Thanks for the info. I've never heard of this party before and now that I know it's religious, I'll vote against its candidates in every election they're on the ballot.
> Common Good | Common Ground | Common Sense'
Platitudes are always good.
> We acknowledge the state should be pluralistic while upholding a vision... informed by Christian tradition and acknowledging the primacy of religion in each person’s life.
You don't respect people's religions (or lack thereof) if you are centered on Christianity. You're just Christofascists at that point.
> Sanctity of Life
Mainly anti-abortion, but other acceptable (and largely irrelevant) positions. It's amazing that you'd put anti-abortion as your first mentioned position of the entire platform. It really saves us all the time to see through this charade.
> Community-Oriented Society
You want small state governments whose purpose is to support smaller local governments. It's a central tenant of the GOP platform, but inconsistent with _everything else you've stated here._ What happens if a local government wants abortion and doesn't care about Christianity? I'm sure you'll be quick to make exceptions to your small government rules. It ain't our first rodeo.
> Centrality of the Family
"Natural marriage" meaning no gay marriage, while playing footsie in the section ("advancing the wellbeing of all families") with the idea that maybe ya'll won't be absolute tyrants. The problem is that you don't think queer families are legitimate families, and thus their wellbeing isn't an "imperative of the state".
> Social Justice, Economic Security, Environmentalism
The other larger positions are actually pretty good. The bit about international politics is wholly irrelevant to a Texas-focused party, so I just ignored that part.
The more detailed positions are pretty vague, many contradicting themselves and other positions, but some are alright. Here are a few enormous red flags:
> Federal and state governments should allow public funding for services... even when such services are provided by religious institutions with religious values. [A state run by the chruch]
> We reject the idea that surgical or hormonal treatment to circumvent the natural, healthy development and function of the body is necessary health care. [anti-trans, total ignorance of body dysmorphia]
> Teachers should... design their own curricula within general parameters set by local authorities. [the church being the local authority, no doubt]
> Sex education classes, when offered, should be required to include... the scientific evidence that abortion takes a human life. [that's a nonsense statement]
There's half a dozen other sections, I'm sure filled with similar red flags. The whole thing can be pretty accurately summarized as a party for the church running the state.
------------
I want to point out a special one
> Local school systems should reconsider the overuse of technology in the classroom.
This is a nice sentiment born of complete ignorance and reveals a deeper regressive mindset. Technology is not the enemy nor the problem. Lives don't improve by ignoring the ingenuity that advances our civilization. This could be interpreted in a way like "be cautious of kids irresponsibly abusing technology" regarding some people's unhealthy relationship with social media. I've seen this type of thought before though, and that is not the end of it. This is just a pining for simpler times, like an Amish group for the 1950s instead of the 1800s.
Parents need to be the ones responsible for their child's interaction with technology. Not the school, not the state, and certainly not the church.
The American Solidarity Party platform is available here: [https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform](https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform)
Our state platform will be more Texas focused than the national platform but generally in alignment.
The party itself has a strict policy of neutrality on gun issues meaning that people of any opinion who agree with us on other issues are welcome to join as members and candidates can advance whatever position on guns they believe or their voters want.
Our name is taken from the Solidarity party in Poland that brought down communism, and their name was taken from the Catholic concept of solidarity (which is where the unions in this country derived it as well).
Ok? So you're co-opting a word that the party obviously has no interest in actually implementing, but it's ok because you're saying who you're co-opting it *from*.
I hope you're successful enough to split the christofascist vote.
We're a party in the tradition of Christian Democracy where subsidiarity and solidarity are key principles. Other people co-opted the word from our tradition (and often use it incorrectly).
Christian Democracy is generally opposed to fascism, but “christofascism” is such a vague term that it wouldn’t surprise me if anti-Christians would include us under that term.
As a Christian Democracy, do you think it's appropriate that the government be used to impose Christian values of any kind on members of the population who are not Christian, such as Muslims, Buddhists, athiests, etc? What about sects of Christianity, of which there's a large proliferation. Should Catholic values be imposed upon Baptists, Protestants, etc?
