Green belief in change of Government

After their annual AGM in the weekend the Green Party believes it has what is required to change the Government.

RNZ: Greens and Labour cement plan to oust National

The Green party believes it has the money, members and momentum to finally change the government at the next election.

They believed that in 2014 too.

But there are two or three vital things missing from that list.

Votes.

The Labour Party, an essential for Green success, appears to be short of money, members and momentum.

And probably, Winston. NZ First will probably be required to make up the numbers, and will also have to choose Labour over National despite Labour presumably having significantly lower support than National, and even if NZ First chooses Labour over National that could be on the condition that Greens are left out in the cold, as happened in 2005.

The Greens can’t change the Government on their own. Despite targeting 15% in 2014 they failed to increase their vote in 2o014 (it reduced slightly) and may have hit a Green ceiling.

By symbolically joining with Labour in an agreement (that expires before coalition negotiations begin) Greens may feel they have strengthened their position but it could just as easily play against them, or at least play against Labour as it makes them look weaker.

The Labour-Green alliance has accentuated the Winston elephant in the room.

It’s a bold move by the Greens to define fights against both National and NZ First at the same time.

Money – Greens do well with fund raising but money doesn’t buy success in politics, as Colin Craig and Kim Dotcom and Hone Harawira discovered in 2014.

Members – Greens say they have significantly increased their membership but also admit a high level of churn – they also lose many members.

Momentum – the Greens are trying to create a perception of momentum but herere there is a disconnect with reality. Momentum hasn’t been evident over the past few years, and there is no sign of it in anything other than their rhetoric at the moment.

Belief is one thing – and the Greens have had no shortage in belief in their ideals and their attractiveness to voters. In ways they are like a cult religion.

Getting enough people to share their beliefs – in their policies, in their abilities, and just as critically in their partner party or parties – is a big challenge for the ambitious and determined (and largely reliant on labour and probably NZ First) Greens.

The Greens may think the MoU now has them and Labour facing in the same direction in their campaign row boat, but no matter how frantically the Greens row if Labour continue to catch crabs and have slackers the Green boat may continue to circle in frustration.

Key response to Little ‘liar’ claim

Yesterday Andrew Little called John Key a liar over his claims about what he knew when about Mike Sabin.

NZ Herald reported Andrew Little says John Key is lying about when he knew of Mike Sabin allegations:

Mr Little told RadioLive this morning he did not accept the Prime Minister would not have known about the allegations before his chief of staff told the Prime Minister’s office on November 26.

“I don’t accept what [Mr Key]’s saying, I don’t believe he’s telling the truth… [he is] a liar,” Mr Little said.

Radio NZ reported Labour questions PM’s info on Sabin:

Labour leader Andrew Little told Morning Report he heard about allegations from two different people in November, so they must have been widely known.

“It was clear to me from information that had come into my office that people seemed to know that the allegations had been made, they had been around for some time.

“So I certainly had the view I’d be suprised that the Prime Minister or people in his office didn’t know about the allegations before we notified them of them.

Yesterday Mr Key said his chief of staff, Wayne Eagleson, knew of issues affected Mr Sabin in November but he himself found out on 1 December. He said a call came in to his office from Labour on 3 December.

Mr Little has said his staff learned of issues and notified John Key’s office on 26 November.

Today NZ Herald reports John Key says Andrew Little is wrong over timing of Mike Sabin knowledge:

Prime Minister John Key has rejected claims by Andrew Little that he was “a liar” over when he was first told about the personal issues relating to former National MP Mike Sabin.

“It’s a slightly disappointing path he is going down that other leaders did,” Mr Key said, in response to claims Mr Key had lied.

“In the end I knew on December 1. His argument is that as Prime Minister I must know everything. But if that’s a logical argument, why would his office ring my office to give me a heads up.”

Mr Key says his chief of staff, Wayne Eagleson, found out on November 25 that Mr Sabin was being investigated by police. He went on to gather further information and Mr Key said he had been comfortable with the process Mr Eagleson had gone through.

