Democrats Change Political Platform to Include "God" and "Israel"

[Seifer]

Article

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Fuck you, Democratic party. Fuck you for pussy-ing out and adding God and Israel into your political platform. I trusted that you'd be able to pull your collective heads out of your asses and realize that this country has NON-RELIGIOUS citizens. But no, the Republicans mentioned it so you just had to go along.

The pathetic part was that the convention delegates were obviously 50/50 on the issue, but because the convention coordinators figured the motion would pass no problem, it was SCRIPTED into the remainder of the convention. So, even though the audience was 50/50 (and there was NOT the necessary 2/3 vote to pass the motion), they passed it anyway.

Here's a video for those who want to see stupidity in action.

[Gravekeeper]

Seriously? SERIOUSLY? Fuck you, Democratic party. Fuck you for pussy-ing out and adding God and Israel into your political platform. I trusted that you'd be able to pull your collective heads out of your asses and realize that this country has NON-RELIGIOUS citizens. But no, the Republicans mentioned it so you just had to go along.

I wasn't impressed with that hiccup at the DNC. But at the same time I kind of understand simply because of the 36% or so of America that seems batshit fucking insane when it comes to God. Still, it was a terrible idea and pretty much the only glitch in an otherwise fantastic convention.

[Seifer]

I wasn't impressed with that hiccup at the DNC. But at the same time I kind of understand simply because of the 36% or so of America that seems batshit fucking insane when it comes to God. Still, it was a terrible idea and pretty much the only glitch in an otherwise fantastic convention.

Most of those 36% of religious nutsos would probably either be in the Tea Party or the Republican party, anyway. The fact is that in their own convention, the delegates were divided pretty evenly on the issue. Half those involved saw no need to mention a God or Israel in the platform while the other half saw no issue with it. Instead of being true to their own delegates, those in charge said, "Fuck you" and passed the motion anyway.

That's what truly pisses me off.

[Gravekeeper]

Instead of being true to their own delegates, those in charge said, "Fuck you" and passed the motion anyway.

That's what truly pisses me off.

True. Stupid idea really but admitting it didn't pass would just be handing the GOP a freebie they can use for the next 10 years. Even as is they'll be using this one for 5. Someone seriously didn't think that part through.

[Nekojin]

It's worth noting that the section you're referring to, Gravekeeper, was removed, and is only being added back in because some Democrats were flipping their shit over its removal. It's not as though this is anything new.

[Seifer]

It's worth noting that the section you're referring to, Gravekeeper, was removed, and is only being added back in because some Democrats were flipping their shit over its removal. It's not as though this is anything new.

I don't even understand why having those things in the platform was so important in the first place. It's not up to the U.S. whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It's also not appropriate to give credence to religion in a political platform when said platform is part of the U.S. which was built around the idea of religious freedom.

For some reason, simply mentioning that they back Jerusalem wasn't enough - the democratic party replaced the language so it said that Jerusalem was the capital.

As per the article:

The language in the platform — a political document — does not affect actual U.S. policy toward Israel. The administration has long said that determining Jerusalem's status is an issue that should be decided in peace talks by Israelis and Palestinians.

So why even mention it?

Honestly, it would be like another country's government saying they believe that L.A. is actually the capital of the United States because "that's where all the movie stars live." Who gives a shit? Their opinion isn't going to change our capital from Washington D.C. to L.A.

[Gravekeeper]

It's worth noting that the section you're referring to, Gravekeeper, was removed, and is only being added back in because some Democrats were flipping their shit over its removal. It's not as though this is anything new.

Er, me or Seifer? I wasn't referring to any section. I was just saying you don't want to give the GOP any ammo when it comes to ranting about Jeebus and Sharia Law.

[Rapscallion]

I had a similar debate on Facebook recently. Someone pro-Republican put up some picture about how the Dems had removed god and baby jesus from their congress.

I asked, quite reasonably I thought, if the country was electing a president or a priest. The responses I got in the ensuing back and forth were basically to the extent that the Dems are worse than the Republicans.

It wasn't what I'd call a debate.

