith based state education is bad idea.

    The Christians who think our political structures should be run along Biblical principles regard secularism as ‘hostile’ because it denies them the privileged position in society they think their faith entitles them to.

    Christians don’t have to ‘leave their faith at the door’, they simply need to recognise that they’re not elected to advance their particular faith position, they’re elected to serve their constituents, Parliament and their political party.

    • Albert

      I think this is very confused. As others have said on this blog, there is the secularism of the American constitution and the secularism of the French Revolution. As soon as someone uses words like “neutrality” or “dispassionate” in matters of religion, the impression given is that the author leans toward the French version. It’s one think for the state not to foreclose against particular religious positions, certainly, but can neutrality be found? Is a non-religious position neutral on matters of religion? You might as well claim that republicanism is neutral on the question of the monarchy.

    • Dude

      You’ve already decided that at you aren’t neutral by declaring that religions think they are privileged. But let’s be honest here :secularists and the greens are hostile to religions and they aren’t neutral. Whether that’s expelling a member for opposing gay marriage, wishing to end religious schools or banning kosher food or the other favourite banning male circumcision . Non of this to me seems neutral.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “while at the same time, guaranteeing all citizens the right to profess any one of them.”
      In the case of Christine Summers, she cast a legitimate vote. That was her protest. You have a lot to do to convince people that you really are tolerant of views other than your own.

  • Funny that Greens (and many lefties) bang on about the importance of proportional representation based on sexuality, sex, race, colour, blah blah blah – but religion must be ignored.

    But I think everyone knows the truth – the left support whatever they think will bring them total power – democracy, equality till they are equal, then abandon that to opress those they claimed to want to be equal to.

    • Albert

      The odd thing is that we have seen what the left does, in communism. It’s not just that it was violent, it was soul-destroying. I don’t really get why anyone gives it a second thought.

      • CliveM

        “Insanity”, said Einstein, “is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

        I think we need to worry about a lot of people’s sanity!! :9)

        • Pubcrawler

          Did he now? 🙂

          • CliveM

            Well so I’ve been told :0)

  • No! Anyone but the greens : the country would be reduce to a third world country and giant wind turbine, whilst we all end up living in a Maoist peasant commune. A kinda environmentalist north Korea. I have no time for these totalitarian hippies.

    • CliveM

      Sam

      If the Greens ran the world, starvation would be the inevitable result. Ask them how their policies would employ and feed the current worlds population and all you get is an echoing silence.

      I think they believe we can all become basket weavers, growing our own food.

      • Dude

        I sometimes feel as if I’m a metaphorical basket weaver ….

        But a fate worse than the greens has just entered my head: Labour being propped up by /SNP/green/plaid and Sinn Fein…..

        • CliveM

          I think that scenario is quite a likely outcome of the GE.

          • Israel is looking nice in May….

          • CliveM

            You can’t run out on us! One of your countries needs you!

          • No I guess not, although the climate and surf( I’d say hot babes,but I’m not on the shelf) is tempting :). I could go to Gibraltar instead and still fight a rearguard against the socialists on British soil.

          • Hmmm … Jack may well exercise his right of return. A Roman Catholic Jew (on his father’s side) in Israel. What do you reckon?

          • Dude

            I’m no legal expert, but I’m pretty sure you could, as the law of return is different from the Jewish orthodox definition of who is a Jew .

          • Perhaps you could take Linus and DanJo with you.

            I understand that Tel Aviv is the homosexual capital of the Levant.

          • Well in Israel they treat minorities well, unlike the rest of the middle east… where gays get killed and Christians crucified.

          • Anton

            I expect at least two general elections within the next, say, 15 months. Maybe more elections. The fixed-term parliament Act of 2011 makes no difference if a vote of no confidence in the government gains a majority in the Commons. Interesting times…

          • CliveM

            We could even witness the absurdity of a Govt whipping its members to vote against it!

            Interesting, but dangerous.

        • God help us and save us; we’ll all be basket cases if that transpires.

        • Hi Sam

          The Israeli left do see us as basket weavers : Sephardim, were derided as ‘talisman kissers and tomb worshipers’ during the election.

      • IanCad

        ISIS without the sword – for now.

        • CliveM

          Both have the same medieval view of the world.

          • No they don’t. They are qualitatively poles apart.

            Medieval Christendom was based on the sacred oaths, responsibilities and privileges of feudalism and strove, at its best, to reflect the understanding of God revealed by Scripture. It repeatedly fell short of this understanding, true, but there was a coherent model to assess and judge performance against.

            ISIL and Islam is based and founded on what?
            Liberal pluralism, without Christianity, is based on what?

          • CliveM

            Happy Jack

            Clearly I wasn’t reffering to theology! What I meant was they both have a backward view of the world and an unsupported view that somehow the past can show us a purer happier world, one that we should try and emulate, never mind the miseries this would cause.

          • Pubcrawler

            “somehow the past can show us a purer happier world”

            That’s more a renaissance humanist view than a mediaeval one.

          • Could Feudalism ever have worked in a sinful, corrupt world? Is Jack romanticising the past too?

          • Pubcrawler

            Feudalism was a French innovation. Of couse it could never have worked 🙂

          • France was once the most Christian nation on earth.

          • CliveM

            Well Catholic at least!

            Grabs tin hat and runs………….

          • One and the same thing, Clive.

          • CliveM

            Of course …………… :9)

          • Pubcrawler

            By what metric?

          • By mine ….

          • Anton

            Name a year.

          • AD 496 ….

          • Anton

            Well, you did what I asked; thank you. But what about the eastern Greek-speaking half of the Roman Empire which did not collapse into a Dark Age and was centred on Byzantium? What of Wales, into which the Christianised peoples of much of this island were squeezed by the then-pagan invading Anglo-Saxons? And what of the “church of the east” running a thousand miles east of the Holy Land which was slandered as non-Christian despite professing the Trinity and the fact that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God and let’s not get hung up on how?

          • AD 496 was just the start. And the ‘Dark Age’ is so called because there is little recorded history of these times – a word misused to contrast this period unfavourably with the ‘Age of Enlightenment’.

          • Anton

            But why is there little recorded history? Because almost everybody was illiterate and too busy eking out a living to attend to the higher brain functions of a civilisation. That’s a dark age alright, and dark relative to the Roman Empire that preceded it, not the Enlightenment of more than a thousand years later.

            But may we return to your assertion? Why do you think that Gaul/France of AD496 was more Christian than Wales or Byzantium at that time?

          • Well thank goodness for the Church and the Monasteries keeping the flame alight, then.

            Because between 497 date and Christmas Day, 800, the Holy Roman Empire was formed providing the political and religious foundations of Christendom. We’d all be Muslims but for this (probably).

          • Anton

            You are totally blanking Byzantium. And the Celtic church which kept the faith very satisfactorily among the Britons before Augustine of Canterbury landed.

          • Wasn’t the Celtic Church based on monasteries which Jack recalls you strongly disapproving of?

          • Anton

            It included monasteries but to say it was “based” on them is a selective reading of history. On earth a church is rooted in the faith of everyday people who are Christians. As I recall, St Aidan refused a horse for his evangelistic travels because they were for the aristocracy at that time and he wanted to convert the everyday man.

          • The Celtic Church was a faith based on monastic life – are you disputing this? And you did dismiss this way of serving God as unacceptable. Now please don’t go claiming the Celtic Church, as some do, as a people’s movement repressed by Rome at the Synod of Whitby. Saint Ninian tends to play second fiddle to Saint Colomba in this.
            As for France, Jack was speaking about the actual and potential fruits of the period 497 and 800. How are you measuring the faith of local people? The Churches of the East and West were all Orthodox and Apostolic in nature – not protestant at all. The difference was over governance i.e. final authority.

          • Anton

            The Celtic church included monasteries, of which I am no fan, but those monasteries could not have existed without popular faith outside their walls; it is of course monks who wrote the history so we get a selection effect in the writing.

            I was not discussing protestantism. I asked you for a date at which France/Gaul ws the most Christian land on earth, you kindly gave one, and I suggested that Wales and Byzantium were just as Christian at the time if not more; a comparison to which you have not responded. Ah well, let it be.

          • CliveM

            Typically French. Involved a lot of posing around while you got someone else to do the work.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Do share this with Linus…

          • CliveM

            Depends on your definition of worked. It worked very well for those at the top!

          • And, at its best, for those they had a duty to care for.

          • CliveM

            Did it? I wonder. But again I suppose it does depend on your definition.

          • Anton

            Perhaps. But as a serious point, feudalism was a zillion miles away from the widely distributed ownership of land which God called for in the only national constitution he has ever written, ie Mosaic Law.

          • Was land “owned” under Feudalism or was it entrusted to the Feudal Lord and possession given to Vassals in exchange for reciprocal relationships involving rights and responsibilities under God’s Law? So, in that respect, was it a zillion miles away from Mosaic Law?

          • Anton

            If the barons to whom William the Conqueror parcelled out England’s land didn’t believe they owned it, why did they consider that they could charge rent for its use?

          • William owned the land he conquered and parcelled it out. With such “ownership” went responsibilities to God and Church and to his subjects. The freemen paid a fixed rent in money or produce for the use of the land and the protection afforded by the Lord and Barons. The serfs worked the land and paid their dues for doing so and again were protected.

            When William was crowned, like all Kings, he made vows before God so “ownership” was not liberty to do as he chose with “his” land. When a King granted land to a Baron a ceremony took place. The Baron knelt before the King and swore before God: “I become your man.” and promised to remain faithful for the rest of his life. The Baron would then carried out similar ceremonies with his Knights.

          • Anton

            And they all lived happily ever after. Great fairy tale. Why do you think that God opted for a system in which each family owned its land in perpetuity? The answer is to prevent gross inequalities of the sort that you have rightly complained of, arising in some forms of capitalism. Land was “the means of production” in those days.

            Just who were the serfs protected from? Other barons, largely. Feudalism was a great game of chivalry, of sport between barons, paid for by the grindingly poor serfs.

          • You are aware of the violent, tribal and violent nature of these times? And didn’t the Israelites request a King from God – why was that? And look how it all turned out for them.

            Unfortunately, Feudalism, like Capitalism, especially when the Church joins in rather than keeps a distance, tends towards a concentration of power and resources in the hands of the few and generates intrigue and dishonesty at the ‘top’ and envy at the ‘bottom’ that can be exploited.

            The system Jack supports in this day and age is some form of modified Distributism, held together by Christian values and beliefs..

          • Anton

            We aren’t too far away here… obviously I support Christian values and beliefs, but you can’t force them on people in the world; and I would export the Mosaic principles of free markets in goods but legislated markets in labour, money and property.

          • CliveM

            I think your views on feudalism are a bit romanticised.

          • Finest system devised by man – and similar to those in China and Japan centuries earlier too.

          • Anton

            So would you prefer to live under it than today? If so, at what rank?

            On rare occasions the serfs found a voice: in the Jacquerie uprising in France and the Peasants’ Revolt in England when the greedy landowners tried to hold wages down after the Black Death and labour was in greater demand. Read what their spokesmen said. Things like, as I recall, “We are men in the image of God just like you but you treat us worse than dogs…”

          • CliveM

            Ok, ok…….

            Let’s just say they both have an outdated view!

  • Anton

    They would more accurately be called the watermelon party – green on the outside, red on the inside.

  • Perhaps Christians should also be aware when voting in May which party it was that introduced the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill in 2013. Caveat Suffragator.

    • saintmark

      I certainly remember and won’t vote for THEM again.

    • There are lots of us who won’t forget. The fact that my MP conveniently was absent on business at the time of the vote makes no difference.

  • Anton

    How many of those candidates who called themselves Christian and are sitting MPs voted for gay marriage?

    And what proportion of those 61% of people in Suffolk who call themselves Christian go to church for more than weddings, funerals and Christmas? Or pray to God using their own words?

    The Bible is clear that calling yourself a Christian does not automatically mean you are one. This is no different from the fact that calling yourself a member of the Athenaeum does not make you one. In the latter case, the constitution of the Athenaeum tells you how to become one. In the former case, the New Testament does.

    • dannybhoy

      How many of those candidates who called themselves Christian and are sitting MPs voted for gay marriage?
      All the pink, warm and fluffy progressive ones..

  • Anton

    The Green
    movement is a direct descendant of the 19th century Romantic movement that
    grumbled about the Industrial Revolution – whose fruits permit even the
    poor today in our culture to have a higher material standard of living
    than mediaeval kings. Greens wish to return us to a pastoral idyll that
    never existed. Life working the land was terribly harsh – so harsh
    that people freely quit it to work in those grim factories. That tells us a great deal.

    • CliveM

      Good point. These movements are driven by idle, middle class romantics, who in the main have zero understanding of history. Typically they get their inspiration from something like River Cottage.

    • Jonathan Chilvers

      Anton, that’s a great narrative, but not one that is dominant in the Green Party – You’re right the pastoral idyll never existed. There’s many people in the party with a science background who want to create a sustainable future using technology appropriately – as a party we are not harking back to the past.

      • CliveM

        Snort like wind turbines and solar!

  • Jonathan Chilvers

    I’m a Christian Green Councillor in the West Midlands and have talked open about my faith since I joined the party. I’ve had a very positive experience finding people very accepting and non judgmental and good at disagreeing in a respectful manner.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Well said Gillan. I’ve said it before but the Green Party is a particularly malignant Trojan horse. The outward appearance is of a fluffy environment-loving party of egalitarianism. Inside it’s all the worst aspects of Marxism and Communism including good old Stalinist class-hatred. Frankly, no Christian in their right mind would either vote for them or join them.

    “Intolerance via the wheelie bin” should be their motto. That’s not including their desire to tax the nation to a standstill, while leaving it a defenceless laughing stock where rats have the same rights as humans. Then there is the abolition of all border controls, legalisation of membership of terrorist organisations, legalisation of all drugs, prostitution, brothels…need I go on

  • I know of at least two Green Party General Election candidates who are Christians, and at least three serving councillors. There are probably many more. There are a lot of Christians in the Green Party too, of all different “flavours”. Of course, there are points of tension, but it’s a broad party, which genuinely leaves a lot of room for diversity. (For example, there is no party whip.)

    Even for those Christians who are uncomfortable with a lot of the policies you mention (myself included), we are in the party because the points of connection are so strong – concern for the environment, for global justice, for peace, for the poor, who are suffering disproportionately as a result of the government’s austerity agenda.

    • Anton

      Christina Summers found otherwise (re your first paragraph).

      • Christina’s case is a complicated one – have a look into some of the details.

        • Anton

          I read Gillan Scott’s article above from start to finish. Is there more we need to know?

        • CliveM

          How was it complicated? Details please.

  • NeartheEdge

    As I’ve said before, the writer, Conservative Christians and this website have the same “theology” as Annanias (Acts of the Apostles) – a pretended faith in Christ with the exception of all things monetary. The poster child of this mindset and Conservative Christian values is Sir Philip Green and his adventures in finance while head of HSBC in Switzerland – wholly ignored on this site. Didn’t I read recently one Christian peer admit he and many other Conservatives politicians only pretends faith to “get along”? I’d guess this is also true of a significant section of Conservative church goes.

    This is the kind of hypocrisy the Greens (and Jesus) are challenging; a hypocrisy that indulges stealing (yeah, tax avoidance isn’t illegal blah, blah..) vast amounts of wealth via tax havens but are very, very keen to point to the “scrounger” on income support; is (rightly) offended by the burning to death of another victim of so-called Islamic state (IS) but ignores an estimated 1000 black people burned alive by conservative, bible believing folk in the USA for…fun; can support the Ian Duncan Smith’s “Christian” sanctions on the disabled at the cost (I’ve read but cannot verify) 10,000 suicides..

    I’ll be voting Green as a Christian. Given the choice between the writer’s “Christian” values and the Green’s faithless policies which puts people and planet first as against Conservative values which puts profit (for the few) first and the rest can go hang. Which is the more Christian?

    • Politically__Incorrect

      I don’t know how often you visit this blog, but I would not consider any of te regular Christian contributors here to be “pretend” Christians, and very few of them Conservatives. Your Sicilian defence is not very effective. The actions of the KKK are hardly relevant to the current issue. As a supporter of what is essentially a communist, atheist party, you might also want to reflect on the inhuman actions of like-minded regimes both past and present.

      • NeartheEdge

        Indeed I don’t know anything about the regular contributors’ Christian stance. What I do know is, first and foremost, the purpose of this site is the delusional defence of Conservative Christianity – which, above all else, is a pharisaic love of money and power – while anything to the left of Tory/UKIP values is dangerously anti-Christian stuff.

        I have a problem with that. There is, I believe, as much to fear from the far Right extremist views this site upholds as anything from the left as was (and still is) alive in the likes of the KKK, tea party, Inhofe brigade – all bible-belt, church going, Conservatives.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Well I agree on one thing, you don’t know anything about the regular contributors on this site , as you admit

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          I think there is much more to fear from hard line socialist and communist regimes – the oft-quoted threat from the ‘far right’ is but a fantastical chimera…

    • Dude

      Stephen Green is the former head of hsbc…. sir Philip is a Jewish entrepreneur and businessman.

      • Watchman

        We’ll, bhs does sound a bit like hsbc ……….

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Goodness! I had no idea the Americans were busy burning 1000 black people for fun! And by Bible folk as well! Why hasn’t this been broadcast on our nightly news?

