Andrew.Sterling.Hanenkamp.com

There are a lot of folks out there who claim they have no religion or that they are atheists or agnostics, but many of them are lying. I’ve found science to be the single most potent false religion of our day and the irony is that most of the followers believe they’ve somehow avoided being a part of organized religion. I’m not here to criticize these folks. You are welcome to pursue any belief system you want. I believe quite strongly in free will, but I do want to point out the difference between the pursuit of scientific knowledge and the pursuit of scientific faith.

Science is the search for useful systems of prediction. In science, you do something 100 times and try to figure out what is common between all the times. Can you predict what will happen on the 101st time based upon what has already happened? This is science. Newton’s science helps us understand what will happen when we throw a basketball or shoot a canon ball: Where will it land? How can I make it go farther? How can I make it go higher? Science helps us find common factors in observed phenomena. This is science as a search for knowledge.

Faith comes in when you decide science can take you one step further, to truth. Truth is what you look for when you try to find meaning to this senselessly unfair life. You have entered the realm of religion when you start trying to fit things together to answer the question: Why?

Science doesn’t do this on it’s own, at least as long as it remains an objective search for predicting the outcomes of experiments or finding likely correlations in those observations. When you start trying to say that science shows us why the world works and has meaning, you’ve created a sacred cow out of science. Now it is your religion. You’ve taken it out of the world of mathematics and logic and statistics and moved it into a world of philosophy, religion, and faith.

Sometimes when I read scientific literature, I am pleased to read about how useful a theory is at correlating and explaining the relationships of things. Other times, I’m disappointed to read how a theory shows us why the universe works. Scientific writing that gives species or rocks or the universe a motive, as if they were gods, is really troublesome. Just because a canon ball fired into the air follows a parabolic trajectory doesn’t mean that the y=ax² is how it works, it just means that the equation happens predict the trajectory.

If you want to believe in science as providing meaning to the universe, feel free. However, realize that you are engaging in a form of faith rather than purely scientific pursuit. Criticizing me for disagreeing with your perception of truth because your truth is based on science and mine is not, is no less dogmatic than my Christian beliefs. Science and religious belief are not orthogonal, but they are not directly correlated either.

Cheers.

This is a phrase used among Christian’s to refer to every person’s need for Jesus Christ in order to fulfill one’s life. Over time, I’ve come to think of this as being a somewhat optimistic metaphor. Yet, it is true. The human soul was meant to be tightly knit with it’s Creator and since no man or woman has that naturally because of our sin, we have a very difficult problem to overcome.

Interestingly, virtually every person alive knows of this need. Some call it “the search for meaning.” Others will say that every person needs some cause “bigger than himself to serve.” Some try to quell it and say that we merely need to become at peace with the universe. Many try to satisfy it or even numb themselves by seeking sex, money, entertainment, food, drink, power, or virtually anything else. Some look to science to explain this need away. Some just look out to something or someone outside themselves and depend upon them to be their hope and fulfill that need. All humans seek a god to worship and the worship that god demands depends purely on what that person thinks his or her god wants.

Where we Christians get a little too optimistic and even a bit idealistic is when we start thinking that all of these people are somehow seeking for God. No, they are not. These people are seeking after whatever will satisfy them. They are seeking to sin against God. They don’t need God. They can invent their own gods. The only man or woman who seeks God is drawn by the Holy Spirit.

And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. — Romans 8:28-30

You see, in order to seek, you must have first been known by God, predestined by God, and called to Him. Then and only then, do you seek to have your God-shaped hole filled. I think too many Christians believe that they themselves were responsible for their own salvation. That somehow all they needed was the information and then they got to make the decision to come to Christ. Maybe, but that doesn’t sit well with me or my reading of scripture.

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. — Ephesians 2:8-10

I read this passage and I am convinced that it fully implies that salvation itself is completely and totally a gift from God to those He has chosen to bestow it upon. It is a gift He gives through many mediums, but a gift nonetheless. Once the Thief has chosen to rob your house, your soul is in His hands.

Some will say, but what about free will? Free will is a difficult concept to master. There are shades of liberty. As John Donne put it, “No man is an island.” He was speaking of death, but really in all things, the will of one man or our God influences, guides, prevents, changes, or manipulates our lives in certain directions we can’t really control. Free will does not indicate that I can do anything I want. If I want to rule the world from the moon, I can’t just do it. I’ll have to somehow conquer or persuade everyone to let me rule and then get to the moon.

