Democratic convention

[_Abyssinia]

Want to know why a teleprompter said before the vote took place that a 2/3rd majority ruled to put God and Jerususlm back in the platform

 

[Nimzovik]

To quote Republican House Speaker John Boehner, “Have you ever met anyone who read the party platform? I’ve not ever met anybody”. So in that experienced politician’s opinion the party platform is worthless. He’s not read it and he doubts anyone else has. This is all about as important as when in the 50s they added ‘Under God’ to the pledge of allegiance, which was created by a Christian socialist to train children to be obedient to the state. We can have the official words but if they are not lived they are worthless.** I think it possible that God would not want to be associated in any way with what our government does.**

Ok. Just to restate here. Are you really *serious? *
I am not kidding. I really do not know.
I mean, I would think God would want to be associated in our Govt. in terms of having Abortion Illegal…

What are you saying here…

 

[Nimzovik]

Want to know why a teleprompter said before the vote took place that a 2/3rd majority ruled to put God and Jerususlm back in the platform

Indeed.

What does that say?

 

[Cider]

To quote Republican House Speaker John Boehner, “Have you ever met anyone who read the party platform? I’ve not ever met anybody”. So in that experienced politician’s opinion the party platform is worthless. He’s not read it and he doubts anyone else has. This is all about as important as when in the 50s they added ‘Under God’ to the pledge of allegiance, which was created by a Christian socialist to train children to be obedient to the state. We can have the official words but if they are not lived they are worthless. I think it possible that God would not want to be associated in any way with what our government does.

Maybe I should introduce myself to him. I read a bunch of different party platforms a few years ago when I decided I was no longer doing to be a democrat.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ok. Just to restate here. Are you really *serious? *
I am not kidding. I really do not know.
I mean I would think God would want to be associated in our Govt. in terms of having Abortion Illegal…

What are you saying here…

I think he means that we’re basically Sodom and Gomorrah all rolled into one, and we’re due for some wrath >_>

He means that our current government is so far away from what God has revealed to us that it should in no way be associated with him (i.e. Obama claiming that he can no longer morally object to gay “marriage”, and the proclaiming to be a christian.)

Maybe I should introduce myself to him. I read a bunch of different party platforms a few years ago when I decided I was no longer doing to be a democrat.

Congratulations, welcome back to your sanity. It’s too bad too, I honestly believe that the democratic party used to stand for the poor, and not for death… granted that was long before i was born, but still… at one point…

 

[Nimzovik]

It’s pretty clear to me that the god that everyone is talking about here is the Christian god, or at the very least a monotheistic, interventionist god. Do you all not see why that might present a problem for candidates who are running for office in a pluralistic society with a secular form of government?

Not mentioning a particular god does not necessarily imply atheism.

**Bolding mine: **

Please explain that one to me? It seems that in the Govt.'s effort to be ‘Tolerant’ they are becoming rather Intolerant of Religion and ‘People of Religion’ as well! - does it not?

Reverse Discrimination - yes?

 

[exnihilo]

Ok. Just to restate here. Are you really *serious? *
I am not kidding. I really do not know.
I mean I would think God would want to be associated in our Govt. in terms of having Abortion Illegal…

What are you saying here…

Of course God is associated with His creation in some way simply because it is his. What I mean is I don’t know that God would be too eager to have his name associated with a country that sanctions the murder of innocents and is constantly waging war on the world. My point is given the current government it does not seem to be under God in any way.

Maybe I should introduce myself to him. I read a bunch of different party platforms a few years ago when I decided I was no longer doing to be a democrat.

I don’t doubt some people have read the platforms. I think what it really reveals is he doesn’t. He could care less what it says. Before he said that he made it clear he had not read it but had the opinion it had not changed from prior platforms. Hard to know how one can have a well formed opinion about something you don’t read.

 

[Cider]

I don’t doubt some people have read the platforms. I think what it really reveals is he doesn’t. He could care less what it says. Before he said that he made it clear he had not read it but had the opinion it had not changed from prior platforms. Hard to know how one can have a well formed opinion about something you don’t read.

I agree it says something about him. I’m sure he is a nice person and he seems to be a faithful Catholic, but I’m not overly impressed with him politically.

 

[cornbread_r2]

The thing is, we, or at least I, don’t really care if it presents a problem to them. This was a nation founded on the principles put forth by the entity you classify as “the Christian god.” While we might not a a religious state, our foundation don’t change.

Further, we believe those who reject God are wrong, so why exactly -should- we care about if they’re upset by our devotion, or about the fact that we feel that God should be at the center of all government? (Please note, these reflect my personally held convictions, and probably don’t correlate with most of the people on here… I am not what you would call tolerant in my opinions, though I am at the very least civil, which is more than I can say for a lot of the liberals I’ve met.)

