Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Fascist Green Party expels Christian councillor over gay marriage

Following an investigation (and what a kangaroo inquisition it must have been), Cllr Christina Summers has been expelled from the Green Party on Brighton Council after voting against same-sex marriage.

This is proof (if any were needed) that the Green Party is the most utterly and offensively intolerant of all political parties. Good grief, even the BNP opens its membership to the odd black or brown-skinned person who subscribes to its political views. But God help you now if you're a tree-hugging, whale-saving, global-warming-affirming Christian with 'traditional' views on marriage. And God help the hetero-marriage-believing Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus, too.

What happened to equality and diversity? It is curious how the courts have forced the extremist BNP to adapt their membership criteria to accept the majority view of race relations, while the extremist Green Party is apparently free to discriminate against the mainstream view of marriage with impunity. Perhaps the decision needs testing in the courts: after all, it’s not very inclusive, is it?

All the main political parties in the UK have Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Sikh/Hindu/Atheist members – not to mention MPs, Peers and councillors – who are opposed to David Cameron’s plans to redefine marriage. But there is no place in the Green Party for those who refuse to subscribe to the new state orthodoxy of the definition and meaning of marriage.

But His Grace likes to be balanced on these matters, so (pending the written reasons for Cllr Summers’ expulsion, due on Thursday) here is a report which informs us that she was ‘difficult to work with generally’; ‘broke internal promises she made verbally and in writing in respect of this issue’; ‘objected to certain types of cursing’; ‘repeatedly made life difficult for at least one of her colleagues’; ‘has absented herself not only from internal party meetings but also from some of her official duties on the council, without either an apology or an explanation’; ‘deceived’; ‘cannot be trusted’; and believes that ‘she is only accountable to God’.

What is interesting in that article is the revelation that the three-member Panel was split, and the casting vote made the Council Leader, Jason Kitcat (is that a name?), a ‘practising Catholic’. We are told: ‘Despite his religious beliefs, he does not introduce them to his public political life.’

So, a practising Roman Catholic whose faith does not inform his politics is instrumental in the expulsion of an Evangelical Christian whose faith most certainly does inform her politics.

One wonders why Cllr Kitcat is not more familiar with his duties and obligations.


Blogger G. Tingey said...

You obviously still haven't got it.
It is the bounden duty of politicians & parties to screw around (pun intended) with people's private lives.
All the Groans have done is to show they are no differewnt to the others, and, indded, are to be grouped with the more offensive interferers, such as all religious groupings.

11 September 2012 at 07:37  
Blogger non mouse said...

Dear Loving Lord, Your Grace.

Somebody needs to scribble "Muddled" all over their report. Then they should go back and do the experiment again, under supervision.

11 September 2012 at 08:10  
Blogger Simon said...

"she ... ‘objected to certain types of cursing’"

Does that mean you have to support taking the Lord's name in vain to be a member of the Green party? Have I understood that aright?

Anyway, as dreadful as the Greens may be, isn't a political party allowed to expel people who disagree with their ideology?

11 September 2012 at 08:32  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Jason Kitcat (you've got to be kidding me) need to take a break. If he is a 'practicing Catholic', he needs to practice harder, because he clearly doesn't get it. Rome is not the Church of England. The Church's teaching comes before everything, and the Church says 'no' to gay marriage. This isn't a venial sin, it's what we as children used to call a 'mortaller'. Honestly, if he's going to make distinctions this big between public and private life then he's the walking epitome of what's wrong with the prevailing political orthodoxy in the West. It almost makes you want to emigrate to Iran (almost ok, almost; I wouldn't actually do it. I have been following the Yousef Nadarkhani story).

11 September 2012 at 08:38  
Blogger Paul de Mello said...

Odd, ever since the "Grainger" tribunal case, enviromentalism was deemed to be a belief by a judge. So why is Mr Kitcat taking his eco beliefs to politics but encouraging segregation of Christian? What is the point of believing in proportional self-representation, if you dont want to others to represent themselves? Weirdo party.

11 September 2012 at 08:55  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

This woman was voted onto the council on a Green ticket which she fully agreed to.

To then turn round to those voters and say that her God comes before them is beyond the pale.

She is justifiably kicked out.

11 September 2012 at 09:13  
Blogger Preacher said...

Sounds more like the Reds than the Greens.
There's no point in having a vote if you can't exercise your right to disagree with the submission.

11 September 2012 at 09:17  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

BLZB, if that's the case then all politicians, indeed all members of any organisation with stated beliefs, should be kicked out, because I guarantee you that none of them truly believe in 100% of what their party believes!

11 September 2012 at 09:19  
Blogger David B said...

"This is proof (if any were needed) that the Green Party is the most utterly and offensively intolerant of all political parties."

A bit hyperbolic, as no doubt His Grace will see on reflection.

We don't, as he reasonably points out, know all the events leading up to this story, but it does seem that she voted against something the party stands for.

As a matter of interest I googled 'Councillors expelled by Conservatives' and skimmed through the first couple of pages of the 718,000 entries.

Personality clashes and policy differences happen, and one Con Councillor got the boot because he went to a fancy dress party in a costume which was, admittedly, in appalling taste.

But we don't see Prince Harry being expelled from the Royal Family.

It is difficult to see how the expulsion can be be viewed as an attack on Christianity per se, when one considers that many Christians are in favour of SSM.

The phrases 'storm in teacup' and 'mountain out of molehill' spring prominently to mind.

David B

11 September 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I was a member of the Green party for several years a couple of decades ago until I saw though the touchy feely rhetoric and realised that they are not merely innumerate Utopian socialsits with dope addled brains but highly intolerant and profoundly anti Christian. Bet I've planted more trees than any of them. They are a menace in a one moron one vote society becuse their rhetoric and imagery is so catchy but heaven help us if a tenth of their uncosted, untested sub-Marxian Utopian dreams became policy.

11 September 2012 at 09:41  
Blogger Old Blue Eyes said...

Greens should be eaten for a healthier lifestyle.

11 September 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger William Lewis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 September 2012 at 10:05  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I think I shall inquire of my local Green candidate as to her views on this expulsion. Up till now I have given her my first preference vote, but I have a funny feeling that might be about to change.

