Talk:Christian Heritage Party of Canada
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Social consevative vs. conservative
- 3 Question on wording
- 4 Some answers and clarification
- 5 Affirmation of policy
- 6 What is a 'Constitutional Theocracy'?
- 7 Theonomy vs. Theocracy
- 8 category:protestant political parties
- 9 Criticism
- 10 Canadian Viewpoints (CHP Forum)
- 11 Links
- 12 Dominionism label
- 13 "Claims to be" or "is"?
- 14 Adding a section about the CHP of NZ
- 15 Fundamentalist organization?
- 16 The 2nd sentance at the top not consistant with the citation 2
I have posted my substitute at Christian Heritage Party of Canada/Temp. If it is acceptable, please delete the existing Christian Heritage Party of Canada page to remove the copyright violation, and move my temp page over. Jwrosenzweig 23:38, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I like the temp page. I was going to edit up, or make a stub for the CHP, but I will leave things be for now Pellaken 06:57, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Didn't the federal Social Credit Party of Canada get taken over by Ken Campbell at some point in the 1980s or early 90s and change its name to the Christian Freedom Party or something like that? Did they turn into the CHP or am I looking for yet another thing to link to Social Credit ?:)
Social consevative vs. conservative
I've reviewed the CHP platform, and I think that social conservative is a better description for the CHP than simply conservative. The party's platform is focuses on issues of what they consider to be morality: the so-called traditional family, abortion, crime, etc., and makes only passing mention of fiscal conservative issues. In particular, their environmental policy is focused on environmental protection, whereas a conservative party's environmental policy would be focused on economic growth. Please check out the party's website. Kevintoronto 14:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Question on wording
Other policies include staunch opposition to same sex marriage and a subsidy for parents raising children, to encourage women to stay at home rather than working.
Should that read "... staunch opposition to same sex marriage and support for a subsidy..."? I intuitively think that's what it should be, not knowing much about this party, but the wording could go either way. wiegee 06:52, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Some answers and clarification
Yes, it should read something to the effect of support of a direct payment to two-parent families where one parent (not necessarily the mother) stays home to care for school-aged and younger children, while supporting daycare for single parents who have no alternative.
The party is more middle-of-the-road than is commonly understood. It has compassion for those who, through no fault of their own, are temporarily unable to sustain themselves, but it would expect those capable to work for their benefits (Biblical precedent - farmers were to leave the outer edges of their fields unharvested, and the poor were to go and gather it for themselves.).
The party's purpose is not to impose religion on Canada. It's purpose is to set out the Christian morality as a standard for the government's members in their conduct of the people's affairs, and the party challenges the other parties to identify the principles upon which they would govern.
The party is definitely not populist. The defunct Reform Party and the Canada Party are populist parties, as they believed in several pillars of populism that allow the people to override even the popularly-elected government: members should vote their constituents' wishes, the government should hold binding referenda, and people should be able to petition for the holding of referenda on issues; recall of elected members is another common trait.
The CHP believes in none of these populist pillars, believing instead that elected members have the responsibility of making an informed voting decision that is in the best interests of the greatest number of people, and that voters have the responsibility of, one, voting, and two, making the choice that best represents what they believe.
I would note that John Diefenbaker has been called a populist, although he long was part of a party that did not practice (i.e., implement) these pillars of populism. Rather, Diefenbaker seemed to want to govern in a manner conscious of the common people, as opposed to what he perceived as the "big business" orientation of the Liberals. I would say Diefenbaker wasn't entirely a populist, if he was at all, but he was certainly more sympathetic to the needs of the common man, and one of his lasting legacies may be to interrupt the Liberal monopoly on power long enough to shake up the status quo.
The CHP was founded in 1986, long before the Social Credit Party of Canada morphed into a lobby group, which has nothing to do with the CHP.
Affirmation of policy
I must insist that the party's policy on child care use "one parent", not "women". The party policy does not say "women" or "mothers", even if people believe that to be the party's intent. The party does, however, recognize that at least 700,000 working mothers in Canada have responded in surveys that they would rather be at home to raise their children. The party would not discriminate in situations where the fathers want to be doing that work. Nor would the party penalize single-parent families who have no other option, and the party would not prevent mothers and fathers from both choosing to work; they simply would continue as they do now, using their dual incomes to pay for the services they consequently require.
This is what is in party policy: 7. MOTHERS AND HOMEMAKERS We affirm that a vital role in society which mothers can perform is that of homemaker and rearer of children; further, that failure in this role imperils the rising generation and the future of society and the state. We, therefore, assert that government efforts should be directed primarily towards so ordering the economy that mothers will not find it necessary to supplement family income by work outside the home. Homemakers must receive equal recognition under the law, and should be able to submit joint tax returns with their income-earning spouse. We believe that parents who choose to be homemakers should have the option of contributing to the Canada Pension Plan and that their contributions should be deductible from the spouse's taxable income.
