The Democrat Platform, 2012
Early on, I heard the Platform had eliminated, from the entire document, any mention of God. This was hard to believe because platforms are usually inclusive to the leanings of it's members, i.e. they do not want to leave any possible voters out. Democrats have always prided themselves on how they are the party of inclusiveness, meaning if you are a member of a small group this party will include your agenda in it's goals. And so they include: animal rights, environmentalists, global warming, gays, atheists, anarchists, abortion, Darwinism, food faddists, womens health rights, anti-war groups, profitless corporations, a border less Country, voting for anyone that has a mind to, unlimited spending, unionism, the black minority, free college education, legislative courts, diminishment of state rights, and there are more but you get the drift.
Could it be that the Democrats would ignore the large groups of Christians that are in their party? That they would allow themselves to be open to losing the Christian voters entirely? That they would not understand that many black voters, whom they count as their voters, are Christian (many even Christian first) who would not look kindly on being left out.
Alas, at the last minute, the error was discovered and a very late change to the platform was attempted. The change would put one (yes, that is right, only one) reference of God into the platform. This was a minutely small crumb to the religionists in the Democrat party. There was a hitch, the change had to have a two-thirds voice vote to be included. That voice vote was televised and everyone heard the yeas and the nays. The first vote taken had a small advantage for yeas which meant inclusion. A second vote was taken and this time it sounded even. A third vote was taken and, like the first vote, it appeared that the yeas were slightly louder. The chairman declared that a two-thirds for yeas was heard and the changes would be accepted. God was in the Democrat platform.
The fact that God was excluded at first, that many in the convention voted three times for exclusion, that later the floor burst out with boos about the action taken, has not been lost on Christians. This election will reveal how well this charade worked.
Could it be that the Democrats would ignore the large groups of Christians that are in their party? That they would allow themselves to be open to losing the Christian voters entirely? That they would not understand that many black voters, whom they count as their voters, are Christian (many even Christian first) who would not look kindly on being left out.
Alas, at the last minute, the error was discovered and a very late change to the platform was attempted. The change would put one (yes, that is right, only one) reference of God into the platform. This was a minutely small crumb to the religionists in the Democrat party. There was a hitch, the change had to have a two-thirds voice vote to be included. That voice vote was televised and everyone heard the yeas and the nays. The first vote taken had a small advantage for yeas which meant inclusion. A second vote was taken and this time it sounded even. A third vote was taken and, like the first vote, it appeared that the yeas were slightly louder. The chairman declared that a two-thirds for yeas was heard and the changes would be accepted. God was in the Democrat platform.
The fact that God was excluded at first, that many in the convention voted three times for exclusion, that later the floor burst out with boos about the action taken, has not been lost on Christians. This election will reveal how well this charade worked.
posted by Marcel at
10:05 AM
3 Comments:
Your Facebook post of the RNC Platform encouraged me to seek out the DNC platform. What I found was a much more solid document then the post you had out up on the RNC. I realized then that your post was to a summary of the platform and not the actual document. I have since read the entire platform.
As for the word God - let's start with my bias that I do not believe we are a Christian nation, and I do not appreciate the word God in any governmental document. Citizenship in the United States is not tied to your religious beliefs. Adding the line "One nation under God' to our Pledge of Allegiance excludes anyone who does not believe in God. I also believe being inclusive does not mean you have to mention everyone, you just do not exclude anyone.
The RNC Platform had 10 mentions of God. Twice in the Preamble the first stating that our rights come from God and are protected by the government - conversely stating that if you do not believe in God you have no rights. The second as a (my mind has blanked on the correct word) sign off asking that God continue to bless America.
Of the 8 in the body of the text 8 were the phrase God-given, and the only other affirming the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. Excluding all of those that do not believe in God.
The DNC Platform does include one God-given as it's only reference to God. And yes I do find it offensive, not enough to vote for a party I find completely offensive.
I have learned that in order to accomplish anything some concessions must be made. And including a word in the platform is more palatable concession then say the concessions that had to be made to get the minimal Universal Health Care that we did.
By
Gretchen, at 10:42 AM
Gretchen, My compliments to you on studying the two documents as you did. So many who should do so will not bother. Your comments have given me fodder for a few other blogs in the near future.
By
Marcel, at 2:00 PM
Well said, Gretch. My thought on hearing that there was no mention of god in the platform was a big "so what."
Just as I did not think Romney hated the troops in Afganistan because he did not mention them in his speech, I do not think the democrats are all godless heathens (it's is just me) because they did not mention him in their platform.
I do agree that the amendment brought to the floor of the convention (as seen on The Daily Show) was ridiculous. It never should have been brought (it did not significantly change the document or make it stronger) and it was carried out so poorly as to be embarrassing. There is no way the "ayes" had a clear 2/3 majority. My Robert's-Rules-loving mother would have been appalled.
By
EZ Travel, at 7:40 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home