Enter your email address to subscribe to Irregular Times and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 221 other subscribers

Irregular Times Newsletters

Click here to subscribe to any or all of our six topical e-mail newsletters:
  1. Social Movement Actions,
  2. Credulity and Faith,
  3. Election News,
  4. This Week in Congress,
  5. Tech Dispatch and
  6. our latest Political Stickers and Such

Contact Us

We can be contacted via retorts@irregulartimes.com

Obama Pushes God Belief Into The Democratic Platform

Democrats at their party’s national convention down in Charlotte, North Carolina are making themselves busy this week, talking about Barack Obama’s accomplishments. One of Obama’s recent accomplishments won’t receive applause from supporters of the separation of church and state, though.

The Associated Press is reporting that Obama personally insisted that the Christian deity God be named in the Democratic Party platform. The move places the Democratic Party, once again, in the same company as the Republican Party, promoting the elevation of monotheistic religion in the government.

The inclusion of the the name God in the Democratic Party platform wouldn’t be so concerning if it was an isolated incident. It’s not. Four years ago, Barack Obama insisted on the creation of special parts of the Democratic National Convention where atheists wouldn’t be allowed to go. As President, Barack Obama has expanded George W. Bush’s corrupt White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives, which funnels public money to politically connected churches. Obama has refused to reform the office of government patronage of religion.

Diversity of beliefs about religion is increasing in the United States. More Americans than ever before don’t participate in monotheistic worship and don’t have monotheistic beliefs.

Barack Obama doesn’t want the Democratic Party to work with that diversity. No one’s asking for any non-monotheist religion to be promoted in the Democratic Party platform. All that supporters of separation of church and state want is for the Democratic Party, and the Executive Branch that it runs, to step away from the exclusive promotion of monotheism, and leave the talk of religion where it belongs: Outside the federal government.

7 comments to Obama Pushes God Belief Into The Democratic Platform

  • Tom

    Yep – same as the Rethuglicans. . .

  • t ball

    This is stupid. Adding it now just seems like a weak-willed response to the lame criticism from the GOP. You’ve simultaneously made yourself look politically calculating and given the GOP something to crow about.

    This seems an apt symbol of how the last 4 years have gone. Instead of doing what should be done, Obama lets the crazies dominate the discussion and dictate the policies.

  • Obama Supporter

    Obama’s “religious” actions don’t really bother me all that much. I “gave up” church and religion when I was 14 and haven’t looked back but will admit that repairing all the damage done was not an easy task. It took years to reconcile what I experienced as a “natural” human being and what I was taught. The difference between what was preached and what was practiced was worlds apart.

    Christianity has a lot of wisdom in the personage (real or made up ) of Jesus Christ and the Bible has a lot of garbage. I don’t outright reject religious people; I judge them upon their “works”. For example the Bible says:

    Matt 25:44-46 44 “Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’ 45 “And I will answer, ‘When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing help to me.’ 46 “And they shall go away into eternal punishment; but the righteous into everlasting life.” TLB

    There is no doubt in my mind there is a “world” of difference between the religious practices of President Barrack Obama and the religious practices of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. The differences are in the way they treat the least among us. President Obama wins hand down.

    In a more perfect world religion would not be so “depended” upon but in America we have to make choices and move “forward” to a more perfect nation.

    I am proud to be a part of the 15% of Americans who are not religious and proud that our numbers are growing. There is hope, even if we have to take baby steps. The step from Romney/Ryan to President Obama is a huge leap forward or should I say a step to Romney/Ryan is a huge backwards.

    Not seeing and acting on that choice is a vote to go backwards. A vote for Obama even is a step forward. Not voting or voting for Romney/Ryan is a step backwards.

    • How is Barack Obama a step forward on church/state issues?

      Can you name one thing that Barack Obama has done to improve from George W. Bush on separation of church and state?

      I’ve noted that Barack Obama has actually made the Office of Faith Based Initiatives BIGGER without reforming it.

      That’s a step backwards, “Supporter”, not a step forward.

      Yes, Romney would be a step backwards, but Obama is moving backwards as well. I’m certainly not promoting Mitt Romney for President, but other choices are available.

      Why not choose a candidate who actually matches your values and interests, “Supporter”, rather than simply choosing a candidate who erodes your interests and values relatively slowly?

      Have you actually looked at Jill Stein’s campaign? Jill Stein’s campaign has the common sense simply to avoid the topic of religion, recognizing that it’s not ethical to introduce religion as a qualification for public office. For a fact-based comparison between Stein and Obama on these issues conducted last December, see: http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/12/25/religion-mixed-much-more-into-obama-campaign-than-jill-stein-and-rocky-anderson-campaigns/

      Maybe that’s an analysis we need to replicate here at Irregular Times, incorporating data for 2012. I’ll talk to Peregrin about that.

  • Obama Supporter

    If church/state issues were the ONLY issue, I would still vote for Obama over Romney. Jill Stein will not win, period. I want someone who can win the presidency. I will not throw my vote away. I’ve done that in the past, first in 1968 when I voted for Eldridge Cleaver rather than vote for Humphrey or Nixon. At the time I didn’t think it would make any difference but who knows. Nixon was much worse than I expected. And, LOL, Eldridge turned out to be a religious nut in the end. If I had known that, I would not have cast my “protest” vote for him.

    I voted for John Anderson in 1980 rather than Carter or Reagan. That was a clear mistake on my part, I should have voted for Jimmy Carter even though I didn’t trust him because of his religious faith. So I know where you are coming from. It has always been my view that religion pollutes politics and politics pollutes religion but when it is unavoidable, as it is in America today, then choices have to be made and all things considered.

    Single issue voters who are in a minority are always losers. I would much rather see affordable health care for all rather than vote for Jill. I would much rather see gay rights preserved and expanded than vote for Jill. I would like to see choice on abortion rather than no choice on abortion and voting for Jill does not accomplish that. I would like to make sure the wealthy pay their fair share than vote for someone who can’t win.

    While voting for someone like Jill Stein might ease my conscience on the religion issue, it would greatly burden my conscience on many more issues of greater importance.

  • I see that you’ve answered my question indirectly. You haven’t researched Jill Stein’s campaign.

    Jill Stein is NOT a single issue candidate. She has clearly articulated positions that are much more liberal than Obama on all the issues that you named, and more.

    I think a good definition of throwing away a vote is to vote for a candidate who has taken the country backwards on issues that you care about.

    I won’t throw away my vote on Barack Obama, and not just because of my concerns over separation of church and state but because of Obama’s negative record on environmental issues, constitutional rights, peace, tax favors for the wealthy, and political ethics.

    • Obama Supporter

      I’ll be more direct then. A vote for Jill Stein is a vote that can’t win. By voting for Jill, you could be, in effect, voting for Romney and I can’t imagine that he would move the nation in the direction you favor. A vote for Jill could very well be a vote to further integrate church and state. Romney can’t move or do anything without his church. Your vote could further harm the environment; further erode constitutional rights, peace, tax favors for the wealthy and all the things you are concerned about. In short, a vote for Jill is a vote for Romney/Ryan.

      If you think Obama has taken the country back on the issues you care about, take a chance and vote for Jill. If Romney wins, I can guarantee you that you will regret it because Romney is “backwards” ten times over Obama on the issues you care about.

      Don’t forget the next president will most likely be appointing several Supreme Court Justices. The Court is already stacked against your issues 5-4. Any appointments that increase that advantage will surely not “erode” the issues you care about; they will destroy the issues you care about. This would be particularly true on religious issues because they are not only right wing, they are religious.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>