  • catherinerowett

    I am amazed at what the people commenting below think is a Christian attitude, and what they think is unChristian about the Green Party. What would Jesus’s attitude be to your selfish desire to exclude others, keep privileges for yourself, refuse to share with the poor and the refugees? I am a Christian–and by that I mean not that I was once baptised but that I am a committed daily believer– and I am a Green Party Parliamentary Candidate (for South Norfolk). I am standing for the Green Party because only this party stands for what Christianity stands for: that kind of loving attitude to the weak and the vulnerable, and a willingness to give and not to count the cost, to share with those less fortunate and to seek ways of healing and peace, not through war or conflict or exclusion, but through living together on a shared planet, building peaceful bridges to resolve conflicts and address hatred with love and resolution, not retaliation, and caring for each other, all God’s children, across the world.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “a willingness to give and not to count the cost, ”
      Of course you won’t need to count the cost, the taxed-to-death citizen is going to worry about that for you.

      • Davo Smith

        If the alternative is people who are starved to death when they cannot find work, because there are more people looking for jobs than jobs available, then higher taxation is something we should all be in favour of.

        • Anton

          Less taxes go to the unemployed than is generally realised. And more go as top-up, thereby keeping wages low. The law of unintended consequences bites harder in economic matters than anywhere else.

          • Davo Smith

            Thanks for that Anton – the more general point is that if taxation is helping to provide services that support all in society (but which are most needed by those who can least afford to pay) then that is a good thing.

      • catherinerowett

        What taxed to death citizen? The Green Party is not intending to raise ordinary citizens’ tax: only the very wealthy, corporations who dodge taxes, tax-dodging landlords who suck up housing benefit, millionaires with off-shore bank accounts. None of these is going to die of taxation. Ordinary citizens will be the ones to benefit: free universities, good health care, housing you can afford, no student loans to pay off, a living wage for everyone, affordable transport. Everyone will be better off because there will be more income coming in without raising taxes: you’re probably confused by the austerity rhetoric. It’s bad economics. What we need is more money in the system not less: then the generous benefits pay for themselves and lead to less inequality and a happier society.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          “What taxed to death citizen”
          Well, I suspect that once you have either destroyed or driven away most of the wealth creators of this country you’ll be left with the poor citizen as your source of tax revenue.

          BTW, has Natalie Bennett checked on the figures for this?

          • CliveM

            LOL.

          • CliveM

            It’s also disingenuous. I suspect it won’t also be the mega rich paying ‘green taxes’.

            Their tax policies have no credibility at all. They have still to explain how they are going to afford the £87 week ‘ living’ wage they are going to pay everyone.

            The rich won’t be impacted one pence by any of this. They will simply have moved on.

        • Watchman

          Is it right to be envious of other people’s wealth? Should we take it from them if we don’t feel they deserve it …. And who decides and on what ethical basis?

    • Anton

      Do the Greens believe that it is morally right for UK taxpayers’ money, collected under compulsion, to be given as charitable aid to other countries? Or do they believe that UK taxpayers should be encouraged to give more by leaving them with more money and making an exhortation to be generous?

      • I suspect the Green Party is in line with all the other parties on this issue. Except UKIP.

    • CliveM

      Yeh, yeh. “Compassion” at others expense is cheap and gives the individual a warm feeling. However there is a country to run and their is NOTHING in the Green Parties policies that won’t leave the Country, including the poor, worse off.

      • catherinerowett

        On the contrary, everything in the Green Party policies is designed to leave the country and all its citizens a lot better off both in practical services and in income and resources. The myth of austerity putting things right is making people claim, incorrectly, that the country would be worse off. It couldn’t be worse off than now, except that the Tories intend to make it still worse. What the Green Party is trying to do is restore all the fine things that made it so prosperous in the post war period. It involves not giving away everyone’s money the whole time to usurers. At present we are a country of usurers and bankers, and all the wealth is leeching to them, and being stolen from those who earned it and those who need it.

        • Anton

          There is much truth in your critique of our financial industry. It’s your tax-and-welfare policies that quite literally don’t add up, and your energy policies based on carbon-bashing when it hasn’t got warmer for 15 years even though China and India are industrialising and continue to raise atmospheric CO2 levels. And please would you answer Andrew Price’s question above: as a prospective Green candidate, are you in favour of gay marriage?

        • CliveM

          I think I will simply quote yourself

          “It couldn’t be worse off than now, except that the Tories intend to make it still worse”

          Sums up a Green thinking.

        • Watchman

          I’ve got some rather bad news for you. You are a Marxist. This is as far distant from Christianity as it’s possible to be!

    • Andrew Price

      So prospective candidate are you in favour of gay marriage? Will my church be forced to perform them?

    • Watchman

      Catherine, what is the object of your worship? Is it God or Gaia? Do you worship the Creator or His Creation?

      • catherinerowett

        I worship God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I have no other God, and I am not a worshipper of Mammon. I am surprised at the willingness of the political right wing to equate God and Mammon.

        • Watchman

          But you have joined a political party which worships the creation rather than the Creator. Is this not, as Paul put it “being unequally yoked together with unbelievers”?

          • catherinerowett

            On the contrary, you are quite confused about what a political party is, and about what politics is for. And you seem unable to distinguish caring for God’s creation and his creatures, from worshipping them. I do not worship the poor or the hungry or the children but I do care for them, and so also for all Gods creatures. I understand Christ to have commended this attitude towards others when he said “Inasmuch as you did it for the least of these, you did it for me”.

          • No.

          • Watchman

            In which case, what do you think Paul might have meant?

  • Davo Smith

    While it is arguably true that there are more atheists in the Green Party than other parties and less Christians, my experience of the Green Party (as a member for the last 5/6 years) has not been one that is ‘anti-faith’ or ‘anti-religion’.

    Some of the moral issues you have raised are ones that do clash to an extent with my own Christian faith – but in most of those cases, you’d be hard pressed to find *any* mainstream party that has a different stance on them. The party stance on church schools I disagree with, but it is understandable if you are aiming for a state schooling system that does not have any form of discrimination about the children it accepts (church schools reserve the right to select a proportion of their intake from church-attending parents). However, I certainly have never found the attitude that ‘dissent is not tolerated’ to be prevalent in the Green Party – policy formation within the party is a process that is open to all members and discussion and debate is actively encouraged.

    I also fail to see the connection between being a Christian and being in favour of the monarchy (as a Christian I have no strong feelings either way) or being unable to criticise the actions of the modern, secular state of Israel. It should also be noted that the Green Party does not propose to abolish the monarchy – merely to have an open debate about the future shape of the country, which would include reviewing the place (if any) of the monarchy in a modern, democratic society.

    Now, onto the more important matters – Jesus spent much of his ministry with the poor and dispossessed in society. He challenged systems (religious or otherwise) that exploited others. He challenged hypocrisy. Genesis also calls us to be good stewards of God’s creation – not exploiting it for personal gain.

    All these attitudes chime with the Green Party policy and philosophical basis in a way that I’ve been unable to find in any other Party.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “He challenged systems (religious or otherwise) that exploited others. ”
      Do you think he would recommend legalising prostitution, brothels, drug use, and membership of terrorist groups? All those are examples of exploitation

      • Anton

        Actually Yes, regarding drug use. A glance at the Law of Moses shows that God (aka Jesus Christ) is big on personal responsibility. Not everything that is wrong should be illegal and some things carry their own penalty.

        Criminalising drugs just leads to giant criminal empires which use their muscle immorally in other parts of our society, and increasing numbers of senior policemen recognise this fact. Furthermore drugs can be taxed. Immoral to profit from degradation, you say? Alcoholic spirits were the designer drugs of yesteryear and the government taxed those. And cigarettes.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          So two wrongs make a right?
          Also, not everything I listed necessarily comes under “personal responsibility”. It cannot be right for the state to make these things acceptable and then say “it’s your responsibility not to get involved in them”

          • Anton

            You say I am asserting that two wrongs make a right.

            What are the two wrongs, and what is the right?

            If you follow this through more closely I believe you will not find I am saying that. If you are going to reply to me, please don’t ignore what I actually said.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            You seemed to be saying that because alcohol and cigarettes are legal, that is a reason for legalising other vices. That’s what I meant by “two wrongs making a right. Alcohol and cigarettes cause a lot of problems. Legalising other vices is only going to put an even bigger burden on society and the NHS through illness and accidents. Also, I think that using vice as a source of Government revenue is cynical because it is exploiting peoples dependencies

          • Anton

            Then shouldn’t you argue for the criminalising of cigarettes and alcohol?

          • Politically__Incorrect

            Perhaps we should. We could at least use legislation to curb it’s use, rather than encouraging it

          • Anton

            And waste more police time investigating people quietly smoking and drinking while burglaries and car crime get neglected?

          • Anton

            And waste more police time persecuting people having a quiet drink or smoke?

      • Davo Smith

        The question is does having prostitution & drugs illegal help to prevent them or just make them more dangerous?

        I don’t think that either drugs or prostitution are a good thing, but treating drugs as a medical issue, not a criminal issue, would take people out of the hands of criminal gangs and into the health system. Similarly, the illegality of prostitution forces the women (and men) involved out to the fringes of society where it is harder to support them and where they can be controlled by criminal gangs.

        If making these both illegal was a good way to completely stop them, then I’d be all in favour. It isn’t, so we need to find a new solution.

        As for membership of terrorist groups – the party policy is that anyone who takes part in or provides support for any form of terrorist act is a criminal and should be treated as such. People should not, however, be arrested for their beliefs (which as a Christian, that is a great relief!).

        • Politically__Incorrect

          “however, be arrested for their beliefs (which as a Christian, that is a great relief!).”

          That’s jolly nice of you, and not all patronising. Thank You

          I think I’ve heard it all now.

          • Davo Smith

            Sorry I’m genuinely confused by your ‘and not all patronising’ comment (which sounds sarcastic, but please forgive me if I’ve misread it).

            As a Christian I am very happy that I have freedom to believe and not be arrested because of my belief. This is something we should all support wholeheartedly.

            In what way is it a good thing to arrest people because of their beliefs and/or associations? (Assuming those beliefs have not resulted in them supporting/carrying out criminal acts)?

        • sarky

          Legalising drugs will not stop the black market in drugs, just as cigarettes being legal has not stopped black market cigarettes.
          In order to stop drugs you have to treat the addicts, cut off the market and you kill the supply.

          • Anton

            Agreed, except I think there will always be addicts. So legalise it and tax it. Here is here is a paragraph from the British parliament’s 2009 revision of the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act:

            Any compound structurally derived from 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 1H-indol-3-yl-(1-naphthyl)methane by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring by alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl, whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

            Can you imagine a policeman asking if you have that on you? When the laws of the land look like this, you might think a wrong path has been taken.

          • sarky

            Because of the amount and type of drugs out there, they have to be broken down to their basic chemical components. If a policeman was to seize a substance from you, it would be forensically tested and you would then be charged under the relevant part of the act.
            Simple really 🙂

          • Anton

            “Excuse me, Sir, I wonder if you would mind telling me if that white powder in your pocket is structurally derived from 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 1H-indol-3-yl-(1-naphthyl)methane by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring by alkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl, or whether it is talcum powder”?

            “Certainly, Constable. It is indeed structurally derived from 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole but not by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring.”

            “That’s alright then, Sir. Have a nice evening.”

          • sarky

            Luckily they don’t have to know what it is, just have a suspicion its illegal. Then they knick them and sort out the niceties afterwards.

        • Making murder and rape illegal does not appear to have stopped them completely.
          Are you therefore in favour of legalizing them also?

          • Davo Smith

            Would legalising them help to reduce the harm involved and make it easier to support the victims?

            In the case of rape & murder, the answer is very clearly ‘no’.

            In the case of drugs / prostitution, there is a lot of research / evidence that strongly suggests that the answer is ‘yes’.

          • Would legalising them help to reduce the harm involved and make it easier to support the victims?

            It would certainly reduce the harm to the perpetrators in that it would keep them out of jail. Perhaps you could offer them counselling. It would also save the police huge numbers of man-hours which could then be spent prosecuting street-preachers.
            I definitely think you should go for it. It would make a splendid contribution to Green Party policy.

      • I see you read the Telegraph. Have a look here: http://www.anthonysmith.me.uk/2015/01/23/on-the-green-partys-policies/

    • Royinsouthwest

      “Genesis also calls us to be good stewards of God’s creation – not exploiting it for personal gain.”

      Do you expect people to work for no personal gain? The Bible certainly does not.

      Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.

      Deuteronomy 25:4

      For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.

      1 Timothy 5:18

      • Davo Smith

        No, I said nothing about people working for no personal gain – I specifically used the word ‘exploiting’. I guess you could have read that in the sense of ‘making use of’, whereas my intended meaning was ‘make use of in a way that is considered unfair or underhand’ (to quote a dictionary definition).

    • Watchman

      What do you think Paul meant when he wrote to the church in Corinth: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” 2 Cor 6:14

  • CliveM

    I notice when the left try to defend the stupidity of their policies, they shout compassion. It’s a fig leaf to hide the fact their policies don’t work and indeed do significant levels of harm.

    But that doesn’t matter, they are caring. Ineffective, but caring and that is all that matters. Particularly when it means that you can feel good and trumpet your moral superiority.

    • Davo Smith

      I’d always thought that aiming to help everyone (and particularly the poor and marginalised) but falling short, is better than policies to particularly help the rich and succeeding (but then they fail to share those benefits with the rest of society).

      • CliveM

        If it was simply falling short.

        • Davo Smith

          Care to explain?

          Are you suggesting that anyone who has any left of centre political beliefs is pursuing them because they actively believe they will make people worse off? Or is there some other implication that I’m not understanding?

          • CliveM

            Ok, if it was simply falling short of a good, then ok.

            It’s the fact these goods come with active harm. The sink estates being an example that if we tax more, we can support more being simply wrong. The culture of dependency it creates causes real long term harm.

          • Davo Smith

            Yes a culture of dependency can be a bad thing (although dependency in and of itself is not actually bad – we are all dependent on others in different way; dependent on friends, family, our employers giving us work, the health service to look after us, etc.).

            But taxation + support for the poor does not necessitate a culture of dependency if done correctly. Simply withdrawing support from some will result in them standing on their own feet and thriving (so great – that is exactly what they need, go for it); for others they need different types of support and they are (legitimately) dependent on others for that support.

          • CliveM

            There are reasons why your leader failed so miserably to account for your policies, it’s because they are unsupportable. Your tax and spend policies are irrational because the sums dont add up and frankly have been discredited so many times, it is dishonest not to own up to this and change them. You won’t get the tax take forecast from the rich (we have historical and international evidence for this) and even if you did they would still fall far short of being able to pay for your spending commitments. Particularly the risible ‘living wage’. You won’t get credit on the international markets to make up the shortfall and this would be in crisis. Your energy policies are frankly irrational and based on wishful thinking. Your industrial policy isn’t and your defence policy will leave this country undefended and thousands more unemployed.
            But you feel able to justify this insanity by using words like progressive and compassionate. There is nothing compassionate or progressive about your policies. Destroying the economy, hope for the future, jobs and our ability to defend ourselves isn’t progressive or compassionate and calling it so is simply a lie.

          • Davo Smith

            OK – a lot of points in there, so I’m not going to have time now to reply to all of them.

            But to pick up just one of them – the living wage. This is an independently-calculated wage that would allow someone working a full time job to be able to afford basic living costs (housing, heating, food, etc.) and have enough left over to be able to have some sort of a social life (occasional trips to some leisure activites, etc.). This doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, as the current ‘minimum wage’ is at such a low level that even working full time on it a person needs to claim benefits (in the form of ‘tax credits’) in order to be able to live on it.

            You also say that this has been ‘discredited many times’. I don’t want to put words into your mouth by assuming that your proposed alternative is ‘austerity + tax cuts’, but if that is the case, then that has also been clearly discredited – it has both reduced living conditions for those who can least afford it and failed to reduce government debt, which was its stated goal.

          • CliveM

            Apologies with regards the living wage I meant the universal citizens income.

            With regards austerity, well it’s always useful to compare two contrasting examples. Let’s use France and Britain. Which one has created jobs (I think it’s 1.5m in the private sector), which one has cut deficit (although not yet debt), which one has a growing economy?

            Certainly by that comparison the tax, spend and deficit example doesn’t compare well.

          • Davo Smith

            Basic income / citizens income are very good ideas that will solve a lot of problems in modern society. They are very different from the way things are currently done and can take a while to understand, but to immediately dismiss them out of hand is disingenuous. Take a look at http://www.basicincome.org/basic-income/ for a bit more background.

          • CliveM

            Ok over to you, tell us how they will be funded?

            Simple question. More challengingly tell us how much? Where the revenue stream will come from?

          • Davo Smith
          • Watchman

            I think the Huffington Post might get a bit upset at your suggestion!

          • CliveM

            Interesting. As a starting point this is clearly a policy that the greens haven’t even started working out how to afford. So let’s ask the question, is it Green policy to exclude the under 18’s and pensioners from the citizens income?

          • CliveM

            Ok, I’ll give you more time. But some more questions to get on with.
            Will the income be taxable?
            Do you intend to remove the personal tax allowance?
            If above is so, how will I not be worse off?
            If I lose my job, will I get additional benefit or will we be dependent on the citizens income?
            What about child allowance or tax credits, are these to be stopped.
            If additional benefits are to be available where are the significant savings from administration to be made?
            Why would a universal citizens income not include the old?
            Is this to be self financing ie the cost covered by savings made?
            If not how is it to be funded?

