Associated Press
This doesn't mention God, either, so relax about the Dems' platform
Paul Ryan, Fox News, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and assorted media figures everywhere seem to be fascinated by the same omission from the Democratic Party's platform.
The word "God" is notably missing from this year's 40-page document, as David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network first pointed out.
"We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential," the party's 2008 platform said.
This year, a similar paragraph instead states, "We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth -- the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us."
The Democratic platform honors religious freedom, but given the absence of the "g" word, the manufactured freak-out is now well underway.
It's tempting to delve into an extended explanation of why, for believers, God probably doesn't need perfunctory references in a political party platform, and why this trumped up story is silly, even by 2012 standards, but let's instead consider another tidbit of news.
The United States Constitution -- the foundation of our government, the basis for our laws, and a model for democracies around the globe for generations -- includes no references to God. Literally, not one.
If the Constitution doesn't mention God, I think the political world can probably keep its apoplexy in check over the Democratic platform. Unless Republicans and news organizations are going to start condemning the Constitution, too, demanding an explanation for its secular nature, let's relax a bit.
Leave a Comment:
Some Dem spokesperson should reply, "We don't tell God what to do."
LOVE it.
When a bonafide god or goddess comes down and participates in civil society, THEN he/sh/it can get a mention in our civil documents.
In the meantime, I profoundly distrust any of his/her self-proclaimed human filters to act as sufficient proxies to earn him/her any kind of a vote in the proceedings in absentia.
I suppose technically, invoking a god into the civil proceedings is a kind of voter fraud, like claiming the vote or support of someone who is not present and can't personally vouch for it. Who is perpetrating this type of fraud?
I mean, could I just walk into a voting booth and claim TWO votes, for me and my resident succubus?!
Another slight technicality: I am not aware of any particular gods or goddesses that would meet our requirements of citizenship for voting and civic participation.
I mean, first, were they "born"? Where? In the ethers? Or, alternately, "From Chaos came forth Erebus and black Night; but of Night were born Aether and Day, whom she conceived and bore from union in love with Erebus"?
And then there's a small matter of the residency requirement. Perhaps some Native American deities would qualify without question or debate, but all others would need sufficient papers or identification, to prove proper origin.
I mean, even Yaweh has some difficulty over blurring with Zarathustra (or Zoraster) as the first claimant to monotheistic power.
Not to mention the small matter of HOW a deity would be able to CARRY the proper identification papers...
Srsly, this is pretty much right up there with expecting god to help you win your high school basketball game, isn't it? (the absurdity of that idea was the reason I dropped out of Fellowship of Christian Athletes)
Which makes this such a good time to go and reread Mark Twain's brilliant "War Prayer."
Yes. I mean it. Go read it RIGHT NOW!
Just John
That's what Niel Bohr told Albert Einstein
Einstein liked inventing phrases such as "God does not play dice," "The Lord is subtle but not malicious." On one occasion Bohr answered, "Einstein, stop telling God what to do."
Chris Boese: I was about to launch into a tirade about how nobody's deity has any place in our government, and how #@%$^*! dangerous those TeaHaddists were, but you did it all for me, and I avoided apoplexy. Thank you so much.
God must be tellin Somebody what to do..... http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/05/13686491-dems-to-reinstate-language-on-jerusalem?lite
Welcome back.
Well, the US always has been and still is a de facto Christian theocracy, and it's obvious that many Christians (and their useful idiots) are fine with that. In my experience, few Christians are as "nice" about religious freedom as they like to pretend. For one thing, hardly any of them are willing to seriously inconvenience the American Taliban's efforts to make the US a de jure Christian theocracy. Too many American Christians talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.
What the hokey puck ..will .someone give the republicans an enema...If anything ..we are finally ..leaving the religion ..where it should be ..not in our lives..religion .is not for the masses,.,.or should b a basis ..for decisions..for millions of AMericans...truth..honesty..what would do the most good ..is the way to move us foward..If u want religion ..go ..there..but ..As Americans..as a mass of people ..it has no ..future..LETS GO FOWARD..
The GOP response to that argument is likely to be a Constitutional Amendment to put God in there somewhere. It won't be quite as easy as when they added "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s. But it will give them something to rally around.
BINGO! The Constitution specified "Creator" rather than God for a reason but the right wants to rewrite it to their belief!
