home
RSS
My Take: When it comes to 'God' in our political platforms, less is more
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa presided over the reinsertion of 'God' into the Democrats' platform.
September 6th, 2012
12:27 PM ET

My Take: When it comes to 'God' in our political platforms, less is more

Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "The American Bible: How Our Words Unite, Divide, and Define a Nation," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

I first heard that God had gone missing from the Democratic Party platform from a Facebook friend who rejoiced in a godless platform as a triumph for the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.

I was surprised, however, because since the loss of John Kerry to George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential race, Democrats have gotten religion.

President Obama used the word God five times in his inaugural address. And according to my search of the database of The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara, he has used it thousands of times more during his presidency.

In remarks at annual National Prayer Breakfasts, Obama called us “children of God” in 2009, spoke of “God’s grace” in 2010, quoted from the Book of Job on “God’s voice” in 2011 and invoked “God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’” in 2012.

The president also invoked the almighty in more prosaic settings, including fundraisers and television interviews and remarks to Super Bowl champions.

This April he used a weekly radio address to talk about Passover and Easter—“the story of the Exodus” and “”the all-important gift of grace through the resurrection of his son.”

And in dozens of speeches over the last two years Obama has spoken of our “God-given potential.”

That is the formulation that found its way back into this year’s Democratic Party platform, after "God" had gone missing in a prior draft.

None of this should really matter, of course. There isn’t any straight line from an affirmation of our “God-given potential” to any particular federal law. But it does matter because we continue as a nation to wage a culture war that goes back to the late 1970s.

That was when Republicans decided to start hammering away at their Democratic opponents on so-called “values” questions and in the process turned U.S. politics into a decades-long referendum on the libertinism of the 1960s.

Foolishly, the Democrats responded as my Facebook friend did, by invoking Thomas Jefferson and the First Amendment and the strict separation of church and state. But being the anti-God party in a nation in which 95% or so believe in God proved to be a losing strategy. So the Democrats reversed course in 2004.

For better or for worse, we now have two religious parties in the United States. The Constitution may be godless, but both parties are hell-bent on presenting themselves as godly.

Is this a good thing? If you believe, as George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address, that “religion and morality” are “these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens," then perhaps it is.

But do we really want “God” to serve as a “prop” of our politics? Apparently, the answer of both parties to that question is yes.

The decision of Democratic Party delegates to reinsert God into their party's platform was clearly motivated by political calculations rather than theological acumen. But are the decisions of the Republican Party any different?

Are the repeated references to "providence" and "God" in its platform proof that its policies are more godly?

In its discussion of the Second Amendment, the GOP platform informs us that our citizens’ “God-given right of self-defense” extends not only to gun ownership but also “the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration.” Really? Is bearing a semi-automatic weapon really the answer to "What would Jesus do?"

Is the fact that the GOP platform refers to “God” twelve times rather than one supposed to prove that Republicans are 12 times more godly?

As a matter of tradition, Americans have always mixed church and state, but they have almost always tried to do so in ways that were respectful of adherents of minority religions and of citizens without any religion at all. So what our two religious parties are doing today runs in the American grain.

Still, I can't help but feel that the now-obligatory references to God in virtually every presidential speech and every party proclamation are more about pridefully asserting one's godliness than humbly asserting one's faith.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus told his followers not to pray, as the hypocrites do, on the street corners, so they might be seen and admired, but to pray instead in their closets, in secret, with the doors shut.

Today I'd like a little more of that sort of religion, please, and a little less of the street corner hucksterism of the Democrats and Republicans alike.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero.

- CNN Belief Blog contributor

Filed under: 2012 Election • Church and state • Culture wars • Politics • United States

soundoff (1,491 Responses)
  1. Terry

    And me thinking that the Founding Fathers had requested that Church and State be separated...Lest we end up in a theocracy, which seems to be coming slowly..
    And me thinking that one's business with God was meant to be private, not to be flaunted in the face of others.
    And me thinking that Democrats had understood that.... But to pander to votes, all of these people will do anything..
    What the heck, I probably think too much...

