- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Godless Party

The authors of the Democratic platform have inadvertently revealed to the world the sea change that has taken place in that party we once knew.

For the first time–and in the longest Democratic platform in history, 26,000 words–there was not a single mention of God, the Creator, whom Thomas Jefferson himself, father of the party, proclaimed to be the author of our right to life and liberty.

The convention had approved the new platform, but when a firestorm erupted, a panicked Barack Obama hastily ordered “God” reinstated.

But when the amendment was offered to the convention by its chairman, Antonio Villaraigosa, the idea of restoring the name of God to the platform was hooted, jeered and booed by half the delegates on the floor, who three times howled, “No!”

The omission of God is being called an oversight. But the viral reaction to returning God, even when Obama asked that it be done, testifies that this was no accident. God was deleted deliberately.

This process has been under way for a decade. In the 2004 platform, there were seven references to God. In 2008, one. Like the European Union, whose Christian heritage is being excised from official documents by its secularist elite, the country led by the Democratic Party of Obama is being de-Christianized.

Still, why would Democrats do something so seemingly stupid, something that will inevitably cause a backlash among believers?

Answer: Millions of Democrats are themselves offended when God is included, because for them, the God of the Old and New Testaments is an impediment to the progressive march of mankind.

A year ago, in writing Suicide of a Superpower, I discovered that the number of self-identified Christians had fallen from 85 percent of the U.S. population in 1990 to 75 percent last year and that 1 in 6 Americans now disbelieve in God.

Of Americans younger than 30, 1 in 4 profess no faith. Among Democrats, the figures are surely higher.

Which brings us to the quandary faced by the platform writers. Why include in a statement of party beliefs a reference to God when a huge slice of that party would be deeply offended because such a reference would be the party’s formal declaration that their atheist or agnostic beliefs are wrong.

Some atheists place a belief in God or Christ as the Son of God on a par with believing in Santa Claus. Others regard religion and especially fundamentalist faith as an often-destructive force because of what they believe it has produced over the centuries–intolerance, inquisitions, massacres, martyrdoms, religious wars.

Among the evils a deep belief in the God of the Torah and New Testament has produced, they argue, is the systematic persecution of homosexuals. Thus, the Democratic platform declares:

“We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples,” while the Republican platform calls for a “Constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

The Republican platform is clearly rooted in traditional Christian beliefs that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman and that homosexual acts are unnatural and immoral and ruinous to body and soul.

Yet, as the man from Chick-fil-A discovered when he asserted those biblically based beliefs about homosexual marriage, that opinion comes close to being a hate crime in the new dispensation.

To the God-fearing and God-loving, this campaign to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions is out of a George Orwell novel. But to gay rights champions, opposition to homosexuals’ right to marry and adopt is the mark of the homophobe, the hater, the bigot.

There is no common ground.

But if the party platforms are irreconcilable on homosexual marriage, that is equally true of their positions on life. Here is the Democratic platform:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay. We oppose any and all efforts to weaken that right. …

“There is no place for … government to get in the way.”

Under this plank, the father has no rights whatsoever and no role in deciding whether his unborn child lives or dies. There are no parental rights. Society cannot interfere in any way with a woman’s decision to terminate her unborn child’s life at any point in her
pregnancy.

This is a Democratic declaration of support for partial-birth abortion in the eighth and ninth month of pregnancy should a woman so decide, with the rest of us forced to pay for that abortion.

This is a form of feminist fanaticism heretofore unseen in this republic.

No platform celebrating homosexual marriage and backing a woman’s right to abort her child at any time in her pregnancy can be credibly adopted by a party that also purports to revere the God of our Founding Fathers.

In truth, this Democratic Party was a godless institution long before its platform writers declared it to be so. The howlers had it right. God doesn’t belong in that platform.

Patrick J. Buchanan is a founding editor of TAC and the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? [1]” Copyright 2012 Creators.com [2].

55 Comments (Open | Close)

55 Comments To "Godless Party"

#1 Comment By Rocky On September 10, 2012 @ 8:30 pm

This article reflects nothing more than the same Buchanan theocratic dribble.

What happened to the Republican Party of small government?

The financial junta neocons represented by Mutt Romney are nothing but big government social repression extremists as well as corporate welfare supplicants.

The Republican Party I used to believe in in no better than Obama economically and is now the party of unChristian elitism when it comes to the poor and inner city youth.

#2 Comment By dbriz On September 10, 2012 @ 9:25 pm

Pat again gets himself mired in the culture wars and misses the point.

A genuine conservative would simply point out that government has no legitimate reason for being in the marriage business at all. Most certainly no religious reason.

It is only there because it affords them a controlling, money making scheme.

Religious institutions should be free to have their own doctrinal and/or sacramental dogmas as regards marriage and that’s it.

