Kucinich: Religion should influence public policy

[maha]

They (the candidates) are also asked, "Do you practice a faith, and would you invoke the name of God when discussing a policy?" Nearly every one of them gives the safe answer, that their faith is important to them, but that they respect the separation of church and state. "I pray every night, but don't go to church very often," says Dean. "My religion does not inform my public policy, but it does inform my values," is Edwards's answer, and he adds, "The president of the United States should not be setting policy for the country based on his or her faith."

Only Kucinich dissents. (Along with Clark, Kerry, and Braun, he's one of four Catholics at the debate; Braun attends an Episcopal church and Clark attends a Presbyterian one.) He says that within the context of a pluralistic society, religious values can and should influence public policy. "We must live our spiritual values in our public policy," such as full employment, health care, and education, he says. "A government that stands for peace reflects spiritual values." After the debate, I try to ask Kucinich about the relationship between his faith and his public policy, but I get off on the wrong foot by saying that he changed his abortion position to pro-choice "right before" he started running for president. "Wrong," Kucinich says, it was spring 2002. The discussion goes nowhere from there.
...

What role would a "first lady, first man, or first friend" play in their administrations? There are three interesting answers. Dean confirms that "I'd very much like to be the first president who has a working wife in the White House" who does not participate in his career. Braun, who is divorced, says, "This is an impossible question. There has never been a First Man or First Gentleman." Like Dean, but with more flair, she concludes, "You'll get me, but you'll get no one for free."

But it's Kucinich, who also is divorced, who steals the show. "As a bachelor, I get a chance to fantasize about my first lady. Maybe Fox wants to sponsor a national contest or something," he says. He adds that he wants "someone who would not want to just be by my side," but would be a "dynamic outspoken women who was fearless" in her support for peace in the world and universal, single-payer health care. So, "If you're out there, call me."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090856/

(Hello, Dennis? You are not a bachelor. You are divorced. Twice, I think. I'm divorced too and I don't hold it against you, but in honesty you are not a bachelor.)

[redqueen]

1. Nice job. Trying out for Faux, are you?

Here is your title:

"Kucinich: Religion should influence public policy"

Here is the quote:

"We must live our spiritual values in our public policy..."


See the difference? "religion" is not "spiritual values"

Spiritual values have no dogma.

I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.
:eyes:


Also disappointing is the way Slate made it seem as if he weren't joking. Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.

[maha]

3. Nice Try. No Cigar.

When "spiritual values" equal "dogma," be afraid.

[TimeLord]

16. I almost bought it...

then I read the article.

Ridiculous.

[Ediacara]

2. That's too bad that the discussion went no where

Dennix was clearly considering a run in Spring 2002, and it doesn't matter one bit if he hadn't declared until Spring 2003. It's pretty obvious that he changed his abortion stance as a direct result of the fact he was thinking about running for President.

In any case, I would like to hear the Kucinich-supporters explain his grossly religionist rantings here.... again, Dennis is not much different from the GOP, is he?

And jeez.... I thought Dean was the Repub-lite. Now I'm confused...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. "Grossly religionist rantings?"

He's not talking about enforcing fundamentalist behavior standards or requiring school prayer or having a state church. He's talking about basing his policies on the ethical standards that all religions teach (concern for the poor, peacemenaking) but too seldom practice.

In other words, he's trying to be a counterweight to the distortions of the "Christian" right.

[maha]

5. And yet

For many years he was perfectly willing to impose his religious beliefs on abortion and stem cell research on the rest of us.

Why is it we're not supposed to notice that?

[Liberator_Rev]

6. Where's the proof, Maha ?

Since people like me don't know K's entire history, why don't you enlighten us with your sources for the claim that "For many years he was perfectly willing to impose his religious beliefs on abortion and stem cell research on the rest of us." ?

My own guess is that he may have shared Mario Cuomo's view which is "Pro-Life" in the sense that he doesn't embrace adoption for himself and his mate, but insists that his choice puts no restraints whatsoever ON ANY BODY ELSE, which makes him also "ProChoice".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Actually, he voted anti-choice for many years

which reflected the views of his constituents, but he gradually moved over to the pro-choice side, and he says that it was under the influence of the women in his life (daughter? girlfriend?).

I don't doubt his sincerity, since I went through a similar conversion at one point in my life.

[maha]

9. Read, and weep.

Just google for "Kucnicn pro-life" and you'll get all the information you need about his anti-abortion rights VOTING RECORD.

For example, from the Nation,

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-carney110102.asp

In the Ohio state Senate, Kucinich voted to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1996, while running for U.S. House, the former "boy-mayor" of Cleveland said, "I believe that life begins at conception." When Kucinich was coming to Washington, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy counted the former mayor as one of a handful of "anti-choice" Democratic newcomers. ...

... This left-wing congressmen voted with the National Right to Life Committee on every single abortion vote in his first two years. That was more pro-life than three Ohio Republicans that year. The votes included sticking up for a ban on partial-birth abortion and voting to thwart President Clinton's plan to give foreign aid to overseas agencies that perform and counsel abortion.