    Freud did say it : "Religion is akin to disallowing thought".Not his words exactly, but close.... "La religion est un interdit de penser"... That, for those who have some education, is closer.. GOP members, move on.. Another language would be too much for your brains.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  2. Oleg

    Why not include Santa in political platform? After all, it is a much more plausible and less controversial figure.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  3. Julie

    I don't care if they take God out of everything because I know he is in my heart. #True Faith

    September 6, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • Terry

      And I hope he stays there, never to come out...Enjoy the relationship, Julie, but, please. do not spread it around....

      September 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  4. naturechaplain

    Excellent. As a former evangelical, proud in his faith and service, this all rings true. We have to take this strong stand against those who want to replace America with Jesusland. As for your question, Are the repeated references to "providence" and "God" in its platform proof that its policies are more godly?, this has always been the weakness of Christianist faith. It seems the more someone says the name of their God, quotes their chosen scripture or tells us how much more faith they have than anyone else, the more we are left wondering: Where is the humility, Where is lovingkindness, Where is. . .Jesus, in that? Many in politics, right and left, are pandering to the preachers. So disappointing.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  5. brent

    I think its funny when someone says god bless america.....as if everyone else is suppose to be left out..lol....

    September 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
  6. kent

    i don't believe for a minute that 95 % of the u.s. people believe in a god. i don't care what the statistics say. there is way more doubt, and way more intellectuals who question, than that in this country.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Are you able to prove this Kent or are you speaking out of ignorance?

      September 6, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      If I went around telling people I didn't believe, someone would murder me and never spend a day in jail. Welcome to Jesusland.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:33 pm |
    • xnothinbutthetruth

      Last years Gallup poll showed 77% label themselves some form of "Christian".. then there are about 10% or so who are of other faiths or so called "spiritual" individuals. - the remaining don't believe in a god or consider themselves "spiritual"

      The percentage is somewhere around 13-16% I believe... so 95% believers is a bit high.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  7. pockets

    Its 2012 and we are still having a discussion over a 'sky-god', its sooo embarassing. Its like the dark ages. We have not progressed to a point of not needing some 'diety' to look over our lives and into our bedrooms and object to people fornicating with one another. Its all so sad. Its sadder yet to see a member of a 'cult' running for office. But its also bad to see the current President also bowing down to some imaginary "diety". Stop the fairy tales and let's move on as a species. Pleaseeee.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Are you able to prove that God is imaginary? If you make a statement like that, you should be prepared to defend it with facts.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:14 pm |
    • Mike V

      MarketLikeFred:

      Please Google "Burden of Proof". While they can't say for certain that a deity doesn't exist, the burden is on you to prove that one indeed *does* exist.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      n you prove that Quetzlcoatl is imaginary?
      How about Gilgamesh?

      September 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • crazyvermont

      I'll agree Dems sure should have left him out of their platform as they looked like clowns trying to put him back on.....come to think of it, it's hard not to look foolish putting forth something you don't believe.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
    • Oleg

      Well said, agree.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Mike V

      No actually the burden of proof falls on the one who presents the argument no matter what it is. Pockets says God is imaginary. All I asked was that he prove it. I not once said God did exist in my comment.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
    • sam

      You can't prove something doesn't exist. Burden of proof is on the person insisting something exists. Nice attempt at a dodge, though.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
    • TAK

      MarketLikeFred: Are you able to prove that God is real? If you make a statement like that, you should be prepared to defend it with facts.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      TAK

      Here is your proof.

      Romans 1:20

      20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      "Are you able to prove that God is imaginary? " Sure! Let's do this thing: "God, please make a small rock appear in my hand." Hmmmm. "God, we're waiting. The rock, please?" Nothing's happening. Now, can you explain why God couldn't make a rock appear? Wait, I can explain it myself. There's no God. Let's try Allah: "Allah, please make a rock appear . . . "

      September 6, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Bible Clown©

      Why must God prove himself to you? Who are you that He must jump through hoops to prove to you that He exists? He give everyone freedom to believe that they want. He does not force anyone to believe in Him. If He did, then you could make an argument like that, but He doesn't. He gives everyone a free will to believe what they want.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • fintastic

      Mark, please explain how quoting the bible can prove gods exsistance?

