Greens snub Christian Lobby election forum

chewy14 said :

dungfungus said :

pink little birdie said :

Typical Greens. Anything they disagree with is labelled “extremism” and “bigoted”.

These people were copping those terms regardless of whether the Greens are in play or not because it pretty much describes them.

‘Bigotry’ is a real thing; it’s not something made up just for you to feel like a special snowflake for disagreeing with the Green Party.

This isn’t a case where people who are homophobic or racist or religiously prejudiced or whatnot get to say ‘don’t call me a bigot because that’s not how I self-identify’.

When you google the word “bigot” the first definition given is “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions”. That sums the Greens up perfectly. They are so busy shouting bigot at those they disagree with (who, incidentally, generally happen to be quite respectful about differences of opinion) that they don’t see the hypocrisy of their actions.

Yes, bigotry is a real thing. Just look at the progressives.

By your own definition your last sentence could also be considered to be bigotary. Hmm where does one draw the line to bigotary or just simply having an opposing view?

My last sentence doesn’t demonstrate intolerance. It’s evidence of disapproval, though. There’s a huge difference and the fact that people refuse to see the it, is what allows leftist groups to drag political discourse to the level of blind hatred and flagrant hostility. Unlike the people who spend their time squealing ‘bigot’ at everyone they disagree with, I’m more than happy for opposing views to exist and be expressed.

Funny how much this “Christian” organization has in common with Islam, in regards to their views on the LGBT community. Could we one day see them put aside their differences and form an alliance to oppose abominations before God/Mohammed?

Is that so? Please go ahead and list the similarities for us.

theword said :

pink little birdie said :

When it comes down to it, there needs to be a voice for the progressives in this country.

So you admit the Greens have been infiltrated by people who are excessively interested in fringe issues and social activism that has nothing to do with environmental conservatism.

Why should the *Greens* be the voice for the indoctrinees conned by 40 years of post-rational neo-marxist anti-social philosophies?

No, I do not admit that they have been infiltrated by anyone, nor do I think that they have abandoned their original intent. I have observed that as a party, the Greens have evolved to become more than a one-trick pony and a real contender for a number of important seats around the country. They broadened the focus of their policies as their relevance and public profile grew.

Equality is not a fringe issue. It’s a very important issue that affects the majority of people in this country. If you are able to explain how it is a post-rational, anti-social policy, I would love to hear why.

Your biggest issue seems to be that the party is still called the Greens, even though they have diversified. Considering that the environment remains central to a large amount of their policies, it’s not a misnomer. Evolution is a natural process, particularly in politics – see how the ALP has evolved since the Whitlam years.

dungfungus said :

pink little birdie said :

Typical Greens. Anything they disagree with is labelled “extremism” and “bigoted”.

These people were copping those terms regardless of whether the Greens are in play or not because it pretty much describes them.

‘Bigotry’ is a real thing; it’s not something made up just for you to feel like a special snowflake for disagreeing with the Green Party.

This isn’t a case where people who are homophobic or racist or religiously prejudiced or whatnot get to say ‘don’t call me a bigot because that’s not how I self-identify’.

When you google the word “bigot” the first definition given is “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions”. That sums the Greens up perfectly. They are so busy shouting bigot at those they disagree with (who, incidentally, generally happen to be quite respectful about differences of opinion) that they don’t see the hypocrisy of their actions.

Yes, bigotry is a real thing. Just look at the progressives.

By your own definition your last sentence could also be considered to be bigotary. Hmm where does one draw the line to bigotary or just simply having an opposing view?

Christina Hobbs’s reaction is inappropriate and quite concerning.

Sure, she may not like the wackos at the ACL, but to boycott their election forum is not what a serious politician should ever do. It raises doubts about their suitability for the very position they seek.

Say Hobbs is successful and gets elected, and as a Senator, represents the 250,000 ACT voters and their children. Her job is to represent all of them, not just her narrow view of those who agree with her. If elected to the Senate, Hobbs would frequently receive petitions from constituents asking her to table them in the Senate on their behalf. The question then becomes, should she refuse to represent constituents who she is a senator for but disagrees with?

