Democrats drop 'GOD' and 'Jerusalem' from Party Platform

The Huffington Post article, linked to in the OP, includes this quote:

Democrats have dropped from their platform recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a move that has opened President Barack Obama to criticism from Republican rival Mitt Romney.

Four years ago Democrats stated unequivocally that "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel."

Israelis and Palestinians both claim the city as their capital.

Democratic spokeswoman Melanie Roussell defended the change. She says the Obama administration is taking the same Jerusalem policy as every Republican and Democratic administration since 1967, while seeking resolution in a two-state peace agreement.

Romney called the change a "shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel's capital." He accused Obama of distancing the U.S. from its ally Israel.

You see...THIS is an example of why there MUST be separation of church and state...and why the ideas of "GOD" and of "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" are UN-related except for the fact that neither concept has any true political import.

If the US is going to try to make peace in the middle east, by acting as a go-between...which was the original idea, remember?...then it behooves the officials involved in that undertaking to establish and maintain NEUTRALITY without preferring either side over the other. In recent years, it has grown more and more supportive of one side and dismissive of the other.

While religion in Jerusalem is pervasive and affects everything including politics...it is only the political handling of the conflict that we are qualified to be involved in. And so the idea of Jerusalem as capital of Israel then begs the question of who is in control of Jerusalem...who SHOULD be in control of Jerusalem?

And that is a question that only a fool would consider himself wise enough to answer.

Tel Aviv is the international go-to place in Israel and so for now, that seems to be the unofficial secular capital.
With the increased pressure that Netanyahu is applying in our direction, boldly and openly campaigning for us to start their war with Iran before the elections in November...I think it is a rather wise move on behalf of us all that no one wants to be pinned down on that issue...it is not productive to OUR nation's recovery and it is not relevant to OUR election process.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

This applies in reverse, also...and also relates to the issue of Jerusalem, et al.

Originally posted by queenannie38
The Huffington Post article, linked to in the OP, includes this quote:

Democrats have dropped from their platform recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a move that has opened President Barack Obama to criticism from Republican rival Mitt Romney.

Four years ago Democrats stated unequivocally that "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel."

Israelis and Palestinians both claim the city as their capital.

Democratic spokeswoman Melanie Roussell defended the change. She says the Obama administration is taking the same Jerusalem policy as every Republican and Democratic administration since 1967, while seeking resolution in a two-state peace agreement.

Romney called the change a "shameful refusal to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel's capital." He accused Obama of distancing the U.S. from its ally Israel.

You see...THIS is an example of why there MUST be separation of church and state...and why the ideas of "GOD" and of "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" are UN-related except for the fact that neither concept has any true political import.

If the US is going to try to make peace in the middle east, by acting as a go-between...which was the original idea, remember?...then it behooves the officials involved in that undertaking to establish and maintain NEUTRALITY without preferring either side over the other. In recent years, it has grown more and more supportive of one side and dismissive of the other.

While religion in Jerusalem is pervasive and affects everything including politics...it is only the political handling of the conflict that we are qualified to be involved in. And so the idea of Jerusalem as capital of Israel then begs the question of who is in control of Jerusalem...who SHOULD be in control of Jerusalem?

And that is a question that only a fool would consider himself wise enough to answer.

Tel Aviv is the international go-to place in Israel and so for now, that seems to be the unofficial secular capital.
With the increased pressure that Netanyahu is applying in our direction, boldly and openly campaigning for us to start their war with Iran before the elections in November...I think it is a rather wise move on behalf of us all that no one wants to be pinned down on that issue...it is not productive to OUR nation's recovery and it is not relevant to OUR election process.

Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

This applies in reverse, also...and also relates to the issue of Jerusalem, et al.

That will NOT happen.

We have In God We Trust on our money.

They say the pledge of allegiance in congress.

------------
My advice to you is to move to Canada so you won't be so miserable here in the USA.

Poor trigger discipline I guess....hair trigger enter key?

Originally posted by queenannie38
You [quote shortened by me to focus on relevant issue] see why the idea of "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is [are] UN-related except for the fact that neither concept has any true political import.

You are a smart cookie – I know this. You can be so naïve as to think that telling Israel we no longer recognize their right to claim Jerusalem as their capital has no true political impact.

