|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Christian democracy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Christian democracy has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
|This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, defense), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
Vague Statements that are likely untrue...
On the main page for Christian Democracy, I've noticed that the page has this section,
"In common with conservatism, traditional moral values (on marriage, abortion, etc.), opposition to secularization, a view of the evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) development of society, an emphasis on law and order, and a rejection of communism. In contrast to conservatism, open to change (for example, in the structure of society) and not necessarily supportive of the social status quo. In common with liberalism, an emphasis on human rights and individual initiative. In contrast to liberalism, a rejection of secularism, and an emphasis on the fact that the individual is part of a community and has duties towards it. In common with socialism, an emphasis on the community, social justice and solidarity, support for a welfare state and support for regulation of market forces. In contrast to socialism, most European Christian Democrats support a market economy and do not adhere to the concept of class struggle. This has not always carried over to some Latin American Christian Democratic Parties, which have been influenced by liberation theology."
I feel that this is not only unnecessary, but untrue. Now, before deleting it, I feel like I should discuss this on the talk page. Thanks Dry and Melancholic (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Dry and Melancholic 09:35, 5 May 2015 (MST)
Christian democracy in Australia
"Family First Party (which is regarded by some as a liberal democratic party)" - I cannot see how anyone could possibly consider the Family First Party to be liberal democratic. Lyphatma (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
American Solidarity Party
"American Solidarity Party" - This is very much a valid 3rd party in the Christian Democratic Tradition. The links added to the external reference section are valid and should *not* be deleted. Please contact or comment if there are concerns. MuskegPress ([User talk:MuskegPress]) 18:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It is not an actual party, it is just a facebook page. Deleting all links to it. This is not an advertising platform. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Propaganda Dc.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Propaganda Dc.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 12 June 2012
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Propaganda Dc.jpg)
I'm just passing by and by no means an expert on the subject, but it seems like most politics pages include a criticism section which I think would be both interesting and of encyclopedia value for this article. If somebody with a solid background in academic and/or popular criticisms of Christian democracy would write them in, I feel as though that would improve the article substantially. Low priority 22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The article claims that Christian democracy camoesfrom catholism and later incorporated other christian denominations. But the only dated sourses in the history section imply that it was Protestants that started the first christian parties in reposnse to liberals. Since that was in the netherland on of the first democratic countries the circumstantial evidence points to it being the other way around.126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Simple question. Why is the menu about CD to the right coloured in orange? No CD party use that colour. Black, Blue, White, Red, Green are all in use, but never orange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
American Christian democrats
Would Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, and Democrat Bob Casey Jr.; be considered Christian democrats? They are socially conservative Christians, economically center-left (for American economic standards) because they are more liberal spenders and support expansion of the welfare state. They differ from other Christian conservatives like Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint, who support a more laissez-faire right-wing economic philosophy. Is Christian democrat the correct term for bigger government Christian conservatives like Santorum, Huckabee, and Casey? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- No. They are part of an entirely different political tradition. In any cases you would need sources that supported your view. TFD (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do not think that center left is accurate. Their economic views are generally to the right of mainstream Democrats, even to the right of establishment Republicans before Reagan. They fall within either the liberal tradition or right-wing populism. Here is a link to an article about Christian Democracy from the respected Christian Democratic Konrad Adenauer Foundation. As you can see, they have little in common with U.S. Christian fundamentalist politics. TFD (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I do not think any of those terms is widely used. There is a Christian Democratic organization in the U.S.: the Center for Public Justice. And in his book, It Takes a Family, Santorum uses a number of Christian Democratic concepts, such as subsidiarity. But, per synthesis, you would need sources that placed Santorum et al within Christian Democracy, which does not appear to exist. Christian Democracy arose in order to address historical circumstances that did not exist in the U.S.: a reactionary clergy and aristocracy opposed by a secular laissez-faire liberalism and a challenge from socialism. It took concepts from each and presented an alternative. Those circumstances did not exist in the U.S. or the UK for that matter. Other aspects of Christian Democracy are missing as well: a mass democratic party supported by the Church and religious trade unions and other organizations. It is questionable too whether parties such as the CDU can still be described as Christian Democratic beyond the circumstances of their creation. TFD (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)