Why against the word God????

it certainly is puzzling

I don't understand it, Tessa. Thanks for the comment.

I wonder the same thing William. I don't know how we'll get an answer without someone getting into a political argument though.

I hope there won't be arguments, Phill. You know I don't even go to political posts. You are probably right though.

To acknowledge God Is to acknowledge that you are going to be held accountable for your decisions and actions. What you are dealing with is people with the mentality of a rebellious petulant child.

Thanks for your input, Big Mama.

Big Mama, that's just nonsense. You can be held accountable for decisions and action without anybody in the exchange acknowledging any mythological super-friend in the mix. And I certainly don't have the "mentality of a rebellious, petulant child." Somehow, because I'm a tad bigger than I want to be, you've confused me with the fat lady you see in the mirror.

I see what your saying, William.
I look at it this way, When I have a conviction on an issues, not matter what the topic, I know Not everyone is going to Agree with the way I feel, so that being said, I voice my opinion and then move on. Every one is Entitled to His or Her Opinion, whether we like it or not.
And one must always remember: The person or person's that don't agree with you is not always Right! :)
Look at it this way: It's like running-a-Race.
Someone is going to Win and someone is going to Lose!

I understand what you are saying and agree, RedBird. I just could not understand this happening. There is some point I don't get.

I don't really get it either, so You are not alone!

Thanks.

Because religion should play no part in politics there is more than one religion out there and God (as some people see him) does not always play a part is all of them.

I did not think that the use previously was trying to play politics, Angela. Both parties had been using it. Thank you for a good and very possible reason. Politics might have been the reason for dropping it and then adding it back. Thanks again for the first reasonable explanation given.

When God was boo'd at the convention it said way more then the dropping of the word. It showed the lack of sensible courtesy to the many people present there that do believe in God. It was rude and childish. Those involved showed why so many will not support their agenda. Who would want to be on the side of those who hate God?

I'm not sure if they were booing God or booing that it was put back into the platform. It does not make sense to me.

LOL I find it funny that just because God should not be involved in politics, That its a sign that people hate God, when its usually those would want God in everything that have problems with other religions.

It does not make sense to me, Angela. I am getting some ideas as to why it has happened.

Interesting thoughts on the subject.
I can't understand why either. They must not believe as I(personally) do that God should be put in everything because no matter the politic or president, none is more powerful than God!He knows all and sees all and he even knew that there would be ones who want to put him out of things. So he always have the last word whether we put him in or out.

I love seeing your faith, Otelia. Their actions just have me confused.

First amendment?

I don't know if that was the reason for putting it in or not. Larry. Thanks for the idea.

I have no idea what happened or what their reasoning was. I'm just guessing.

There is nothing in the first amendment or anywhere in the Constitution that say's God is never to be mentioned in Politics. that is why the country is in the mess it is in. Because people mis-quote and lie about what is actually in the Constitution.

I agree about there being nothing in the constitution to keep them from including it, Big Mama. Both parties have had it in their constitution always.

No matter how God is included in the platform, it must go against some religion at some time. Remember that thousands of people have been killed over whether God is One or Three in One. To have a party take a position on any theological issue is to establish in favor of some religion(s) and against others.

That's why they might avoid the subject. Of course, the political parties are not a part of the government so they do not have to obey the Constitution. Free speech and all that.

There is no reason to deny God if you have faith. And when someone intentionally tries to remove God's representation, those with faith will not remain silent. Political correctness or compromise does not apply to my faith.

Vic,

What representation of God is that? I have not seen anything about a representation of God other than your comment. (But then I have only seen this issue on Gather.)

Hi, Larry...First of all, I was not directing my comment to you, so it was not a response to your comment. I am speaking about the adding and removal of the word, God within the Democratic platform, which was done obviously for political reasons. To remove the word is representative of denying God, which can only be done by an individual unless all within the group are in agreement. It is shameful that they chose to play political games with my (our) faith in order to not offend some and to lose their votes.

Vic,

Okay. No problem.

If they were playing political games they were being stupid. All they can do by this is offend people and they way it appears to me they did it was almost guaranteed to make all sides of the issue mad.

It was a political game, and it came back to bite them. They had to return the word, God to the platform, and then with the verbal vote, they showed how many Democrats were against using the word, God in the platform.

Larry and Vic.
I was not here to reply to comments as they were made. I really appreciate the fact that both of you were civilized and nice in your comments. You both expressed your selves well.

Thank you, William. I think both Vic and I prefer civil discourse to flames. I learn from Vic far more than I could learn from being flamed. :-)

Thanks, William...I am like Larry...I am not too fond of the flames...And, thank you, Larry...I agree, my friend...

You have both been great. I was afraid when I posted this it would get so bad I would delete the article. Thanks again to two very nice people.

