|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What stops you from joining the Green Party?
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Just curious.
Be brutally honest.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
The one reason that I didn't join the green party yet is because I have lived outside of the country where I was born for a long time (but maybe I still could?)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
In the United States, at least, a vote for the Green Party is in effect a vote for the GOP, or at least equivalent to not voting. Your vote will not count and your candidate has no chance of winning. Nader voters were the reason for GWB's election.
So even though I agree with almost the entire Green platform -- no thanks.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I agree that green issues are probably among the most important of this day. The thing is that the Dutch green party is a bit daft sometimes. Well, a lot of times actually.
For one thing, they are EU-enthousiasts in a way that is almost exagerrated. They seem to see the EU as the way to solve all our environmental problems. I don't share their enthousiasm.
They've also been taking some weird positions about unemployment benefits, the invasion of Iraq... This is why I'm still hesitant about them.
In the national elections, I've voted for them most of the times. But TBH, I wouldn't know whom I'd vote for right now. At times I even caught myself seriously considering the Party for the Animals ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Greens are doing OK in NZ (8 MPs, biggest ever Green representation), but I am worried about their tendency to cuddle up to the social conservatives in order to continue having power.
NZ is coming up to local body elections. For the last four years we've had a Green mayor, elected because we were desperate to get rid of the previous incumbent (voting for her was basically voting for her property developer husband's interests). Unfortunately, our Green mayor has been largely ineffectual, and has backtracked on some of her campaigning platform. It hasn't helped that she's had a council largely against her. I'm currently in the situation of not having a clue who to vote for - I may well vote for her again, but mainly because her main rival is a nasty backstabber.
Greens need to be Greens, and not dilute their ideals by sucking up to the people in power.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason Zarri
Apprentice
# 15248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the United States, at least, a vote for the Green Party is in effect a vote for the GOP, or at least equivalent to not voting. Your vote will not count and your candidate has no chance of winning. Nader voters were the reason for GWB's election.
So even though I agree with almost the entire Green platform -- no thanks.
This reminds me of a quote from "The Daily Show's America: The Book":
"Ralph Nader was second only to Al gore in costing Al Gore the election."
So I respectfully disagree. No one owes anyone their vote; if Gore didn't win, it's primarily his fault for not being a more appealing candidate.
--------------------
Check out the free studying resource Open Source Study Notes, where anyone can contribute their study notes: http://www.scholardarity.com/?page_id=1942
Posts: 19 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Arabella Purity Winterbottom: Greens need to be Greens, and not dilute their ideals by sucking up to the people in power.
Preach it!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
The Greens have been a disaster where I live. Their campaigns have closed many traditional industries and we have large numbers of people out of work, particularly in forestry and mining industries. They seem to be supported by what we refer to as the 'latte' set - urban citizens who are not affected by the campaigns they have wreaked on the working populace.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jason Zarri:
This reminds me of a quote from "The Daily Show's America: The Book":
"Ralph Nader was second only to Al gore in costing Al Gore the election."
So I respectfully disagree. No one owes anyone their vote; if Gore didn't win, it's primarily his fault for not being a more appealing candidate.
That's a very lovely sentiment and nice quote, but the difference between Nader votes and the average number of Green Party presidential votes was larger than the Gore-Bush difference in sufficient states to make a difference.
i.e., in Florida Bush topped Gore by under 500 votes in 2000. Nader won over 90,000 votes. In 2008, Nader won 28,000 and McKinney (the Green) only 3000. In 2004, the Green candidate took only 4000.
Would at least 85,500 of Nader's voters either stayed home or voted Republican? That seems unlikely. If a generic Green candidate had taken 4000-5000 in Florida, a generous result, Gore would have been president.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Ah, I clearly forgot the first rule of a website. It's international. (I also posted this at 12.30am UK time, so...)
But these are still fascinating answers for me.
Bostonman - how will the two-party system ever change in the US? If your answer is "it won't, give up"...do you not find that incredibly sad?
