Wed 24th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 23rd Sep 2014 at 22:15pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Don’t vote Green, say bishops: they’re in favour of drugs, abortion and gay marriage and against religious freedom

But that’s Australia: surely our own dear Greens are more wholesome? Don’t you believe it

By on Thursday, 31 March 2011

Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party in England and Wales and the party's only MP (Gareth Fuller/PA)

Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party in England and Wales and the party's only MP (Gareth Fuller/PA)

Australian Greens seem to be a pretty hairy bunch. Cardinal George Pell has had a go at them before this, and now he is joined by nine other Australian bishops in the context of elections in New South Wales. Together, they have issued a document called The Green Agenda, the main purpose of which is to discourage Catholics from voting for the local Green party: two bishops have declined to sign the document, on the grounds that, in the words of one of them, “The bishops need to take great care regarding intervention in the political process”. It was OK to highlight “key issues of concern”, he thought; but said that he didn’t believe that “attacking a particular political party serves to highlight these issues in the most effective way”.

Well, I’m not so sure about that: if a party’s programme is so obviously anti-Catholic in its tendency (and one policy is to withdraw state funding from Catholic schools) why shouldn’t bishops say, or imply, that Catholics shouldn’t vote for them? Some Catholics, of course, think that Catholic schools, once they accept money from a government, are handing over some of their independence (I’m not entirely convinced they’re wrong): but Australian Greens also want to force religious schools, in the words of the bishops’ statement, “to employ teachers whose views, values and lifestyle are contrary to the religious traditions of these schools, and the hundreds of thousands of parents who send their children to them”. The real issue here, say the bishops, is religious freedom, “which in addition to private prayer and worship also means the right to live out our faith in the community”.

Australian Greens also want the decriminalisation of “personal drug use”; the bishops comment that “the use of non-therapeutic drugs damages health, life and communities and is an offence against human dignity”. The Australian Greens are also in favour of gay marriage; they want to deny medical practitioners the right of conscientious objection to participating in or being associated with the practice of abortion; and they want to introduce legislation to legalise euthanasia.

The bishops’ conclusion is that “The Greens’ position on a number of fundamental points of human and social policy areas conflicts directly with the beliefs and values of virtually all religious people, and the beliefs of many other people as well. The conflicts are not superficial or inconsequential. They go to fundamental issues such as respect for all human life from conception to natural death. They attack religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Greens who are elected will bring a whole set of policies. You cannot pick and choose. They are not only concerned for the environment.”

In other words, don’t vote Green.

Should bishops “interfere” in this way? Well, I don’t myself see why not, when a party’s policies are so openly antipathetic to Catholic beliefs. That raises a question: what about our own Greens? Are they quite so upfront on such issues? And if they are, what do they actually say about them? If you look at the outline of English Green Party policies on their website, there’s nothing at all about any of this stuff: they’re against “botched privatisation schemes” in the NHS and in favour of “implementing in England and Wales the scheme that provides free social care to the elderly in Scotland”. They want to abolish prescription charges, re-introduce free eye tests and ensure NHS chiropody is widely available (if they mean podiatry, actually it is); they’re in favour of higher pensions and a fair deal for older people. They want a fair housing deal for all, to make it easier for people to get on the property ladder, to protect home-owners and to eradicate homelessness for good.

All perfectly defensible stuff, though possibly some of it is a bit impractical in straitened times: but certainly, there’s nothing there a Catholic voter need be deterred by. Have a look at this, too; it gives their publicly declared policies in more detail.

But is that sort of thing really all there is? Well, actually, no. Have a look at this, which emerged after a bit more digging; this is not on their main website (why not?): :

The Green Party is backing calls for an end to the ban on same-sex marriage in the UK and in other EU member states.

Britain’s two current Green MEPs – Caroline Lucas (South-East England) and Jean Lambert (London) – have said there should be marriage equality across the European Union.

Lucas said: “The Green Party is the only British political party that opposes the ban on same-sex civil marriage. We want marriage equality for LGBT couples.”

She added: “It is time same-sex marriage was agreed and recognised by all EU member states. Lesbian and gay married couples should be able to move freely around Europe and have their marriages recognised on exactly the same basis as heterosexual married couples.”