Mr Key said that given the information he had at the time, he believed there was no need to stand down Mr Sabin as chairman of the law and order select committee.

Belatedly Key’s explanation sounds plausible. His initial vague responses to questioning left him open to criticism and speculation, and there was plenty of both.

Mr Little said he made his claim on the basis of his belief that the police would have told the Police Minister early on that they were investigating an MP and that the Police Minister would have immediately told the Prime Minister.

And now Little says his accusation was based on ‘his belief”- not a very substantial argument. He needs to be careful not to overplay his hand with insufficient evidence.

Atheism, or lack thereof

Is atheism a belief similar to believing in a religion, or is it a lack of a belief? It depends.

Some people promote atheism and seem to strongly believe in it.

I think far more people simply don’t believe in existing religions or gods but don’t think much about what that makes them. They are agnostic or atheist (or a vague mix of both) more due to a lack of a religious belief rather than having a specific belief.

It’s common to see atheistic leaning people to say they won’t believe in a god or gods unless they see proof of their existence.

I think that puts them into a sort of agnostic/atheist position without devoutly believing in any label.

Wikipedia has a definition of atheism:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

The term “atheism” originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning “without god(s)”, used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase incriticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the word “atheist” lived in the 18th century. Some ancient and modern religions are referred to as atheistic, as they either have no concepts of deities or deny acreator deity, yet still revere other god-like entities.

That’s not very specific and allows for a range of positions or lack of a position on gods.

A website American Atheists tries to explain what atheism is.

WHAT IS ATHEISM?
No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

I doubt that claim. How many people have preconceived ideas about atheism? My guess is that most people simply don’t think much or anything about it.

I didn’t know anything about atheism as a concept until I was well into my adulthood. I simply didn’t see anything for me in the church/religion options.

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.” Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as “wickedness,” “sinfulness,” and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as “there is no God” betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read “there are no gods.”

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their character, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, “If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position.”

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds.

Even the “belief in gods and supernatural beings” (or lack of belief) is not clear cut. What is a supernatural being? Probably different things to different people.

I understand that many people believe in God, which is sort of the same thing for Christians, Muslims and Jews, their religions all have common origins.

So I believe gods exist for them in their minds. Does that make me a theist?

It depends on what definition of god you want to use. Commonly it means an all powerful thing that created everything and dictates moral laws and behaviours through earthly representatives. But it could also be just a belief in a greater power of some sort rather than a specific entity.

God could seen as an integral force of the universe like gravity.

Or it could be a construct of human beings, a figment of their imaginations.

For many people it’s a helpful figment. Many of those who believe in a god or gods get some benefit from their belief. But people who don’t share that belief could find their own benefits in different ways.

ReligiousTolerance.org attempts a Description of Atheism.

Most Atheists have analyzed the available material evidence about deities (gods and/or goddesses) and have concluded that there is no real evidence of their existence.

I doubt that many atheist-like people do much analysing, they are simply apathetic towards deities.

Many regard the concept of deity to be devoid of meaning.

I don’t know how many. That’s an odd statement.

They generally believe that the universe, Earth and its life forms came into existence and evolved by perfectly natural processes. They see no evidence of intervention or guidance by a supernatural entity.

I have seen people who follow a religion who think along very similar lines to that. Generalising about atheism is like generalising about theism, there are many flavours and strengths of belief.

Other Atheists are people who have simply never been exposed to belief in a deity or deities and therefore have no belief in them.

That sort of describes me. I was exposed to a bit of religion when growing up but just wasn’t very interested. Bible stories seemed a bit like Grimm’s stories but more boring.

Neither of my parents displayed any belief in religion although we occasionally went to the local church and my mother sent us to Sunday School for a while because she thought she should.

There was no consideration of ‘atheism’. It was just not thinking about much at all about it and not believing in anything religious.

I’m very grateful I live in New Zealand, a country where most people can live without any pressure to believe or not to believe, where we intermingle often not knowing or barely knowing what people we associate with believe in regarding gods and religion. It’s a personal choice without pressure.

AqualungI believe there could be some truth in that but it will always be up for debate.