Mothers are identified specifically, as mothers have in the past and are anticipated to continue to dominate over fathers those who prefer to be the home caregiver. The final sentence says, however, "parents who choose to be homemakers", not "mothers who...". Accordingly, although mothers are definitely recognized as the group most likely to do this, and who are, in the belief of party members, God-equipped with the unique female traits that enable them to do this with the support of a faithful husband, the party would support a father in the same role. (As an example of how a husband supports his wife in this role, I actively encourage my wife to go out on her own and do things while I'm at home with the children on weekends or in the evening. I change soiled diapers, and I feed/prepare food for children, even while my wife is home and awake.)
I must also insist that the CHP is the only pro-life party. Several other parties, notably the Liberals, NDP, Green, insist on "the right of women to choose" or "the right of women to control their own bodies" or meanings to the effect of "pro-choice", the term they prefer and which I reluctantly respect.
Other parties, which can only be categorized as neutral or non-committal, will make no commitment either way, deferring to the law in effect or to their candidates' and MPs' views. Only the CHP has made a definite commitment to seeking to protect unborn children and offering the option of life for both mother and child.
Whenever a new party attains or applies for registered status, I try to investigate them to see where they stand. No other party has made such a definitive statement of support for unborn children to live.
What is a 'Constitutional Theocracy'?
I'm a CHP member, so I'd like to know who applied the term and what they believe it to mean. Provisionally, I'm not objecting to it, the provision being that I wish to understand the intent and meaning of the term and it being added to the party profile box.
To the best of my knowledge, "theocracy" is intended to imply that a religious order or denomination determines the administration of a territory. That is, a particular church or religious denomination, e.g. Catholicism, Episcopalianism, etc.
Since it is not the CHP's intent to do any such thing, I'm not sure how "constitutional theocracy" is assumed to be the CHP's ideology.
GBC 06:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Theonomy vs. Theocracy
- No, it would not. Neither term is appropriate. The CHP arose from a Kuyperian tradition, and is consistent with that in being committed to Christian politics in a pluralistic society. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
category:protestant political parties
This party is included in the category protestant political party, because it is classified as such in Paul Freston (2004) Protestant Political Parties Aldershot (Ashgate), who gives two reasons: 1) the party is mainly supported by evangelical protestants 2) bases it self around protestant political principles. I think they are convincing. C mon 11:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- With respect, I disagree. The party is mostly but not exclusively Protestant, and at least one of its former leaders is a Catholic. It isn't a "Protestant political party" in the same way as the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, or the old Protestant Protective Association. CJCurrie 22:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can you back your feelings/intuitions/experiences up with external verifiable references? C mon 22:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Will you accept evidence of Catholic leaders and candidates within the CHP as proof that it is not an exclusively Protestant party? CJCurrie 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- At the centre of the controversy is the novel No Place For Me by Barthe DeClements, a feel-good novel about a young girl that includes a sympathetic portrayal of a character who practices the Wiccan religion (sometimes in ways that dissolve the girl in giggles). Citing provisions in the School Act that prohibit the teaching of religion in public schools, Mrs. Stilwell last fall started a lengthy challenge procedure to remove the book from the library at her children's school, claiming the book "proselytizes" the Wiccan religion. Mrs. Stilwell is a devout Catholic and former leader of the Christian Heritage Party, for which she ran in the last federal election.
- Lesley Krueger, "Religious right's hidden agenda finally emerges", Globe and Mail, 11 August 1995, A12. CJCurrie 22:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- No this is hardly convincing as the proof is circumstancial the article you cite seems to concern a book and not a scientific/journalistic characterization of the party. Furthermore parties like Christian Democratic Union (Germany) have been categorized as both catholic and protestant: they are not exclusive categories. C mon 23:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The party's purpose is not to evangelize, that being considered by members to be a role for the church, not for a body that aspires to form the government. Therefore, whether or not it is Protestant or Catholic or both or neither is not relevant in terms of its aspirations. The values of the party, i.e., its policies and the internal rules that govern its operation and discipline its members, would represent a balance between the broadness necessary to embrace as many denominations as possible and the need to guide members toward acknowledging and obeying God's essential truths.
Denominations primarily (but not exclusively) concern beliefs concerning salvation, forgiveness, the nature and timing of the coming of God's kingdom and the defeat of evil, and whether some people are chosen by God for salvation or whether it applies to all or whether it applies to those who specifically accept Christ's atonement.
These differing beliefs appear to have no relevance to governance of a nation. Rather, the party's purpose is to offer service to Canadians by governing, with that governance obeying basic transcendent doctrines such as "no murdering", "no stealing", "no perjury", "no coveting", and with the CHP government members realizing they are eternally accountable to God for betrayals, in contrast to secular government members believing that the worst consequence is being booted out of office or taken to court for criminal behaviour or graft.