As I understand it, the Christian God was pretty intolerant of other religions and gods and yet a country supposedly founded on his principles has (thankfully) actually institutionalized tolerance of all – or no – religious beliefs. Curious

You are, of course, also granted the right to be as intolerant in your opinions of others’ opinions on gods and religions as you wish. I’m just glad those sentiments would not be endorsed by our government.

 

[Nimzovik]

Of course God is associated with His creation in some way simply because it is his. What I mean is I don’t know that God would be too eager to have his name associated with a country that sanctions the murder of innocents and is constantly waging war on the world. My point is given the current government it does not seem to be under God in any way.

I don’t doubt some people have read the platforms. I think what it really reveals is he doesn’t. He could care less what it says. Before he said that he made it clear he had not read it but had the opinion it had not changed from prior platforms. Hard to know how one can have a well formed opinion about something you don’t read.

I certainly understand God not tolerating being referred to as a Democrat or a Republican. Both Paties have blood on their hands as I see it.

However! To totally** deny** God, for the Democratic Party to make it a Plank of their platform, to deny the rich heritage of this once Great Nation, to place all** inalienable rights** given to humans** by** God, and to* replace* God with…what…? The President?
Is the epitome of absurdity!

No. It is worse than that. It is evil.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

As I understand it, the Christian God was pretty intolerant of other religions and gods and yet a country supposedly founded on his principles has (thankfully) actually institutionalized tolerance of all – or no – religious beliefs. Curious

You are, of course, also granted the right to be as intolerant in your opinions of others’ opinions on gods and religions as you wish. I’m just glad those sentiments would not be endorsed by our government.

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of the right to freedom of religion. That right was set in place so that the state could not impose an official religion, not so that religion could be ignored and limited to the four walls of the church. That is completely within God’s laws because we are called to not force our religion on people, but rather to teach them about the Laws of God. As for God seeming to be intolerant of other religions, let me put this forth to you. If you were a parent, and your child irrationally decided to reject you and go live with your neighbor, wouldn’t you be pretty ticked at the child and the neighbor, especially if that neighbor’s only goal is to harm your child. Additionally, you are referencing God within the confines of the old testament, which operated under a different covenant with humanity than the New Testament. AS such, some of the rules for humanity were different than they are now.

I personally believe that it is within God’s plan the church not run a country. We tried it for a while, didn’t work out well. After we were done with that the leaders were able to return their focus to the Truth, and not have to worry about the nonsense of day-to-day politics.

As for your last bit, you are right, I can be as intolerant as I want. I also agree with you that it is a good thing the state (supposedly) does not endorse my viewpoint. This particular set of feelings is probably very un-Catholic. Wrath has always been a sin I struggle with, and I have been working to improve myself in this regard. That said, I would still pose this question: If the full Truth is available to all, why should we give equality to lesser truths?

 

[Nimzovik]

As I understand it, the Christian God was pretty intolerant of other religions and gods and yet a country supposedly founded on his principles has (thankfully) actually institutionalized tolerance of all – or no – religious beliefs. Curious

You are, of course, also granted the right to be as intolerant in your opinions of others’ opinions on gods and religions as you wish. I’m just glad those sentiments would not be endorsed by our government.

Bolding Mine:

I ’ m sorry? Could you *elaborate *on **that **please?

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuse me? As compared to** who?** Stalin? Mao Tse Tung? The Atheist Abortionists? 4.5 million abortions performed world wide annually? Puh -lease. Give me a break.

It was not any Prophet of God that created the Atom Bomb now* was* it?

What abuses people did in the name of God, these said people certainly were not acting in accordance with God’s principles, now were they?

However - hello! Do the Math! Count the billions killed by non Believers!

The KKK calls itself Christian. Do you believe them? I do not.

 

[exnihilo]

However! To totally** deny** God, for the Party to make it a Plank of their platform, to deny the rich heritage of this once Great Nation, to place all** inaleinable rights** given to humans** by** God, and to* replace* God with…what…? The President?
Is the epitome of absurdity!

No. It is worse than that. It is evil.

Actually I think it might be good. The reality is we are not under God in that we do not follow Him. This is true for the American people and the state. I do understand we are not perfect. But I mean we substantially rebel. The rebellion is the evil. Admitting we are not under God is good because it is truthful and God is truth. Changing it to include God again was an act of dishonesty.

 

[cornbread_r2]

**Bolding mine: **

Please explain that one to me? It seems that in the Govt.'s effort to be ‘Tolerant’ they are becoming rather Intolerant of Religion and ‘People of Religion’ as well! - does it not?

Reverse Discrimination - yes?

Seems like simple logic to me. The Democrats also didn’t mention rhubarb in their platform. Does that necessarily imply that they believe rhubarb doesn’t exist?

