Talk:Christian democracy/Archive 1

Belarus
The article says:


 * In some ex-USSR countries Christian democrats are quite undesirable. For example Belarusian Christian Democracy unsuccessfully tries to get a legal status in Belarus. But Ministry of Justice refused state registration to BCD[1]. As leaders of party affirm it happens because of political reasons[2].

The two citations are both from the BCD's own website, a press release claiming that they had been denied registration for political reasons. I don't think an organisation's own press release can really be a good citation in a case like this, but can anyone shed some more light on it? Brickie (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholic?
Are Christian democrats only Catholic? What about Protestant or Orthodox?


 * No. Many are non-denominational.  Funnyhat 06:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, many are not even practising Christians or non-Christians altogether, who just happen to agree with the political principles on which the movement is founded. In fact the French Belgian CD's changed their name to "humanist democrats" and the French CD's are called the "Union for French Democracy" precisely to avoid this kind of misunderstanding.  --Marlow4 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Word Choice and Possible Bias
I flagged the article for some of the buzzwords in it. The opening section is particularly problematic. I realize that buzzwords are inevitably going to come up in just about any political article but I think it would be a bit better if the article was less unaware of the ability or inability of the political movement to achieve its stated ends.

Republicans might "like families" and Democrats might "like workers" and Greens might "like the Earth" and Libertarians might "like freedom". But I think there's a line between conveying a group's primary interests and conveying their primary interests in a way that implies that either they don't care about other things (i.e. "greens like the Earth [therefore they must not like not families, workers, or freedom]") or in a way that implies that other groups might not also care about those things (i.e. "greens like the Earth [therefore Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians do not like the Earth]"). And just because the article doesn't explicitly say something like this doesn't mean that the tone and word choice directly imply or assume some additional meanings.

--Nogburt (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

John Calvin and a pope?
Calvin is rolling in his grave. Remove his name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 02:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Conservatives?
Side note, I dunno where to put this but this is actually so wrong it hurts my brain:

"Christian Democratic parties are often likely to assert the Christian heritage of their country, and to explicitly affirm Christian ethics, rather than adopting a more liberal and secular stance that all religions are to be considered equivalent"

Do you guys know anything about the history of Christian democrats, and what they actually are? I didn't expect this.

I object to the use of the conservative template on this page. Christian democracy encompasses some conservative ideals, namely on social issues, but not others, such as the economy. Would you also add libertarianism to the list? Surely it embodies many conservative principles... Instead of Christian democracy, I propose that the tmeplate include Christian right. Juan Ponderas
 * Christian Democrats are seen as "conservatives" in every European nation. The situation may be different in Latin America (I am not sure), but the fact remains that the one thing which unites all Christian Democrats is their social conservatism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Conservative by European standards, of course. Again I must mention libertarianism; while members disagree on social issues such as the death penalty they are united by their support of right-wing economic policies. And in America, they are often viewed as conservatives. Juan Ponderas 05:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Christian Democracy is its own ideology, one of the largest in the world. So it doesn't need a "conservativsm" tag anymore then any conservative party would need a "christian democracy" tag.Itake 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Conservatism is not an ideology, but a loose term describing a variety of ideologies that are united in their support for traditional values and ways of life. Christian Democracy is one such ideology, therefore it is conservative. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, here in latin america the christian democrats are not conservatives. "Democracia Cristiana" here in Chile, at least, is in the government with socialists since 16 years ago. In fact, there are other right wing parties that supports much more conservatives ideas in the economic and social spheres. Because of this, I think that the conservative template may not be the best choice. Possibly the article could split in two: one about the conservative chistian democrats and other about the centrist christian democrats (latin american experience). Sorry about my english. --Nitro31 00:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism <- It seems Conservatism is indeed its own thing. Maybe not an ideology, but still its its own definable philosphy the same way Christian Democracy is its own. Itake 03:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes... it may be a way... in Chile we ussualy speak about the "three thirds" (specially before the militar strike of 1973): the socialists, the christian democrats and the right wing parties. Nowadays the CD are government in a coallition with the socialists ("renovated socialists"). This could support your idea of different philosophies. --Nitro31 04:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Moderates or centristes
The CDs aren't conservatives. The CD ideology is centrist. In the CD there are many factions.