Great catch.
That's in the Declaration. No mention of God in the Constitution whatsoever.
Please don't do that.
The Constitution doesn't mention "creator" either. The right often conflate the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
We should not.
The Declaration of Independence mentions "creator," not the Constitution. Bingo!
President Obama confused the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence in his State of the Union address of 2010. I don't think he considers himself part of the Right!
The real reason the words GOD and Creator were not put into the Constitution or the the Declaration of Independence is, our freedom or our freesoms denotes the asspect and inner workings of our free will. For when we give others the same freedom(s) we wish to have while working towards or striving for those freedoms-- then we are doing a service to ourselves by the very free will we were given so that when it comes to virtue this shows our Creator we are beings of moral excellence. Which is how we show our respect to God or a Creator is by our I.e., Cardinal virtues.
But the terms "God" and "Creator" ARE in the Declaration. Just not the way the Right would like.
The Fundies always quote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Which is fine. That's a quote. But they never, ever quote the actual first paragraph:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..."
The "Creator" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is a product of nature. Not the other way around. Not the Christian God, but essentially Pagan. That's why they ignore the first paragraph.
Jefferson was a damn hippie!
Well, they may have made a very silly capitulation to the pray-loudly-on-the-street corner-types, but there is still an important point to be made here:
This is still a democracy. In an egalitarian society, aristocracies, hierarchies, and divine rights of kings are overturned. All kings. All divines. Some pigs are not more equal than others. Gazillionaires maybe, but not pigs nor gods. That can only mean ONE THING.
ONE GOD, ONE VOTE.
That's right, folks, any voting gods out there cannot command any more votes than you or I have. Deity or no, it's only one vote.
If you believe in small-d democracy, you believe the people (demos) rule (kratos, have power). So the Second Coming could happen tomorrow, but I'd still want federalism, self-rule, voting, the whole nine yards. If the Second Coming happens without democracy, I'm out.
Same with massively superior technology-using gray aliens. You show up in your fancy spaceship thinking you're gonna rule over day to day stuff? No way. Give me town halls and co-op boards and school boards etc. ANY DAY, messy and argumentative as it is (and prone to demagoguery).
Meanwhile, I'll be off campaigning for equal rights for possessing succubi... That very seductive voice in my head is telling me to do it.
They seem to be really fussy about things the platform doesn't say.
Didn't mention Jerusalem? Obviously it's anti-semitic.
Didn't use "rare" in reference to abortions? Obviously, you want to force every pregnant woman into PP for a procedure right NOW!
Didn't mention God? Well, you must be a satan worshipping atheist! (inflection includes spittle spray).
The tea party say they believe in smaller government but in fact what they believe in is a smaller god.
Faith based initiatives didn't prevent the Iraq war or the Great Recession. Maybe we should stop using His name as a substitute for reasoned policies. I'm sure He won't mind.
The Constitution didn't mention "a$$holes", either, but nevertheless the Grand Old Party is full of them.
It looks like you've taken a good look at your self?
Not only is this silly, it's only true if you think religion is only about the G word. As Ed Kilgore pointed out yesterday, the platform has a whole section on faith.
and for once i felt included!
Manufactured "outrages" designed to pull attention away from last night's speeches. They were an incredible collection of speeches. If you haven't gone an listened to them, do so.
16T deficit (increase of 60% since 2008) was not mentioned in any of the speeches, the majority of the speeches were to pull attention away from that.
Yeah, it takes a lot of dollars to fill the gaping chasm Bush and the republicans left.
Maybe it would help if they'd get around to voting on his Jobs act?
Or maybe if Ryan hadn't helped scuttle an Obama deal for spending cuts because it might benefit Obama politically.
Or how about this: Paul Ryan voted for tax cuts and spending increases that have added 6.8 trillion in debt during his time in congress.
You're boat is leaking and you've lost your paddle.
@Eric...we DON'T have a $16T deficit. We have a $1.3T deficit. There is a $16T debt...not deficit. Also, why mention 2008? Why not go back to 2000 ($5.6T)? Then you could say it was up nearly 200%. Just so you'll know...at the end of FY 2008-09, the Federal debt was $11.9T. That was an increase of 100% under the previous administration. If my math (simple) is correct, the debt under 'Obama budgets' has gone up $4.1T, or, 30%, not 60. Have you been going to the 'Ryan' lie about the numbers school?
