Whenever theres a founding of a new party I always create some basic logos. Here are three Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:40, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
If you can give the meaning of the third. --Wabba The I (talk) 17:40, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
All of those logos look nice. I'm assuming that this party is progressive or centrist...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 23:47, February 17, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah the page says centrist/social democracy Marcus/Michael Villanova 00:58, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like CCPL to me though... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:15, February 18, 2013 #(UTC)
- The party is center-left to centrist, same as CCPL. Also, it has social democracy. Happy65 Talk CNP
07:46, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
I think of it like this party. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 13:46, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Reminds me of one of my former parties Progressive Christian Party, can we say that the PCP merged into this party soon after it's founding? Marcus/Michael Villanova 14:47, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
Or maybe just merged with the Liberal Christian Party? Or was also part of the party all along? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 14:52, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
We'd need Justin (horton11) for that, We could say a movement spearheaded by the maple family and remaining elements from the LCP and PCP joined in to give it support. Marcus/Michael Villanova 15:02, February 18, 2013 (UTC)
This is an interesting development. What would be another party in a real country that would be comparable to this? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:26, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
I think that PCP and LCP should merge with this. I do see that it is different the CCPL, RTP, and CDP as it is centrist rather than conservative. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 01:34, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
Well. It would be good if the party could work on its views. A small overview would be very helpful in classifying the party. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 06:16, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
In chat, Happy mentioned RMP merging with SCP (he is the president of Adlibita), when I mentioned RMP. 77topaz (talk) 06:42, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, he might be president of Adlibita, RMP is still mine :P Happy ain't even a member of the party... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:08, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I don't see why the party is Christian... Is there a reason for that? It's simply limiting the parties audience, and if it's not even following the whole Bible, I don't see why it's a party even. If you made it non Christian it would pretty much be a more progressive MCP or a more economically centrist SLP. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 17:38, February 23, 2013 (UTC)
Your party is christian and you don't mind it being christian... Happy65 Talk CNP 
19:53, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
My party is Christian because it has Christian values... This party is progressive, which contradicts quite a few parts of the Bible (homosexuality, drugs, pornography, euthanasia, etc. all contradict it in multiple places). If your going to have a party that is specifically Christian, it should follow ALL of the Bible, not just parts. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 21:29, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
It's not just Christian; I think you should be looking more at the Social-Democrat side of the party (then again we could just remove the Christian from the name and just use some Christian viewpoints). HORTON11: 
• 
21:44, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
I still think that people will using the christian label for support, because your party is different than the CCPL but you both proclaim in the name of jesus, and there is a large, LARGE group of liberal and socialist christians. So are you saying they are all wrong? Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:12, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
Economically, right vs left doesn't pertain as much to religion. Socially, however, on a conservative to progressive scale, religion is a large factor. Would I say that a Christian being pro pornography, prostitution, and homosexuality isn't following Christianity? Yes, by all means, they are going against the Bible. People will call themselves Christians and not believe in the whole Bible, but for a large group like a Christian party to only follow parts of the Bible that they want to is misrepresentation of the Bible. The party really should be named like social democratic party as said before. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:24, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
I still think that's a matter of interpretation so your conservative so you see it that way, i'm a leftist so I see it that way. Marcus/Michael Villanova 23:02, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I think it'd be nice to have a different name, but that's my personal opinion. Anyway, Happy, since you missed my message on your talk page: Can you change the last names of George Maple, Joseph Maple, and Ibrahim Maple? I dislike five people all in the same family being MOTCs. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:36, February 24, 2013 (UTC)
I think last congress the Villanova family had 4-5 members either directly or indirectly related, this year three. Marcus/Michael Villanova 02:27, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Marcus, hear me out when I say that some parts of the Bible are quite straightforward and other parts are open to interpretation, but on say pornography, homosexuality, and prostitution, the Bible is quite straightforward. I can give you various straightforward verses on each topic that say that those things are wrong. There are also verses that aren't as straightforward, but there are most definitely various verses that are straightforward on these topics that say that they are wrong. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 03:36, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
And them being straightfoward is open to interpretation :P I'm an athiest anyway so I don't care much either way XD Marcus/Michael Villanova 03:38, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
It really isn't very open at all actually... It's clear as day when you actually read the verses. Anyway, Happy, I request a name change, I don't really care what the name is, but I don't think that it should be Christian. Maybe Lovian Democratic Party, Social Democratic Party, Lovian Centrist Party, or you could merge it with MCP too. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 21:34, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Verses are open to interpretation, how else do you think we got so many different Christian religions. On the party names, Several of those names are currently in used for parties (and former ones). HORTON11: • 21:39, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Horton, I ask you, how open to interpretation is this verse? "Do not lie." or say this one "Do not commit adultery." or maybe this one "Do not have sexual relations with a male as you do with a female. That is detestable". If you were married and had sex with another female, and there was a law that said "Do not commit adultery.", would you expect to have any chance at winning? --Quarantine Zone (talk) 21:43, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
The bible isn't just three phrases long. HORTON11: • 21:47, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Your bible says that? Mine says "You shall not lie with man as you would a women" which is really open to interpretation. Do not lie and commit adultery, we've all commited sin and yes those are pretty straightfoward but under you thought, breaking one of these doesn't make a True christain. Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:44, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Well, you don't necessarily have to apply your Christian principles to other people. This is what most secular Christians in government argue - they have the Christian values, they just don't think that they should be forced on other people. I still think that a socially progressive party is a bit strange to identify as Christian, although there is a real example with the Swiss party I linked earlier. Anyway, expansion of views besides supporting "freedom and democracy" would be nice. 
—TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:13, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Also, the history is a bit strange: If it was founded by the five Maples (please change three of them), then why would they turn over both their Vice Chairman and Chairman roles to the newcomers? Also, are you guys appealing to farmers here? If so, you might want to see this page: link.—TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:17, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
No, Marcus, people can be Christians without believing in the whole Bible, but according to other parts of the Bible, that is a sin. For, we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. This does not make someone a non-Christian. A Christian simply has to believe that Jesus was the son of God, he came to Earth, died, rose 3 days later, and then ascended into Heaven, and in doing so he cleansed us of sin, and if we accept him then you are a Christian. What I'm trying to say, is that an organization that identifies itself as Christian should really follow the whole Bible. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:14, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
Happy, please respond to this talk page. Not all discussion is on chat. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:11, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with TM. Applying Christian rules on an entire society, which is non-Christian for a large part is to be considered dictatorship. That is why an innocent lie shouldn't be punishable with a few days in jail. However, sometimes things fall into a broader set of problems. Let's take the good ole' Gay Marriage problem. There are four sides to this:
- Definition of marriage: marriage has always been between man and woman. Allowing people of the same sex to marry would actually alter the definition of marriage. (this is one for the linguistic purists and Christians)
- Right to equal treatment, also for gay people (this is one for the humanists).
- The sinfulness of the "gay crime" (sexual acts) and violation of marriage (one for the Christians and right-extremists)
- The really interesting one: the rights that come with marriage, such as the right to raise children, would have consequences on the behaviour and mental development of the child. How far does this affect the child, and, is the situation that a child lives without a father or a mother desirable? This would have far-reaching consequences, also outside of the Gay Marriage perspective (including parent custodianship after a divorce). (something for society to discuss as a whole)
--OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:17, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Please lock this page, we will give views tommorow! Happy65 Talk CNP 08:29, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
Why is locking the page necessary? 77topaz (talk) 08:47, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
- A talk page should never be locked. It's a talk page è. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 17:10, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
A Message to all[]
I would like to point out, with all of the confusion, that the name seems to imply progressive. I chatted with Happy awhile ago because of this confusion, and for those of you who thought the party was going to be progressive (this includes me), Happy says that it won't be progressive. The party will be similar to CCPL with some differing views it seems. --Quarantine Zone (talk) 02:56, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Correction: It's social democrat also so the christian thing makes it part-progressive. Happy65 Talk CNP 07:08, March 12, 2013 (UTC)
Democratic! in action. You were confused by the name, so we decided to let You give suggestions on what it should be changed to. Happy65 Talk CNP 07:30, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
So, can we please undo the creation of this party? :( —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 21:33, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
IDK it seems like we'd have to keep it (in changing it to past tense) but it seems pointless. Idk maybe it's just me :/ Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:21, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Leave it, the people involved need to make a policy statement or write up some policies, otherwise this party is an empty shell, personally I'm all for giving them a chance. Hoffmann KunarianTALK 23:17, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- Well, a chance is fine, I just think they've already had it and that CNP and Labour deserve the seats they got in the election. They are supposed to major parties but now have few seats. In addition, SCP betrayed atheist voters. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:32, May 24, 2013 (UTC)
- If the voters are unsatisfied, wouldn't they just be able to show that at the next elections? And the SCP is not doing too badly in the Lovian Times's polling. 77topaz (talk) 00:50, May 25, 2013 (UTC)
Fully join[]
One part of making a new leftist party is having the whole thing become apart of the new party! Fully merge into the SD&. I'm just seeing if enough parties are willing to do it. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:29, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
I'd say unmake the party. :P —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:39, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
We can't undo the history or anything like that. I'm asking it to merge. Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:42, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
Why can't we undo the history? This is a wiki. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 20:52, May 27, 2013 (UTC)
The party is staying as it is, untouched, the Social Christian Party is not merging into your party. Happy65 Talk CNP 14:03, May 29, 2013 (UTC)
I found your brother[]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Christian_Party_(Brazil) <---- Apparently you're not alone! :P Marcus/Michael Villanova 12:22, June 1, 2013 (UTC)
Defunct[]
Is this party defunct? —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:14, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
- I think so. :P --Semyon 22:22, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. I'll update it to reflect that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:26, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but no undoing/erasing/retconning it. SCP did happen, even if it did not turn out to be a huge success. HORTON11: • 22:27, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:29, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, but no undoing/erasing/retconning it. SCP did happen, even if it did not turn out to be a huge success. HORTON11:
- Ok. I'll update it to reflect that. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 22:26, March 23, 2015 (UTC)
Archive from Talk:Red Rose Movement[]
Why Red Square? Sounds socialist/communist to me. —TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:14, February 25, 2013 (UTC)
Red rose is even more socialist. Socialist symbols are things dealing with red, hence the use of a rose (like the Labour Party) Marcus/Michael Villanova 22:03, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
They're also communist, hence both red scares...--Quarantine Zone (talk) 22:58, February 26, 2013 (UTC)
The red rose is the official symbol of social democracy per wikipedia and everything else. Happy65 Talk CNP 07:18, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
True, the red rose stands for socialism in a broader sense. I however doubt it is used in combination with Christian politics, which tend to stress the cross. (In Christianity, religion is more important than ideology, therefore a truely Christian party would stress their Christian side instead of their ideological side) --OuWTBsjrief-mich 10:09, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Well the party is not just Christian, and if you see the logo, there is no cross and no rose. HORTON11: • 14:03, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Well, I personally don't consider the logo to be a logo at all... --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:24, February 27, 2013 (UTC)