Difference between revisions of "Christian Unity Party (Sober Thought)"

Revision as of 02:23, 9 November 2005

The Christian Unity Party of Sober Thought caters to practicing Christians who are also social conservatives. Its platform clearly extolls the value of (and its members solemnly aver to promote) provincial autonomy, social conformity and getting back to the Bible basics.

They perceive themselves as a large tent party because a majority of people in the country are still religious and a majority of those are still Christian, and they believe they cater to all true Christians, are willing to engage in unofficial interfaith dialogue and are willing to tolerate certain religious practices not incompatable with Christianity (grudgingly in the case of Jews and and even more grudgingly in the case of Muslims). In fact, a large minority of people who are in the potential pool of Christian Unionsts but who aren't supporters consider it so much of a big tent they won't enter on theological grounds.

However, an overwhelming majority of outsiders would define Christian Unity as a small tent party: Most secularists and many lax Christians for being simply irrelevant to political discourse in Sober Thought, most non-Christians for its thinly-disguised distaste prejudice directed by the party and its members against un-Christians, cautious political scientists for its scarce election victories.

political scientists would tend to define as a no tent party due to the incohesion Christians within and without their own denominations, leads some to label the party as a instead. 

and

and other careful observers -- punctuated by some very unchristian behaviour --

Christian Unionists

Unfortunately, their mutual understanding of what the latter means is very weak. This is reflective of the fact that members of the Christian "Unity" Party all come from differing threads of fundamentalist thought. So equally devout chronology-challenged Orthodox, mackerel-snapping Catholics and snake-handling Pentecostals can all subscribe to one overwhelmingly accepted party platform while denouncing each others' practices as incompatible with that very same platform.

This is graphically (un)illustrated by the party logo: After much discussion behind the scenes and on the convention floor, the party finally agreed to accept a cross as the party's logo as part of the party constitution. However, the design was not specified, most Catholics preferring a what they call a Christian cross with a gruesome Biblical depiction of the wounds of Jesus, most evangelical Protestants and many charismatic Catholics preferring an unadorned Christian cross, and conservative Eastern Orothodox one depiction or another of the Greek cross (more moderate ones preferring a what they call a Latin cross [the very same one their Western tradition colleagues call simply 'Christian'] to avoid schism with the Eastern tradition). To further complicate matters, Anglicans were so hopelessly divided that they could not make a choice among the High Church position favouring a more stylized version of the Catholics' Christian cross, the Low Church one favouring a more ornate version of the Protestants' Latin cross, and the Broad church which didn't care so long as nobody was offended (and, true to form secretly favouring yet a third option -- a plain cross -- but not feeling strongly enough about it to mention it).

There are only two pro-religious parties the CUP could even theoretically develop ties with: Rural Alliance and the Conservative Party. The former is closest in outlook, differing mainly on the intensity of devotion and the importance of wordly affairs. However, a coalition of the second and third least represented parties hardly constitutes a parliamentary powerhouse. As far as individual Christian Unionists go, the only party likely to attract defectors in any numbers is the RA -- which itself is in danger of being absorbed or eclipsed by the Conservatives.

Christian Unionists also accept the platitudes and good wishes offered by the big-tent Conservatives, but wonder quietly and sometimes not so quietly why the latter don't follow through with Bible-based responses (often found in the [Book of Leviticus]) to government issues. Naturally, the moderate Conservatives are reluctant to associate with the reactionary Unionists who are prone to publicly condemning homosexuals, apostates, divorcees and uppity women, but sometimes they really need CUP votes to govern. Even at the price of only one vice ministry, the cost of power is high.