I guess the DNC loves God as well now & other 2012 DNC news.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.

My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:

Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."

I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

**SagesStone**

Facebook comments though.

Still more reliable than daily mail I suppose.

**daedalus**

I, for one, would be outright tickled to death if there was no mention of any deities in ANY of the political parties.

You know, I wonder how God feels about the Republicans dropping his name all over the place. I mean, I don't recall Him ever publicly endorsing the Republicans. On the other hand though, if He wasn't fine with them namedropping, surely He would have said something, right?

**whembly**

Are Party Platform planks and even the National Convention even needed in this day & age?

You know both candidates aren't expousing every single platform planks... so, why bother?

In the internet age and the ease of grassroot compaigns, is the National Convention even needed? It seems to be an expensive party for those who's already decided to vote for their guy... seems wasteful.

As to the OP d-usa: I'd no problem with keeping religion off the platforms... maybe a small blurb to ensure "freedom of religion", but that's all.

**d-usa**

Source for the "Democrats don't include God statement":

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/04/god-also-absent-from-democrats-platform/

**youbedead**

whembly wrote:
Are Party Platform planks and even the National Convention even needed in this day & age?

You know both candidates aren't expousing every single platform planks... so, why bother?

In the internet age and the ease of grassroot compaigns, is the National Convention even needed? It seems to be an expensive party for those who's already decided to vote for their guy... seems wasteful.

As to the OP d-usa: I'd no problem with keeping religion off the platforms... maybe a small blurb to ensure "freedom of religion", but that's all.

not to mention that politics has become heavily candidate centered in the past two decades or so, the role of parties is starting to diminish a great dea;

**Cheesecat**

Honestly who cares if God is or isn't in the Democrat platform how can anybody find this to be an interesting discussion.

**d-usa**

It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"

**Mannahnin**

I appreciate that one of the parties, in at least one venue, chooses not to repeatedly harp on about a God whom I don't worship. The concept that in most parts of the country you have to be (or pretend to be) a Christian for people to vote for you is disheartening and discomfiting.

**Cheesecat**

d-usa wrote:
It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"

Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs?

As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.

**daedalus**

I am left feeling somewhat uneasy at the thought that people dictating public policies would genuinely believe that I will (and should) suffer in torment for eternity for my lack of believing in their god or gods. Strikes me as though it could potentially cause one to have a hard time remaining objective.

**d-usa**

Cheesecat wrote:
d-usa wrote:
It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"

Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.

As a deeply religious Evangelical Christian I can honestly say: Yes they should be.

I also realize that at least in these parts I am somewhat of a minority when it comes to that though...

**Cheesecat**

d-usa wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
d-usa wrote:
It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"

Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.

As a deeply religious Evangelical Christian I can honestly say: Yes they should be.

I also realize that at least in these parts I am somewhat of a minority when it comes to that though...

Honestly I think politics would be better if the state and church were separate.

**sebster**

Whenever someone shouts their faith constantly in a political speach it sounds a lot more like tribalism than faith to me.

While the Republicans have been bad about that for a long time, in 2008 Obama made deliberate efforts to include faith elements in his campaign. And I'll note we haven't seen the Democratic convention yet - I expect to see more than a few mentions of God and faith.

Cheesecat wrote:
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.

Yes. But people should also be interested in the nature of the political debate in their country, and what concepts and words are being used by politicians to court votes.

**Cheesecat**

sebster wrote:
Whenever someone shouts their faith constantly in a political speach it sounds a lot more like tribalism than faith to me.

While the Republicans have been bad about that for a long time, in 2008 Obama made deliberate efforts to include faith elements in his campaign. And I'll note we haven't seen the Democratic convention yet - I expect to see more than a few mentions of God and faith.

Cheesecat wrote:
Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.

Yes. But people should also be interested in the nature of the political debate in their country, and what concepts and words are being used by politicians to court votes.

Yeah, but it seems that any time religion is involved it just tears people apart rather than bring each other together, just look at all the debates dakkadakka has on the topic of religion every-time one of those threads happens it gets locked due too much disagreement. Is that something we

want in our political system as well?

**azazel the cat**

Cheesecat wrote:
d-usa wrote:
It is of upmost importance to the future of the United States. Of course you are talking about the same political system where elections are decided by the question "Is he really a Christian?"

Shouldn't people be more concerned about party's policies rather than it's religious beliefs? As an Atheist I have no problem with my political leaders being Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Agnostic, etc I just want the guy who I think is going to be best for the country to be the leader.

