care for the earth as a core value gives them a long-term/sustainable perspective which I think will keep them from being taken captive by money/power.
I’m voting Labour. I would normally give my party vote to the Greens but I think the govt are in a wee bit of trouble and may need it more this time. Any party that encourages the growth of fear in the community will never get my vote
I want to be able to stand up and say “but wait! vote for the Christians!”
but alas, I don’t feel that I can cause I just don’t see any. Apart from Destiny NZ (who I’d be happy to vote for but not sure I want to) and CHP (who I don’t think/see have done anything this election to warrant a vote) there are no Christians who I have seen stand up and call God to defend NZ, keep her clean, care for her famililes and communities, help the poor and needy and protect the innocent. I don’t think NZ media have helped either.
actually… despite my sneaky comment just then, I wish I knew who I was voting for. I like the idea that brash will have nz’s financial matters already sorted in his head. governer of the reserve bank for so many years makes you quite smart on the comings and goings of mula. he saved nz after muldoon almost bankrupted us. buuut, him saying he would have gone to durka durkastaan to fight chafe’s me. although his billboard campeign is killer. so good for such a conservative party.
advertising genius.
although, acts bilboard take on that was sick too.
Following Tim’s comment, I put a few links to some info re Destiny on my blog for those of you wishing to find out more. There’s some interesting stuff Cultwatch have to say about Destiny also.
Tim, yeah that’s what I thought you meant. I think that it is an unfortunate use of the phrase, if ‘moral issues’ excludes things like humankind’s relationship with our environment, a nation’s stance towards war, refugees, consumerism.
If you were four years younger, I think I’d yell at you. As you are past the ‘student demographic’ now, I support your idea. It just irritates me how easy it is to get 5% of the country’s vote, by completely pandering to B.A. students.
Hhmmm…Labour = disturbing social engineering on a massive scale… Look at what they’ve managed in a very short time. As for National sending troops to Iraq – didn’t Labour do the same?! Sure, they were “support staff” – by which they meant the SAS… At the end of the day they’re both as bad as each other. However, I’m tend to think National is the lesser evil…
What do you mean by ‘better’? Richard?
A better liar? A better fraudster (burning painting)? Better at acting above the law (condoning speeding, destroying police evidence)? a better briber (interest free student loans)?
Just becasue she’s competant doesn’t mean she’s right, good or has the best interests of the whole nation at heart.
As a Christian, I find it hard (read impossible) in good conscience to vote for any party that doesn’t have a biblical foundation for its policies. That leaves Destiny or CHNZ.
I’m tired of people talking about ‘wasted votes’, and ‘making your vote count’.
What’s more important, making your vote count, or voting for what you believe is right?
Goodness, if everyone truly voted simply to make their vote count, we’d all be voting Labour, since they’ve obviously got the upper hand at the moment.
If you can, in good conscience, vote for a party that allows (or even encourages) abortion (for example), then by all means vote for them.
dan, I agree with your comment. that’s my feel to as to why I would prefer to vote destiny or chp than the rest. It’s about not compromising.
I don’t believe Helen is a good leader Chud. Sure, she has done well and she can take charge of a situation and always has a good answer, but to me, real leadership is done by living as an example. I do not like her example of a non-marriage relationship, lying, fraud, passing the buck. How can she preach to NZ about ‘building families’ when she seems to have no personal interest in them.
I’d be tempted to vote labour mind, if they get in, then in 2007 we’d be getting about $40 in our pocket each week… that’s not something to laugh at. And if I was a student I’d be tempted too… free loans = awesome.
But I really feel that I have to vote for someone who calls God as his leader.
Just a couple notes david:
Helen was married in 1981 and still is to Peter Davis I believe. Doesn’t that count?
Also as for vote bribing (student loans $40 a week back etc) how abou the CHP idea of paying couples $200 every five years of marriage? The same thing I would say (only somewhat more stupid).
Dan & David, I think you want a Chrisitan-with-a-capital -C party so that you get a shortcut to ‘faithful’ voting and don’t have to critically evaluate the various party’s policies. Fair?
