Person 1: I feel insulted with the label "naive Christian". Reading this article was like swimming in a sea of bias.
Person 2: Articles like this really dissapoint me... the Greens will be getting my vote.
My response:
Hey Person 1 and Person 2. First of all (to Person 1) if I didn't know you and was feeling like being a political bastard I could say that your comment might back up the article giving you that label, of naive. Now, don't get me wrong, that's not what I'm saying but you can't just dismiss what the article says because it's biased against your opinion.
Every article we read is biased in some way, we only notice the bias if it offends our own biases. So to both of you I would say, sure it's biased against the Greens, but lots of other articles are biased towards them. You can't just pick which ones you are going to deal with. What is wrong with what the article said?
Why does it disappoint you Person 2? Is it that the article talks about their philosophy/ideology and you're uncomfortable having that exposed? Or is it because thats not true? Is their no such book called, "The Greens"? Does it not say the things quoted and alluded to?
Don't think I'm some sort of right wing, 'moral majority' Christian voter. I'm not. I've voted Green in the past. But as I read and reflect and try and work out what it means to be a Christian in a democracy my feeling is it means I need base my votes not on single issues, but on ideologies. Now, no party has a perfect Christian ideology (not even the Christian ones!) But some are at least not opposed to Christians. And that is my problem. It might be all well and good to have more trees and to treat the 'boat people' (actually desperate refugees in need of our help) more humanly, but what good is letting them settle in Australia only to have the church and Christians then hindered to bring the Gospel to them by a party that has said it wants to bring a, " green philosophy as an alternative to the traditional Christian view: "an alternative tradition", a green ethic that is concerned for "the interests of individual non-human animals". This by its very nature would include a rejection of Christian morals etc.
No party is perfect, I agree. I have no idea who to vote for. But I don't think it should be the Greens. It's not a salvation issue, I don't think you love Jesus less if you vote for them. But I do think it is an unwise move, and surely I must be allowed to hold that opinion and express it. That's what democracy is all about!
Feel free to continue the debate here or on Facebook!
Chris I agree. As the book God's Politics says God is never Left or Right. as such each christian makes moral value judgements about protecting and stewership of the Enviroment vs Devolopment ect. Persehaly as a Christian I believe both the Greens and Family First play a vital role in politics but would strugle persnaly to vote for ever party. Then I can say the some proublem about both major parties. - We should also aknowledge no party can bring the Kingdom of God into this world thats up to GOd in his Time, not a Obama or a Bob Brown or a George Bush as they are all sinners they will all get things wrong from tiem to time. But we must trust what eva happens God will use it for his glory at some point in time.
ReplyDeleteAs such Aa Christian I have found the ACL to often be far to right winged constanterly critisizing especialy the greens and giving credit where earned only to the more right winged parties. Credit needs to go to the greens for there stewership of enviroment, push for importance of educaiton and health policies, standing up for the poor. Still I will be one of the first people offering to help ACL as they fight against law reforms such as the Tasmanian bill of Rights which would allow voluntary euthanasia. Legislation comming from Larra Giddings and the ALP not the Greens.
Helllo mate great blog
ReplyDelete