 * Conservatism is not necessarily defined as right-wing. Conservatism refers to an observance of tradition and a preference for slow and limited change if things are to change at all. It is not a well-defined philosophy, but rather a general political outlook. Christian Democracy certainly falls within the broad category of conservative politics. -- Nikodemos 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Some CD parties also fall within the broad category of socialism, liberalism, green etc etc. That is why the CD has its own ideology, because just like CD could fall within the borad category of conservatism, conservatism could fall within the broad category of CD. Itake 17:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * All CD parties have in common their support for religiously-derived traditional values. That makes them conservative. Yes, some of them also hold views that are socialist or liberal or green in addition to their conservative views, but those additional views are not a unifying theme. -- Nikodemos 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, the unifying theme is that they are CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS, not conservatives. Itake 23:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Religiously-derived traditional values are by definition conservative. You're probably working with a restrictive definition of conservatism (perhaps the definition used in a specific country, as in American conservatism). But worldwide conservatism is far broader than that. -- Nikodemos 00:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They are by definition Christian Democrat. Which is why that is the title of this article, Christian Democracy. Not Conservatism, but Christian Democracy. Worldwide christian democracy is in even broader then worldwide conservatism, which is AGAIN why this page should be about Christian Democracy and nothing else. Itake 09:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are being unnecessarily stubborn. This page is about CD and nothing else. And CD is a conservative ideology. Hence the box saying "Part of the series on conservatism". How is CD broader than conservatism in any way, shape or form? -- Nikodemos 10:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, its the reverse actually. If you look back at the history of this talk page, you will see that you are the only advocate of keeping the conservatism tag.
 * And like said before, conservatism is as much christian democracy as christian democracy is conservatism. Name one conservative party (conservative is in how the Moderaterna party of Sweden is liberal-conservative for example) that has formed coalition governments with socialists, and another one as an example of one that has formed coalition governments with far right-wingers. There are CD parties that have done both, that is how its broader. What unites the Christian Democratic parties is that they are christian democrats, not conservatives. Itake 15:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are simply ignoring the definitions of CD and conservatism. My point is simple:
 * A conservative ideology is one that advocates traditional values.
 * CD advocates traditional values.
 * Therefore CD is conservative.
 * You have never addressed this argument. Please do so. -- Nikodemos 23:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats not an argument, thats asanine logic. One could well do the reserve. A Christian Democratic ideology is one that advocates traditional values. Conservatives advocate traditional values, therefore Conservatism is christian democratic...


 * The point here being that CD is its own line of thinking, separate from Conservatism. If you look at this talk page, you will see that noone but you is in favor of including this conservatism template. Many good points have been raised against this template, few of which you have adressed.Itake 04:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Everyone other than me" means you and two other users, neither of which are here now. Our little group of 4 people is far too small and unrepresentative for you to appeal to majority opinion (if we had, for example, 1000 randomly selected Christian Democrats from across the world, that would be different). So far the only arguments that have been raised against adding the Conservatism box are that Christian Democrats don't always agree with conservatives. Well, by that logic, we shouldn't have any boxes at all, because every political group has at least some differences from every other political group. The point which you do not seem to understand is that conservatism is not a single line of thinking, it is a broad term encompassing many lines of thinking. Different conservatives advocate different traditions. CD advocates a particular kind of tradition based on European Catholic teaching. Therefore CD is a particular kind of conservatism. -- Nikodemos 06:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing on this site represents a majority opinion, but the opinion (as can be seen by the most recent edit aswell) is against having the conservatism tag on this article. And for good reasons too.


 * And no, not even that is true. Many CD parties are based upon an entirely different line of thinking then the European Catholic teaching. While the CD's in say Italy have that as their basis, the CD's in Norway are based on pentecostal teachings instead. Which makes the two parties very different from each other. Which means that "christian democracy is not a single line of thinking, but a broad term encompassing many lines of thinking". Which is a reason why if there should be any box on it, it should be a box about Christian Democracy. Not conservatism. Itake 23:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly, the only way we are ever going to solve this is with references. The following sources say that Christian Democracy is conservative, or at least that CD and conservatism are closely related: The International Democrat Union (IDU) (calls itself "a working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like minded political parties of the centre and centre right"); (see chapter "Conservative but Not Traditionalist");  (one of the reviews calls German CD "Christian-conservative");  (lists Christian Democratic institutes under the larger category of "conservative"); finally, the following pages use the term "Christian Democratic and conservative" to refer to a broad range of parties and organizations:, , , ,  (the last two call a Latin American CD party "conservative"). Do you want more? I can always go to a local library, pick up the first book I find on CD, and I guarantee you it will say that CD is conservative. -- Nikodemos 15:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It just further reinforces my point. These references mention BOTH conservatism and christian democracy at the same time, so obviously the two are not the same. So obviously conservatism does not equal Christian Democracy, nor the other way around. So therefore there shouldn't be a conservatism box on the CD page, nor a CD box on the conservatism page. That conservatism and CD is closely related, sure, but that does not warrant a box. They are not the same. My aunt and my grandma are closely related, but they are not the same either.

However, if useless links would prove anything I could just link you to every single CD party I can find that doesn't call themselves conservatives. Because there are alot. Itake 01:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I created a Christian Democracy template a couple of days ago. I think it should help Wikipedia, and neutralize part of this debate.  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 00:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Scholarly references to CD as being conservative
I see that a special CD template has been created, and that is well and good; if we have a specific template for a subset of conservatism, we should use that instead of the more general conservatism template. However, I would like to bring further proof that CD is a variant of conservatism. -- Nikodemos 19:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Christian Democracy is no more than a variety of conservatism" (Christian Democracy in Europe, Hanley et al., 1994, p.31)
 * "[Christian Democracy] tempers mainstream conservatism with a defence of religious values." (Representative government in Western Europe, Gallagher et al., 1992, p.70)
 * "In many cases it is difficult to distinguish conservative parties from Christian Democratic parties." (Politics and society in Western Europe, Lane and Ersson, 1991, p.108)
 * "The CDU [German Christian Democratic Union] integrated those who needed to be integrated - the cultural and political conservatives - into a durable liberal order." (The Path to Christian Democracy, Noel D. Cary, 1996, preface)
 * Chilean Christian Democracy grew out of the youth wing of the Conservative Party, called Juventud Conservadora. (The Rise and Fall of Chilean Christian Democracy, Michael Fleet, 1985, p.45)