Helen and Peter Davis don’t live together and they have no children. I think it is generally accepted that her marriage was one of convenience, since at the time Helen entered politics, it was a good thing to appear married. Sure they might even be good friends, but as far as I can tell, they’re hardly living the covenantal marriage that is pleasing to, and blessed by, God. So no, I’d say it doesn’t count.
Abolishing interest on student loans is stupid. It is investing in nothing, but merely encouraging more borrowing. Both Westpac and National banks have offically expressed concern at this policy and have implored Labour to re-consider.
CHNZ’s (not CHP anymore) $200 every five years gives recognition to the marriage covenant, and provides and encouragement to families. How is this more stupid?
From the Greens:
In this policy document we will use rainbow as an inclusive term to describe any person (or community) who is not predominantly heterosexual, or has an identity that is not their assigned gender role, or anyone questioning their gender or sexuality, or experiencing same sex love or attraction…The “rainbow” communities are a minority that crosses social, educational and economic boundaries. As a result they are natural champions of diversity that has the potential to enrich us all.
Tim, I mean having Bible texts in your policy documents doesn’t guarantee that the policies will be just or achievable or coherant.
w.r.t. your Greens quote: if a Christian party was actually running the country, what would they do with all those groups whose lifestyles we don’t agree with? Lock them up? Tax them really hard?
Dan – The Pope is not married nor has children – does that mean automatically that he can’t be a “good” Pope or relevant to his flock? Does that mean it doesn’t count? Just wondering what Helen’s state of marriage or her lack of children has got to do with her being a “good” P.M.?? or woman?? Maybe her marriage and family is a political one instead of a conventional one. Unless you take a walk in their shoes….
Come on, Matthew. You know that CHNZ wouldn’t lock up people with alternative lifestyles, nor is that indicated anywhere in their policy.
No policy is going to be perfect, but we can at least support those whose policy is intentionally biblically founded, despite the odd error or aspect that we might disagree with. Rather than supporting a party that, by accident rather than intention, presents a policy that we might agree with.
I’m all for increased ecological responsiblilty, and I know that Christians have a biblical mandate to exercise good stewardship over that which has been entrusted to us.
That doesn’t mean I’ll vote Green to make my point.
Sambo, Having a clear Christian party foundation means that a Christian representive would be able to represent.
Dan, I haven’t looked into CHNZ’s policies recently. I think Sambo was alluding to Mr Capill’s fall. (Which fall makes me think CHNZ should pack up and go home.)
My mistake: when i asked “does that not count?” i was intending it to be a rhetorical question. No one has any right to invalidate helen’s or anyone else’s marriage especailly with such little knowledge of the people involved surely! As for the idea that her marriage couldn’t be blessed by god well, to say the least, that is quite presumptuous of you.
After I had commented I also wondered what an MPs marital status had to do with their ability to be a good leader. Would it be better if she were single? How confusing…
since when does the government giving out prizes for staying together seem like a good idea?
Kathy: interesting – why not use a capital “G” when referring to God?! Isn’t it a convention of written English to capitalize someone’s name? You could argue that God’s name isn’t “God”, that the word “god” is merely a noun used to describe Him (He calls Himself “I AM”, or YHWH). And as such I would be wrong…but since He has been called “God” with a capital “G” by English speaking Christians for a while now – why not follow convention?
Not nit-picking, it just glared out at me from your response…
I can categorically state that since Graham’s departure from CHNZ, the party is now in better shape that it has ever been. I cannot see any logical reason why they should pack up and go home becasue of Capill’s actions. Is it not rather the opposite?
You’d have to incredibly cynical and confused to believe that Capill’s offending was simply him working out CHNZ’s principles and policy.
And Kathy, it was presumptuous of me to assume so much of Helen’s marriage, and I apologise.
It is commonly recognised that a family with a heterosexual husband and wife is the most stable family unit, and is hence what is better for our nation as a whole. You don’t even need to refer to the Bible to make sense of that. And that is not to say that this particular family configuration is perfect, and that there won’t be cases of child abuse.
