Wrong Story

That the DNC initially left out "God" and "Jerusalem" should not have been a story at all seems to be lost in all the back and forth among the partisan windbags. Get Religion's post "Mea Culpa: DNC platform story was a big deal" seems to be as good a summary as any I've seen so far, which isn't saying much.

"So I pooh-poohed the idea that the editing of 'God' and 'Jerusalem' out of the Democratic National Convention platform was a big story. I wasn’t denying that the story of how religion and religious adherents are treated in the party was big — in fact, I stressed that I’d like to see more coverage of that. But I was wrong. It turned out that awkward efforts to tweak the platform — restoring “God” and “Jerusalem” — became one of the biggest news stories of the day."

Why? Why is reference to God necessary in a political platform? Jerusalem I understand somewhat since it is related to a sovereign nations right to choose its own capitol (there is great deal of political baggage that comes with this one). But God? I fail to see the practical purpose. The majority of Americans are believers, but so what. Are they somehow going to forget they believe in God if it isn't rammed into every aspect of public life? It also seems a bit divisive. Setting aside that not everyone believes in God, not everyone views God the same way. Making it an issue inevitably leads to the need to define what is meant and that can only lead to divisions when it comes to such a subjective personal topic.

This brings up an aspect of the story that does not seem to have gotten much attention. The problem amending the platform led to was not directly related to "God" or "Jerusalem." Conservative nut-bags like those at Fox were practically salivating over the chance to claim that democrats were "booing God" despite the fact that they did no such thing. The real cause of derision was the manner in which the amendment was made. Party officials called for a voice vote to pass the amendment. They did not get the approval they apparently assumed they would get. After calling for a voice vote three times the party representative falsely claimed the amendment passed. It was then that the delegates began booing. Had the topic of the vote been anything else I have no doubts that Fox would be cheering on the delegates and crowing about a rift between the members and the leaders.

Basically, the real story was about partisan politics using religion to beat each other up. Yet another reason religion should never be injecting into politics, it degrades both.