Or how about this?

Greens are concerned that women seeking an abortion who can afford to “go private” can receive a swifter, and hence medically safer, procedure. The Greens want to abolish the current law that requires the consent of two doctors for an abortion. The Greens believe appropriately qualified midwives and nurses should be able to perform abortions, with the aim of improving access to NHS facilities. Currently women seeking an abortion face waits of up to seven weeks, and nearly 10% of abortions are carried out privately.

So, is it possible to be a Green and also against abortion and gay marriage? Is it possible to be a Green and also a Catholic? Not in our politics, maybe: but Catholics are hardly against a clean and non-toxic environment. So, why are political greens so extremely (as they would claim) “progressive” over policies which aren’t, really, anything to do with the environment at all? As the Australian bishops say, in giving their advice on whether to vote for these people, “Greens who are elected will bring a whole set of policies. You cannot pick and choose. They are not only concerned with the environment.”

So, why is that? Has anyone any ideas? I’m stumped. And now our own English bishops know (anyone reading this might tell them, just in case they don’t read this column) exactly what you get if you vote Green in this country, will they say anything about it, before the next elections (local or national)? I’m sure they will. Surely. What do you think?

  • AMSwan

    In South America the Green parties are known coloquially as Watermelons. Green on the outside and Red (Socialist/Communist) on the inside.

    There is a slightly anti-human bias in green politics. It is fairly common for Greens to say that having a child is one of the most damaging things one can do to the environment since that child will grow up and use electricity, drive, fly to America and generally lead to pollution. From this way of looking at it humans are for them (like religion) a problem to be solved and not an innate good. At heart their ethics are utilitarian and go right against any idea that human life is some kind of unchanging good. Instead they want as comfortable a life as possible even if it means reducing the number of humans.

  • ms catholic state

    This is all very true about the Green parties…..however they are just a more extreme version of the other ‘mainstream’ parties. Apart from legalising drugs….. all of the other parties believe in abortion, gay marriage and also in forcing some of their doctrines on the Church. So it’s a bit of a Hobson’s choice for Catholics and other Christians.

    Hopefully that will change. There has to be a viable alternative to the secular parties……because they are leading us all to Hell on earth…..and that’s not going to stop. They are all travelling in the same direction. All nations are doomed under secular governments of whatever hue.

  • ms catholic state

    And all they will get from reducing the number of humans on earth……is to kill the goose that lays the golden egg if I can use that expression. There is no such thing as a growing economy….with a declining population.

    They just can’t seem to figure that out for some reason. None of the parties can.

  • Anonymous

    They won’t say a bleeding word – because being ‘environmentally relevant’ is part of the new [utterly anti-Thomistic version] ‘Common Good’.
    It makes them seem caring and concerned for the future – and reflecting the concerns of our ‘yoof’ whose ‘morality’ has ‘evolved’ into global concerns for our neighbour in a holistic sense.
    Hence the theme of Bishops Conference-backed International Youth day 2009 being ‘Sustainability’ – where books were sold at events promoting population control, ‘responsible reproductive rights’ [i.e. contracepting and aborting rather than increasing one's carbon footprint] and a morality based on the rights of the elite few living in harmony with the Gaia while intending to eliminate up to 95% of the surplus population…
    Giving up plastic bags for Lent! Makes one so smugly self-satisfied doesn’t it?

    The Green agenda is evil – it has very little to do with a love of the environment and more in fulfilling an ideological agenda of utilitarian genocide to make a happy few dwelling in some eco-arcady ; it’s redolent of the maniacal ravings of a Bond villain.

    No – In this era the Bishops Conference has jumped on the Green bandwagon because it brings out their ‘caring, socially relevant’ side; and is means of open dialogue with secularists and green activists on the political scene.

    Our Lady has been replaced with Mother Gaia – our hierarchy has made it quite clear they will not rock the Green boat – the ‘ark of hope for the future’.

    Like in so many other things – they’ve sold out.
    We have no Cardinal Pell in perfidious Albion….