Arabella - "Greens need to be Greens, and not dilute their ideals by sucking up to the people in power."
Agree.
bib - would be very interested to hear more. That's certainly a common perception globally, although without more information I can't really comment on what you said...
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Would at least 85,500 of Nader's voters either stayed home or voted Republican? That seems unlikely. If a generic Green candidate had taken 4000-5000 in Florida, a generous result, Gore would have been president.
Which just goes to shows how hard it is to see past the two-party system. I don't blame you, but you have to admit that it's the two-party system - not the positives or negatives of Ralph Nader - that are framing your argument.
Bush-Gore is one of those elections where we see the stupidity of the system, not the stupidity of the voters.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prester John
Shipmate
# 5502
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
In the United States, at least, a vote for the Green Party is in effect a vote for the GOP, or at least equivalent to not voting. Your vote will not count and your candidate has no chance of winning. Nader voters were the reason for GWB's election.
So even though I agree with almost the entire Green platform -- no thanks.
Not true in some city-wide elections, such as in San Francisco.
Posts: 884 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
For a start, I dislike single-issue parties. I do not think that is a sensible way to govern any country, and the whole point behind joining a political party is to help them gain power.
Also, in the UK we only have one Green MP so it seems rather pointless to join such a powerless group. Aside from that, my own view on environmental issues tend to be 'dark green environmentalism' and I find that the Greens in general lean more towards light or bright green environmentalism, which IME tends to follow a very middle-class Guardianista type of environmentalism that doesn't actually help those who suffer the most from climate change.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Um, patently not single issue, at least if you're in the UK: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/
What is "dark green environmentalism"?
I guess the Labour Party never thought it would have power in 1900 when they had two MPs.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Winterbottom wrote:
quote:
Greens are doing OK in NZ (8 MPs, biggest ever Green representation), but I am worried about their tendency to cuddle up to the social conservatives in order to continue having power.
On what issues have they been cuddling up to the SoCons? Sincere question, as I'm sure you're correct, I'd just be interested to know more.
In Canada, the Green leader Elizabeth May gave a speech to a group of nuns in which she said she's pro-choice, but went on to express her personal opposition to abortion in rather forceful terms. Stuff about staying up all night trying to convince a friend not to have an abortion, that sorta thing. This caused considerable consternation between May and whatever feminist support she had enjoyed on the left.
I think it's somewhat complicated to ask "Why do you support/oppose the Greens?" on an international message board, because from what I can tell, there is considerable variation between the parties bearing that name in various countries. The American Greens seem to be a more old-style social democratic party, whereas the Canadian ones seem to be advancing some sort of "third way"(my term, not theirs) alternative to the supposedly outdated left/right dichotomy.
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Orb:
Um, patently not single issue, at least if you're in the UK: http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/
What is "dark green environmentalism"?
I guess the Labour Party never thought it would have power in 1900 when they had two MPs.
It is single-issue - it focuses on environmentalism. That focus might lead to a particular view on other issues, but the party is based around environmentalism. Why else would it be the Green Party?
Dark, light, and bright green environmentalism.
Sorry, are you trying to use this thread to recruit for the Greens? What's the point of this thread?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I used to vote Green or Lib Dem depending on my mood/the local candidates.
Since the Lib Dems sold out to the Tories I have voted Green.
I won't join the party as I have no time to commit to it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Similar to what Boogie said. Except that I always vote Green when there is a Green candidate, which was only twice in the last 15 years.
Having said that, I acknowledge that I might think more carefully if there was a chance of a Green parliament. It's so obviously a protest vote I don't have to think about it.
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Because I'm not a socialist, and once you look past the environmentalism they're further to the left than any other mainstream party.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I've voted Green when ever I've had the chance. I've recently been pondering whether to join the Scottish Greens. My only issue with the Greens has been the slightly aggressive secularism. And the support for homeopathy, but that seems to be a bizarre disease that affects most parties.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I despair for those of you who live in places that don't have some kind of preferential or proportional voting system.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It is single-issue - it focuses on environmentalism.