It's a nice sentiment, but it doens't really fly in the real world.

Generally, the religious beliefs of those writing the policies are going to influence said policies, and people will support whatever policies are made with those same values in mind, if the voters share those values. Religion (a seperate idea from "faith") is all about social control. Always keep that in mind.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
Whenever someone shouts their faith constantly in a political speach it sounds a lot more like tribalism than faith to me.

While the Republicans have been bad about that for a long time, in 2008 Obama made deliberate efforts to include faith elements in his campaign. And I'll note we haven't seen the Democratic convention yet - I expect to see more than a few mentions of God and faith.

That's probably because polling has shown that Americans would be no more likely to vote for an atheist than they would a pedophile.

**sebster**

Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, but it seems that any time religion is involved it just tears people apart rather than bring each other together, just look at all the debates dakkadakka has on the topic of religion every-time one of those threads happens it gets locked due too much disagreement. Is that something we

want in our political system as well?

That's the point of the thread. Talking about whether the number of references to faith and religion currently in the political discourse is a good thing or not.

**d-usa**

I am going to post a response that I gave to somebody that asked this question:

QUESTION ONLY FOR CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS:

I’m asking a serious question.

...How can you, as a Christian Democrat, and there are many, continue to be in a political party, sign your name to such a party, who intentionally removes God from its platform?

The opposing political platform reverences, and acknowledges God ten times. Please don’t tell me that there are so many hypocrites in the GOP; I already know this; they are everywhere!

Help me, as a Christian, to understand how this dramatic omission does not frighten you, it would me. This would be the very sign that I must make a change to being an Independent or some other party. Please, help me to understand? I’m really perplexed. Help me, dear Christian brother or sister, to understand. Are you going to make a change. You can tell me privately and I will keep your confidence.

Please keep in mind that this was my response as a "Christian Democrat" to a "Christian Republican", so I hope we can avoid the whole "Christian vs. Non-Christians" aspect of this. I realize that there is a high likelyhood of this becoming a Christians vs. Others kind of discussion, but I cross my fingers that we can at least make it a few pages before that happens.

But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:

For me it helps to think about what the central message of the Gospel really is. God creates man, man sins and becomes separated from God, God becomes man and pays our debt, man responds and accepts salvation. It was through His sacrifice that we are no longer separated from God, and without it we would not be able to have a relationship with Him.

It is the relationship we have with Him that is the most important fruit of salvation. Without salvation we could not know Him, and it is the relationship with Him that should drive our actions and it should serve as a model for our relationships with others. By extension I also believe that our actions are a result of that relationship and I don’t believe in salvation by works. Our primary responsibility as Christians to the rest of the world is to spread the Gospel with others and to use Jesus as our example of what it means to lead a God-centered life.

Which brings me to politics. I honestly feel that combining God and politics does nothing to fulfill our great commission. It does not bring people closer to Christ and it does not follow Biblical examples. I don’t have a problem at all with politicians sharing their faith and sharing what impact God made in their daily walk. Giving our testimony is an important part in sharing the Gospel. I do not agree with adding God into political platforms or using Him to justify political decisions or using Him as a basis for law. Some of the reasons for that are as follows:

Salvation is by faith, and our works are the fruit of that salvation. We do not obtain salvation by following “God’s Law”. One of the key lessons that we should take away from the Old Testament is that God gave Israel His Law, and even when God Himself told His people “don’t do that” they were unable to follow His command. From the first “don’t do that” given to Adam and Eve, mankind has been unable to follow His Law and has been a slave to sin. So one of the objections I have of legislating God’s laws is that it seems somewhat insulting to God that we think we could do better at making people follow His laws than he did. But I also believe that the central message of the Old Testament was not “just follow these Laws and go to Heaven”, but instead the message was that we could never follow the Law. In essence the book full of rules were God saying “You want to know what you would have to do for salvation? You would have to live a life without breaking a single one of these rules, but there are so many you would never be able to do it!” The message of the Old Testament was not “follow these rules”, it was “you could never follow these rules, but I will send somebody that can”. So passing laws and legislation based on these Biblical rules does nothing to accomplish our one and only goal, to spread the Gospel.