    … powerful people are promoting a population control agenda: I’m not merely referring to systemic eugenicists like Jonathan Porrit [a Green/Ecology Party Archimandrite] http://www.jonathonporritt.com/pages/2009/03/a_sustainable_population.html

    In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau

    “The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation

    “…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

    “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” – Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95
    ’96

    Dr. Eric Pianka, of the University of Texas, calls for 90% population reduction to stabilize the earth.

    “Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.” – Sir Julian Huxley, first director general of UNESCO (1946-1948)

    “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
    - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute – quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, (p.166)

    “One-fourth of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death.”
    - Psychologist Barbara Marx Hubbard – member and futurist/strategist of Task Force Delta; a United States Army think tank

    Ted Turner [founder of CNN] originally said in 1996 “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – he then altered this and cited 2 billion as the target– a mere 2/3 reduction of the human population – which he claims would allow ’everyone’ to have a decent standard of living, including a “refrigerator and air conditioner.” “The way I think we should get there is have a voluntary one child per family for the next hundred years… like they do in China now.”“We’re too many people; that’s why we have global warming,” “Too many people are using too much stuff.” In the third world, Turner has contributed literally billions to population reduction, namely through United Nations programs , leading the way for the likes of Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett (Gates father, for one, has long been a leading board member of Planned Parenthood and a top eugenicist).

    and what of everyone’s favourite TV Uncle – Sir David Attenborough ?
    “There isn’t a single environmental problem that would not be easier to solve with fewer people.”
    He’s now the president of http://populationmatters.org/

    Lord – who is my neighbour?

  • http://twitter.com/TheologicalLion Thomas Mannion

    If because of one, two or three questions of Morality come up means you shouldn’t vote for a party even though on the whole they are more in the direction of the common good than other parties, then I am of the opinion Catholics should abstain from Voting! No party is perfect… Lets take a brief look at the Conservatives they are decimating Social Care and down playing the importence of Religious Education so Im guessing we shouldnt vote for them either? Im sure if you went through any political party you will find a Catholic Moral issue with it, I certainly prefer the Greens to most, but clearly that must make me one of the damned! If your going to rule one party out for ethical reasons surely you have to go through the others with a fine tooth-comb also…

  • Martin

    100% behind you here however if you publically state it as you have done (quite well) here you would be labelled Mad and a conspiracy nut. They would probably label you a religious fanatic as well.

    People do not want to hear that they are being manipulated and misdirected in the truth, they want the Government to look after them.

    Quicker we get a realistic party to vote for the better. The problem is the UK/EU would make it difficult / illegal because of the issues that we are passionate about. You would see the secular anti PR campaign mobilised against you the moment you started making progress. Unfortunatley that wouldnt be too hard to achieve as the Christian groups already fight bitterly between themselves.

    Come Lord Jesus Come.

  • Anonymous

    Dear Bill, can you tell me which of our political parties is proposing to criminalise all abortions?

  • W Oddie

    1) DON’T call me Bill: that is not my name. I have asked you not to do it before, so I know you are being gratuitously offensive: I don’t know why I even bother to answer you (this is certainly the last time).
    2) Nobody, of course, is proposing anything so absurd: nor is that even remotely the point. As you know perfectly well: but of course you only put the question to be doubly offensive, you impertinent mediocrity. Don’t answer this; there will be no response. Not from me, anyway.

  • W Oddie

    This is a response to Nestorius (see below), posted in the wrong place

  • Anonymous

    Well at least its useful to see that you have clarified your own position ie that the criminalisation of abortion is “absurd”. ps Is this the official view of the Catholic Herald?

  • Barra

    Cardinal George Pell of Sydney, Australia also referred to the Australian Greens as watermelons – green on the outside and red on the inside like communists. sadly there are many Australian Catholics who believe in socialism who vote for the Greens for this reason, believing their stance on asylum seekers (let everyone in without going through due process) and Aboriginals (throw money at them to solve their poverty) is worth voting for, and is more important than the evils of abortion, same-sex marriage, surrogacy, euthanasia and other things that are more clearly against catholic teaching and therefore the common good…

  • AgingPapist

    Catholics in Australia, I have no doubt, will ,as their co-religionists in America do in most cases, judge the Green Party as they should all parties from a number of perspectives. Bishops the world over have demonstrated malfeasance and corruption to the core. They’ve lost moral authority and will most probably be ignored.

