Was DNC 2012 the Most Anti-Religious Convention Ever?

With crowds of Democrats booing the inclusion of G-d and Jerusalem in their own platform, with Caroline Kennedy bashing the Catholic Church and Sandra Fluke acting as cheerleader for the end of religious freedom in America, the Democratic National Convention may go down as a unique creature, the first national convention that seemed to be as much about attacking religion as it was about attacking the opposing candidate.

With the Obama campaign’s proxies continuing to dumpster dive in their attacks on Romney’s Mormon religion, the truly ugly spectacle that we are witnessing is the triumph of political religious intolerance by a man whose elevation was due in part to an American desire to express religious tolerance toward the Muslim minority whose culture and religion Obama was intimately familiar with.

In return for elevating Obama, Jews and Christians experienced repeated attacks on their religious beliefs and values at a convention to renominate Obama.

JFK made it safe to be Catholic and president. Caroline Kennedy took the stage to make it unsafe to be Catholic and American. There can hardly be a better symptom of the decline of the Democratic Party than that simple fact.


  • jose

    You must understand, the new leadership of the Democratic party are not pro-american christians & judic friendly. They are pro-Islamic, muslim loving, anti-american treasonous lawbreakers.

  • Michael, NH Lawyer

    "Reproductive rights", as Caroline Kennedy used this term in her address to the 2012 Democratic Party Convention, is both an incorrect and very deceptive term. The correct term, the term she should have used, is "Non-Reproductive Rights". Women of child-bearing age who are sexually active routinely become pregnant at some point and have babies, that is they “reproduce”. This is both quite normal and quite natural. However the very purpose and goal of “reproductive rights", so-called, is to ensure a woman of child-bearing age who is sexually active woman does not reproduce. This is accomplished by using birth control to avoid pregnancy and, if birth control fails, that is if a woman become pregnant, to abort the unwanted unborn child by taking drugs called abortifacients or by a procedure called an abortion. Aborting the unborn by either means is simply considered a back up form of birth control. To a “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocate the hallmark of a free society is a society that affords "Women's Non-Reproductive Rights” to all women, especially the right to abortion. So they want the federal government to require all health insurance to cover the costs of women's “Non-Reproductive Rights” or, if women have no insurance coverage, to pay for these costs.

    Abortion is legally protected in the United States, though it is never protected enough for “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates. For one thing, they are strongly in favor making late-term abortions legal. A late-term abortion is an abortion later in the pregnancy when the baby is more developed. “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates support late-term abortions even if the “fetus” may be “viable”, that is capable of living on outside the womb of the mother. We should all be aware that an overriding principle that “Women's Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates strongly hold and espouse is that no right and no value is greater or more important than a "Women's Non-Reproductive Rights”, in other words "Women's Non-Reproductive Rights” trump all other rights and all other values. Because of this overriding principle, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” trump rights of parents to prevent their underage daughters from having access to birth control and to an abortion. Because of this overriding principle, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” also trump religious rights. Under Obamacare the health insurance that religious employers, such as the Catholic Church, and employers opposed to abortion due to their religious belief offer their employees must fund the costs of "Women's Non-Reproductive Rights”. And not to be overlooked, because of this overriding principle, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates are against any granting unborn children any rights whatsoever, and, if an aborted child miraculously survives an abortion, they strongly support laws giving the attending physician the legal right to put the pesky but unfortunate survivor out of its misery.

    As with the irony that “reproductive rights”, so-called, really means and accurately describes “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights”, the irony that half of the estimated 1,500,000 babies aborted in the United States, that is 750,000, are female is totally lost on “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates. Yet though they are at least partially responsible for the destruction of 750,000 unborn females each year, “Women’s Non-Reproductive Rights” advocates routinely impugn the motives of those who oppose them frequently accusing their opponents of being anti-women.

    • wsg

      Well said . I have long maintained that the Left operates in a state of willful detachment from reality. Your post is an illustration of that detachment. Modern Progressive feminism has long since abandoned any pretext of promoting women as co-equal to men but prefers the "oppressed victim" identity politics status conferred on other "minorities.' That women are more than their female parts is NOT going to occur to the party of the Kennedy Bros., Chris Dodd, Willy Clinton and "Rev." Jackson !

    • bob sullivan

      Thank you . Very thought provoking and thoughtful. What do we expect having elected a President who supported infanticide . Hope to hear more from you.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kathleen.craigie Kathleen Craigie

      Exactly, sir…. It's like PP calling themselves PLANNED PARENTHOOD….. There is NOTHING the least bit PARENTAL in what they do….. and they do not seem to have any interest whatsoever in even SUGGESTING the option of ADOPTION.

      ABORTION doesn't just end a crisis pregnancy. It ends the INNOCENT LIFE of an unborn child…. and it is NO MERCIFUL ending either… death row inmates receive a more HUMANE and MERCIFUL means of execution than the MILLIONS of innocent unborn children receive every day in our country. They are torn apart or burnt alive with some kind of saline solution….. in the name of ** WOMENS' HEALTH CARE ** and CONVENIENCE!

  • http://www.facebook.com/kathleen.craigie Kathleen Craigie

    VERY disappointed in the remarks made by Caroline Kennedy. As a Catholic and as a MOTHER, she could have made such a difference in defense of the INNOCENT babies who are being slaughtered in America everyday. She missed a golden opportunity. Democrats LISTEN to her, but she chose to side with the culture of death and convenience instead of standing up for the weak and defenseless…..those who HAVE NO ** C H O I C E *** :-(

  • BS77

    Orwelll would have been mesmerized by the DNC ……the complete mainstreaming of delusion .