LETTER TO THE EDITOR: God was not booed

Oct 24, 2012

 

What Democrats booed was an amendment — not God — that was introduced to the convention after the platform committee had adjourned. The amendment added language that mentioned God and named Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The reverend stated that those who voted "nay" were voting against God; but here again, that is his conclusion and shouldn’t be confused with fact.

Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution without mentioning either God or Jerusalem, so I was peeved that Democratic leaders, including President Obama, caved to the Republican’s political correctness. The amendment was perfunctory and pecksniffery, designed solely to appease people like the Rev. Koedyker. I respect politicians who feel that faith is a private matter between individuals and their God, and avoid the showy religious demonstrations that have emerged in the last decades.

It’s easy to believe that many politicians who beat their chests declaring their deep religious convictions are just looking for votes. The party who didn’t offend Koedyker had members like Mark Foley, Mark Sandford, Tom Delay, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Dennis Hastert, John Ensign and others; who all resigned under a cloud of disgrace. Apparently, a platform with the right words didn’t improve their fitness for office.

The Democratic platform and legislative history address the poor, the sick and the elderly, and that sounds quite a bit like Jesus’ platform. One wonders why the reverend is not on the same side. Perhaps he is distracted by the glitter and blind to the substance.

— Richard Kamischke, Grand Haven Township
 

Comments

Soloman

Well said Mr. Kamischke.

Vladtheimp

In fact, what actually happened is that the Democrats, in an effort to appease people like Richard Kamischke, changed the language in the 2008 platform to remove the word "God" from the 2012 platform. Similarly, to appease the many Moslems invited to the convention, they changed the language in the 2008 platform to remove the word "Jerusalem" as the capital of Israel from the 2012 platform. This was jumped on by the Republicans, and the Democrats then voted to amend the original language as follows: Amendment 1: “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.”

Amendment 2: “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.” When the Chair tried to get these passed without discussion, many in the audience booed. Neither Mr. Kamischke nor I know what they were booing - it could have been God, it could have been Jerusalem, it could have been both. Whichever option, it puts the Democrat party in a bad light, and was a self-inflicted wound. My personal belief is that a portion of the delegates shared the belief of Mr. Kamischke and booed the insertion of "God", some, including the Moslems, booed Jerusalem, and some booed both.

Wingmaster

Listen and watch this clip. It speaks for itself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c.... They voted NO, or evenly at best (yes/no) to change their platform to include god and Jerusalem. While they do not directly boo god they did directly try to eliminate him and Jerusalem from their platform. First they eliminating him from the language of the platform, then for the sake of appearances, forcing him back onto the platforms language. Now if you are a Christian this should give you pause to think about this party. If you don't care either way, you should still be wondering about a party that forces a change to a platform that clearly did not have the 2/3 vote to do so!

Be

Poor God, he must be so embarrassed. Good thing he has people like you to stand up for him! No delusions here.... perfectly sane. Sure....

Wingmaster

I could care less if he is in the platform. I'm just pointing out the facts.

davewali

Amendment 1: “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.” Amendment 2: “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.”
Amendment 1 excludes all people who do not believe in God, or have other beliefs. Is this what we want in a country that includes those of ALL, or NO faith?
It SHOULD read "We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of all people, and gives everyone the chance to make the most of their potential.”
Amendment 2 is butting into the internal affairs of another country. Do WE want other countries telling us where OUR nations capitol should be? While I agree that it should be an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths, so should all cities, from Akron to Zilwaukee.

Tri-cities realist

"What Democrats booed was an amendment — not God — that was introduced to the convention after the platform committee had adjourned." I had to chuckle at that, not for the amendment or God, but rather that this party "for the little people" who opposes voter suppression, would have the gall to offer an amendment to their party platform, after the platform committee had adjourned. Gasp! And then to top that, the delegates allowed their votes to be suppressed, it took 3 votes, and clearly the ays lacked a 2/3 majority. What irony and hypocrisy. You lifelong Democrats should think deeply about how your party leadership treats you.

HavenWillie

Rev. Koedyker’s comments were blatantly dishonest. He was trying to put himself in the position of victim. Everyone is against poor me and my religious belief.

pfpiper0

I am an atheist. Sure, eff me right. I think that all organized religions should pay taxes like the rest of America. I used to live in Salt Lake City, the "Mecca" of Mormons. I learned a lot. Did you know that black people were not allowed to join the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) until the government said that they had to pay taxes. Then a profit had a vision from God who told him that blacks were allowed in the Church. This is from the 1960's. Not long ago.
Mormons spent over $30 million dollars to try and block Prop 8 in California. It sounds to me that the Church has some money to spare, maybe the government could actually do something of a worthy cause with it. Other than to block two people who love each other the chance to take a vow before your "God" to prove their love for each other. And also pay less taxes, and have the chance to let each other get the married benefits that we all take for granted.
If the Churches payed taxes I may be less bitter towards their political agenda's. Until then, all pastors, rabbi's, cult leaders, should stay out of the political arenas.