  • Alban

    Press release from the Greens in Scotland:

    SCOTTISH GREEN PARTY RELEASE

    For immediate release 31 March 2011

    GREEN PLEDGE FOR LANDMARK GAY RIGHTS ANNIVERSARY

    Tomorrow (1 April 2011) will mark the tenth anniversary of the first gay marriages in the Netherlands, the first country to open marriage up to same-sex couples. (1) The Scottish Greens pledged today to bring forward legislation in the next session of the Scottish Parliament to offer equal access to marriage and also to civil partnerships – currently not open to mixed-sex couples.

    Since this landmark move in 2001, same-sex marriage is now legal in South Africa, Argentina, Spain, Canada, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, and Iceland, as well as Mexico City and a number of American states. Polling conducted last year showed that a clear majority of Scots are in favour of this proposal, and support continues to grow. (2)

    Patrick Harvie said:

    “The Netherlands led the way on same-sex marriage exactly ten years ago, and since then ten more countries have taken this crucial step for equality. Greens believe marriage should be about love, not sexual orientation, and we will therefore bring legislation in the next Holyrood session to open up marriage to same-sex couples, and to give mixed-sex couples the option of civil partnerships too.

    “We have made substantial progress towards equality over recent decades, but it’s time to end the current ‘separate but equal’ system of family law. There are also faith groups like the Quakers and the Unitarians who back equal marriage and want to be free to conduct wedding ceremonies for the first time. Scotland’s ready to make this change, and I would hope that all parties at Holyrood will also be ready to help us deliver it.”

    Tim Hopkins of the LGBT rights group Equality Network said:

    “We are closely following the different parties’ positions on this issue, and we welcome the commitment from the Greens to end the segregation in marriage and civil partnership law.”

  • Alex

    This article would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic, as would many of the ad hominim comments below, such as “other things that are more clearly against catholic teaching and therefore the common good…” (because Catholic’s clearly know what is good for everyone else) and conflating greens with socialists and then claiming that all they want to do is let all immigrants run rampant or throw money at aborigines.

    Despite the fact that a quick trip to their website clearly shows they have very complex social reform policies which, while they may not agree with your views or biases, are clearly valid, logical, well thought out points, backed by evidence and reasoned argument

    As for the main article, I fail to understand the concern. Why is it Catholics feel it’s important for all others to hold the same views as they do and follow their restrictive moral code?

    In the two excerpts from the green policies quoted in the text, they seem to be advocating that same sex marriage be recognised all over Europe and that abortion be freely available to anyone who chooses to undergo it.

    What right does anyone else have to interfere in the lives of a same sex couple, or with a pregnant woman’s choice for herself and her unborn child?

    Isn’t god supposed to do all the sorting of the morally superior after you die?

    Why do you think its necessary for Catholics to impose these rules on everyone, can’t you just observe them yourselves and leave everyone else alone?

  • ms catholic state

    Looks like Christians are bottom of the heap then. All the major parties are espousing deeply anti-Christian laws and will make us suffer for them. The Greens are just more in your face about it…… And to think we actually make up a largish percentage of the electorate…..and that we actually support one or other party that will make life hell for us. It doesn’t make sense.

    It’s time we had an unapologetic Catholic/Christian party methinks.

  • ms catholic state

    Looks like Christians are bottom of the heap then. All the major parties are espousing deeply anti-Christian laws and will make us suffer for them. The Greens are just more in your face about it…… And to think we actually make up a largish percentage of the electorate…..and that we actually support one or other party that will make life hell for us. It doesn’t make sense.

    It’s time we had an unapologetic Catholic/Christian party methinks.

  • Nick

    Clearly Greens are concerned for others and the world around them. So it’s a natural extension to oppose discriminatory restrictions on people’s abilities to marry or control their reproductive health.