If we do legislate Biblical law and the teachings of Jesus, what have we really accomplished? Let me take gay marriage as an example. If we legislate a Biblical definition of marriage and only allow a man and a woman to get married, how does that share the Gospel? Do the husband or the bride now have a relationship with God because they have a traditional marriage? Do they have a Christ-centered marriage because we made sure that two men or two women could not get married? Did they receive Christ as their savior because a legislator with the word “God” in their platform passed a law that limited who could get married?

Does a Constitutional marriage amendment mean that people with have a relationship with God, or will it simply make them act godly without knowing God?

And that last question is really the core of why I do not want to mix politics with my faith. I fear that it makes us lazy and contempt, it allows us to take the easy way out. If we want to stop people from sinning, a task even God cannot accomplish, then we should go out there on a daily basis and interact with people to spread the Gospel and help create a nation where everybody has a relationship with God and chooses not to lead a sinful life. Or we could take the easy road that doesn’t involve confrontation and just outlaw sin which might result in people leading a life that is “godly”. But people would be leading a life that might follow the law, but without any relationship with God. So what good does it do if we pass legislation based on the Bible instead of sharing the Bible? What is the benefit of having a population that lives a godly life without ever knowing God only to die without ever hearing the Gospel because we are too busy passing laws instead of sharing Christ?

I also think that a lot of the talk out there amounts to “the nation is suffering because we are not passing Christian laws” or “if we elect Christians and pass Christian laws our nation will be blessed”. To me that just sounds like a nationalistic version of the prosperity gospel, and that is simply a gospel that I do not belief in. I also think that God would be able to tell the difference between a nation that is filled with people that have a relationship with Him, and a nation that is filled with people that follow His laws because they don’t want to go to prison.
In the end it comes down to this for me: I would rather live in a country where every sin is legal, a nation where we could live the most depraved live that we could possibly imagine without any legal consequence, and a country where people make the conscious decision to have a relationship with God and then live a Godly life that is a result of that relationship with Him. The other option would be to live in a country where sin is outlawed but people don’t have a relationship with God.

Does including God in a political platform do anything to spread the Gospel? Does including God in a political platform share His love for us? Do people suddenly have a relationship with God because we passed legislation that made a sin illegal?

**Cheesecat**

azazel the cat wrote:
Religion (a seperate idea from "faith") is all about social control. Always keep that in mind.

I disagree I've met many religious people who were open to new ideas or weren't forceful about there beliefs.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
That's probably because polling has shown that Americans would be no more likely to vote for an atheist than they would a pedophile.

Nah, it's just like Republicans now attempting to capture the votes of black people, Democrats are doing what they can to capture evangelical votes where they can.

Obama's concept was that you can appeal to these voters without sacrificing other Democratic values, in fact you can reframe a lot of Democratic positions in religious terms.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:

I think you answered it very well.

I probably would have commented on how mentioning God a handful of times in a speach doesn't actually mean anything of substance, and express disappointment at how low a price some people ask of themselves.

**Piston Honda**

Didn't that one lady (who I believe her family came for Korea IIRC) say she thanked God for food stamps and public education?

I know God hates those things, as they are products of socialism and God hates socialism but at least they are trying, failing but trying.

Then Julio Castro brought up "god bless you" on more than one occasion. Unfortunately God can't hear the words of Texans who vote Democrat.

There was plenty of God talk going around at the DNC, God just prefers old white conservatives compared to lazy hipsters and women.

up to to decide if I am being a sarcastic donkey-cave

**youbedead**

sebster wrote:
Seaward wrote:
That's probably because polling has shown that Americans would be no more likely to vote for an atheist than they would a pedophile.

Nah, it's just like Republicans now attempting to capture the votes of black people, Democrats are doing what they can to capture evangelical votes where they can.

Obama's concept was that you can appeal to these voters without sacrificing other Democratic values, in fact you can reframe a lot of Democratic positions in religious terms.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:

I think you answered it very well.

I probably would have commented on how mentioning God a handful of times in a speach doesn't actually mean anything of substance, and express disappointment at how low a price some people ask of themselves.

Hell the democrats used to be the ones know for being evangelical (at least back when they were a populist party)

**deathholydeath**

d-usa wrote:
I am going to post a response that I gave to somebody that asked this question:

QUESTION ONLY FOR CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS:

I’m asking a serious question.

...How can you, as a Christian Democrat, and there are many, continue to be in a political party, sign your name to such a party, who intentionally removes God from its platform?

The opposing political platform reverences, and acknowledges God ten times. Please don’t tell me that there are so many hypocrites in the GOP; I already know this; they are everywhere!

