The abundant commentary last week about the disappearance and reappearance of the word “God” from the Democratic Party’s 2012 platform was not very illuminating. More important than God-talk is religious freedom substance

In fact, the Democratic platform has a full paragraph labeled “Faith” that states that “our nation, our communities, and our lives are made vastly stronger and richer by faith and the countless acts of justice and mercy it inspires.” The paragraph says that “[p]eople of faith and religious organizations do amazing work in communities across this country and around the world,” and thus the Democratic party “believe[s] in lifting up and valuing that good work, and finding ways to support it where possible.” The party is committed to “constitutionally sound, evidence-based [government] partnerships with faith-based and other non-profit organizations.” The platform proclaims: “There is no conflict between supporting faith-based institutions and respecting our Constitution, and a full commitment to both principles is essential for the continued flourishing of both faith and country.”

Indeed, Amy Sullivan points out that the important religion omission was not the now-restored word “God” but rather this sentence from the 2008 platform: “We will ensure that public funds are not used to proselytize or discriminate.” She explains, “It refers to the Bush-era policy, which President Obama has continued, of allowing faith-based organizations to discriminate when hiring employees using federal funds.” That’s not accurate: faith-based hiring by faith-based organizations long predates President Bush and is firmly grounded in statutes and court decisions; and, on the other hand, a prohibition on using federal grant or contract funds for proselytizing was a Bush-era policy (although not limited to him). Nevertheless, the absence of the 2008 sentence in the 2012 Democratic platform’s paragraph on faith-based services is very noteworthy, as is the Obama administration’s preservation of the federal faith-based initiative and its main body of rules, and its persistent fending off the demands of activists to make religious hiring by federally supported faith-based programs always illegal.

However, notwithstanding the strong supportive words for faith, the Democratic platform’s maximal commitments to reproductive and gay rights spell extreme dangers for many faith-based services. Despite the outpouring of opposition by religious organizations to the administration’s HHS contraceptives mandate, the platform blithely states that “the President has respected the principle of religious liberty” in this matter. The platform announces that “gay rights are human rights” but a few sentences later lists as a “universal value” only that individuals be free to “worship as they please”–not that they must be free to exercise their faith in public as well as private, organizationally as well as individually.

Similarly, marriage redefinition is celebrated without addressing the massive religious freedom problems that are a predictable consequence–except for an inconsequential statement of support “for the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.” The platform condemns discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and every effort to “deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples,” without any admission that, unless accompanied by explicit religious-freedom protections, these commitments will undermine the ability of faith-based organizations to maintain their religious identities and faith-shaped practices. There are statements affirming “caring adoption programs” and “our foster care system” but no acknowledgement that the party’s full-out commitment to gay rights will drive many faith-based agencies out of these areas of service unless specific religious-freedom protections are created. The platform declares its maximal support for women’s choice of “a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay” without any hint of understanding how that absolutist right clashes with the conscience rights of religious institutions and professionals who understand abortion to be the killing of innocent human life.

The Republican platform, similarly, while affirming “the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity,” has little to say about exactly how fair treatment for LGBT persons and couples might be accommodated simultaneously with respect for religious individuals and institutions. Unlike its Democratic counterpart, it has no “faith” paragraph affirming respect for religion and faith-based organizations.

However, the Republican platform presumes a large and valued role for faith-based services in statements such as “[g]overnment at all levels should work with faith-based institutions that have proven track records in diverting young and first time, non-violent offenders from criminal careers” and its affirmation of “the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s healthcare, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities.”

And the Republican platform has a multiple-paragraph statement on the constitutional principle of religious freedom and how that principle requires protection of the freedoms of faith-based service organizations. The platform criticizes the Obama administration for policies that pressure faith-based institutions as well as individuals “to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion.” It blasts the administration’s “audacity,” via the HHS contraceptives mandate, to presume to “declar[e] which faith-related activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendment.”

In place of such encroachments upon religious exercise, Republicans “pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government.” That means never requiring any “healthcare professional or organization . . . to perform, provide for, withhold, or refer for a medical service against their conscience.” It leads to a condemnation of the state action against “religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples.” And it means–given as a positive statement, not as an implication from the removal of a previous platform’s statement–that the Republican party is committed to upholding “the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices.”

It is common knowledge that platforms are binding neither on the presidential candidates nor on their parties. Still, the platforms tell you something important about the main currents within the parties.