  • Anonymous

    I am sad to say that many Catholics have not yet woken up to the evil perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church, and I think that some never will. For some victims, religious indoctrination can permanently damage their thought. For example, one Catholic I know (an extremely nice person) would have had no hesitation in condemning child sexual abuse, yet since she has discovered that it goes on in the RCC, she has been ambiguous in her condemnation. Her ‘reasoning’ seems to be that the RCC is good, therefore child sexual abuse can’t be that bad.

    In their attempt to influence politics, the Bishops are once again demonstrating the depths to which they will sink. They are not just another group seeking to excercise their right to freedom of speech in political matters. Why? Because intellectual child abuse (religious indoctrination) has brainwashed a portion of their audience into believing that to oppose what the bishops say would be morally wrong.

    As politics go, Green politics is the most beneficial to life on this planet. Of course they want to remove Catholic privilege. Not only does no religion deserve the privilege so selfishly demanded by the RCC, the RCC are actively bringing about the destruction of civilisation. At a time when we should be doing all that we can to humanely reduce the global population to a sustainable level, the RCC are, despite their propaganda, working for the opposite. In this way, the RCC are helping to bring about conflict, famine, and disease.

  • Andy

    Please… I think the catholic church should look at its own demons before telling anyone who they should vote for.
    The fact that the pope helps pedifiles move around without prosecution should be more of a reason for them to shut the &&& up!

  • Stevenmramsay

    If you look carefully at the greens policies they all follow the singular most important rule in the Bible, ‘do not treat others as you would not like to be treated yourself’. Every single one of their policies that you attacked are things which do not affect anybody else but the conseting adult/adults involved which is why they are the most progressive party. Environmentalism ties in with this line of thinking, damaging the environmental harms many people in addition to future generations of people and therefore it should be protected.

    Steven

  • Ratbag

    Indeed, there is no such thing as a growing economy with a declining population – that is why people are being made to work harder and for longer before they even think about retiring with a pension…

    I knew about the Green Party and their anti-life and anti-faith policies for many years, which is why I avoid voting for them in any election.

    The first carbon-neutral sovereign state in the world is… The Vatican! All this achieved without a so-called Green Party.

    If the Greens went into government, how long will it take them to achieve what the Vatican has achieved? Will they achieve anything at all? They didn’t in Ireland…as far as I know.

  • Anonymous

    I agree that in order to reduce the population, there is a need for people to work longer before retiring. This is a sacrifice that should be made for the sake of future generations.

    I am not sure what you mean by ‘anti-life’. Since Green parties aim to improve the quality of life for humans and other animals, how can they be against life?

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood that the Vatican had intended to achieve carbon-neutrality mainly by having a forest planted at Tiszakeszi in Hungary to absorb carbon, but the forest has never been planted. I think that any Green Party could achieve more.

  • Auricularis

    Please learn how to spell the word “paedophile” before hurling such accusations at the Catholic church – then we can have a mature discussion

  • Auricularis

    TreenonPoet – the Green Party deny the right to life for the unborn child. That constitutes as “anti life” whether you like or not. God only knows that they probably harbour a eugenics affections too and would implement a system of doing away with elderly people, once they serve no use in the “Green Society”.

  • Auricularis

    Does the Green party apply the addage of “do not treat others as you would not like to be treated yourself” to the unborn? Or do they not qualify?

  • ms catholic state

    Societies with a declining population don’t work…….that is why we have to have non stop immigration…..to balance the demographic and shore up the the young working population. So secularists are contradicting themselves…….reducing the birthrate …..and then authorising mass immigration to replace the aborted and missing children.

    Even then, despite mass immigration we still have an ageing demographic. The daydreams of the population controllers don’t add up. The only thing that provides a workable economy and society…..is a growing population. And only flat earthers think we are meant to stay on this planet forever!! A Catholic State is the only model that works.

  • Jimus

    Seeing as how Catholics are supporters of child sexual abuse, they deserve a zero weighting on any argument they have to do with social policy issues. How dare you lot think you deserve to have any moral authority on such things, you are disgusting human beings, the thought of you makes me so sick I want to vomit!

    Drug use is a personal decision and no one should have the right to tell any other individual what they can and cannot choose to put in their own body. It would be like telling people they can no longer eat tomatoes! Prohibition has caused a net damage to society about a million times worse than regulation of drugs (similar to the way alcohol is regulated) would have caused.

