Similar to the contested changes last week on the floor of the RNC, the DNC erupted in a chorus of boos and chaos today as the topics of whether “God” and a pro-Israel stance should be part of the Democratic 2012 platform.

Report from Yahoo News:

Needled by Mitt Romney and other Republicans, Democrats hurriedly rewrote their convention platform Wednesday to add a mention of God and declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel after President Barack Obama intervened to order the changes.

The embarrassing reversal was compounded by chaos and uncertainty on the convention floor, requiring three votes before a ruling that the amendments had been approved. Many in the audience booed the decision.

The episode exposed tensions on Israel within the party, put Democrats on the defensive and created a public relations spectacle as Obama arrived in the convention city to claim his party’s nomination for a second term.

The language in the party platform — a political document — does not affect actual U.S. policy toward Israel. The administration has long said that determining Jerusalem’s status is an issue that should be decided in peace talks by Israelis and Palestinians.

Obama intervened directly to get the language changed both on Jerusalem and to reinstate God in the platform, according to campaign officials who insisted on anonymity to describe behind-the-scenes party negotiations. They said Obama’s reaction to the omission of God from the platform was to wonder why it was removed in the first place.

Here is video of the vote:

Some delegates were angered by the change.

“There was no discussion. We didn’t even see it coming. We were blindsided by it,” said Noor Ul-Hasan, a Muslim delegate from Salt Lake City, who questioned whether the convention had enough of a quorum to even amend the platform.

Also restored from the 2008 platform was language calling for a government that “gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”

For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations alike have said it is up to the Israelis and Palestinians to settle Jerusalem’s final status — a position reiterated earlier Wednesday by the White House. Both sides claim Jerusalem as their capital, and the city’s status has long been among the thorniest issues in Mideast peace talks.

Clearly the question of whether that sounded like two-thirds of the delegates is up for debate. As stated by a commenter in the previous post regarding the RNC chaos, when a vote is that close, a roll call vote should be taken instead.

Obviously President Obama doesn’t want to be known as the Democrat who presided over all references to “God” being removed from the party platform.


  1. I am opposed to the inclusion of God or any other religious content in politics or government. Separation of church and state…remember?

    • Nancy Taylor

      You’re one silly person. Whether you like it or not, people who have Faith in God are part of our culture and the fabric of our nation. It’s something you just have to learn to live with and accept. To simply just spout-out what you’re opposed to – and then cite the separation of church and state – doesn’t really require much thought on your part – and just won’t make it so. What do you want to do? Erase everyone’s Beliefs, Morals and Value Systems from their mind and replace it with Worship of Saintly Politicians at the Altar of the Church of Government? LOL

    • Separation of church and state was stipulated in the Constitution as a guarantee that no church would ever run the government and that the government would never tell citizens how to worship (or not worship). Two hundred years of history have proven that this recently maligned clause was never intended to say that the government was to deny the existence of God

      • Allan:

        True, but we’re not talking about anyone wanting to “deny the existence of God.”

        If a party platform said, “there is no God,” I would object to that, too.

        But in this case, when we’re trying to do something completely unrelated to religion, do we really have to “God” it to death?

        Reminds me of the time Boehner ranted that Obama didn’t have a flag lapel pin on–and Boehner didn’t have one on, either. Priceless.

  2. DT:

    Doesn’t it strike you as intolerant to call the lady names simply for stating her opinion? Didn’t we just go through that with Dr. Kelly?

    • Goethe

      I see that you’re looking for any reason to criticize me – probably because of the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate we had on another blog. So be it.

      Besides, I would contend that the “intolerance” in her opinion is stated quite clearly toward people who CHOOSE to “include” God in their Politics and how they vote. And I thought you were “Pro-Choice”…tsk tsk

      • DT:

        You’re the one who is being overly sensitive.

        The lady said, and I quote:

        “I am opposed to the inclusion of God or any other religious content in politics or government. Separation of church and state…remember?”

        I think she’s a first-time poster, and whether you agree with her or not, it’s inappropriate to say, “you’re one silly person, “spout out,” “doesn’t require much thought and then ranting about “erase everyone’s beliefs.” She briefly, and I thought, respectfully, stated a personal belief.

        Seems to me, the appropriate response might be,

        “Since the party platforms are not technically government documents, they probably wouldn’t technically fit your interpretation of church-state separation.”

        It would, of course, help to add “IMHO.”

        • Goethe

          So noted.

          IMHO – I’ll try to be REAL REAL CAREFUL when expressing MY opinion from now on.

          IMHO – I must thank you and express extreme gratitude for your eloquent critique of MY opinion.

          IMHO – It’s so nice to know – and that we can rest assured – because we have the “Opinion Police” out there – “monitoring” every word – every sentence – every thought, so that we (I mean “I”) don’t stray away from uprightness, civility and compassion.