11 September 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger Matthias said...

the ones here in oz are toxic and have been in an alliance with the Labor Party ,however some of the latter are beginning to wake up. At the municipal elections in Sydney the Greens did poorly. Roll on federal elections

11 September 2012 at 10:41  
Blogger Roy said...

@ BeeLZeeBub said...

This woman was voted onto the council on a Green ticket which she fully agreed to.

To then turn round to those voters and say that her God comes before them is beyond the pale.

What on earth has gay "marriage" got to do with the core issues of the Green Party?

Actually that is a rhetorical question. The environment is not the core issue of the Green Party because the Greens are all in favour of useless wind turbines which, together with the pylons they need, despoil our landscape while producing very small, intermittent amounts of electricity.

The Green Party is an organisation for middle class Guardian reading types who like to pose as socialists but want to avoid having to mix with the working class.

11 September 2012 at 10:51  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 September 2012 at 10:56  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

Roy - "The Green Party is an organisation for middle class Guardian reading types who like to pose as socialists but want to avoid having to mix with the working class."

That is a rather sweeping arrogant statement.

Not that I hold any allegiance to the greens as they tend to be an organisation for middle class Guardian reading types who like to pose as socialists but want to avoid having to mix with the working class AND tend to have flatulence issues as they eat lentils by the bin load..

11 September 2012 at 10:59  
Blogger ilma630 said...

The greens are the antithesis of Christianity, they believe in Gaia first whereas Christ put people first. God gave us the earth and all that is in it to use ('subdue'), but the greens rabidly scorn man for the use of earth's natural resources. God has provided the path to forgiveness but the greens are outright accusatory and hell bent on blame.

Being a Christian and green are mutually exclusive! However, being a Christian does mean wise stewardship (good use, that benefits man) of the earth, it's resources and also human ingenuity. For example, enforcement of third-world countries to use renewables is entrenching poverty whereas access to cheap energy, e.g. via coal and gas, helps lift them out of it; or take the environmentalists' driven ban on DDT or golden rice that has caused the deaths of millions of children.

Do the greens have a care for man? Absolutely NOT!

11 September 2012 at 11:27  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"Reds ... Greens" - remember environmentalism's called "Water-melon politics" (green outside, red all the way through, within). Indeed, Green politics is misanthropic and part of the CD project ("Culture of Death", for the uninitiated). She's better out of it. The more people who know the reality of "Green politics" the better.

11 September 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings BeelZeBub, you old devil. For those not in the know, our man here is homosexual. Of the gay persuasion. A ‘bender’ if you will.

How about getting the Inspector re-instated as an communicant on Pink News. He raised some interesting debating points as you will remember, until he, his heirs and descendants were silenced forever...

Which brings us nicely to the Inspector’s point. Brighton is the Greens breakthrough. It is an artificial constituency in as much as it has a high gay percentage. The Greens HAVE to do the gay agendists bidding. No choice in the matter. None at all. They know full well that to lose Brighton, they slip back into the ranks of the political also rans.

There you have it gentlemen, the somewhat ugly truth of a party beholden...

11 September 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Caroline Lucas: "...all of our councillors signed a pledge around equalities before they stood to be councillor".
Christina Summers did not think "disagreeing with same-sex marriage was disagreeing with equality at all".
I think Lucas would have let us know had the pledge signed by Summers specifically mentioned redefining marriage.
Marriage is already perfectly equal. Hence the right to marry being a human right.
Summers wins by technical knock-out.
Vote Green to scrap nuclear (family) power.

11 September 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Let's not forget that Ms Summers was more than happy to be a member of the fascist Green party until she said something they didn't like. I think words like hoist, own and petard come into play on such an occasion.

I have little sympathy for the woman.

11 September 2012 at 12:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Race is not the same thing as belief. The Green Party is within its rights to expel a member over fidelity to the creed of the party. This returns us to the emerging theme of Western Culture - that Christianity(1) is reverting to its natural position as counter-culture. This offends us because it is an assertion that we are beyond the pale of public participation. Well, get used to it. It isn't going to get better. It's going to get worse. Much worse.


(1) Real Christianity, that is. Not the liberal counterfeit that seeks to attach itself as a caboose to the train of post-modernism. Liberal Christianity is a wonderful vehicle for those few people who want to make a religion of their angst and doubt. But it has no purchase and withers even as it takes root.

11 September 2012 at 13:21  
Blogger Gerhard Swart said...

Office of Inspector General, your posts are always very enlightening! Thank you!

11 September 2012 at 14:01  
Blogger Gerhard Swart said...

Office of Inspector General, your posts are always very enlightening! Thank you!

11 September 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

Hi Inspector General.


Long time no smell.

No longer lurking around the gay haunts I see due to expulsion.

It was the stench of bigotry you see.

It had to be gotten rid of.

11 September 2012 at 14:04  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

What has ssm got to do with a political party whose main agenda is to protect the environment.

The last Pope made it a sin to desecrate or destroy the environment.The Catholic Church as far as I understand is the only religion to have done so.Mr Mars Bar obviously has no respect for his religion.Probably a convert and anti Catholic.

An aware and intelligent person cannot ignore the perils of not protecting our world by polluting our air and waterways. The same person should also be aware of the danger and consequences of same sex marriage on our society.You do not have to be a Christian to realise this.You just need a modicum of common sense and be historically literate. Since when did homosexuals have a monopoly on environmental issues anyway?

11 September 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"The phrases 'storm in teacup' and 'mountain out of molehill' spring prominently to mind."
What a cliché-ridden mind yours must be.

11 September 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Did she not listen to the party whip

11 September 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger Green Christian said...

Ignoring the obviously hyperbolic and inflammatory rhetoric about the Green Party being "fascist", let's have a quick fact-check.

Councillor Summers signed a pledge in favour of equality as part of the selection procedure. It may or may not have included explicit references to same-sex marriage (I've heard conflicting reports about it). If it did, then her potential expulsion from the green group on the council (the proposal still has to be voted through by said group) is entirely legitimate.

Secondly, the Green Party has an explicit statement of principles called the Philosophical Basis. Despite the strawman stereotypes trotted out by various commenters, it covers far more than just environmental issues. It includes a commitment to equality on the grounds of (amongst other things) sexual orientation. A lot of party members seem to think that this necessarily means support for same-sex marriage, and that any other view is inherently bigoted and homophobic. And given the demographics of Brighton and Hove, those with that viewpoint obviously make up a larger proportion of the local party whose decision it was.