      September 6, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      fintastic

      Because the bible is the inspired Word of God. If that is something that you CHOOSE not to believe, there is nothing that I can do about that. People have asked me for proof. I gave it to them. Whatever you CHOOSE to do with it is up to you.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • Nelly

      MarketLikeFred:

      The book is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct because the book says that it is correct

      and so on.

      Got it yet, you stupid fool?

      September 6, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Nelly

      God loves you anyway Nelly and I do too. It's unfortunate that you have to result to name calling. With that, my conversation with you is done. Have a blessed day.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
    • Nelly

      MarketLikeFred, you still don't get it. Stop your plati.tudes and your dodging, and don't be such a lazy coward.

      Do your homework."Circular reasoning." Read about it. Understanding might cure your religion disease.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:38 pm |
  8. Bryan

    It is really absurd that a being no one has ever seen or spoken to, one that no one can prove exists, holds such sway in American politics.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • pockets

      I agree, and the ignorance displayed by other 'religions' is also disturbing to say the least. Cave dwellers, holding women at chattel. No more honored than cattle.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
  9. Just sayin'

    OK, religious folks, answer me this: If an all-knowing all-powerful god does exist, why does he not show himself in a non-ambiguous way? Just sayin'....

    September 6, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • PushingBack

      How dare you suggest the image of Mary on my toast is ambiguous!

      September 6, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • xnothinbutthetruth

      You misunderstand is the entire concept of faith and religion. Faith is intended to be one of the most difficult things to achieve.. because it's that valuable. it isn't intended to be something that God has to prove to you... if that was the goal – then of course he would. It's about coming to belief without direct proof. To one without faith... there is no proof of God's existence... to one WITH faith – the proof is all around you.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Are you saying that you would believe in Him if He did?

      September 6, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
    • Mike V

      "You misunderstand is the entire concept of faith and religion. Faith is intended to be one of the most difficult things to achieve.. because it's that valuable."

      Google: "Circular Reasoning"

      MarketLikeFred:

      Yes, of course. This is a common fallacious accusation of theists, i.e. "You wouldn't believe in God even if he showed himself to you!" Patently untrue; there's currently precisely zero evidence for a deity. Give us some that's objectively verifiable, and not some personal, wishy-washy feeling, etc.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • first

      Man was created by the Creator with free-will to believe who and whatever man chooses. For children of God hear the word and try to live it as humanely as possible being the flesh we all are, those who know not God but earthly things speak of the world. For they can only speak of that which they only know and are of.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • TC

      Why should he, he doesn't have to prove anything us. You think is like humans you are so wrong in thinking he would say or do anything to prove himself. God help us all

      September 6, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Logos Aletheia

      What's a "non-ambiguos way?"

      Some people suggested 9/11 was God's judgment on America; others have pointed to the economic crash of 2008, hurricanes like Katrina and Rita; and now the drought of 2011-2012 as acts of God's judgments on America. Others have laughed at people for thinking these horrific events weren't judgments of God, just terrible events with terrible results.

      The problem is - what exactly would it look like if God really did try to talk to you or communicate with you, and every way He tried to do it, you wrote off as "God would never try to communicate that way?" When every attempt that MIGHT be God trying to communicate gets put in the categories of "chance" or "accident" or "myth" or "mist," it seems to me that the issue is a failure to receive the message on our part, not failure to adequately communicate on God's part. A little child in Sunday School can understand "Jesus loves me, this I know for the Bible tells me so." When the kid gets older, he/she thinks God doesn't love him/her any more because the kid quits believing what the Bible says. Who changed? NOT GOD.

      The political parties' making choices about including God in their rhetoric is just more rhetoric without actions backing up their words.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Mike V

      Actually there is quite a bit of evidence that God does exist. It's just that people don't accept the proof that "They" want. Since people CHOOSE not to believe the bible for many different reasons, they refuse to accept the proof.