Help me, as a Christian, to understand how this dramatic omission does not frighten you, it would me. This would be the very sign that I must make a change to being an Independent or some other party. Please, help me to understand? I’m really perplexed. Help me, dear Christian brother or sister, to understand. Are you going to make a change. You can tell me privately and I will keep your confidence.

Please keep in mind that this was my response as a "Christian Democrat" to a "Christian Republican", so I hope we can avoid the whole "Christian vs. Non-Christians" aspect of this. I realize that there is a high likelyhood of this becoming a Christians vs. Others kind of discussion, but I cross my fingers that we can at least make it a few pages before that happens.

But here was my answer as to why I think that I can be a Christian apart from politics:

For me it helps to think about what the central message of the Gospel really is. God creates man, man sins and becomes separated from God, God becomes man and pays our debt, man responds and accepts salvation. It was through His sacrifice that we are no longer separated from God, and without it we would not be able to have a relationship with Him.

It is the relationship we have with Him that is the most important fruit of salvation. Without salvation we could not know Him, and it is the relationship with Him that should drive our actions and it should serve as a model for our relationships with others. By extension I also believe that our actions are a result of that relationship and I don’t believe in salvation by works. Our primary responsibility as Christians to the rest of the world is to spread the Gospel with others and to use Jesus as our example of what it means to lead a God-centered life.

Which brings me to politics. I honestly feel that combining God and politics does nothing to fulfill our great commission. It does not bring people closer to Christ and it does not follow Biblical examples. I don’t have a problem at all with politicians sharing their faith and sharing what impact God made in their daily walk. Giving our testimony is an important part in sharing the Gospel. I do not agree with adding God into political platforms or using Him to justify political decisions or using Him as a basis for law. Some of the reasons for that are as follows:

Salvation is by faith, and our works are the fruit of that salvation. We do not obtain salvation by following “God’s Law”. One of the key lessons that we should take away from the Old Testament is that God gave Israel His Law, and even when God Himself told His people “don’t do that” they were unable to follow His command. From the first “don’t do that” given to Adam and Eve, mankind has been unable to follow His Law and has been a slave to sin. So one of the objections I have of legislating God’s laws is that it seems somewhat insulting to God that we think we could do better at making people follow His laws than he did. But I also believe that the central message of the Old Testament was not “just follow these Laws and go to Heaven”, but instead the message was that we could never follow the Law. In essence the book full of rules were God saying “You want to know what you would have to do for salvation? You would have to live a life without breaking a single one of these rules, but there are so many you would never be able to do it!” The message of the Old Testament was not “follow these rules”, it was “you could never follow these rules, but I will send somebody that can”. So passing laws and legislation based on these Biblical rules does nothing to accomplish our one and only goal, to spread the Gospel.

If we do legislate Biblical law and the teachings of Jesus, what have we really accomplished? Let me take gay marriage as an example. If we legislate a Biblical definition of marriage and only allow a man and a woman to get married, how does that share the Gospel? Do the husband or the bride now have a relationship with God because they have a traditional marriage? Do they have a Christ-centered marriage because we made sure that two men or two women could not get married? Did they receive Christ as their savior because a legislator with the word “God” in their platform passed a law that limited who could get married?

Does a Constitutional marriage amendment mean that people with have a relationship with God, or will it simply make them act godly without knowing God?

And that last question is really the core of why I do not want to mix politics with my faith. I fear that it makes us lazy and contempt, it allows us to take the easy way out. If we want to stop people from sinning, a task even God cannot accomplish, then we should go out there on a daily basis and interact with people to spread the Gospel and help create a nation where everybody has a relationship with God and chooses not to lead a sinful life. Or we could take the easy road that doesn’t involve confrontation and just outlaw sin which might result in people leading a life that is “godly”. But people would be leading a life that might follow the law, but without any relationship with God. So what good does it do if we pass legislation based on the Bible instead of sharing the Bible? What is the benefit of having a population that lives a godly life without ever knowing God only to die without ever hearing the Gospel because we are too busy passing laws instead of sharing Christ?

I also think that a lot of the talk out there amounts to “the nation is suffering because we are not passing Christian laws” or “if we elect Christians and pass Christian laws our nation will be blessed”. To me that just sounds like a nationalistic version of the prosperity gospel, and that is simply a gospel that I do not belief in. I also think that God would be able to tell the difference between a nation that is filled with people that have a relationship with Him, and a nation that is filled with people that follow His laws because they don’t want to go to prison.
In the end it comes down to this for me: I would rather live in a country where every sin is legal, a nation where we could live the most depraved live that we could possibly imagine without any legal consequence, and a country where people make the conscious decision to have a relationship with God and then live a Godly life that is a result of that relationship with Him. The other option would be to live in a country where sin is outlawed but people don’t have a relationship with God.