Incidentally, to the commenter who talked about the party whip - as a point of principle, the Green Party does not operate a whipping system. This disciplinary system is the neared thing to it.

11 September 2012 at 16:50  
Blogger Gnostic said...

...the Green Party does not operate a whipping system.

Well that's the BDSM vote gone for a Burton then. So much for equality...

11 September 2012 at 17:14  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Green Christian

How can you write the rubbish on your blog and still say you are a Christian?

I was going to say it is like the Nazi Party saying they are Christians then I released they did and you do

The Green Party will mercilessly persecute Christians IF it every gets into power.

I hope for your salvation you along with us


11 September 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger beastie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 September 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger beastie said...

I see the nice Patrick Strudwick has tweeted that he hopes all other political parties will follow suit( and presumably sack anyone who does not promote gay marriage.)
It gets bitter.............

11 September 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Evening chaps.

The Inspector just back from a country walk. Up on the Cotswolds, along the old rifle range. Well, he thought it was the ‘old’ rifle range. Still, nothing too serious and felt confident enough to discharge himself after treatment. {AHEM}

What Green Christian fails to mention of course is another little story about a damn good environmentally friendly pressure group that was hijacked by a comparatively small number of extremists who bounced the group into becoming a political party of the soft Marxist type. And this despite being warned by the over twenty fives that it would lose it’s good will and support, financial backing, AND most importantly of all, would attract suspicion of the most suspicious kind. And all because of blasted vegetarianism.

And don’t forget, you are not so much citizens of the UK. You are carbon offenders...

11 September 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger John Magee said...

Todays greens are Green. They don't believe in diversity. They could care less about blue, red, yellow,or purple...or Christians.

Before the 1970's the left cared absolutely nothing about the environment. Just as Gays before the 1970's meant absolutely nothing to the left and were viewed along with the rest of the population then as "queers". That is until the left realized Gays were a potential voting block. That got the lefts attention fast.

Back then the newly organized environmentalists (todays greens) preached about our unclean environment and tried to lecture us about all sorts of ways we must protect it. One was to ask us all to not use paper bags. The answer was plastic bags and now they condemn them too. The first Earth day rallies in the USA in 1974 proclaimed that an ice age was approaching because of industrial pollution (that has certainly changed).

According to the greens 40 years ago only Europe, the USA, and Japan were the worlds worst polluters. But in reality the worst polluters on earth then were the USSR and China and both were completely ignored. China then and now is covered almost entirely by a permanent cloud of pollution and smog.

In the 1970s the green movements "grew" out of the myriad of left wing causes then which hated capitalism and as they organized they did all they could in the way of protests, using political force, and in some cases violence to stifle industry and business. In the USA ELF (Earth Liberation Front) atcually hammered large nails into trees on tree farms and caused terrible injuries to lumberjacks using chain saws. They even burned down entire new housing projects in protest to tree farming. The majority of the founders of the green movement grew out of the left's hatred of capitalism and had nothing to do with any real care about the environment and wildlife. Conservation organizations (usually founded by conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt in the USA) already existed in Europe and the USA for over 100 years before the modern environmentalist movement of the 1970's got started as an arm of radical left. They used the idealism and genuine concern of young people about our environment to create another left wing radical group who's purpose is to stifle capitalism.

Had a green movement dared surface in the old USSR they would have found themsleves in a very "green" Siberia at some logging camp chopping down trees in sub zero weather in winter and terrible heat in the summer living on gruel and die from hard labor and starvation.

The irony is that the Nazi's in 1930's Germany were fanatical greens themselves. They literally worshipped nature, the German landscape, and rural life in their art and in literature as well as many films. Look up German actress and film director Leni Riefenstahl. Nazi male and female youth groups were constantly hiking and camping and observing nature at their country's beautiful scenery and also getting in top physical condition to make good soldiers in a few years. The pagan Nazi's considered nature and the forests as part of their Nordic cult beliefs even getting married in ancient oak groves as their pagan ancestors did. One of the main beliefs of the Nazi's was "blood and soil". Todays greens would have a lot in common with the Nazi nature worshippers of the 1930's. But one group of these greens was totally pagan in outlook and the other one today is totally Marxist in outlook.

11 September 2012 at 19:02  
Blogger Green Christian said...

@Phil Roberts

I can't respond to something as vague as your comment, because you don't say which of my views you believe to be incompatible with Christianity.

If you want to get into specifics, then I'll happily discuss them with you. The best place to do so would be the comment section of the relevant post over at my blog. Doing it here would drag the comments on this post off-topic. Also, doing it here might make it difficult to follow the discussion because of all the unrelated comments.

11 September 2012 at 19:41  
Blogger len said...

Brighton is a' gay town '(in every sense of the word) and anyone making any sort of stand against SSM is in for a very rough time.

I don`t know this for a fact( but I suppose someone will enlighten me) but if'gays' are also 'greens' then any Christian in this particular Green enclave is in for a very hard time.

'Greens' and Christians should not be incompatible but they seem to be so in Brighton... especially if you throw 'gays' into the mix.

I lived near Brighton for many years so speak from personal experience of the situation there.

11 September 2012 at 20:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len said ...

"I lived near Brighton for many years so speak from personal experience of the situation there."

Indeed. And to think it all started with a naturalist beech amongst the stones - ouch!

11 September 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger Robert Hagedorn said...

Should the anus be used as a sex organ? Google First Scandal. When you get there, go to the top of the page and click on "Can you explain..." Please note: this website you reach will be deleted on November 1, 2012.

11 September 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger Telfs said...

If anyone would like to contact Jason Kitkat to ask him more about his Catholic faith then follow this link. Helpfully his email address and Mobile number are on his website: http://www.jasonkitcat.com/about/

11 September 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger Manfarang said...

ilma 630
"For example, enforcement of third-world countries to use renewables is entrenching poverty whereas access to cheap energy, e.g. via coal and gas, helps lift them out of it; or take the environmentalists' driven ban on DDT or golden rice that has caused the deaths of millions of children."
What the hell are you on about?
Controls on pollution and toxic waste are exactly what third world countries need

I gather that you like nothing better than sitting in deckchair on Brighton beach in mid November reading a copy of Mein Kampf.

