HuffPo Scolds Dems for ‘Caving’ On Reinsertion of God and Jerusalem Into Platform

It might appear odd, but Huffington Post seems to be scolding the Democrats for having “caved in” to pro-religion and pro-Israel forces in the Democrat Party for succeeding in having God and Jerusalem put back into the Democrat Party platform after they were removed earlier today.

Clearly proving that there is a great division in the Democrat Party over these two issues, Huffington Post’s headline screamed that the Democrats have become “The Pushover Party” now that God and Jerusalem have been reinserted into the party platform.

What is also clear is that Huffington Post is siding against God and Israel and saying that real Democrats don’t cave to Christians and Jews.

The day has not been good for the Democrat Party. After the Democrats were embarrassed all during the morning and afternoon of Sept. 5 over the unsettling deletions of God and Jerusalem from their platform, a voice vote was called on the floor of the convention to have God reinserted and also to have it reaffirmed that Jerusalem is the rightful capital of Israel.

But when this resolution was called for a voice vote from the floor, those opposed to affirming support of God and Israel made themselves known with loud booing from the floor. It was also clear that those opposed to adding God and Jerusalem back into the platform were as many as those that wanted to keep them in.

The big question here is this: are half the delegates of this Democrat Party anti-religion and anti-Israel?

It didn’t matter to the chair of the convention, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who simply ignored the loud dissent and declared that the resolution was passed by a two thirds voice vote by the floor despite the fact that the nays were at least as loud as the yeas.

In a party that is increasingly seen as the anti-God and anti-Jew party, this is a huge embarrassment.

This isn’t the only controversy that Democrats had over Israel this week. On Monday night Democrat National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was caught lying saying that she heard Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren state that Republicans are “dangerous for Israel.”

Oren denied ever having said anything like that, saying, “I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel. Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle.”

Shortlink:

Posted by on September 6, 2012.
Filed under 2012 Presidential Race, Barack Obama, corruption, Culture Of Corruption, Democracy, Democrats, Elections, Israel, Liberals, Politicians, Religion.
Warner Todd Huston is a Chicago-based freelance writer, has been writing opinion editorials and social criticism since early 2001 and is featured on many websites such as Andrew Breitbart's BigGovernment.com and BigJournalism.com, RightWingNews.com, CanadaFreePress.com, RightPundits.com, StoptheACLU.com, Human Events Magazine, among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a frequent guest on talk-radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book "Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture" which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of PubliusForum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions, EMAIL Warner Todd Huston: igcolonel .at. hotmail.com "The only end of writing is to enable the reader better to enjoy life, or better to endure it." --Samuel Johnson

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

    Hell yeah, they caved and made themselves look foolish and craven doing so.

    Why does a political party in the secular USA have to mention God?

    Heck, if it’s a requirement, why not change the name to the Party of God? – or in Arabic حزب الله Go the whole way.

    Not to mention endorsing a completely empty obeisance to where another country has its capital, even though no country in the world has its embassy in Jerusalem.

    AIPAC’s Hostile Takeover of the Democratic Convention:

    http://mjayrosenberg.com/2012/09/06/aipacs-hostile-takeover-of-the-democratic-convention/

    • http://www.wizbangblog.com David Robertson

      Why does a political party in the secular USA have to mention God?

      Chico, I understand what you are saying. The USA isn’t any kind of theocracy. However, what had been left out of the Democratic Party’s platform (and then reinserted) is an affirmation of the USA’s official motto, “In God we trust.”

      As for Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, that has been the policy of the U.S. government for quite awhile, regardless of where embassies are located. It is odd that the Democratic Party affirmed Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in its 2008 platform, but left out the affirmation in their 2012 platform.

      I speculate that the majority of DNC delegates did not read the entire 2012 platform before voting to approve it. After all, it is a 40-page document. It could be that the aforementioned deletions were not noticed by them.

      • Commander_Chico_Cognoscente

        I believe you are correct, the mention of God and Jerusalem have no substantive policy meaning but it was a mistake not to utter the shibboleths in support (as if God needs the support of a political party). The attempt to change the platform was even more obviously a fiasco.

        • retired.military

          I have to pretty much agree with Chico (for once).

          • Joe Lagle

            Its a cold day somewhere then :)

    • LiberalNightmare

      Why does a political party in the secular USA have to mention God?

      Why indeed? Maybe the democratic party isn’t as confident as you are as to just how secular this nation might be.

      • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ Scribe of Slog (McGehee)

        People always seem to mistake the First Amendment’s prescription of a secular government as a prescription for a secular America.

        The inability to see and grasp that distinction is a major dividing line between people who undertand this country, and people who don’t.

        • herddog505

          Well said.