I would say, rather, it has a perspective on the world which is informed by environmentalism. Just as Labour (originally) had a perspective on the world which was informed by the interests of labour. So what? Every one of us is coming from somewhere, in terms of perspective.
I have voted Green for the last few elections here in NZ, originally because they were the only party left on the left, but I also don't think it would be a bad thing if NZ started to walk the talk a little more with regards to the whole 'clean, green' thing. If the greens ever get a mandate, the difficulty will be to do this while taking into account the fact that we are a primary producing nation, and to find ways to work with this sector and not against them.
Oh, and why haven't I joined? Sheer laziness, as much as anything.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
Where to begin, should I start with the fascism that lies just beneath the surface, the anti-science sentiments, the communist inspired economic policies, oh I could go on and on and on and on and on and on... you get the idea.
I have to agree with Jade on the Greens in England and Wales (I know little of what the Green Party in NI does, and apart from a stupid position in siding with Alex Salmon I know little of the Scottish Greens) being a 'single-issue party' with some rather immature views on other issues as well...
Which leads me to say, that despite having control of Brighton Council, the Greens have no coherent policy (a bit like Labour in Wales really) or standard line on issues with Greens actively joining strike action against their own party (although having taken the decision to farm the decision to Council Officers, so I guess they can claim they didn't make the decision, which is possibly even worse as an action/defence.)
Caroline Lucas, MP, showed no proper decorum or mature abilities in her Page 3 ridiculousness recently in Westminster Hall Committee and the party as a whole on Brighton & Hove mistreated Christina Summers over a free vote.
And whilst I find it amusing that a lefty (Jade) is laying into the greens for being Guardianista's she has a very valid point, the BBC, Labour Party and Greens share the same narrow, Guardian inspired and filtered view of the world and very little else matters from the patronising, middle-class pov that they have.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I'm not aware of any anti-science sentiments in the Green Party that aren't also found in the major parties, often in greater numbers. They're the only ones taking climate change seriously; the biggest scientific issue of the age. Scratch a the back bench tory, on the other hand, find a climate change denier.
It often feels like the Greens come in for a lot of stick on issues on which the main parties are given a pass, which seems backwards in that parties become more organised as they approach government and smooth out the rough edges. Green Party policies are often radical, that's the point, and I suppose people happy with the status quo aren't going to like that.
[ 10. August 2013, 07:15: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
What stops you from joining the Green Party?
My aversion to zealous authoritarian socialists who will wreck society given half the chance, mainly. That and the fact that many of them don't seem to dress properly.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
What stops you from joining the Green Party?
My aversion to zealous authoritarian socialists who will wreck society given half the chance, mainly. That and the fact that many of them don't seem to dress properly.
Don't be unfair. Not all of us can rock the twinset and pearls look.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Where to begin, should I start with the fascism that lies just beneath the surface, the anti-science sentiments, the communist inspired economic policies, oh I could go on and on and on and on and on and on... you get the idea.
I have to agree with Jade on the Greens in England and Wales (I know little of what the Green Party in NI does, and apart from a stupid position in siding with Alex Salmon I know little of the Scottish Greens) being a 'single-issue party' with some rather immature views on other issues as well...
Which leads me to say, that despite having control of Brighton Council, the Greens have no coherent policy (a bit like Labour in Wales really) or standard line on issues with Greens actively joining strike action against their own party (although having taken the decision to farm the decision to Council Officers, so I guess they can claim they didn't make the decision, which is possibly even worse as an action/defence.)
Caroline Lucas, MP, showed no proper decorum or mature abilities in her Page 3 ridiculousness recently in Westminster Hall Committee and the party as a whole on Brighton & Hove mistreated Christina Summers over a free vote.
And whilst I find it amusing that a lefty (Jade) is laying into the greens for being Guardianista's she has a very valid point, the BBC, Labour Party and Greens share the same narrow, Guardian inspired and filtered view of the world and very little else matters from the patronising, middle-class pov that they have.