12 September 2012 at 00:59  
Blogger John Magee said...

Wasn't there a Kit-Cat Club political society back in 18th century England? It's a very odd last name Mr Kitcat has.

12 September 2012 at 03:03  
Blogger John Magee said...


The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The ban on DDT decades ago has since caused millions to die in tropical climates from diseases spread by mosquitos and other insects these people should never have had to catch.

I grew up, literally within a few miles, from the home of the woman who started it all, Rachel Carson who lived here in Western Pennsylvania back then. Her book "the Silent Spring" which was published in 1962 was a full of false assumptions and blatant lies. For example she climed pollution was weakening the egg shells of wild birds and within 20 years of 1962 there would no longer be any birds. I see plenty of them every day now, fifty yars later in 2012, including too many useless pidgeons. Her false assumptions about DDT led the to it's being banned world wide which has resulted in the deaths of millions from malaria and other insect carried diseases in the 3rd world which DDT had already nearly wiped out by 1962 the year of the publication of her book.

Today she is an environmental saint. Her beautiful family homestead set in the woods and farmland near Springdale, Pennsylvania north of Pittsburgh, Pa is now a shrine to radical environmentalists from all over the world.

When I drive the short distance and visit family and friends back in my hometown of Pittsburgh I have to drive across the Rachel Carson Bridge and my blood pressure goes sky high when I think of the people her "good intentions" have unwittingly killed.

Pittsburgh is a city of many bridges and the one next to the Rachel Carson bridge is named after another famous person born and raised here: Andy Warhol.

I'm not a fan of Warhol's art but he was a practicing Catholic, even though in between Sunday Mass from one week to the next he led a decadent life in New York. He was also a Slovak. Since I am half Czech it makes me proud a Slav and hometown boy was successful and became famous in the USA.

12 September 2012 at 04:03  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Perhaps the Greens could make clear on all their literature that it is their policy that no Christians are tolerated in their party and that, if elected, they will encourage discrimination against them? That would be honest, at least.

The excuses made for them are, if anything, more disgraceful than the act itself, as less honest. If you're going to discriminate against the Christians, don't lie about it. That only tells us that, in addition to being bigoted, you know very well that you're doing wrong but are doing it anyway.

12 September 2012 at 07:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Manfarang. What sauce ! The Inspector has never read Mein Kampf. He’s not a bigot you know !

He is reminded that in pre war Germany, it was customary to present newly weds with a copy. If SSM does go through, he thinks he might revive that tradition by sending queersome couples the same. It’s always a challenge to be original when it comes to celebrating life long union commitments, don’t you find ?

12 September 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger Chris Lee said...

Deary me, the original article and subsequent comment trail really do typify all that is wrong with our current political and public dialogue on these profound issues.

Why do complex and nuanced issues always have to be made so shrill and reductive?

Behind all the accusations of facism and religious bigotry lies something with real people wrestling with real issues. The Cllr's decision to vote against the motion was no doubt a difficult one, requiring her to reconcile her lived faith with both the requirements of her office and her wider philosophical and political beliefs. The decision of the party to expel her was no doubt also a painful one that the members took no pleasure in (indeed the vote bears this out). This is a party that prides itself on its openess, democracy and lack of ideological stiffness. It is also a party that has sexual equality at the heart of its core philosophy. Don't imagine for one moment that this was an easy thing for them to do.

Does the public debate on this issue pick up on such subtlty? Not a bit of it.

How sad that, at a time when the vast historical repositary of moral and spiritual knowledge and lived faith that religion can bring to our most pressing problems is reduced to name calling and nastly little soundbites.

12 September 2012 at 09:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Why don’t you just come out with it Chris Lee, and say you are FOR gay marriage.

Instead, you wrap your message up with moralising rot, and seek to close down any criticism of the party’s stance...

12 September 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger Chris Lee said...

Office of Inspector General, how very kind of you to prove the point I was making.

Indeed, that very point is that the kind of language people like you use closes down debate and criticism - it doesn't open it up one bit. Your a conversation stopper. Literally (although I am kind of disproving my own case by responding to you, but contradiction is not such a bad thing)

Actually I think the party could be criticised just as I feel the Cllr herself could be criticised.

Could the party not have found some way to reconcile her vote with staying in the party? Maybe they could have, but in Brighton, her views would have made her and them an electoral liability. Cowardice on thier part?

Could the Cllr herself not have found a more honourable course of action? If her faith dictates that gay marriage is an issue of concience and that this would put her in direct philosophical opposition to her own party..... well then there is a question as to whether the honourable course of action would be to resign!

My point was that these things are never clear cut but multi layered, messy and complicated and reducing it to instantaneous slag offs kind of misses the mark

I think I would prefer "moralising rot" over your appraoch any time thanks.

For the record yes I do agree with gay marriage, but then I most clearly subscribe to a different variant of Christianity than you, but hey, difference is a great thing.

Peace be with you

12 September 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger Chris Lee said...

Office of Inspector General.

I owe you an apology. After looking at your other entries and your profile I now get it. I am new to blogging so am on a learning curve.

You are of course using irony to be politically subversive! Ahhh I see. You are not in fact a Colonal Blimp type let's take it all back to the early 1900s. Cool, your like a double agent!

That is pure comedic gold you are mining there. Big shout out due to you as Irony in this day and age is a tough gig. Comes to something when the real right wing loons are saying stuff more extreme than you could ever say. But well done for keeping up an honourable British comedic tradition. David Low would be proud.

This would explain why I saw you at the Brighton Pride after show party at Revenge. It was a great night huh? Was that also you at the socialist readers group on the following Sunday at Cafe 33 on Trafalger street?

12 September 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Chris Lee your different variant of Christianity does not exist.

Christianity Judaism Hinduism and Islam do not accept SSM.

12 September 2012 at 11:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chris Lee. For the record yes I do agree with gay marriage

Something missing from that line, don’t you think. Now, let’s see. How about we suffix with “and I would rather it was installed immediately without any more fuss and commotion”.

What do you think ?

Here’s another of yours – “Why do complex and nuanced issues always have to be made so shrill and reductive?”. Let’s accompany that with “when it’s so obvious that my opinion is the only one that matters”.

And lastly, (...for now...) we find I think I would prefer "moralising rot" over your approach any time thanks.