            As articles go, I think I find it more helpful to my position.

          • Davo Smith

            Well, I can only speculate about what will be in the final costed manifesto due out very soon from the Green Party.

            But to give a quick guess.

            No the citizens income will not be taxable, but all income over and above it would be taxable.
            Tax-free allowance (worth about £2000 PA) would go, in return you would have the Citizen’s income (worth about £3500 PA).
            The citizen’s income would replace the majority of benefits that you have listed (hence removing the admin costs), but there would still need to be some form of disability benefits to support those who needed it.

            The old already get a pension which serves a similar function as the citizen’s income.

            How is it funded – the article I linked to gives a pretty good set of figures covering one way of covering the costs, but the basic idea is that all additional income is taxed, so once you earn above a given threshold the tax you pay is enough to cover the citizen’s income you receive. This transition is an automatic part of the system, so complex (and slow) rules about means testing are not needed.

          • CliveM

            Let’s be honest this is making it up as we go along isn’t it? Green Party policy is now based on an article in the Huffington Post.

            Tell me how much worse or better off will a married couple with 2 children and a joint income of £50k be?

          • Davo Smith

            Please re-read my comment.

            I clearly stated – “I can only speculate what will be in the final costed manifesto”.

            I am not part of the group writing this manifesto. You asked for a costing and I provided a link to one example costing that has been worked out by someone. I don’t know how you got from that to ‘GP policy is now based on an article on Huffington Post’.

            I cannot answer your specific question as the final policy with the detailed figures has not been released. I would probably guess ‘about the same’, as that is how citizens income works, but without the chosen figures I could only speculate based on the basic principle.

          • bmudmai

            Though, economically there are further costs to this. For example, if everyone has this income, prices will go up to reflect this extra income (pretty much simple supply and demand, though more to it than that).

            Does the citizen income then have to increase with inflation (bearing in mind that CI will cause inflation)? So it will forever cost more and more.

            Where will the extra 1,800 per person come from? That’s 115.38bn per year. Considering Income tax itself is expected to raise £165bn this financial year…It’ll be hard to double income tax…. Job seekers accounts for about £5billion, so £160bn.

            Scrap public pensions?? Good luck with that…

          • Aaaaarrrgggghhh …….. not the huffing and puffing post …… anything but ….. apart from the Tablet.

          • Watchman

            Yes, and yes.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Let us put it this way…for the last forty or more years, Rotherham has been a socialist stronghold. It is a shit heap. There has been no incentive to improve the lives of the people who live there because they might switch to voting Tory… to ensure the return of a Labour council you need to maintain a sense of grievance, a benefit culture and low aspiration. Hope that has helped…

          • Davo Smith

            That’s disgusting, but it’s party politicking, not being left wing. You could equally point to the distribution of austerity cuts being most felt by lefty regions when under a right leaning government. Again that’s not about right wing philosophy but about politicking and who will vote for you.

            The problem is the unrepresentative, combative political system, not the political beliefs of the left or the right.

          • Watchman

            Let’s face it , Dave yours is no more sophisticated in its economic policy than any other of the hard left which has everything to say about the redistribution of wealth but nothing about its creation. We’d all be bankrupt before we’d a chance to kick you out.

      • Watchman

        Have you ever considered that the best way to love your neighbour is to help him understand that he will reap what he sows and the best way is for him to stop envying other people but to make the effort to help himself?

        • Davo Smith

          Yes, of course I have. There is certainly a very strong case for people to strive for independence.

          However, it is a sad caricature of most unemployed people (or those on unstable, low hours contracts) to suggest that they are not putting in any effort to help themselves. Most people I know in these situations (and there is much research to back this up) put in a lot of effort to find work and would love to have a full-time, stable job.

          The simple fact is that there are more people looking for stable jobs than there are such jobs – that means that no matter how hard everyone tries to get these jobs, there will always be people who, through no lack of effort on their behalf, will not get them. Loving your neighbour in those circumstances involves helping and supporting them, not standing back and telling them they’re not trying hard enough.

          • Watchman

            Good, support them. Does that include persuading governments to steal money from the rest of us to give them unqualified access to whatever they feel they need; or does it merely mean that you personally should voluntarily financially support him?

          • Davo Smith

            ‘Steal’ seems a strangely emotive word to use in this case.

            Taxation is not a form of theft, it is a form of working together so that we can together provide that which we cannot provide individually. We democratically elect representatives to decide how that money should be spent (as it would be impractical for each and every person to spend all their time deciding on every last detail of the national budget).

            As for ‘whatever they feel they need’, I don’t believe I ever used that phrase in my comment, so I’m sorry if you have a distorted view of what I have written. If however, you mean, basic needs such as food, shelter, heating and transportation of some kind, then yes – no one should be without those.

          • Busy Mum

            What right has any human being to guarantee to his fellow men what God in His mercy provides but what He may remove
            at any time?

          • Watchman

            From what I read you have redefined theft for it to mean what you want it to mean, you think democracy is a legitimate rationale for making value judgements and you have sovereignty decided on the basic necessities of life. How can anyone argue with such profound political and/or theological wisdom?

          • Davo Smith

            How have I redefined ‘theft’?

            Theft is a criminal act of taking something without permission. A democratic government is given permission to govern by the people who vote it into power, so taxation is not theft.

            As for what are the basic necessities of life, I’m sorry if you found my list to be in some way presumptuous.

            Could you explain which of the following do you think people should be able to live without (and I will attempt to amend the list):
            * food
            * shelter
            * heating
            * transportation (in a modern society this is generally necessary to access food, access work and play a role in society, but maybe this could be argued to be necessary to live, rather than basic survival).

          • Watchman

            Do you think we should then add a rider to each of the Ten Commandments to the effect that democratic decision to recind the commandment should take precedence over the the commandment? I seem to recall the Israelites worshipping a golden calf while Moses was away – presumably this was OK because it was democratically arrived at?

          • Davo Smith

            No, you’ll still have to explain that one to me.

            If I had said ‘theft is not bad because we voted for it’, then I’d understand your comment.

            What I said was that ‘taxation does not fit the definition of theft’ – theft requires something to be taken without permission. A democratic government has been given the permission by society to enforce taxation, so, it is not taking without permission, so it is not theft. You may not like taxation, but to call it ‘theft’ is simply untrue.

          • Watchman

            I do not give permission for this, or any other government to take my money, therefore the government has committed theft. Because it is elected by the people it does not acquire the mandate to steal my money. Theologically, it breaks the commandment “thou shalt not steal”. These commandments do not make exceptions for those elected. My bible has nothing to say about democracy, a Greek concept and alien to the theological framework within Judaism and Christianity. Democracy is the art of bribing the have nots to vote for the party which will steal money from the haves and give it to them. It is a corrupt and unholy system.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Taxation is a form of theft when it is imposed by others without agreement or consultation, moreover it is theft with menaces. Working together does not mean taxpayers should fund the pet projects of doctrinaire politicos who happen to like Lesbian Dance Collectives or Interfaith Outreach Diversity Youth Empowerment Centres…The national budget should be presented to the nation to vote on…not shrouded in purdah, announced and imposed. It is our money, not the government’s…

          • CliveM

            Sorry just because there may be more unemployed then jobs, doesn’t people everyone can’t get one. It just means for some there will be a time lag. Even in a full employment economy their will be unemployed, as those newly redundant look for new jobs.

      • Dominic Stockford

        And killing off the old when they have. ‘become a burden’ is compassion is it?

      • No one is more marginalized than the unborn.
        They can’t vote, they can’t protest, they can’t commit acts of civil disobedience. What are you going to do to protect them?
        I would mention the old as well, but Dominic has beaten me to it.

        • Davo Smith

          You won’t find any disagreement with me there.

          Yes we should look after unborn children and we should look after the elderly.

          I understand the reasons behind the Green Party position on abortion (which is more or less in line with every other party), but disagree with it.
          I understand the reasons behind the Green Party position on euthanasia (which is what I assume you are referring to), but disagree with it.

          These are some of the few areas of Green Party policy I disagree with (as stated in my earlier reply below), but that is balanced against the overwhelming majority of issues on which I agree with the policies (and you will never find a party that perfectly matches your beliefs, unless you start one yourself and don’t let anyone else join).

  • Dan Williams

    Very informative article. I’m now persuaded to join the Green Party. Many thanks 🙂

    • Sherry

      Don’t forget to leave your religious and moral beliefs at home unless of course they are right on liberal left. Which in your case I suspect they are.

      • Dan Williams

        By the time I was a teenager I had left behind the irrational supernatural Christian beliefs I had been indoctrinated into as a child. As a result my morals are now fully my own ideas, based firmly in reality using rational and critical thinking to aim for a society that’s less controlled by dogma, more selfless and focused on scientific advancement to benefit everyone, not just the rich…. If that puts me on the Liberal Left then so be it 🙂

        • Busy Mum

          If you were free and of sufficient mental ability to question your upbringing by the time you were in your teens, I do think the word ‘indoctrinated’ is a little bit of an overstatement.

          • CliveM

            Now, now Busy Mum, don’t confuse him with the use of logic.

          • Dan Williams

            Ha. A Christian who professes to use logic. Now that IS confusing 🙂

          • Busy Mum

            anti-Christians got nowhere with using logic so have resorted to laws like the Equality Act in order to enforce their illogical stance.

          • The Explorer

            Here’s a very acceptable replacement for Sidney Deane. Welcome, Dan: hope you stay around for a while.

          • Dan Williams

            Thanks.

            Always up for a pleasant discussion 🙂

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            You should read Archbishop Tillotson…

          • Dan Williams

            No unfortunately I was totally indoctrinated. My grandfather was a vicar. My home life, my extended family, my social life, my summer holidays… All based around Jesus. And I believed every word of it. Then fortunately I started asking questions. And a bronze age fairy tale doesn’t suffer much scrutiny before it’s exposed as nonsense…

          • Others of us were totally deceived by evolutionary thinking, based on what we’d been indoctrinated with at school.
            Sadly, it took me years to break away from it.

          • Dan Williams

            Erm… You are aware this is the 21st century? *facepalm

          • Well, of course, I was brought up in the 20th Century, when people still called the Thyroid and Pituitary glands ‘Monkey Glands.’ Why did they do that? Because Thomas Huxley, ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ had clamed 100 years before that they had no use in the human body but were vestigial organs left over by our ‘ape ancestors.’
            .
            And in the 1970s, text-books used in training nurses showed diagrams made by a man called Haekel showing how the human embryo went through various evolutionary stages in the womb. Trouble is, Haekel had admitted 70-odd years before that he’d faked the diagrams.
            .
            So when, early in the 21st Century, Richard Dawkins explained that all the vast amounts of ‘Junk DNA’ proved that evolution was true, I’m afraid I didn’t believe him. I didn’t have enough faith.

          • Busy Mum

            If you had been totally indoctrinated, you would not have started asking questions.

          • Dan Williams

            Fortunately my teachers were unwittingly breaking my indoctrination by teaching me how to think for myself…

          • Busy Mum

            A lot of teachers I come across cannot even think for themselves, yet alone teach their pupils how to do so. I would suggest that your teachers, either wittingly or unwittingly, were breaking your Christian upbringing in accordance with the 21st century anti-Christian indoctrination program.

          • Dan Williams

            The what now? If you’re being funny, a little wink wouldn’t go amiss just to indicate the humour. If your ’21st century anti-christian program’ was meant seriously, then I’m genuinely concerned for you. Would you like a hug?

          • Busy Mum

            It was meant in all seriousness – and I am genuinely concerned for you as you have clearly been totally indoctrinated by the anti-Christian education system.
            As for hugs – I am an Engish lady, none of this emotional Continental nonsense for me. Female Englishmen are not needy wrecks – we are iron ladies – a handshake is sufficient!

          • Dan Williams

            You’re the stuff of myth and legend… I had no idea that right wing, christian literalist, emotionally supressed women still existed. Awesome to meet you 🙂

          • Busy Mum

            🙂

            I have thought for myself and recognise that the modern idea of ’emotionally supressed’ is a way of sneering at the famous reserve, self-restraint and control of emotions that served our forebears so well.

            As you are also a parent, you will be interested to know that they are now desperately working out how they can restore these values to today’s children.

            http://schoolsimprovement.net/tag/character/

          • Dan Williams

            Every generation thinks that the next generation of kids is too naughty or too liberal or too out of control or whatever… that’s just par for the course. So you can either embrace that progression of attitudes/standards/politics and ride the river of change with them, or you can try and resist it and become like a rock in that river, creating nothing more than a temporary obstacle that the river will simply surge past and so render yourself totally irrelevant…

          • Busy Mum

            Maybe when children find themselves swept by the river into a vast ocean, they will wish they had sat on the rock rather than drown.

          • Dan Williams

            The children ARE the river. It’s us that can choose to go with the flow and help direct it or we can choose to try and send the river back up the mountain… Which as I’m sure you will agree is futile…

          • Busy Mum

            You agree that the ‘progress’ of humanity is downhill all the way then….:)

          • Dan Williams

            Well that depends on your perspective… If you are a stick in the mud and are too afraid to experience what it’s like to reach the sea then you might describe it like that…

          • Busy Mum

            Of course, it’s far easier to go with the flow and become a mere drop in the ocean than struggle against the current in order to finally attain the sunlit uplands.

          • Dan Williams

            Ha… The sunlit uplands? Is that what you call the thousands of years of ignorance and fear, religious control of the masses and suppression of science and knowledge? Why do you think the river is running away from the mountain? Because it’s heading towards the sea of enlightenment ! Come with us Busy Mum or get left behind…. 😉

          • Busy Mum

            Suppression of science and knowledge is precisely what is happening in our schools in the 21st century; ignorance is rampant and the masses are being well controlled by fear of the pc brigade. Thanks for the offer but I’ll stay where I am and watch – it’s a good view from on top of the mountain.

          • Dan Williams

            Sounds like you’re somehow confusing PC and enlightenment. Political Correctness is another failed ‘system’ that can be discarded with all the other forms of control. At the Sea of Enlightenment there’ll be no need for PC. But of course there will always be those who choose to stay behind on the Mountain of Ignorance. It’s the natural order of things. It’s helpful for those of us on the move to look back and remind ourselves of who we once were. It gives us motivation to keep trying to become who we want to be…

          • Busy Mum

            Who do you want to be? God?

          • Dan Williams

            God? Which one of the over 3000 gods in recorded human history do you refer?
            Either way, as the whole idea of any kind of omnipotent entity is ludicrous, having a god is irrelevant and unnecessary in the Sea of Enlightenment.
            Who do I want to be? I want to help build a society that doesn’t allow hunger or sickness or poverty and doesn’t promote the acquisition of ‘stuff’ above all else. In other words I want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem… All ideas I think Jesus would approve of were he real…
            Who do you want to be?

          • Busy Mum

            You either have a god or you are your own god.
            So, who do you want to be then?

          • Dan Williams

            I’m afraid you have presented me with a false dichotomy. I choose option 3. No god at all, neither my own nor the invisible sky daddy type…

          • Busy Mum

            So how do you decide what is right and wrong? If there is no god (external reason for making a decision) and you are not a god (internal reason for making a decision) on what do you base your decisions?

          • Busy Mum

            Sorry, only read the first half and didn’t see your response to what you want to be…though it reads more like what you want to do. Hunger, sickness and poverty are facts of life – it is our Christian society that led the way in alleviating them.

            Who do I want to be? I am me; wanting to be anything or anyone else would be rebelling against the God Who made me.

          • Dan Williams

            Yes there are indeed many Christian organisations that try to alleviate these problems. But Christianity in itself is meshed into the very fabric of the society that perpetuates greed and allows these problems to exist in the first place. The very notion of a Christian Conservative is proof of that. Jesus would have been a socialist for sure. The jesus myth tells us thst he despised wealth and fed the hungry and healed the sick…
            And as for what I want to be… Are we not defined by our actions above all else?

          • Busy Mum

            In a sense you are correct – these problems exist in the first place because of sin. Christianity is the only ‘religion’ that recognises that humans cannot save themselves.
            Jesus said that there would always be poor people – a socialist spends his life fighting that simple statement.
            What do you mean by the Jesus myth? A myth that He existed or a myth that He is the Son of God? .

          • Dan Williams

            ‘Sin’ is a man made concept, as in fact are both ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. These ideas change with each generation. Slavery was ok, now unacceptable. Homosexuality was illegal, now we have same sex marriages. The concepts of right and wrong are dynamic, not fixed.

            (And in connection to your question in your other post) I make my own moral decisions based on what my brain tells me is logical and rational, combined with the innate ‘responces’ I have been given through evolution. For example, I have never killed any of my next door neighbours. To do so would be both illogical and irrational and I innately ‘feel’ it to be wrong.

            And the Jesus myth. What I mean by that is the supernatural stories of his divinity and miracles etc are obviously myths assimilated from previous religions’ myths mostly pagan and Egyptian. Was there an actual real man called Jesus who all these myths are attributed to? The jury’s still out on that. I’ve read very convincing theories that the whole notion of Jesus is a Roman fabrication. However I am quite happy to think that there was really a humble guy who enlightened his followers with his teachings of selflessness, forgiveness and peace. He just wasn’t supernatural, because…well that’s just silly.