One of the reasons I have an issue with the Guardian is that it's not truly left-wing, but liberal (in the true political sense). I totally agree with you regarding the patronising middle-class POV that organisations like the Greens, the Guardian etc often have - but I am a working-class socialist. We do exist, I promise!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Because they seem to want us all to live in villages and ride horses again.
- I mean, that's the ridiculous end point of their environmental war against technology and travel. No emissions (no vehicles) No importing stuff from overseas, therefore everything must be locally grown.
I do not trust ecological ideologies. I accept there is a bit of climate alteration but nowhere near the rubbish that has been spouted for 10 years and I do not believe any of it is man made!
I don't like eco-warriors who protest at every turn about this new road, that new housing estate, that new powerstation.
Plus they wear a lot of brown clothes and are vegans and call their children names like Summer and River or Leaf.
Those are my uninformed prejudices and I like them ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 10. August 2013, 07:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Taliesin
Shipmate
# 14017
|
Posted
Ok, I've read the definitions and the policies, thank you Jade and Orb.
It looks like UK greens are dark green, as I imagined. They claim to be willing to stop tuition fees which seems unlikely.
I notice that in Brighton, policies are tough and successful. Parking restrictions have gone thru the roof, so I go in by train.
ETA I misread the question. I wouldn't join a political party. I thought it was asking why not vote for it.
[ 10. August 2013, 07:52: Message edited by: Taliesin ]
Posts: 2138 | From: South, UK | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
What stops you from joining the Green Party?
My aversion to zealous authoritarian socialists who will wreck society given half the chance, mainly. That and the fact that many of them don't seem to dress properly.
Really? There are socialists in the Green Party? I think you'll find that most of them are firmly liberal, not socialist. Also given how many Green Party members campaign for electoral reform including proportional representation, I don't think being authoritarian is what they want.
I'm genuinely perplexed by people concerned that the UK Green Party is full of socialists. Next people will be claiming the Lib Dems (or the Lib Dems pre-coalition at least) are a hotbed of Marxism!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Because they seem to want us all to live in villages and ride horses again.
- I mean, that's the ridiculous end point of their environmental war against technology and travel. No emissions (no vehicles) No importing stuff from overseas, therefore everything must be locally grown.
I do not trust ecological ideologies. I accept there is a bit of climate alteration but nowhere near the rubbish that has been spouted for 10 years and I do not believe any of it is man made!
I don't like eco-warriors who protest at every turn about this new road, that new housing estate, that new powerstation.
Plus they wear a lot of brown clothes and are vegans and call their children names like Summer and River or Leaf.
Those are my uninformed prejudices and I like them
So you think God is responsible for climate change? I mean, if humans aren't responsible...
That's what it boils down to, from a Christian point of view. Either we are stewards of the Earth God has given us, and have failed to steward it properly and must repent of that sin, or God is behind climate change (which has devastated countries, especially developing countries) and as a result is a bit of a bastard and I would question wanting to worship that God.
I'm surprised by your attitude considering the great things Salvationists do in caring for the needy. Part of caring for people is caring for the environment, particularly those who rely on it for their living - and especially those in developing countries. Of course farmers etc in the UK rely on the environment and shouldn't be ignored, absolutely not, but Farmer Fred in Gloucestershire can always retrain and go into IT (for example). A subsistence farmer in Bangladesh won't have the option to just go and do something else - the environment is life and death to him or her.
So while I do not vote for the Greens and would not join them, I do think that environmental issues should be very, very important to Christians.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not trust ecological ideologies. I accept there is a bit of climate alteration but nowhere near the rubbish that has been spouted for 10 years and I do not believe any of it is man made!
See, I agree with the Greens that climate change is man-made. I just think the solution is to find cleaner forms of energy (i.e. nuclear), not to use less of it.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Really? There are socialists in the Green Party? I think you'll find that most of them are firmly liberal, not socialist. Also given how many Green Party members campaign for electoral reform including proportional representation, I don't think being authoritarian is what they want.