For the next two years, the story was the same. Kucinich voted again to ban partial-birth abortion, block aid to International Planned Parenthood, and prevent taxpayer dollars from funding abortions in federal prisons. His score in the 106th Congress with the National Right to Life Committee was 95 percent — again, only voting against them on Shays-Meehan.

The 10th district Democrat even towed the pro-life line during the first year of the Bush administration. In April, Kucinich supported the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act," which criminalized harming a fetus in a crime, and he opposed the Democratic substitute that would have defused the fetus-is-a-life parts of the bill.

My four paragraphs are up, but you really need to read the rest of it. The boy earned a 90 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. It would have been 100 percent except that he supported the Shays-Meehan campaign finance bill.

In May 2001 he again voted against funding International Planned Parenthood. Later that year he voted to block federal funding of prison abortions and abortions on U.S. military bases. He supported a bill against "cloning" that seriously hurts stem cell research and gouth the Dem's efforts to soften the ban.

He did a major flip flop on this issue in 2002. One does wonder ...

[HotAndSpicy]

14. He did the flip flop for one reason and one reason only

To run for president. It can not be denied that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a pro-life candidate to get the democratic nomination for president. Can not and will not happen.

[Liberator_Rev]

8. "obvious" only to those unfamiliar with LOGIC !

A good illustration of a common Logical Fallicy, i.e. that if one event follows another event it's "obviously" been caused by that earlier event:
(according to DinoBoy)"Dennix was clearly considering a run in Spring 2002, and it doesn't matter one bit if he hadn't declared until Spring 2003. It's pretty obvious that he changed his abortion stance as a direct result of the fact he was thinking about running for President."

Since when is it cause for shame that a person concedes that they were WRONG and adopts a BETTER intellectual idea?
Knowing what pressure Catholic politicans are under to be Conservative, I admire Denis for daring to challenge the hierarchy and the millions fo Conservative Catholics who follow that hierarchy!

[maha]

10. I don't know why he flip flopped

But someone with a near perfect voting record from the National Right to Life Committee's POV, until last year, cannot call himself a lifelong progressive. A year-long progressive, maybe.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. You misunderstand where he's coming from

He's from the progressive wing of the Catholic Church, the same branch as the nuns and priests killed in Central America for standing up for the rights of the peasants and the clerical and lay people imprisoned for symbolic acts of vandalism against nuclear missiles or demonstrating against the School of the Americas.

DK has never been one of those fundies who loves fetuses and hates everyone else.

If you're not familiar with the religious left, then you've probably never heard of the "seamless pro-life" movement. Yes, they are against abortion, but they are also against capital punishment and war and damage to the environment. That's a position that I can respect, since it is truly based on a concern for life, not on keeping women barefoot and pregnant.

The right wingers weep over other people's two-month fetuses but want to "fry" everyone from burglars on up, are salivating at the chance to nuke some Middle Eastern country, and hope to earn their pile off the world's natural resources before they're all gone. DK is most emphatically not in that camp.

As I mentioned above, I went through a conversion to pro-choice in my own life. Although my background is Lutheran and Episcopalian, my own personal ethic is closest to the seamless pro-life movement, and I never would have had an abortion if I had become pregnant. However, I recognize that there are circumstances in which abortion is the only reasonable option, so I am pro-choice for other people. However, it took me a while to come around to that position.

[maha]

12. Astonished in Yonkers

"If you're not familiar with the religious left, then you've probably never heard of the "seamless pro-life" movement. Yes, they are against abortion, but they are also against capital punishment and war and damage to the environment. That's a position that I can respect, since it is truly based on a concern for life, not on keeping women barefoot and pregnant."

I'm very familiar with "seamless pro-life," but the fact remains that voting against the funding of international planned parenthood has the real-world effect of keeping women barefoot and pregnant, not to mention dead, in many cases.

As a Buddhist I have a lot of respect for people's personal religious values. But as a citizen I don't much give a rat's ass about the philosophical underpinnings of policies that result in suffering and death. Compassionate people do not choose ideology over humanity.

Mario Cuomo and other progressive Catholics are able to separate their religious beliefs from their public service. Apparently, Dennis cannot do that. I'm glad he flip flopped and came over to the light, but I'd be more comfortable with him if he (and his followers) could honestly discuss the flip flop and the reasons behind it instead of shutting off all discussion as if we're not supposed to notice it.

[beyurslf]

13. I can not in good

concious support any candidate who I do not believe to be 100% pro chioce. A change in viewpoints that is not demonstrated in voting leaves me worried, especially considering his atrocious voting record prior to his change.

We are too close to rolling the clock back 30 years to risk electing a President who is not fully behind Roe v. Wade.

[loyalsister]

15. What a relief!

to see some sensibility on this issue. The problem we have is this. DK is VERY religious. That influenced his views on abortion. He has changed his views on abortion, yet maintained his level of religiosity? It's a dangerous road. IMO He indicates by his superstitious thinking style that he can easily be influenced back in the other direction.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. "Superstititious thinking style"?

Thank you for insulting the majority of Americans, most of whom are NOT fundie right wingers.