      Romans 1:20

      New International Version (NIV)

      20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Mike V

      Here is your proof

      Romans 1:20

      20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • Ed

      Oh so perplexing, ain't it? God must see all of the suffering spawned by animosity between various faiths over the centuries. He could end it all by simply revealing himself in an unambiguous way to the world, unify us and end the torment. From this I conclude either he doesn't exists (my preference) or he is sadistic, reveling in our confusion and pain.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:38 pm |
    • Meowser

      Fred:

      When you reach for your Bible to augment your argument, all you're doing is weakening your point.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Ed

      Or you refuse to accept the evidence that I have already presented in my previous comment.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      "Are you saying that you would believe in Him if He did?" Gee Fred, as I understand it, if God appeared in the 'flesh,' we'd all fall on our faces in awe. Are you saying that God in person would be really unimpressive, like a a little fat man or a koala bear or something?

      September 6, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Meowser

      How so? Its not my fault if someone refuses to accept the evidence that I give them. They can believe what they want. Just because someone refuse to believe what I tell them does not mean the truth that I present is in error. It just means that they don't believe it.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
    • Nelly

      MarketLikeFred:

      Just google "circular reasoning" and read up on it. You owe it to yourself, and will save yourself from being made a fool of so often.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Nelly

      Save me some time and explain to me why it would benefit me to read what you have suggested.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Bible Clown©

      God has already done that and the people didn't believe Him then. Have you ever heard of Jesus? Oh wait, I forgot, you don't believe in the bible so why would I even ask you that question.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
    • Ken Margo

      The reason religion is referred to as "beliefs" is because it is what YOU believe. You CAN'T prove it. If religion was a fact it would be called "facts" Since you can't prove it people have a right to dismiss it.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  10. Caniwi

    First off, I would suggest you say "in a nation in which 95% or so believe in A God"
    Secondly, how do you come up with this figure when in another CNN article it states:
    The most recent poll showed belief in atheistic evolution was on the rise at 16%, nearly double what it had been in previous years. The poll also found 32% of respondents believe in evolution guided by God.'

    September 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • pockets

      Evolution is not 'guided' by any god, it has it own life and follows its own course. Look around you, you see evolution everyday, in the case of our own sub-species of chimps.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
  11. Semper Cogitatus

    The point of a platform is to get you elected. In a country where the most people are more or less religious it would be very foolish to leave religion out of your platform.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  12. first

    The Word of Wisdom provided by God through Prophets and Messengers, was wisdom is given to act wise not speak wise. The Lord's a reader of hearts, noting actions speak louder than words, though one should alway practice what one preach. I ask the 2012 Republicans/Conservatives, if your party put God first why is it your policies do not acknowledge Mark 8:36 nor Deuteronomy 15:7. The DNC spoke of this as their Parties Platform both nights, we're in this together, honor and love thy neighbor as one would honor themselves. Again actions speak louder than words. God bless you and God Bless the United States of America.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
  13. Vic of New York

    Amen to that !

    September 6, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  14. Rob

    AMEN! Keep your mythological bull-crap out of my politics and life. Or start paying taxes.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Todd

      I Love you man

      September 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      How do you know that oxygen exists? Can you see it? No you cannot. Does it keep you alive? Yes. You only know it exist because you CHOOSE to believe what science tells you. Does that mean that God does not exist because you can't see Him? No. Does he keep you alive? Yes. The only difference is that you CHOOSE not to believe those who tell you He exists.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
    • sam

      Wow, Fred. You don't think the existence of air can be proven. Whew.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      sam

      Here is your proof

      Romans 1:20

      20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:37 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      "How do you know that oxygen exists? Can you see it? No you cannot. Does it keep you alive?" Wow, Fred, did you skip high school science? Homeschooled by Young Earthers? A guy named Priestly, which ought to reassure you, discovered it back around 1776. If God is just like oxygen, demonstrate Him for us. You picked a bad example.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
    • MarketLikeFred

      Bible Clown©

      Not really. I gave you proof. You just CHOOSE not to believe it.