They support redistribution and have as a core value the idea that "human fulfilment" should be a better indicator of success than economic wellbeing. Sounds pretty socialist to me.
They only support PR because it would give them more seats in parliament. Make no mistake, if they ever got to a position where FPTP worked for them they'd drop their "principled stance" in a second.
And of course they'd be authoritarian in power. They'd have to be, if they were going to push through such wide-ranging economic, social and environmental changes. You're not going to get people to stop using so much gas and electricity by asking them nicely, you're going to have to meter their houses and either shut them off or arrest them if they go over the prescribed monthly maximum.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Because they seem to want us all to live in villages and ride horses again.
- I mean, that's the ridiculous end point of their environmental war against technology and travel. No emissions (no vehicles) No importing stuff from overseas, therefore everything must be locally grown.
I do not trust ecological ideologies. I accept there is a bit of climate alteration but nowhere near the rubbish that has been spouted for 10 years and I do not believe any of it is man made!
I don't like eco-warriors who protest at every turn about this new road, that new housing estate, that new powerstation.
Plus they wear a lot of brown clothes and are vegans and call their children names like Summer and River or Leaf.
Those are my uninformed prejudices and I like them
So you think God is responsible for climate change? I mean, if humans aren't responsible...
That's what it boils down to, from a Christian point of view. Either we are stewards of the Earth God has given us, and have failed to steward it properly and must repent of that sin, or God is behind climate change (which has devastated countries, especially developing countries) and as a result is a bit of a bastard and I would question wanting to worship that God.
I'm surprised by your attitude considering the great things Salvationists do in caring for the needy. Part of caring for people is caring for the environment, particularly those who rely on it for their living - and especially those in developing countries. Of course farmers etc in the UK rely on the environment and shouldn't be ignored, absolutely not, but Farmer Fred in Gloucestershire can always retrain and go into IT (for example). A subsistence farmer in Bangladesh won't have the option to just go and do something else - the environment is life and death to him or her.
So while I do not vote for the Greens and would not join them, I do think that environmental issues should be very, very important to Christians.
I do not accept your assertion that either we caused climate change or God did.
Firstly that gives us potentially the same power as God; secondly it suggests that God sits up there deciding when and where it should rain. Do you really believe he does that?
Or would you not rather believe that the massive ball of fire a mere 93 million miles away sometimes is a little bit inconsistent and that every now and again the slightest change within its massive nuclear system affects our climate as it has done now for, no not 100 years but 1000,000 years!!
This is what bugs me about the Greens - they believe that humanity is so wonderful, so mighty, so powerful, so God-like, that any change they perceive MUST be caused by us - because we are indeed so wonderful, so mighty, so powerful, so God-like. They see a slight change and say, O look! Look what we have done! We must change it all back!!!
And then what they dio is that they persuade vote-needy politicians to tax everyone and deny poor countries the opportunity to develop industry all the while using words like 'devastating'
in order to panic people into recycling their toilet paper.
My son, who has aspergers came home from school once to tell me that he was scared because the teacher had told him that soon London would be under water! There is no evidence for such alarmist assertions! The world's temperature has increased by a tint amount in 100 years and the climate people have only just recently downgraded any projected temperature rise for the future.
It's. Not. Happening.
And what IS happening is just what we've seen over millennia - periods of warming (when there was no industry but you could grow grapes in mediterranean England), periods of cooling (mini-ice ages and frost fairs, frozen seas and rivers).
I read a book in the mid 70s that told us that ecologists were so worried about pollution and that by 1980 we would have to face masks because the atmosphere was so unbreathable!!
Guess what? We're still breathing.
The Green party and others (Al Gore clones) use over-the-top language, scaremongering tactics and downright lies (the discredited 'hockey stick' temperature statistics)
God has nothing to do with it.
Neither does man.
That of course does not excuse us from reducing pollution, from caring for creation around us; neither does it prevent us from caring for others and helping to better their lives and giving opportunities for health, education and sustainable and beneficial work.