Kathy: giving out prizes for it has been a good idea ever since staying together was a good idea.
The current epidemic of broken relationships doesn’t do anyone any good – especially the children that have to suffer through them.
Having said that, CHNZ’s policy of ‘prize-giving’ is rather more symbolic than practical. No couple would stay together to get $200 every 5 years.
Also, the question of Helen’s status is relevant to what she represents as a leader. If she’s single, what sort of single? If she’s married, what sort of married? The ‘status’ doesn’t matter, but what you do with it does.
Kathy: you’re not offending anyone…just wondering…and you seem to have no problem with punctuation (the ! symbol for example), or capitalizing the start of sentences, the frequent “I”‘s, and the MP… :)
Im voting nats!
Im voting nuts!
why you vote green?
Not surprised. I’m with Jono…I think.
care for the earth as a core value gives them a long-term/sustainable perspective which I think will keep them from being taken captive by money/power.
and because of Andrew Basden
When Don Brash said he’d have sent troops to Iraq I knew there’s no way I could vote Nat.
Matt, what do you think of the Greens’ stance on moral issues?
although lots of Green ideas are good, they’re not economically viable.
Yeh I had a flick through that Andrew Basden thing, and I kind of agree. I just can’t vote Green because they are a bunch of dickheads
I’m voting Labour. I would normally give my party vote to the Greens but I think the govt are in a wee bit of trouble and may need it more this time. Any party that encourages the growth of fear in the community will never get my vote
I want to be able to stand up and say “but wait! vote for the Christians!”
but alas, I don’t feel that I can cause I just don’t see any. Apart from Destiny NZ (who I’d be happy to vote for but not sure I want to) and CHP (who I don’t think/see have done anything this election to warrant a vote) there are no Christians who I have seen stand up and call God to defend NZ, keep her clean, care for her famililes and communities, help the poor and needy and protect the innocent. I don’t think NZ media have helped either.
I don’t know who I’ll vote for.
Who encourages a growth of fear? And fear is not always bad.
One of you bloggers should post some info on Destiny.
good vote matt.
i’m voting “the pink floppy dildo party”
if you haven’t already looked into them you should
good values. fun for everyone.
Tim, what do you mean by ‘moral issues’.
actually… despite my sneaky comment just then, I wish I knew who I was voting for. I like the idea that brash will have nz’s financial matters already sorted in his head. governer of the reserve bank for so many years makes you quite smart on the comings and goings of mula. he saved nz after muldoon almost bankrupted us. buuut, him saying he would have gone to durka durkastaan to fight chafe’s me. although his billboard campeign is killer. so good for such a conservative party.
advertising genius.
although, acts bilboard take on that was sick too.
prostitution, civil unions, and all those others…
Following Tim’s comment, I put a few links to some info re Destiny on my blog for those of you wishing to find out more. There’s some interesting stuff Cultwatch have to say about Destiny also.
Tim, yeah that’s what I thought you meant. I think that it is an unfortunate use of the phrase, if ‘moral issues’ excludes things like humankind’s relationship with our environment, a nation’s stance towards war, refugees, consumerism.
True. I was kinda just being annoying. What are your thoughts on Destiny, Matt?
Also, how much emphasis does the Bible place on those issues you mentioned? Like environmentalism
I don’t know about Destiny.
W.r.t. the Bible & environmentalism, there’s a bit of useful stuff here: Andrew Basden: politics w/eternal significance
On other leftyish things: The Beatitudes: Spirituality or Political Programme?
Also Heaven is not my home by Paul Marshall is pretty sweet in this context. I think Sambo has it at the mo.
Also I recommend Christianity and the survival of creation.
If you were four years younger, I think I’d yell at you. As you are past the ‘student demographic’ now, I support your idea. It just irritates me how easy it is to get 5% of the country’s vote, by completely pandering to B.A. students.
Which party (if any) is removing the interest on student loans? Otherwise, im too busy enjoying freedom (I own a sword) to care.