Moralising rot of course works best with a captive audience. “And now on Cranmer we have Chris Lee. Please note that questions will not be allowed afterwards.”

Can you see how the Inspector’s preferred ‘public debate’ is far superior to your moralising rot ?

12 September 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"For the record yes I do agree with gay marriage, but then I most clearly subscribe to a different variant of Christianity than you, but hey, difference is a great thing."

Scripture. n. archaic. See Liberalism.

12 September 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chris Lee. In the Inspectors opinion, the most prized of all wit is the back handed compliment. You can study the genre for a lifetime and still not be proficient at. Still, don’t let that stop you improving on your early attempts.

You are a ‘Pride-ist”. What shear bloody joy to be communicating with you dear boy ! There’s so much going for sodomy these days, don’t you think ? Bigoted people are so damn awkward, always going on about homosexual degeneracy and disease, and mental health issues so associated, not to mention the occasional sore bottom. And then you come along to put us all right. Damn good show !

pip pip !

12 September 2012 at 11:38  
Blogger William said...


Scripture. n. archaic. See Liberalism.

Neatly reductive to its essence without being shrill. Respec!

Reductive or discursive - AIB does both.

12 September 2012 at 11:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Shush you, or people will start accusing us of being the same person!

12 September 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 September 2012 at 12:55  
Blogger William said...

I doubt they would make that mistake.

12 September 2012 at 12:58  
Blogger Chris Lee said...

Whilst not a practicing sodamist myself, I do hear it can be quite fun, both the male on male and female/male variety. But why talk about our leisure activities?

Anyhoo... I am always one to admit when I am wrong so hear goes: You are absolutely right, the green party are a bunch of lentil munching, climate change spouting, faggot loving morons. In any sane world (that is like a world fit only for people like us yeah) they would not be allowed, and I will not be inviting them to any of my parties for sure. Indeed, I am normally happy to invite green party canvassers in for a cup of tea and hob nob (not a euphamism), but no more. I will from henceforth send them away with a flea in their nazi ears.

As a Christian, trying to use Jesus as an example of how to live, I now see that the issue of homosexuality and its degeneracy is most proably the most important. Indeed, my albeit limited knowledge of the books of the new testament assures me that the bible talks of little else. Not sure what freud would have made of that but he is anotehr degenerate almost as bad as that buffoon Dawkins

Anyway, to paraphrase the Monkies "now I'm a believer".

I feel thrice reborn so thank you so much, I never thought a blog could lead to such a profound conversion and revival of faith.

As the muslims say 'bukra In sha'Allah'.

Oi don't get me started on that subject.

12 September 2012 at 13:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good golly ! Chris ‘please sir, can I have some more’ Lee returns. The Inspector General is delighted at your conversion. Normally, liberal degenerates put up a fight when defending their lack of moral direction, and other related cherished ‘principles’ as they call them, despite not knowing a principle if it was to bite them on the behind. It’s only when they start to think for themselves do they see the error of their ways.

Good news about you denying yourself the dubious pleasures of someone else’s anus. Remember to rub plenty of carbolic onto the offending article should you ever feel temptation, er lets say ‘manifest’, itself in the future...

Toodle pip !

12 September 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Green Christian

I think that the majority of people who write on this blog would agree that the Green Party is extremely anti Christian.

My wife was an active member of the Green Party for many years but was dismayed at the slow creep to the left politically. There was a consequential anti Christian stance on such issues as family, the pro life movement, morality, marriage, in fact almost almost all Biblical wisdom the Green party seemed determined both to rubbish and increasingly to have no understanding of or tolerance of.

Her departure was marked by her buying a 4.2 liter 6 cylinder 4X4 for driving the kids to school. She loved it and as it has lasted 17 years and ferried our 7 children all over the place she regards it as a real "green" vehicle. needless to say, her old friends in the Green party are not impressed!


PS she also says that the Green Party has just one view of what a woman should behave and how they should think.

Remind you of any other groups in history "Green Christian"?

No of course these Greens are different... Not intolerant.... Nice people..... hug a tree?

12 September 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger ukFred said...

This is Green Party Democracy, one person, one vote. she just doesn't happen to be the one person with the one vote, so she is out.

12 September 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Green Christian said...

@Phil Roberts

What the majority of people on this blog think about the Green Party says nothing about what it is actually like. The blog has a clear political bias/stance at the extreme right end of the Conservative Party (which co-incides with the political stances of UKIP). Therefore it is inevitable that it will attract people who have a bias against the Greens, and little experience of what it is actually like.

Yes, there are parts of the Green Party policy platform that don't sit well with what's in the Bible. But that is true of every political party. Even the ones that claim to be based on Christian principles. There are also things in there that are very much in line with scripture. Earlier you said that you'd had a look at my blog. Assuming you spent more than a minute there, you'll know that I spend a lot of it arguing political issues on the grounds of what's in the Bible.

In any case, there are issues where the Greens are clearly more in line with the Bible than other political parties. Take the Greens' attitude to consumerism. We live in a society which is dominated by the love of money and the things we can buy. This idolatrous attitude is something that the Bible spends a lot of time warning against. But the Greens are the only political party that thinks consumerism is a bad thing. And the only one that has economic and social policies which seek to discourage it.

My personal experience of the party is that they are happy to welcome Christians. The only hostility I've ever had towards my beliefs has been in the course of debating the rights and wrongs of this case. And that hostility has come exclusively from those who have a very strong attachment to the gay rights agenda. And on this issue, they are emotionally involved because they believed that she broke a specific promise to uphold their point of view on the issue. People with that worldview can be found in almost every Parliamentary party (the only exception being the DUP).

The things that people are saying about the Green Party in this discussion simply do not tally with my personal experience of the party over the last few years. Claims that the party would persecute Christians if they got into power are about as plausible as the similar claims Republicans made about Barack Obama four years ago. Claims that the party is determined to oppose every Biblical wisdom seem to be based on equating the Bible with a particular set of political positions (the "religious right" view). The fact that the Bible does not speak directly to most of today's political issues. Which means that we can very rarely be dogmatic about what a Christian approach to a particular political issue is.

12 September 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms Green Christian,

"The blog has a clear political bias/stance at the extreme right end of the Conservative Party (which co-incides with the political stances of UKIP)."