[ 10. August 2013, 08:25: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
guinness girl
Ship's Barmaid
# 4391
|
Posted
I don't vote Green because, although I applaud their stance on many issues, their policies with regard to scientific issues are batshit mental. Seriously. Their policy on animal testing is utterly unrealistic and would have a grave and incalculable human cost. I'm speaking as a bleeding heart, soppy animal lover, too.
Posts: 463 | From: Leeds, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I love how we've got a load of people accusing the Green Party of being anti-science when Mudfrog is sat in the middle of it denying the ongoing findings of one of the largest scientific investigations in human history.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Jade Constable
So you think God is responsible for climate change? I mean, if humans aren't responsible...
That's what it boils down to, from a Christian point of view. Either we are stewards of the Earth God has given us, and have failed to steward it properly and must repent of that sin, or God is behind climate change (which has devastated countries, especially developing countries) and as a result is a bit of a bastard and I would question wanting to worship that God.
It seems to me impossible for anyone to worship God according to that line of argument. I can't imagine any scientist saying that all change to the climate is man made, because the climate has changed many times before human beings ever existed.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
guinness girl
Ship's Barmaid
# 4391
|
Posted
Arethosemyfeet - I registered Mudfrog's comments, but I've learnt to just scroll past those posts, as experience has taught me that dialogue will get you nowhere in this case...
--------------------
supplying people with laughs at my expense since 1982!
Posts: 463 | From: Leeds, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The Greens may well be different in different countries, but some of the criticism that the Greens come in for has me scratching my head.
We only have one planet and a set of resources that need to be carefully managed. We have got to a point where we are clearly depleting some of those resources.
The response of some people to this is to whine that life is far more fun if we don't have to think about the consequences of what happens when the oil/minerals/ozone layer/frogs/bees/small orchid that is essential to the life cycle of the brazil nut is gone.
Well, yes, yes it is. But it's also childish. To whine about the fact that someone wants you to stop doing something that is fun but ultimately going to be bad in the long term is the very essence of children, and it's precisely why children need parents. Or do you all just let your children eat sugary treats until they burst?
So any time that someone grumbles that the Greens want us to stop doing X, I think "tough shit".
Our mainstream politicians keep getting elected because they promise a nice, warm, fuzzy life with an ever-increasing standard of living, with lots of money to buy pathetic little gizmos that no-one actually needs and which took part of our finite resources to make. They're trying to be your friends. If the Greens spend time also trying to be your parents once in a while, I say good on 'em.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
I am a member. So nothing.
One of the reasons I support them is that they are not "single issue" any more (they were at one point, but so were most political parties), but that they do not see solutions in the economic left/right divides. There has to be a new way, a new focus to solve our problems.
Do I agree with everything they say? Of course not. But I do believe that they are trying to forge a different path, and find a way to break the old politics. That has to be good.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I love how we've got a load of people accusing the Green Party of being anti-science when Mudfrog is sat in the middle of it denying the ongoing findings of one of the largest scientific investigations in human history.
I don't love it. I'm mystified by it. What kind of 'science' do people think that Greens are against? The Greens I know are far more likely to quote scientific studies than any other politician.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I have voted Green in local elections, mostly as a protest vote because the entirety of the campaign literature we received was on the level of "Vote Labour because the Lib Dem candidate smells!" and "Vote Lib Dem because the Labour candidate has silly hair!"
My reservations about the party:
- I am not really sure what they stand for. Round here they seem to be positioning themselves as an anti-cuts alternative to Labour. They used to be in favour of zero growth but that's not very prominent in their campaign literature.
- They don't seem to have much in the way of economic credentials. I mean I have zero respect for the economic nous of George Osbourne and Ed Balls, but Labour and the Tories do at least have economic policy advisors and think tanks. And the Lib Dems have Vince Cable, whom I do respect.