Rapscallion

[Nekojin]

Er, me or Seifer? I wasn't referring to any section. I was just saying you don't want to give the GOP any ammo when it comes to ranting about Jeebus and Sharia Law.

Sorry, yes. I meant Seifer.

[Sarah Valentine]

IMO religion should NOT be anywhere in politics at all in any way.

[Nekojin]

IMO religion should NOT be anywhere in politics at all in any way.

How do you legislate that without running afoul of First Amendment's protection for free speech and free association? Is it legal or just to outlaw people running on a platform of religious morals?

Freedom cuts both ways.

[Seifer]

How do you legislate that without running afoul of First Amendment's protection for free speech and free association? Is it legal or just to outlaw people running on a platform of religious morals?

Freedom cuts both ways.

I'd say it should be illegal to place any one religion in a group's platform if said group is made up of people with differing religious views. In that case, one party's religion is being placed above another, which goes against the principles of the U.S.

Now, it's okay for an individual or a group of like-minded people to add their religious views into a platform, because their views are one in the same.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[Nekojin]

I'd say it should be illegal to place any one religion in a group's platform if said group is made up of people with differing religious views. In that case, one party's religion is being placed above another, which goes against the principles of the U.S.

A political party is not a government agency. They can structure their organization in any way that they see fit, so long as they don't run afoul of employment and discrimination laws. If they choose to say, "We believe in God and Jesus," and Buddhists, Jews, and Atheists choose to follow them anyway, whose fault is that?

Also, if religion is your first and highest issue, there are other parties you can follow, if you choose, such as the National Atheist Party.

Now, it's okay for an individual or a group of like-minded people to add their religious views into a platform, because their views are one in the same.

That's how I see it, anyway.

What you're asking for is flat-out impossible under the current US political system, thanks to the First-Past-The-Post method used for most position elections. If you require absolute uniformity for a political party, then political parties big enough to swing a vote like the Presidency simply will not exist, as everyone is just a little bit different. Few Democrats agree with 100% of the Democratic platform. Few Republicans agree with 100% of the Republican platform. In both cases, "close enough," fits most people well enough.

[Seifer]

A political party is not a government agency. They can structure their organization in any way that they see fit, so long as they don't run afoul of employment and discrimination laws. If they choose to say, "We believe in God and Jesus," and Buddhists, Jews, and Atheists choose to follow them anyway, whose fault is that?

Also, if religion is your first and highest issue, there are other parties you can follow, if you choose, such as the National Atheist Party.

A political party is usually made up of governmental figureheads, and in the case of the Democratic party, the president of the United States. I don't think it was right for Obama to come out and basically demand that the language of God and Jerusalem be added back into the political platform. It's ridiculous pandering, and all it did was piss off a fair amount of delegates. (Half the audience booed when the motion passed.)

The party platform can be seen as what the party will try to accomplish (or just their beliefs) while they're in office. I really don't think it's appropriate to bring religion into the platform, because it's inferring that the party will try to impose something religious if they're elected.

What you're asking for is flat-out impossible under the current US political system, thanks to the First-Past-The-Post method used for most position elections. If you require absolute uniformity for a political party, then political parties big enough to swing a vote like the Presidency simply will not exist, as everyone is just a little bit different. Few Democrats agree with 100% of the Democratic platform. Few Republicans agree with 100% of the Republican platform. In both cases, "close enough," fits most people well enough.

I wasn't actually talking about the political system in that example. Groups such as Boy Scouts of America and churches can come up with a platform or list of rules and such that you have to abide by since they have their own standards.

[Gravekeeper]

Also, if religion is your first and highest issue, there are other parties you can follow, if you choose, such as the National Atheist Party.

Voting for a third party is completely pointless under the US political system. Its in the best interests of one of the two major parties to be as inclusive as possible to round up the non-Christian vote and the GOP certainly isn't going to do that. Its the Democrats who bill themselves as the inclusive party when it came to race, religion and sexual orientation.

So by and large this was a stupid, stupid move by the Democrats. They're not going to pull away any Christian votes from the GOP, because those are generally hard core lunatic types. All they did was alienate non-Christians.