Contrary to what was written above, there is only one God, one human race and one religion. Call them what you will, the fact remains.

I sure won't argue that, Thomas. I just wondered what the reasons were for omitting and then adding it to the platform.

Thank you William. I'm not sure I understand your meaning, above. What did I omit?

and this is exactly why it was taken out, politicians wanted to reach everyone not just Christians.

OK, now I understand. It is perfectly obvious to me, and to others, that the majority of people, and especially politicians, have no concept of what God is or what religion is. If they did they surely would not be in politics. Our society, as it currently exists, is anti-God and anti-religion.

I did not understand from what you said why they took it out, Thomas.

That could be the reason, Angela. Why do you think they put it back in?

Because the majority of the Black and Hispanic vote would not come their way if they didn't put it back in. It was about votes.

William: They took it out because they do not know what religion is. They think it is something divisive rather than unifying, like churchiness. Church and religion are not the same thing.

That sounds like it could be the right answer for putting it back in, Big Mama.

Thanks, Thomas. I have a hard time believing they took it out because they don't know what religion is. They might not know but it seems there would be more to their reasoning.

The purpose of religion is to unite people, not separate them. It is people's misunderstanding of what religion is that separates them.

I agree with your statement, Thomas. I just have my doubts as to that being their reasoning.

There is so much about politics that I don't understand.. i'm like you William.. I avoid con-fleck as much as possible.

We do feel the same way. I won't argue politics or religion on the net.

Religious fundamentalism would require that. Especially if they want you to think they have God's exclusive approval in their political arena.

A party more inspired by varieties of humanism, and is not fundamentalist at all, wouldn't require that in a secular setting. And those who are religious and Dem in the crowd assume God is along with them anyway and don't use that for their political advertizing.

I think God is *used* by the GOP for politics and I find it disgusting, especially when they include that in with so many big bold lies. It reminds me of when Jesus called the Pharisees, with their big shows of religion, "vipers and snakes".

(And we're not a theocracy anyway, religion can be enough kept in the home and church)

I appreciate your input, Peter.

You could also flip the question and ask if the word "God" is required in secular politics.

And ask if it's disgusting that "God" was used for gotcha partisan politics like this - especially when it's brought up like this all over to try and insinuate something that isn't even true.

(Obama and Biden are both Christians, and always have been)

I'm just trying to find out why God was dropped from the platform,

I don't get it myself. It seems everyone is taking the seperation between church and state thing way too far.

Way too far? But there was no separation kept. It was quickly changed to appease those who need to hear the word "God" in these things.

Thanks for coming by, Tom. It is good hearing from you.

I guess they didn't brought up believeing in God.

Thanks for your input, Larry.

I don't discuss politics except what is exchanged between my husband and I.
My husband would discuss the subject.

I understand completely, LaRue. Thanks for coming by.

William, I think we have a lot of people who are afraid not to be politica lly correct which these days seems to be taking God out of everything. You will never convince me that would be a good thing.

I agree, Sadie. That might be the reason they took it out.

Oh, my. I became a little carried away with my initial response, and when I read it, it did not make sense, not even to me:) Anyway, William unless i have at least a little understanding of the values the person who uses the word "God", lately, I am not sure what God they are referring to. It seems that "God" means different things to different people. Folk are even killing folk in the name of "God"....

I understand what you say, Rosa. I still don't know why they took it out. Maybe I'm not real bright.

I think its like any other mention of GOD. To many want to be politically correct and want the separation ... I for one, cant understand why, hearing the name GOD hurts anyone...I mean even if you were Muslim... Allah, is GOD... The Jewish people (correct me if I am wrong) but they believe in GOD. I had a Jewish roommate once who was fascinated when her boyfriend and myself would discuss religion... One night I said, to her, I am sorry and she said no, go right on, I like hearing you two discuss this... I found out from her that they did believe in the BIble but dont believe in the New Testament as they dont believe that Christ has come yet... But again , they believe in GOD... I think most religions do believe in a GOD... It might not be by the same name but they believe... Unless you are one that doesnt believe in GOD at all, this may be offensive, but it wasnt like saying a prayer... and even if it were no one can force you to pray to a Christian GOD , so what is the beef about his name being put in certain things?
I fear that one day, that if we keep on omitting his name, not giving credit and thanks to him... We may call on him and he just may not answer... We need his blessings, because man cant do it on his own.... only God can make it happen..

Thanks, Vickey. Political correctness could be the answer. I do agree with what you said.