    Same goes for abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia. It.is.not.your.business how other people chose to live their lives. As long as they aren’t harming others that is all that matters. Consensual relationships between two adults are no one else’s business!

  • Anonymous

    Thank you for that explanation. There was I thinking that the prefix ‘anti’ meant ‘against’ or ‘opposed to’. By your definition, I could say that you are anti-politics in rejecting a particular political view! If you agree with killing germs, does that make you anti-life? If so, there is nothing wrong with being anti-life.

    I know that I would like to be done-away with (humanely) once I become of no potential use living. I hate to think that resources might be wasted keeping me alive at the expense of others. I would support measures that enabled me to make that choice. If you say that that is also anti-life, then it does not really add anything to the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    To say that societies with a declining population don’t work is unjustified as a generalisation because there are societies with declining populations that do work.

    You are relying on interplanetary space travel to alleviate the problems of over-population. If this ever becomes possible (and there is no reason to assume that it will), it is not imminent. Meanwhile, there are already a billion malnourished humans on Earth. It is unsustainable growth that does not work.

  • ms catholic state

    Declining populations cannot work……it’s a logical imposibility. All societies with declining birthrates have a short shelf life……that’s why they employ mass immigration. But that just disguises the death of a nation and culture.

    Population controllers are hindering the developement of science as population growth provides the only incentive for scientific progress there is.

  • ms catholic state

    Everything you mention has a destructive effect on wider society……and eventually kills it. This is the business of everybody and especially the Church. Secular nations are all on their death beds as haven’t got the common sense or correct moral base to survive even. History will judge them as failures that are no more.

    A Catholic State or an Islamic state are the only models of soceity that will make it into the future.

  • Anonymous

    So you are saying that Japan does not work and has no incentive to produce the proliferation of scientific developments that it does produce!

  • ms catholic state

    Japan has a severe worker shortage…..and the EU held a conference there some years back to urge the Japanese government to solve it’s problem using immigration.

    Whatever….the Japanese are heading towards not only economic collapse….but also extinction.

  • Anonymous

    Are you saying that all 69 secular countries listed by the Wikipedia ‘Secular State’ article are on their death beds, and that the Roman Catholic and Islamic religions are moral and sensible?

  • Anonymous

    Immigration is not the only solution to the problem of worker shortage; blinkered economists may think otherwise. It is no reason to conclude that this is causing the Japanese to head towards economic collapse.

  • ms catholic state

    There is every reason to conclude that an ageing ie dying population spells economic collapse before extinction. Those who deny it….are in Wonderland and shouldn’t be running any nation.

    And immigration is an ineffective solution to demographic decline. A Catholic State is a much better solution.

  • Lord_kobel

    What a load of bollocks!

  • Anonymous

    Belief in the supernatural was never a solution to anything. I have just read a good quotation by Michael Bérubé in the New York Times: “It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his tribal identity depends on his not understanding it”. Is it really more important to you to believe what you are told to believe than to believe what the facts are telling you?

  • ms catholic state

    The Supernatural exists……and its effects are visible in human society. And those who don’t understand the supernatural…..don’t understand fully the workings of the material world……and never will. Religious people have an advantage in recognising the supernatural…..and as history shows…..only religious society survives and flourishes. All atheist societies has been short-lived failures.

  • Anonymous

    The supernatural only exists as a way of expressing ignorance. Given the definition of ‘nature’, the supernatural cannot exist in reality – i.e. in nature. To attribute an effect to the supernatural is to advance our knowledge about that effect by zero. It does not allow us to make any predictions regarding that effect and so is a useless attribution. That is all that one needs to understand about the supernatural.

    What do you mean by ‘atheist societies’? The only atheist societies that I am aware of are groups of like-minded people that are by no means short-lived failures. If you are referring to geographic groups of people who are predominantly atheist, can you name one that has failed? If you are referring to states run by atheists, I would point out that a non-belief in deities says very little about the way a society should be run, so you cannot attribute the failure of such states to atheism. If you really mean secular states, then history does not show what you claim. But this seems to be going off-topic. If one discusses states influenced by Green politics, I would say that their success is partly measured in global terms.