That's why His Grace remains a Conservative, and his blog peddles such 'extreme right' bias as THIS, THIS, THIS or THIS. His Grace is a little more nuanced than the caricature you present. But, of course, Greens are not generally known for their own lack of bias or political impartiality.

12 September 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Green Christian. the Greens are the only political party that thinks consumerism is a bad thing. And the only one that has economic and social policies which seek to discourage it.

Quite brilliant. All production will no doubt be turned over to producing state tractors. Now, which country was it where the Inspector read about that approach...

On a separate note, the Stalinists and Trots who used to infest unions at local level seem to have flown. One wonders where they went...

12 September 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Green Christian

"My personal experience of the party is that they are happy to welcome Christians."

Of course they are! They'll welcome anyone so long as they behave. And that means not holding to any sort of orthodoxy except the one at the heart of the Green Party.

An attitude beautifully embodied here:

"Which means that we can very rarely be dogmatic about what a Christian approach to a particular political issue is."

What that means is not that there are a number of acceptable doctrinal positions, or that there is a serious engagement with Biblical teaching - it's that we can't be dogmatic. The offense is to introduce any sense of orthodoxy.

When you affirm "difference" you are not in fact affirming difference. Socially conservative Christians, and Christians of a doctrinally orthodox persuasion are perfectly aware of differences between themselves and the rest of the world: they're just not content to stand by and say that all options are equally good on some issues.

There is a profound difference between chastity and promiscuity, or avarice and charity. You are correct to observe that the Greens have little tolerance for the difference in the latter. Christians with any degree of respect for the authority of Scripture tend to observe a similar "intolerance" of difference in the former.

And that's really it: the Green Party, like all Social Progressives, has an ideological orthodoxy of its own; one which does not affirm difference, but rejects any authority to use difference as a guide to living, except when it comes to one's income or one's carbon footprint.

(Disclaimer: since you've rolled out the 'extreme right end' line. I have given my first-preference vote to the Green party in numerous elections including the last one. I am under no illusion as to what the party stands for, or how it operates at a local level.)

12 September 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger Chris Lee said...

Green Christian,

me thinks you are on a hiding to nothing on this one.

I do like the picture being painted of the green party on these pages.

Have any of you lot actually had any involvement with the party (particularly at a local level)? Good God they couldn't sort out a piss up in a proverbial brewery, let alone pull together a coherant conspiracy against Christians or anyone else for that matter.

Also, to anon in Belfast, you appear to know more about religious orthodoxy than you do green philosophy.

Most green philosophy is reactionary and essentially conservative (with roots in the romantic backlash in the 18th and 19th centuries). I don't meet many greens who subscribe to what I would call the core enlightenment values and historical trajectories thereof.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that you guys should rub along pretty well as you both have an uneasy relationship with modernity. Having said that the gay rights thing might get in the way, but no doubt you can work through that.

While all this blog posting is jolly good fun there is out there in the world a brute sociological fact; we live in world of heterodoxy and difference. Simply stating that here you stand and can do no other is not a recipe for peacable relations amongst peoples. At one end of the spectrum that kind of thought leads to innocuous banter on a blog, at the other end it leads to the bombing of embassies.

Finally, Office of Inspector general, you could have been more specific on the carbolic front. Thought you meant acid rather than soap - Ouch!

12 September 2012 at 20:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chris Lee. Glad to see you’ve entered into the spirit of things. Far too many people posting here take themselves over seriously, don’t you know...

Don’t worry about the gay uprising. They’ll soon be back in their box brushing down their Afghans (...hounds that is, not the men, but then again we are talking gay...). All it takes is for someone to say NO to them. You see, one strong man, and militant pooftery collapses (...panting in admiration, probably...).

Anyway, fall out and carry on....

pip pip !

12 September 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"we live in world of heterodoxy and difference."

Er... yes. But it's where we choose which differences that matter that delineate the boundaries of our philosophies.

Where'd you get enlightenment philosophy from anything I wrote? I simply spoke of the present-day Green party possessing an orthodoxy of its own. Which it does. Generally though it instills it through collective disapproval rather than centrally-imposed discipline. Case in point - the Green Party in Ireland voted unanimously in favour of SSM. You'd be swimming against the current if you took a different view - which is why I said attendance and participation is dependent on good behaviour.

As to the Greens being conservative - either fiscally or socially - you must be kidding. I know that there are coalitions between Green Parties and conservative politicians in other countries but both the UK and NI Green Parties are strongly in favour of wealth redistribution (left), New Deal-type Keynsian stimulae through green-friendly industries (not exclusively but primarily centrist-left), and are strongly socially progressive. The only thing "conservative" about them is their nostalgia for the countryside.

12 September 2012 at 21:51  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I personally have no time for the green party as quite clearly they are a viciously misanthropic, anti-capitalist political organisation funded by deep-green ecoloons who given half the chance would have us all living in Maoist peasant collectives while they busily bombed our economy back to the dark ages.

12 September 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

In case you need some sort of reference for that Chris, here's the present Green Party (England & Wales) manifesto link to the relevant area of discussion:


By chance (!) they use LGBT issues as an "example" of how they will approach equality. You can read it for yourself, but there is only one mention made about religious groups:

"Oppose all opt-outs from equality and antidiscrimination laws by religious organisations and remove special treatment allowing faith schools to promote homophobia on the grounds of religion."

Now, just what about that poses any troubles to my analysis?

12 September 2012 at 22:04  
Blogger Chris Lee said...

Anon in Belfast.

That is a great line you used, can I steal that "But it's where we choose which differences that matter that delineate the boundaries of our philosophies". You must be a philosohpy or theology student?

Sorry but I still stand by my contention that in essence most green philosophy is essentially 'conservative'. Note I say green philosohpy and not green party. I have to say you are right about the green party in the UK. It is a kind of strange amalgam of wildly contradictory voices that are both reactionary and radical at the same time. Kind of understadnable given that 'greenness' is not in itself a ready packed political philosophy, albeit it is a conservative philosophical position. Also it is nto correct to say that it is the issue of the countryside that defines any conservatism on the part of the greens. Actually that is where they are at thier most schitzoid, happy to tear it all up in defence of the climate. Defenders of the green stuff have to look to the likes of Prince Charles and Roger Scruton for that.

