Kucinich and progressive politics

[Nono]

Quote by: bentodd First National healthcare would only force people to pay for insurance where they can only see an MD.

Say again?
Should we assume that most Americans postitively turn up their noses at the attention of MDs?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Nono Say again? Should we assume that most Americans postitively turn up their noses at the attention of MDs?

He's calling attention to the stranglehold the AMA has on healthcare in America and that a national health agency would be dominated and controlled by MDs. This would further marginalize alternative therapies like chiropractic, acupuncture and traditional chinese medicine, and you-name-it on the choices for healthcare. See?

[mr.perfecto]

If he weren't so involved with the "Anti-war" movement, he'd actually be a good guy. I tend to agree with Athena with regards to him needing to be married, although, in an odd sort of way I guess it should say more from him that he doesn't just go out and get a trophy wife. He is a guy I can respect even though I disagree with him. He seems more open and accessible than other leaders.

He is still wrong though.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: Gorgo Again, he may be a lunatic, and it may be wrong that people belong to parties that you don't agree with. However, your choice is to support criminal behavior, and that's just going too far.

My choice is to NOT support criminal behavior ever at all.
Which is why I would not support him, he is a walking violation IMO.

He'll never get near the Presidential or VP nomination, for if he did, he'd get a whole bunch of Republicans elected.

He will not get you peace, the man will get you cut and run IMO.

If he believes his own talk, he should as I said go practice it with those Iraqi terrorists who have been cutting heads off.
If he thinks he's such a genious, he should go over there and broker his form of peace with those that want us all dead.
I figure if he is successful and if his theories are good, he will be a world hero. If he is not, he'll be a foot shorter and minus a head.
If he believes what he says, he should go for it IMO.

[northtexan]

Quote by: Edge </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) But still, cheers to any candidate who stands up to the hegemony of the Democrats and Republicans.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> uh.. He's a democrat. You're joking. Right?

No, I don't think anyone is. Kucinich is one of the few Democrats who have shown any spine, and this has meant that he has been seen to be very much on the fringe of the party. True, he doesn't belong to a third party, but then by being a Dem he does get elected.

Quote by: Edge </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) I said the government should not legislate marriage.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> agreed. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,) When government and the Church coeist in one society, there can be no seperation, just a hypocritical and misinformed notion of seperation.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Total separation between religion and state is a myth. Even secular humanism is a religion. Pick the one that matches your philosophy and build a society on it...

I actually agree that Secular Humanism (ie., the dogmatic faith of the Council on Secular Humanism, not humanism as a whole, as it is often misapplied) is religious. However, the idea of separation of church and state was, and is, to create as neutral a space as possible among religions, so that government is not constantly wracked by religious disputes, and frequently by religious wars. Our Founding Fathers had plenty of experience with the disputes among religions, and based on the legacy of the Enlightenment, also wished for some freedom from the religious dogma of others. They therefore put the provisions into the Constitution, including two into the First Amendment, to try to create that neutral space.

Of course putting it down on paper doesn't make it so, and there are all sorts of complexities. Thus, vestiges remained of former religious domination of government, especially until and after the 14th Amendment applied the provisions to the state governments. There remain many areas of conflict: e.g., not taxing religious properties is supposed to help maintain religious independence of politics, but in return religions are asked to not directly participate in partisan politics. That does not disentangle church and state, but it likely creates less entanglement -- and in any case, religions are free to forego the tax breaks if they wish to politic. Unfortunately, this provision is seldom enforced, so religions do get the tax breaks and still politic, especially unfortunate because it places at a disadvantage the points of view of congregations that abide by the law. Maybe we should allow full participation in partisan politics -- but I would argue for full taxation of religious property in such a case. Which way best separates church and state?

In short, imperfect as it is, separation has served us very well: we have not had nearly the level of religious strife apparent in many other parts of the world (although proto-theocrats in the U.S. are trying to change that), and we have one of the most-religious populations in the world: something many have attributed by our openness to new religious movements, which itself has depended on the lack of an established church and by government non-partisanship with regard to religion.

So, our separation is not hypocritical and misinformed -- it is very real, beneficial, and exquisitely informed. It is not perfect, but it is the best the world has produced so far. A descent into theocracy, by contrast, would be a tragedy. And a theocracy is exactly what much of the religious right wants. They must be slapped down if America is to survive as a viable society.