You say "Kucinich has come to realize his religious a(n)d spiritual views have no place in legislating for a secular society."--But that to me seems contrary to Kucinich's own explanation of his faith and politics.
Says Kucinich:
Look, the founders understood the need to separate church and state. The establishment clause of the Constitution made it very clear that the government should not be involved in the establishment of religion. Our founders understood the dangers inherent in that in their contact with the Church of England. But our founders also understood that this nation could not separate itself from spiritual value. And so our Constitution, our Declaration of Independence resonate very powerfully with spiritual principles. When the Declaration speaks of nature’s God, there is a sense of something transcendent at work. The ideas of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are spiritual values. Self-evident truths which we speak become only evident to self through connection with something transcendent. And so the founders saw a nation which on one hand didn't seek to promote a particular religion but which sought to create a context where someone's connection with something transcendent, with something beyond our experience, was an essential part of our own growth as a nation. So many American presidents have understood that in talking about the connection in which the nation has to God. But not a personified god, not an exclusive god, but in God as representing that imminent universal force which embraces all beliefs and frankly all manner of disbeliefs as well. And so the founders, if you look at the Great Seal of the United States itself, the one side of that Great Seal has at the apex of the pyramid the all-seeing eye of divine providence and with the inscription in Latin, Annuit Coeptis - which translates to, ‘he has favored our undertaking.’ The founders had a sense that there was some kind of a hand that was guiding this country. At the same time, they didn't want that hand to be representative of an exclusive religion that would try to push America in a particular direction with respect to a particular type of belief.
Here's Kerry answering the same question:
How do you as President, if you are elected, Senator Kerry, maintain that separation between church and state, between religion and politics?
Well, the way we have for 228 years. I mean, I don't find it very difficult. We pray as a nation often, usually, before major kinds of events, when you're inaugurated, before ‑‑ invocations are a sort of accepted sense of our definition as a country. We certainly go back to the Founding Fathers, and there was an understanding of how we were founded and what their belief system was. But we separated in terms of the establishment of religion. And that is the constitutional clause that I think is so critical ‑‑ and no one faith ought to be seeking to assert itself in a way that makes it, quote, the dominant or the definer of everything that is America. That is not who we are. We are a place of diversity. So I define it much as President Kennedy did in Houston in 1960, when he made it clear about the separation of church and state. Affairs of state are affairs of state, and they ought to be based on the discussion we have day to day about how we fund education or how big the military ought to be. And affairs of faith are affairs of faith. And they're separated.
Interfaith Alliance Election Guide.
I think there is a difference between the two positions. How does that play out? Look, I agree with Kucinich on the freedom to marry, but that's exactly not the point. Kerry, I don't agree with his religious views on marriage, but he says he's not going to go out of his way to force his opinions on other, and certainly not to deny anybody their civil rights, and in fact he has record of doing the opposite, of going out of his way to defend the civil rights of others.
I've looked at Kerry's position from the hrc, his record on DOMA, his interview with the Advocate, his opposition to the FMA, his opposition to the Vatican's position, his remarks about the Massachusetts SJC advisory opinion, his statement to NPR, and now his reaction to Bush's call for a constitutional amendment. In my mind it's been totally consistent.
Read the
Advocate Interview. I can't do it justice because of copyright limitations.
Well, maybe it's an irony, but the thing is DK is fine when you can agree with him or think his religious views are harmless enough, but what about when you disagree with him? Obviously, the flag burning amendment isn't a big issue to you, and you can forgive him his tresspasses on Roe v. Wade, but really your pro-choice stand must have sensitized you to the dangers of mixing faith and politics. In the long run or maybe not far off at all it stifles dissent and makes the excerize of other rights pretty meaningless. Take away the first amendment, and we all have equal rights to stfu, to peacefully come together for the purpose of stfu, to not have our right to stfu abridged....
So I'm thinking the issue is how we are interpreting what they are saying, and what sticks out as essential. I think Kerry stands for diversity of opinion, and religious freedom. More than Kucinich. I think their voting records also show this difference. If I believed JK had a voting record that was contrary to what he's saying, if he'd gone out of his way to impose his moral vision on others, if he hadn't come to the defense of others' civil rights, then I wouldn't be having this discussion.
Oh, and to clarify, in case it's not clear, where I disagree with DK. My life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are not primarily in this context spiritual matters. My liberty in particular is a political value, an assertion, and whatever other spin you put on it, you better believe that I retain and positively assert the freedom to define it my way.