Can a Christian vote for the Greens? Many Christians argue that the Greens are anti-God and anti-religion, with policies that conflict at a deep level with Christian values. Usually singled out are Green’s policies on homosexuality; religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws; decriminalisation of drugs; support for the safe schools program, and their advocacy for euthanasia.
The Greens support is not driven by hatred for God but empathy for the wounded
Sure there may be some militant atheists who have hitched themselves to the Greens but that no more makes the Greens anti-God than the Christians who are allied to the party mean it is a Christian party.
I know many people who support the Greens, both Christian and not. None of them hate Christians or Christianity or any other religion. They are attracted to the Greens because of their progressive social policy. Their vision is not a society where religion has been eliminated but one where the environment is protected, where vulnerable groups are not subject to humiliation and exclusion; where drug addicts receive treatment not imprisonment; where children whose sexuality is not straight are not bullied; and where those who are at the end stages of life are able to die with dignity. I agree with the sentiment behind all of these, even though I don’t agree that every Greens policy will achieve what they desire. And some policies, such as the attitude to exemption from anti-discrimination laws concern me, but it is sheer nonsense to argue that the Greens are somehow committed to the dismantling of religion.
All Political Parties Fall Short of the Will of God
On comparison with the teaching of Jesus all political parties fall short. Why is it the Greens’s policies on sexuality and euthanasia are singled out as making them anti-God, where the major party policies on refugees, environment, and foreign aid are not? When we observe the Coalition’s uncompromised commitment to economic growth why do we not name it as the idolatry of greed, something the Bible sees as wicked?
Neither the Coalition, nor the ALP, nor the Greens should be characterised as pro-God or anti-God. The Constitution, common law and the liberal tradition mean they have no power to legislate for or against religion, so they can never be anti-God in the way that totalitarian regimes that persecute people for religious faith have been. They all have policies that are far removed from the vision of Jesus and policies that fit with the vision of Jesus. It is an act of futile moral calculus to say that the Greens’s stance on anti-discrimination laws is more or less godless than the Coalition’s stand on refugees, or that the Greens’s stance on euthanasia is more godless than the crass materialism that stands at the centre of the ALP and Coalition policy making, let alone try to weigh up the combined basket of policies of each party.
So let’s put an end to this nonsense that the Greens are somehow more opposed to Christian values than the other parties. As one might expect in a fallen world, all the parties have policies that foster living that is strongly at odds with the teaching of Jesus and policies that are compatible with the teaching of Jesus. Let’s rather have a sane and measured discussion around which set of policies will best further justice & the common good.
Can a Christian Vote for those “Godless Greens:? | https://t.co/6loqoINYbU https://t.co/opxdmnPVnd
Can a Christian Vote for those “Godless Greens:? | https://t.co/3JPdLPkwmk https://t.co/oJbwLelbtK
Excellent article by Scott Higgins.
What do you think (I know even asking that question will open a can of… https://t.co/TKYF0B7qd6
Brilliant
Quote “When we observe the Coalition’s uncompromised commitment to economic growth” Sorry this statement is wrong. The Coalition may have a mantra of growth “jobs n growf” but that’s all it is. Their macroeconomic policy is to move to balanced budgets and even surpluses, the ALP are the same.
Balanced budgets and worse still surpluses are inherently contractionary, lead to higher unemployment and business failures as well as serious social costs and even reduced tax revenue. Why, because the LNP/ALP puppet masters want this for their plutocratic purposes (no exaggeration).
The Greens approach of a period of Keynesian stimulus will produce economic growth that will be directed to critical infrastructure and transitioning to sustainability and will also deliver rapid CO2 emission reductions and lower our environmental burden.
Sorry for the lecture. The article is very good.
Can a Christian Vote for those “Godless Greens? lets put an end to the nonsense that the Greens are unchristian https://t.co/3lFy1uCtf5
RT @scottjhiggins: Can a Christian Vote for those “Godless Greens:? | https://t.co/6loqoINYbU https://t.co/opxdmnPVnd
.@scottjhiggins on “Can a Christian vote for those ‘godless greens’? https://t.co/eez1S97HnK
@jarrodmckenna @scottjhiggins Scott is spot on, but it’s the age old political challenge of social conservatism v progress.
@jarrodmckenna @scottjhiggins Lots of older Christians yearn for things to return to “Christendom” era, Greens don’t promote this.
I would and will vote Greens ahead of the many so called Christian parties that are just full of Bigots. It is very UnChristian to be full of Hate for a fellow Human Being.
Once again excellent Scott!
Excellent, Scott!
A breath of fresh air.
Keep it up.
Cheers
Andris
Thanks Andris
Amazing how so called Christians can support the marriage of same sex people. I know I will be labelled homophobic, but I can handle that.
Hi Tony, Here is the conundrum, I could just as easily write
“Amazing how so called Christians can support the indefinite detention of refugees on Manus and Nauru”
“Amazing how so called Christians can support a lack of action on climate change:
“Amazing how so called Christians can support the slashing of the aid budget”
“Amazing how so called Christians can support the rabid greed that demands continual economic growth.”