      September 6, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
  15. Tom

    Everyone has their beliefs. Whether it's Judaism or Chirstianity or any other religion, everyone has their own beliefs.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      Not me. I believe these religions exist, but I don't worship any gods. My vision of god would be a little old lady, teetering around in a house full of cats, and it is called "My Wife, Still Alive and Well at Age 100." That's what I work for, that's what I pray to, that's what I want more than my own life and safety: my wife alive as long as possible, and my son standing beside her. I'd die for that.

      September 7, 2012 at 8:29 am |
  16. Scionx125

    Pfff, its a shame that people will put religion in as some extra votes, just because you're religious doesn't make you a good person, and just because you believe in Science and logic doesn't make you intelligent. as Socrates stated "I know that I know Nothing". Even Michio Kaku and Einstein are believers but not a supreme zealot, most zealots are really atheist to be honest, trying to look good to others.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Bible Clown©

      "most zealots are really atheist to be honest, trying to look good to others." Trying to stay alive in a threatening and slowly darkening world run by god-believers is a tough thing. If you offered me a good job in Amsterdam right now, I'd pack and leave.

      September 7, 2012 at 8:35 am |
  17. david

    This nation / republic was founded on the belief in a christian god. It is "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust". no one should forget that. The separation of church and state was not to erradicate god from our republic but rather to insure that the government would not impose a religion on the people. Thereby providing freedom of religion NOT the absence of religion.

    September 6, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
    • Julie

      David, those "God" phrases were added many years later.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
    • Susn

      In god we trust and one nation under god are phrases that were added in the cold war of the 1950s–they are not original in any way.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
    • Joe

      AMEN TO THAT BROTHER!!! THANK YOU FOR EXPRESSING YOU FAITH WITH CONVICTION AND TRUTH!

      September 6, 2012 at 4:11 pm |
    • kent

      david: you're ignorance is truly beautiful.

      September 6, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
    • sam

      Skipped every history class, huh?

      September 6, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
    • Really tho

      Please read up on this, you are WRONG! next.

      September 6, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
  18. Just sayin'

    I fully support the reelection of Barack Obama and the defeat of Mitt Romney and his corrupt Republican party, however I can do without the invocation of an imaginary "sky fairy" who presides over (as Christopher Hitchens notably described) an afterlife of theme parks, one nasty and one nice. I mean, when will humanity begin acting like grownups and ditch the supernatural baloney? When we all fully assume the responsibility of our own actions and live caring and kind lives without the unrelenting threats of eternal damnation or carrot-on-a-stick reward of "everlasting life" then we will have greatly progressed as a rational and moral species. Until then we are merely babies believing in fairy tales handed down to us by clueless bronze-age desert nomads, fairy tales that are today used by hypocritical charlatans seeking to control our actions for their own benefit. I can only hope that within my lifetime this type of pandering activity is universally accepted for what it is, ignorant silliness that has done nothing but hamper the human race.

    September 6, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
    • Joe

      I GUESS IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY ARE STILL CONSIDERED VIRTUES BY SOME... AMAZING!

      September 6, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
    • bigdoggie

      Agreed, but it won't happen in you or my or my children's lifetime! We can just persevere in our own lives knowing the truth! I LOVE for the whole god thing to be true b/c I'd be the greatest advocate and supporter in the world. But, it just ain't so!

      September 6, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  19. Marla

    Any mention of any god does not belong in a political platform. The platform needs to represent ALL Americans, whether they believe in a god or not. That is why we have separation of church and state. The DNC is a diverse group of people. I'm certain that there were Jews, Muslims and even Atheists in that audience. It is non-inclusive for a political party to acknowledge the god of any particular religion and leave out the others.

    September 6, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
  20. Lee Oates

    I certainly believe that we should include Zeus, Peter Pan, Mickey mouse, and the Great Pumkin in our political platform. Oh, and don't forget the Easter Bunny.

    September 6, 2012 at 3:57 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.