Sensitive Subjects

In which I break conventional rules of polite conversation, in the interest of having one...

Last night, I got so worked up about things I read on the Internet that I couldn't sleep. One friend had posted Christian pianist Huntley Brown's reasons he wouldn't be voting for Obama.* Another had sent along her own reasons for backing McCain--namely, abortion, the economy, education, and healthcare.** I made the mistake of googling "Christians for Obama," and arrived at a post by the pastor of a Christian church who was supposedly soliciting genuine discussion in the comments of his blog from Christians supporting Obama--but instead routinely "rebutted" each, individually, essentially calling the democratic candidate a baby killer.

Now, I am sure there are people for whom getting worked up, by the Internet or other sources, and thus being too distraught to sleep, is a routine occurrence, but I am not generally one of them. I love working through complex material and challenging subjects, don't shy from rational debate that sticks to the facts--and let very few things interfere with my sleep. For some reason, however, perhaps the emotionally-charged tenor of these pieces, I found myself responding very emotionally and--admittedly and somewhat ashamedly--rather angrily. It's almost as though there's a certain wavelength vibrating through these posts, and one can't help but be infected. I suppose that's why these are Sensitive Subjects.

But what is to be done? Should we simply avoid talking about them, agreeing to disagree? Should we defer to politeness, so that a superficial peace can prevail? Should we attempt to discuss these subjects calmly, respectfully, rationally, and factually, despite their emotionally-hypercharged status? Do facts matter when we're talking about deeply-held, personal convictions based on feelings and, you know, aversion to "killing babies"?

Well.

I don't actually know. I want to believe, of course, that facts do matter; that a calm, respectful, and rational discussion might in fact be possible; and that actually discussing these things instead of burning with silent (or not-so-silent) rage is therapeutic and beneficial. But I'm not sure.

On Tuesday, Native American author Sherman Alexie was on The Colbert Report. He said that although McCain has been great for Native American rights, 90% of the Native community is supporting Obama. Why? "We're giving [our support] to Obama," he said, "because unlike other groups of people in this country, we Indians vote for the good of everybody and not just for the good of our little group."

So. One of the most Sensitive Subjects in this election is clearly abortion, and it is closely tied to Christianity. Christians such as Mr. Brown say they can't vote for Obama because "I have to vote Christian," and that Christ has already "'dictate[d] the terms." Huntley goes on to define those terms primarily as being against abortion and homosexuality.

Now, we can debate what the Christ of the New Testament would say about abortion and homosexuality, but it seems likely to me, based on his record, that he'd be hanging out with, and loving, those whom today's Christian community seems eager to avoid and condemn. Would he deny women the right to a safe and legal option when facing the horrifically difficult prospect of an unplanned pregnancy, or deny same sex couples equality under the law? I could not begin to answer. I'm not even sure what role Christianity proper should play in establishing public policy.

What I do know is that gospels show Christ doing a lot of talking about helping the poor and loving each other. I know that the early Christian church out-socializes any state socialism. I believe that focusing on abortion and homosexuality, in the name of pursuing a "Christian" politics, does great disservice to the broader scope of what the Christ of the New Testament seemed to be trying to get across.

I understand Christians being compelled to vote for their beliefs. However, I believe that attempting to do so is a far more complicated prospect than is often implied--and find unjust the assumption that real Christians could only vote one way on a particular issue.

A few questions, then:

• Should the laws of the land be based on Christian principles? If so, which ones?
  
• Should a Christian select his or her candidate based on the candidate's adherence to Christian moral values? If so, which ones? (performing sacraments? personal beliefs? policy decisions?)
  
• Does voting Christian mean "vot[ing] for the good of everybody"?
• Does voting Christian mean voting for the poor? for the environment? against homosexuality? against abortion?
• Is all life sacred, before and after birth? Should Christians be more concerned about deaths via abortion, via war, via poverty, or via lack of health insurance?
• Do Christians believe that everyone (of all genders, colors, and lifestyles) deserves equal rights under the law?
• Which candidates would best safeguard religious freedom?
• Which candidates would maintain a clearer separation of church and state?
• Should Christians care about being politically correct? polite?
  

Obviously, these are just a few of the many question these Sensitive Subjects raise. I'm less interested in theological or political debates than in how these issues impact real people's lives and votes, and why.

Last night I was angry, then sad, then depressed. I'm not nearly as worked up tonight, but will admit I'm somewhat apprehensive about posting this, because of the aforementioned emotionally-charged nature of these discussions. Still, I wanted to contribute my perspective, and hear your opinions. So there it is.

*Please note that Snopes rated as "true" the fact that the e-mail was sent by this individual, and not its content.
**And for the record, I appreciate receiving thoughtful explanations for why various friends are choosing to vote Republican this year; I think we've seen too few.