Becoming a Christian without God doing all the work is about as difficult as trying to fly to the moon by waving your arms. It cannot be done.

Now, this is all “just” theology. When this theology meets the pavement, you get missions. If I know that men and women only come to Christ when the Spirit draws them, what does that mean for the missionary and evangelist? Not much. You must still share the message, that is our Great Commission. You must still use every form of persuasion and self-sacrifice to reach out and love those that might come to Christ. God uses people to convert people more often than anything else. That medium requires the speech and blood and sweat and life-example of Christians.

The main difference I see is peace. Contentment is the main reward of following this doctrine. God is responsible for growing the harvest and you, the evangelist, are only there to water, to weed, and possibly to gather the harvest when the season is right. If you are serving faithfully in whatever capacity you can, you’ve done your work. Everything else is up to God. If your ministry of evangelism converts none, but you have done the work you can, you have done enough. Even your imperfect service can be brought to God’s glory. That is, in itself, a small miracle given that you are merely a sinner, redeemed and justified, but still a sinner.

Let the Spirit minister through you, but let God take all the glory. Amen.

Cheers.

“Be of good courage, and let us be courageous for our people, and for the cities of our God, and may the Lord do what seems good to him.” — 2 Samuel 10:12

In the middle of 2 Samuel, here is a section covering yet another relatively unremarkable battle (or so it seems to me amongst a long stream of such). Joab, the general of the Israelite army, notes that he’s surrounded. He has the Syrians at his front and the Ammonites at his rear. He arrays his army and the verse above is the sum of the recorded pep-talk and prayer for the oncoming battle. I believe this prayer is a good contrast against which to look at how most people pray (myself included). It is a good example, I think, of how we ought to pray.

Typically, my prayers go like this: “Thank you Lord for saving me from my sin. Thank you for my family, my wife and son. Thank you for all of our blessings that we do not have to worry about what we will eat or wear or where we will live. Please be with my family that is traveling. Please keep us healthy. Please help us follow your will. In Jesus’ name, Amen.” Other than that last bit about following God’s will and possibly the first bit about salvation, I’d argue that most of that prayer was vain. There’s nothing particularly wrong with any of the things I asked for, but that was all easy. So often, what is easy is not what is best.

Joab, on the other hand, sets up his strategy for the coming battle as best as he can and then says to God, “I don’t know what You want to come out of this, but let be according to Your will.” That’s quite a contrast to a prayer that asks God to give me what I think I need or want.

It is easy to thank God for good things. Yet, there are many Christians in Africa or the Middle East or India or China or Indonesia where jail, torture, and death is the reward for belief in Jesus Christ. Can they thank God for these blessings? I know of a church in Russia where the pastor and members pray explicitly for poverty rather than prosperity because they do not want to become soft in their beliefs in exchange for wealth and comfort that doesn’t last. The question is, am I praying as well as I can? Am I being the most faithful Christian in my prayers? I’m not sure I’m even close.

Here’s another superb example of good prayer:

“Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.” — Luke 22:42

Jesus prays this prayer in preparation for the torture and crucifixion that would begin that very morning. He knows he’s soon to die and take upon himself the sins of the entire world. The weight of the anxiety made him physically ill. Yet, he still prays for the Father to take it forward even against his own human desire to avoid what was coming. That’s a prayer.

Of course, one can go too far and say that we should never pray for prosperity, but we also know that there are cases where such prayers are proven right. I am primarily cautioning against this kind of selfish prayer since this is sometimes what seems like the only kind of prayer that people around me (and myself) engage in.

Rather, I think the point is summed up in 1 John 5:14-15, “And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him.”

Before we even ask, we have to know God’s will. Once we know that, everything we ask for according to that knowledge will always be answered. John says that that is our “confidence.” This is not some faint hope or wishful thinking, but something we can know.

Then, the question becomes, how do we know? The first answer is to learn more about God’s will as revealed in the Bible. Study of this book will get you a good deal closer to God and knowledge of His will. The second answer, ironically, is prayer itself. The more one studies his Bible and prays, the more he will know God’s will and the more fruitful will his prayers become.