          IMHO – From now on, I will be sure to add “IMHO” after every quote, post or rant – because it will make it “all better” and please the Opinion Police.

          IMHO – So noted.

          • DT:

            I was being facetious at the end, but I do believe new posters should be given undo respect (we can gut them after they’ve gotten their feet wet).

  3. Nate:

    Use of “chaos” is inappropriate. The word came from a SFGate Blog opinion piece, and is belied by the video embedded above. There’s not even major disruption, as there was last week. Where are the boos? And at least the Dems tried three times before they shoved it down their throats.

    I’m not a big fan of shouting as a form of democracy, but if both silly parties insist on having voice votes, they ought to borrow an applause-o-meter from one of the game shows, and let us watch the arrow move!

    • Video looks chaotic to me. The guy didn’t know what to do when there wasn’t a clear majority in favor. The woman stepping in telling him to do what he has to do? Chaotic..

      By the way, is it just me or does he look the guy on SNL who plays President Obama?

      • Nate:

        Maybe it’s because I used to teach English and journalism, but the meaning of words is important to me. I just watched the video again.

        Chaos means GREAT or UTTER disorder or confusion.

        I see no “disorder.” While the chair delays progress, by taking three calls for vote, the “order” meaning sequence is totally unsettled. And the “order” in the sense of people sitting down and shutting up is only slightly unsettled, as people do STAND, and then sit down. But things moved ahead, and there was no attempt to stop things from moving ahead. Nor any movement for their seats.

        It’s not like the extended booing about the GOP rules, which did cause delay. Or like people walking out of the GOP convention in disgust.

        As for confusion, the chair showed minor confusion, but it’s not like he didn’t know what to do next.

        The problem is that he didn’t DO what he should have. He asked for a 2/3 voice vote, and there’s no way that was a 2/3 vote. In fact, it sounded to me as if the “nays” had it.

        Both conventions made fools of themselves over the only voice vote in either case. Since they are both so scripted and controlled, they didn’t know how to handle even this minor confusion.

        This was “minor confusion,” and certainly, “embarrassment,” but nowhere near what would rate as the word, “chaos.”

          • It’s just a matter of intensity.

            When I think of “chaos,” I think of the Democratic convention in 1968–fights and billy clubs, marching, shouting, pushing, black eyes, Dan Rather getting roughed up, John Chancellor “reporting, somehwere in custody.”

            THAT was “chaos” because there really was a question of whether order could be established.

            There was no major disorder or confusion at either of the current conventions. Just a minor embarrassment, because the leaders of the convention wanted something without approval of the crowd. But since the rules required approval, they made fools of themselves.

            You’d think they’d have foreseen that and installed big speakers to boost the sound of the “aye” votes. . .

            • I think that in today’s carefully scripted environment, where everything is being recorded 24/7, anything off the script is deemed “chaos.” Otherwise I’d tend to agree with you.

            • Nate:

              I see this more akin to Saturday Night Live, when an actor laughs, in spite of himself, and causes a pause in the show. The audience laughs, causing a further delay, but after a few seconds, then they move on.

              It’s unscripted and unexpected, a slight delay, and an embarrassment for the actor, but not at all what I would call “chaos.” Same thing here.

  4. Now then, regarding the issue at hand, it’s another tempest in a teapot. Do you know how many “God” references there were in the 2008 Dem platform? Exactly ONE. So when they updated it, they accidentally deleted that sentence, big whoop.

    The GOP platform does have 12 Gods in it, but ten of them are pure rhetoric, as “God-given.” There was a line saying we should have “Under God” in the Pledge, and a quote from “America the Beautiful.”


    Doesn’t that give a hint about how the Founding Fathers saw the issue?

    • God is referenced in the Constitution. Perhaps you are not familiar with Creator.

      Here’s a little hint about our Founding Fathers…of the 54 who signed the Declaration of Independence 52 were active in their Christian churches. 26 of them attended a Biblical Seminary; not a Torah Seminary, not a Koran Seminary. They were definitely Christian.
      Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics. Reading some of their personal letters shows they were devout Christians.

      • Enginole:

        Could you please point out to me in the Constitution where the words “God” or “Creator” appear?

        An argument is more effective if, you know, it has some basis in truth.

        Oh, by the way, the Constitution DOES mention the word “lord,” but that’s only to give the date: “in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred
        and Eighty seven.”

  5. I’d like to know how a roll call vote actually works there. It seems to me it must be quite a hassle with so many people there. That’s no excuse for avoiding it when it’s necessary but I can understand wanting to avoid it if possible.

    • Bobbie:

      From Kjos Ministries:

      Its main theme focuses on a single prophecy (ignoring all others) as the heart of an ancient mystery and the key to America’s coming judgment.

