Why Did the Democrat Platform Omit G0d?

Way back in 2008 before the Democrat Party spun out of control the Democrat Party Platform read in the section titled Renewing the American Dream, “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 G0d-given potential.” Now, flash forward disregarding everything in between to 2012 and the new version of Renewing the American Dream reads, “We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us.” According to ABC News, a Democrat Party official clarified the change with the omission of the name of G0d explaining that, “The 2008 platform reference is ‘G0d-given’ and is about growing the middle class and making America fair, not actually about faith. The platform includes an entire plank on the importance of faith based organizations and the tremendous work that they do. Further, the language we use to talk about faith and religion is exactly the same vocabulary as 2008. I would also note that the platform mentions: ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion(s)’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times and, ‘clergy’ 1 time.”

Am I to believe their explanation that taking out any reference to G0d is equal in weight, meaning and respect for the Creator as using the phrases ‘faith’ 11 times; ‘religion(s)’ 9 times; ‘church’ 2 times and, ‘clergy’ 1 time? I guess it does not matter to the Democrat Party that this lack of reference to the L0rd our G0d will likely mean they have left a potentially large group of people feeling rejected. These are in addition to the others they have left when they slid away from being the party that stood for keeping Government out of our personal lives into the party of Big Government which dictates everything you do and don’t right down to what you eat, the size of the portions and so much more. The Democrat Party once ran a candidate for President of the United States who campaigned and followed through on a platform calling for lower taxes and a rebuilding of our military by increasing its numbers, abilities and modernizing it from top to bottom. This was the same man who declared, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…” My how things have changed. Now we have a President who made the number-one task for NASA to be, according to Administrator Bolden who announced NASA’s mission as threefold in July 2010: (1) “re-inspire children”; (2) “expand our international relationships”; and “foremost” (3) “reach out to the Muslim world.” And to make sure that NASA does not return to any of its past glories, this same President has cancelled the plans for NASA to return to the Moon. As I said earlier, “My how things have changed.”

But why would one of the major political parties of the United States of America take out any reference to G0d from their platform. The Declaration of Independence makes specific references to our Creator as the origin of our rights. This reference to G0d is the foundation upon which the United States was founded. One can only question such an omission, especially when done intentionally as they could have gone back and corrected the lack of reference to G0d had it been an error of omission. Not doing so makes this an intentional act with obvious forethought. The only thing I can see as the reasoning for not having any mention of our Creator or the grace of G0d which has often been credited for American greatness would be a complete and total single-minded tunnel-visioned dedication to a misconception of the idea of a wall of separation between church and state. This would be a misconception of Amendment I which does not state, nor does anywhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, any of the other Amendments to the Constitution or any of the founding documents, that a wall of separation exists between Church and State. The phrase originates in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in reference to their fears of potential for religious persecution as they were a small sect and feared government interference.

Thomas Jefferson’s letter reads and can be verified here.

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

A careful reading of Thomas Jefferson’s phrasing reveals that this wall of separation placed between Church and State, actually religion and Government, is a one way wall. The wall of separation guards the Church and religion from any influences or interferences by Government actions, laws, regulations, limitations and coercions. It says nothing that limits religious influence, persuasion or influence by Churches or religions upon the State. This prevents Government from establishing a preferred religion or an actual State Religion or making laws requiring or forbidding prayer or religious participation. What Amendment I does not limit is any influences by Churches or religions on the State. Should a single Church or an entire religion decide they wished to enter politics and run a candidate technically that would be permissible. Where the limits would kick in would be should a religion actually run candidates in sufficient numbers and actually win an unstoppable majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate as well as the President, they would then quickly run into the limitations of Amendment I. Despite the obvious popularity and near universal support it would take to win such majorities, this religion would still be denied any powers to give their churches or the religion itself any advantages in any way, shape or form. They would be prevented from giving their religious institutions any tax advantages over other religions, granting their church preferences of any kind not also guaranteed for all other religions, and they could not mandate or enact their cannon or other religious laws, customs, preferences, or any form of influence upon the public as all such actions would violate the wall protecting religion from the State. When we refer to the “wall of separation between Church and State” we would be far more accurate to say “wall of protection of the Church from the State”. But even going completely overboard in one’s zeal regarding separation between Church and State, regardless of direction, still leaves one to wonder if completely devoiding the Democrat Party Platform of any and all references to the Creator, G0d, the L0rd, or any reverential tribute to the source of our unalienable Rights. Perhaps the Democrat Party no longer respects either our unalienable Rights or the source thereof.

