This is the first part of a series on why I, as an Evangelical Christian, can support Barack Obama and the Democratic party.  It was originally posted on the Smidgin.

When talking with other Evangelical Christians about my support for Barack Obama it is not uncommon to encounter incredulity as to how I could vote for a Democrat, much less one as liberal as he is.  So, for my own edification and to help others understand, I will try to lay out my reasons as best I can.

To begin with, I will look at those traditionally Democratic positions that Evangelicals tend to disagree with.  From there I’ll turn to other campaign issues that I find important.

Before I begin, however, let me lay out a few ground rules for myself and others:

  • My purpose here is to present why I support (or can support) Obama, not why I oppose McCain.  While some reference is obviously needed for positioning, that will not be my main focus. Don’t expect a lot about McCain.
  • Following upon that, I aim not to avoid negative statements in favor of more positive reviews.  The one possible exception to this will be in the area of character, which does influence my opinion.

Now, let us proceed with the first part.

The Democrats and Abortion

Probably the most common objection posed by Evangelicals who learn that I support Obama is: “He’s pro-choice.  How can you support that?”  This is especially true since the selection of Palin as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

The first thing to note is that I am still unequivocally against abortion.  The second thing to note is that the pro-life/pro-choice debate in this country represents not one tragedy, but two. One tragedy is well known: abortion means the killing of a human life, tantamount to murder.  The second tragedy is not often stated, but equally important: the term “pro-life” has come to be framed solely in terms of the abortion debate.

Simply put, my willingness to support Obama is not because I have ceased to care about abortion, but because of the very fact that I am pro-life.  Let me explain.

The problem is that “pro-life” has come to signify “anti-abortion.”  In reality, pro-life should represent exactly what it says: pro-life in every area.  This means to be pro-life is to oppose the traditional threats to life: abortion, euthanasia, etc.  But it also means that to be pro-life is to oppose any infringement upon the gift of life: unjust war, capital punishment, and policies that favor one group of people while injuring another.  If we are going to be for life, we must be completely and totally for it.

When seen in this light, I am dissatisfied with both parties’ stances on life.  My decision to support the Democrats, then, is not a sell-out, but an educated choice as to which party has a better grasp on the issue of life at this moment in time.

War in Opposition to Life

To some people my reasoning may not make sense yet.  When looking at the issues above, it is much easier to see how abortion is anti-life than many of the others.  The very idea of abortion is that of blatantly disregarding human rights to inflict damage, in this case death, upon a living being.  The idea is so graphic and emotional that it is hard to move beyond it, but that is what must be done.

The most relevant issue which can be placed across from abortion is that of the current war in Iraq, especially the controversial interrogation techniques.  (When considering this, it does not matter whether the invasion of Iraq was justified, etc., so don’t expect that to be addressed here.) The Bush administration, with the backing of the Republican party, has drifted dangerously towards sanctioning techniques that are recognized as torture by the international community.  It has also repeatedly opposed the extension of habeas corpus to detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.  If examined from a distance, it becomes clear that the policies at Guantanamo Bay involve the blatant disregard for human rights in an attempt to inflict damage on a living being.

Before continuing any further, let me address several concerns.  Many would contend that those detained at Guantanamo Bay are terrorists and therefore do not deserve to be accorded rights.  This is wrong for two reasons.  First, it is written into the very core of the American ideal that every human being is accorded rights.  Second, the refusal to charge many of these detainees casts serious doubts upon the assertion that the detainees are terrorists.

A second concern, related to the first, is that this does not compare to the scale of abortion.  I believe, however, that it does.  The denial of basic rights, especially where torture is concerned, sets a dangerous precedent for the future of this country.  This precedent affects us in several ways.  One is in our foreign policy, which I will cover in a later post.  A more important result is in our domestic policy, and the willingness of the government to engage in policies contrary to human rights, stooping even to the level of torture, an assault upon life.

My final comment on torture is that as an Evangelical I do not stand alone on the issue: An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture.

Beyond the issue of torture, the current War in Iraq also represents a disturbing loss of life: approximately 90,000 civilians have been killed since 2003.  This is in addition to untold damage to life, health, and property.  Whether or not the war was the right choice, it is clear that its execution, especially in the early years, was done without proper knowledge of the country and culture of Iraq, resulting in an extreme threat to life and a serious challenge to its justification using the Just War Theory.

If this is the case, the War in Iraq represents a assault upon a culture of life.  While the relative merits of beginning the war can be debated, it is clear that there have been decisions made that, whether through negligence or maliciousness, have resulted in serious threats to life.  In light of this, the Republican assertion that it is the pro-life party is difficult to maintain.

Presenting this argument is difficult, of course, because abortion and the War in Iraq are two very different things.  My goal, however, has been to show that both sides of the political spectrum lack a true culture of life.  This is important, as it shows that my decision to support the Democrats does not contradict my ideals.

Finally, I don’t believe I have done this particular defense justice and I would like to see Laura, with whom I have talked this over before, write her own position.

Capital Punishment and the Issue of Life

While the issues of torture and war are primary for many people in my position, the idea of capital punishment is also a problem for me.  This is an issue which I find particularly compelling as an Evangelical Christian, and have written on it before.  I will try not to rehash my words here.

Again, I consider it necessary to be completely pro-life if I claim that title.  While I recognize that those convicted of heinous crimes have torn the moral fabric of society in such a way that there must be special considerations taken in their punishment, I do not believe that death is the correct choice.  If we are going to assert that life should be preserved, then life should always be preserved.

There are good arguments for the death penalty based on precedent, deterrence, and the idea that criminals have forfeited their right to life.  When it comes down to it, however, given the choice to be pro-life in all we do I believe we must not make exceptions.

An obvious weakness to my argument is, of course, the Just War Theory.  In brief I would address that by saying that with capital punishment we hold a life in our hands which does not threaten others.  With war, however, inaction can mean further crimes against life which we would then be guilty of.  Unfortunately for us, and contrary to what some people seem to believe, the world consists of more than simply black and white.

Shifts in the Democratic Plank

To round off my consideration of the issue, it is necessary to draw attention to the recent modification of the Democratic plank on abortion.  In the past the plank has read:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

In the 2008 platform, it has been changed to:

The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions. The Democratic Party also strongly supports a woman’s decision to have a child by ensuring access to and availability of programs for pre- and post-natal health care, parenting skills, income support, and caring adoption program

While this is obviously not the stance I would like to see on the issue, it does represent progress.  The Democratic party is making it clear that abortion is, for them, undesirable, if necessary.  This provides the hope that the two parties will be able to work together, whatever their final stance on the issue, to reduce the number of abortions.

Conclusion

In my beliefs and and ideals I remain unwaveringly pro-life, in the true sense of the word.  If you want a better sense of what that truly means, I would encourage you to read The Gospel of Life, by Pope John Paul II (Amazon).  The Catholic Church, it sometimes seems, is the only institution that truly understand what it means to be completely pro-life.

Since I don’t believe either political party has a monopoly on the protection of life, I refuse to be a single issue voter.  Voting Republican simply because the ticket is anti-abortion is a shame and a waste of one’s decision making power.  That is not to say that the abortion issue should not weigh on your decision.  But in my case, as I hope I’ve made clear, the assumption that being anti-abortion gives the Republican party a claim to pro-life does not work.  In my judgment the Democrats this year, as led by Barack Obama, have an equal claim on the ideas and ideals of the issue of life.  Thus I can, without moral qualm, give my support to their campaign.