  • 914

    Next thing you know, some idiot will mention caved, themselve’s and craven in a sentence!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Thomas-Gaskin/100000074101532 Thomas Gaskin

    I fail to see how being overturned by other members of the party makes the party a push-over. It makes part of the party a pushover. or part a bully. or treachery.

  • JWH

    The funny part is that the “God” bit is completely meaningless. It’s really just ceremonial deism.

    • herddog505

      Probably not for the millions of Americans who are devout.

      • JWH

        OK, Herd, riddle me this. And please keep in mind that I’m trying to ask this without being insulting, as I infer from our previous conversations you are a person of faith

        How does the inclusion of the word “God” a single time in the Democratic platform fundamentally change what the party is and what it stands for?
        And why is it that persons of faith consider it so important that government not merely acknowledge their religion, but pay homage to their deity through state-sponsored prayers and invocations?

        And how does state endorsement affect what is (according to what I remember of Protestant theology) a personal relationship between the worshiper and his deity?

        I’ve been trying to figure this out, and I’ve yet to reach a satisfactory answer.

        • retired.military

          JWH

          It probably wasnt a big deal until they took God out (somewhat of a big deal) and then had a vote to put it back in, the vote failed (big deal) and the boos (very big deal).

          In short if they had left it in then they could have avoided this unforced error. If they had voted the first time to put it back in then it would have been fine. Voting 3 times and losing and putting it in anyway and then booing = shot themselves in both feet.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            … with a 12-gauge.

        • herddog505

          Short answer: shared culture, values and tradition.

          At the very least, it’s akin to showing up in court wearing a suit and tie: one’s dress doesn’t make a bit of difference with regard to the law or the facts of the matter, but it’s simply how things are “done”. Further, NOT doing it shows a certain degree of contempt for tradition and the court.

          I further suggest that people of faith consider their god (which, for the vast majority of Americans, is God) to be the source of morality: god makes the rules and he also is the ultimate judge. Hence, people who DON’T have faith – or, worse, refuse to publicly acknowledge it – are suspected of having no moral compass at all.*

          Finally, for the large number of Americans who ARE devout, it’s important to recognize that, without God, we are and can do nothing that is good.

          ====

          (*) I realize that this is bunk; it is certainly possible for devout people to be as crooked as a dog’s hind leg, and for atheists to be straight as an arrow.

          • JWH

            At the very least, it’s akin to showing up in court wearing a suit and tie: one’s dress doesn’t make a bit of difference with regard to the law or the facts of the matter, but it’s simply how things are “done”. Further, NOT doing it shows a certain degree of contempt for tradition and the court.

            This is actually the very essence of “ceremonial deism.” It’s a rote, nonspecific, frequently ecumenical invocation of a nonspecific deity. It carries no specific exhortation to action and it is relatively neutral, so it is generally considered a de minimimis or even non- violation of the Establishment Clause.

            Hence, people who DON’T have faith – or, worse, refuse to publicly acknowledge it – are suspected of having no moral compass at all.

            But doesn’t this set up a perverse incentive? It seems to promote conformist hypocrisy rather than faith. A candidate (or a person) is punished (in the social sense) if he forthrightly proclaims his skepticism of and/or disbelief in a deity.* Yet a person is rewarded if he goes “Yeah, yeah, god, god, whatever.” **

            Finally, for the large number of Americans who ARE devout, it’s important to recognize that, without God, we are and can do nothing that is good.

            Let me question this … I can see where it is important for an individual person of faith to do so, or why a congregation would wish to do so. But why is it necessary for a third party to do so?

            =============================================
            * Yes, I recognize a lot of atheists can be really annoying, self-righteous, and smug about it. But that’s not my point.

            ** And yes, this comes across as quite disrespectful on my part, but I suggest it represents the attitude of somebody who attends religious services and avows religiosity solely for political gain.
            ==============================================

          • herddog505

            JWHIt seems to promote conformist hypocrisy rather than faith. A candidate (or a person) is punished (in the social sense) if he forthrightly proclaims his skepticism of and/or disbelief in a deity. Yet a person is rewarded if he goes “Yeah, yeah, god, god, whatever.”

            I don’t say no to that. However, I think that people, if they can’t get genuine respect, will settle for the appearance of it. “Look, even if you don’t agree with me, do you at least acknowlege my point of view?”

            Further, for devout people, suggesting “skepticism” of their god is on level with suggesting “skepticism” of the fidelity of their spouses or the legitimacy of their children.

            I can see where it is important for an individual person of faith to do so, or why a congregation would wish to do so. But why is it necessary for a third party to do so?

            For the same reason that one stands respectfully for another country’s national anthem or sits quietly and respectfully when somebody from another religion offers a prayer or conducts some ceremony according that that rite: it’s the polite thing to do. And, if one is a politician who wants votes, it’s the smart thing to do.

