I’ve been arguing for years that Christians need to take a step back, politically speaking, and start considering more than simple tacit support for abortion restrictions… and while I doubt I’ve talked to anyone who was surveyed, that notion seems to be catching on. From a new Barna poll:

For the most part, the various faith communities of the U.S. currently support Sen. Obama for the presidency. Among the 19 faith segments that The Barna Group tracks, evangelicals were the only segment to throw its support to Sen. McCain. Among the larger faith niches to support Sen. Obama are non-evangelical born again Christians (43% to 31%); notional Christians (44% to 28%); people aligned with faiths other than Christianity (56% to 24%); atheists and agnostics (55% to 17%); Catholics (39% vs. 29%); and Protestants (43% to 34%). In fact, if the current preferences stand pat, this would mark the first time in more than two decades that the born again vote has swung toward the Democratic candidate.

However, while there has been little movement since the beginning of June among most voting segments (such as ethnic groups, age groups, or geographic slices), there has been substantial churn among religious segments. During the past two months, Sen. Obama’s lead has eroded substantially among non-evangelical born again Christians (a decline of nine points); active Christians (a 20-point drop); Protestants (down 13 points); and Catholics (down 11 points).

While some Christian voters seem to be questioning their early support for Obama, the McCain candidacy does not seem to be gaining momentum among evangelicals. Since June, the current level of support Sen. McCain has among evangelical voters has declined significantly (dropping from 78% to 61%).

Most interesting to me is that last graf: McCain’s support among evangelicals has declined, despite the fact that the “Original Maverick” has been tacking to the right on a whole host of things, including his relationships with so-called evangelical leaders like John Hagee. Are we as a body of faith becoming more pragmatic? Less susceptible to being fooled by wolves in sheeps’ clothing?

I recently read a book called “Tempting Faith” by David Kuo, a former adviser to President Bush on faith-based initiatives. Any Christian who’s into politics should read it; anyone who thinks that the country is going to hell because of some lack of faith should read it twice. Kuo’s got hardly anything bad to say about Bush, and it’s certainly no GOP-bashing book. It does, however, provide a sobering look at the entirely different aims of faith and politics, and how in Washington the latter always takes precedence over the former. (If you’re skeptical, consider this blurb from The American Conservative, a political magazine that likely boasts more engaged Christians than any other: “Tempting Faith is one of those rare Washington books that is worth reading — clearly written, disarmingly honest, thoughtfully introspective, and unusually substantive…. A refreshingly honest account of how politics can seduce the best intentioned and the most naïve.”)

My pal Kevin brought up an interesting conversation starter in the ongoing dialogue on my presidential pick (see top right of this page; click to read it). It goes:

I find it remarkable that our country is able to remain as united as it is given the abortion debate. If any other form of “murder” (currently recognized as such) were made “legal,” we would a potential breakdown of society. Think of the millions who would refuse to pay taxes to a government that sanctioned the killing off of retarded children, or unwanted 2 month old “postnatal fetuses.” Or the millions who would perhaps view taking up arms to protect these lives?

So, let’s explore, shall we?

First off, abortion is a relatively invisible thing: The women who have abortions generally aren’t touting the fact, are they? I’ve never met a woman who said out loud, in my presence or within ear’s range, that she’d had an abortion… yet I’ve heard women speak openly (even fondly) of cocaine use, random sex, theft, blackmail… if abortion is as “OK” as the pro-choice would have us believe, why is speaking of it so taboo? If it’s just another medical procedure, why isn’t it talked about as such—I’ve heard my share of “TMI” tales from the OB/GYN office from my desk at work, you know.

So we see that abortion is taboo, even in the eyes of those who think it morally defensible. This implies, at least, that the pro-choice KNOW that there is a heavy moral divide between the choosers and the lifers… which is why pro-abortion is always couched in terms of “choice,” placing the emphasis back on the mother, and not simply “pro-abortion”—or, to be fair, “pro-legality-and-availability-of-abortion.”

Anyway, abortion’s taboo-ness seems to me to be what keeps America going, despite the huge divide. Truth be told, there is little real debate about abortion in this country, only rhetoric… The law is the law, and there’s no indication it’s going to be overturned anytime soon. It’s too good a campaign tool for politicians to give up, but it may in fact be too ingrained in society to ever be done away with. This is why states have attempted to place restrictions on abortions, albeit restrictions that usually get batted down by the appellate courts (mandatory ultrasound, etc.).

IF, however, the Supreme Court ever got a case that enabled it to strike down Roe, what is right now is muted divide would threaten to erupt into near-violence. In my opinion, women (as every minority) still feel slighted, despite the tremendous advances they’ve seen since the time of their grandmothers. Abortion is truly a symbol of something bigger, of the women’s rights movement in general. What did women really want? The right to abortion, or the right to vote? But the right to abortion came suddenly, on the turn of a single court case, and that at a time of great upheaval. So, it became connected to women’s rights in general, whereas it is a very specific right and has no real effect on wages, suffrage, equality or anything else.

The fact of the matter is that the pro-life and the pro-choice are both arguing over theoreticals… meanwhile, there is a poor, unwed pregnant woman in despair as to where she’ll find the time or the money to take care of a BABY—and I challenge anyone to present me with a woman who became pregnant and thought of the thing inside her as a fetus and not as a pending baby. The fact of its LIFE is what drives the abortion… the life and its perceived effect on the carrying woman’s life. And, sad to say, abortion is an historical fact of life.

I read “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” recently, and a notable throwaway line had to do with how a certain gypsy woman had taken some sort of special medicine, which made her miscarry. This was not uncommon in the 15th century and I would guess not uncommon to most of human history, at least wherever there have been people looking at too little wealth and imagining the troubles of another human pulling from the pool.

This is why I, personally, have a hard time seeing the “answer” to the abortion debate. We’d all agree that a woman who cannot afford (or stomach) having a baby simply ought not have it. But abstinence simply doesn’t pervade, contraception fails (or isn’t used) — and, sadly, rape occurs. Do I want this woman going into a back alley to get rid of her problem? Or taking some concoction that the FDA has definitely not approved, in order to force a miscarriage?

If I were a candidate for president, I might offer a sweeping reform: Any single woman with an “unwanted” pregnancy is offered free room and board at a government-run facility, to be admitted somewhere at the start of the third trimester (when pregnancy really gets demanding). These facilities, scattered throughout the country, would offer voluntary classes based in broad, ecumenical religious teachings on the sanctity of life; they would not be mandatory, but would be the main social offerings at said facilities. At the end of the stay, when giving birth (the medical bills also paid for by the state), the “choice” is given: Keep the baby or give it up for adoption. Either way, the woman with the unwanted pregnancy comes out ahead. Granted, it’s a few months of inconvenience for the woman, but not nearly as much as would be if she had to pay the bills for this “unwanted” baby. Meanwhile, job security would be protected by federal mandate that states an employer cannot fire and must re-receive a pregnant woman who leaves to be in the facility.

There are lots more thoughts… Hopefully you’ve got them.