A Hypothetical Democratic Apology

[YankeyMCC]

(snip)
in the light of the Democratic Party's statement that there is no place at the table when Democrats gather to discuss morality and/or the common good (since only 'people of faith' were invited to these discussions), I want to state now what would count as a legitimate apology.

A legitimate party is an admission of wrongdoing that states that one understand what one did that was wrong, that at least admits to owing some sort of restitution to those who were wronged, and makes a sincere promise not to engage in the same behavior in the future.
(snip)

(snip)
These are some of the things to look at in determining whether somebody has given an honest and legitimate apology. Simply because a sentence contains the word 'sorry', this does not make their claim an apology. One has to look for an admission of wrongdoing, an explanation of why the act was wrong, a willingness to compensate those wronged for the harms done, and a sincere promise not to do the same thing in the future. Without these four elements, no apology has taken place. Instead, a mere pseudo-apology has been offered, and no just person can find merit in a mere pseudo-apology.
(snip)


http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2008/08/hypothetical-democratic-apology.html

In fact I heard the Interview of the registered republican minister - I forget his name at the moment - who will speak at the convention and helped 'draft' the statements related to abortion in the party platform.

I do understand these gatherings were really more about the political necessity to demonstrate and truly giving some of the more hard line evangelical believers input, showing inclusiveness and gaining some understanding of how to reach out them them - and not necessarily about 'morals' and 'ethics' but that will be the general perception and they are just perpetuating the idea that there are only two sides, anit and pro religion and that only religious codes are valid as moral and ethical guide.