Obama insists on God restored to the DNC platform – Why? #dnc2012

The floor of the Democratic National Convention erupted Wednesday over a sudden move to restore to the platform a reference to “God” and recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital — after heavy criticism from Republicans for initially omitting them.

….

A senior campaign official told Fox News that President Obama personally intervened to change the language in both cases. On the “God” reference, the official said the president’s response was “why did it change in the first place?”

In the section referencing “God,” the change effectively restored language that had been in the 2008 platform. It now says: “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 God-given potential.”

via Convention floor erupts as Dems restore references to God, Jerusalem in platform | Fox News.

I don’t know what to say… The DNC bowed, again, to the RNC…

To insert God in the political platform is to demote God to a human tool. The RNC is a master at this, and I really had hoped the DNC had evolved past this, but alas, they did not.

The Jerusalem thing? Read Jim’s post here.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Post By Joel Watts (9,927 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, working on the use of Deuteronomy in the Fourth Gospel. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

6 thoughts on Obama insists on God restored to the DNC platform – Why? #dnc2012

  1. To be practical, the end-game is to be elected. This move by Obama is rather good, since it shows leadership. Unlike Romney’s “not my platform”, or worse, “I’ve got my own platform, and I’m not telling what it is”. On the issue of Jerusalem, every president, including clueless Bush, kept the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, since they recognize that this issue has to be negotiated by Israel and the Palestinians, not a third party. Except for Romney’s explicit, “Let’s go to war to support Israel”. Not his words, but effectively his implied words. Much like McCain, “What’s wrong with being in Iraq for 100 years?” People seem to overlook the fact that if McCain were elected, we would have had troops in Egypt, Syria, and Iran by now, and still have troops in Iraq, with no end-date for Afganistan. We ARE BETTER OFF now than 4 years ago. Also, people might be interested in a new book, 2012, “The Crisis of Zionism”, by Peter Beinart. Shows that Jews, both American and Israeli, are not a monolithic bloc. Not trying to sell books. Got it from my public library, and currently reading it.

  2. Quite telling that a spokesperson for the President reported this morning that President Obama had not read the platform document before this question arose.

  3. You may be right but my thought is that the politicians are more involved in raising money and hood winking the public than managing their employees. I have copies of both platforms and though I haven’t finished reading either I do intend to do that. I still believe that the majority of voters swallow the propaganda of the various pundits they follow hook, line and sinker. It is sad.

    • I’m thinking of doing a series next week in what I agree and disagree with re: party platforms… The big four… GOP, DNC, Libertarian, and Green

Leave a Reply, Please!