Flip it the other way: an ACL candidate is successful, and then ignores greens / Muslims / LGBTI / climate change believers / women…

It should not matter whether she agrees with their views or not – it should matter whether she supports the institution of democracy which permits people to have differing views, and whether she takes her potential democratic role seriously.

Funny how much this “Christian” organization has in common with Islam, in regards to their views on the LGBT community. Could we one day see them put aside their differences and form an alliance to oppose abominations before God/Mohammed?

Let me see – in Islam, a religion centred around the doings of a 7th-century warlord, the mainstream view is that homosexuality (like apostasy) is a crime against religious law punishable by death.
In Christianity, a religion centred around the doings of a non-violent (apart from the money-changers, but they had it coming) social reformer from Roman times, the mainstream view is that homosexuality is a sin that should be mildly discouraged.

Yep, almost identical.

pink little birdie said :

Typical Greens. Anything they disagree with is labelled “extremism” and “bigoted”.

These people were copping those terms regardless of whether the Greens are in play or not because it pretty much describes them.

‘Bigotry’ is a real thing; it’s not something made up just for you to feel like a special snowflake for disagreeing with the Green Party.

This isn’t a case where people who are homophobic or racist or religiously prejudiced or whatnot get to say ‘don’t call me a bigot because that’s not how I self-identify’.

When you google the word “bigot” the first definition given is “a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions”. That sums the Greens up perfectly. They are so busy shouting bigot at those they disagree with (who, incidentally, generally happen to be quite respectful about differences of opinion) that they don’t see the hypocrisy of their actions.

Yes, bigotry is a real thing. Just look at the progressives.

rommeldog56 said :

I applaud those progressive politicians, like Australian Sex Party candidate Steven Bailey, who made the uncomfortable and courageous decision to front a conservative forum such as last night’s, hosted by the Australian Christian Lobby. I understand, but don’t agree with the decision of the Greens to boycott the forum.

Contemporary political discourse is becoming more polarised as each of us builds comfortable echo chambers of our own minds through social media, our social networks and our greater ability to customise our newsfeeds with perspectives that align with our own. Debate and discourse is increasingly stilted and based on assertions and conjecture, making nuanced, considered and evidence-based analysis increasingly rare. Debate is far too focused on winning through aggression rather on bridging points of view, building understanding and empathy, finding shared values and advancing our collective wisdom.

Steven Bailey knew his and the Australian Sex Party’s views were at polar opposites compared to the dominant perspectives of last night’s audience, but it demonstrates courage, integrity and a willingness to work collaboratively with all sorts. Fiona Patten, in the Victorian Parliament, has shown just how effective this can be, spurring-on the Labor Government to make numerous significant reforms including most recently today’s tabling of a bill to establish a framework enabling the legal operation of ride sharing services in Victoria.

Steven demonstrated a commitment to working towards a better more inclusive polity by attending last night. That would not have been achieved by boycotting. That alone is worthy of praise, regardless your political persuasion.

Well said. Good on Steven for attending, and good on the ACL for inviting him.

Funny how much this “Christian” organization has in common with Islam, in regards to their views on the LGBT community. Could we one day see them put aside their differences and form an alliance to oppose abominations before God/Mohammed?

rommeldog56 said :

Steven demonstrated a commitment to working towards a better more inclusive polity by attending last night. That would not have been achieved by boycotting. That alone is worthy of praise, regardless your political persuasion.

10/10 from me.

Masquara said :

Garfield said :

Why the obsession about homosexuality, abortion, encouraging illegal immigrants, and the targeting of children for gender-theory lessons?

No idea, but it’s true: the ACL are really, really obsessed with those. I’ve not heard them talk about much else.

If they are, it’s only in a reactionary sense.

The problem with the Greens is they have a completely schizophrenic view on morality: on the one hand their policies are heavily laden with decades of anti-moral marxist thinking. On the other, their opposition to conservatism and traditional values is rooted in a profound sense of self-belief in the unimpeachable morality of their progressive attitudes.