Does including God in a political platform do anything to spread the Gospel? Does including God in a political platform share His love for us? Do people suddenly have a relationship with God because we passed legislation that made a sin illegal?

A very good reply. There exist quite a great deal of evangelical Christians in my home town, and I often get into arguments with them regarding this very thing. Leaving aside the argument of what the intention of the founding fathers was regarding Christianity in this country, the most effective argument I've employed is something along the lines of what you've used. When one attempta to force the Gospel and the morality directly derived from it on others through laws one usually only gains their hatred and enmity instead. Which, as you have noted, does nothing to actually fulfill the mission statement of the church: the salvation of souls. Forcing others to live it on the surface isn't just shallow, it's forcing others to lie.

**azazel the cat**

Cheesecat wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
Religion (a seperate idea from "faith") is all about social control. Always keep that in mind.

I disagree I've met many religious people who were open to new ideas or weren't forceful about there beliefs.

That's because they're the ones dancing; not pulling the strings.

Consider the difference between faith and religion. There's a big difference between believing in a higher power, and obeying the commands of the guy in the funny hat.

There are oddly specific rules in every holy book because religion is about holding on to power through social control. Your friends have their actions restricted by the religious institution, and thus are subject to that institution.

**Ahtman**

azazel the cat wrote:
religion is about holding on to power through social control

This seems like an incredibly myopic definition. It seems to be a definition crafted more on ones own desire to simplify a complex phenomenon, or a the very least a seemingly narrow band of experience with this thing called religion, then an honest appraisal of what religion means to human beings. I've read a lot of books that devote many pages to trying to come to an understanding on what religion is and there is very little agreement among experts in the field so when I see someone try and distil it into a snippy little one sentence aphorism it strikes me as a bit disingenuous.

Now if you had said that for some people (or even many people) it is about holding on to power through social control I would agree with you.

**Squigsquasher**

Who honestly cares? Myself I think there should be a law that legal policy must not be influenced in any way by religion.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.

My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:
Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."

I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

The platform also supports government funding of abortion, and dropped historical pro Israeli language.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly who cares if God is or isn't in the Democrat platform how can anybody find this to be an interesting discussion.

Just as many care about that and the abortion language as those who decry it on the Republican side.
Platforms are stupid, but help show where the heart of radicals controlling either party are.

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.

My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:
Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."

I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

The platform also supports government funding of abortion, and dropped historical pro Israeli language.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly who cares if God is or isn't in the Democrat platform how can anybody find this to be an interesting discussion.

Just as many care about that and the abortion language as those who decry it on the Republican side.
Platforms are stupid, but help show where the heart of radicals controlling either party are.

Make Israel and Abortion threads then

**Frazzled**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
So according to the learned folks that appear on my Facebook feed it appears that the Democrats did not include the word God in their platform. They are also quick to point out that the GOP included the word God 10 times in their platform.

My comments on Facebook have pretty much come to this:
Honestly, the complaint I am hearing is this "A secular political party running candidates for office in a secular country whose founding fathers made multiple statements that our country is not a "Christian" country with a constitution that prohibits a state-sponsored religion decided not to include God in their platform. Clearly that means they are monsters..."

I am an Evangelical Christian, as some of our Theism vs. Atheism threads have surely revealed. But I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to leave God out of the platform and I honestly prefer that approach to politics.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

The platform also supports government funding of abortion, and dropped historical pro Israeli language.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:
Honestly who cares if God is or isn't in the Democrat platform how can anybody find this to be an interesting discussion.

Just as many care about that and the abortion language as those who decry it on the Republican side.
Platforms are stupid, but help show where the heart of radicals controlling either party are.

The draft language also included calls for substantial firerarm regulation:

The draft language of the Democrats' 2012 platform — set for a final vote this week in Charlotte, N.C. — argues that current safeguards protecting the public against gun violence are insufficient and urges "an honest and open conversation about firearms."

The document also calls for "reasonable regulation" governing guns, including laws banning assault weapons and requiring all gun sellers — not just licensed dealers — to perform background checks on potential buyers.