Hhmmm…Labour = disturbing social engineering on a massive scale… Look at what they’ve managed in a very short time. As for National sending troops to Iraq – didn’t Labour do the same?! Sure, they were “support staff” – by which they meant the SAS… At the end of the day they’re both as bad as each other. However, I’m tend to think National is the lesser evil…
Friends, friends – in elections where the Issues are cloudy/blurry/boring, I tend to only be interested in the potential prime ministers.
And I’ve never seen a better leader than aunty Helen, I honestly haven’t.
even though they can be a bit mental i am voting maori party
A very mature response, Chud.
What do you mean by ‘better’? Richard?
A better liar? A better fraudster (burning painting)? Better at acting above the law (condoning speeding, destroying police evidence)? a better briber (interest free student loans)?
Just becasue she’s competant doesn’t mean she’s right, good or has the best interests of the whole nation at heart.
As a Christian, I find it hard (read impossible) in good conscience to vote for any party that doesn’t have a biblical foundation for its policies. That leaves Destiny or CHNZ.
I’m tired of people talking about ‘wasted votes’, and ‘making your vote count’.
What’s more important, making your vote count, or voting for what you believe is right?
Goodness, if everyone truly voted simply to make their vote count, we’d all be voting Labour, since they’ve obviously got the upper hand at the moment.
If you can, in good conscience, vote for a party that allows (or even encourages) abortion (for example), then by all means vote for them.
Matt, I liked your response on the ‘moral issues’. What bothers me is how to weigh the various things…
I’m tempted to vote Green, but I don’t want to return Labour to office.
dan, I agree with your comment. that’s my feel to as to why I would prefer to vote destiny or chp than the rest. It’s about not compromising.
I don’t believe Helen is a good leader Chud. Sure, she has done well and she can take charge of a situation and always has a good answer, but to me, real leadership is done by living as an example. I do not like her example of a non-marriage relationship, lying, fraud, passing the buck. How can she preach to NZ about ‘building families’ when she seems to have no personal interest in them.
I’d be tempted to vote labour mind, if they get in, then in 2007 we’d be getting about $40 in our pocket each week… that’s not something to laugh at. And if I was a student I’d be tempted too… free loans = awesome.
But I really feel that I have to vote for someone who calls God as his leader.
Just a couple notes david:
Helen was married in 1981 and still is to Peter Davis I believe. Doesn’t that count?
Also as for vote bribing (student loans $40 a week back etc) how abou the CHP idea of paying couples $200 every five years of marriage? The same thing I would say (only somewhat more stupid).
Dan & David, I think you want a Chrisitan-with-a-capital -C party so that you get a shortcut to ‘faithful’ voting and don’t have to critically evaluate the various party’s policies. Fair?
Kathy,
Helen and Peter Davis don’t live together and they have no children. I think it is generally accepted that her marriage was one of convenience, since at the time Helen entered politics, it was a good thing to appear married. Sure they might even be good friends, but as far as I can tell, they’re hardly living the covenantal marriage that is pleasing to, and blessed by, God. So no, I’d say it doesn’t count.
Abolishing interest on student loans is stupid. It is investing in nothing, but merely encouraging more borrowing. Both Westpac and National banks have offically expressed concern at this policy and have implored Labour to re-consider.
CHNZ’s (not CHP anymore) $200 every five years gives recognition to the marriage covenant, and provides and encouragement to families. How is this more stupid?
Matt, what is that supposed to mean? Is being Bible-based not a policy?
From the Greens:
In this policy document we will use rainbow as an inclusive term to describe any person (or community) who is not predominantly heterosexual, or has an identity that is not their assigned gender role, or anyone questioning their gender or sexuality, or experiencing same sex love or attraction…The “rainbow” communities are a minority that crosses social, educational and economic boundaries. As a result they are natural champions of diversity that has the potential to enrich us all.
Tim, I mean having Bible texts in your policy documents doesn’t guarantee that the policies will be just or achievable or coherant.
w.r.t. your Greens quote: if a Christian party was actually running the country, what would they do with all those groups whose lifestyles we don’t agree with? Lock them up? Tax them really hard?
