A new political party+++++

[Pommer]

That is not keeping Religion and Government separated as was the previous comment, that is more of the guide line.

Please for to expound this further, as, at present, it is ambiguous.

 

[returntosender]

To bad talking about it doesn't make it so

 

[Pommer]

To bad talking about it doesn't make it so

What is “it” in your sentence?

 

[JSRG]

Why does Christianity have so many denominations?

There are more than 45,000 denominations globally.

www.livescience.com

Let me know when you all agree.

The article claims at the start "There are more than 45,000 denominations globally." Its source is this page which explains how broadly it uses the term "denomination":

The most detailed level of our taxonomy of global Christianity is Christian denominations, defined as an organized Christian church, tradition, religious group, community of people, aggregate of worship centre, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other churches and traditions. Denominations are defined and measured at the country level, creating a large number of separate denominations within Christian families and Christian traditions. For example, the presence of the Catholic Church in the world’s 234 countries results in 234 Catholic “denominations”, though these can be further subdivided by rite (e.g., Byzantine or Latin). The typical way for Christians to count themselves is at the local congregational level and then aggregate these totals at the city, province, state, regional and finally, national levels.

Individual congregations are not counted as “denominations.” We do make note of the fact that many independent congregations are not a part of any denomination. If those churches were to form an independent network with a name, we would consider them a denomination. Using this method, we report 45,000 Christian denominations in the world in 2019.

It seems to me that any methodology that counts the Catholic Church as 234 denominations is perhaps using the term "denomination" very, very loosely.

I suppose this doesn't fully negate the point that "Christians disagree with each other and there's a bunch of denominations" but let's not exaggerate it into numbers like 46,000.

 

[Bradskii]

The article claims at the start "There are more than 45,000 denominations globally." Its source is this page which explains how broadly it uses the term "denomination":

The most detailed level of our taxonomy of global Christianity is Christian denominations, defined as an organized Christian church, tradition, religious group, community of people, aggregate of worship centre, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other churches and traditions. Denominations are defined and measured at the country level, creating a large number of separate denominations within Christian families and Christian traditions. For example, the presence of the Catholic Church in the world’s 234 countries results in 234 Catholic “denominations”, though these can be further subdivided by rite (e.g., Byzantine or Latin). The typical way for Christians to count themselves is at the local congregational level and then aggregate these totals at the city, province, state, regional and finally, national levels.

Individual congregations are not counted as “denominations.” We do make note of the fact that many independent congregations are not a part of any denomination. If those churches were to form an independent network with a name, we would consider them a denomination. Using this method, we report 45,000 Christian denominations in the world in 2019.

It seems to me that any methodology that counts the Catholic Church as 234 denominations is perhaps using the term "denomination" very, very loosely.

I suppose this doesn't fully negate the point that "Christians disagree with each other and there's a bunch of denominations" but let's not exaggerate it into numbers like 46,000.

There are that many and they will only be guaranteed to have one thing in common.

 

[JSRG]

There are that many and they will only be guaranteed to have one thing in common.

If one wants to use an extremely broad definition of "denomination" I suppose one can claim there are that many, but doing so also robs the number of any meaning. Once again, if one's definition of denomination makes the Catholic Church count as 234 different denominations (they explicitly note they are counting it as such), then it's clear that the definition being used is useless for any practical measurement of the number of denominations.

 

[returntosender]

If one wants to use an extremely broad definition of "denomination" I suppose one can claim there are that many, but doing so also robs the number of any meaning. Once again, if one's definition of denomination makes the Catholic Church count as 234 different denominations (they explicitly note they are counting it as such), then it's clear that the definition being used is useless for any practical measurement of the number of denominations.

Why does that matter, there all not Jesus based are they?

 

[mark46]

There is a party a tiny bit like that already. It is the Solidarity Party and is based on the European Christian Democrats. It is based on Christian and Jewish principles, not in a Sola Scriptura sense though. Christian Democrats were foundational in European recovery after WWII. They included a broad coalition of Protestants and Catholics and Jews. The Solidarity Party in the USA is tiny but it has fielded candidates already. Now is a very opportune time for a third party when people are fed up with the parties of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Hmm

I suggest that if we took a poll, very few of our posters would accept the policies of Christian Democrats.