          • dannybhoy

            Your indoctrination cannot have been very strong then, can it?
            Perhaps your parents failed to do a good indoctrinating job on you? You could sue…
            Many of us ‘brainwashed believers’ here are in our 60s and older (Clive is hanging on for his telegram).
            Christians are always ready to hear other viewpoints, debate and discuss. That’s not indoctrination is it.

          • CliveM

            Ha, ha…………

          • Dan Williams

            No a healthy debate is not indoctrination. But confusing a young impressionable mind with counterintuitive supernatural nonsense is indoctrination, even if it’s well intended. As parents we should be teaching our children to think for themselves, to question the world and find real answers rather than be happy with wishful thinking…

          • dannybhoy

            But your parents loved you and did what they thought was right and best for you and the other ten kids..!
            I am rather glad I didn’t grow up in a really Christian family for the reasons you mention. We did know kids who were and most did all the things they were forbidden as soon as they left home. Many though returned to their faith in later years..
            I think it’s right to teach a child your beliefs whilst giving them the freedom to question and stop going to church once they start thinking for themselves.

          • Dan Williams

            I was angry with him (it was more my father) for a while for brainwashing me into something so intellectually lazy. But I let the anger go because you are right, he did what he honestly thought was in my best interest – however misguided…

          • dannybhoy

            Parents are as fallible as kids but with added responsibilities.
            Your parents loved you and (though you’ll probably squirm at this) cherished you. That’s a wonderful memory to have.. If they are still alive they will still do so.
            Forget about your “enforced indoctrination” and love them for all the other things they gave you.
            Do it NOW. This is a command!
            You only get one set of parents, and they won’t be around for ever.

          • Dan Williams

            Well said sir! I’m a fallible parent now myself. I know exactly what you’re saying 🙂

          • dannybhoy

            See?
            You’ve been blessed already! 🙂
            I ‘m 70 in a couple of months and despte a most traumatic childhood I wish my parents were still around so that I could put my arms around them and thank them for doing their best..

          • Dan Williams

            At the end of the day, our best is all we can hope to do…
            Happy 70th 🙂

          • The Explorer

            You can think for yourself? Were you educated in Britain? If so, congratulations on beating the system.

          • dannybhoy

            Lol!

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Goodness! wherever did you get the impression that teachers teach you to think for yourself? Lie down dear boy and think soothing thoughts…

          • dannybhoy

            Very true.
            But he may have been sent down to room 101 for re-programming…

          • Busy Mum

            I’ve just told him he certainly has been totally indoctrinated – by the antiChristian forces, though!

          • sarky

            Have a similar story myself, only I never believed it. One of my earliest memories is questioning it, I could only have been 5 or 6.

          • dannybhoy

            “Have a similar story myself”
            Yeah, but no offence Sarky You’ve been round the Cranmer circuit quite a few times now. You’re old hat, boring and somewhat dog eared. We’ve heard all your stories.
            Dan’s YOUNG! FRESH! and INTERESTING!!
            Go ahead Dan, we’re listening with bated breath for your next pearl….

          • sarky

            Oi !!! Are you insinuating I’m not young?? The cheek of the man 🙂

          • CliveM

            No he’s insinuating that you’re yesterday’s news. A bit passé. With our usual lack of attention span we have moved onto the novel, new and interesting.

            Sorry who are you?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Oh dear…if Dan is truly ‘YOUNG, FRESH and INTERESTING’ dear Linus and DanJ0 will be knocking on his door ere long…

          • dannybhoy

            Linus I think will remain faithful to his own true love.
            Dunno about DanJ0 though….
            Any case Dan is a happily married man learning to be a parent. He won’t be interested in any overtures.
            Hope he hangs around for a while though. It’s always good to have some fresh thinking.
            Sarky will of course be jealous of losing his place as our ageing enfant terrible*…. 🙂

            * that’s supposed to be French,

          • Dan Williams

            Exactly. And when the answers given by those you trust just don’t add up, then there will inevitably be more and more questions…

          • When did you ‘discover’ who you born to be and have you found your prince yet?

          • sarky

            Grow up jack grrrrrrrr

          • It’s Jack democratic right to remain like a child. Plus, it’s a lot more fun.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Feck off.

        • William Lewis

          “As a result my morals are now fully my own ideas,”

          We are honoured to have such a philosophical heavy weight in our midst. Will you be sharing them with others or are your morals just applicable to you?

          • Dan Williams

            Sorry to disappoint. But there’s nothing heavyweight about it. Yes my morals are applicable to me. And I’m sure you have the mental ability to form your own morals that are personal to you without the need of an imaginary friend. You just have to think for yourself. Try it, you might like it.

          • Pubcrawler

            Is this mental ability of yours able to rise above cliches such as ‘imaginary friend’ and ‘bronze age fairy tale’?

          • Dan Williams

            Would calling your imaginary friend something else change it from being so, or would it just make you feel less uncomfortable? We can call the bronze age fairy tale in question anything you like, but it is ultimately still a bronze age fairytale 🙂

          • William Lewis

            You seem to be confusing morals with personal opinions. It’s an attractive proposition because you get to justify anything you want but it does corrupt the idea that morality may be applicable to more than person.

          • Dan Williams

            Not at all. Morals are dynamic and change with each generation. Not so long ago it was common practice to have a slave. Which is abhorrent today. Homosexuality was illegal until very recently. Now same sex marriage is law…. Societies’ morals change… Resistance to change is to be on the wrong side of history….

          • CliveM

            So your morals are simply about following the crowd. If your not prepared to risk being on the wrong side of history how are your morals uniquely yours?

          • Dan Williams

            No. My morals are about what I feel innately whether they conform to society’s accepted norms or if they are in exact opposition to them… I dont know in how many ways I can say the same thing, I think for myself…

          • CliveM

            It was you who prided himself on being in the right side of history. I simply pointed out what that means.

            Still oh guru, what are your beliefs. We wait with baited breath.

          • Grouchy Jack

            What’s the name of your prince?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Free will eh? Clearly you are on the road to damnation…I suggest a detour to Tunbridge Wells…

          • The Explorer

            Do morals progress, or do they simply change? What about nostalgia? 1950’s wall-paper patterns are back in vogue. Could we see a return to slavery and illegal homosexuality if enough people of the future hankered for the past?

        • CliveM

          Fully your own ideas? Made them up all by yourself, with no external influence. Pfft.

          • Dan Williams

            Yep. My own ideas. You sound envious. Are you not able to process factual information to formulate your own ideas?

          • CliveM

            I simply have a better understanding of individual limitations and how thoughts and ideas get absorbed and used.

            Still let’s have these original thoughts. The world is waiting, astound us.

          • Dan Williams

            Again… Think for yourself… You really might surprise yourself…

          • The Explorer

            No need for that in the modern world. PC will do all your thinking for you. (Whether you ask it to or not.)

          • Dan Williams

            I’m against PC as much as you I suspect… It seems to me that any system that forbids/prevents open dialogue however potentially incendiary is fundamentally wrong…

        • dannybhoy

          Dan,
          You’ve joined the Socialist Worker Party?

          • Dan Williams

            Erm… Now you mention it, Capitalism is clearly not working. The gap between rich and poor increases while the corporate elite spend billions on marketing to encourage us to buy more ‘stuff’ that we don’t need and condemn the poor as lazy and benefit scroungers… Socialism…. Yeah why not….

          • dannybhoy

            Capitalism has worked for quite a while now as far as I am aware. Perhaps what you mean is that in light of all that is happening we may have to make some adjustments?
            Human beings will always want to own things and better themselves in one way or another. That is why capitalism has worked. It taps into our self interest.
            Socialism just doesn’t have the same power to motivate..

          • Dan Williams

            I agree with you. Socialism in it’s purest form would almost certainly fail (and indeed has done). But capitalism in it’s current form is obsene. Adjustments required indeed…

          • dannybhoy

            But all Christians believe that unbridled capitalism is obscene! It needs to be tempered by a moral influence rather than punitive laws, like for instance Christianity.
            You’re new here and I don’t want to be a crashing bore like Sarky; but I have lived the socialist lifestyle. On an Israeli kibbutz. I have lived five years in a Christian community. I have been unemployed for two years.
            And I still believe that Christianity is the best lifestyle by far.
            It’s an earthly training camp for eternity. I recommend it.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Goodness, dear dannybuoy…you have lived a life that is full and diverse…I feel I must clasp you to my bosom and nurture you for the rest of your days. I am sure you would make an excellent Warden of Hiram’s Hospital – shall I speak to my Lord the Bishop?

          • CliveM

            You’re being distracting again.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Moi?

          • CliveM

            It took me 5 minutes to re-gather my thoughts!

          • dannybhoy

            I fear your bosom might chafe my ears somewhat pink Madame, and unsettle my breathing….
            I would be quite honoured though to be known as an acquaintance of such a lady as yourself…

          • William Lewis

            “Socialism…. Yeah why not….”

            Socialism destroys jobs, families, wealth, self-worth, human dignity, hope, freedom and life.

          • Grouchy Jack

            And kills people ….

          • William Lewis

            I say “destroys .. life” you say “kills people”. Let’s call the whole thing off.

            PS grrrr

          • The Explorer

            DIdn’t Marx say Capitalism increases the gap between rich and poor? If that’s happenng, then presumably it’s working? In fact, the only thing more efficient than Capitalism at increasing the gap between rich and poor is Marxism. (The new rich, that’s to say: the old rich having been exterminated.)

          • Anton

            Dan and Explorer,

            Free markets in goods enrich the poor, because they can produce them more cheaply. Free markets in money enrich the rich, who have more collateral to borrow money and put it to work. Please define what you understand by Capitalism before saying it is good or bad, because it means different things to different people.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Oh I think you will find capitalism gave you all the things you enjoy…like iphones,,,,laptops….Gameboys…Big Macs….

        • IanCad

          “By the time I was a teenager —“
          To be sure Dan, it appears you are still in those years of certainty.

          • dannybhoy

          • Dan Williams

            Actually, as a wise man once said, the only thing I’m certain of is that I can’t be certain of anything. Otherwise how will I keep an open mind?

          • Dude

            That’s what someone said to me in the pub the other day…..

          • Dan Williams

            A mate of yours? A wise man indeed…

          • Yes, but are you certain about that?

          • Dan Williams

            Exactly!

          • Sherry

            Really, I thought you had already closed your mind to religion?

          • Dan Williams

            Do you mean religion or a belief in a god? A religion is just a form of control and can be discarded like any other obsolete ‘system’. A belief in a god however is something else. And after much research, investigation, ‘soul searching’ and just a little bit of courage, it became obvious to me that an omnipotent all seeing all knowing god is profoundly and fundamentally improbable….

          • Anton

            In that case how can you know anything?

          • Dan Williams

            Indeed. How many times as a species have we thought we knew it all only to make more discoveries and have to change or revise and update our knowledge? That’s the beauty of admitting to yourself that you don’t have all the answers. The thrill of continually discovering more about the universe and what it means to be alive…

          • Anton

            We learn more about the universe using science because we stand on (ie have faith in) the scientific method. Without that, science would not get started. You will find that you are basing your ways of learning about man on deeper tenets too.

          • Dan Williams

            As a rule I prefer to write my own ideas when in a discussion but in this case Anton I have a link to a page that is in my opinion the perfect response to your statement. Read it if you are so inclined 🙂
            http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/01/q-do-you-need-faith-to-believe-in-science/

        • Sherry

          Don’t you just love ’em! They’re ‘not controlled’ by dogma but religious ideas are irrational because their new God of science has all the answers. We don’t just need scientific solution solutions to today’s problems, we need moral ones. Therefore you need a moral framework which has in-built assumptions which need to be subjected to rational and critical thinking. Science does not supply those values

          • dannybhoy

            Don’t trifle with Sherry Dan. You’ll come off wurst..

          • Dan Williams

            You have classically misrepresented science. Science is merely a method by which we quantify and describe the universe. It DOES NOT have all the answers. But rather it is the process by which we look for them. It makes mistakes and still has huge gaps in it… And that is why science is to be embraced rather than rejected. Not knowing the answer to something is exciting! You shouldn’t find it so frightening that you fill that gap in your knowledge with a god of some kind. That’s intellectually lazy. It’s perfectly fine to say “we don’t know the answer to that yet, so let’s get about looking and experimenting and playing with ideas until we do”….

          • Phil R

            We don’t fill the gaps with God.

            Science provides us with increasing evidence for God

          • Dan Williams

            Erm… cognitive dissonance anyone?

          • William Lewis

            No thanks. I’ve just eaten.

          • Phil R

            Science is increasingly undermining your Atheist Dogma.

            Don’t worry. Soon you will just pass laws to make your view the “truth”

            You like laws

          • Dan Williams

            Ha. Atheist Dogma? That’s a contradiction if ever I heard one. ‘Atheist’ simply means a non belief in any gods. Simple. No dogma involved there….

          • Phil R

            Atheists have a dogma.

            A worldview that there is no God.

            A worldview so weak that that you need to use power wherever possible to ensure that it is evangelised and is propagated with a ferocity worse than any inquisition.

        • The Explorer

          You’re a teenager already?

        • Bless …

    • William Lewis

      This blog often shines a light where others fail to look. It’s a full service provider, even to minions it seems.

      • Dan Williams

        I find the religious reaction to various subjects very interesting. And I confess to find religious indignation to the inevitable advancement of secular thought to be amusing…

        • Not too good at this political campaigning malarkey, are you?

          • Dan Williams

            ??

        • William Lewis

          As I said, we are a full service provider here. But the only thing inevitable about secular thought is its determination to ignore God.

          • Dan Williams

            Is it not impossible to ignore something that already doesn’t exist? I mean, I don’t ignore any gods, I simply don’t acknowledge the actual existance of any of them. Thor, Zeus, Yahweh… Just stories… 🙂

        • Phil R

          “Inevitable advancement of secular thought”

          Lol

          The evidence points to the opposite.

  • I’m grateful to Paul Trathen for drawing attention to this post. I quote my response to Paul: “As as a Green Party member I have often had reason consider the relationship of faith and politics. There isn’t a single view on religion amongst Greens. At the same time I have on occasion felt uncomortable. Anti-religious zealotry does exist in the party, but it is I think not typical of the generalitty of Green party members. I have always found strong correlation between my Green politics and Christian ecotheolgy. That’s what brought me there in the first place. Sometimes I throw my hands up in horror that this Party – in my view a potent force for good – alienates many who might be natural allies. The Green Party ought to be a natural home for progressive Christians. There is, alas, much work to done in building bridges from both sides.”

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “There is, alas, much work to done in building bridges from both sides.””

      May I suggest that apologising to and offering reinstatement to Christina Summers might be a good start

      • You and I have at least one thing in common – neither of us have the full facts. I have no intention of defending ‘Greens behaving badly’, if that’s what it was. From what Christina Summers has said, I understand that she is awaiting a response from Natalie Bennett.

        • Grouchy Jack

          Looks like a Green Party non-adversarial, mutually respectful ‘conversation’ is called for with concessions on all sides.

    • john in cheshire

      I have two questions, which arise from your comments; namely 1. What is a progressive Christian and 2. How is it possible to reconcile being a socialist with being a Christian?

      • The short answer is that I meant left of centre Christians. As to your other question, haven’t you heard of Christian Socialism or Liberation Theology? I have always found Tory ideology repugnant and have often pondered how right-leaning Christians reconcile faith with scapegoating the poor or demonising asylum seekers. Unsurprisingly I ponder the opposite question: http://radref.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/do-tories-make-bad-christians.html

        • Dominic Stockford

          How can you support euthanasia as a Christian?

        • So define the key components of Christian Socialism and Liberation Theology.

        • William Lewis

          I … have often pondered how right-leaning Christians reconcile faith with scapegoating the poor or demonising asylum seekers.

          That’s the advantage of being swivel eyed. We can look in two directions at the same time.

        • john in cheshire

          I’m sorry but I don’t think you can be a socialist and a Christian; you can be one or the other but not both and to think you can is delusional. Further, the word progressive is a favourite marxist word which appears to mean whatever they want it to mean at any given time.

          • Any word can be used liked that. I seem to recall the ‘Community Charge’ which uses ‘community’ like an aerosol word, sprayed into sentences to make something nasty smell nice. By the sound of it your difficulty with ‘socialism’ and ‘Christianity’ is that you’re equating socialism with secular anti-religion. I don’t understand socialism that way. As for ‘progressive’, in the context I was using it, I repeat my previous response – ‘left of centre’.

          • Jack then considers himself a “progressive” right of centre Christian (on some issues) with “progressive” left of centre leanings on others.
            Whatever Jack decides “progressive” means, it means.

          • CliveM

            “Progressive” virtually meaningless. A camouflage term for stupid.

          • Grouchy Jack

            It’s ‘postmodernist deconstructionism’. Very crafty tactic of the left it is too. The other ‘Jack’ encounters it a lot in liberal Catholic circles.

            There’re all bastards – in a postmodernist deconstructionist sense.

          • CliveM

            The left has destroyed the meaning of out language. Black is now white. Reactionary is now progressive!

          • Grouchy Jack

            Just tell them to feck off.

          • CliveM

            You clearly feel strongly about this!

          • CliveM

            Just thought my progressive comment, not a statement about you!!

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            How about the Left’s use of ‘Community Cohesion’ which is also sprayed about? I am waiting for someone wiser than me to explain how this concept can be achieved when bringing together third world cultural beliefs in honour killings, female genital mutilation, shariah law and baksheesh corruption with Western civilisation.