My take on CD and conservatism
The image on the right is a political spectrum I created for the nascent CDP-USA. It is based on an American labelling of the political spectrum. It is my understanding that Europeans tend to use the term conservative to cover what I am labelling sections "conservative" AND "communitarian"; and likewise liberal in the European parlance covers here "liberal" AND "libertarian". Curiously, in America libertarians are usually considered conservatives. The lingo is all over the map. Historically, I would place CD where I place it on the chart shown here. In a liberal-socialistic sea (like Europe), the CD ship goes in the right direction. In a libertarian-conservative sea (like America), the CD ship goes in the left direction. In both cases the CD ship would be seeking the same center-communitatian destination, but starting out from different locations. GUÐSÞEGN – UTEX – 00:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not necessarily disagree with your chart, but I disagree with the labels you place on it. Please notice that the articles for American conservatism and American liberalism are different from the more general articles on the worldwide meanings of conservatism and liberalism. For historical reasons, "conservatism" and "liberalism" have acquired certain meanings in the USA that are a lot more specific than their meanings in the rest of the world. In most of the world (including Europe), "conservatism" is a vague label for anything rooted in tradition (thus, for instance, in Russia the term "conservative" refers to pro-Soviet communists). Likewise, "liberalism" is a vague label for anything that focuses on the individual at the expense of the community. So it is possible, for example, for a person or an entire culture to be both liberal and conservative (if individualism is considered traditional, as in the USA). We Europeans often refer to the USA as the most liberal (= individualistic) country in the world, and also the most conservative Western country.


 * So, to cut a long story short, CD is certainly not "conservative" in the American sense, but it is conservative in the global sense. -- Nikodemos 04:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a bootless endeavor to try to demonstrate that Christian Democracy is conservative. I think one could just as well make a case for Christian Democracy being broadly social democratic. Suurely the rather high propensity of Christian Democrats to enter coalitions with Social Democrats is a solid indicator that Christian Democrats and Social Democrats share much more common ground than Christian Democrats share with classic liberal parties. To date it has been both Christian Democratic and Social Democratic governments that have nursed along the positive development of the welfare state that liberals oppose. Alan Avans

Christian Democracy or Conservatism?
There doesn't need to be any discussion here. Between the two, Christian Democracy is definently more Christian Democracy then it is Conservatism. Leave the page alone Nikodemos. Itake 17:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a classic example of something I call a asymmetric controversy. A case where people are so fanatical in promoting their POV in an article that those who are more intelligent and dedicated to Wiki quality are at unable to commit the time in order to prevail.  This, again, underscores my belief that articles must at some point be locked down and left in the hands of an elite editorial staff to make changes as seriously warranted.  I have tried to educate you the best I can.  The burden is on you to prove my edits wrong before you should be allowed to revert them.  Nikodemos (f.k.a: Mihnea) 20:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I reverted your removal of the CD template from the flagship article. I think the burden is on you, Nikodemos, to prove why Christian Democracy is more like Conservatism than Christian Democracy. Perhaps I should take the Conservatism template off the Conservatism page, and put something there like Liberalism since modern conservatism is descendent of classical liberalism.   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nikodemos, why did you change your mind? Your former post to this discussion lauded the new CD template, and made a positive case for it.   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 21:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead of ranting on about how great of an editor you are Nikodemos, perhaps you could try and make a point? Sure, I could go in another debate with you again. I could provide twice the amount of links proving that christian democracy is not conservative. But I won't, because there is no need to with the new template. Now YOU need to prove why Christian Democracy is more conservative then it is Christian Democratic. Or I can report you to the admins for bad faith editing, because it does seem you are carrying on some kind of quest for vengeance, and its hurting the site. Itake 21:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

European Christian Political Movement?
I do not understand why there is a link to the European Christian Political Movement in the Christian Democracy seriers. They are not Christian Democrats. They are fundamentalist and part of the religious right.


 * Actually, the European Christian Political Movement seems from their website to be in the mainstream of Christian Democracy, and do not seem any farther right than CD has always been. In fact, they seem to be economically more leftist than some of the current European trends in CD, but still very much in the mainstream of CD historically.  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 21:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From what I could gather they seemed to be more of a religious pressure group then a group lobbying for Christian Democracy. Itake 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Continued this line of talk at Template talk:Christian Democracy.  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 22:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you look at the member parties you'll discover christian (protestant) fundamentalists
 * like Party of Bible-abiding Christians

Christian democrats in norway?
The article says that the christian democrats, KrF, have been important in norway. Yes, they've had the prime minister a few times, but they're a small party anyhow, and they have little influence normally. So whilst I'm not sure enough to remove that point, I want a debate on it, since I think it is wrong. vidarlo 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * They've had prime minister for a while, and the PM in question was a very influential man in Norway. Thats good enough, the election results last time shouldnt reflect their entire history. Itake 23:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Evangelical Protestant political parties
I don't think that Christian Heritage New Zealand should be listed here, as it conforms more to a particular confessional model that is related to Dutch politics, where Reformed/conservative Calvinist political parties have gained (minimal) parliamentary representation on confessional lines, and refused to associate with conservative Catholics, or been held at arms length due to usually divergent stances on social welfare and social service policies. In Australia, their Christian Democratic Party (Australia) should similarly not be included here. However, the defunct, conservative Catholic Democratic Labor Party would probably be consistent within a European model of Christian Democracy.