FWIW I agree with Marvin's assessment that they are socialists, at least in theory, but more in the line of William Morris than Karl Marx.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Mudfrog, as I have said, I neither vote for nor belong to the Green Party. However, a human cause behind climate change (not necessarily all of it) and the subsequent devastation - and the impact is devastating for those whose lives are wrecked by it - is acknowledged by most people, including most Christians. If neither God nor humanity cause climate change, who does? If as you say it is due to the sun and changes within the solar system, it is ultimately caused by God since He created that solar system and made it perform inconsistently. Who is the mysterious third player you think is behind the workings of the universe? I don't think God is literally commanding it to rain but only because I think He created the world in a more sophisticated way in which He doesn't need to - but He is certainly responsible for rain. I don't have a distant, Deist view of God.
Obviously, alarmist language should be avoided and you are quite right that scaremongering people into recycling (for example) is not right. I don't believe in limiting developing countries' developing industries but they do have the opportunity to start off with sustainable industries, and not have to repair the damage caused by an Industrial Revolution like ours. Even better is changing the system so greed and materialism is not the end-product (which leads to more greed and more materialism) but mutual benefit amongst all people. I don't believe that humans are all-powerful but I do believe that humans have a quite incredible propensity to sin and greed and materialism and recklessly using up the Earth's resources are sins. God gave us dominion over the Earth which includes the climate, and we have misused that trust - or do you not believe that we have been given dominion?
Basically, I agree with you on some of the approaches of the Greens, and certainly don't agree with them on many things, but I do believe that taking care of the environment and repenting of the sin of environmental and climate damage is a Christian duty.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I have voted Green in local elections, mostly as a protest vote because the entirety of the campaign literature we received was on the level of "Vote Labour because the Lib Dem candidate smells!" and "Vote Lib Dem because the Labour candidate has silly hair!"
My reservations about the party:
- I am not really sure what they stand for. Round here they seem to be positioning themselves as an anti-cuts alternative to Labour. They used to be in favour of zero growth but that's not very prominent in their campaign literature.
- They don't seem to have much in the way of economic credentials. I mean I have zero respect for the economic nous of George Osbourne and Ed Balls, but Labour and the Tories do at least have economic policy advisors and think tanks. And the Lib Dems have Vince Cable, whom I do respect.
FWIW I agree with Marvin's assessment that they are socialists, at least in theory, but more in the line of William Morris than Karl Marx.
Re the Greens and socialism - I take your point about William Morris and that particular type of socialism. I don't think that most of their supporters or even most of their members are socialists, though. Probably the point at which socialism and liberalism intersect.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I'm not a fan of James Delingpole, not by a long chalk, but I think his use of the term 'Watermelon' to describe Greens is spot on. (Assuming Delingpole did in fact coin the term.)
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
guinness girl
Ship's Barmaid
# 4391
|
Posted
Orfeo - around the time of the last general election, I decided to check out the Green party's policies as I was considering voting for them. I don't remember the specifics as it was a few years ago, but many of their policies around medicine & health horrified me as they seemed to be based more on ideology than reality.
--------------------
supplying people with laughs at my expense since 1982!
Posts: 463 | From: Leeds, England | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re the Greens and socialism - I take your point about William Morris and that particular type of socialism. I don't think that most of their supporters or even most of their members are socialists, though. Probably the point at which socialism and liberalism intersect.
My experience of Greens on the ground (in Lancaster, primarily, where they have a big presence) is that their goals and solutions are largely socialist, but that's as much a reaction to the demonstrable failure of capitalism as anything else. They're egalitarians rather than proletarians. The outcome is probably the same given that, axiomatically, the working class are the majority of the population. Many of their members I worked with I would call socialist, and many of them were working class (chief among them a lad from Burnley). They are certainly way more socialist than any other party with a seat in parliament, with the possible exception of RESPECT, who have their own issues.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
In answer to the question about sucking up: NZ is currently in the grip of a libertarian, monetarist government. When this government was formed, it did not have quite enough seats to have a clear majority for some of its planned programme of legislation. The Greens initially cosied up and agreed to support them for confidence and supply issues in return for backing some of the Greens' pet projects. Those of us who voted for the Greens threw up our hands in horror, since it was very obvious that the government had no intention of following through.