        • dannybhoy

          and have often pondered how right-leaning Christians reconcile faith with scapegoating the poor or demonising asylum seekers.
          I’m rightwards leaning and being one of their number I don’t scapegoat the poor.
          (Spare a tenner Gov?)
          Nor do I confuse asylum seekers with real demons.
          In my understanding of our faith Jesus encourages us all to make an effort to make a positive contribution to society and care for the genuinely poor, as opposed to the relatively poor as defined by the Welfare State. Giving money to people doesn’t necessarily help them if they have a drug or drink habit. That requires a complete change of heart.
          Which is where Christianity comes in…

    • What is Christian Ecotheology? Some sort of ‘earth sacrament’ Jack has heard and movement towards an evolving, improving creation resulting in a ‘cosmic christ’.

      “The Green Party ought to be a natural home for progressive Christians.”

      Jack agrees with you. However, he would drop the ‘Christian’ noun.

    • Dude

      What are Mennonites ?

      Genuine question, I’ve not heard of them before.

      • sarky

        I hear you can get a cream for them!

      • Hi, Mennonites are descendents of the 16th Dutch Anabaptists. First named after Menno Simons, their most prominent early leader. There are very few Mennonites in the UK due to 16th C persecution, but lots in the States and Canada.

        • Thanks for the information.

        • Grouchy Jack

          “16th Dutch Anabaptists”?
          What happened to the other 15?

          • The Explorer

            The Authorities got them.

      • dannybhoy

        Mennonites are lovely Christian people Shmuelik. I met and worked with some of the American ones.
        https://history.mennonite.net/

        • Thanks danny

          • dannybhoy

            I was going to say they’re the opposite of wimminites, but I didn’t think you’d fall for it.. 🙂

      • The Explorer

        Swiss Anabaptists, originally. Against the idea of a state church and infant baptism: belief cannot be forced on people; it must be chosen.
        Heavily persecuted for this sort of heresy, they moved to the USA under their leader, Meno. Much like the Amish.

        • Ah thanks for that explorer. I have heard of the Amish, because when in the States I recall our brother got mistaken for one ( I assume it was the black hat).

          • CliveM

            ROFL…………

            Oh dear sorry!

  • Watchman

    I wonder if Paul was thinking of the Greens when he wrote:

    22 Claiming to be wise, they have become fools!
    23 In fact, they have exchanged the glory of the immortal God for mere images, like a mortal human being, or like birds, animals or reptiles!
    24 This is why God has given them up to the vileness of their hearts’ lusts, to the shameful misuse of each other’s bodies.
    25 They have exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, by worshipping and serving created things, rather than the Creator — praised be he for ever. Amen. (Romans 1)

    If fact if you read the rest of the chapter he could have had Brighton in mind!

  • dannybhoy
    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      albeit in a heretical form…

  • Archbishop Cranmer, you sound like a true supporter of Henry VIII’s social policies. Put together some statistics about candidates from Suffolk as though they were typical, throw in the assumption that opposition to gay marriage is what Christianity is all about, and you get your case. I’m one of many committed Christians who joined the Green Party as a response to Christian concern for the social, political and environmental situation we are in. No doubt my version of Christianity is very different from yours. We could debate the differences if you like. What is illegitimate, though, is to present your version of Christianity as if it was Christianity per se.

    • CliveM

      It wasn’t Cranmer who wrote the blog.

      • Lol …. the Greens are out in numbers today and what a confused motley crew they really are.

        • CliveM

          Yes LOL.

          Also good that they are not challenging any stereotypes we might hold.

          • Where’s Linus when we really need him?

          • CliveM

            Yes I think he is missing out! He’ll be kicking himself later. What does he call the ‘Peruvian bobble hatted something or other?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            If he is not kicking himself may I volunteer to help?

          • CliveM

            ROFL………..

            Oh dear I’m not sure the honour is mine to give !

          • The Explorer

            Mr Slope might be interested as well. (But not for the same reasons.)

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            I fear you are right…he’s been awfully chummy with the blacksmith and harness maker of late…what could they be up to?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Oh dear we really don’t need Linus…

          • Lol …. he can be amusing at times, Mrs P.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            So can Stephen Fry….every fourth Sunday in Rogationtide

          • The Explorer

            Communing with Legion. Contemplating the next move against us.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Ah yes dear Explorer, I fear you may be right. He is quite amphibious in his attitudes, I fear, and somewhat resentful he did not win the lottery in life…

          • He’s having – or was – a set too with Mrs P on the last thread.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            He always has a go at me for being English…jealousy no doubt. A gentleman has porridge for breakfast, not molluscs on toast.

          • CliveM

            Mrs Proudie

            I am sorry to hear that a certain ‘gentleman’ of foreign extraction has been unpleasant to you. I suspect he will have been drinking beyond his capacity (small glass of watered down wine).

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            And you didn’t come to my aid either, HJ…no hobnobs for you!

          • None at all.

        • Watchman

          Jack, I feel a sense of camaraderie with dear souls with whom I normally feel at odds. An invasion of Greens has left me confused about the qualification required to call oneself a Christian and even RCs feel admissible within my definition. Alas, it may all change tomorrow……

          • There’s nought like a common enemy, Watchman, to focus one’s mind on what’s important in the temporal sphere.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      If the statistics are misrepresentative, perhaps you could provide us with a more comprehensive set?

    • Dominic Stockford

      You support euthanasia then?

    • dannybhoy
    • The Explorer

      I’m a Green. I say bring back smog,smokestack industry, cigarette advertising and leaded petrol. Kill the seals, polar bears and whales, deplete the ozone layer, and nuke the planet.
      Your version of Green may be different from mine, and we could debate the differences, but who would you be to say your version of Green was any more authentic than mine?

  • Dominic Stockford

    No true Christian can support or join a Party that promotes euthanasia and extension of abortion.

    • Anton

      I agree Dominic. Do the Greens?

      • Dominic Stockford

        Yes. They have been campaigning for both for years.

    • Can a true Christian support a party that advocates leaving abortion laws as they are?

      If not, which party would you recommend?

      • Dominic Stockford

        “The Christian Party: Proclaiming Christ’s Lordship.”

        If there isn’t a local branch then start one, if there isn’t a local candidate then be one. “If not now, when? If not me, who?”

        • Fair enough – so you are saying that no true Christian can vote Conservative or Labour or Lib Dem, for example?

          • Dominic Stockford

            If Biblical teaching is more important than the pound in your pocket then I believe it would be difficult to do so – though those parties differ from the greens. The Greens have campaigned for years to extend abortion and bring in euthanasia – the others merely allow their MP’s a so-called ‘free vote’ or ‘conscience vote’ on these matters.

          • Best to vote for a particular candidate rather than a political party. That’s what Jack will be doing and he only has one question for them.

  • magnolia

    Much of the Green party agenda is based on mistruths, as potently demonstrated by Robert Zubrin in his recent book “Merchants of Despair” which is a seminal work. I doubt that absolutely all of his conclusions are right, but enough of them are, I think, to make it a “must read”.

    It clearly indicates how undereducated the Green party is, and how politicised. The innocents amongst them are having their strings pulled by others who know what they are about. All in all the whole green movement is a disaster for mankind, causes multitudes of unnecessary death, heaps of entirely avoidable suffering, and has a shameful history of deep anti-humanism. Thank God few Christians are amongst them then.

  • Sabrina

    Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Don’t like same-sex marriage? Don’t have one. Don’t like Euthanasia? Don’t do it.

    Have people ever considered that politics shouldn’t dictate morals such as these but should leave the decisions up to individuals? Wouldn’t that be true freedom of religion – where you can make up your own mind and live your life your own way?

    • Don’t like being aborted? Don’t … oh

      • Politically__Incorrect

        Oh come on now 🙂 As every good feminist knows, the foetus is a lifeless, amorphous clump of cells, which miraculously comes to life and gains status as a sentient being the moment it pops its head out.

        • Or, now, when the baby reaches a stage of ‘self sufficiency’. The next step is post-natal abortions – in case a woman’s right to choose was influenced by not knowing something or other about her child. Failing this, euthanasia will then be available is her child no longer wants to live.

          Didn’t you know this?

          • CliveM

            Sadly post birth abortions are being seriously promoted by some quarters. It will be Green policy soon enough.

            The arguments used are the family the baby was born into was disfunctional and unable to cope. Surely it’s cruel to let it live in that environment!

            Mankinds ability to disgust never ends.

          • Phil R

            I am actually in favour of post birth abortions.

            There are a number of Greens I would happily see suffer and die in the way they condone.

            How many post birth aborted adult greens would change opinion?

            100? 1000? 100000?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Now now Phil, that is a tad socialist…Stalin would approve of that carry on!

          • Phil R

            Perhaps this country needs a Stalin.

            If we carry on the way we a re going. One morning we will wake up with the news we have one.

        • Pubcrawler

          But they’re unborn babies if the objective is to stop pregnant women smoking

          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11489538/Unborn-baby-shown-grimacing-in-womb-as-mother-smokes.html

          • Politically__Incorrect

            In the case of the murder of a pregnant woman the law says that if the foetus has a heartbeat then it is a double-homicide. However, if a doctor pulversises the child in the womb then it is “wimmins rights”. Inconsistent or what?

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          Do you mean God suddenly fills it with life, a soul and a conscience? Interesting…

    • iaino

      Don’t want Christians having any influence in the public square? Don’t let them…………….

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Don’t like rats? Oh dear. Under the Greens they have the same rights as humans (except the unborn humans, who can be culled), so put the warfarin away

    • William Lewis

      “Have people ever considered that politics shouldn’t dictate morals such as these but should leave the decisions up to individuals?”

      The Green Party doesn’t appear to agree with you.

    • Retired Paul

      Don’t like lying? Don’t do it! Don’t like stealing? Don’t do it! Don’t like murder? Don’t do it!

      Do like lying? Do like stealing? Do like murder? That’s OK. Carry on. After all, I am not going to impose my moral values on you by passing laws that say you cannot do what your moral values allow.

      • The Explorer

        And, of course, even if you don’t like lying, theft or murder you might still be on the receiving end of all three from those who approve of them.

        • Politically__Incorrect

          Don’t like murder? Doesn’t that make you a homicidophobic bigot?

          • The Explorer

            Yes, but somebody would probably murder you for not liking it. That would solve the problem of one’s wrong belief.

          • Oh yes it does …. and quite right too.

    • And now a Green Anarchist …. this just gets better and better.

      • The Explorer

        I was thinking more like teenage witch.

        • Hi explorer

          Salem the cat was cool… if a little cutting.

        • No… the witches (white, of course) will be along later.

          • CliveM

            You have heard of Sabrina the teenage witch?

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Harriet Harman? One shudders…

          • Yuk …

      • Dude

        “a Green Anarchist”

        To quote from me of my fabourtie films (under siege):

        “Chaotic? Wake up, Tom! You know, and I know, that chaos and bedlam are consuming the entire world! UV light waves are only the beginning, Tom. We have an inch of topsoil left.Sexually transmitted diseases, deforestation, irreversibly progressive depletion of the global gene pool. It all adds up to oblivion, pal. Governments will fall, anarchies will reign. It’s a brave new world!”

    • Shadrach Fire

      The introduction of SSM and the Governments attitude towards abortion had a far greater affect on others that it benefited LBGT. The whole concept of marriage was re-defined and all of society was affected.. Do you ever think about the rights of an unborn child as apposed the the mother?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      No

  • sarky

    Gillan, so suffolk isn’t a diverse place? When was the last time you went into ipswich? As for suffolk being 61% christian, must be a different suffolk from the one I live in!

    • dannybhoy

      Things have changed a lot since you were a little boy Sarky..

      • sarky

        Wasnt that long ago!!!!! At least I’m nearer to the beginning than the end 😉

        • CliveM

          How do you know? You know not the hour nor yet the day……… :0)

          • Hmmm …. his wife may have other ideas. Have him declared insane; acquire guardianship, with full power of attorney, and sign the papers. Simples.

          • CliveM

            She better be quick, we don’t know how much longer he will be ‘with us’!

            Best to get him fully life assured.

          • sarky

            She already has, that’s why I sleep with one eye open. Bit depressing knowing im worth more dead than alive!!!

          • CliveM

            A lot of us live with that knowledge!

        • dannybhoy

          In your little short trousers, holding mammy’s hand and toddling off to playskool…
          Sweet…

        • …. at the end of the beginning of the end, as Churchill said.
          It all goes so quickly, Sarky.

          • sarky

            That it does!!!

        • CliveM

          Sarky,

          Happy Jack is frequently wrong, but his comment below couldn’t be more right!!

        • Anton

          How do you know?

          • CliveM

            Been through that!

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          Ah so you are Alpha and Omega…or just Alpha?

        • The Explorer

          Drunk drivers, unexpected fatal illnesses, terrorist attacks etc exluded.

          • sarky

            Well ive walked away from two major road accidents, had a gun pulled on me and I havnt had a sick day in over 5 years, so, so far so good! !!

    • Lol …. even got a Pound Saver there these days.

      • sarky

        Oh no, not just one!!! Two!! And for those who find it a bit pricy, a nice range of 99p shops! !!
        My beloved town is turning into a jeremy kyle show!!! Actually that could explain it, prehaps I have died and ended up in the chav hell.

        • CliveM

          Oh dear we did warn you…………..

  • Stephen Gray

    As an active Green Party member since 2008, I have to say that I don’t recognise your portrait of my party. I am very open about my Christian faith, and have never met another party member who had a problem with that.

    The incident with Christina Summers was, in my opinion, something of an isolated incident. There was a history behind what happened (which is never even mentioned when people bring up the case). In particular, during her selection as a council candidate she gave a pledge which was interpreted by the LGBT group within Brighton & Hove Green Party as a pledge to support same-sex marriage. And after the vote, both Councillor Summers and her critics within the party took an adversarial approach, rather than a conciliatory one. That inevitably meant that the situation was never going to end well. I think the chances of an incident like that happening with any of the Christian councillors or Parliamentary candidates within the Green Party is incredibly low.

    Yes, we do have some policies that are hard for many Christians to accept. But that’s true of any party which has an extensive set of policies (Gillan, if you care about political balance, I hope you do similar articles on the failings of the other parties). But we have also had a long-standing policy of not whipping our elected representatives. As a Green, you are free to dissent from party policy – even as an elected representative – as long as you do so in a way that makes it clear that is what you are doing.

    • Fair enough. As a Christian in the Green Party one is best advised to adopt a “conciliatory” approach towards homosexual marriage, abortion and euthanasia.

      Yep, leave one’s Christianity at the door just about sums it up. One cannot be “adversarial”, can one?

      Group hug all around as we meditate, as we mindfully reimagine ourselves happily skipping along, holding hands and singing together.

      • Stephen Gray

        If I had to leave my Christianity at the door, then I wouldn’t be a member at all, let alone an active one. And my point about things being adversarial is that if both parties to a dispute take that approach, it’s almost certain that the situation isn’t going to end well.

        On same-sex marriage, I take the view that British society abandoned a Christian view of marriage decades ago (before the concept of same-sex marriage was even under consideration), and that we are no longer (if we ever really were) a Christian society. Whilst my preferred state of affairs would be the previous status quo (same-sex couples given equal legal rights to opposite-sex ones, but not under the name marraige), I accept that this isn’t an issue where the church can dictate to the world.

        On abortion, most of party policy is stuff I can actually agree with. Our policy acknowledges that there is evidence strongly suggesting that restrictions on abortion don’t actually save the lives of unborn children, and that government should try to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Whilst I don’t like the couple of lines that talk about liberalising some parts of abortion law, the rest of it is something that a realist pro-lifer can easily support.

        In both cases, anybody in a mainstream political party who holds the traditional Christian view on these issues will have the same problems. They all support same-sex marriage, and all support abortion. Singling the Greens out as particularly bad on these issues would appear to demonstrate political bias.

        For me, the issues I have with our policies on things like abortion and euthanasia are outweighed by the issues that made me join the party in the first place – the environment, and poverty. In my view, these are issues that all Christians should be concerned about, and the Greens are the only significant UK party that take either issue as seriously as they deserve. As a party, we may not have the right answers, but I think we’re the only ones asking the right questions.

        • bmudmai

          Don’t take poverty seriously as they will take everyone into poverty except an elite few (a bit like N.Korea in that sense)

          • Phil R

            ” there is evidence strongly suggesting that restrictions on abortion don’t actually save the lives of unborn children,”

            Really… Do tell

          • bmudmai

            I will assume that reply wasn’t meant to be for me! But good point nonetheless!

          • Phil R

            Yes it was in reply to the Commie Christian apologist for child murder above.

          • Stephen Gray

            There are studies that have shown that abortion rates in some countries did not rise significantly (and, if I recall correctly, sometimes fell) when abortion was legalised or restrictions were eased, as many women would cross borders, or break the law, in order to get one (I recall seeing one study that focused on New Zealand), and pro-choice groups would often facilitate doing this.

            It’s possible that those studies are wrong, but it’s also possible that they are right. Though given that the abortion law in the UK is not going to change significantly without a massive shift in cultural attitudes towards abortion, I don’t think that abortion is a particularly fruitful focus for political activism anyway. I agree that it is wrong in almost all cases (maybe it’s OK to save the life of the mother, but probably only then), I just don’t think campaigning for more restrictive abortion laws is a particularly effective way of reducing the number of abortions.

