"Government is something we all belong to... We're all together as a part of our city, or our state, or our nation."
Clearly used in the same sense as, "I belong to a church" or, "we belong to our community", I don't find this language nearly as frightening as your writer does. (Of course, I've drunk the kool-aid, so I cannot be trusted).
As for ditching "god" from the platform - I also think that's a bit overblown. And lazy reporting. The full changes were from the 2008 platform:
We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and
interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the
chance to make the most of their God-given potential.
To the 2012 platform language
We gather to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle
class and the most prosperous nation on Earth – the simple principle
that in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be
rewarded, and each one of us should be able to go as far as our talent
and drive take us.
This wasn't an omission of God, and is hardly a ringing endorsement of marxist atheism. Especially given how many of the speakers at the convention were clearly religious.
Liam, when Tom Paine was writing, civil society was considered a natural good for mankind--& gov't a necessary evil. The latter day liberal's pathetic attempt to hide what FDR said boldly & honestly annoys me. Surely, liberals believe honestly that gov't does good because people are too stupid or too evil to do good for themselves, let alone one another. What you get when you leave people to their own devices is a lack of regulation, to say nothing of corporations.--Without gov't controlling these things, the people would self-destruct.
On the other side, we'd rather see every bureaucrat in every agency created by the New Deal & its misbegotten offspring die a bloody death than concede that the source of the good is the gov't. The Party of Lincoln stands for gov't of the people, by the people, & for the people--but not for expert regulations of every aspect of life. We think America suffers from overregulation in almost every aspect of life, not from underregulation. Your party writes thousands of pages of thinks that cannot possibly meet the criteria of any coherent understanding of the term law--our party would rather destroy most of the regulations in whatever way seems best when the decision can be taken. Then, we would say, the citizens again would own the gov't rather than have it decide how to spend around a quarter of the GDP.
I'd agree that was the intended interpretation of "belong". Its still stupid because (1) they're wrong, (2) the government isn't some social club, and (3) they're clearly completely tone deaf. The real question is whether they intended the double meaning, or whether they were just too dumb to notice it.
As for the omission of God -- truth in advertising, I suppose. There is an underlying hostility there ... but, it is the nature of party platforms that the more vocal extremes will play a bigger part than they should. A couple of token Christian speakers probably aren't going to help the image. On the ground, the intentional removal of "Jerusalem as capital of Israel" from the platform is a bigger problem ... but also not a surprise.
That's the question, whether some group of kooky liberals could possibly ignore their propensity to throw in jail people found not to comply with God knows what regulation--
I'm confused, how do you go from just not mentioning God to "underlying hostility"?
Removal is not the same thing as "not mentioning". They didn't simply omit, they actively took-out any reference. Not too difficult to find an underlying hostility there.
The 2012 Democrats are to have always been for not mentioning God in the party platform. The 2008 Democrats are to have never existed.
Or: The 2012 Democrats will always have been for not mentioning God in the party platform. The 2008 Democrats will have never existed.
There's no easy way of saying it...
So? Is it not possible that they decided that in a nation that does not have a national religion(only a majority religion) that they wanted to be inclusive of every religion rather than support only the majority, there for they removed the reference to one. It is not the same as saying that the majority religion is wrong or evil or cannot be practiced, it is only saying that they recognize more than just that one.
First, they recognize none. Secondly, you might look back to the Founders for ways to acknowledge divinity without specifying points of doctrine. The Declaration mentions God in all three branches of gov't without suggesting it is addressed to Christians but not Jews or those but not Muslims or what have you-
That doesn't prove hostility.
I agree with you on this. I think it is a piece of evidence--Democrats must be understood to think it wrong to talk of God in their party platform--but not enough to convict them of hostility to religion.
So? None of what you said makes the systematic removal of all references to God from the platform less hostile to belief. The platform now apparently adopts atheism as the neutral position on the matter, and opts to strike references to any other belief-system from it. Isn't recognition of atheism as the neutral position the purpose of atheist advocacy anyway? I figured this would be considered a victory in atheist circles. Godlessness in the party platform was the aim. So, own the victory.
I never said "the same as saying that the majority religion is wrong or evil or cannot be practiced". It isn't. Though there are a LOT of people on the left that think the majority position is wrong ... fewer that think it is "evil".
This isn't even about the "majority religion", except to the extent that believers represent the vast majority. I said there is an "underlying hostility" to God/faith ... not just the majority faith. I think nonbelievers were likely disproportionately involved in drafting that platform.