The Greens are no longer sucking up so much. But it was great proof of just about the only thing on which I agree with Milton Friedman - that political entities exist only to keep themselves in power.
Jade, the Greens in NZ were just about the only party espousing any kind of recognisably left-wing policy. They gained most of their votes from disillusioned Labour voters, when our Labour Party lost the plot and started to self-destruct. The Greens have said some good, lefty, stuff about education, social welfare and infrastructure, not just about the environment.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Admittedly, most of my interaction with the Greens has been in deepest un-socialist Sussex!
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It is single-issue - it focuses on environmentalism. That focus might lead to a particular view on other issues, but the party is based around environmentalism. Why else would it be the Green Party?
I think there's a difference between being "single issue" and using a reference point (people and planet) to form all your policies. I think that's a much more holistic thing. Is Labour's single issue "worker's rights"? Of course not.
quote:
Sorry, are you trying to use this thread to recruit for the Greens? What's the point of this thread?
To find out what people's issues are with something I'm committing a lot of mental and spiritual energy to at the moment, and because I'm interested in what people think. I think people can make their own minds up about joining something or not.
Sergius Melli - let me unpick a bit. What makes you think it's fascistic/communistic underneath? There are as many light greens (i.e. Lib Dems who are a bit more green) as there are raving commies in my experience.
I think you've made a fair criticism on Brighton. I don't think you make a fair criticism on "Guardianistas" - many of the Greens I know would refuse to even read it!
Are those my feet - yes, exactly. For me, it's a bit like when people assume that Christians should have higher standards than non-Christians, as if you have to prove your purity for your political/spiritual values to have any creedence - despite no one else being asked to!
quote:
So while I do not vote for the Greens and would not join them, I do think that environmental issues should be very, very important to Christians.
This just doesn't add up in my mind. Who DO you vote for who has anything like the environmental platform to actually change anything?
quote:
They only support PR because it would give them more seats in parliament. Make no mistake, if they ever got to a position where FPTP worked for them they'd drop their "principled stance" in a second.
I'm about to become the national spokesperson for democratic reform. I can assure you that this is not the case. We haven't changed hardly any of our principled stances in the last 40 years, so why would we now?
quote:
From Marvin the Martian: And of course they'd be authoritarian in power.
That's the nature of power, surely. You have control of vast national resources and you have to make use of them. Then there are elections, and people can vote you out if they don't like it. What the Conservative Party is doing in their (hopefully) five years is authoritarian in its lack of much reference at all to their election manifesto and its potentially irreparable damage to people's lives.
quote:
From guinness girl: I don't vote Green because, although I applaud their stance on many issues, their policies with regard to scientific issues are batshit mental. Their policy on animal testing is utterly unrealistic and would have a grave and incalculable human cost.
These policies? Why?http://policy.greenparty.org.uk
AR407 In the UK, millions of animals are used each year in experiments which can cause great pain and suffering. There are significant differences between the physiology of animals and that of humans and the reliance on animal testing and experimentation increases the risks of adverse reactions and hampers progress. A large proportion of animals are used for non-medical testing and for duplicate research which could be avoided. There are now many techniques available for testing of chemicals, drugs and medical procedures and for researching disease that do not use animals. However, these alternatives are often not used and are not adequately funded or supported.
AR408 The Green Party would ban all experimentation and research which harms animals, including harmful procedures used to obtain animal-derived materials. 'Harmful' is defined in this context as 'having the potential to cause pain, suffering, distress, lasting harm or death in animals, except where it is designed to benefit the individual animals concerned
AR409 Government research funds will be transferred from animal tests to non-animal technologies, including epidemiology, computer models, micro-dosing, imaging, DNA chips, microfluidics chips and the use of human tissue. Much greater use will be made of epidemiological evidence and clinical data. Greens would also fund more research into prevention of disease, looking at diet, environment, family history and lifestyle.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