            As for the people comparing Greens to Communists and to North Korea, I refer you to the Brazilian archbishop Dom Helder Camara, who said “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”

          • Phil R

            So because the majority find child murder acceptable then we must as Christians conform.

            Kneel and worship Caesar you mean.

            “Dom Helder Camara, who said “When I give food to the poor, they call me a
            saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”

            The problem was that the poor under Communism not just had no rights, they were also terribly exploited and kept in line by fear.

            Most of them had no food either.

            Your Green/Communist proposed future, has been tried before.

            Millions died, the rest lived an Orwell non life with no freedom.

          • Stephen Gray

            Do you remember that prayer that goes “Lord, give me the courage to change the things I can, the serenity to accept the things I can’t, and the wisdom to know the difference”? That’s how I approach this issue. We live in a society that is not Christian (except, perhaps, in a nominal sense), and in this case, I believe we will achieve more by preaching the gospel than we will by trying to persuade non-Christians to legislate our moral standards.

            And I am not a communist – in either the Marxist or the State Socialist sense. Neither are my party’s policies. Neither was Archbishop Camara, but right-wingers used the term as an insult simply because he was suggesting that some people are poor because of social and economic factors beyond their control. Your responses to me suggest that you have a similar mindset to the people he was talking about.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Well you do give that impression, dear Stephen…

          • Stephen Gray

            There’s nothing I’ve said in this discussion that would give a neutral observer the impression of me being a communist. I can only assume that you are either working on the assumption that Green Party members are all communists, that you have a rather unique definition of communism that encompasses social democrats, or that you think the term can be generalised to include people whose views disagree with yours in the same way that the word fascist has, in common usage, become a generic insult more often than it is used to describe a particular set of political ideologies.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Spot on.

          • Phil R

             “some people are poor because of social and economic factors beyond their control.”

            I agree totally, the Bible tells us that.

            The first paragraph above indicates that you do not regard serving God as the most important. Once we start compromising as you suggested. Soon we have nothing.

            Early Christians understood this perfectly. They stood firm even at huge personal cost. Why? Because we are saved by Grace and if this is true God can ask anything of us.

            BTW the Lutherans in the 1930s thought exactly the same as you.

          • Stephen Gray

            Phil,

            I absolutely view serving God as the most important priority. I believe that part of my particular role in serving God is engaging in politics, and I feel that is best worked out for me in the Green Party. I have good friends with similar callings in other political parties, and will happily support them in working that out. In politics, in order to achieve anything, you have to work with those you disagree with. The only way to find a political party where you agree with all its policies is to start your own, and be left on the sidelines.

            When it comes to compromises, I think you’ve missed an important piece of perspective. I would never compromise on first-order issues. But the Bible does tell us to compromise in some circumstances. In Romans 14 & 15, Paul tells us that there are some circumstances where we need to compromise on our personal convictions in order to help out other Christians who do not share them. And just one chapter earlier, in Romans 13 he’s telling us to submit to the governing authorities – presumably he means on issues where we disagree with them, otherwise why bother to mention it?

            The question is not “should we ever make compromises”, but “which compromises are incompatible with our faith, and which ones will achieve something that glorifies God?” You and I will presumably answer that question differently, and may never be able to agree one where to draw the line. In my case, I am aware that as a single human being, I am not able to do everything. I focus most of my energies on the things I believe God has specifically called me to do. I trust that God will ensure that the other things get covered by the rest of the body of Christ.

            Also, if you want to engage with a fallen world, you can’t just condemn everyone and everything you disagree with. You have to love people, and be willing to bear with them. You have to meet them where they’re at, rather than expecting them to clean up their act before you’ll even talk. That approach applies as much to political engagement as it does to evangelism and social action.

            As for your comments on policies, there’s nothing I’m aware of in Green Party policy that would make everyone poor, take away people’s self-respect, or levy unfair taxes on families who can’t afford to pay them. Our aims as a party include reducing the number of people in poverty, building a society where everybody can have self-respect, and making sure that taxes are fairer by making the system more progressive (i.e. making sure that the amount you pay is better related to your ability to pay).

            If there are specific parts of our policy that you think will not achieve that, we can debate those (and, if you convince me, I might even propose a policy change). However, I suspect that this comment thread is not the best place to have that sort of discussion.

            God Bless

          • Phil R

            Stephen

            The easy bit first.

            “Also, if you want to engage with a fallen world, you can’t just condemn
            everyone and everything you disagree with. You have to love people, and
            be willing to bear with them. You have to meet them where they’re at,
            rather than expecting them to clean up their act before you’ll even
            talk. That approach applies as much to political engagement as it does
            to evangelism and social action.”

            Totally agree. (I am far harder with you than with non Christians,)

            I have read some of your blog and I agree with much of what you say.

            “make everyone poor, take away people’s self-respect, or levy unfair taxes on families who can’t afford to pay them.”

            Families need to be able to transfer the tax allowances between parents. Child care costs should either not be subsided or at least similar funds given to those mothers that choose to look after their own children.

            For many families day orphanages is the only option for financial survival and this cannot be a good thing.

            The poor.

            As an employer I see that many of the poor seem to have nothing the world values. No social skills, No qualifications. Some cannot even be pleasant. In the Bible the poor were allowed to glean and were allowed the produce of the 7th year. They still had to get off their backsides and gather it themselves. Hence some measure of self respect and every 7 years a chance to make money (as the rest of the population could not harvest)

            I could go on but as you say this is not the place

            On a personal note maybe God has placed you in the right place to witness.

            Blessings to you also

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Last paragraph sums it up beautifully…

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            You are communist…

        • CliveM

          I can agree, you don’t have the right answers.

        • ” There is evidence strongly suggesting that restrictions on abortion don’t actually save the lives of unborn children,”

          And no restrictions on abortions does, I suppose.

        • Phil R

          ” there is evidence strongly suggesting that restrictions on abortion don’t actually save the lives of unborn children,”

          Really…….

          So in the US 55 million babies have been murdered since row vs wade.

          So where is your evidence for a potentially higher total?????

        • Then your views as a Christian are appeasement and accommodation to the world. Jack votes for a candidate and not a party. He would not vote for you. Get individual morality right and you’ll get the family right. The economy and the environment will follow, You have put the cart before the horse – as all ‘progressive’ Christians do.

        • Watchman

          Do you think God abandonned His view of marriage as a result on our cultural change?

        • William Lewis

          As a party, we may not have the right answers, but I think we’re the only ones asking the right questions.

          The green movement has a history of getting the answers so badly wrong that it actually has blood on its hands. Do we know how many extra malaria deaths there have been due to campaigns to stop the use of DDT? And what about nuclear power? How much less CO2 would have been emitted if we had embraced nuclear sooner?

          • CliveM

            But it’s “progressive”.

          • William Lewis

            Oh well. That’s OK then.

          • RuariJM

            I agree with you on nuclear power but not about DDT. As a cure, it was heading to be far worse than the disease. Its effects continue today, as it is given to suckling young through mothers’ milk. It simply doesn’t decay.

    • Ricayboy

      Sorry Stephen but I can’t understand the attraction of the Green Party unless you’re a completely liberal Christian who believes in the ‘inclusive’ gospel of social good words rather than the narrow way that Christ spoke of.

      The Greens are no friends of biblical Christianity. They are a humanist, self-righteous group that will probably end up persecuting true Christians for being bigots.

      • Stephen Gray

        Hi Ricayboy,

        I have to say that your opinion is at odds with my experience of the Green Party. Whilst there are humanists in the party, I can point to such people in all the main political parties (humanism would, I think, be a good description of the actual religious beliefs of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband). Not one of them has ever come across as self-righteous persecutors of Christianity when I have mentioned my (Evangelical) Christian faith. The strongest negative reaction I have ever received is somebody saying that they are fine with my faith, as long as I don’t shove it down their throat.

        I take the same view of social good works that Calvin did – they are something that Christians do as a result of our being saved, rather than being the aim of our faith. Salvation comes only through Christ’s death and resurrection, and is the thing that human beings most need.

        However, as Christians, our response to our salvation will necessarily be good works. Loving God with our whole being will inevitably lead us to love our neighbour as ourself. You may disagree with me that engaging in Green politics is a good way to work out loving our neighbour, but that’s a difference of detail, rather than one of principle. There are areas of Green Politics that fit very nicely with Christian faith (for some examples, see my blog response to this article at greenchristian.co.uk/2015/03/faith-and-the-green-party-do-mix/), there are others that do not sit quite so easily. But this is true of all political parties in all countries at all times in history. I believe God has called me to be salt and light in this particular context, just as others are called to be salt and light in the other political parties.

      • Stephen Gray

        Hi Ricayboy,

        I’m an Evangelical and very open about my faith. The most negative attitude towards my faith I’ve come across in the Green Party is people who are fine for me to be a Christian as long as I don’t shove the gospel down their throat. Yes, there are plenty of humanists in the party, but “humanist” would be a fairly accurate description of the religious beliefs of Cameron, Clegg, and Miliband (Cameron claims to be a Christian, but his public statements on the issue clearly show that he doesn’t understand the gospel).

        My view on good works tends towards the Calvinist. I think that they are something that should naturally result from our faith – and are certainly not the cause of it. If you are saved, then you will love God. And if you love God, then you can’t help but try to love your neighbour. The difference between Christians of different political stripes is that we disagree on the practical question of what approach will bring the biggest blessing to our neighbour. I think this is very different to the approach you describe as “the inclusive gospel”. Salvation is only available through Christ, and it comes by grace, through faith, and certainly not through works.

        As for the appeal of the Green Party to Christians, I wrote a
        response blog post to this at http://greenchristian.co.uk/2015/03/faith-and-the-green-party-do-mix/ which explains some of the policy areas that appeal to me because of my faith. I don’t expect you to agree with me about those policies, but I hope that if you read it, you might understand why at least some genuine Christians might find the Green Party appealing.

        • Ricayboy

          Hi Steve,

          It’s a pleasure to hear from you and thanks for taking the time to write such intelligent answers. It does help me a lot to hear real evangelicals who are Green supporters. I live in Brighton and the vast majority of Christians that I meet you support the Greens/Lib Dems etc tend to be theologically liberal and very sceptical of ‘conservative evangelicalism.’ As such, they are people with who I’d have little in common with theologically anyway. But I acknowledge that not all fall into this category.

          I agree that most other politicians and party leaders are pretty humanistic. I’m not claiming that there’s a true Christian party or that politics will solve all our problems. It just seems to me that those on the more socially conservative side of things tend to be more respectful of Christianity and its place as the proper foundation of our society. Of course we know that respecting Christianity is not the same as being a true Christian. The Greens and other people of similar persuasion seem to view ‘religion’ as divisive and especially what they would see as the archaic moral absolutes of the Bible. They wouldn’t mind a fluffy, multi-faith set up if Christianity was presented as one amongst many equally valid faiths but not the exclusive kind that claims to be the only right way for humanity.

          I agree 100% that good works should result from our faith and that we are not saved by works. I also agree 100% that we should love our neighbour. Many social justice issues concern me deeply (perhaps not as deeply as they should.) But the caricature of the greedy, grasping, bigoted right-winger is just that. I know many godly Christians who care deeply about the disadvantaged and yet who support parties such as the Conservatives and UKIP.

          I am dismayed by the way that anybody who might have the temerity to suggest that the level of immigration the country is experiencing is too high is ‘racist.’ The British establishment seem to be intent on destroying the foundations of our society (the traditional family, healthy patriotism etc) whilst shutting up those few souls who refuse to go along with its one-world, internationalist agenda. This is happening to Bible-believing Christians who are already feeling pressure from non-Christians and liberal Christians about being ‘bigoted’ and ‘exclusive.’ It is happening to political and social conservatives who are being portrayed as dinosaurs from another age, on the wrong side of history, dangerous fanatics who need to be silenced. Where’s it all going to end?

          For me the Green Party is dangerous because it hides its intolerance under a bushel of shiny, smiley ‘tolerance.’ If it had its way the world we live in would be unrecognisable and not in a good way. Like all socialist parties it bases itself on the premise that people are basically good and that we need to eradicate unjust structures and poverty to make the world a better place. The Bible doesn’t tell us that people are basically good, it tells us that our position is desperately lost without Christ. Right wing parties acknowledge that this world is flawed and try to make the best of it. Left wingers tend to be utopian but their utopia is not usually based on the Lordship of Christ.

          I don’t know what your view on eschatology is but I feel that there are verses in Bible prophecy – in Daniel and Revelation in particular – which seem to indicate that there will be a global empire in the last days headed by the Antichrist. It is my suspicion that the EU is a component part of this empire. It also seems that the younger generation is being educated to accept this godless global system. That is why schools and the media are relentlessly pushing cultural Marxism on children and young people. This is a post-modern, multi-faith, multi-cultural, pluralistic new world dominated by technology and worship of ecology. People who don’t go along with this agenda will be ruthlessly persecuted. It could happen in our lifetimes and yet we meekly seem to accept it.

          The Bible says ” the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.”

          I agree that we should be busy doing good until Christ returns but we should not get too hung up about this dying and doomed world. We are called to look forward to the return of Christ. Some Christians seem to think that we will be able to ‘Christianise’ the world before Christ returns and somehow return it to its pristine state. But I don’t see that. We are aliens and strangers here. Our job is to do good to others but the greatest good is to do what Jesus said and “preach the gospel to all creation” in order that some might be saved.

          It’s sad to see that many churches have lost their gospel edge and water down the Word of God. They end up as insipid centres of Christian socialism focusing all their efforts on befriending the world and trying to improve people’s lives in this life – as though all that mattered. Nobody will persecute for this kind of ‘gospel’ and it is not the gospel for which many believers around the world are being persecuted.

          Sorry if I sound a bit harsh. I respect you and your views.

          God bless,

          John

        • Ricayboy
  • Shadrach Fire

    Many so called ‘Christians’ voted for SSM and other measures that are opposed by the Gospel. Many, as has been proved by the census, claim Christianity but have no resemblance to a Christian. You just can’t believe what they say.

  • Darter Noster

    It is utterly wrong and unfair to suggest that the Greens discriminate against people by making them leave their faith at the door! They make them leave their understanding of economics, history and human nature too!

    The Green Party is open to all people who have no common sense, regardless of race, creed or colour!

    • I’ll second that. I think it’s safe to say the Greens are absolutely
      barking mad and as fanatical as any communist or fascist regime!
      People are asked to leave their beliefs at the door so that they
      might be open to being brainwashed by the policies of hippies.

      They also want rights for animals (you couldn’t kill any) and wardens to
      oversee their welfare. How would we get rid of rodents then?

      It’s one thing to support animal welfare in farming, but they want to
      phase out factory animal farming which feeds the bulk of the
      population and put the nation on a diet of lentils and beans instead
      but ideally we should all become vegans! They’ll have us on drugs
      and the country’s economy would grind to a halt as they turn us into
      a nation of part time work from home basket weavers!

      • CliveM

        But it’s “progressive”!

      • They’re so bizarre it’s hilarious.

    • Arden Forester

      Nicely put. Many Greens are paragons of a virtue known only to themselves.

  • Graham

    “Their hostility toward the State of Israel and their desire to abolish the Monarchy aren’t going to help either.” – OK, now you’ve lost me. Since when were these specifically Christian issues? Do French Catholics only join parties that demand the reinstatement of the monarchy? And perhaps you’re confusing the Israeli State with the Israelite nation – who’s descendants include holy land Christians who are treated as second class citizens by the state of Israel (as well as being targeted by Islamist Palestinians).

    Also, 61% of people may have defined as Christian for the census, but that’s largely a measure of cultural affiliation and pretty meaningless. I’ll let God judge the desire’s of people’s hearts, thanks.

    • Linus

      You are right. Virtually all French royalists are Catholics, but that doesn’t mean that all French Catholics are royalists. Far from it. Only the looniest and most extreme facho-catho-foldingues seriously support the restoration of the unfortunate Orléans family. Even fewer argue for the Spanish grandson of Franco who represents the Bourbon line.

      The vast majority of Catholics in France are as republican as any Atheist. Their interest in monarchy is limited to whatever gaudy dress the dangerously thin Spanish queen might be wearing, or how much money her in-laws might or might not have embezzled, or the salacious details of the various sex scandals that plague the British and Monégasque royals. Monarchy is tabloid fodder here. It is not a serious political force.

  • Inspector General

    If ever there was a case of real politik in action it’s the Greens. Or to describe them more accurately, the ‘Green and Militant Homosexual Alliance Party’. Our Green fascists know only too well that their continued existence at parliamentary level is wholly dependent on the sexually alternatives who live in Brighton Pavilion in great numbers. They have the nous to understand seats are going to be hard to come by, so everything at the moment hangs on keeping the homo activists sweet. You can imagine the problems that entails!

    So, when Christine Summers uttered her blasphemy in the High Temple, she had to go. That was the instruction from queer on high. Air brushed out, Stalin style.

    Not that this man has any sympathy with Ms Summers. She was working for a party that was intent on stopping us eating animals, because animals have rights, apparently. That animals in the wild eat other animals is not the point. Humanity will have to survive on seeds and other veggy things when the Greens come to power. (By the way, things don’t look too bright for you pet owners either. Read the manifesto.)

