"Democratic National Committee suspended the rules of the convention and inserted language regarding God and the State of Israel back to its platform. They had to vote three times to do it – and they had to lie to deem it passed, even though it was clear that the measure did not pass a voice vote in the chamber. The original 2012 Democratic Party platform had excised all mention of God and Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel." http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/05/Democrats-change-platform-God-Israel __________________________________________________________ Fixed?
1. Breitbart? The same people who took the Shirley Sherrod situation out of context? I thought after he died, his conservative propaganda machine would have died along with it. Ah well, they'll always have their stupids to keep them running. 2. The DNC isn't advocating "godlessness", which is utterly silly. Rather, taking the language out of it was more about being more inclusive, even to those who lack the belief in a god. You know, being less about supernatural nonexistent entities and putting their platforms on actual agendas. I don't know why they reversed this. 3. Why having dogmatic support for Israel have to be reminded on a platform anyway? I think the current policies are expected. Really, backpedaling in this case is very disappointing and on the conservative wing of the GOP spectrum, highly immature.
Sure, if you want to uphold bias and try to paint this country as though it's founded on Christian principles, but the Founding Fathers were simply deists. Besides, would it be more feasible to say that nation is secular and that our rights were not based on superstition, but by the means of common sense and reason? That's more universal and American. We're not a theocracy, nor we should be. It was reinserted, but only to appease a small number of people, which is precisely ridiculous.
You're wrong. The Treaty of Tripoli and the Separation of Church and State would like to smack some reality back into you.
I simply cannot respond to an OP who can't bring himself to utter more than a single word in any post. It's like talking to a 3rd grader who thinks he's really being clever. Do you interact with live human beings IRL???:smt017
Read the context carefully instead of pulling a source. Here is a quote from there: The words may not appear on the text, but the content involved further reiterates the statement, contrary to the site's purpose. To advertise one religion in a public institution would go against the sovereignty of the nation. Not only that, but religion is meant to be personal, and yet...it muddies itself into the public system in the form of "states rights" and all that nonsense. Try again.
No. Otherwise the Treaty of Tripoli wouldn't have applied. We're not a Christian nation, nor a Muslim nation or a Jewish nation. We're a secular nation, based on secular principles in which we have freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Read the article carefully.
The American legal code is all about INTERPRETATION, defining the inherent meaning behind a specific law as applied to a less than ideal circumstance. What the hell do you think the Supreme Court does??
The law is MEANT to be interpreted by state and federal supreme courts, and districts judges in particular. It's what judges do.:smt102