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
The spending spree never happened
Someone needs to start mentioning the previous presidency of the U.S.A. left post it notes and scribbled IOU's hidden in every drawer and under every mattress of the White House and the responsible thing to do was to add them all up to the official numbers. The US Government was being run like Enron.
It was? By this logic then I could argue that the entire RNC convention was to draw attention away from their failed policies. This is post hoc reasoning at it's worst. You are so intent on proving ANYTHING wrong with Democrats that you don't even care what it is that you say. Ironically enough that was the actual message of the RNC.
Niether Bush or Cheney were at the RNC. Enough said
Article VII: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."
The question then becomes, does reference to "the Year of our Lord" amount to a reference to "God"? I mean this as a serious question. Reasonable people can disagree. One argument is that it is merely a way to state the year, and a religious people refer to the year does not mean the Constitution itself has any specific substantive reference to God. The other would be that this is a reference to God, and Steve is just wrong when he says there isn't any such reference.
Further, the First Amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is, of course, are two much debated clauses; but it does seem reasonable to construct this as reference to the government's role with respect to a "God", whatever one it is that we are talking about in this debate.
IMHO, that doesn't make the Republican freakout any less stupid. But I do think there can be reasonable disagreement over the import of this reference.
No. That was just the contemporary way of stating "AD". The framers SPECIFICALLY avoided any reference to a religious basis for the framework of our government, and explicitly argued against one.
There's no wiggle-room on this. They gave us 10 amendments, not 10 Commandments.
A.D.=Anno Domini. Not only a foreign language, but a dead one at that, and no self respecting Conservative American would use it!
Anno Domini (A.D.) has been replaced by Common Era (C.E.).
Yeah, but that just pisses them off too.
It's kind of fun, actually.
My husband has reminded me many times of how many atrocities were committed in the name of religion. He also notes that when he was preparing for an action in VietNam, the chaplain would give everyone a blessing about being safe from harm, doing Gods work, etc. Ultimately, at the end of every blessing, he would lift his head, open his eyes and say enthusiastically: "Now lets go kill us some gooks!" Yep, the word 'God' is invoked for many reasons...most of them, ungodly from what I see.
Eric Burdon & the Animals did a song about that sort of chaplain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPQhdyHjQ5M
EntropyRules . . . You beat me to it. That was the first thing that came to mind when I read Dee's comment. Thank you for linking to the long version (Parts I and II on the original single release).
mpguy,
You're welcome! I try to link to the long versions of songs when practicable.
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg
God-Damn them, those Dems! How can America enforce the values God has given us if heathens roam amongst us, feeding the poor, educating the populace, healing the sick? WWJD?
My guess is the right-wingnuts would argue "Well, Jesus would have just fed, taught, and healed those people himself. But he wouldn't have taken any of OUR money or resources away from us to do it!"
Its clear, these are FOX-NEWS NUTS living on lie's,no true Godly person will use Gods name in (Vain)so Its clear you are Fake,To you I say,God will Dam you. 1doz'Ibuprofen will help you!
I would fire the idiot who left the reference to God out of this year's platform. The deletion adds nothing to the document and the resultant criticism should have been anticipated.
If you read the reference to God in the previous platforms, you see it was perfunctory and harmless. There is a longer section concerning faith in the platform, but nobody will remember that section.
The resultant criticism is important only to those who would never vote for Obama in the first place.
They won't remember the section on faith because they'll never read the platform.
They're not big on faith anyway. They say they are, but if they were the'd stop trying to "prove" Creationism.
Sorry, Ron, but kowtowing to bigots and liars does nothing but encourage them to think they can scream and fuss and get their own way. Why insert "God" into a document when it does NOTHING? It would not satisfy the liars in the GOP, it would not get the attention of this imaginary friend that theists love to tout, and it *would* be insulting to those who don't find this god to be their god or those who don't find any god at all to be real. All I see from your suggestion is the actions of someone who doesn't want to "rock the boat".
The phrase God-Given was used 12 times in the RNC platform. Frankly, I see no need for the word in anything related to politics. What year is this? 1012?