      It redefines and misuses the Biblical word “vow.”

      The “prophet” blends truth with dreams, mysticism and a false conclusion

  6. Pretty hilarious stuff if you ask me…The result was by all means a TIE and should have been roll-called…but I can see why his Highness Hussein wanted to squash the whole embarrassment…I actually felt for that poor Mayor…He was like a deer in the headlights and way over his pay-grade…

    Didn’t know there were so many anti-Israel and Misotheism folks in the Democratic party…

    The Left coming unhinged…Priceless!

  7. Chaos? Unhinged? Does anyone in the country travel OUTSIDE the country or even our own country’s history to even know what that really means? Neither convention were near chaos or unhinged. It is what happens in a democracy where an incredible amount of different views are all exercised in one place. It may seem chaotic to the children in the room but I assure you that is how this country operates and the freedom of that happening is a beautiful thing. Grow up and stop sensationalizing and complaining about the very thing you and I hold so dear. This is what freedom is. When everyone conforms, that is when you need to be worried.

    • Montanabeefy1:

      Excellent post. I was disgusted with both conventions on this point. In the old days, such issues would have been open to the floor to be DISCUSSED–heatedly. Conventions used to be exercises in democracy, not theatre.

      The GOP was worse, of course, because they removed the last vestige of the appearance of democracy. Up to now, at least the delegates retained the power to change the rules of the next convention. From now on, the GOP Politburo will simply dictate what is good for you, comrade.

  8. Why is the media so biased ? They are so afraid to quote what has been done & said over & over. They are so rate conscious, they sound like a bunch of parrots repeating what was said on one Chanel, new Chanel, same remarks. Are the writers of news broadcasting so afraid of their jobs they can’t write the truth even one tiny line? Seems they are all afraid of free speech! Don’t they know it was set forth by our forefathers? It’s really ok to have free speech, at least for the moment, that could change at any time if HE decides Wash D.C. can get away with it without a fight. Si bottom line, all news media Chanel’s , please try to speak the truth, all of it & try to wake up the sleeping masses before the 12th hour. Remember, stand up for something, or fall for nothing.

    • Carolyn:

      The media are not biased. As you said, they are just lazy. They just say what politicians say, instead of digging for the truth.

      I heard a Washington reporter is starting some kind of blog, because she got sick of just parroting what the politicians said.


      “If you’re doing daily coverage, that is actually sort of colluding with the politicians. . .” and “We’re all in the same positions, scrambling to figure out how the hell to cover these assholes.”

      My kinda reporter.

  9. Flippin’ Mitten strikes again!

    First, he helped create Obamacare. Then he wanted Rom-No-Care. Now he wants Quasi-care: cherry picking Obamacare for what he thinks is popular.

    Like his flipping on abortion (direct quote:) “Abortion should be legal and safe in America,” to his NO-abortion-ever platform, to (paraphrase:) “legal when I choose”–that is, when he thinks it’s popular.

    Why does this matter? Character.

    Opposition to Obamacare has been that it’s meddling in free enterprise. But Willard wants to meddle when the polls tell him he can get away with it.

    Triple Flippin’ Mitten has NO character.

  10. Quadruple Flippin’ Mitten (not as poetic, sorry).

    After Willard says he’s going to cherry pick Obamacare, including the pre-existing conditions clause. . .

    Now–Willard’s “campaign” says pre-existing conditions will ONLY be covered if you already HAVE insurance and “maintain” it.

    Please explain to me how a condition can even BE “pre-existing” if it’s only covered if you already HAVE insurance.

    Willard is flippin’ like a fish loose in a rowboat now!

  11. The words “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” are not contained anywhere in our founding documents including both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: “separation”, “church”, and “state” do not even appear in the first amendment.

    The first amendment reads…
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

    The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to a church (the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut). The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson’s letter from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was written to affirm first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
    “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

    The reason Jefferson choose the expression “separation of church and state” was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist’s own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
    “When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…”

    The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture.

    The people did not want freedom FROM religion, but freedom OF religion.

    So the next time you espouse “separation of church and state” why don’t you do some research of history and learn from in instead of trying to revise it to suit your own political leanings!

    • TeePee:

      The best argument I’ve seen is that the Founding Fathers used a LOT of words to write the Constitution, and put a LOT of time and thought into it, and fought a LOT among themselves about what the country should be about.

      YET–the word “God,” and the word “Creator” do NOT appear EVER in the Constitution OR the Bill of Rights. And the ONLY time the word “Lord” appears is to specify the date: “year of our Lord.”

      It’s clear that the Founders were dedicated to “freedom of religion.” But what that means is, you believe what you want, but leave me the frick alone.

Comments are closed.