Vickey, I would just like the Jewish God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob which is monotheistic, meaning one God. The word "Allah" refers to more than one God which is polytheistic. Chlristianity is often refers to as Judeo-because the foundation is based on the record handed down by the Jewish people. However, traditional Jews (and everyone who calls themselves Jews are not really Jews, because the true Jews came from the tribe of Judah, based on biblical history) do not see Jesus Christ as being the messiah, they are still looking. Christianity is based on the belief that the messiah has come in the person of Jesus Christ. At least, those are the things I was taught in Seminary. Both Jewish and muslim traditions teach that Jesus Christ was "just a good man".

William, I have no idea why it happened that way. I just took advantage of the opportunity to say what was on my mind.:) Just last week, it was a horrible experience I had concerning forming an opinion without proper information. I believe you left a very insightful comment on my post:THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY SEEM, and I really appreciate it.

I appreciate you thoughts always, Rosa. Thank you.

Rosa j,

Muslims strictly believe in one God and are not polytheistic in the least. Islam replaced polytheism for that culture. The word "Allah" means "the one Supreme Being". And while different Jews see Jesus in all sorts of ways and often "just a good man", Muslims see him as a Major Prophet, they say the same Lord's Prayer because of that, and they believe Jesus was taken alive bodily directly into Heaven at the end of his sacred ministry (to them he was not "just a good man").



That's what I was taught in religion class at the University (and I know Muslims and Jews in real life). Where did you go to seminary?

(Muslims think Christianity is polytheistic for having a trinity)

What I would like to find out is why the word God was left out of the platform. I think you are saying to keep from losing Muslim votes. That could be the reason.

It is a fundamental commitment--according to one significant interpretation of the Constitution--that Church and State be completely separated.

Any inclusion of God into a political platform--if you believe in that interpretation--must therefore be vetted to make sure no political views are being co-mingled, or influenced, by the sense of any religious presence.

However, it is too bad, for secular humanists, if the Democrats want to invoke, for example, the presence of God, or a request for God's blessing--when looking forward into the future, with regard to the destiny of the country.

What's wrong with that?

I'm not sure I understand. You think it might have been left out because it could have been believed to be against the constitution.

Maybe you are asking me a sincere question.

I will assume you are.

I am talking about the issue of Church and State and whether there was any sort of fundamental link between any issue on the platform and the existence of God.

It is well understood by some--not all--that the US Constitution functions as Law without any divine providence, whatsoever, that would affect, in any way, how laws are promulgated.

If there were any policies, in a formal platform by a US political party--that might have been tinged with an inference which might align those policies with the influence of religion--on this basis, God might be deleted from the formal written or spoken platform versions.

Democrats tend to regard the separation of Church and State, to be sacrosanct.

I'm inclined to agree with them.

Some have said it was probably political correctness. That I could understand. I just have my doubts that they thought having it in was against the constitution, but you might be correct. I thank you very much for explaining your opinion in such a nice way.

William,

While of course i can't mass mind read, it seems to me that it was probably a change that was also included in that "vote" which involved some language about Jerusalem being the ultimate "capital" of Israel (Tel Aviv is, of course, but it's a long standing issue in negotiations over the ultimate status of a now "divided" Jerusalem). You see, negotiations on the final status of Jerusalem are ongoing, and that language is more or less a bit of pandering for Jewish people's votes and donations, which both Parties engage in routinely.

The God part was a fairly innocuous inclusion of " . . the chance to make the most of their God-given potential" that I doubt many of those delegates were much bothered by. The "vote" included both changes (actually reinstatements of language that was in the 2008 platform), so it can appear the word 'God" was more of problem than it really was for those "voting".

John's right. The vote appeared to be about both issues, so it's difficult to see what the booing at the end was about. When I heard the votes, it surely did seem that they were even until the last one, when it seemed like there were more yay's than nay's.

One would think that the platform would have been decided long before this. Weird.

Thank you, John. What you say does make a lot of sense. While I side with Israel the point that got me was leaving out and then reinstating the word God. It made no sense to me. Your answer could be the correct one.

It was a big mess up on someones part, Marilyn. John's comment does make much sense to me. Thanks a lot for your comment.

OK, so my joke answer is;

Why against the word God????

It clashes with the "You didn't make that" plank ; )

John: you said, "that language is more or less a bit of pandering for Jewish people's votes "

Wouldn't the first language, to make sure Jerusalem was not the capital of Israel, go against the Jewish votes?

Joy,

As far as I know "the first language" was just a general statement of support for Israel . . standard stuff . .

John,

Ari Fleisher said this, "George W. Bush’s White House press secretary Ari Fleischer made it clear he could not understand the Democrats’ decision to abandon the commitment to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. “Given O’s troubles w Israel and Jewish vote, why on earth did Ds drop Jerusalem as capital from their platform?” he tweeted."

And from the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100008723963
90443819404577633780890400696.html)
Every Democratic platform since 1992 has included language about Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Its initial removal this year follows refusals by the White House and State Department to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the Jewish state's capital. This seems more like a policy change than mere inadvertence.