"He is not the pastor of the United States, he is the President of the United States and for the first time in the history of this nation, we have a President who has dared to use his position to make the democratic promise available, not just for a select few who are up and in, but for everybody regardless of their race, their creed, their color, or their sexual orientation."
Pastor Frederick Haynes III from Friendship-West Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas
That's right REPUBLICANS! NOT the presidents JOB to guide the nation spiritually! GET OVER IT!
It is Religious Leaders responsibility to Preach the word of God from the pulpit (unfortunately they are not doing a very good job handling their responsibility with all the hate, race baiting and lying go on).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Republicans you can not legislate Religion, your belief may not be my belief and the Constitution protects my right to have a different belief.
I just about barfed when Mitt Romney promised "religious freedom" in his speech last week. It sounded like a dog whistle that his supporters translate into "you are free to follow our prescribed religion; otherwise you are free to leave our country."
I could care less which religion, if any, Romney practices, but I do care that he is/was a pastor & bishop in his religion. I will never vote for any religious leader, democrat or republican, to be the president. My line in the sand, but I believe that if you are that vested in your religion to be ordained, then you will be incapable of keeping church and state separate in the decisions you make as president. God doesn't have a place on the political platforms.
The GOP can have all the apoplexy they want, when their actions and policies start showing more than mere lip-service to "G-d" and "his word" - I might start listening to them in the meantime it's GOP bible thumping hypocrisy and lies!
i can sympathize with republicans on this point. its far easier to profess the almighty in a bumper sticker, a lapel pin, or even a political platform than it is to honor him by what you are. the r & r boy's contempt and indifference toward the less fortunate speaks volumes. we shouldn't begrudge them their trinkets.
How about we insert this God reference into the platform?
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." --Matthew 19:24
Oh, you're so silly.
It's not a real camel, or a real needle. It's the only place in the Bible where fundies accept metaphor. Context be damned.
LOL... great use of scripture! Unfortunately the ultra right "in the name of God" politicians to "everyday Christians" are much like the Taliban is to all muslims. NOT the same. And lumping them all together is a mistake (which I make often because it's SO frustrating!) and creates even more of the divide in our Nation. As a matter of fact, our President (the one they all despise) says he is a "born again believer" or Christian. It has and should have nothing to do with that. Isn't that why we came to America in the first place? To get away from a Theocracy?
When the Dems were critical of the plank in the GOP platform that said abortion should be illegal, with no exceptions, we heard the GOP say that it was only a platform - that Romney was not bound by it. So, what is different about the Dems leaving the word "God" out of their platform? Doesn't mean that Pres Obama is bound by it, right?
Besides, I would rather have the omission of one word in a party that truly stands for the mission as outlined in the bible - taking care of the sick and the poor, rather than a party that mouths the words and preaches incessently about how religious they are, but will throw the poor and the sick under the bus in a heartbeat!
What does it say about Team Liars when the only thing they can come up with for a campaign strategy is manufactured lies and complaining about how many time "God" is mentioned in a platform? I'd say desperate.
One notable similarity between Dems and Constitution is the starting point; "We the people...."
GOP is not about we the people and more like I want lower taxes and my god will be yours too.
Mentions of God in Party Platforms:
At least Dems moving in the right direction!
Thank-you Steve Eldridge
Thanks. That's exactly what I was about to ask about. I'm also curious what the second mention of "God" was in the 2008 platform and how any similar plank is phrased this year.
The 3rd Commandment is not to take God's name in vain. Yet the religious right uses "God" as a stamp of approval for every hateful and bigoted position they espouse.
Nobody likes to be used, especially God.
Well, they have an odd interpretation of what it means to take His name in vain. It's mostly about swearing, which is probably the least offensive way to do it.
The most offensive are the ones you point out.
I suppose it would also be taking god's name in vain if you said it while looking in a mirror? Admiring your new hairstyle or color? And you said something to the effect of,
"Dear God, I am beautiful!"
alas, God does nothing about this, and it's rather like watching children claim that their imaginary friend is the "bestest"!
Now, come on...without mentioning "God" at every opportunity, how are we ever going to reach the evangelical goal of become a theocracy?
can someone say "grasping at Straws"
They can't help it. They need the straws for their straw-men.
I was to believe that republicans all changed their allegiance to the new invisible friend which speaks through Clint Eastwood.
The GOP did not listen when God said: "STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!"