For an action meant to appease, it was met with quite a few negative reactions. As the Democratic Party tried to appeal to a more religious voter base, they also ostracized those who preferred a more separate church and state. Chairman Antonio Villagairosa (pictured above) was met with "boos" as he called for a vote of the delegates (three times) to get the wording of the platform changed.
From just about the moment that the USA was founded, the question of how much religion should be involved in politics has always been prevalent. The aforementioned exchange at the DNC exemplifies this perfectly. Was the change to the platform's phrasing a minor modification meant more to appease than to declare any specific religiously driven goals? Or was it yet another example of politicians caving to pressures from religious voters and letting religion control their policies? Is religious pandering okay if there isn't any intention behind it, or is it just another step down a slippery slope to a country where religion reigns supreme?
8 comments:
(According to the first article, as well as some other sources I checked (NY Times, LA Times, etc), I think this platform modification occurred on Wednesday the 5th.)
For me, I think that adding the language to that particular plank should not be such a big deal. Just like the discussion on Romney's Mormonism, Americans are not all necessarily religious, but religion is still a value to a majority of the country. There was already criticism from the Republicans for not including "God" and for having a wishy washy stance on Israel, so I think that this change could also be considered a response to that criticism. From our class discussion on the nature of religion in politics and the article "God and the Founders," one quote we discussed was "[t]he Founder understood that theocracy was tyranny, but they did not feel they could--or should--try to banish religion from public life altogether" (Meacham). In my opinion, changing the wording does not inherently lead to theocracy, but rather illustrates that there should be a delicate balance between religion asserting its stance and "banishing religion." However, not all people share the same range of the spectrum.
Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to make all parties involved (religious, atheist, Israeli, Palestinian) happy in this heated issue.
You noted that "god" was used to appease some conservative news organization. It's politics. If it can get more votes, it is always worth doing. If the democratic party was really going to let religious voters push them around, Obama would have probably taken back the fact that he said he supports gay marriage. The founding religion of the country, Christianity, has many follower that do not support the idea of gay marriage. So, it is not a slippery slope at all. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Parties platform is already moving away from a country where religion reigns supreme. Actually, even if Republican candidate Mitt Romney is elected the church and state will steadily be growing apart. The country was founded on the basis of Protestantism. However, many Protestants reject Mormons. So, I really feel this slippery slope is not really a possibility.
Yes, the question regarding religion in conjunction with governmental affairs has been prevalent ever since this nation was founded. However, i genuinely believe that the majority of the Founding Fathers distinctly believed that religion should not have a place in government, hence separation of church and state. In this, I believe that the "slippery slope" you mentioned is an exaggeration. If religion really reigned sovereign in America, Obama would never have supported gay marriage. The fact that he does despite all the religious opposition completely debunks the notion that this nation is close to being manipulated by religion.
I definitely agree with Kathryn; this addition should not be a big deal. Of course religion is a present part in today's society, but just because a platform does or does not include the word "God" shouldn't result in doubts about the separation of church and state. Like our reading "People of Paradox" mentioned, our country is filled with people of differing morals and opinions, which complicates the ability for politicians to please everyone. Thus, I think that Obama's and the Democratic Party's decision to change the wording is simply an attempt to gain support from the religious community. Regardless of whether or not it works, it doesn't change the fact that separation of church and state is still present.
While I understand and respect the points made by previous commentators, I feel that keeping religion and politics completely separate (or at least as separate as possible) is the best way to go. The addition of the word "God" will certainly not change the country's government into a theocracy, but I still feel that religion (or lack thereof) should be a very personal aspect of life that lives outside of the campaigns. People should vote for the candidate who offers the best solutions, who is the most truthful, and who can lead the country with the steadiest hand, rather than who is a part of the same group as them.
I absolutely feel that the inclusion of "god" in the party's platform was meant to appease sentiments of religious voters. As separate as most Americans would like to keep church and state, it's an impossible feat because many of us are influenced by various ideologies that are learned from religion. Therefore, the addition of "god" may prove to be very necessary and meaningful for some, and very pointless for others. It's subjective.
Also, I personally don't mind there being this newly added language in the platform. I agree with Kathryn that adding these mentions of religion should not be such an important characteristic people look for in the campaign, and that by virtue of America being such a religious nation, people are bound to run into occasional things they would prefer not to hear or see.
If only religious, non-religious, and even agnostic citizens would just understand that all beliefs are important and equal in the grand scheme of creating a stable and functioning government...things would be so much less complicated. I doubt that this will ever happen though...
I personally believe that the new language should not have been added to the platform just to gain voters. The platform is what the party stands for and if the democratic focus is not God, as it really shouldn't be, to be perfectly frank (separation of church and state), then they should not act like it is. I understand that, in politics, one must strive to get as many votes as possible, but what does it accomplish for our country if we elect someone based on lies. Two of the fundamental principles of our nation are the separation of church and state as well as freedom of religion. Therefore, one, a political parties platform should not be concerned at all with God, and, two, it wouldn't be fair to only appeal to one religion when our country is so diverse. That is discrimination, however unintentional it may be. Please understand that I have no agenda against religion, I simply don't think we should let our respective faiths cloud our political decisions.
Post a Comment