In New Zealand, United Future New Zealand would seem to be a better claimant for "Christian Democratic" status. Peter Dunne and Gordon Copeland are Catholic, while evangelical List MP Judy Turner appears to agree with that philosophy's commitment to central government social welfare.

User: Calibanu 14:06, 14 May 2006

There are so many flaws inthis New Zealand CD article, for example "there was no split within the labour party unlike Australia", that is rubbish! The alliance(NLP) and united future were both direct offshoots of the labour party primarily to dfo with changes in economic policy.

Further more why isn't Kevin Rudd under Australia? He is a Christian and a prominent politican(the Prime minister!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.65.43.168 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How CD is Merkel anyway?
Currently, Angela Merkel is listed as a "famous Christian Democrat" in this article and also as an "important figure" in the CD template. But what did she do to merit this distinction? Did she support any particularly CD policy? -- Nikodemos 04:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and I've posted your comment on the template's talk, where this comment fits better. C mon 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Revolutionary socialism equated with violence
This article quite recently suffered a slight revert war leading to Itake being temporarily banned. I'd like to raise this issue on the talk page in order to avoid a similar situation arising once again.

The conflict was about a point under Political viewpoints, originally written as this: That point was removed by an anonymous editor and the preceding one edit to include the same point: It was then modified to removed that point altogether; resulting in it's current state:
 * In contrast to communism, rejects violence as a means to achieve social change.
 * In contrast to socialism, supports capitalism and a market economy, does not advocate class struggle, and unlike revolutionary socialism, rejects violence as a means to achieve social change.
 * In contrast to socialism, supports capitalism and a market economy and does not advocate class struggle

The issue of controversy here is as thus
 * whether revolutionary socialism/communism is to be equated with violence
 * if rs/c is to be equated with violence, whether it's worthy of inclusion in an article on Christian Democracy altogether

What say ye? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, Itake is now reverting my changes without even attempting to discuss the matter at hand here first. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that is not the issue here. The issue is your grasp of the english language. Nowhere is the word "equated" mention. Nowhere does it say that revolutionary socialism is the same as violence.

What is says, word by word, is:

(about Christian Democracy):

"In contrast to socialism, supports capitalism and a market economy, does not advocate class struggle, and unlike revolutionary socialism, rejects violence as a means to achieve social change"

Do you even know what revolutionary socialism is? Itake 20:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussing the finer points of revolutionary socialism is obviously irrelevant in this article. The difference between CD and Socialism is furthermore not its rejection of violence but its rejection of class struggle: just keep the discussion on violence and rev. socialism out of the article please. C mon 22:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is there even a discussion? The article on rev. socialism clearly talks about violence. And this article clearly talks about how CD belives social change should come without violence. Itake 22:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are without doubt many branches of revolutionary socialism that does advocate violence, and probably even a majority of them do. But, revolutionary socialism in itself doesn't necessarily imply a violent change of society - see, for example, the revolutionary socialist Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden's program, point 11: . There also quite a lot of pacifist socialist organizations. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A minor union in Sweden won't cut it for removing the violent label on the entire revolutionary socialism movement. Revolutionary socialism, read, read, and the list goes on...Now since you made the edit, you're the one that needs to give us sources showing that revolutionary socialism is infact not at all violent. Itake 23:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To avoid self-referencing (the article on revolutionary socialism does not cite its sources), let's see your external links. The first, from Britannica, is an excerpt from a complete article on revolutionary socialism. The excerpt, however, deals only with communism. The second is even better; I'll quote it: The common sense understanding of revolution equates it with violence. The conception of revolution that I have just set out is very different.. Further, I think we need some third views on this. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Next time, read the entire article. Especially the part where its laid out very clear what I've been saying all day long. Revolutionary socialism does not reject violence. Itake 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, as Itake edited the article in accordance with what I thought, I suppose this issue is settled. Yay. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get this, so I'll just leave it for a while. Hopefully I will one day understand these diffs: diff one, and after that, diff two. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Good choice. Itake 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As with many disputes in Wikipedia articles about which there are strong viewpoints, the best course of action is to describe what reputable, secondary sources say about a subject. This article suffers from a lack of these with the unfortunate result of editors basing their contributions on personal opinions or knowledge. Most, if not all the article, reads as a original research as it does provide only one such source. I would suggest that involved editors do some good ol'e research and find good secondary sources that describe Cristian Democracy. There is plentiful material on the subject. Some examples, follow. A trip to the local library may help.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Social Capitalism: A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State, Book by Kees Van Kersbergen; Routledge, 1995
 *  Christian Democracy in Western Europe, 1820-1953, Book by Michael P. Fogarty; University of Notre Dame Press, 1957
 *  The Path to Christian Democracy: German Catholics and the Party System from Windthorst to Adenauer, Book by Noel D. Cary; Harvard University Press, 1996
 *  The Rise of Christian Democracy in Europe, Book by Stathis N. Kalyvas; Cornell University Press, 1996
 *  Religion and Politics in Latin America: Liberation Theology and Christian Democracy, Book by Edward A. Lynch; Praeger Publishers, 1991
 *  European Politics into the Twenty-First Century: Integration and Division, Book by Hans Slomp; Praeger, 2000
 *  Political Parties and the European Union, Book by John Gaffney; Routledge, 1996


 * True that, but the issue at hand here is whether a phrase about revolutionary socialism is to be included in the article or not. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 05:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I was referring to, Jobjörn. The sentence "In contrast to socialism, supports capitalism and a market economy, does not advocate class struggle, and unlike revolutionary socialism, rejects violence as a means to achieve social change" is violating WP:NOR, that warns us not to create unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. If that asessment is made by an Historian, Economist, or other scholar, we could simply attribute that viewpoint to that scholar; and if there are competing views, we can describe these as well. So, from WP's standpoint it is either editors find material that can be attributed to reputable source, or that sentence is not welcome in the article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion revolutionary socialism is definitely connected with violence. Anyway it could be better to write something like In contrast to social democracy and socialism, supports capitalism and a market economy, and, unlike revoulutionary socialism and communism does not advocate class struggle. It is worthless to say that revolutionary socialism implies violence 'cos it seems to me that it is obvious. Revolution, as it is intended in revolutionary socialism, is violent and is opposed to pacific day-to-day reforms, supported by Reformist Socialists. --Checco 22:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Checco on this. C mon 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreements or consensus of editors cannot trump policy. Unless we find a source that describe Christian Democracy in those terms (e.g. comparing them with other political views or in opposition to other political views), that sentence violates WP:NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, checco, both social democracy - at least some social democratic organizations - and socialism do advocate class struggle. See, for example, the manifest of the Swedish Social Democratic Party. Further, while the word revolution is tied to that of violence, revolutionary socialists do not always advocate violence - see, for example, the revolutionary socialist Central Organisation of the Workers of Sweden's program, point 11:.
 * But whatever the case, it remains to be asked: if revolutionary socialism is tied to violence, why should it be mentioned in this article? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

CD in US
Why is Christian democracy not a major influence in the US? There are certainly plenty of Christians there. It seems strange too for that reason that social justice is so far down the list of priorities. Any chance some information could be added; is the two-party system the reason for all changing influences being blocked out?

zoney &#09827; talk 10:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You are exactly right in your intuition, zoney. The two-party system squashes all rival parties and voices.  I dare say this two-party system is the single most undemocratic type of system, short of totalitarianism.  We in America like to think we have a democratic system, but we are being myopic here, and stuck in the winner-take-all lesser-of-two-evils vortex.  Some of us are trying to start a Christian Democratic party here in the U.S.   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 14:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't Henry Hyde (Republican) and Bart Stupak (Democrat) be cited as better examples of American Christian democrats than Santorum or Huckabee? I'll admit, Santorum and Huckabee are a bit closer to CD than many Republicans, but Hyde and Stupak are examples of elected officials from both parties, who are (were - in the case of Hyde) opposed to abortion, and conservative on a lot of social issues, while being more receptive to public social programs - seems closer to CD than the other two. 173.67.216.61 (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)J.Mc.

Formatting
I noticed that there is some sort of formatting error in this article which is causing the first 1/3 of the page to be blank. I don't know enough about wiki formatting to fix this. ClixTrek 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Christian Democracy in the UK
I suspect the English Democrats in the UK are Christian Democrats. They certainly seem to fit the criteria of fairly liberal economic views, a concern with social justice, but countering that, an insistence on the importance of the family and on Christian ideals. There is no CD tradition in England, so people have accused them of being far-right and even Fascists - but I think CD fits them as well as anything. Vortinax 18:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a member of the Christian Democratic Appeal in the Netherlands. I look at this matter from a continental perspective. I've read the article on the English Democrats and haven't seen any conclusive evidence that they are Christian Democrats (the article doesn't even mention the Bible or Christianity as a source of inspiration). Another difference between the ED and the CD parties of Europe is that they are anti-EU. Unknown to most Britons is that the EU is a Christian Democratic creation (All signatories of the Treaty of Rome were Roman Catholic foreign ministers and all were Christian Democrats). The position on the EU of course isn't the decisive factor of Christian Democracy, but in this respect the ED are very different to any other CD party I know.