 

[mark46]

Honestly, the opportune time would have been in 2016. That was a squeaker of a presidential election. A third party should have looked at that and realized that people want options and started to run in state or House elections starting in 2018 to build some name recognition to potentially have somebody they could field in 24.

3rd parties had their effect in 2016. They took more voters aways form Clinton than Trump. 3rd parties have affected lots of elections.

For a 3rd party to truly grow, it must start at the local levels. When it moves to a national level, it should be very, very careful with regard to what states they run in. A recent example is the Green Party. As in Europe, they have a cohesive platform, and lots of potential members. However, their effect is take votes from the Democrats. In the long run, that's fine. However, in the short term, they simply reduce the number of Democratic votes. IMO, they should definitely make sure they are on the ballot in CA, NJ, NY and some other safe Democratic states. They want to gather votes and to be in the debates.

 

[mark46]

Hmm

I suggest that if we took a poll, very few of our posters would accept the policies of Christian Democrats.

Democrats would be more likely, I think.

 

[mark46]

Why does that matter, there all not Jesus based are they?

That my brother in faith is a matter of opinion.

 

[returntosender]

That my brother in faith is a matter of opinion.

I wasn't being negative. My point was not all religions are Jesus based so i guess i don't know why you need that count?

 

[mark46]

I wasn't being negative. My point was not all religions are Jesus based so i guess i don't know why you need that count?

I apologize if I misunderstood or offended.

I'll make my position clear. I've been a student of US politics since by first debate in favor of a candidate in 1960. No Christian political party will succeed in the US.

There are many reasons why this is the case. First and foremost, we have the Establishment Clause. Second, and perhaps equally important, is that US Christians are in no way united in their political beliefs. Thirdly, there is a secular trend in the US, much less than elsewhere, but still here. A higher percentage of Americans each year profess to follow no particular faith. In addition, many of those who are people of faith, have a faith in non-Christian faith communities, and some are deists (believers in God but not any faith community), much like some of our founding fathers.

Finally, any Christian Party must come to terms with the fact that there are Christian churches that accept homosexuality and early term abortions. Many Christians are homosexuals married in the Church. Clearly, that isn't acceptable to almost all who post here.

In my Church, we are taught that we are to accept all who have been baptized in the name of the Trinity as fellow Christians. We accept all such Christians to worship in our churches and to accept communion. We debate whether folks like the non-trinitarian Quakers should be welcomed to the Table. Would all of these Christians be part of your Christian party? if you accept these, would the hard right wing evangelicals in the US do the same?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Hmm

I suggest that if we took a poll, very few of our posters would accept the policies of Christian Democrats.

Well if you don't think it's for you then you can do what you want. And obviously it's not for everybody because most are dyed in the wool Democrats or dyed in the wool Republicans who absolutely love everything about their parties.

For those who might want to know a bit more about Christian Democrats you can get a picture here: Christian democracy - Wikipedia

For the American Solidarity Party: American Solidarity Party

 

[mark46]

Well if you don't think it's for you then you can do what you want. And obviously it's not for everybody because most are dyed in the wool Democrats or dyed in the wool Republicans who absolutely love everything about their parties.

For those who might want to know a bit more about Christian Democrats you can get a picture here: Christian democracy - Wikipedia

For the American Solidarity Party: American Solidarity Party

Thank you for the information. I hope that it will help all those searching for a political party based on Christian principles. Many European countries have been guided by Christian Democrats for decades.

As your Wiki reference shows, The Christian Democratic parties have had a great influence throughout the world. I do believe that it is time in the West for more secular parties, since a party must appeal to Christians, Muslims and secularists. However, the platform is a fine place for a new party to start, or even a good summary for anyone interested in politics to examine.

I would be very happy to see those in the US who favor a Christian party to adopt this platform. That would be a major step forward for America.

 

[JSRG]

Hmm

I suggest that if we took a poll, very few of our posters would accept the policies of Christian Democrats.

Christian Democracy is for the most part fiscally liberal and socially conservative (there are some exceptions, but if you need to summarize it quickly, "economically liberal, socially conservative" is what describes them). I'm pretty sure a decent number of posters would fall into that.

