On Obama, Abortion, and Freedom: A dialogue with Christian Conservatives

(it was time for us to talk right? Before I begin, let me say this is a lengthy read)

Brief abstract (so you know what you're getting into): More academic and thorough in scope, I'm hoping to respond to the numerous emails blasting J.Kwest/PureMusic for supporting President-Elect Obama. I focus this conversation on a discussion of freedom and morality, where Christianity fits in, and how lawmaking often exhibits a false morality. I argue that we cannot ban abortion or anything else, for the face of God is found in the face of opposition. Enjoy.


Millions of people around the world celebrated the victory of Sen. Barack Obama in this Election 2008. Crowds were dancing in the streets, from Chicago to Kenya, Tokyo to Mexico City; and yes, even in Iraq they were happy to usher in what we hope will be a new era of American politics.


Let this not obscure the fact that a lot of Americans are not happy about our new President-Elect. In fact, millions are angry, saddened, and deeply worried about what America may become. I now refer specifically to Christian groups that consider themselves politically conservative, citing Obama’s position on gay marriage and partial-birth abortion as reasons for their concerns. It is the reverse-Obama effect. One can only imagine what racial concerns remain, but they are upset that our country may allow abortion at any stage, or that in California there may one day be an opportunity for two of the same gender to marry. Conservatives find these trends antithetical to sound Christian doctrine; I’ve even heard President-Elect Obama been called the “AntiChrist” for these very reasons.

I’ve received no shortage of emails asking HOW I could support Obama and still claim to be a Christian. About how I could not only vote for such a man but write a song for him, and shoot a video where gays are depicted lovingly (you can see I’m losing fans here). It is absurd for conservatives to even imagine such a position; something about these past few weeks disturbs every fabric of logic in the (Christian) conservative paradigm.

Now I could talk conservative logic here, or refuse to speak on this matter at all, but this only furthers intolerance and segregation of belief. For years we have gathered in rooms where everyone agrees, condemning everyone else in the name of whatever God we serve. But those days must die. It is time for us to dialogue with the absurd.

It is true that Barack Obama supports gay marriage. He also has a position on abortion that disturbs many Christians on both sides of the aisle. He is critical of American “missionary work” in the form of foreign policy, and he wants to have peaceful dialogue with leaders who hate us. It is also true that he matured in both spirit and thought at Trinity United Church of Christ, where the leadership has always been openly critical of American politics that sponsor injustice. Everything conservatives lay against Obama as FACT is true. But the facts don’t concern me as much as the judgment that almost always follows the facts in such a way that judgment becomes integrated as fact. Critics are often too swift to cast the shadow of condemnation, thus keeping dialogue at a dull minimum.

Maybe it’ll help if we begin with where we agree. I agree that abortion is detestable at any stage of the pregnancy. Such an act violates the sanctity of life altogether much less the abundant life for which Christians strive. Abortion occurs for many reasons though – some of them pure – and it’s not our place to determine the ethics of another individual. The question here is not “Is it wrong?” but instead, “Should it be illegal?” and there’s the murky rub. This is a question of freedom, and although I know we will disagree now, I have always approached it the same way.

John Milton, author of the great English epic Paradise Lost, wrote: “I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race where that immortal garland is to be run for…that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary…”

What is he saying? A virtue untested is not a virtue at all. It can only become virtuous in the face (and rejection) of that which is its adversary – the enemy. We’re talking about freedom here. In the Christian paradigm this gives new light to Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness; he is made righteous once he stares in the face of unrighteousness and says “NO.” Or to the idolatry of Aaron and the Israelites when they say “YES” to false idols in the form of the golden calf. They are each alike in that their morality is tested by a CHOICE. Without the choice, there can be no morality. The same hold true for Peter who CAN deny Jesus three times and Job who is righteous because he does not curse God, although he easily can.

The fact is that choice has been an issue of morality since Adam and Eve, or whenever your world began. In the lack of choices what one performs out of necessity can neither be called moral nor immoral. It simply IS.

This matters when discussing what our government should allow or prohibit. The government has many responsibilities – to make life safer; to provide more resources and opportunities for success; to uphold the basic civil liberties of its citizens. All of these are arguable. What we cannot dispute is whether the government exists to uphold morality. It does not. It cannot, for we elect diplomats to represent us and not to decide for us. Anytime your decision is taken away you are not only given a restricted freedom but you are limited in how moral you can be. Our morality is tested and tried by Freedom; Congress and Senate must make all efforts to make us as free as possible.

When the government pretends to limit freedom by citing moral cause, it is practicing a false morality. It can use laws to point us in the direction of God but it cannot be called “righteous.” Again…Choice. It is the woman who CAN get rid of her baby but decides to keep it who experiences the joy and righteousness of God. Following God requires staring in the face of that which (we believe) is not God and saying “NO.” For many Christians and especially conservatives this means an opportunity to abort, or an opportunity to do anything God may deem “Sin.”. The onus of whether people perform these acts then rests where it belongs – on moral institutions and not lawmakers. The church has gotten off for a long time blaming the government for what its congregants do.


The main reason I resist government banning of ANYTHING is because it is a dangerous path when any government pretends to be moral in its laws. Remember that “good Christianity” is responsible for over 200 years of slavery, a holocaust, and almost every major war in the history of humankind. As a nation we have been on a similar path for the past eight years, using the Christian god to justify a restriction of freedom. But we have already discussed how the Christian god is made real and accessible through freedom.

Let's be clear: America is not a Christian nation. It is a secular nation with Christian roots. And its authority comes in its laws and great citizens, NOT from Jesus on the cross. If America claims to be Christian it has to first decide what it means to be Christian and then practice this ethic across the board (banning gay marriage –and- prayer in schools doesn’t jive). But America cannot commit wholeheartedly to Christianity for it would require that we ban war and embrace the people we call “terrorists.” It would require a deep inquiry of capitalism and call for an equal distribution of wealth – what many call “socialism.” These are the ethics of a Christian nation, and also happen to be key facets of the Obama platform. He wants freedom (so you can decide for yourself), more attention to the meek of the Earth, and the eventual dissolution of American Imperialism (he’s even reading THIS right now).


As far as morality, I reflect on Reinhold Niebuhr, who suggests that it is not society’s fault (or the blame of the government) for its immoral condition but it is the immoral nature of man, at his core, that brings about our ills. Abortion, Drug Use, and Sexual Practice are not about laws but about sin at the heart, and who speaks to these matters more intentionally than any other institution? The Church, and it needs to do better.

It is true that accessibility and freedom has weakened our moral fiber, but our President-Elect is not to blame. It is our churches, mosques, and temples that have grown increasingly intolerant of the Other and resistant of human freedom. But while total freedom is dangerous, under the right leadership it can help to develop a more righteous, loving, and informed human experience. What’s at stake is a nation full of robots that blindly follow the dictates of their self-righteous government. Robots have enough of our jobs; should they absorb our morality as well?



(I have tried to respond to many of you thoughtfully, critically, and lovingly. Please respond back in kind)