However, fundamentally the greens have at thier very heart a deep mistrust of modern society and its works (hence conservative). Their espousal of keynsian fiscal policy and support of gay rights does not negate that conservatism. There was a time not so long ago when the conservative party itself were rabid Keynsians (and no doubt will be again when this useless Government's plan A falls on its arse) and I understand that there is much support for full gay rights from many conservatives (the more modern, liberal, metro types no doubt).

One question for you though, in choosing which differences matter do you rely on the authority of scripture and orthodoxy or do you call on a broader range of sources?

12 September 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Belfast,

Then why the heck do you vote for the Greens then?

12 September 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Mr Green Christian is right when he says the general political tenor of this site is right-wing although I would question whether it could be described as extreme.

I am a Leftie myself and would not call this site extreme, certainly not as far as Cranmer's pieces are concerned.

From the quote found my anonymous in Belfast can I conclude that Catholic teaching on homosexuality will be banned in schools and public places if the Greens come to power?

12 September 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger St Bruno said...

I refuse to dance to the Muslim tune of hate speech
sanctioned by the UN group known as OIC (Organisation of
Islamic Cooperation). Even talking about Islam is Islamophobic.

Try link for more on sad killing of US ambassador to Libya.

Charles Clément Boniface Ozdemir, dit le Père Samuel,
est évêque belge de l’Église catholique.
In my humble opinion well worth your time to see and hear. If only to hear a master of the rant in the true old fashioned style so missing today.

12 September 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Accepted, if one wants to see Green Philosophy in general terms, one could look at it as a pan-political thing. Cameron's "Notting Hill" set are arguably from that "green" tradition too. Actually, down south (Ireland), there used to be a stronger conservative element to the Greens, though the present party is not enormously dissimilar from the England and Wales Green Party.

But I'm stumped as to why you think being opposed to society is a conservative trait. The one thing the Greens do have in common with conservative parties is their localism - and a preference to return decision making to people (albeit through the instruments of the state rather than private enterprise, which is where the comparison falls apart). They distrust big business, not people - at least on paper anyway.

The Conservative Party has long since ceased being very conservative in the UK. Apart from its spinning on austerity (very little of which is actually happening), it is basically a fudge party. I'm not sure that I'd characterise the pro-SSM lobby in the Conservatives as being exclusively modern metro types - I'm sure they're the loudest supporters, but personal experience leads me to believe that much of the time it's largely superficial. Small-State Conservatives who prefer as little interference in social affairs could easily support it - and in fact historically, it's tended to be this cohort that's seen through key pieces of legislation on abortion, decriminalization of homosexuality, and back in the day emancipation both in the UK and the USA. The remainder seem to be largely careerists who have realised that it defuses a lot of Labour's ammunition to claim certain totems (SSM, anti-Islamaphobia), even if it doesn't usually transform into votes outside of London (so they're Metropolitan I guess).

12 September 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger William Lewis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 September 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger William said...

"From the quote found my[sic] anonymous in Belfast can I conclude that Catholic teaching on homosexuality will be banned in schools and public places if the Greens come to power?"

and if they don't.

12 September 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Three reasons really.

Firstly because the ballsed up political settlement here means nobody is ever out of government. Unless I think there's a substantial likelihood of Sinn Féin getting in with an outright majority, I see no reason to vote for parties that essentially don't care, and don't do anything. Smaller parties have the advantage over the others that they actually have to try and win votes - and very often they work far harder than their peers in Stormont.

Secondly, because my local DUP candidate is breathtakingly incompetent. I don't have anything much against the DUP in theory - but it is ruddy hard finding some human beings in the party who I'd be happy to vote for. The Green Candidate on the other hand is hard-working and generally agreeable.

Thirdly, because I refuse to vote for any candidate, or any party that condones, apologises for, or seeks to relativse violence (hence my refusal to support Sinn Féin - it's not a Catholic thing). This rules out quite a lot of people in Northern Ireland. As I live in the DUP heartlands, we don't have a UUP candidate running, which leaves me with Alliance (who are not much better than the LibDems), the Greens, and the Socialist Worker Party.

12 September 2012 at 23:11  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Knox's Lovechild & William:

I'd say that's a fairly safe assumption.

12 September 2012 at 23:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Crumbs - I've only just noticed this, but who should have provided legal counsel to Cllr. Summers but our old friends The Christian Legal Centre!

Another triumph for the lawyers there!

DanJ0 - you can add this to your collection, if you haven't already.

12 September 2012 at 23:17  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Belfast,

The devil and the deep blue sea I see. Perhaps you should form the Anon -In-Belfast party? And perhaps you might even win!

12 September 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Sadly, my RP accent would do for my political chances here.

12 September 2012 at 23:34  
Blogger Green Christian said...

@Archbishop Cranmer
Apologies for assuming, based on many years of following your blog, that you were on the "far right wing" of the Conservative Party rather than just the "right wing" of it.

You appear to be misreading my post. When I said that we can't be dogmatic about stating whether a particular political position is Christian or not, I meant that the Bible does not explicitly deal with the big political issues of our day. Therefore, there are almost always a wide range of positions that Christians can legitimately take on any given political issue.

Saying that we should not be dogmatic about secondary and tertiary issues which scripture does not directly address does NOT imply that I reject the concept of orthodoxy. I will happily declare that beliefs contrary to the Apostles' Creed or the Nicene Creed are heretical.

However, unless we are discussing an issue that the Bible explicitly talks about, I will not insist that my political views are the only ones that are compatible with scripture. And even with those issues, I acknowledge that there are a variety of ways of putting the principles into practice.

I will argue why I think my politics comes out of Biblical principles. I will argue why I think the other side's views do not quite fit with scripture. But I will not dismiss the possibility that the other side is right. I will not insist that the other side's views are incompatible with Christianity unless they conflict with first order doctrines, or are clearly and unambiguously at odds with living a Christian life (e.g. the BNP's racism is blatantly incompatible with loving thy neighbour).

The reason I reject dogmatism when it comes to political issues is this: It is all too easy to approach politics from a tribal perspective - to come up with rationalisations why the policy of your political party or favourite newspaper is right. If I have a dogmatic approach, then I risk falling into a tribal groupthink, no matter which part of the political spectrum I fall into. Political tribalism is a dangerous trap that poisons politics. Being dogmatic about which political views are compatible with Christianity makes it far more likely that you will get stuck in that trap.