It could be a policy change. I don't guess we will ever know for sure except there was a goof up.

Hey John Knight! I got the last word...THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

I was listening to the local public radio station today and there was a rather interesting discussion on this. The speaker noted that the change to exclude the word 'god' from the platform was not seriously discussed and rather rushed to a vote. There was a significant number who said they did not agree with the speaker that an adequate number of yes votes (it was a voice-only vote) were given to pass. The Obama administration through several functionaries had tried to contact the committee to ask that this change not be made.

It seems someone saw a way to sneak something through on a document many agree is 'adopted' and, though it is supposed to have meaning, is generally not used.

It is too bad this happened ... and I for one specifically rue the change ... but I would argue against trying to make something of this that it is not.

What I wonder about it the reason it was left out, Debra.

I don't know the answer either, William. I am just glad it was put back in........

It was only put back in because Obama administration realized that they were going to loose the election if they didn't change it. They will still do what they intend to do.

We can make some guesses but I don't know if we will ever know for sure, Donna. Thanks for commenting.

It does look like it was put back in for political reasons (votes), Joy.

I personally would love to hear the word God added in. That way it helps me know who to vote for.

I'm glad to see it in the platform, Sandy. My question is why it was left out. Thanks for commenting.

These last 40 years have been all about being politically correct, unfortunately its gotten blown out of proportion.

That could easily have been the reason for leaving it out, M L M. Thanks for your opinion.

I wish people would just stop being so oversensitive about a word, its the idea behind it that we should be concerned about, I'd be more concerned if someone worshiped the ancient gods of the Maya, they required a sacrifice, I'm not to crazy about that idea.

I just wondered why it was taken out.

It's the world we live in, it's getting worse everyday. Sorry, guess that don't help.

It is always nice hearing what you have to say, Mary. Thanks.

I just don't get it either. It is a shame!

It sure is, Karen. I don't know if we will ever know for sure.

Humankind is fickle ... turning everything around to their own 'rightness' ... making it look good without being 'good' ...

Taking 'God' out is just another sham of deception & word play to keep the masses incited & questioning everything - while they continue behind the scenes to take over their own world control & keep themselves the top dogs.

It is right in front of us - but like the proverbial saying /// Cannot see the forest for the trees ///

Just another perspective William ... probably doesn't answer your initial question ... but was intrigued by your post & comments ... thank you for stirring us up :)

Thanks for the comment, CL. I have received some comments which might help answer the question. I'm so glad that the comments have been mostly respectable and not name calling.

Matthew 10:33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Luke 9:26 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.

IMHO.......America ought to be ashamed of itself!! Bring back the "Glory Days" to America!!!!

I appreciate your comment, Barbara. Good quotes.

Ha, ha, ha William. I am glad that you did not want a political discussion...

I think that is very wise to avoid this topic all together. I don't understand how a simple word would change what is going on. Besides it is one of the most controversial subject one can touch.

For starter, we would have to argue at nausea about how to spell that word. There a are a few million people who would consider a blasphemy, only the way you spelled the word...

Secondly, everyone on the planet, has a totally different idea about whom that word describe. A Muslim, may think differently from a Jew who sure as hack thinks differently that a Christian, let a alone a Buddhist or a Hindu, or a Fundamental Christian or these days a Mormon...

You see William, unfortunately we are only humans, we are not superior beings, and the use of the word would have really started off an undesired confrontation.

We are probably well intended after all, but because we are not civilized enough to respect each others belief, and we feel that we are the righteous one, it is better to avoid a simple word, just to keep peace in troubled times...

You see, in your pictures, you have all sorts of beasts sharing the food, and not fighting over it. They are all hungry and there is plenty for all. So they are wise enough to take turns at the plate, or to share it if there is room.

Could you picture us sharing from the same word?!?!?!?

The Democrats were smarter and I am glad they did not bring it in.

Now, let me ask a question that I am sure that will not turn into a political debate and a lot of answers....

Where is the "Westerner"?

I try to stay away from political and religious arguments, Crin. I just wanted to know why the word was left out. Thank goodness most of the comments have been nice and civilized. I have some ideas now about why it might have been left out.

If I ever get caught up on Gather I'll take the time to work on The Westerner. Thanks a lot for the interest.

I haven't the faintest idea why the word was omitted nor why it was included.

Thanks a lot anyway, Susan.

It's kind of funny because they can leave the name out, but He's omnipresent so deliberately ignoring Him and making a rule that they can't mention his name doesn't make much difference. It's just rebellious behavior. It's sort of like watching ants squirm in the hand of a giant. They're not spiting anyone but themselves so I couldn't care less what they do or why they do it.

I just wondered why.

hahaha

I know; that's what you said. That's fine. Wonder away.

:)