I can appreciate how someone who is a member of the majority religious viewpoint might misinterpret *not privileging *their particular religious viewpoint as “religious intolerance”, but, again, I’m glad our secular form of government would not endorse such a position.

 

[Ender]

There are a number of things that can be taken away from this event.

First, the reference to God could in no way be taken to infer a specific (Christian) God so the explanation for the opposition to the phrase had nothing whatever to do with a concern for inclusiveness or of offending non-Christian religions. The opposition was not to *a god but to all gods. The offending phrase was simply this: “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.” *
Second, the vote on whether the phrase should be restored was simply ignored - three times (an infelicitous coincidence). It was a voice vote so no official evaluation was possible but if the nays were not louder than the ayes they were at least equal to them and given that the vote required a two thirds majority it was clear that the vote to restore the phrase failed that test. And it didn’t matter; the determination to restore the phrase was already made and the vote was merely theater.

Third, the fact that most people don’t read them does not mean party platforms are irrelevant. They do in fact present a good sense of where the party is going and what is and is not important to them. The reference to God was removed by the delegates because there are significant numbers within the Democrat party who oppose religion and faith. The phrase was restored by presidential fiat because it was determined to be a politically damaging time to reveal that fact. It was, nonetheless, revealed … as was a comparable disdain for rules and the democratic process.

ender

 

[Nimzovik]

Actually I think it might be good. The reality is we are not under God in that we do not follow Him. This is true for the American people and the state. I do understand we are not perfect. But I mean we substantially rebel. The rebellion is the evil. Admitting we are not under God is good because it is truthful and God is truth. Changing it to include God again was an act of dishonesty.

Indeed. You make a certain valid point there.

Whatever truth there may be in your post, I personally will **not **accept my conunty being stolen from me.

The Rosary, the Chaplet of Divine Mercy and the Love of God in the Eucharist, can indeed fix this.

Our Lord proved that with just Twelve…

Just look at what Our Lady of Guadalupe did for Mexico!!

If this country falls to the Secularists - we have only us Catholics to blame methinks. For we have the Truth and the Power.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Seems like simple logic to me. The Democrats also didn’t mention rhubarb in their platform. Does that necessarily imply that they believe rhubarb doesn’t exist?

I can appreciate how someone who is a member of the majority religious viewpoint might misinterpret *not privileging *their particular religious viewpoint as “religious intolerance”, but, again, I’m glad our secular form of government would not endorse such a position.

If they explicitly set out to keep the term Rhubarb out of their platform the, while they may still believe that rhubarb exists, they obvious have enough disdain for it to avoid mentioning it.

All past platforms have invoked God, as such it is logical to concluded that this platform, if it were in keeping with the views and opinions of their members (who, I reiterate, have called for the inclusion of God in all past platforms) then it would include God. As such, the only logical conclusion is that efforts were made to actively remove God form the platform, which in turn displays a certain level of disdain for Him.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Bolding Mine:

I ’ m sorry? Could you *elaborate *on **that **please?

[snipped for irrelevance]

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:2-4

Ring a bell?

 

[Nimzovik]

Bolding MIne:

Seems like simple logic to me. The Democrats also
didn’t mention rhubarb in their platform. Does that necessarily imply that they believe rhubarb doesn’t exist?

Rather a Non Sequitur - eh wot?

I can appreciate how someone who is a member of the majority religious viewpoint might misinterpret *not privileging *their particular religious viewpoint as “religious intolerance”, but, again, I’m glad our secular form of government would not endorse such a position.

Yes, I can certainly understand a Secularist applauding the triumph of Secularism in the Democratic Party.

However…, give this a think. Isn’t it curious that the **Democrats **did not Deny Secularism? I mean where is the… representation… of it’s constituents


The linked film seems to indicate that the Party members - for the *moment *at least, (perhaps at least until the desired by the elite members of the Democratic Party officials, get elected) voted God back in - yes?

Ahemmmmmmmmmmmm?

I reiterate. The Democrats ‘Race for Tolerance’ results in Intolerance for ‘People of Religion.’ Can this seriously be denied? Methinks not.

 

[cornbread_r2]

If they explicitly set out to keep the term Rhubarb out of their platform the, while they may still believe that rhubarb exists, they obvious have enough disdain for it to avoid mentioning it.

All past platforms have invoked God, as such it is logical to concluded that this platform, if it were in keeping with the views and opinions of their members (who, I reiterate, have called for the inclusion of God in all past platforms) then it would include God. As such, the only logical conclusion is that efforts were made to actively remove God form the platform, which in turn displays a certain level of disdain for Him.

I would disagree that that is the only logical conclusion. I can easily imagine a committed Christian and secularist voting to not include the Christian god in a platform – designed to elect a candidate expected lead a secular form of government – without the slightest fear of God being offended in the least.