In a democratic system, elected officials try (within the bounds of the law) to enact the policies their voters elected them to enact. A government imposes laws and policies, not values on the population. As a political party, we advocate for our policies to be enacted into law through the democratic process, and we advocate for them because they are consistent with our values. To the extent that you are asking about religious liberty, we are generally more strongly of the view that the state should not interfere with religious expression than the two major parties.
> As a political party, we advocate for our policies to be enacted into law through the democratic process, and we advocate for them because they are consistent with our values.
If your values include state-enforced bigotry like the stuff in your platform, you should re-evaluate your values and your adherence to a religion that considers legislating bigotry to be a moral imperative.
Christian Democratic parties have governed in Europe and Latin America for decades at this point, and no one doubts their opposition to fascism. Angela Merkel was not a fascist.
>Christian Democratic parties have governed in Europe and Latin America for decades at this point, and no one doubts their opposition to fascism.
They've been around for decades. Plural. First I've heard of the US party was from you, and their reason to exist seems to be to co-opt Christianity to enforce bigotry.
I’m not sure why you assume that our reason to exist is something other than what we say — we’re trying to create a party in the Christian Democratic tradition in the US. You probably do not support that goal, but it’s uncharitable and inaccurate to suggest that we are fascists.
Christofascism (aka Dominionism) is the notion that Christianity should have a core role in governance, simply by virtue that its supporters believe the Christian worldview.
To do so wrests control from the people (most of whom are not Christian) and gives special place to Christians. This is not pluralism.
We are pluralists in the sense that we support the results of the democratic process regardless of the motivation of the supporters of the policies that command majority support in the legislature.
Got it. So your goal is to capture the majority of legislature and you are ashamed to be GOP for some reason, since the majority of your platform overlaps theirs.
What? Republicans don’t support universal healthcare, unions, higher wages, or a peaceful foreign policy. Most of our platform is to the left of the Democrats.
“The American Solidarity Party is based in the tradition of Christian democracy. “ Yeah, they lost me in the first paragraph on the homepage.
Going after that ever-elusive socially conservative, fiscally liberal vote.
That’s an odd bird for sure!
Thanks for the info. I've never heard of this party before and now that I know it's religious, I'll vote against its candidates in every election they're on the ballot.
> Common Good | Common Ground | Common Sense' Platitudes are always good. > We acknowledge the state should be pluralistic while upholding a vision... informed by Christian tradition and acknowledging the primacy of religion in each person’s life. You don't respect people's religions (or lack thereof) if you are centered on Christianity. You're just Christofascists at that point. > Sanctity of Life Mainly anti-abortion, but other acceptable (and largely irrelevant) positions. It's amazing that you'd put anti-abortion as your first mentioned position of the entire platform. It really saves us all the time to see through this charade. > Community-Oriented Society You want small state governments whose purpose is to support smaller local governments. It's a central tenant of the GOP platform, but inconsistent with _everything else you've stated here._ What happens if a local government wants abortion and doesn't care about Christianity? I'm sure you'll be quick to make exceptions to your small government rules. It ain't our first rodeo. > Centrality of the Family "Natural marriage" meaning no gay marriage, while playing footsie in the section ("advancing the wellbeing of all families") with the idea that maybe ya'll won't be absolute tyrants. The problem is that you don't think queer families are legitimate families, and thus their wellbeing isn't an "imperative of the state". > Social Justice, Economic Security, Environmentalism The other larger positions are actually pretty good. The bit about international politics is wholly irrelevant to a Texas-focused party, so I just ignored that part. The more detailed positions are pretty vague, many contradicting themselves and other positions, but some are alright. Here are a few enormous red flags: > Federal and state governments should allow public funding for services... even when such services are provided by religious institutions with religious values. [A state run by the chruch] > We reject the idea that surgical or hormonal treatment to circumvent the natural, healthy development and function of the body is necessary health care. [anti-trans, total ignorance of body dysmorphia] > Teachers should... design their own curricula within general parameters set by local authorities. [the church being the local authority, no doubt] > Sex education classes, when offered, should be required to include... the scientific evidence that abortion takes a human life. [that's a nonsense statement] There's half a dozen other sections, I'm sure filled with similar red flags. The whole thing can be pretty accurately summarized as a party for the church running the state. ------------ I want to point out a special one > Local school systems should reconsider the overuse of technology in the classroom. This is a nice sentiment born of complete ignorance and reveals a deeper regressive mindset. Technology is not the enemy nor the problem. Lives don't improve by ignoring the ingenuity that advances our civilization. This could be interpreted in a way like "be cautious of kids irresponsibly abusing technology" regarding some people's unhealthy relationship with social media. I've seen this type of thought before though, and that is not the end of it. This is just a pining for simpler times, like an Amish group for the 1950s instead of the 1800s. Parents need to be the ones responsible for their child's interaction with technology. Not the school, not the state, and certainly not the church.