Tri-cities realist

Then please, by all means, ask Rev. Idema to stay out of the political arena. Or do you agree with him, such that it's ok for him to express his political opinions, but not someone with whom you disagree?

Wingmaster

Here we go with the race card! Come on, you imply Romney is racist because of his faiths old views. (Which I didn't fact check) Still, going with your statement, once people or groups hold a believe they cannot change or be enlighten? Hmm, so you once held the belief it was ok to crap in your pants! I believe change is good, don't you?

Lanivan

Rev Koedyker's piece offers an opportunity to showcase the many inconsistencies and hypocrisies within his own political persuasion - the current Republican party. Their declared intent of giving "personhood" status to a fertilized egg, making all abortion for any reason illegal, taking away access to contraception for women, dismantling Social Security, Medicare, and most all social safety net programs for the poor and disabled; promoting inequality among men and women in the workplace; more tax cuts for the super rich; deregulating guns, programs for clean air and water, and pure food; increased military spending; and promoting the extreme ideas of Ann Rand - an anti-Christ, atheist novelist - is profoundly disturbing. The Republicans are all for the unborn child, but that child and family is on it's own after birth. They hold the unborn life sacred but support unlimited guns for all, capital punishment, wars, the destruction of programs that serve our most vulnerable citizens - even when religious leaders have spoken out rebuking this plan. And then they throw a (manufactured) hissy fit over the omission of the word "God" in a Democrat party platform. Richard - thank you for speaking out on the moral lapses and the flagrant dishonesty in Rev Koedyker's political party which he supports and defends.

Vladtheimp

Apart from the litany of lies about Republicans and Romney/Ryan, I think Lanivan has aptly described the Democrat party, which supports a law making the destruction of a Bald Eagle egg punishable by a $5,000 fine or 1 year in prison or both, but legalizes the killing of unborn human babies and forces taxpayers and religious communities to pay for the executions. Booing God is hardly the worst thing they have done. The U.S. Code reference for non-believers is 16 U.S.C. 668. For future reference, the famous novelist is Ayn Rand.

Lanivan

Finally - Vlad has come forth with a bona fide correction! It is Ayn - (pronounced "ien"). My only defense is age, since way back in my rebellious college days, I read everything she wrote. A litany of lies (there you go with the alliteration) - "forces taxpayers and religious communities to pay for the executions". Really - please elucidate. With facts. Yea - I know, don't bother to respond. I would think that a leader of the Tea Party like yourself wouldn't want government involved to such degree in people's personal lives - or is it ok when it's women's rights?

Vladtheimp

In response to your question, I can answer it two ways: (1) I do not want the federal government forcibly taking my money to pay for abortions; (2) I do want state governments, but not the federal government, to protect everyone in the state from murderer. Until the women's movement uses its considerable clout to overturn the laws in a majority of states that allow recovery under wrongful death statutes for prenatal injuries, such as in car accidents, I consider them and their supporters hypocrites. I trust that is responsive to the question you raised. Thank you for the opportunity to respond.

Lanivan

Fair enough. As to #1 - There are no recorded cases of the federal government - forcibly or not - taking your or anybody's money to pay for abortions. Abortion providers are forbidden by federal law to use federal money for abortions. #2. If you think the women's movement should use it's clout to overturn the laws in many states that allow recovery under wrongful death statues for prenatal injuries, then how about this trade-off - The overturning, in 31 states, of parental rights for rapists? Under Romney/Ryan's agenda, not only will women who have been sexually assaulted be scrutinized as to whether the rape was "forcible" or not, whether she actually intended to get pregnant because her body did not reject conception, or the conception of a fetus through a violent act against her will is simply a sacred act that is part of "God's plan" (all said in the last 3 weeks by Republican candidates), in 31 states the rapist-criminal now gets parental rights - a rapist has the same rights as other fathers, including the right to seek custody or visitation. If this isn't a "war on women", what would you call it?