If they just stuck to supporting
– the energy revolution
– pigovian taxes on fossil fuels
– zero population growth
– protecting national environmental assets from predatory corporations
then they would get all the environmental vote and be on an equal electoral footing with the current scumbags who get to run the show.

Good. The ACL do not represent the majority of Christians.

Interestingly, the Greens do not represent the majority of environmentalists either. They should be a good fit with the ACL for promoting an ideal that they themselves don’t follow.

““Absolutely not. While I’m happy to speak with people of all political persuasion I will not legitimise an extreme fringe group,” Ms Hobbs said.
“We didn’t receive it in ACT to my knowledge but I don’t have time to fill a survey of a fringe group with bigoted extreme views.””

ahahahahaha.

The Greens party is worried about extreme fringe groups and bigots? I thought that’s where most of their support came from?

Perhaps they should rethink their support of certain organisations who regularly flout the law if they are in a reforming mood?

I applaud those progressive politicians, like Australian Sex Party candidate Steven Bailey, who made the uncomfortable and courageous decision to front a conservative forum such as last night’s, hosted by the Australian Christian Lobby. I understand, but don’t agree with the decision of the Greens to boycott the forum.

Contemporary political discourse is becoming more polarised as each of us builds comfortable echo chambers of our own minds through social media, our social networks and our greater ability to customise our newsfeeds with perspectives that align with our own. Debate and discourse is increasingly stilted and based on assertions and conjecture, making nuanced, considered and evidence-based analysis increasingly rare. Debate is far too focused on winning through aggression rather on bridging points of view, building understanding and empathy, finding shared values and advancing our collective wisdom.

Steven Bailey knew his and the Australian Sex Party’s views were at polar opposites compared to the dominant perspectives of last night’s audience, but it demonstrates courage, integrity and a willingness to work collaboratively with all sorts. Fiona Patten, in the Victorian Parliament, has shown just how effective this can be, spurring-on the Labor Government to make numerous significant reforms including most recently today’s tabling of a bill to establish a framework enabling the legal operation of ride sharing services in Victoria.

Steven demonstrated a commitment to working towards a better more inclusive polity by attending last night. That would not have been achieved by boycotting. That alone is worthy of praise, regardless your political persuasion.

pink little birdie said :

When it comes down to it, there needs to be a voice for the progressives in this country.

So you admit the Greens have been infiltrated by people who are excessively interested in fringe issues and social activism that has nothing to do with environmental conservatism.

Why should the *Greens* be the voice for the indoctrinees conned by 40 years of post-rational neo-marxist anti-social philosophies?

gooterz said :

Good. The ACL do not represent the majority of Christians.

Are you a Christian?

Whether I am or not is irrelevant. I do know many Christians who both preach AND practice compassion, empathy and tolerance. Unlike the ACL, who continue to have a very disturbing obsession with the physical act of gay sex.

Good. The ACL do not represent the majority of Christians.

Are you a Christian?

Typical Greens. Anything they disagree with is labelled “extremism” and “bigoted”.

These people were copping those terms regardless of whether the Greens are in play or not because it pretty much describes them.

‘Bigotry’ is a real thing; it’s not something made up just for you to feel like a special snowflake for disagreeing with the Green Party.

This isn’t a case where people who are homophobic or racist or religiously prejudiced or whatnot get to say ‘don’t call me a bigot because that’s not how I self-identify’.

Garfield said :

Typical Greens. Anything they disagree with is labelled “extremism” and “bigoted”. Talk about hypocritical. I wonder if Hobbs gets the irony of a member of the Greens labeling someone else a group of fringe extremists?

I’m looking forward to not hearing anything from her once she fails to get elected.

Fast-forward about 50 years and we can look forward to a marxist-infiltrated Greens taking power and doing far, far more about “fringe extremists” (aka, anybody who disagrees with them) than simply refusing dialogue with them.

The Greens have moved so, so far off the path of environmentalism it isn’t funny.
The christian idea that we are stewards of god’s creation and responsible for its conservation is perfectly in step with what should be a core Greens value.