3rd parties had their effect in 2016. They took more voters aways form Clinton than Trump. 3rd parties have affected lots of elections.

What evidence is there that more votes were taken away from Clinton than from Trump by third party candidates in 2016?

 

[Pommer]

From the colonial era to the present, religions and religious beliefs have played a significant role in the political life of the United States. Religion has been at the core of some of the best and worst movements in the country’s history.

Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)

Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the establishment clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.

firstamendment.mtsu.edu

We should oughta try governing without so much religion in the mix.

 

[mark46]

Yes, a decent number would support Christian Democrats. I'm fine with that. I just think that few would accept much if the economically liberal part of the platform, elements like universal health care. I believe that the EU and much of their political beliefs was based on the welfare state ideas iof Christian Democrats. Make no mistake, I personally favor those ideas.
======================
I guess that I don't really want to rehash the effects of 3rd parties, but I believe that there were considerable studies in 2016, as there were in 2000. Obviously, Clinton also was the benefactor of a 3rd party, also much studied. I'm sure there are more, perhaps senators.

I have suggested that 3rd parties consider their effects on the general election, understanding that they will not win in the current cycle.

This will be a major issue if we go into June with Biden and Trump as our very, very likely nominees. There is already plooing on the likelyeffect of Kennedy running on a 3rd party ticket (Dems are cheering).

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yes, a decent number would support Christian Democrats. I'm fine with that. I just think that few would accept much if the economically liberal part of the platform, elements like universal health care. I believe that the EU and much of their political beliefs was based on the welfare state ideas iof Christian Democrats. Make no mistake, I personally favor those ideas.
======================
I guess that I don't really want to rehash the effects of 3rd parties, but I believe that there were considerable studies in 2016, as there were in 2000. Obviously, Clinton also was the benefactor of a 3rd party, also much studied. I'm sure there are more, perhaps senators.

I have suggested that 3rd parties consider their effects on the general election, understanding that they will not win in the current cycle.

This will be a major issue if we go into June with Biden and Trump as our very, very likely nominees. There is already plooing on the likelyeffect of Kennedy running on a 3rd party ticket (Dems are cheering).

I think we need to stop blaming ourselves if the 'wrong' candidate wins unless we actually voted for that 'wrong' candidate. It's the other people who voted for the 'wrong' candidate that bear the responsibility. Our job as voters should be to vote for a good candidate. Not to have to vote for a bad candidate to stop a worse one from winning. It is totally on those who vote for bad candidates if those bad candidates win.

 

[mark46]

I think we need to stop blaming ourselves if the 'wrong' candidate wins unless we actually voted for that 'wrong' candidate. It's the other people who voted for the 'wrong' candidate that bear the responsibility. Our job as voters should be to vote for a good candidate. Not to have to vote for a bad candidate to stop a worse one from winning. It is totally on those who vote for bad candidates if those bad candidates win.

Folks have had this discussion for decades.

For example, some believed in 2016 that Trump should never be president and that he was very clearly a much worse choice than Clinton. Many, many of them sat home or voting third party. I can't blame THEM. People have every right to make irrational choices, even when the entire country ends up with the consequences.
==================================
I agree that I have no RIGHT to expect other people to make rational choices and to make voting decisions that result in the best outcomes, based on their views. That doesn't mean that I can't point out the absurdity of voting Green (or staying home) knowing that the vote will likely help the Republicans. I get it. Folks can stand on principle and say, I voted for the best candidate. My view is that elections have consequences.

In 2020, Sanders and other leaders were instrumental in leading the left, getting them to turn out to vote for someone his people didn't support. The leaders on the left did the same in 2022. SOME have learned their lesson, some haven't. SOME would rather have their vote for the 3% candidate, and not be concerned about the very point of the election, electing the best candidate that can be elected THAT DAY.
======================
We also make similar decisions in our party primaries. What happened in 2020 within the Democratic Party was truly spectacular given the bad feeling between the left and the centrists. Folks understood the task: DEFEAT TRUMP. So, they nominated Biden, worked hard to elect him, and worked hard to pass legislation that was definitely legislation that they opposed. They understood what was possible. Democratic centrists understand that we can only succeed one more time, presuming that Trump is the nominee. After that, the Republicans can win =, if they can ever shed their MAGA base.