And on and on it could go.
“Amazing how so called Christians can support the slashing of the aid budget”
What’s unchristian about slashing foreign aid budget in order to reduce the national debt, to ensuring our nation can continue to look after the less fortunate in our society well into the future? Money doesn’t grow on trees you know – and there is a limit to how much the RBA can issue bonds to help other countries.
“Amazing how so called Christians can support the rabid greed that demands continual economic growth.”
What’s unchristian about ensuring more jobs and income will continue to be created, so that families in the future can look after their own? New jobs won’t exist without continual economic growth.
Hi Sam,
We are the richest generation of people who have ever walked the face of planet Earth – Australians spend three times as much in real terms today than they did in 1965; the Credit Suisse Wealth report ranks us as the second wealthiest nation per capita; we are ranked second on the human development index – and you’re honestly suggesting we can’t afford to give 0.7% of our national income in foreign aid? That is akin to the rich man in Jesus parable of the rich man and Lazarus suggesting he couldn’t help the beggar lying at his gate because he had to buy more purple coats. I’m also confused as to why it is that we can increase our spending on infrastructure, commit billions to buying submarines and that’s acceptable, but then suggest we spend a tiny fraction of that on the world’s poorest and all of a sudden it’s not affordable. Jesus had a word for that: greed. Similarly our obsession with economic growth. Of course we should encourage job creation but the sacrifice of the world’s poor, the global environment, and the construction of a global economic order in which people who are living in dire poverty labour for a pittance to make the clothes that we buy, where children are farming coffee and cocoa rather than going to school, betrays our willingness to consume at any cost.
Your mistake is, you are talking about GDP as if all the incomes earned in the economy goes to the government. We have a fairly high taxation rate, but a lot of that goes to welfare spending for the common good – a robust health care system, for one. Why is it our government’s onus to solve other countries’ problem? For one, it’s such a socialist attitude, expecting the government to solve every problem out there – we know how countries like Venezuela turned out as a result. And for another, foreign aids are typically used not just for humanitarian concerns, but also for leverage in the international platform – economics, trade, politics etc.
But thankfully we live in a democracy where you can earn those high incomes you mentioned, and are free to spend your money as you like. So if you care so much about other countries’ plight, there are plenty of NGOs who will be happy to take your donations.
Spend on infrastructure; our internet is among the slowest in the developed world. That’s a turnoff and a liability for many current and potential businesses and entrepreneurs. A proper NBN rollout is a must if Australia is to stay competitive in the world.
Billions on submarines; when the Chinese expansionist policy reaches its zenith, you will be thankful Australia has some proper equipment to stand for our principles.
Spending on foreign aid; so do you want to pay more tax for the government to spend our money on foreign aid? Or do you want to leave taxes largely as they are, and start donating to NGOs?
“children are farming coffee and cocoa rather than going to school”
Like foreign aid, simply put your money where your mouth is. Spend more and buy coffee from companies that buy their beans from sustainable coffee growers who are paid fair trade prices – like Starbucks.
Hi Sam,
1. I am not equating GDP with the government’s income. It is standard practise in economic assessments of government spending to measure it as a proportion of GNI/GDP.
2. There are a number of reasons we should have a foreign aid program. First, we are members of the human community and therefore have obligations to our fellow humans. Second, we are members of the international community in which nations recognise it is in all our interest to have a strong global order. Third, wee share a value system that prizes compassion ,generosity and kindness. Fourth, because people are dying and it is incomprehensible that we would stand by and do nothing.
3. The reason We should have both a Federal aid budget and individual donations to NGOs is that 1) the federal government resents Australia in the international community and aid is an important par to soft foreign policy and an investment in the future and 2) government said and NGO aid work at quite different levels. Governments can give bilaterally to support public goods that are beyond the capacity of NGOs, which usually focus on more localised projects.
4. Your suggestion I am advocating socialism is bizarre and demonstrates you do not understand what socialism is.
5. Re putting my money where my mouth is, I have been doing that for some time.
6. Would I be happy to raise taxes? Yes I would. Australia’s overall taxation rate is one of the lowest in the OECD>
The Greens support is not driven by hatred for God but empathy for the wounded. https://t.co/qmnfF7XOs9
Thanks Scott, in addition to which, if I understand the history correctly, three of the original Tasmanian Greens founders were Christian.
One was an ordained minister.
AUSTRALIA’S AUSCHWITZ: NAURU AND MANUS ISLAND Andris Heks 19.06.2016
Is the above title exaggerated? Maybe not, after viewing CHASING ASYLUM, from Academy Award winner Australian documentary maker, Eva Orner. It is a must see for Howard, Turnbull, Abbott, Dutton, J. Bishop and Rudd, every one of whom refused to be interviewed for this documentary. It is a film the Australian government does not want you to see.
Just a small sample of facts from the film, secretly shot on locations:
Running the Manus detention centre cost $1.2 billion, that is $500.000 per refugee.
What do the refugees get for this money? Indefinite detention combined with futurelessness where the gradual psychological disintegration of inmates begins after six weeks there. Australia is the only country in the world that keeps children in mandatory detention. The Manus Island riot of 2014 was started by locals on the Island attacking the refugees. During the riot some refugees shouted: ‘Manus is Guantanamo Bay.’
If you think, you live in democracy in Australia, think again:
The Australian government refuses to disclose to the population what it does with refugee boats approaching Australia. It refuses the public to learn about the conditions in the offshore detention centres. The government legislated that anyone working at the detention centres who reveals information to the public about conditions there are punishable with imprisonment. It gives misinformation about the nature of the boats people.
(Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton recently stated that most refugees were illiterate and innumerate. The ABC fact check indicated that over 75% of them completed secondary education and 25% were tertiary graduate professionals.
He also claimed that the refugees take away jobs from Australians and that they are a Social Security burden. In fact, according to the Immigration Department’s own report, refugees tend to be employed in jobs left vacant by Australians and their long term economic, let alone cultural contribution to Australia is very positive).
Criminals in Australia receive a given length prison term. Yet boats people, who are neither illegal nor criminal, are detained indefinitely and therefore are treated worse than criminals.
I worked in Long Bay Jail as a Probation and Parole Officer. But the living conditions of even maximum security criminals there look like four star hotels in comparison to the conditions of asylum seeking refugees shown on these islands. These people are first traumatized by life threatening conditions in their own countries which they try to escape by traumatic boat trips as refugees. But the way in which they are re-traumatized in Australia’s offshore detention centres completely dehumanizes them and tends to damage them for life.
The Australian government can get away with its Gestapo like treatment of boats people by keeping the Australian public in the dark about the appalling conditions in detention centres and depicting the inmates as potential threats to the people of our country.
In fact, in 2011-12, asylum seekers living in the Australian community on bridging visas were about 45 times less likely to be charged with a crime than members of the general public. (amnesty.org.au/refugees). (See also a whole list of refugee facts on this website and win-win solutions for refugees as well as Australia.)
This film is a great antidote against our ‘out of sight, out of mind’ attitude towards detained asylum seekers. Seeing their faces and their conditions can only prick our conscience and make us feel ashamed to be Australians.
Be sure to see this film, before the election. It will make you think twice about who you vote for.
a.heks@hotmail.com
As always Scott, your writing & arguments are amazingly sound. The Greens do present as being much more compassionate than the two major parties. I am a member of the Greens party.
Good on you Jo
Blessings,
Andris
Really?? see http://www.acl.org.au/vic_greens_bill_an_attack_on_freedom_of_religion_and_association
I appreciate your views however, the Greens aren’t so progressive when it comes to ramming amoral teachings and resources down kids’ throats in so called “Safe” schools. No opt out and no parental consent needed because it is embedded in every area of the curriculum. How is that progressive? Sounds communist to me! We don’t need a program to teach our kids to love and respect all people. The Bible teaches that- so for those who want to learn about the unconditional love and forgiveness of Jesus, bring back the Bible into society! John 3:16
HI Merryn,
my post is not an attempt to defend Greens policies. As I state quite clearly in the article every party has policies that are abhorrent to the way of Jesus and policies that are consistent with it. there are certainly many areas in which I do not agree with the Greens approach. but I don’t think it’s possible to argue that the greens are somehow less aligned with a Christian vision than the coalition or the ALP.
No, a Christian can’t vote for the Greens. Because sins of sexuality and the sin of euthanasia are sins directly against the person who is made in the image of God. God does not say that ‘greed’ is an abomination, but who does say that the act of homosexuality is an abomination, and to take the life of someone made in the image of God is certainly worse than taking their money.
Hi Russell, thanks for taking time to comment. I think you’re on pretty thin ground. Apart from begging the question as to what precisely is being described in Leviticus 18 and 20, it’s simply not true that the use of the word “abomination” marks sexual sin out as more perverted than any other. Leviticus 18 and 20 describe all manner of sexual behaviours as abominable, including sexual relations between husband and wife while the wife is menstruating. Leviticus 11 describes the eagle, the vulture and the osprey, as an abomination. Proverbs describes a proud spirit, a lying tongue, the shedding of innocent blood, and inclination to wicked plans, false witness, and spreading strife as abominations (Proverbs 6:16-17).
With regard to the seriousness of greed, Jesus declares that the rich cannot get into the kingdom of heaven because of their greed and in Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 greed is described as a form of idolatry.
I think the question is more: “should” a Christian vote for the Greens? And my answer is “no”. There are far better options for a Christian’s vote. I can’t see Jesus voting for a party with ungodly values such as the Greens, so I can’t see how a follower of Jesus could do so. My first criteria is whether a party protects unborn children from death (abortion), and the Greens have failed that test (among many more). As you can see from the following link, the Greens are at the bottom when it comes to representing Christian (God’s) values: http://www.christianvalues.org.au/images/checklists/acvi2016-check-federal-cdp-2jul16-rgb-double-hr-12.pdf .
I agree that the Greens main policy should be a natural fit for Christians concerned about the environment and refugees, if only their voting record in parliament were not so aggressively and predominantly hostile to Christianity and Christian institutions, instead of focusing on their supposed policies, I might be able to buy this line.