The 2012 Democratic National Platform doesn't mention "God" at all. This is a change from the 2008 mention of people's "God-given potential", and a contrast from the ten mentions in the 2012 Republican platform.
David Silverman, president of American Atheists, said the exclusion of "God" in the Democrats' document was a step forward in including non-religious Americans in the official party stance.
"We are obviously happy that the Democrats are taking these positive steps," Silverman wrote. "We are looking for the inclusion of everyone and we are hopeful that that inclusion will continue to the point that we can depend on Mr. Obama to repeal the faith based initiatives and reinforce the separation of church and state."
"It comes as a pleasant surprise," he added. "It is something that we have been pushing for and is certainly a positive step. But it is only one step and I would like to see action more than words."
'God' also absent from Democrats' platform, CNN (emphasis added)
Despite the section on "faith", which includes...
... We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution ....
...cue right-wing Christianist outrage in 3, 2, 1, ...
it seems we have spoken too soon. so much for the speration of church an state. It might have been a good thing, but they recanted.
I live in Southern California, but I'm effing glad that my town is independent from that great sprawl named for an imaginary woman by the Catholic missionaries. I tried to write a comment on the LA Times web page, and got booted out, and I didn't even say the F-word once!
"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches; we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good."
"I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor."
It seems our current policy makers could do well with a history lesson.
To add or remove something from the official platform requires a 2/3 majority vote. Watch this video, and tell me if there's any difference at all between the ayes and nays:
Disgraceful. And they're supposed to be for democracy....
That's how I heard it too sk8eycat, I could hear no 2/3 difference there... but honestly I had no hope that the omission would stand once the Republicans started whining about it... I swear it's a party of children, I mean who the hell lies about their marathon times and expects people won't fact check it? To me and maybe I'm just jaded, but one side is so ' Mr. Evil cartoon' and the other side is so 'goody good guy cartoon' that the whole thing looks like a set-up for a Marvel comic rather than an actual election battle...
There has always been mud-slinging to some extent in American politics; I've seen a few newspaper cartoons from the 1800s...some depicting Robert G. Ingersoll as a drunk, or the son of "Satan," or similar insults against other anti-slavery and pro-women's rights activists. But you're right; things are getting infantile...instead of digging up real faults, or even making up lies about issues that matter, they just drop stink-bombs, holler, "Neener-neener-neener," and run away.
This whole thing yesterday...the voice vote on whether or not to put a "god" into the platform was appalling. Villaraigosa (eff him!) didn't fool anybody; the vote was even, THREE times, it need to have a 2/3 majority to pass, and he gave it to the "ayes" just because Obama wanted it that way.
I voted for Obama in 2008 even though I was uncomfortable with his level of xianity, because Hillary C. is even worse. She's had ties with the subversive fundie Family Fellowship's "prayer partners" cells since the Monica Lewinsky debacle, and I just don't trust her critical thinking ability on anything. (In October 2002 she gave an impassioned speech in the Senate in favor of the illegal invasion of Iraq! She believed all that WMD bull! I wouldn't vote for her for any office, not even street sweeper.)
Loren Miller is right, no professional politician can make a move without a side order of god swill. I don'tknow if they sincerely believe their imaginary friend gives a rat's a## about us, or if they are just trying to appease the vicious funamentalist animals sitting at their feet.
If our house were just 5 miles west of where it really is, it would be inside the City of Los Angeles (the full name is "The City of Our Lady, Queen of the Angels"...it was named when California "belonged" to Spain, and was infested with missionaries trying to enslave/convert the people who originally lived here). Anyroad, IF I lived in LA, I would now be circulating a petition to recall Villaraigosa. He's useless.
The only comforting thought is that convention party platforms, like campaign promises, are rarely fulfilled.
I saw that farce yesterday, and I've been fuming ever since. They needed a 2/3 majority to adopt that "god" amendment, Villagairosa called for a voice vote three times and it never even came near 2/3. In fact the "No" votes sounded louder to me the last time. (Somebody should have made a motion for a recount... a show of hands, or an actual written vote.)
It is disgusting. They can lie to us about anything and everything and there's no accountability whatsoever, hell that even applies to the amount of calories in our ice cream! I just watched a piece on an ice cream that touts itself as having 150 calories per pint, crap is LOADED with calories, it's a flat-out lie, fraud, but do they get fined? Is there any regulation? Obviously not... Truth in media, whatever happened to that? What can 'we' do about it when they can lie to us about anything, even those things that affect our health and well being? The only thing I can think of to do is leave the country... I see no solution so long as they (the United Corporate States) hold all the cards.