 * As a Christian Democrat I often wonder who our real brothers are in the UK. My humble opinion is that Christian Democracy in the UK is spread across the two main parties in the UK, the right wing of the Labour Party and the Tory Reform Group within the Conservative Party. One Nation Conservatism would come closest to Christian Democracy as I know it.
 * UK politicians who come close to being Christian Democrats in my eyes are:
 * Kenneth Clarke
 * Michael Heseltine
 * Gordon Brown
 * Tony Blair (who is a very religious Anglo-Catholic and has privately admitted that his faith is one of the main sources of inspiration for his political actions.)--84.26.116.26 00:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll bow to your superior knowledge, but the EDP's manifesto does make reference to 'Christian traditions'.Vortinax 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Making reference to Christian traditions is a good start, but it takes more than that to be regarded as a Christian Democrat. One has to have a coherent idea on how society should look like and how the economy should be run. Christian Democrats generally believe in civil society, deliberation and consensus-based decision-making. Christian Democrats take the middle ground on the economy. Christian Democrats favour free enterprise in the economy, but do want the state to look after the weakest members in society. The are some exclusively Christian parties in the Netherlands, such as the ChristianUnion and the SGP, but these aren't regarded as Christian Democratic parties by anyone. This proves that Christian traditions aren't sufficient to be characterised as Christian Democratic party. Anyway, thank you for opening up this interesting discussion on where Christian Democracy could be found in the UK. I hope some more people will read this and give their opinions, because frankly me being a Christian Democrat doesn't necessarily mean I'm right. 84.26.116.26 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not a Christian Democrat, British Conservative, or British labour member or voter, although I would tend to agree with 84.26.116.26, the English Democrats are not really a Christian Democrat party, nor are they a major party in England (receiving only 14,506 in the last General Election out of 27M votes cast). Although Clarke, Heseltine and the One Nation Conservatives don't emphasise their Christian heritage, there is a belief that the free market is the best economic system, but that any economic system should benefit the whole of society rather than certain individuals. Current Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown was brought up in the Church of Scotland, although I am not a member of that church, I know that it has a set of values and a doctrine that could be described as similar to Christian democracy. Stressing both individual initiative and commitment to ones community and society. It is also known to emphasis alleviation of poverty and in recent years has taken a pragmatic view on most social issues, like same-sex marriage and abortion, and has prioritised other issues it considers to be more important. (see the Sermon on the Mound article for a better idea of what I mean.)


 * I believe it was me who added the sentence "Christian Democracy is not very strong in the United Kingdom where the Conservative Party dominates conservative politics. Although they do contain elements of Christian Democrat ideology and as a party are roughly comparable to Christian Democrat Parties throughout the rest of Europe". Upon reading the above users comments I think this quote is still, pretty much, correct (there is no single Christian Democrat Party in the UK) but should perhaps include that some of the "right-wing" of the Labour Party could be identified has having Christian Democrats principles. It might also be worth pointing out that the British House of Commons unlike comparable Continental bodies, has only 3 UK-wide parties are represented there, unlike the 10 that are represented in the Tweede Kamer in the Netherlands, for example. All other seats in the UK parliament are held by either independents, local candidates or national candidates from parties operating just in either England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Therefore the three major parties UK-wide parties are considered to be broad churches, and are meant to represent different elements including Christian democracy, Social democracy, Socialism, Liberalism, Thatcherism, etc. within them. This is the reason why there is no Christian Democrat Party in the United Kingdom, but voters there would not be unfamiliar with the policies or values of Christian Democracy. Benson85 07:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well this is partially true but I suspect it's also a product of history and culture. Looking at the Christian Democratic Party article it seems there have been very few Christian Democratic parties of any significance in the Anglosphere with the exception of Fine Gael in Ireland (doubly surprising given that Irish politics align largely on the civil war). It's hard to say why this is, although as some of the big issues that spawned CD had already been settled in the UK (and its colonies/ex-colonies), whilst the party system was more settled it may well be that there was no need for it. Although I can't recall seeing it discussed much, not least because "Christian democracy" is a term not used in British political dicussion, I wonder if the differences between Conservatism (as understood in the UK) and Christian democracy are the root cause of the UK Conservatives' current problems with being in the European People's Party–European Democrats grouping (which in UK discourse is normally just called the "European People's Party" with many, including several MEPs, dismissing the European Democrats part of the set-up as a mere fig leaf of nomenclature) and seeming inability to find sufficient parties to form an alternative, basically conservative, grouping; or even if this is the root of the growing Conservative dislike for the way the European Union has turned out. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a Dutch Christian Democrat (CDA) I agree with Timrollpickering's analysis. For the Conservatives, especially since the days of Margaret Thatcher, Europe has always been an economic project. The Christian Democrats, who founded the EU, had the idea the unity was necessary in order to prevent war from happening again and saw the common market as a means to an end. This leads to different visions on the (future of the) EU. Furthermore continental CD parties had developed close ties with each other by 1973. When the Conservatives joined the European People's Party, they found themselves to be outsiders, highlighted by the differences that have always existed between Anglo-Saxon conservatism and continental Christian Democracy.


