Democratic Party Platform 2012-provisions on faith

[No Elephants]

President Obama's administration has offered men who want to be good fathers extra support. We have bolstered community and faith-based groups focused on fatherhood, partnered with businesses to offer opportunities for fathers to spend time with their kids at the bowling alley or ballpark, and worked to help deployed dads connect with their children. We all have a stake in forging stronger bonds between fathers and their children.

<snip>

Faith. Faith has always been a central part of the American story, and it has been a driving force of progress and justice throughout our history. We know that our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires. Faith- based organizations will always be critical allies in meeting the challenges that face our nation and our world—from domestic and global poverty, to climate change and human trafficking. People of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and the world, and we believe in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible. We believe in constitutionally sound, evidence-based partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations to serve those in need and advance our shared interests. There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.

<snip>

Elsewhere in the region, President Obama is committed to maintaining robust security cooperation with Gulf Cooperation Council states and our other partners aimed at deterring aggression, checking Iran's destabilizing activities, ensuring the free flow of commerce essential to the global economy, and building a regional security architecture to counter terrorism, proliferation, ballistic missiles, piracy, and other common threats. Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

No mention of any right to freedom from faith, any right to be an atheist. No mention of the damage done by "faith-based organizations," discrimination by faiothpbased organizations, etc.

Obama has expanded involvement of government with faith based organizations,

Something like $140 million of stimulus funds alone went to faith based organizations.

Like Bush, Obama has allowed faith based organizations recieving federal funds to discriminate in hiring.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-blaze/president-obama-approves-_b_804715.html

I tried briefly to find how much Bush funded FBIs (faith based initiatives) versus how much Obama funded them, but I was not able to do so quickly and ran out of patience fast.

[Enthusiast]

1. It's unconstitutional.......nt

[No Elephants]

2. I wonder if this is what they pushed through after midnight at the convention.

There was some platform plank relating to religion that Obama's people wanted pushed through. A change to the platform at that point required a 2/3 vote, not a simple majority. The voice vote was clearly under a simple majority.


ETA: Oh, no. It was not this amendment.

From wiki:

Platform vote and controversy

The original 2012 party platform caused widespread controversy after it was written with the typical invocations and references to God and God-given rights were omitted, and language affirming the role of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was removed. On Wednesday, September 5, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland introduced an amendment on the floor of the convention to reinsert language invoking God and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa put the amendment to a voice vote requiring a two-thirds majority for passage. After the first vote was indecisive, Villaraigosa called for a second vote, which was again met with an equal volume of "ayes" and "nos". A woman standing to his left said, "You've got to rule, and then you've got to let them do what they're gonna do." Villaraigosa called a third vote with the same result. Villaraigosa then declared the amendment passed, causing an eruption of boos on the floor.<33>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Democratic_National_Convention

The Daily Show showed a video of this and I strongly disagree with wiki's characterization. The first vote was not indecisive at all. They were lucky if they got 30% ayes. The nays were much louder.

That mean that the motion to amend failed decisively. The second time was even worse because the nays were really angry by this time. By the third vote MAYBE it was an equal number of ayes because it was becoming obvious that the amendment was going to get bulldozed through, but I doubt it. I think the vote against was over 50%. Clearly, the advice to Villagraigosa was "eff the voters."

But, it's called the Democratic Party, so it must have been a democratic process, right?

Right?