[loyalsister]

22. We're talking about

a guy who truly in his heart of hearts believed\believes that the "soul" of an embryo is important enough in the cosmic scheme of this world that it should be prioritized over existing people.
He is right in line with the thinking of that minority you mentioned there.
I think it IS ridiculously superstitious to consider the "soul" of the embryo let alone make it a factor in decision making.
I happen to think that there are a lot of people who would agree with me.

[baby_bear]

18. Perfectly stated, maha

You said it just right. Even a lot of people on this board who are his supporters don't want to discuss it, or don't want us to notice. I got totally blasted here several months ago when I suggested his votes had historically been anti-woman and I could not support him for that.

s_m

[maha]

19. And what does this tell us?

Strangest thing, huh? There have been other people through the years who changed their views on this matter, and they could usually acknowledge their views had changed and explain why without getting defensive about it.

[baby_bear]

21. I'd like to hear his explanation of why he voted as he did

...especially the votes such as those against international family planning funding (he supported the gag rule) and against coverage of contraception -contraception!- in federal employees' health insurance.

Why, Dennis, why? What were you thinking? It's one thing to abide by your religion in your own life, but to foist it on others? As a federal employee, I am outraged that you tried to make me pay full price for my own birth control pills, while Viagra is fully covered.

And that's just a small thing, overall. I want to know how he justified how he voted the way he did, not just why he changed.

s_m

[rbnyc]

20. "within the context of a pluralistic society"

Your subject line is deceptive and unappreciated.

:(

[dflprincess]

23. Feed the hungry

give drink to the thirsty
cloth the naked
house the homeless
heal the sick
comfort the bereaved
visit the imprisoned

These are the Corporal Works of Mercy the nuns taught me in Catechism. Not all spiritual values are suspect.

Yet, if I ran for office on a platform like this it would be said I was "too liberal" to win.

[maha]

25. There's spirituality, and there's religion.

A little study of Taoism would clarify your confusion between acts of selfless compassion and acts based on dogma.

You've listed acts of compassion. Compassion may be rooted in spirtuality but transcends religious sectarianism.

Voting against funding of international planned parenthood, putting the lives and health of women at risk, is an act NOT based on compassion, but on dogma. This does NOT transcend religious sectarianism.

When the Tao is lost, man resorts to virtue.
When virtue is lost, man resorts to humanity.
When humanity is lost, man resorts to morality.
when morality is lost, man resorts to religion.

(Loose rendering of Tao Teh Ching verse #38)

[politicat]

24. Yet another candidate loses my support.

At this rate, I will be "Yellow Dawg"-in' it next November.

I have no issues with a religious President, even though I am agnostic and very skeptical that organized religion is as good as most of its' supporters say. (And I did grow up exposed to several religions - Quaker, Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon, Judaism and Epsicopalian-Anglican - so I'm not ignorant of religion and practices.)

I do have issues with a president that would put his/her personal beliefs above the rule of law and above precedent. I cannot and will not vote for someone who will ignore the vast amount of case law, precedent and legislation that backs up, supports and defines the First Amendment and the Establishment clause.

I am an agnostic, but that matters less than the fact that no one set of spiritual values, beliefs, or religion can possibly apply to any two of us in this nation. Those who believe have a personal and private relationship with their deity and their beliefs that I, an outsider, can never understand or replicate, just as those of you who do believe probably find my lack of belief and feeling of irrelevance equally incomprehensible. This doesn't mean we can't agree and communicate on a thousand other issues, but faith, or lack thereof, is private and personal. No one should ever be able to use it as a sledge hammer against anyone else.

One can be moral without being religious. One can be a caring and compassionate citizen without a church. The moral compass is internal, not found in a book, a church, or a necessarily a deity.

My apologies, Mr. Kucinich, but you don't represent me.

[maha]

26. That's really the crux of the issue.

"I cannot and will not vote for someone who will ignore the vast amount of case law, precedent and legislation that backs up, supports and defines the First Amendment and the Establishment clause."

Yes, exactly. It doesn't matter whether he believed personally that abortion is wrong. He was unable to grasp that using his elected office to make laws that enforced his private religious dogmas on other people is a violation of the civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. This is a HUGE warning sign that he can't be trusted.

[SweetheartLikeYou]

27. I agree with everything you wrote except

I really don't believe Mr. Kucinich deserves your apologies!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maha]

30. Freep Alert

The phrase "wall of separation between church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson. He used it as a metaphor to explain what the First Amendment means. The notion that "separation of church and state is a modern myth" is, itself, a modern myth.

You can read about Jefferson and the "wall of separation between church and state" here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

The First Amendment is not just about setting up the Official Church of the United States. It provides that a religious faction, even a majority faction, may not use government to impose its beliefs and practices on others.

When a legislator votes against legal abortion because it's against HIS religion, that's an imposition of HIS beliefs on other people by force of law. And the Founding Fathers most definitely did NOT approve of such things.

[GabysPoppy]

28. Everything is speculation

The truth will come in the future.

Once DK finally becomes an ex-candidate and an important vote comes up in Congress, we will see if his "flip-flop" was real or memorex.

It will be even more of a test when a Democrat becomes president and their is no White House for him to run for until 2012.