Addendum:

After receiving far more publicity and criticism than expected or bearable for their omission in mentioning the Creator, our G0d, in their platform, the Democrat Convention rethought this and has decided that to avoid further scorn it would be easier to simply bend to the pressure. It still says a lot about the importance the writers and thinkers behind the original draft of the Democrat Party Platform place on the founding concepts, ideas, ideals, and credit to something greater than ourselves which weighed so heavily from the Founding Fathers up until their 2012 Platform. One has to wonder if their hearts are behind their new wording or if it is simply another attempt to dodge responsibility for their true feelings.

Beyond the Cusp

War on Women or War on Religion?

Depending upon which side one stands politically determines how one answers this question. The progressive liberals are claiming that we are fighting a war on women where religious fanatics wish to impose their morality upon the society and deny women of their right to make determinations about their own bodies. The conservative religious people claim that the government is attempting to force religion to compromise their moral standing and provide health coverage for actions which they believe to be abhorrent sins. Needless to say, these two world views have absolutely no middle ground where both sides make some compromises while retaining a core of their political world view. These are diametrically opposing views which society will need to decide which one will be adopted as the policy of the country. Unfortunately, or possibly fortunately, we will not be holding any direct election on this question to determine what result we will adopt. On the other hand, the coming national elections on November 6, 2012, will allow us to elect Representatives, one third of our Senators, and a President who will together decide this issue for the entire country. There is even the possibility that the Federal Government will drop this hot potato leaving it for the individual States to decide. In many ways, such a result might actually be the preferred manner to decide this issue as the country is very divided with the divisions being strangely regional. It could be postulated that the only way that we can satisfy the majority of Americans would be to find a method of making this decision as locally as is feasible. But, should Obama Care or some similar national health initiative remain a part of our Federal Government, then this question will be forced to be decided nationally making it vitally important in deciding the future path of the United States. So, how should we address this question and what should be our compass which points our way forward?

Since we have raised this question at the Federal level of our governance, it will likely fall upon the Federal Government to find the solution. This makes finding our guidance much easier. Since any decision which is made will absolutely infuriate one side or the other, we are almost guaranteed that the decision will be challenged and end up in the Federal Courts. Once it falls into the realm of the Federal court System, the decision turns on the Constitution and the Amendments. In this case, the applicable section is the First Amendment which covers anything relating to interactions between the Federal Government and religious institutions. So, let us first take a peek at the wording of the First Amendment and find the relevant sections. The First Amendment reads,

<I><B>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” </B></I>

That makes the applicable language as, <I><B>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”</B></I> This is a fine example of one of the greatest properties of the Constitution for the United States, it is written in plain language without resorting to Latin phrases or some forms or variations of legalese and states what it means in language everybody can pretty much understand. Where one can attain a College Degree in constitutional Law, such is not required to understand the main ideas and the intent of the writers who authored each section. So, let’s look at this and see what we can discern.

There are those who take the phrases pertaining to religion in the First Amendment and boil it down to the phrase “Separation of Church and State”. By simplifying everything to this phrase implies that the constitution forbids any interaction in either direction. The Government is denied the ability to establish any Church as the preferred or sole religion for all citizens as was often the case in Europe at the time of the founding of the United States. This idea also makes it plain that the government also is forbidden from outlawing any recognized religion, though it does leave blank how one determines exactly what rules define what differentiates religions from cults. Where we agree on what are the major religions, it has not always been that easy when it came to newer or the less recognized religions, which should be given validation and which were merely some form of cultic practice. There was a time in our history where it was debated whether or not Mormonism was an actual religion or merely a cult. If we were to examine intently every claim ever made for inclusion under the Government definitions for religious stature we would find that the actual definition is actually somewhat liquid. It would also show that as time passed we diluted the definition and requirements to be considered and be classified as a religion. This is not needed for this discussion but it does make for interesting postulations as to where we might be heading in defining religions in our future.

The simplification of the religion sections of the First Amendment to the phrase, “Separation of Church and State” also implies that religious institutions are forbidden from making inroads or even attempting to influence governance. The level of denial of religious influence on governance spans the scale from a complete and total denial of influence to a milder idea that religious institutions and figures may not use their religion or pulpit to force, coerce or influence the way people will vote. Simply stated, the agents of religion are forbidden from supporting candidates or political parties using the powers and influence of the church, the religion. So, we see that many people today who take this definition which was never used in any court documents or decision but actually stems from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 where Jefferson actually wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” Jefferson’s actual words have a more traditional and parallel meaning to the actual words of the First Amendment than what they have been used to imply in modernity. So, if the First Amendment does not actually forbid any interactions between the Federal Government or other governmental levels and Religious Institutions, then what does it mean?