 * On the presence of Christian Democracy in continental Europe and its absence in the Anglosphere I also have some kind of thesis. I am not a historian or political scientist, but looking at electoral statistics and maps there seems to be a correlation between Christian Democracy and Roman Catholicism. Even though Christian Democracy also exists in protestant Scandinavia and Protestants are a large group in the Dutch CDA and the German CDU, its voting shares tend to be lower in Protestant areas and higher in Catholic ones. This can also explain why Christian Democracy is a major political current in South America and Europe, and not in other areas, as Europe and South America are the areas where Roman Catholicism is a large (if not the largest) religion. Furthermore, it explains why the anglophone nation having a CD party is Ireland (voting systems play a role too however).
 * The high presence of Christian Democracy in Catholic areas can be traced back to the fact that the Christian Democracy's founding document was the papal encyclical Rerum Novarum by Leo XIII. Protestants developed Christian Democratic ideas independent of Rerum Novarum, which accounts for Christian Democracy in Protestant areas.--84.26.1.92 (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Irish would hate being called 'anglo-saxon' - they're Celts - but that's what you get when you use a French term for English-speaking countries ;) Vortinax (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * With Anglo-Saxon I meant anglophone. My apology to every Irishman who could have been offended and for my ignorance on the proper use of the term Anglo-Saxon. In fact Vortinax, I'm from the Netherlands (not from France as you seem to think) and the Dutch language does know the word Anglo-Saxon (Angelsaksisch),which means that Anglo-Saxon is not an exclusively French term (look at the facts first before you, out of prejudice, label a contribution from Continental Europe as French). In the Netherlands Anglo-Saxon is often used interchangeably with anglophone, which is the source of this misunderstanding. This mistake was not intentional. Through this reaction I consider this matter to be settled, as this linguistical quarrel is irrelevant to the discussion about Christian Democracy. By the way, I have changed Anglo-Saxon into anglophone.--84.26.1.92 (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Communitarianism
Looking at this page and communitarianism, it seems to me that the ideologies are similar and related enough that it can be argued 'christian democract' is a political subset of the 'communitarian' philosophy the same way 'democratic socialism' is a subset of 'socialism'. However, the body text of the article never mentions the 'communitarian'. Revolutionaryluddite 04:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It mentions communitarianism now. Christian Democracy long predates communitarianism, and has particular features and aspects that aren't necessarily communitarian or conservative, though it is related to these ideologies.   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 19:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