    Oddly enough, Green activism and homosexual activism do have much in common. Both are fascist inclined. The queers want to persecute any who criticise them with hate laws that they will draft. How’s that for a future climate of fear. And the Greens aren’t going to bring an entire country down the road to vegetarianism without ushering in a new dark age of state monitoring of what the population are up to, specifically what their stomach contents consist of, as well as suspicions that your obese cat is down to your negligence. A future felonious (furronious?) crime to come, as well as being a carbon criminal.

    Thankfully, none of this will ever come about, so long as you esteemed crowd can see through the Green party, and difficult that ain’t.

    • Busy Mum

      It’s quite scary that my daughter only knows of one other sixth former who is NOT going to vote Green, though!

      • RuariJM

        Luckily, the minimum voting age has not been lowered sufficiently (16) to enable the majority of 6th-formers to vote.

      • Ricayboy

        No surprise. They’ve brainwashed an entire generation and have done a very good job of it. Cultural Marxism is openly promoted.

  • Inspector General

    You’ll find the Greens ‘economic policy’ based on the loose concept that all property is theft, and all wealth is greed, and all inequality is immoral. Prosperity is especially bad because it’s not sustainable they will tell you. And of course there is the eternal shame that while we do relatively well, the third worlders are confined to mud huts with straw roofs because we’re not prepared to pay the true price for a jar of coffee. About £ 20 or there abouts. That’s how developed their thoughts are. If mankind is involved, then it has to be bad, unless we’re led by them, and then we will do good while they hold the whip.

    Today, the Greens are nothing more than the old Communist party doing the gardening. But it wasn’t always like that. In the 1970s they were a well-respected pressure group, with notable types on board. Then came the inevitable “but we could do more if we were a fully-fledged political party”. The notables didn’t hang around when the militants had their way. Why should they, they’d been in the same room as them for years, and knew well all the madcap ideas that would be brought to the fore by deranged activists.

    Overnight, a pressure group that had influence with any Government on environmental issues found themselves ignored as the potential rivals that they were. Governments aren’t going to listen when political scoring is at stake. Not when an environmentally sound alteration to government planning which might result would be celebrated by another political party crowing “It was we what done it”. And yes, that’s how political parties work. Pinching ideas off other political parties, and grabbing the praise for it. Ironic as the green pressure group that was would have been delighted to hand them out for free, for the sake of the planet. Not on small minded people’s obsessions about the perceived wrongs of our capitalist driven economy.

    • Phil R

      There has always been nutters in the Green Party

      As a teenager, I attended a meeting when among other madcap things the speaker suggested that the Army, Navy and RAF be disbanded.

      So I asked later how does the Green Party hope to defend the UK after this point?

      He stated that the policy was not fully developed…………

      But he stated that many thought that arming the population was a good idea. When pressed he suggested that everyone be given a gun from age 16 and each village (Rural Wales) be given a tank or field gun to defend their patch.

      Perhaps they should trial it first in say Doncaster, Roterham or Luton to see how the policy pans out?

      • Inspector General

        Ah yes, the old ‘peoples militia’ dream. Very Trotskyite. The only difference between the Greens and the Socialist Workers Party is the latter flies their hammer and sickle against a red flag.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          Not at all dear Inspector…we had the yeomanry and local militia in England for centuries…honest citizens defending themselves…

          • Inspector General

            Things have moved on, dear lady. When it comes to local defence against modern armies, the only items you need are a spade, and instructions on how to dig a hole large enough to hide in…

          • dannybhoy

            I doubt Mrs Proudie would ever hide….

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Certainly not.. I would be on the barricade loading a musket…

          • Inspector General

            Napalm is what you need, dear thing. They don’t like it burning on them, you know…

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            You mean the Holy Fire of Antioch?

          • Inspector General

            Yes, that blessed incendiary device. Not to be confused with the holy hand grenade from the same place.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Well I often wear the Blessed Bustle of St. Blastemall when doing battle with the dark forces of unbelief…or socialists as we now call them…

        • Anton

          Not such a bad idea. Compare the size of the police and our armed forces with the number of dedicated jihadists, and then with the number of people in Britain who are against it becoming Islamic.

          • Inspector General

            Now Now Anton. The future low level civil war in England is beyond our remit tonight….

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector would like to announce how cathartic he found posting tonight. Of all his enemies, the Greens are the ones, once he has them sprawling on the ground, where he will deliberately aim his boot at the kidneys…

  • Don_Borleone

    Why single out the Greens (I mean, seriously, why)? They’re not the only party any Christian of integrity would have to hold their nose pretty firmly in order to join. To take two examples which will betray my own political persuasion:

    Conservatives: “He has filled the hungry with good things, but has sent the rich away empty.” Luke 1v53

    UKIP: “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.” Exodus 23v9.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      “Do not oppress a foreigner”
      Quite right, but that is not the same thing as controlling immigration. It is not oppression to say there’s not enough room here, please find another country. The Bible, and therefore God, does respect the idea of nation and national culture/religion. Thus Solomon, with his mny wives helped to bring about the division of Israel. He did this through his extravegance and indulgence of his foreign wives by allowing the country to be full of shrines to their foreign gods. All this on top of heavy taxation. It was like an early failed experiment in multi-culturalism, rather like we have in Britain today.

      • dannybhoy

        If the Almighty had multiculturalism earmarked as the answer for errant mankind, He wouldn’t have had told Moshe Rabbenu to include Genesis 11…
        “8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city…”
        It is in our nation states that we have the freedom to learn and evaluate and build our culture in that which we value as trustworthy.
        This is why so many in the rest of the world -including the Islamic world- want to escape to the Christian West..

        • Grouchy Jack

          Surely the issue is not different ethnic groups – but the different faith systems and world views they bring?

          • dannybhoy

            Yes you’re right. Separating the two things is a bit tricky though.
            Even amongst our own people there are differences between North and South, historic county attitudes dialects, fear or hostility towards the stranger etc.
            I had four years in the West Midlands. I was glad to move south again.
            I heard on a tv programme someone -oh yes, Trevor Philips’s programme- an ex policeman talking about ‘sundown segregation..’
            People shopping and working together during the day and returning to their own communities at night,

          • “I had four years in the West Midlands. I was glad to move south again.”
            Try Scotland. Been here 26 years now.

          • dannybhoy

            Purgatory’s a pain, ain’t it!
            Seriously though Claude, the differences between peoples are a knotty problem. Whether it be physical appearance or cultural behaviours we react to difference.
            I’m idealistic. I want to treat all men the same, I like to think I would help anybody out and stick up for the outsider.
            My own experience is that one can do this on a one to one basis, build up an understanding and mutual respect, laugh together etc. Yet as soon as that relationship is exposed to the wider community it comes under stress. I think perhaps because the claims of group loyalty and identity kick in.
            Of course as an older man it may just be a generational thing that younger people have overcome. What do other people think?

      • Grouchy Jack

        Plus, having all those birds about the place would be very distracting and quite exhausting.

    • Phil R

      Red Terror? Great leap forward anyone?

      Your total stands around 85 to 100 million Don

      UKIP and the Conservatives have a bit of catching up to do with your side it seems.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        I agree with Phil…the death tally on the socialist side far far outweighs any on the right…

    • Darter Noster

      Fair point.

      Frankly, if you’ve read the Green Party manifesto and come away with their attitude to Christianity as your biggest concern, you should probably have another flick through…

    • Grouchy Jack

      Another ‘progressive’ Christian wanting to become an NGO?

    • Ricayboy

      UKIP don’t advocate oppressing foreigners. They advocate a sensible immigration policy.

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    Wasn’t Robespierre called ‘ the sea-green incorruptible?’ That ended badly…

  • Kiran Page Singh Lotay

    Here is a link to a document containing the Green Party’s full reasoning for expelling Christina Summers: http://blog.scrapperduncan.com/2012/09/14/brighton-hove-green-party-disciplinary-inquiry-panel-decision-re-christina-summers/

    It is worth reading all of it. Of particular note is all of para 7. (i), which also contains this significant statement:

    “Councillor Summers made it plain to the panel that she sincerely believes that she acted in accordance with her understanding of the Declaration and did not breach any agreement or Declaration. While the panel did not agree with her interpretation, it concluded that her actions in this regard do not in and by themselves constitute sufficient grounds for disciplinary action against her (though they do constitute grounds as part of a wider pattern of behaviour – see (ii) below). She stated that she voted and spoke in accordance with her interpretation of the Declaration and her conscience, and she followed Green Party guidelines in doing so. The fact that in so doing she acted contrary to Green Party policy does not in itself make her subject to disciplinary action – the Green Party does not operate a whip, and representatives are in principle free to vote according to their beliefs and views. Nor do her vote and speech indirectly constitute grounds for disciplinary action (in the judgement of the panel) by ‘bringing the party into disrepute’.”

    I do not trust the leadership of the Green Party, or any of the political parties, for many of the reasons given by Gillian in this article (it should be noted that many of the issues he highlighted in the Green Party also apply to every major party). However, I do not think that this particular article has been researched as well as has come to be expected from both writers of this blog. A number of accusations have been levelled at the Greens (based on assumptions which I, prior to reading the comments thread, believed and shared) which do not do them justice. In the interest of fairness and proper debate, it would seem that a great deal of learning and discussion needs to take place, if the comments thread is anything to go by. Thank you to those Christians from the Green party who have responded, I have learnt a great deal and your contributions have helped me in my quite agonised deliberations over who on earth to vote for.

    Yours in Christ,

    Kiran

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Dear Kiran, get a grip

      • Grouchy Jack

        Poor soul …. he needs to man up, so to speak. Look what feminism is doing.

        • Inspector General

          One has replied to them before. Unfortunately, the white lady and her gentleman of colour prefer to dish it out and to avoid defending their stance…

          • Grouchy Jack

            Passive aggressive types …. and very indecisive, allegedly.

          • Inspector General

            They do look like brother and sister in an unsettling way. Him being left out in the sun all day…

          • Grouchy Jack

            Now, now …. there are lines one should not cross, Inspector. Jack thinks they’re covert agents for the Greens.

          • Inspector General

            Only women over thirty should be given the vote…

          • Grouchy Jack

            Women shouldn’t vote at all – and only men in full time employment should vote.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Steady….

          • Darter Noster

            By their standards, this is

          • Grouchy Jack

            Okay …. women, over thirty, who have been married to men, in a Christian service, for over fifteen years.

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            Bishops’ wives in fact…excellent!

          • Bishops have no business marrying, Mrs P.

          • The Explorer

            St Paul does not agree with you.

          • … or those men who have retired after a minimum of 30 years gainful employment.
            [Happy Jack wouldn’t want to be disenfranchised]

          • Anton

            Private or public employment?

          • Kiran Page Singh Lotay

            If you wish to engage with what I’ve posted, I will converse with you. So far all that has been offered is insult and racially suggestive mocking.

          • Inspector General

            Give the racial bit a rest, will you. We’re bloody sick and tired in the West for fear of identifying a man of sub continent heritage as such. Bloody big deal. This man here is Irish, a mick, a bog trotter if you will. Happy now?

            If you really are in the mood to parley, off you go, but it’s lights out soon here and you may get your reply tomorrow evening….

          • Kiran Lotay

            Just tell me what you disagree with in the post I wrote, point by point. My history, and yours, is irrelevant except as it shapes our thinking on the topic discussed. By all means, shred, insult
            insult and mock my thinking. Your comments are often funny and quite enjoyable.

            Yours in christ,

            Kiran

          • Inspector General

            Here it is. “In the interest of fairness and proper debate, it would seem that a great deal of learning and discussion needs to take place, if the comments thread is anything to go by. ”

            Learning means indoctrination, Does the Greens hold that they can get the country’s voters on board from what they present, or are we in for a time of illumination, to give politeness to the idea that we are quite ignorant of the facts as you know them, and thus are badly informed about issues such as the global warming scam that even this government ignores in its desire to expand airport capacity, with air flight for a hundred or so passengers being the very worst in carbon emissions….

          • Kiran Lotay

            Thank you. Firstly, I don’t support the greens and do not trust them at all. However, I would like that disagreement and distrust to be based in fact, not narratives that I come to via limited data filtered through prejudice. The specific issue I addressed was the expulsion of Christina summer. I previously understood the story in a particular way which didn’t do justice to what actually happened.

            I also found it instructive to learn why Christians who support or stand for the greens do so, especially with regards to their experience differing from summers. These were the comments I referred to. If I’m going to bash something, it is more useful to bash what is there (if it is bash worthy) rather than the inventions of my own misconception.

          • Inspector General

            Ah, that’s easy enough. Do refer to this man’s posts further down where you will find all you need to know about the Greens and why what happened to Christine Summer had to happen….

            Rather hope ALL Christians who support the Greens view here and understand the heartless manipulative and selfish master they are working for…

          • dannybhoy

            This is not the first time that Kiran Lotay has come in for verbal flak on this blog. Call me stoopid (again) but why is this? Is there some past history?

          • Kiran Page Singh Lotay

            No, there is not. I have only commented twice on this blog in my memory, and have no previous history of engagement. I don’t mind the ridiculing of my ideas, it’s a fair way of intellectual sparring and it comes with the arena of online forums. I don’t like it when it gets personal though.

          • dannybhoy

            Well then I agree. One should never insult people, especially brothers and sisters in Christ.
            Especially old people.
            Like me..
            I am not a fan of the Green Party although I like most thinking Christians believe we should care for our world. May I ask how long you have been a Christian? You are from a Sikh background no?

          • Kiran Page Singh Lotay

            I’ve been a Christian for 10ish years. My grandfather was an active Sikh, but none of his children, including my father, continued this. So it’s more heritage than anything else. What I’m interested in is giving the Greens a fair trial. They’re still failing that in my opinion, but as I said I would rather argue against what is there rather than what is not.

          • dannybhoy

            Thanks. Did you read my response to Rachel’s post?

          • Kiran Page Singh Lotay

            Just have. I thought Rachael’s post was a tad idealistic too. The phrase “Mosaic dream” runs the risk of implying that the Greens are “God’s own party”, which I actually doubt she wishes to do at all. However, it’s important to ask why some Christians find that Green policies resonate so strongly with their concern (which comes from studying the Scriptures, one hopes) for the poor, and for the renewal of the economy. For some the reason might be that both Green policy and Biblical themes have been simplified sufficiently enough to fit together “perfectly”, but I think for other the process is more critical and judicious, especially for some of the other Green party members who have commented in this thread. That said, none of this has convinced me that supporting the Greens is a good idea. Simply that it is important to be fair to them.

          • dannybhoy

            I know from my time in the West Midlands that the Sikh population tend to be a very hard working and moral people.
            The idea of working hard and developing our talents is a Scriptural precept. The injunction to look after the poor includes the idea of providing work for the unemployed and allowing the (devout) rich man to do with his wealth as his God centred conscience dictates.
            The Welfare State concept of benefits idleness finds no echo in the Scriptures.
            So we who believe in a free market economy influenced by our Christian values and concerns for God’s world are on the right track I think. I have had eighteen years in unpaid voluntary work, but would never join the Green Party because frankly, I think they are incredibly naieve and ultimately anti Christian.
            Like others here I am a UKIP supporter, but still retain core Conservative values.
            I wish you well, brother Kiran.

    • Inspector General

      The Inspector is outraged at being suggested to that continued ‘learning’ will put him right on the Green party. House of Correction, you shall not have this man….

      Remember all you who value your freedom, the Soviets were there first….

    • LoveMeIamALiberal

      I don’t understand your point. The Greens expelled this woman because merely expressing a different view on same sex marriage was deemed to bring the party into disrepute. And another of her faults was “taking part in a public anti-abortion vigil outside Wistons clinic on at least two occasions, thereby acting against GP policy”. Now all political parties have treated abortion as an issue on which personal conscience can be exercised, but this does not apply to the Greens, who want to dictate what candidates must believe. Their reasoning in this case damns them still further in my eyes.

      • Kiran Page Singh Lotay

        You have a point. What business is it of the Green party if their members attend a prayer vigil, if that’s what it was? What made me think twice was the claim that the councilor concerned publicised the inquiry to the extent that it put her loyalty to the Greens as a party (rather than to their policy) into question. It’s quite nebulous as to what constitutes “bringing the party into disrepute”, which is noted in the document I linked to, so there is space for abuse of that according to prejudice. However, it’s not as simple as 1 disagreement with policy = expulsion, which is how the narrative has been spun in certain Christian circles.

        • LoveMeIamALiberal

          That she should be punished for publicising the inquiry makes matters even worse. The Green Party aspires to govern and yet its own governance includes punishing those seek to bring transparency to how it conducts itself.

          • Kiran Page Singh Lotay

            A very good point. Any GP members care to comment?

    • Anna055

      The comments give various reasons which didn’t lead to her expulsion, but I’m not clear what did lead to it. Do you know what it was?

      Like you, I’m struggling to know who to vote for. I think the EU has been a disaster environmentally as well as socially and in other ways, but I’m not too keen on some of the attitudes of UKIP folks, even though some of their policies make sense. I don’t feel I can vote for the Conservative party who steamrollered through the gay marriage bill and lied about their supposed greenness. The Green party is the only party which has the sense to see that poisoning our groundwater (fracking) is not the best way to ensure our children’s future health, but their social policies seem to be as disastrous as Labour’s were. Labour’s social policies are the main reason I couldn’t vote for them, even though I appreciate their good intentions. The Liberals are just a slightly more upper middle class, and often further left, version of Labour as far as I can see……..so where does that leave me? If only someone would run on an pro environment and anti europe ticket, with commonsense (small c conservative) social policies thrown in for good measure if possible. Pigs might fly!!

