mightychurch.com

Kevin Andrews has written on “The Greens Agenda: Part 1 - Western culture and the Greens” and
“The Greens Agenda: Part 2 -Ideology”.

Liberal frontbencher Kevin Andrews begins his excellent analysis of the Greens’ ideology:

For many years, the Greens have been treated as a political curiosity. They could win a spot or two in the Senate, but they were absent from the real place of political power, the House of Representatives. That has now changed. Not only will they have more senators from July next year, they also have a seat in the House. More significantly, they are in a formal alliance with the minority Labor government nationally and in Tasmania.

Despite the emphasis on the environment, “the Greens are not a single issue party.” Their objective is clear: “to transform politics and bring about Green government.”[ii] The Australian Greens are part of a worldwide movement that is actively engaged in the political process.[iii] As their writings state, this objective involves a radical transformation of the culture that underpins western civilization. As a political party, they should be treated like any other political party and subjected to the same scrutiny.

In order to fully comprehend the Greens’ political ideology, it is necessary to understand the historical roots and foundations of both our own western, liberal democratic culture – and that of the Greens. It this address, I propose to explain the Greens agenda, as set out in their own documents and writings.[iv] The paper has three parts: First, a brief examination of the roots of western culture and the origins of the Greens; secondly, an analysis of the Greens ideology; and thirdly, a discussion of the Greens economic, social and other policies.

Read on for the rest at :    http://www.kevinandrews.au.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.main

The heart of the matter:

There are many descriptions that could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism.” This description sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.” [vi]

Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement.  By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.

The conclusion:

What is at stake in the Greens ‘revolution’ is the heart and soul of western civilisation, built on the Judeo-Christian/Enlightenment synthesis that upholds the individual –with obligations and responsibilities to others, but ultimately judged on his or her own conscience and actions – as the possessor of an inherent dignity and inalienable rights. What is also at stake is the economic system that has resulted in the creation of wealth and prosperity for the most people in human history.

Thanks for those links, Kevin.
 
I’m glad Andrew Cameron has been speaking on this, but the chances I could get out to Penrith on a Wednesday evening are pretty zero, even if I’d had more notice! 
 
Kevin Andrews’ analysis is very interesting.
 

two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.”
 
Secondly, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism when applied as a political movement.  By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual and the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection.

This last statement about ridding society of imperfections is very strong, and I haven’t been able to track down how he concludes that from the Greens’ statements or actions.  But it (together with the ideological consideration of humans as just a part of the environment) would explain the push for euthanasia.  I have to admit I was shocked that promoting euthanasia was so high on the Greens’ agenda once in a position of power.
   

While Greens leader, Bob Brown, is currently advocating ‘states rights’ to repeal the Commonwealth legislation about euthanasia, and claiming that the decision of the Commonwealth Parliament pursuant to s 121 of the Australian Constitution is undemocratic, he has been an active advocate of actions to override State laws on two occasions.[27] In 1996, Brown wrote: “There are other, virtually untried, powers that the federal government could use to protect the environment. Among them is the power granted under the constitution to the Commonwealth to regulate trading entities, including logging, mining and energy corporations.”[28]  Clearly the use of Constitutional powers is good if it is to advance a Green cause, but bad if to achieve an outcome they reject.

 
The greens agenda part 4 social and other policies

religious groups to regain bias rights
 

Religious groups to regain bias rights Melissa Fyfe
February 13, 2011
 
THE Baillieu government is preparing to restore unlimited rights to religious organisations to discriminate against gays and lesbians, single mothers and people who hold different spiritual beliefs.

Attorney-General Robert Clark is drawing up amendments, to be introduced to Parliament in May or June, to curb Victoria’s anti-discrimination laws as part of the Coalition’s election promises to conservative religious groups.

The amendments will scrap Labor’s reforms, which take effect in August, that give wider investigative powers to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission and restrict the rights of faith-based organisations to refuse employment and services to people they believe may undermine their beliefs.

Advertisement: Story continues below Under the Labor reforms, for instance, a religious welfare agency that refuses to serve a same-sex couple must prove how this action conformed to its faith, or a Catholic school that refused to employ a single mother as a receptionist must show why the job was important to following the school’s faith.

But this so-called ‘‘inherent requirements’’ test would soon be scrapped, Mr Clark said in an interview with The Sunday Age.

The Attorney-General said Labor’s reforms must be wound back because they were a direct attack on faith-based schools and parents who wanted a religious education for their children. ‘‘We made very clear election commitments and so the issues have been well canvassed,’’ he said.

’‘The 2010 legislation is a far-reaching attack on the freedom of faith-based organisations and freedom of religion and belief. The amendments will restore tolerance and a sense of the fair go. Faith-based organisations and political organisations should be free to engage staff that uphold their values.’‘

The government’s move has angered the Victorian Independent Education Union, which has signalled a campaign to fight the granting of unlimited discrimination rights to religious groups. ‘‘This is a very backward step for the state,’’ said Debra James, general secretary of the union. ‘‘I think it’s appalling.’‘

Sarah Rogan, co-convener of the Victorian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, said the Baillieu government’s move was disappointing. ‘‘The existing discrimination is concerning because it separates people based on sexual orientation and gender identity from the rest of the community.’‘

The Labor reforms were the culmination of an extended public consultation period, including a parliamentary inquiry. The Law Institute of Victoria, community legal advocates and the commission recommended narrowing religious groups’ discrimination rights. The Labor reforms were criticised, however, for not narrowing the rights enough, with religious groups welcoming the compromise.

But Rob Ward, the Victorian director of the Australian Christian Lobby, now says the group is keen to see the end of the Labor reforms. He said the mindset of the commission was ‘‘troubling’‘. ‘‘While we’ve had a good relationship with commissioner Helen Szoke, they don’t seem to be favourably inclined towards freedom of religion and association.’‘

Shadow attorney-general Martin Pakula said the opposition would look at the government’s amendments but it did not want to see Victoria go back to a time when discrimination was acceptable.

 
Now, if only Barry O’Farrell hadn’t backflipped on his undertaking to reverse the ethics classes legislation.

I’m surprised that the Liberal Left in Victoria are doing this, but every win to protect faith-based organisations is a win.