We have here a wrong definition of communitarianism. As it is said on the article, " communitarianism (an ideology focusing on the health of the whole community), i.e. it is conservative in regard to moral and cultural issues; and progressive in regard to social justice, labor and socio-economic issues." Communitarianism is not necessarily conservative or progressive. Please take note that only the italicized words in the quotation marks are the wrong definitions of communitarianism. -Pika ten10 (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, your quote of the article isn't precise. The article was not trying to define communitarianism, but Christian Democracy.  I think my revision should have cleared things up, to the extent that they were unclear. --   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thus you now mean that Christian Democracy is a kind of communitarianism that upholds religious and moral traditions while promoting liberty and social justice. -Pika ten10 (talk) 12:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"Focuses on the health of the community"?
In the intro is says, "it is conservative (or focuses on the health of the community) in regard to moral and cultural issues; and progressive (or focuses on the health of the community) in regard to social justice[...]" Am I to understand then that "conservative" is distinguished from"progressive" in that it "focuses on the health of the community," and also that "progressive" is distinguished from "conservative" in that it "focuses on the health of the community"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.100.32 (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From a Christian Democratic and a communitarian point of view, to be what is commonly understood to be "conservative" on moral and cultural issues, and being what is commonly understood as "progressive" on social justice and socio-economic issues, is to have a unified outlook focusing on the health of the community (versus a focus on the individual) on all issues. The focus on the health of the community is the unifying factor that makes understandable what seems like a mish-mash of viewpoints from a left-right politics perspective.  --    GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 05:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong defintion...
Is the meaning of "federalistic" "traditional"??? It is said here... "...It may be seen as federalistic and traditional in that it emphasizes sphere sovereignty and subsidiarity, and maintaining local and regional cultural distinctives, as well as upholding universal traditions (for example, traditional marriage)..." I don't see "federalistic" as "traditional"... The US is a federal state, but that at varying periods of time, many of its leaders and politicians held progressive views. Please fix this up immmediately. Questions??? -Pika ten10 (talk) 05:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Christian Democratic concept of "federalism" has nothing to do with the political meaning of it. Federalism in the Christian Democratic sense means that certain organisations have an area of expertise (like trade unions, employer unions and churches) and that they shouldn't be unnecessarily hindered by goverment action. This is known as sphere sovereignty. Subsidiarity originates from Catholic theology and means that things that can be organised on a low level should be done there, a bottom up approach you could say. Of course Christian Democracy cherishes traditional and religious values. That's why traditionalism is linked to "federalism" in this article.--84.26.1.92 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * read christian social teaching —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.240.182 (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence's neutrality?
I wouldn't be so inclined to either call the French Revolution "anti-cultural" or Marxism "anti-Christian". My reasoning for the latter is that Marxism is not specifically against Christianity but against religion in general, and there are (to the best of my knowledge) no corresponding "Hindu Democratic" or "Buddhist Democratic" movements in the Asian regions in which those belief-systems (as well as some form of Marxism) are prominent. I would not have a problem with this statement per se, if it were re-worded to distinguish the unrelated anti-Christianisms of the two, and the phrase "anti-cultural" definitely needs to be either clarified or removed. elvenscout742 (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Plus, it seems that Christian democracy originated about a century after the Révolution, and only took root in France itself about another half-century later. elvenscout742 (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I contend that both Marxism and the French Revolution are/were anti-Christian and anti-cultural. Certainly that is the way the founders of Christian Democracy understood them.  Both of the new dogmas grew out of a response to life in a Christian-built world (not Buddhist-built, not Muslim-built).  I am not saying that everything in that Christian-built world was genuinely Christian, not by any stretch of the imagination; but that world was built and deeply infused by cultural Christianisms.  Certainly, both dogmas have a universal vision that tends to tread hard on local culture (inclusive of the local religion), no matter what that culture is.  It is probably true that the Revolution leans more anti-Christian, and Marxism leans more anti-culture; yet it is also true that Revolutionism leads to banning Muslim head scarves in schools (an anti-cultural act), and more Marxist-led countries have banned Christianity than any other dominant religion.  While both philosophies have wreaked havoc in many far-flung places, these militantly secular credos have done most of their work on what was once called Christendom, such that most of the cultures of the Western world are now diluted of difference and constitute a universally post-Christian world.  (BTW, Muslim political parties in Asia have recently been taking some lessons from Christian Democratic parties.  Turkey has such a party, likewise Pakistan; and the Philippines has a CD party that is inclusive of Muslims not only in deed but also in name.  Also, the French Revolution was not limited to France.  That's why the first CD party was a Dutch party called the Anti-Revolution Party.)  It is true that this secular, post-Christian world is also created in large measure by social Darwinism and laissez-faire capitalism.  Of course, that is the other side of the one-hand-other-hand point of the introductory paragraph.  I appreciate your point, but I think it is a little reductionist.  Culture and religion are mixed together, just as worker rights and human rights are mixed together. --   GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 02:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I see your point, but I would contend that the word "culture" is extremely ambiguous ("polyguous"?), and certain interpretations would hold that neither Marxism nor the French Revolution was anti-cultural. Could a better description not be found? elvenscout742 (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The radical elements (Jacobins) of the French Revolution were certainly anti-Christian, or anti-Catholic in the context of 18th century France. It wasn't aimed at religion at large, but specifically against Christianity. Look at the Cult of the Supreme Being that Maximilien Robespierre tried to set up. It was an attempt to supplant Christianity, the dominant religion at the time, with his own cult. Robespierre, who recognised the strength of religion, used Christian forms of expression (the use of the Supreme Being or "God" and public holidays) to make it more acceptable to the general public. Christian Democracy was formed as an answer to the more anti-Christian attitudes of the French Revolution. It tried to seek Christian answers to the problems of the industrial era. At the same time it tried to bring the positive gains of the revolution into its ideology. Christian Democracy can be characterised as anti-revolutionary (not liking violent change), hence the name Anti-Revolutionary Party (ARP) for the first Christian Democratic party ever created (I myself am a member of its successor party, the CDA), but not counter-revolutionary. Christian Democracy consideres the French Revolution to be irreversible, but still not as a total improvement or success. Some say that Christian Democracy is in fact a product of the French Revolution, giving meaning to the word fraternity in the phrase liberty, equality, fraternity. As to Marxism and the French Revolution being anti-cultural, I have the following opinion. Being of revolutionary origin means that Marxism and the French Revolution, per definition, do not respect those things that were there (established culture, often organically grown) when they emerged. Their emergence swept away the culture that was there, but hasn't really replaced it with a Marxist of Revolutionary culture of their own. Instead it has allowed nihilism and relativism to fill the void they left. I think that this aspect of these movements draws the most criticism from the Christian Democrats.-84.26.1.92 (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above poster, and therefore object to the introductory sentence "anti-theocractic and anti-authoritarian" for the French revolution. They weren't objecting to that so much as the revolution's blanket hatred of anything Christian. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Article name
Hi. Currently, this article's name is "Christian democracy", whereas the opening sentence begins "Christian Democracy is a..." and the associated category and templates also use "Christian Democracy" (although currently the title in the Christian Democracy sidebar template transcluded here is "...Christian democracy").

So, should the name be "Christian democracy" -- not to be confused with a democracy that's Christian because the concept "Christian democracy" is sufficiently well-known -- or "Christian Democracy", because the name identifies a particular ideology/history that's one of a number of possible "democracies based on / relating to Christianity"..? I'm not sure, but suspect it's the latter, i.e. with a capital "D".

Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

CD in Europe - czech republic
okay, I am don't know HOW to edit, but does anybody care for adding a reference to Czechoslovak people's Party (christian and democratic union) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KDU-CSL) to the section on CD in europe? Although they score under 10% of popular vote, they had been an important party of the post communist era, having been one of the coalition members of almost all governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venushalley (talk • contribs) 19:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Anglo-Saxon ideologies
It would see to me that CD as understood in Europe would correspond with Red Toryism in Canada and the UK and certain minority strands in both parties in the US (tax-and-spend conservatives in the GOP and socially-conservative liberals in the Dems). Is there any research into this question? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant sections
I will remove the following sections if there is no objection: Christian democracy in Asia and Christian democracy in Australia. Christian democracy in Asia is minimal and the Christian Democratic Party of Australia has no connection with the Christian Democratic tradition. TFD (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Disconnect

 * Christian democracy is often considered conservative on cultural, social and moral issues (social conservatism) and progressive on fiscal and economic issues.

That's an interesting disconnect. In secular Western countries, many Christians are the exact opposite, in other words, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This was especially true after the 1960s. I wonder if this needs to be revised. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)