      • Kiran Page Singh Lotay

        Quite! My wife had the same problem. Taking a policy agreement test rendered an almost exactly equal split between five parties…

        As to what actually led to Summer’s expulsion, it would seem that the publicity given to the in party proceedings through (apparently unauthorised) media interactions which repeatedly criticised the Green Party made things worse and hardened the position of each side rather than enabling mutual understanding and dialogue (whether this would have helped at all is another question entirely). Also they mention a “pattern of behavior” in Summer’s activities which put her at odds with Green party policy on a number of issues. The way they paint it (which may be very, very spun) is that it became obvious through her actions that Cllr. Summers disagreed with the Green party so fundamentally that it was inappropriate for her to continue to be a member. I don’t think I believe that, but as I’ve said below, the narrative circulating in some Christian communities of “1 disagreement with Green Party policy = expulsion” is not the entire truth either.

        The more I think about it, I’m not sure that the actuality of what happened paints the Greens as any less insidious. If the case is “you can disagree a little bit if we give you permission, but cross an invisible line and you’re gone”, that is not a good culture to be voting into power. Could one of the GP members who have commented clarify how disagreement works within their party?

        • Anna055

          Thanks for the explanation- I must say I wonder if someone just wanted her out! I joined the greens for a short time about 30 years ago, but then realised how very new agey they were and decided not to renew membership.

  • Mike

    My objection to this blog is not theological or political, but statistical. You’re muddling up conditional probabilities in the time honoured fashion of such things. For example, you state: “of 14,000 people, 68% of those intending to vote Conservative were Christians [and] 48% for Labour” and then go on to state “So the Conservatives continue to attract strong support from Christians”. This is a statistical non-sequitur without knowing more details. To take an extreme (but theoretically possible) version of events, if only 10 people of the 14,000 had decided to vote Conservative and 7 of those 10 were Christians, but 10,000 of the 14,000 decided to vote Labour and 4800 of them were Christians then, roughly speaking, your first assertion would be correct, but the second would scarcely be true .

    • Inspector General

      Don’t be a condescending arse and sigh at the end. There’s a good fellow….

    • What are you going on about?

      Surely the point is that the majority of Conservative and UKIP voters are Christian, less than half of Labour voters are Christian and a quarter of Green supporters are Christian? And from the evidence of this thread, those claiming to be Christian are, let’s say, lukewarm.

      • carl jacobs

        He’s right, you know.

        • Grouchy Jack

          About Manchester United? Nonsense. Their support both in Manchester and worldwide is far greater.

        • Hmmm ….

          So there could be more Christians in the Green Party than in the Conservative Party? This depends on the overall numbers supporting the Green’s and then determining religious convictions?
          Jack is no mathematician …. but if 61% of the country is Christian, does this shed more light on the information?

      • Mike

        The point is that the blog author asserts that Conservatives attract strong support from Christians from the data that he cites, whereas this cannot be verified without further information. The probability that a conservative voter is Christian is around 68% from the data above, but the probability that a Christian is a Conservative voter is not the same thing and is not discernible from the numbers quoted. It’s a bit like the probability that someone who supports Manchester Utd is from Manchester not being the same as the probability that someone from Manchester supports Man Utd, The first figure feels like it’s less than 1%, given the worldwide support for the club, but the second one might be 10% or more.

        • Linus

          Lies, damn’ lies and statistics, eh?

          Christian politicians like those who run this blog are old hands at misquoting statistics in an attempt to manipulate others into submitting to their beliefs.

          Either it’s plain dishonesty, or they’re so dazed by the dogmatic certainties of their belief system that they become incapable of following an argument through to its logical end.

          Either way, it stands as a splendid example of the harm dogmatic belief does. It either turns you into a crook or a blind zealot. Which is worse, I wonder?

      • Anton

        On the point of logic he raises he is entirely correct. I have researched in statistical physics.

  • carl jacobs

    Wow. You absent yourself for a day and look what happens.

    This thread sorely needs a definition of ‘Christian.’ The correct answer is not “Someone who claims he is a Christian” or “Someone who claims to be a follower of Christ.” An answer would go a long way towards resolving this question of “Can a Christian be a Green Party member.” Because I’m pretty sure that different definitions are being used.

    • Technically, they would have to be Roman Catholic – or at least follow the social teachings of the Church.

      • carl jacobs

        Well, that leaves me out. I guess I’ll buy some Tarot Cards, and some crystals, and find a Green Party Coven to join.

        Has anyone seen that collection of Magic Scrolls I left around here?

        • Lol … Jack can picture you mediating in the Lotus position and chanting for enlightenment. Your recent Unitarian experience will come in handy.

          • carl jacobs

            Ah! There they are.

            Mandavi et potestas tenebrarum. Iratus es, an purpura Herpothamnus.

            For a small price, I might change my mind.

          • Grouchy Jack

            Quod enim Latini Grrrr ……. ?

    • Watchman

      “Beware of the false prophets! They come to you wearing sheep’s clothing, but underneath they are hungry wolves! 16 You will recognize them by their fruit. Can people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every healthy tree produces good fruit, but a poor tree produces bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, or a poor tree good fruit. 19 Any tree that does not produce good fruit is cut down and thrown in the fire! 20 So you will recognize them by their fruit. 21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, only those who do what my Father in heaven wants. 22 On that Day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord! Didn’t we prophesy in your name? Didn’t we expel demons in your name? Didn’t we perform many miracles in your name?’ 23 Then I will tell them to their faces, ‘I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness !’ (Matt 7, CJB)

    • Anton

      If you want to know what our Greens look like, consider your EPA under Obama.

  • PaulMcKechnie

    ‘Damn your principles, stick to your party!’

    Only–wait a moment–it was a Conservative who said that.

  • Rachel Collinson

    Here’s my response to this blog post: http://newhamgreenparty.com/2015/03/25/jesus-and-the-greens/

    • Busy Mum

      How do you square ‘true economic equality being feasible’ with Jesus’ declaration that we will always have the poor with us?

      • columbo

        What’s your point, Busy Mum?

        • Busy Mum

          Are they trying to defy Jesus and prove Him wrong?

          • You mean if we try to care for the poor we are defying Jesus?

          • Busy Mum

            No. ‘True economic equality’ means we are all equally poor, in which case nobody would be able to improve anyone else’s lot – or all equally rich in which case there will be no poor to care for.

      • CliveM

        You know in one sense it doesn’t matter. I don’t care how fluffy bunny the Greens policies are. It’s not important. What I object about them most is that they are almost criminally insane. Their tax policies don’t matter, because by the time they are finished there will be no economy left to tax.

      • Pubcrawler

        Is it a prediction? Or a rebuke to Judas for using concern for the poor as a proxy/cover for his own less noble sentiments or ambitions?

        • Busy Mum

          It doesn’t matter which – both probably – I daresay the rebuke to Judas is equally applicable to the entire left wing.

    • dannybhoy

      The more I discovered about the Green Party, the more I realised
      that I might finally have found a political home for my theological
      conclusions. A party that has dared to paint a picture of world
      where our economy isn’t based on crippling personal debt; where the
      creation of money is democratised; where true economic equality is
      feasible; where the playing field for all people is level. I think I’d
      call it – not the American Dream, but the Mosaic Dream.”

      That was the moment I joined a political party for the first time. The
      more I learnt about the Green Party, the more I realised that they speak
      for people like me. More and better social housing, energy security, a
      million new jobs, cheaper heating bills, no more pointless wars… what’s
      not to like?

      Wise as serpents Rachel, and as harmless as doves..

      ” I think I’d call it – not the American Dream, but the Mosaic Dream.”

      The Mosaic dream? Moshe Rabbenu was not a Hebrew forerunner of Martin Luther King: he didn’t have ‘a dream’, he had a command; from the Almighty. The Hebrews were a people in the making a holy nation unto God. A Therocracy even.

      Try sharing that vision with your Green Party faithful!

      Moving on..

      “The Green Party have plans to build 500,000 new council houses, paid for by social rents and by ending tax cuts for landlords.

      ” As you’d expect, the Green Party take a tough line on pollution. The
      main cause here is industry and transport, particularly our buses and
      trains that still run on diesel! I’d campaign to get them changed to
      hybrid or fully electric vehicles, meaning that our children’s lungs
      will be full of clean air rather than poisonous gases.”

      All very laudable, but in order to build those 500,000 new council homes you will need building materials like brick, cement, concrete, insulation, piping wiring. All have to be manufactured and all pollute the environment. Now true, yurts would be more eco friendly but selling the concept might be difficult…
      Then you’ve got the transportation of the building materials.. electric vehicles just wouldn’t cope would they?
      Not trying to rain on your idealistic parade, but what people agree with as a theory is not necessarily what they would accept as a solution to their needs and aspirations.
      Trust me. I’m a Christian.

    • Darter Noster

      Hello Rachel,

      Thank you for that response. I have no wish to question the sincerity of Green Christians, or to comment on how the party treats them; that’s up to you lot.

      The problem I have is that I believe that the Green Party, like many other Christians on the left, are going about the problem of financial inequality and poverty in very much the wrong way.

      You quote 1 Timothy 6 about the love of money, but you do not give the full verse, which reads: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, and in their eagerness to be rich some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pains.”

      Note SOME have wandered away, not ALL. It would be thoroughly illogical if it said anything else, because the early Christian communities pooled their resources and money amongst themselves; as many were poor and/or devoted themselves to preaching, teaching, community management etc., the early Christians could not have survived without people who pursued wealth and money, and then used that wealth to support the community. Many early Christians made a lot of money; what differentiated them from those who had wandered from the faith was how they used their wealth, not the fact that they made a lot of it. In other words, without wealth creators and benefactors the early Christians could not have survived and evangelised in the way that they did, and Paul knew this.

      If you are arguing that much of the way capitalism is conducted is immoral, then I would have to agree with you. Where the Greens and I differ is what you do about it. If you attempt to enforce Christian financial morality through the kind of heavy-handed, state-enforced wealth redistribution that your party favours then all you will end up with is the destruction of wealth creation, as has been seen every time it has ever been tried, with catastrophic consequences. You cannot give money to the poor if you do not have any in the first place; how, exactly, are you going to fund all this largesse if you drastically reduce the amount of wealth available? Christian capitalism will benefit the poor an awful lot more than Christian Socialism; much capitalism is not Christian, but you cannot force it to be through state action without killing the goose that lays the golden egg. What must happen is that the consciences of those creating wealth are transformed by the love of Christ voluntarily.

      You quote Swinson: “where the creation of money is democratised; where true economic equality is feasible;” These aims are a contradiction in terms; you cannot democratise the creation of money either by drastically restricting the ability of people to create it or by removing the incentive to do so through state redistribution.

      Capitalism is far from perfect, but whilst Christianity condemns the LOVE of money it does not condemn, and indeed relies on, the creation of money, which is precisely what Green Party policies would so disastrously affect. You cannot redistribute what you do not have, and you cannot fulfil the Christian duty of voluntary charity if you have nothing to give.

  • petej

    Surely, as with all other parties, some Christians will agree with their policies the most. I think the archbishop needs to remember that the faith we share is in Jesus Christ. Although this of course can inform our views on the matters listed above (most of the things he listed you get Christians on both sides) they shouldn’t replace the cross at the centre of our faith

  • That surprises me. It is a Christian duty to care for the environment and care for all God’s Creatures. Have Christians become too materialistic that they are neglecting their duty?

    Medjugorje Message, 25. March 2015

    “Dear children! Also today the Most High permits me to be with you and to lead you on the way of conversion. Many hearts have shut themselves to grace and have become deaf to my call. You, little children, pray and fight against temptation and all the evil plans which the devil offers you through modernism. Be strong in prayer and with the cross in your hands pray that evil may not use you and may not conquer in you. I am with you and pray for you. Thank you for having responded to my call.”

  • mollysdad

    The abortion and euthanasia position of the Green Party without allowance for conscience strongly suggests that the Party is a criminal organisation according to s51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

    Abortion was condemned as a crime against humanity in the case of United States v Greifelt and others [1948] – see paragraphs 2(b), 4 and 12 of the Indictment.

  • len

    ‘The Greens’ will tolerate no faith unless it is placed in Gaia?

    “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served
    something created instead of the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. ” ( Romans 1: 25

  • Colin Bell

    Counter to some views expressed here, there are plenty of active Christians in the Green Party, and (according to EA research recently published), evangelicals’ voting intentions are in line with the country at large.

    Whatever you think “Christian values” are, no party stands up for all of them, and it’s a bit rich to criticise the Green Party for its views on same-sex marriage and discrimination law given what both the Coalition and the last Labour government did in these areas! For me at least though, what the Greens are saying broadly about “care for the poor” is far closer to what I think Christians should want than the blessing of the rich through unregulated free market economics that the major parties have pursued since 1980.

    Does it matter that individual MPs are Christian or not? Obviously, to an extent. But many who profess faith haven’t really lived up to it when elected – there are plenty of examples. It’s more important how they act. (And this is also backed up by the same EA survey – only 32% say “being a Christian” is important for a candidate.)

    • mollysdad

      If the Green Party are fully behind the introduction of euthanasia and want to do away
      with the current law that requires the consent of two doctors for an
      abortion, then the Green Party is a criminal organisation.

      Abortion was declared to be a crime against humanity by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal.

      Whatever international law says is a crime against humanity is an offence under UK law by s51 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.

  • Catherine Green

    Tony Benn said: ” The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it – a bit like Christians in the Church of England.”

  • Guest

    The Green Party holds one major dilemma for Christians, which for that matter many of the ‘save the planet’ organisations share. Care of the planet is a fruit of serving God (the essence of what God told Adam and Eve) not ignoring its creator.

    However, the Green Party (and most of other of the ‘save the planet’ groups) do not acknowledge God as the creator. This means they worship the planet (hardly new, pagans have done this for thousands of years) and make it a god. I cannot support many worthy ‘green’ organisations because of dilemma.

    • Do the other main parties “acknowledge God as the creator”?

      • Guest

        My point is that the implicit assumption is that green policies are based on the idea that only man can solve the problems of our planet. It should not matter if individuals belive or do not believe that God created this world and still cares for it. The belief that God is the creator should not be a pre-condition or barrier to involvement.

        This is not the case with most political parties who implictly ask people to leave their faith at the door (plus common sense, good economic, history as stated by Darter Noster in this discussion). Faith is not the reason for involvement, otherwise we get a ‘party of God’ with all the problems that creates. Nor should faith be excluded as the motive for involvement.

        Adam had to care for the Garden of Eden. God delegated this work to mankind. There is much in the bible that is supportive of good ecological management of this world. Adam, a man of faith cared for the Garden of Eden because his worship of the creator gave him a deep desire to care for God’s creation which is the correct order.

        There is no conflict between worship of the creator and practical action to care for this world. However, most ‘green’ groups leave out the creator and worship the creation, as per Romans Ch 1. Christians are not welcome in most political parties at the higher levels beyond local activists becuse the ask searching quesitons. These may shine a light into the ‘hidden agendas’ of the party!

        • Just because a group doesn’t mention God as Creator, that doesn’t mean the group “worships the creation”. People in the group may or may not worship God. I’m a member of my local library. I don’t think my library mentions God as Creator. Does my library “worship the creation”. Of course not.

          • Guest

            The context is ‘green’ environmental policies. Much of the environmental movement is humanist and support Darwin’s theory of evolution. I do not question their honesty or motivation to make the world a better place to live. What I do question is their openness to different approaches to how to deal with environmental challenges.

            From my perspective, the Green Party would be hostile to suggestions that the creator can cause harm to or heal his creation. There are references in the Bible to God creating environment problems e.g. drought and blessing his creation with fruitfulness. Much of the land of Israel was once a swamp and has been restored. It was neglect that caused the swamps to develop and care for the land their demise.

    • Ricayboy

      The Green Party would like to build a humanistic utopia without God at the centre. It’s the Tower of Babel all over again.

      • Guest

        Spot on comment

  • Guest

    The stance of the Green Party is symptomatic of most political parties. In contrast, a sensible political party would not place such obstacles in the way of potential members. The Singapore Peoples Action Party (PAP) certainly do not. Currently I am mulling over supporting UKIP because they do not expect its supporters to ‘sign up’ to their ‘green’ gospel.

    It is right for Christians to be actively concerned about the plethora of environmental issues we face. Adam was told to care for God’s creation and was on speaking terms with the animals in the Garden of Eden. The writer of the “Chronicles of Narnia” took his idea of talking animals from the garden of Eden. The problem is most ‘green’ organisations implicitly ‘worship’ the creation and not its creator!

  • Adam

    In case anyone is under any misunderstanding that the Green Party
    actually has a slogan ‘Leave your faith at the door’, I should point out
    that the photo at the top is photoshopped (the original is at http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/11845142.Green_Party_announces_Warrington_North_candidate_following__unrecognisable__recognition/).

  • Gillian Scott wrote, “their desire to abolish the Monarchy … [isn’t] going to help either”. I am astounded that anyone would suggest that Christianity involves supporting the existence of the monarchy. This is just an absurd non sequitur.

  • Ricayboy

    The Green Party may appeal to some ‘Christians’ but only the ones taken in by the liberal, ‘social gospel’ version of Steve Chalke and co.