Given this, I don't perceive any significance to being Protestant or Catholic. Where I used to live, the membership was broad in terms of denomination, with both Catholics and Protestants. I myself am probably classified as a Protestant, but I don't think of myself as one, because I am not "protesting" anything to God about my beliefs! GBC 16:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe this article represents both sides of the debate regarding a religious political party. The page seems to focus solely on part policies and not on the possible negative effects of said policies. I believe there are many negative aspects of a far right Christian party and these should be addressed. I will do such if it is agreed that a section would be useful. Dale-DCX 13:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Odd that people talk about "right wing" but never "left wing". Why is left considered so "middle"? And odd that people think of the CHP as "right wing" when it is actually quite middle of the road - the party supports medicare, and the use of Bank of Canada money for a national infrastructure program. GBC 22:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Even more odd is you seem to think no one talks of the left. In fact, communism and socialism have likely been the most discussed aspect of politics since their advent. The left (specifically the Liberal Party) in Canada is considered a "middle" party because their policies are quite moderate. Also in Canada, the right (specifically the Conservative Party) is far more to the middle than conservative parties in many nations. Regardless, a Christian party is bound to be to the right, due to the fact they support consistancy and reject change. They can support leftist policies because the Bible supports things which are presently supported by the left. In fact, a Christian party's support of any policy has little to do with the political spectrum, and rather what is supported in the Bible. As I stated, a Christian political party is "right" by nature, not by practice.Dale-DCX (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Canadian Viewpoints (CHP Forum)
I would like to see the CHP forum called Canadian Viewpoints, allowed in the Links section. A lot of people do not know that the CHP has a forum and it would be good to let others know about it. It would also be an opportunity for people to get to know CHP members and to ask questions about CHP. Jemdude 01:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Many of the links/references/notes are to pages that are no longer valid and returning 404 messages. GRBerry 15:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I've removed "Dominionism" from the óverview card. Even the article on Dominionism states in the introductory paragraph that the application of the term is "controversial", and that same article makes a distinction between "Dominionism", and Christian Democratic or Christian Historical principles, such as those advocated by the CHP. As that article and the term it describes have developed - again, according to the article itself - the idea of Dominionism seems to be very fuzzy indeed, and is used to bring a diverse spectrum of Christian politics into unfavorable and even fearful connection with Christian Reconstructionism for political purposes. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
"Claims to be" or "is"?
The text states that the CHP "claims to be" Canada's only pro-life party. I disagree. It is the only such party.
All other parties support abortion, tolerate abortion, or lack a willingness to stand against abortion, even though some of their members describe themselves as pro-life and are often discouraged by party whips from voting except by the official party stance. GBC (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- We could, perhaps, alter the text to read, "The Christian Heritage Party is the only registered federal political party in Canada to include opposition to abortion as part of its platform." I think this would get the point across in a neutral way, assuming that the information is accurate. (Are there other small parties that have an official position against abortion?) CJCurrie (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Someone here seems to be enjoying deleting my comments! As I was saying, CHP is not the only party that pro-life - People's political power party of Canada is also pro-life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Adding a section about the CHP of NZ
This article isn't about the Christian Heritage Party of New Zealand, that subject has its own article, so maybe at most it there could be a tiny section about the affiliation between the two parties at the end, and/or it can be in the 'See also' section, but wherever it is, even though the claims presented are true because of Wikipedia policy they need to be verifiable and therefore well referenced with notable references. And lastly, the CHP of NZ certainly doesn't deserve to be the first paragraph after the table of contents, and all this without references! Therefor I'm going to make it smaller, move it way down, change the wording, and add it to the 'See also' section. Invmog (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that this article is part of Category:Christian fundamentalism. Are there any references that say it is a fundamentalist organization?
No, I do not believe it is a fundamentalist organization or political party. The CHP would be more accurately identified as Evangelical rather than Fundamentalist since a large number of the founding members were from the Dutch-Reformed tradition which is definitely Protestant Evangelical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The 2nd sentance at the top not consistant with the citation 2
- 'It believes "The Holy Bible to be the inspired, inerrant written Word of God and the final authority above all man's laws and government". '
I'm not sure the link goes at the citation footnote goes exactly to the page on the referece site intended. It is quite clear from pages on the CHP site that the party is non-denominational. I cannot find the quoted text on the cited website.
They have many actual statements of belief that could be actually quoted.
- 'Our purpose is to place ourselves under the authority and guidance of the principles os the Gospel - principles like justice, honesty, compasion, diligence, thrift and "Do unto others as you would have them do into you."'
They say "in a nutshell"
- "The CHP is Canada's only pro life federal political party, and the only federal party that endorses the Judeo-Christian principles enshrined in the Canadian Constitution: 'Canada was founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God' capital 'G': the God of the Bible - and the rule of law.'