As to worrying about God in party platforms; political parties (that would be Democrats AND Republicans) that wholeheartedly endorse evils such as the Patriot Act, FISA, NDAA, “crippling sanctions” against women and children of other nations, “preemptive wars” against others and the right to incarcerate and/or assassinate US citizens without due process have no business “including God” in these sinful endeavors.

The Republicans “…revere the God of the founding Fathers…”?

Well, dear God Pat, spare us that one. You surely jest with us.

#3 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On September 11, 2012 @ 1:54 am

Legault, I never accused you of misquoting me. Now you’re being silly, trying to act hurt rather than offering substance.

Obviously, you think men need to have more legal protection of their fatherhood. I don’t, which is why from beginning to end I have said I don’t sympathize.

You keep trying to read legal rights into what I said about a man taking care to make sure he is of one accord with the lady concerned before sowing his seed. I consider that the only sure protection a man has. This has nothing to do with legal rights, but mutual understanding.

Don’t be in a hurry to bed the first fine looking female he sees, take the time to become acquainted with her, assess whether he and she could be lifetime soul mates, then, and only then, run the risk of impregnating her.

If he didn’t do that, I have no sympathy with blubbering like a little boy, “That’s my baby too.” Its not in your body dude, and you didn’t take the time to make sure the lady was fully prepared to share with you.

I also have no sympathy with a man who has raised a child as his own, suddenly throwing the child away if it turns out to be genetically not his. What kind of man would do that to a child?

In short, marriage done right gives a man all the mutual rights and obligations he needs, and if he cut corners, he will learn a valuable lesson.

I’m opposed to intrusive government regulation, in favor of individual responsibility, and I support sexuality within a covenant marriage with a firm foundation. I’m being conservative, go peddle your liberal big government regulatory scheme elsewhere.

#4 Comment By L. Legault On September 11, 2012 @ 11:13 am

Mr/Ms/Miss/Mrs Jenkins

Ultimately, I think you are right, and that marriage and mutual understanding are the best safeguards of men’s rights in the conception and rearing of children. However, that excludes the rights of one very important group: children. They have no say in the terms of their conception or the way in which they grow up: they should, I believe, have the right to know their fathers.

The substance of my argument is that a society in which men have no sense that either community custom, popular morality, or the law, will support them in relationships that go wrong – as many do – they will become less and less likely to take an interest in their offspring. This is not good for men, nor women, nor society, nor – most of all – children.

Yes, I know you concede the right of adoption to biological fathers (and who is to enforce that right, if not the law, and its upholders?), but that ignores the fact that custodial mothers can arbitrarily deny children the right to contact with their biological fathers, and even the right to know their names. The law, meanwhile, can force fathers to pay for the support of children they are not allowed to meet, children they may not know they had until their mother announces it. I certainly was not suggesting that should be allowed to stop support of their legal offspring arbitrarily, when they discover a child is not biologically theirs. None of this is fair to either fathers or children.

Your suggestion that that I support “big government regulatory schemes” is odd. How is any right to be enforced without the intervention of the law, something which can only be arranged by government? Certainly norms of sexual behaviour and child-rearing may be supported by community customs and morals: they do not necessarily require the intervention of “big government,” in the form of the law, to uphold them.

Unfortunately, community customs hardly exist in our world now and morals are highly personal, so that it is possible for any man and woman to meet, know each other, and enter into a relationship, and *still* not see eye to eye on what to do in the event of either planned or unplanned pregnancies. It is for these people and their offspring, and not for the men and women in perfect harmony, that the law exists. Without its clumsy and ungentle touch, we would have utter chaos.

#5 Comment By Chapulina Ramos On September 30, 2012 @ 12:50 am

I have a lot of admiration for Pat Buchanon as the Nemesis of Neoconservatism. But not for his efforts against the separation of church and state. Pat is absolutely right in saying God does not belong on the Democratic platform. But he fails to understand that God does not belong on the Republican Platform either. Jesus said his Kingdom is “no part of this world” — what part of “no part” does the religio-political agenda not understand? The Bible condemns politics as “whoring” after the “kings” i.e. governments, of the earth. Christians, that is, Christ’s disciples don’t look to governments, parties, worldly kingdoms, but to God’s Coming Kingdom for peace and righteousness. The “religious” people who want the Republican Party to legislate or otherwise force God’s Will on everyone are no different — and no more “Christian” — than the Taliban or the Ayatollahs. Pat is particularly opposed to gay marriage; once even stating in The American Conservative that poligamy with multiple underage wives was more Scriptural than gay marriage! Christians don’t have to agree with gay rights; but if they truly *believe* God is against it, they should truely *believe* God will address it in His own time, along with adultery, fornication, divorce, gluttony and other sins. As a Christian coworker of mine once joyfully said: “Gay marriage? Bring it on! It’s a sign of the End Times, the Rapture is coming!”