The god part means less and less to more Americans every day so on that I will agree with you.

However, since the Israelis and Palestinians both claim the city as their capital. It has great political impact.

Originally posted by queenannie38
If the US is going to try to make peace in the middle east, by acting as a go-between...which was the original idea, remember?...then it behooves the officials involved in that undertaking to establish and maintain NEUTRALITY without preferring either side over the other. In recent years, it has grown more and more supportive of one side and dismissive of the other.

Being neutral is a dead end policy.

If you try to be everything to everyone, you won’t be anything to anyone.

In this case we stand to gain a lot more by keeping Israel happy than we risk by making Palestine angry.

Pick a side – often there is no ideal answer in international politics.

I don`t see the problem here.

They believe what they believe and adding or removing the word god isn`t going to change anything that they believe,just like adding or removing the word seaweed will have no affect on what they believe.

Originally posted by Tardacus
I don`t see the problem here.

They believe what they believe and adding or removing the word god isn`t going to change anything that they believe,just like adding or removing the word seaweed will have no affect on what they believe.

Just stand back and observe the - ripple effects of their actions -.

Removing GOD from the DNC platform was a very bad idea.

It's my guess that Obama was the one who said " Purge God from the platform."

Maybe nobody will notice.

Nice try. We are watching.

Originally posted by jam321
I've seen a lot of them having trouble answering the question. At first i thought it was a mistake, but now I feel it was on purpose. I believe in respecting other people's God and even the rights of those who don't believe in God, but this move was a little over the top.

They had a three minute prayer right after FLOTUS spoke.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
-Someone famous.

IMO - - religion and religious based control issues have become a major distraction in politics.

If the Dems have chosen to stay away from that distraction. I'm all for it.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

That will NOT happen.

We have In God We Trust on our money.

They say the pledge of allegiance in congress.

------------
My advice to you is to move to Canada so you won't be so miserable here in the USA.

Who said I was miserable here in the USA?
Who said I was miserable at all?

Good grief.


Ever heard of the Establishment Clause?

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

That will NOT happen.

We have In God We Trust on our money.

They say the pledge of allegiance in congress.

------------
My advice to you is to move to Canada so you won't be so miserable here in the USA.

Who said I was miserable here in the USA?
Who said I was miserable at all?

Good grief.

Ever heard of the Establishment Clause?

You are going to have problems until you put God and Jerusalem back in the platform.

Who gave the order? - Purge God altogether -

Originally posted by beezzer
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
-Someone famous.

Picking a side when both sides have faults, means you are not strong enough to pick a third side. Not everything is black or white, there are infinite shades of gray.

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by queenannie38
You [quote shortened by me to focus on relevant issue] see why the idea of "Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" is [are] UN-related except for the fact that neither concept has any true political import.

You are a smart cookie – I know this. You can be so naïve as to think that telling Israel we no longer recognize their right to claim Jerusalem as their capital has no true political impact.

Please notice...I did not say 'impact.'
I said 'import.'

However, since the Israelis and Palestinians both claim the city as their capital. It has great political impact.

Indeed...but it is a dispute based upon religious competition between Judaism and Islam...fundamentally being rooted in who has the right to claim area known as the Temple Mount. If the Temple Mount were not in Jerusalem, then there would be no fight over Jerusalem.

The religious aspect of the conflict cannot be resolved by politics...and we have no business meddling in religions domestically OR abroad.

Our goal is peace for the PEOPLE who have been affected by the things that have happened since 1948...and there are no lines of any kind...religious, cultural, or ethnicity...separating those who have suffered the consequences except those artificially imposed by the various parties involved.

Being neutral is a dead end policy.

Right now, taking sides is potentially deadly for EVERYONE.

If you try to be everything to everyone, you won’t be anything to anyone.

Then maybe we need to butt out altogether.
An option I would absolutely be in favor of, if asked.

In this case we stand to gain a lot more by keeping Israel happy than we risk by making Palestine angry.

Ah!
A hint at the root of the problem on the administrative level!
Being concerned about what WE can GAIN by keeping someone happy...or what WE might lose if WE make someone angry...

If that is why we are involved...then there is no question that we need to remove ourselves completely and right away from all involvement.

If we aren't trying to help make life more bearable for all the people who live in that area..regardless of what their religion or affiliation or proclaimed nationality is...then we are not part of the solution at all...but are adding much to the problem.

Pick a side – often there is no ideal answer in international politics.

I don't have to pick a side. Neither does the US Government.
Unless the side I pick is the side of the United States...in which case...once again...my vote is for minding our own business....at least until we prove we can actually mind it in a positive fashion.

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by beezzer
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
-Someone famous.

Picking a side when both sides have faults, means you are not strong enough to pick a third side. Not everything is black or white, there are infinite shades of gray.

Sstanding up for what you believe doesn't have a colour. It takes principle and character.

Originally posted by Annee
IMO - - religion and religious based control issues have become a major distraction in politics.

If the Dems have chosen to stay away from that distraction. I'm all for it.

exactly, thats kind of the point i was trying to make in my last post.
even if religous folks can manage to shame the dem`s into putting the word god back in, will that change anything that the dem`s believe? of course it won`t, so whats the point of distracting from the real issues that affect this country by crying about the removal of the word god?

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by beezzer
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
-Someone famous.

Picking a side when both sides have faults, means you are not strong enough to pick a third side. Not everything is black or white, there are infinite shades of gray.

Sstanding up for what you believe doesn't have a colour. It takes principle and character.

Your original quote basically says stand up for something, and in the context of this thread, the DEMs dropping God and Jerusalem from their platform, your quote insinuated the Obama and party need to pick a side, Israel or Palestine. At least that how I read it, in the order your original quote posted.

My quote was basically saying that when those two sides are both at fault, the smart person does not just pick a side anyway, but takes a third stance.

Lots of principles and character in taking the less traveled road.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Picking a side when both sides have faults, means you are not strong enough to pick a third side. Not everything is black or white, there are infinite shades of gray.

I am certainly glad there were men around who were not afraid to pick a side in 1939-1945. Making an Ally of the USSR was not Ideal but certainly necessary. We could have sat the fence and claimed that the NAZI's were just taking back land that belonged to them.... Actually, we did that when they invaded the Sudetenland. We were taking the role of appeasement in hopes that would be enough and they'd go away. We all see how that worked out.

Same will happen with the Palestinians. Ok, so Jerusalem is not the recognized capitol of Israel - simple statement. We have just given them the go ahead to fight a war for it.

Will they stop there or will the New Caliphate be the end game... Will the rest of the Arab world jump in to help them…Who knows. A simple DNC sentence change could be the catalyst for WWIII.

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by vor78
I don't think anyone is 'mocking' them.

I was referring to the OP. And yes he was.

It's pretty clear that the reporter was just asking a simple question.
The reason he kept harping on it was because the democrat refused to answer
and then displayed some really fake indignation. The reporter wasn't mocking anyone.
Not even close. He was very polite and was obviously chosing his words carefully.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012

Originally posted by Tardacus
I don`t see the problem here.

They believe what they believe and adding or removing the word god isn`t going to change anything that they believe,just like adding or removing the word seaweed will have no affect on what they believe.

Just stand back and observe the - ripple effects of their actions -.

Removing GOD from the DNC platform was a very bad idea.

It's my guess that Obama was the one who said " Purge God from the platform."

Maybe nobody will notice.

Nice try. We are watching.

you're watching?? so what?? do you want to go back to the dark ages?...arrest them? boil them in oil? are you part of the christian taliban? maybe you want all of us to believe in a mythical god. welcome to ameristan

Originally posted by Tardacus
I don`t see the problem here.

The problem is the fake indignation and the refusal to answer a question about party platform. It's very simple. The question was asked very nicely. But the democrat pretended to be insulted and tried to go off topic. That is the problem. Just be honest and answer the question .. that's all people wanted.

Originally posted by Annee
If the Dems have chosen to stay away from that distraction. I'm all for it.

If they want to take God out of a platform that God has been in for decades ... that's fine. That's their choice and they have the freedom to do so. The problem is when they are trying to sidestep questions about their platform .. like they are trying to steal a cookie but then get mad at the person who catches them. It's really silly.