As an ordinary political punter, living a suburban life-style in Canberra (I admit to having a very high IQ and thus a greater depth of analysis and hence understanding than most other Australians), I think that the Greens are probably more Christian than the Coalition and the ALP in their social and environmental convictions. Bob Brown also appears to be the only honest person at the Federal level. Therefore, I and my wife shall vote for them, especially in the Senate.

Liaqqudin

Good to see a rational, well-thought out response by Frank Brennan; in the context where some powerful figures in the Catholic church, and other denominations - in their support for right-wing parties - effectively support policies which stigmatise and oppress the poor and vulnerable.

It has bothered me for a long time that in certain circles there is such emphasis on issues like gay marriage as a reason for voting for the Right; while the consequences of right-wing governments for the poor and vulnerable are ignored.

I wish you guys would get your story straight.

Sing from the same hymn-sheet, as it were.

Last week we had a lecturer in Biblical Studies at Wesley Institute saying:

“Another old chestnut which is regularly employed during campaigns is the notion of a 'Christian vote'”

This week we have a Jesuit priest telling us

“A thoughtful Christian could give their first or second party preference to a minor party like the Greens“

Is there a “Christian vote”, or isn't there?

Or perhaps there is an “Anglican vote”, a “Methodist vote, a “Baptist vote”, a “Jesuit vote”, an “Opus Dei vote”, a “Jensen Brothers vote” a “Holy Roman Empire vote” and so on?

But serial contradictions are such a permanent feature of organized religion, I guess it's not that surprising.

[Deleted - off topic].

Frank Brennan- the advocate thou shall not want.

There's always something disturbing about an extreme, authoritarian person who believes Australian Rights are only what a Christian would be allowed to do by their church, but are obligated to make space for refugees (in other words, an extreme neocon minus the redeeming public-security mantra most conservatives can boast) advocating one's party.

More disturbing still is that the things he doesn't like- which happen to be the Green's most prominent strong points, are things he insists they will not be able to implement.

What puzzles me is- is Brennan actually aware of his own perceptions when he advocates something? That is, does he actually think his endorsement of someone is a boost, or a detriment to their publicity?

[Deleted - off topic].