  • Moz

    Unfortunately Australians have compulsory voting, so cannot legally abstain. However, the point of a democracy (or what we have left of one) requires that the demos actually stand up and are counted. My own belief is that anyone who doesn’t make a decision based on their own convictions and then follow through on those convitions by exercising their vote, then has no right to criticise either those who have voted or those whom they have voted for.

  • James H

    ‘”They are not only concerned with the environment.”

    So, why is that? Has anyone any ideas?’

    The answer is the old maxim, scratch a green and find a red. The Green movement is one of the more misanthropic political groupings. To them, babies are problems to be eradicated. It’s not only junk science, it’s cr*p logic, too. Go to http://www.overpopulationisamyth.com for the numbers.

  • Anonymous

    The website that you refer to is not a good example of science and logic. For example, the home page video makes unjustified extrapolations from small populations to large ones without taking resource limits into account, thereby ignoring the main argument against overpopulation being a myth. The site expands on this using various false arguments – taking quotations out of context for example. The site does not attempt to provide scientific argument – where are the formulae that relate longevity, agricultural productivity, pollution, water supply, etc?

    You reflect the site’s style in your sentence “To them, babies are problems to be eradicated”. There is a difference between wanting to reduce birthrates and wanting to eradicate babies.

    It is true that there is some overlap between the political ideas that are classed as Green and those classed as Red. Why is this a problem?

  • Ratbag

    Chill pill, anyone?

  • Ratbag

    Here, here! And before Andy replies with the obligatory “whatever”, I remember the banners held aloft by marchers in a UK town which misspelt the word ‘paedophile’ in several different ways and a mob which went on to murder a respected ‘paediatrician’. Why? It was because the brain dead could not tell the goddam difference between a person who doesn’t think that sexual abuse of children is wrong and a doctor who specialises in children’s illnesses.

  • Ratbag

    Greens? A progressive party? Don’t make me laugh! They are a contradiction!

    Oral contraception, condoms etc. when flushed down the toilet pollute the environment. Condoms are not biodegradable. They litter pavements, parks, waterways and other places where adults and children are near. Where’s the environmental awareness in that???

    In the UK, it makes me sick that contraceptives are free on the back of a prescription tick box … whilst the rest pay through the nose for medicine that treat illnesses we have through no fault or choice!

    How do abortion mills recycle the little lives snuffed out by this tragic,murderous and unneccessary procedure? Take what little these babies they had in the womb to satisfy so-called scientific research to be poked and prodded like a piece of excrement? Then they put them in sealed bags labelled ‘biohazard’ or black bin bags so that they are dumped without a shred of dignity – out of sight, out of mind to the world, except by those who pray for those lost lives – yes, the ones who value life from the womb to the tomb.

    Green what?

  • Ratbag

    Abortion is criminal. Period.

  • Ratbag

    I notice the names of these people. People of ‘too much’ influence who patronise the rest of us!

    They want to do away with everyone but themselves.

    I can imagine a ‘Logan’s Run’ scenario. Anyone who reaches the age of 30/poor/disabled/impoverished/feeble-minded/anyone with a faith would be done away with so that the priviledged few can run the planet themselves.

    Eugenics by the back door, if these so-called superior beings had their way.

    Science Fiction can scarily become Science Fact if we’re not careful.

  • Ratbag

    ‘Dear Bill’

    You patronising, smug – !!!! – where are your manners? Left them on the bus? Recycled them?

  • Anonymous

    I suppose you are quite laid back about the fact that a billion people are already undernourished on this planet. Just how many people have to go hungry before you give a damn about the root causes? (As I hope you know, the root causes are not gods or a god getting angry about things.)

    It is bad enough that not enough people are concerned, but to find religious organisations, who attempt to present a charitable front, actively making the situation worse is too much for me. Yes, I get angry. Injustice has always made me angry. It is a positive anger in that it drives me to want to correct the injustice. My post may seem dramatic (as intended), but I would argue (in the positive sense) that it does not exagerrate. Where the struggle for food and water results in war or persecution, civilisation has failed.