I like rainbows…
So far, some of the ‘Christian party’ representatives havn’t been, well, representing as it were.
I know Pedro would, but would Jesus run for prime minister?
Dan – The Pope is not married nor has children – does that mean automatically that he can’t be a “good” Pope or relevant to his flock? Does that mean it doesn’t count? Just wondering what Helen’s state of marriage or her lack of children has got to do with her being a “good” P.M.?? or woman?? Maybe her marriage and family is a political one instead of a conventional one. Unless you take a walk in their shoes….
Come on, Matthew. You know that CHNZ wouldn’t lock up people with alternative lifestyles, nor is that indicated anywhere in their policy.
No policy is going to be perfect, but we can at least support those whose policy is intentionally biblically founded, despite the odd error or aspect that we might disagree with. Rather than supporting a party that, by accident rather than intention, presents a policy that we might agree with.
I’m all for increased ecological responsiblilty, and I know that Christians have a biblical mandate to exercise good stewardship over that which has been entrusted to us.
That doesn’t mean I’ll vote Green to make my point.
Sambo, Having a clear Christian party foundation means that a Christian representive would be able to represent.
Dan, I haven’t looked into CHNZ’s policies recently. I think Sambo was alluding to Mr Capill’s fall. (Which fall makes me think CHNZ should pack up and go home.)
My mistake: when i asked “does that not count?” i was intending it to be a rhetorical question. No one has any right to invalidate helen’s or anyone else’s marriage especailly with such little knowledge of the people involved surely! As for the idea that her marriage couldn’t be blessed by god well, to say the least, that is quite presumptuous of you.
After I had commented I also wondered what an MPs marital status had to do with their ability to be a good leader. Would it be better if she were single? How confusing…
since when does the government giving out prizes for staying together seem like a good idea?
also, (since destiny and chnzs policies on the whole are rather whack) i am not sure how just being a christian entitles them to my vote.
Hhmm…slightly off topic…
Kathy: interesting – why not use a capital “G” when referring to God?! Isn’t it a convention of written English to capitalize someone’s name? You could argue that God’s name isn’t “God”, that the word “god” is merely a noun used to describe Him (He calls Himself “I AM”, or YHWH). And as such I would be wrong…but since He has been called “God” with a capital “G” by English speaking Christians for a while now – why not follow convention?
Not nit-picking, it just glared out at me from your response…
iNTERESTING TO READ YOUR MUSINGS ON MY CAPITALISATION ISSUES. dIDN’T MEAN TO OFFEND — WAS TYPING WITH ONE HAND HOLDING BABY IN THE OTHER.
I can categorically state that since Graham’s departure from CHNZ, the party is now in better shape that it has ever been. I cannot see any logical reason why they should pack up and go home becasue of Capill’s actions. Is it not rather the opposite?
You’d have to incredibly cynical and confused to believe that Capill’s offending was simply him working out CHNZ’s principles and policy.
And Kathy, it was presumptuous of me to assume so much of Helen’s marriage, and I apologise.
It is commonly recognised that a family with a heterosexual husband and wife is the most stable family unit, and is hence what is better for our nation as a whole. You don’t even need to refer to the Bible to make sense of that. And that is not to say that this particular family configuration is perfect, and that there won’t be cases of child abuse.
Kathy: giving out prizes for it has been a good idea ever since staying together was a good idea.
The current epidemic of broken relationships doesn’t do anyone any good – especially the children that have to suffer through them.
Having said that, CHNZ’s policy of ‘prize-giving’ is rather more symbolic than practical. No couple would stay together to get $200 every 5 years.
Also, the question of Helen’s status is relevant to what she represents as a leader. If she’s single, what sort of single? If she’s married, what sort of married? The ‘status’ doesn’t matter, but what you do with it does.
Kathy: you’re not offending anyone…just wondering…and you seem to have no problem with punctuation (the ! symbol for example), or capitalizing the start of sentences, the frequent “I”‘s, and the MP… :)