And as for your support of the Northern Irish Greens, I think there's probably a fourth reason you've left unsaid. My understanding of Northern Irish politics is that the vast majority of the population vote on a single issue. The Greens are pretty much the only party in the province that aren't defined by their stance on which country Northern Ireland should be in. Right now, they and the Alliance Party (which is only partly defined by the issue) are the only hope of reforming Northern Irish politics to be about issues that actually affect peoples' day to day lives. Although this is, of course, connected to your point 1.

12 September 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Green Christian:

I was careful to distinguish between what arises out of a semi-consensual orthodoxy and your own views. I don't doubt your own sincerity - and there is a distinct possibility that you are "swimming against the tide" so to speak on any number of issues where Christian orthodoxy will clash with the "orthodoxy" (though Groupthink is the less flattering term) of Social Progressivism. There will also be a lot of overlap - at least as far as the sentiments of caring for the environment, looking after the poor, seeking social as well legal justice etc. etc.

"I will argue why I think my politics comes out of Biblical principles. I will argue why I think the other side's views do not quite fit with scripture. But I will not dismiss the possibility that the other side is right. I will not insist that the other side's views are incompatible with Christianity unless they conflict with first order doctrines, or are clearly and unambiguously at odds with living a Christian life (e.g. the BNP's racism is blatantly incompatible with loving thy neighbour)."

This is all good and well, and obviously it works for the likes of yourself and Cllr. Kitcat. But what's happening here is a consquence of seeing the political and the religious as fundamentally distinct. Yet, clearly this cannot be the case, if your own political views stem from your religious conscience. Arguing that you avoid political dogmatism - or tribal dogmatism (which really isn't that common in UK politics along religious grounds - it's been a long time since the Tories were the CofE) - sidesteps the issue. If something demands of your conscience for reasons of it being part of Christian doctrine (so for instance, no blaspheming God), you cannot endorse or tolerate it without capitulating the faith. That doesn't mean every issue has to be a conflict - I agree with you there entirely - but there will be some issues, where the very fact that Christianity takes a stand on sexual morality, or even on something as basic as Jesus as the Judge of the World, is itself offensive to the collective wisdom of the party.

And while you may prefer to leave this untouched - the Green Party itself doesn't. Largely because it doesn't need to worry - it has tended to be unanimous on many of the touchstone issues. That's why it can take a far harder line than any of the main political parties on refusing religious "opt-outs" to equality law.

The question isn't what the Green Party will think or do - short of a miracle, we know it won't be Christian in first principles or in detail - it's what those of us who vote for them or are members do when those incompatabilities arise, and whether we choose to doff the cap to whatever ideological totem the Social Progressives of the day have rallied around (for it does change), or whether we stick to Christian orthodoxy.

13 September 2012 at 00:52  
Blogger Chris Lee said...

Anon in Belfast,

I have to say that analysis I think is spot on.

Interestingly this is what got me to post here in the first place. It kind of stuck in my craw that most of the posts appeared to be 'blaming' the greens. What most did not do was ask what personal and political responsiblity the Cllr herself felt in staying with a party that so clearly fell oustide of her moral circle on a fundamanental issue. You can hardly blame a political party for trying to adhere to some kind of coherant 'brand'. Having said that we should try to empathise with the Cllr as navigating these things is never easy.

As you have rightly said, the Greens have made Equality a quite defining totemtic issue for them and no doubt any devout and orthodox Christian would need to explore thier own concience quite depply to inform thier course of action, either on the level of poltical office, party memebership, or voting.

However, the ethical and moral dillemas of poltical choice are not the sole preserve of Christians, even orthodox ones. Indeed even secularists and athiests face such dillemas for humanist reasons.

I do agree with you and his Grace on the major fact though. It is that it is a complete myth to talk about the seperation of poltics and religion. Seperation of church and state yes (as a secularist I support that). However, for a person or group of faith not to bring religion into politics is, to me, a rather fantastical notion.

Surely in discussing the major issues facing us we need all of the moral, ethical and spritual equipment we can muster and bare. How can that not be political.

However, secularism does demand that after deliberation must be choice and it is here that those who have lost 'the battle' this time must obey the law and have confidence that they still maintian the fundamental right to engage in the next one. Surely the alternative is, in its extreme, what we have seen in Libya?

I also think both sides need a bit more sophistication in how they think about the 'other'. Just as it is not appropriate to call the green aprty fascists for thier decision trian, it is wrong to typecast orthodox religious types with the homophobic/biggot type (Nick Clegg take note). Safe to say there is often and element of homophobia but I think this is rare amongst religious types. More oftent than not it is individuals trying to be true to their faith and concience. This is why, even though I am a supporter of gay marriage, I do not beleive that it is the right or role of government to impose this on churches. But please let churches have that debate free from name calling and intimidation on either side.

13 September 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Mr Belfast,

Didn't do Enoch Powell any bother did it?

13 September 2012 at 14:20  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I suspect the Revd Paisley's comments to Powell to the effect that he was a foreigner and an Anglo-Catholic would swiftly find currency again if I ever stood for office in Northern Ireland :)

Besides, there are few who could stand in the shadow of Powell and appear tall.

13 September 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Another bit of info to add to this:

Check out the comment by the lawyer representing the UK government at the ECHR hearing. It's not a long stone's throw from that to where we see the Greens are!

13 September 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 September 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

So Green Christian

Do you see yourself as in a Dietrich Bonhoeffer role?

(Who worked with the Nazis hoping to bring about change... ultimately paying the price like many Christians at the time)


Are the Greens not that bad?

Surely the Greens cannot be that bad.. look at all the good things in their manifesto...new autobahns, a people's car, Volkshaus...everything in the state nothing outside the state.. Sorry that was someone else..different time entirely...no connection at all.....what was I thinking?.... we are past all of that...moved on to a brighter future more tolerant of everybody and everything they do.. as long as they agree with us..... what? hang on a minute..

A Christian can only serve one master. Well done Christina Summers. We need more of us to be like you!


13 September 2012 at 21:17  
Blogger Nick said...

Its a pity that the Green party is as intolerant of of freedom of conscience as the LibDems. Guarantees they will never get my vote

14 September 2012 at 22:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older