Last week, we began a series of articles in an effort to help Senator Obama understand the basis for, and thinking of, many citizens in this country who believe that gospel should be used by individuals and governments to distinguish between good and evil. This article will center upon helping the senator understand the Biblical guidance needed to discern and implement good moral policy for individuals and government. To remind us of the necessity for a primer on the subject, we again quote from Senator Obama's own words on the subject:
" ... Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I can't simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many Evangelicals do, but in a pluralistic society, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves compromise, the art of what's possible, and at some fundamental level, religion doesn't allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. Now, to base one's own life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing" (Senator Barack Obama, 'A Call to Renewal, " speech delivered on June 28, 2006).
Senator Obama has supported, both in his legislative voting record and his stated position as a candidate for the presidency, full access to abortion throughout the term of a pregnancy. He has even opposed the ban on partial birth abortion wherein only the head of a late-term baby is left in the womb; an instrument is inserted to suck the brain out of the head and cause the skull to collapse, thus killing the child. Yet, he and other abortion-rights supporters say they would oppose the same procedure if performed on a baby outside the womb. What is the difference? The truth is, only a matter of inches separates this form of murder from what some justify as a constitutional right. If just three inches of the baby's head is left inside the womb, the skull can be fractured, the baby killed, and the body thrown in the trash, as it is at many abortion clinics--and Senator Obama, together with the abortion-rights advocates will continue to defend it as legal!
When one questions the senator and those of like mind about the basis upon which they make their moral (or lack thereof) judgment, the answer is always the same. The child three inches outside the womb is recognized as a distinct person, but the child with just three inches of its head inside the womb is called a fetus and declared to be a part of the woman's body.
It is that kind of thinking (please pardon the misnomer) that has lessened respect for life and helped increase the violent nature of our society. Those of us who oppose abortion are consistent in being disturbed at the willful taking of the lives of children--born and unborn. The same abhorrence for such gross brutality moves us to condemn both the murder of a newborn child and the slaughter of a child through abortion! Our view of policy is consistent because we follow a consistent moral guide for the individual and for government policy. That consistent guide is found in both Biblical record and honest acceptance of the facts.
The fact is that the child within the womb is genetically and, in many ways, metabolically distinct from the mother. For instance, how can a male child with a different blood type, being pumped by a different heart, under the direction of a different brain, be called a part of the woman's body? Those knowledgeable in the medical field of fetology have clearly shown that the unborn child is a separate life from the mother. Senator Obama, and others who favor abortion rights, conveniently ignores these facts. If they admit that two distinct lives are present, they must also admit there is a need to protect human life. We say human life because genetically the child could only be human.
The Bible confirms the fact that God views the unborn child as a distinct, human life while it is within the mother's womb. For the sake of space, we will cite only a few examples:
- Luke spoke of the babe (Greek, brephos) leaping within Elizabeth's womb (Luke 1:41, 44). The same word is used to describe the baby Jesus as "the babe wrapped in swaddling cloths" and "the babe lying in a manger" (Luke 2:12, 16). No distinction is made between the nature of the child inside or outside of the womb.
- The child within Elizabeth was not called part of the mother's body tissue, but her "son" (Luke 1:36). A son (male in gender) could not be correctly represented as a part of the mother's (female in gender) body. When did he become a son? The text says she "conceived a son" (Luke 1:36).
- The same point can be made from Judges 13:2-7, where the angel told Samson's mother that she would "conceive and bear a son." He then instructed her about what she was to eat and drink so as to keep the charge, "for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb." The same word--child (Hebrew, nahar)--is used to describe Samson while within the womb and after birth (Judges 13:5, 7, 24).
Thus, a distinct life, or person, exists as the child residing within the mother's womb. God views killing that child by abortion as killing another human being. When we fail to recognize that fact, we open the flood gates for more killing. Every year in this country, abortion takes the lives of more than one million children. Our nation is drowning in innocent blood! Yet, Senator Obama and those of like mind, maintain we must tolerate this carnage unless we can "explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."
Let us put this principle to the test by applying the same standard of judgment to taking the lives of babies after birth. Whether guided by religious faith or the absence thereof, both the Pharaoh of Egypt and Herod accepted and commanded infanticide as public policy (see Exodus 1:15-22; Matthew 2:16). If we apply Senator Obama's reasoning to this public policy, should those cases of infanticide have been tolerated? Under the Old Law, those of religious faith worshipped their god, Molech, in a particularly gruesome way:
"Molech was the national deity of the Ammonites (Leviticus 18:21; Jeremiah 32:35), whose worship was accompanied by the burning of children offered as a sacrifice by their own parents" (Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, p. 435).
If we apply Senator Obama's reasoning to this national policy, should that infanticide have been justified as acceptable, given the fact that it violated no "principle that was accessible to people of all faiths" at that time? Assyrian public policy tolerated the practice, but God condemned and forbade it as an abomination. Given Senator Obama's stated guidelines for tolerance in public practice, how could he possibly have opposed such dreadful infanticide in Assyria? Clearly, his principles would demand the tolerance of infanticide in a nation where religious faith, or lack thereof, justifies such. It is not the acceptance of, and adherence to, the moral standard defined by God's word that leads to dangerous public policy, but it is Senator Obama's moral relativism that truly leads to real danger. The public policy guideline for a Senator Obama nation is what the Bible condemns as a sinful abomination!
When Brother Osborne wrote this particular article, Senator Obama was running for President-he is now our nation's 44th President. During his run for the white house, President Obama promised to BRING CHANGE. As President, one of his first acts was to overturn an executive order forbidding giving or lending money to any nation that practices abortion. He advocates for abortion, and if his party's liberal left can convince him, he will seek to make abortion available to everyone and grant federal funds-our tax dollars--to pay for it. He has recently signed a bill lifting the ban on the use of stem cells from aborted babies for research. Our President has delivered on his promise to make changes. Legalizing abortion has not improved the country's moral condition.
Our President is also an advocate for homosexual marriages. Does this surprise anyone? While he was part of the Senate, he had the most liberal voting record of all 100 senators! Why would anyone be shocked to see the direction he is taking on these important moral issues? He campaigned on them! Sadly, many seem to think they can separate his politics from his moral convictions. Unfortunately, it's a package deal. When we elect a president, we get his politics, as well as his moral views. Please read Proverbs 14:34. No nation has rebelled against God's will without paying a high price for doing so. As Christians and citizens of this country, we need to let our objections to immorality be heard. May God help us to do what is right before it's too late! (KMG)