Let’s take one last look at the actual phrases from the First Amendment. They state,<I><B> “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” </B></I>The active object in this phrase is the Congress. The passive or recipient object is Religion. So, it directs the Congress to refrain from establishing a State Religion while also forbidding the Congress from taking any steps which might curtail, limit, impinge, or in any way adversely influence anybody from performing actions or observances of a religious nature. That is the entirety and limit of the statements about the relations between our Federal Government and our Religious Institutions. The Constitution places no restraints upon religion or religious institutions from influencing politics or governance. Should a church or religious group determine that all members of their institution or religion be required to vote in a certain way, they are allowed to attempt to have that influence. The restrictions we currently place on our religious leaders that in order to retain their tax exemption they must refrain from making political endorsements or sermonizing as there is a wall of separation between Church and State is erroneous. No such restraint exists within the constitution and if it does exist within the tax codes, then it is unconstitutional and could and likely should be challenged. There is no insistence that we remove religion from the public sphere or that religion must avoid any and all actions within the political sphere. The Founding Fathers fully intended, as is proven in the vast majority of their writings, that G0d, Churches, and Religious Institutions should have as great an influence upon politics and the government as they possibly can. They actually feared that a day would come where we would not allow religion to have a paramount influence on our society or our governance as in such a place morality would suffer and the society would be without the guarantees of common decency which was a product of religious observance. Looking at much we see in our modern world we are witnessing the truth of their apprehensions. Perhaps those men in the silly powdered wigs were not the clowns so many wish to make them out to be. Perhaps, their insistence that G0d and religion should hold a prominent place in both our lives and in the public square might not have been as quaint and outdated as many would have us believe.

Beyond the Cusp

President Obama Loaded the Next Campaign Issue

The first contentious issue of the Presidential campaign mutated from the demand that the religiously aligned workplaces such as hospitals, food kitchens, shelters, educational institutions and others would be required to provide insurance coverage for birth control, abortive drugs such as the so-called morning after pill and other medical coverage despite religious objections. This was guaranteed to be resisted and cause loud objections from those on the religious right and they did not disappoint. After the loud protestations were given ample opportunity to be voiced and be identified with those religious conservatives who it is often claimed wish to take society back centuries negating many actions they find objectionable. Then the plan was executed and the objections against this became the war on women. The success of this ploy has been debated with some believing the left overplayed their hand and may have ended up foisted on their own petard while others rejected the arguments from the religious right as narrow minded and anti-women. Whichever side you find yourself siding with, this little skirmish has run its course and played out to give each side gains and losses that the pundits and pollsters are still measuring.

So, now it is time for a new skirmish to be forced into the campaigns. And right on schedule, President Obama came out today and set up the subject and now we wait for the response against the Presidents latest opinion and the next war will be declared. President Obama talked about his evolving thoughts on Gay marriage, another hot button issue with the religious right. I’m beginning to see a trend here. Apparently our President has attained the highest level of awareness on the subject of same sex marriages. He has finally accommodated himself with the right of those who are committed to another person to be married whether they are a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and another woman. How universally accepting of President Obama. He also pointed out that this was a subject that, though he supports not just the right to civil unions but actual marriages, he is not in a position to do anything to allow such. President rightfully wrapped himself in the constitution and stated this was an issue for each State to decide. Imagine that, President Obama enforcing the Tenth Amendment and defending the Constitutional rights of the States. Now we get to wait and see if and who will take the bait. Should there be those who believe that the President has negated a Federal Law, the Protection of Marriage Act, with his statement must have missed when Attorney General Eric Holder announced a couple of years ago that the Justice Department was not going to defend this particular law as he and the President did not approve of it. Well, now we might just get to listen to the two sides each screaming as loud as the other for the next few weeks, again.

I really hope that the entire Presidential campaign is not going to simply be an endless series of each side poking the sensitive spots on the other and then ranting about the fact that the other side reacted. Surely we can have a campaign for the highest office in the land that is just a little bit more mature than a grade school game of gotcha or tag, you’re it and no tag backs. We have an economy that has shown almost no signs of life, Iran is rapidly approaching nuclear weapons capability, the Palestinian-Israeli talks are moribund, job growth is so lethargic that they are close to straight-lining, the streets are likely to become battlegrounds for protesters this summer and fall, and the country is more divided than it has been any time since the end of the sixties. Perhaps I am expecting too much than to have the race for President of the United States to be on a level higher than that of running for High School President. I’m waiting for somebody to offer no homework on weekends. Hey, it worked in High School.

Beyond the Cusp