09.13.2012
Apr. 30, 2020 Video link update
Note: Key Video Vote @1:52 (Source: CSPAN Direct Link.)
Democrats Debate God?
original article written by Net Advisor™
CHARLOTTE, North Carolina. In 2008, God was mentioned one time in the Democrat platform for the Obama Campaign. At the 2012 Convention, the Democrat Party completely removed the reference to God from their platform (Source: Washington Post).
Could this be that the Obama Administration wanted to appease certain groups in the Middle-East (and Anti-God) people at home as he has? Has the Democrat Party become so left that God does not exist in their ideology? After high public controversy, the DNC delegation voted whether or not they should put the word God back into their party’s platform.
A large number of Democrats booed loudly to keep the idea or word God from their ideological platform.
“Democratic convention delegates booed after the party voted to reinstate to its platform mentions of God and a declaration that Jerusalem was is the capital of Israel in their platform.”
— Source: DailyMail.UK, 09-05-2012
The vote came under direction of DNC Chairman and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa who had his own controversies. If you watch the video (above), it sounds like a very close vote, a tie at best, but definitely not a decisive vote. Villaraigosa laughed during the vote, and put the motion back to the delegates to a vote a second time.
The vote still came back indecisive at best (surprised?). Villaraigosa then unilaterally made the determination that 2/3rds of the delegates voted in favor of the motion, and therefore the motion was passed. At the 2012 Republican Convention (RNC), God was mentioned 12 times (Source: CNS News).
Attacks on Symbolism
Sacramento, California resident Michael Newdow spent five years challenging to remove “one nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
Newdow is an atheist, and found the word “God” offensive. Since he was offended by it, the 100+ million other people who are not offended by God in the USA have to change their ways? This is the attack on morality in our society from the Left. In 2004 and due to a technical ruling, Newdow did not have legal custody over his daughter; therefore, he could speak for her, and thus could not bring the lawsuit before any Court.
Newdow, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (an Atheist group) and in similar, an unspecified New Hampshire family continued the quest with Newdow in new lawsuits to remove “one nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.
The 9th Circuit Court (in San Francisco, California) and known as a high liberal Court, eventually agreed with Newdow that the ‘phrase was religiously motivated’ (Source: SF Gate).
A New Hampshire law “requiring classes to recite the pledge daily, while allowing objectors to remain silent, is “not the advancement of religion, but the advancement of patriotism,” the court said in a 3-0 ruling” (Source: SF Gate).
Permanent Protection for the Pledge of Allegiance Bill Dies in the Senate
In 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2389, which would have “stripped the Supreme Court and most federal courts of the power to consider any legal challenges to government requiring or promoting of the Pledge of Allegiance” (Source: Wikipedia). The Senate did not take up the Bill, therefore the proposed law died in the Senate.
The concern here was not about protection of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. It had more to do whether Congress had the authority to strip the U.S. Supreme Court from acting as an independent Judiciary for cases that may come before the High Court.
Separately, a report in Psychology Today found “64 percent of young American adults say they believe in God (and only 25 percent lack a religious affiliation), their attitudes to religion evince unmistakable signs of secularism.”
Social Demoralization?
We have seen countless “leaders” over many years involved in sex scandals while they are married and in public office. Just some of the high profile scandals in recent memory include:
Bill Clinton (D-AR) sex scandal with intern Monica Lewinsky in the White House Oral Office – um wait, that’s Oval Office. There was former presidential candidate John Edwards (D-NC) sex scandal while his wife was dying of cancer. We also had former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer (D-NY) sex scandal and Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) social-network sex scandal, and following in Clinton’s footsteps so-to-speak, Vice President Al Gore (D-TN) had an alleged affair and subsequent divorce to name a few high profile scandals off the top of my head.
Just to be fair there were some Republican sex scandals too. For example, there was Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) bathroom sex scandal, and former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) sex scandal where he fathered a child with his housekeeper during marriage to Maria Shriver. Some of these people allegedly paid big money to their counter-parties. Scandals and government almost seem synonymous.
As high-profile leaders, what kind of messages does this send to young people?
We see plenty of sex in advertising, tv and movies, and all of this affects young people’s behavior. A recent study by Harvard University suggests a link between the brain responds to the same stimulation of Social Networks as it does to candy and sex.
Schools, Drugs & Policy Matters
President Barack & Michelle Obama sent their two daughters to a $70,000 per year private school in Washington DC. There was an apparent newspaper report that said “71% of students” at that school admitted to attending parties where “drugs and alcohol were available.” The school is also fighting a $10 million lawsuit over an alleged affair between the staff psychologist and a student’s parent (Source: Daily Mail.UK).
The President has said that he is not in favor of legalization of drugs such as marijuana, but he said that he is open to the debate and would address the issue in his “second term.” That should send a red flag of his true position. If he was 100% against the idea, he would say so, and there would be no debate. By opening up it up for discussion and addressing it after a major re-election bid, the President fails to remove the current controversy of possible legalization.
If the President were concerned about drugs in school, legalization would only make them more available to children and teens. Perhaps Mr. President might want to send his kids to a Christian school, but that of course might mean one would have to recognize God.
Credits: Video/ images may be copyright by their respective owners.
Original content copyright © 2012, 2020 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More….