But no, the Greens are far too interested in fringe non-envrionmental issues to do anything sensible about the environment. Why the obsession about homosexuality, abortion, encouraging illegal immigrants, and the targeting of children for gender-theory lessons?
What about the environment?

Actually, the Greens remain invested in environmental issues. Their core policies include delivering a new Environmental Act, investing in solar power, phasing out live animal exports, and protecting marine life (including the Reef). However, the Greens have grown from being a one-trick party and long ago overtook from the Democrats as the third party of interest.

By doing this, they had to redistribute their focus. Considering that the ALP is relatively conservative on a lot of issues, the Greens are at the progressive end of the scale and are pushing for policy that provides actual action. The “Christian idea that we are stewards of God’s creation” is actually not a concept specific to Christianity. Given that the Greens are our progressive party and that we have separation of Church and State in this country, it’s not surprising that they would seek to distance themselves from a party whose spokesperson said that marriage equality would lead to another stolen generation.

When it comes down to it, there needs to be a voice for the progressives in this country. There needs to be a group fighting for equality and for people to have autonomy over their own bodies that is not dependent on individual views (and yes, I am referring to abortion). If the Nationals weren’t in the coalition with the Liberals, there would be a noticeable far-right wing voice as well. As it is, the conservatives are currently in government, and the other large party is not as progressive as some would like Australia to be. That’s why they have broadened their approach from only focusing on the environment – they would never have become the voice that they are today if they had maintained such a narrow approach.

Good. The ACL do not represent the majority of Christians.

They really don’t. Or Australians, to highlight another third of their name.

Garfield said :

Why the obsession about homosexuality, abortion, encouraging illegal immigrants, and the targeting of children for gender-theory lessons?

No idea, but it’s true: the ACL are really, really obsessed with those. I’ve not heard them talk about much else.

Garfield said :

Typical Greens. Anything they disagree with is labelled “extremism” and “bigoted”. Talk about hypocritical. I wonder if Hobbs gets the irony of a member of the Greens labeling someone else a group of fringe extremists?

I’m looking forward to not hearing anything from her once she fails to get elected.

Fast-forward about 50 years and we can look forward to a marxist-infiltrated Greens taking power and doing far, far more about “fringe extremists” (aka, anybody who disagrees with them) than simply refusing dialogue with them.

The Greens have moved so, so far off the path of environmentalism it isn’t funny.
The christian idea that we are stewards of god’s creation and responsible for its conservation is perfectly in step with what should be a core Greens value.

But no, the Greens are far too interested in fringe non-envrionmental issues to do anything sensible about the environment. Why the obsession about homosexuality, abortion, encouraging illegal immigrants, and the targeting of children for gender-theory lessons?
What about the environment?

Thank God we have deep thinkers like you Henry to expose the Greens for what they are.

Typical Greens. Anything they disagree with is labelled “extremism” and “bigoted”. Talk about hypocritical. I wonder if Hobbs gets the irony of a member of the Greens labeling someone else a group of fringe extremists?

I’m looking forward to not hearing anything from her once she fails to get elected.

Fast-forward about 50 years and we can look forward to a marxist-infiltrated Greens taking power and doing far, far more about “fringe extremists” (aka, anybody who disagrees with them) than simply refusing dialogue with them.

The Greens have moved so, so far off the path of environmentalism it isn’t funny.
The christian idea that we are stewards of god’s creation and responsible for its conservation is perfectly in step with what should be a core Greens value.

But no, the Greens are far too interested in fringe non-envrionmental issues to do anything sensible about the environment. Why the obsession about homosexuality, abortion, encouraging illegal immigrants, and the targeting of children for gender-theory lessons?
What about the environment?

This is the right call by the Greens, and the Sex Party should be following suit.

Good. The ACL do not represent the majority of Christians.

Typical Greens. Anything they disagree with is labelled “extremism” and “bigoted”. Talk about hypocritical. I wonder if Hobbs gets the irony of a member of the Greens labeling someone else a group of fringe extremists?

I’m looking forward to not hearing anything from her once she fails to get elected.