          • JWH

            Further, for devout people, suggesting “skepticism” of their god is on level with suggesting “skepticism” of the fidelity of their spouses or the legitimacy of their children.

            Which is why, people generally don’t talk religion.

            For the same reason that one stands respectfully for another country’s national anthem or sits quietly and respectfully when somebody from another religion offers a prayer or conducts some ceremony according that that rite: it’s the polite thing to do

            Not what I’m talking about. If I’m at somebody’s house and my host says grace before the meal, I’m going to keep my mouth shut and sit respectfully for the prayer. That’s just manners.

            But the “God” language in a platform is different. I think it’s somewhat akin to my host turning to me and saying, “Don’t you think it’s great that God has brought you to our house today?” As an guest and an atheist, I’ll probably make some noncommittal noises because I don’t want to be hypocritical, but I also don’t want to offend my host.

            But I would say that for a host to do that is the height of rudeness. He’s no longer requesting that I respect his ceremony, but asking instead that I aver belief in his deity. Why would such a person want that?

            Let me round this out with a true story.

            Last year, i attended a short lunchtime concert at a church not far from my workplace. On my way out, I stopped in the foyer to listen in on a conversation between the church’s music director and a visitor from out of town.

            The visitor quizzed the music director pretty intensely about the church, its doctrines, and its membership. The conversation moved on to this visitor questioning the music director about his own relationship with God, and the director finally cut him off, saying, “I’m not going to discuss my religious beliefs with you.”

            I know that hypocrisy and public religiosity are necessary for politics, but when Paul Ryan snarked about the absence of a deity from the Democratic platform, he reminded me of that visitor.

          • herddog505

            I suggest a counter-analogy: it’s akin to the guest turning to his host – who he KNOWS is devout – and making a snarky comment about religion such as, “Man, I am SO glad you didn’t say a prayer before we ate. I mean, really: how silly is it to thank ‘god’ (air quotes) for your food? How stupid is that?”

            Ceremonial deism or not, it’s traditional and therefore expected, just as singing the National Anthem before a ball game or giving Christmas presents on Dec. 25 is traditional and expected. That the dems had such a problem with it suggests that, in the area at least, they don’t share the same values as many other Americans.

          • JWH

            So I guess it comes down to “that’s the way we roll.” Not exactly a theological reason.

          • herddog505

            For people of faith, it most assuredly IS theological. For others, yes: it’s how we roll.

          • Vagabond661

            Just curious. Are you ok with the Pledge of Allegiance?

          • JWH

            Ceremonial deism.

          • Vagabond661

            I won’t ask about the Declaration of Independance then. Like I said just curious. I have friends who are agnostic and some who claim to be atheist. Each to his own. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that there is no deity.

          • JWH

            As an aside, the history of the Pledge is kind of interesting. “Under God” wasn’t added to it until the 1950s.

            And Minersville School District v. Gobitis and West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette both leave me wary of people who put too much emphasis on the Pledge of Allegiance.

  • retired.military

    I bet that Obama mentions God at least 5 times in his speech. Of course he will mention himself at least 20 times and Osama bin laden at least 3 times.

  • Olsoljer

    Suffice to say the DNC just solidified the vote of those who have a belief in a Creator. A little emphasis on this fiasco, enraging those voters, will quite probably cost the demo party more votes than any other single factor. I don’t believe obamas back pedaling (flip flops) during his speech, by referring to God, and obvious attempts to distance himself from “you didn’t build that” statement is going to be sufficient enough to get the dog sh*t off his shoe.

  • razorclams

    And what about the president’s promise to work for common ground? This administration has gone further than many may realize in establishing common ground on perhaps the most divisive of social issues, abortion. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, a little-noted and almost miraculous agreement in this culture war occurred. An amendment that supports vulnerable pregnant teens and women, introduced by pro-life Sen. Bob Casey and pro-choice Sen. Amy Klobuchar, passed and was funded. This section of the ACA, renamed the Pregnancy Assistance Fund by the Health and Human Services Administration, was funded at $250 million over 10 years, and thus far has awarded grants to 17 states. I have spoken with some of the people implementing these programs. They are on-the-ground programs, doing good work, allowing teens to finish high school and get parenting help, young women to finish college, find child care, protect themselves from abusive partners, and more. The next round of funding takes place next year. This says nothing of the numerous ACA reforms that are helping newborns and children, particularly those in poor families.

    • 914

      “This administration has gone further than many may realize in establishing common ground on perhaps the most divisive of social issues, a’

      There is help for your delusions, but Obama just cut your psychotropic fixation in 3rds!