Vladtheimp

1. My tax dollars are used to fund Planned Parenthood, which is in the business of aborting fetuses - they treat the federal subsidy as fungible cash for their operations, Obamacare will use my tax dollars to fund abortions. 2. I have no problem conceptually with overturning parental rights for individuals convicted of rape. 3. It is beyond deceitful to attribute to Romeny/Ryan the whacko misstatements of candidates for republican offices - just as if I tried to make the same connection with crazy democrats and Obama. If one has to stoop to that level, one must believe their candidate is in deep trouble.

Lanivan

Vlad - your argument that your tax dollars funds abortions through Planned Parenthood is nebulous at best. Planned Parenthood does provide abortions through private funds, and other health care screenings through federal funds. Your argument is that you don't want any taxpayer money going into the same pot as private funds. This same argument could go like this, hypothetically speaking: I don't approve of $4/gallon gas that comes from Oil Co. refineries. Oil companies are making record-breaking profits and I don't think it is right to use taxpayer money to subsidize them. My tax payer money is being used in a way that I don't approve. Or how about this: I am opposed to the Republicans in congress who have put their oath to lobbyist Grover Norquist to never, ever raise taxes for any reason over their sacred oath to the country when they took office. Yet my tax money goes into the big pot of federal money that pays these guys their salaries, pensions and gold-plated government lifetime health care so that they can put their party over their country. As to #3 - Romney/Ryan have NOT rebuked any of these Republicans for their ignorant statements. As the most recent statement made by Tea Party candidate Mourdock, Romney has stayed away like the opportunist he is.....he has no core principles to stand on.

Vladtheimp

Tiresome inanities that involve nothing like the question of human life and the taking thereof. Obama is losing, is increasingly unpopular, and will become more so as he snarks his way through the next two weeks and the true story of Benghazi emerges from the fog of democrat B.S. We'll see what the election brings.

Wingmaster

Well Laninvain, since Vlad took you to the wood shed on abortion, I'll take you on regarding your nonsense ramblings about "unlimited guns for all". Yes, Isn't it wonderful the Republicans support the pesky constitution and bill of rights! That darn 2nd amendment giving all of us the right to keep and bear arms. Even if you do not feel you need to own a gun, someone that does just may save your life someday. You see the founders realized armed citizens are the best deterrent for anarchy, personal protection and government oppressive control of its citizens. You owe your freedom's to everyday people that little over 236 years ago rose up with their arms and stood up to the oppressive rule of the England and the Kings army.

Lanivan

I know - let's keep those assault weapons out there abailable for anyone with money, and let's allow guns in our classrooms, bars, churches, wherever people feel a need to kill or be killed. But let's force women to deliver a rapist's baby. And then imply it's God plan. I can hear it now, "I'm sorry your Honor, I didn't mean to rape her and get her pregnancy, it was just part of God's plan".

Wingmaster

Well Lan, I know how much you like stats. This from and interview of John Lott who studied the stats for the country: Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.Question: What is the basis for these numbers?Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994. There's more, but you probably will not open your "moderate" mind and continue to believe the dribble you repeat from the left....also, please explain the definition of an assault weapon.

Lanivan

The minute you mentioned John Lott, a Fox News contributor and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime", my eyes glazed over and all credibility went out the window. He and his statistical methodology have been widely criticized. The only statistic I believe is the one that there are many more gun related injuries and deaths in the US than any other civilized country. My definition of an assault weapon? One that can kill dozens of people in seconds. Hunting rifles, pistols, etc are fine. Our Founding Fathers never envisioned any kind of assault weaponry. Have all the hunting rifles and hand guns you want. Just don't carry them in the churches and simultaneously cry "murderer and executioner" (Vlad's words) at a woman who must make an agonizing decision about her body. The hypocrisy is shameful.

Wingmaster

Well Laninvain, since Vlad took you to the wood shed on abortion, I'll take you on regarding your nonsense ramblings about "unlimited guns for all". Yes, Isn't it wonderful the Republicans support the pesky constitution and bill of rights! That darn 2nd amendment giving all of us the right to keep and bear arms. Even if you do not feel you need to own a gun, someone that does just may save your life someday. You see the founders realized armed citizens are the best deterrent for anarchy, personal protection and government oppressive control of its citizens. You owe your freedom's to everyday people that 236 years ago rose up with their arms and stood up to the oppressive rule of the England and the Kings army.

lmile61

I have trust about God.Some people could not accept but when they will get touch of God's experience then they will trust.
pests of stored products

ptech38

Science can break everything record and search a new thing but can not cross with Gods creation and his point of view.all these things are living with the help of one unknown story.
http://www.promos10.com

 

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.