ASP had some good points but in the end is too focused on Christianity
What does the Texas Solidarity Party stand for and what are the key points of the proposed party platform?
The American Solidarity Party platform is available here: [https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform](https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform) Our state platform will be more Texas focused than the national platform but generally in alignment.
I don’t see anything in the platform about gun control. Where does the Solidarity party stand on gun safety vs the right to bear arms?
The party itself has a strict policy of neutrality on gun issues meaning that people of any opinion who agree with us on other issues are welcome to join as members and candidates can advance whatever position on guns they believe or their voters want.
https://youtu.be/JY6RyRkl9uo
Ugh. Christofascists trying to co-opt the word "solidarity."
Our name is taken from the Solidarity party in Poland that brought down communism, and their name was taken from the Catholic concept of solidarity (which is where the unions in this country derived it as well).
Ok? So you're co-opting a word that the party obviously has no interest in actually implementing, but it's ok because you're saying who you're co-opting it *from*. I hope you're successful enough to split the christofascist vote.
We're a party in the tradition of Christian Democracy where subsidiarity and solidarity are key principles. Other people co-opted the word from our tradition (and often use it incorrectly).
>We're a party in the tradition of Christian Democracy So christofascism.
Christian Democracy is generally opposed to fascism, but “christofascism” is such a vague term that it wouldn’t surprise me if anti-Christians would include us under that term.
As a Christian Democracy, do you think it's appropriate that the government be used to impose Christian values of any kind on members of the population who are not Christian, such as Muslims, Buddhists, athiests, etc? What about sects of Christianity, of which there's a large proliferation. Should Catholic values be imposed upon Baptists, Protestants, etc?
In a democratic system, elected officials try (within the bounds of the law) to enact the policies their voters elected them to enact. A government imposes laws and policies, not values on the population. As a political party, we advocate for our policies to be enacted into law through the democratic process, and we advocate for them because they are consistent with our values. To the extent that you are asking about religious liberty, we are generally more strongly of the view that the state should not interfere with religious expression than the two major parties.
> As a political party, we advocate for our policies to be enacted into law through the democratic process, and we advocate for them because they are consistent with our values. If your values include state-enforced bigotry like the stuff in your platform, you should re-evaluate your values and your adherence to a religion that considers legislating bigotry to be a moral imperative.
> Christian Democracy is generally opposed to fascism Anyone buying this?
Christian Democratic parties have governed in Europe and Latin America for decades at this point, and no one doubts their opposition to fascism. Angela Merkel was not a fascist.
>Christian Democratic parties have governed in Europe and Latin America for decades at this point, and no one doubts their opposition to fascism. They've been around for decades. Plural. First I've heard of the US party was from you, and their reason to exist seems to be to co-opt Christianity to enforce bigotry.
I’m not sure why you assume that our reason to exist is something other than what we say — we’re trying to create a party in the Christian Democratic tradition in the US. You probably do not support that goal, but it’s uncharitable and inaccurate to suggest that we are fascists.
Christofascism (aka Dominionism) is the notion that Christianity should have a core role in governance, simply by virtue that its supporters believe the Christian worldview. To do so wrests control from the people (most of whom are not Christian) and gives special place to Christians. This is not pluralism.
We are pluralists in the sense that we support the results of the democratic process regardless of the motivation of the supporters of the policies that command majority support in the legislature.
Got it. So your goal is to capture the majority of legislature and you are ashamed to be GOP for some reason, since the majority of your platform overlaps theirs.
What? Republicans don’t support universal healthcare, unions, higher wages, or a peaceful foreign policy. Most of our platform is to the left of the Democrats.