Comments about ‘Democrats in Charlotte flummoxed on God, Jerusalem’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Sept. 6 2012 9:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
middle class
Cedar City, 00

We often forget that there are many religious beliefs and principles among Americans. Some of us have few friends from a religion other than our own. Exactly what does "God" mean to them?

It is very common for Americans to not respect other's beliefs. Where a particular religion is dominant, such as here in Utah, there is less tolerance. Yes, our leaders council us to be loving and tolerant, but in meetings, hallways and private conversations, we are intolerant.

So...the Democrats apparently want to follow the principle of Separation-of-Church-and-State in their platform. Can you blame them?

Rather than invoke some group's religious standards on a nation of disparate religions, it may be better to separate religion (but also acknowledge each other's).

So many have a hard time acknowledging Obama's true beliefs (Methodist). We really are intolerant!

Salt Lake City, Utah

What's interesting, those who speak most loudly about Christ and God are usually the most un-Christlike. The republicans tends to speak loudly on such issues, but there's very little in their actions that would make me believe they possess greater wisdom or moral compass.

Bill McGee
Alpine, UT

Democrats aren't flummoxed, bewildered, perplexed, or confused by this. Conventions by their nature are complex, with a bit of cat herding thrown in for good measure. Using the word flummoxed is biased and irresponsible. Were Republicans flummoxed when they adopted a plank that rejected abortion under any circumstances and the nominated a candidate who rejected that plank out of hand? If you are going to use biased language, at least be even-handed about it.

Salt Lake City, UT

"Alt123 claims that people just don't want to offend anyone anymore so they - out of the goodness of their hearts - decided to remove GOD from their platform. Geez, this is more silly that the first excuse! "

I myself am a Christian who opposes the use of language in the platform that suggests preference for a particular religion, even when it's my own. I know what you're thinking, something like "disagreeing is one thing but why the booing?". Most of the booing itself was because it was clear that the voice vote was too close to call which would lead to an actual counted vote, but that was ignored and people were expressing their frustration that the system felt rigged (after all, Democrats aren't terribly fond of voter suppression efforts, and facing that in their own convention would be annoying). Were a few booing based on hatred of religion? Sure, but that wasn't what most of them were booing about.

If you were in a position where a voice vote seemed tied, or leaning your way, and those in charge declared a winner without confirmation that that side actually won, would you be frustrated?

Steve C. Warren

If the Democratic platform had continued without the word "god," it would have been more like the U.S. Constitution, which includes no mention of god. Of course, with the Republicans engaging in their usual grandstanding for Jesus, it was easier just to give in. That way, we can get on to real issues.

Speaking of God, the Founding Fathers taught us a valuable lesson by refusing to have any prayers at the Constitutional Convention, after which they produced a document inspired by God.

I believe that most prayers in political settings are offered out of fear that not having prayers might turn into a political liability.

Reasonable Person123
St. George, UT

The vast majority of democrats believe in God. The types of people who become delegates at the Democratic convention are not a part of the mainstream of the party and certainly are not representative of the mainstream of America. That said, it was a terrible embarrassment to democrats. PR-wise, the dems gift-wrapped a useful visual which fits in with the narrative of President Obama's perceived lack of belief in the Almighty and other more unsavory, and mostly untrue, suppositions about him and his faith. The party may becoming somewhat divided but clearly at the top there are some extremists who make the entire party look bad-- Kind of reminds me of another major political party.

Letting the minority rule the majority is very common within each party. Taking God out of the platform not only treads on the beliefs of those of faith within the democratic party, but worse smacks of Matt 15:8.

the truth
Holladay, UT

@A Scientist

None of the founding fathers were atheist or deist.

Not even Jefferson.

And many were very deeply religious. The confusion may come because many questioned whether their religious establishment was the true church of Christ.

Jefferson NEVER rewrote the new testament.

Jefferson authored two works:

The first was an abridgment of the new testament, published by congress for use among the indians, to remove the redundancy and make easier for the indians to read and understand. It included many the miracles and divinity of Christ

The second, he authored after studying over 30 philosphers and concluded Christ's was best. So her authored The teachings and morals of Jesus Christ, which also includes a few miracles and the divinity of Christ.

The description of what happened at the vote is a perfect example of why the founding fathers did not want the tyranny of democracy.

Somewhere in Colorado, CO

Well... I guess the Democrats were not trying to win North Carolina (and the rest of the Bible Belt) after all...?! ?!

Obama was probably screaming at his TV screen watching this hit the fan...

Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
"You mean Nate Silver's model that has Obama as a 75% favorite to win right now?"

No, I was referring to Senior Obama Campaign adviser David Axelrod reportedly contacting The Gallup Organization to discuss the company's research methodology after their poll's findings were unfavorable to the President.

The Obama campaign is in trouble and is trying to keep a lid on it in hopes things will turn around for them. You'll have to dig below the surface if you're looking for the truth.

Spanish Fork, Ut

Liberals don't like the DesNews use of the word "flummoxed" in the headline of this story. What would you prefer? "Confused"? "Bewildered"? How about "perplexed"? There is no bias in this particular headline! Did you see the vote on this!? It was total confusion, bewilderment, even some anger and frustration!

Just because the liberal media couldn't move on to the next story fast enough doesn't mean that the headline of the Deseret News was inaccurate. "Flummoxed" was actually kind! And what if the headline was a bit right leaning? It isn't enough to have CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, the NY Times, and the majority of other newspapers and news outlets nationwide that are lap dogs for the liberal point of view? No, YOU WANT THEM ALL! And if anyone dares to watch or listen to anything other than those channels exclusively, those people are immediately demonized as "nut jobs" "less educated", "right wingers" and much, much worse.It's completely hypocritical to demand complete impartiality from organizations that admittedly lean right but then conveniently look the other way, even embrace, the blatant liberal bias from the majority of the U.S. national media.

Durham, NC

Patriot... I am done playing your little games. If you want to try to feel superior to someone, have at.

The level of disrespect you have of other people because you decide they are "liberal" makes a mockery of common sense. So just go ahead, feel all superior. It is clear you will not respect other peoples views - ever... it is pointless.

You hear what you want to hear. Nothing I can do about that, because there is no openness for discussion.

Kaysville, UT

Vice-President Biden used the word that they voted to include now into their platform in his speech, sort of off the cuff but inappropriate to use in a formal speech. He is used to using those types of words for the second in command.

Salt Lake City, UT


"You don't get it, a lot of those boos came from Christians."

The boos against inclusion of Israel and God in the Democrat platform are reported in the news as coming from some Muslims as well, who don't like Israel and who would like to infuse their god into the American picture. (monitor: See today's DNews: 'From School to Mosque')


"... does that mean Romney could've insisted the abortion language in his platform include rape, incest, and life of mother exceptions? ... that would require Mitt to have a spine."

Nice try... trying to link Obama's leadership capacity lack, to Mitt. If all else fails bring out the 'blame others' card.


"Didn't Michelle say she was never proud of America till her husband was president? WHAT? This is the first lady? sheesh."

Right. And when she and her husband are thrown out of the White House she will likely revert back to her former 'not proud of America' (her words).


"If you don't like the law, change it by fiat."

We see this mentality in real time... with Obama's recent declaration of amnesty for certain illegal immigrants.

Salt Lake City, UT

@Steve C. Warren:

"If the Democratic platform had continued without the word 'god,' it would have been more like the U.S. Constitution, which includes no mention of god."

Check closely...

Article VII - 'Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in THE YEAR OF OUR LORD...'

Of course, with the Republicans engaging in their usual grandstanding for Jesus, it was easier just to give in. That way, we can get on to real issues.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments