Dear Tim,

Further to your answers, I feel that I need to clarify my questions further:

There is no doubt about what science consists of and there was never a doubt in my mind that evolution is scientific. Obviously what is not science should not be presented as "science", we have no differences here.

My questions pertain to those who are not interested in the scientific path or the western way of life and the technologies that come with it, not just in abstract and inconsequential thoughts and beliefs (which are as easy to tolerate), but in actual daily life, including the education of their children.

I can see from your answers that you personally have values and respect for others, so I wondered whether the same can be said about the Greens in general, whether the Greens are tolerant of other ways of life that do not place the State in the center, or ideas such as the advancement of humankind: in other words, how much individualism and deviation can they tolerate?

Aside from the obvious scientific fact of evolution, there is a prevalent tendency nowadays to try to generate faster evolution willfully in order to reach certain ends as a society. How tolerant or otherwise are the Greens towards people who do not share similar dreams? Further, how tolerant or otherwise are the Greens towards those parents who do not want their children to be tainted by such modern dreams which the Greens believe to be essential, but which the parents believe to be spiritually detrimental?

Thank you.

Graham:

I totally agree with you. However I suppose I fell for the religious
stereotype and therefore expected more in the form of "Christian Charity."

Well AlGore, I can now see that Christians hate Greens (and Socialists and Muslims and Progressives and Sikhs and Evolutionists and scientists just about anybody who disagrees with them).

However, some seem to be politically attracted to Neo-Nazis and all manner of conspiracists and always avoid the "bleeding obvious" as if they have some sort of Divine Insight into the True Ways of the World and set themselves apart as self-appointed Messengers of the Truth who feel compelled to "witness" at every opportunity.

Hence their innate intolerance and repressive nature.

As for all religions, it's not what you are it's the things that you do.

I also calls it as I sees it.

Hi Lexi,

I agree that Christians ought to be held to a higher standard - they set themselves up for that.

But I'm not sure that a lot of what I see proclaiming itself as Christian is Christian in any deep way, so I'm not sure that I should hold those people to a higher standard.

If we had the Pope, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or even Cardinal Pell or the Moderator of the Uniting Church posting here I might be looking for a higher standard.

Oh Dear Graham,

I wish you hadn't mentioned Cardinal Pell.

Sorry, Danny, but it's a very poorly-written piece: bland, sometimes childish assertions, poor reasoning ability and poor grammar, punctuation and spelling ("appart", "encumbent" "lively hood").
Nobody on this earth has any moral or legal obligation to employ anybody, and it follows logically that, when they choose to do so, they have the right to state the terms on which they will employ a person, just as that person has the freedom to decline employment, or the terms of employment. It is reasonable to assume that anyone seeking employment with or membership of the Greens, for example, who did not believe in the slaughter of unborn human beings, would automatically be rejected. What more basic right is there than the right to life? Look in the mirror, Danny.