Unfortunately, I’m not very good at either of these. I pray that God will help me become better and more diligent at both study and especially in prayer. Amen.

Cheers.

When it comes to politics, I believe in a peculiar paradox. I believe there is (and will be one day) a single, objectively true form of government. I believe it will be close to a communist, theocratic monarchy. On the other hand, I live in and believe in improving a form of governance today, a capitalist, democratic republic toward conservative and libertarian practicalities. As such, I sometimes confuse myself and state the ideal when the pragmatic is being discussed and vice-versa. I’m a terrible debater.

The most recent argument that got me into such trouble was when I recently stated that I have no problem with legislating morality. Idealistically, I believe this to be completely true. Pragmatically, the question is not so easy to answer. For example, I believe that voting for Proposition 8 in California was the correct idealistic move to define marriage according to orthodox morality. Yet, it does not really confront the spiritual issues that are at the heart of the matter. As such, Proposition 8 will probably have very little affect addressing the issue other than to make opponents angry.

What effectively took me out of the argument for that moment was my attempt to state that I believe legislating morality is an okay thing to do. The response was (my paraphrase), “The problem is that you either must assume your moral beliefs will always be in control, which is always going to be false, or that legislating other forms of morality is okay.” If I had been more forceful, I should have answered: “First, one day, I’ve been promised that my morality will be perfected and made permanent. Second, I reject the moral equivalence the latter part of your argument suggests as fallacious.” I didn’t, which is why I’m now taking the easy way out and just explaining it here for giggles.

As promised in Philippians 2:11, “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” One day Jesus will take his place as the King of All and provide perfect administration of His government. Until then, we lived in a cursed (Genesis 3:17) and depraved (Romans 3:23) world in which no good cannot be twisted to evil, but for which every evil is ultimately turned to good (Romans 8:28). Until then, no system will work correctly and all are subject to the flaws of human nature. But as long as I have suffrage, I will struggle to decide between that which is morally right and that which is pragmatically achievable.

Cheers.

There are many sects that base their view of the world on the fact that Christ is not God. There are a number of different strategies for attacking Christ’s deity. Some reinterpret the Scriptures to shade the meanings differently than the context indicates, sometimes even going so far as inserting new words into the text. Others use a rational argument that attempts to first oversimplify belief in the trinity to make it seem that Christian’s believe in three Gods (a “straw man” argument, since we believe in a singular God) and then attack it from Scriptures, such as Deuteronomy 6:4, which point out that God is one. Regardless, of the attack, however, I’m not moved by the argument. God is one and Jesus Christ is God.

A passage that does not stand on it’s own, but is what I consider to the be summary passage for Christ’s deity is found in John 1:1-3,14: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. … And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The book of John is about the Word, who is Jesus Christ. In the words of J.C. Ryle in his commentary on John, “[Jesus] is not merely a created angel, or a being inferior to God the Father, and invested by Him with power to redeem sinners. He is nothing less than perfect God,—equal to the Father as touching His Godhead,—God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds.”

Some have tried to say that it would be more appropriate to translate the passage, “the Word was a God.” According to John MacArthur, this isn’t correct. “The Greek construction emphasizes that the Word had all the essence or attributes of deity, i.e., Jesus the Messiah was fully God.” The MacArthur Bible Commentary refers us to Colossians 2:9, where Paul is attempting to clarify just this point, starting with verse 8: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” Jesus Christ is God.

Yet, this is not the end of the story. Jesus Christ also “became flesh and dwelt among us.” God didn’t stand outside the creation after the fall, but entered in to it in order that he might rescue it. In the words of Jesus in John 3:16 and forward: “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”

Jesus Christ is God and came to earth at the pivot point in history. He came to demonstrate what a good religion is, to share the truth about God and the utterly sinful nature of men and women, to minister to those in need, to rebuke those who pretend to good religion, to give his life up on the cross to take away that sin, and to resurrected himself to demonstrate his power over death and sin.

One of the marvels of God is this: You don’t have to accept any of this. It is clear that such a decision is yours to make as you are led to make it. I plead with you to consider belief in Christ as the God-man who can take away your sin very carefully. As Joshua gave a choice to the people of Israel, so we too have a choice: “And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve… as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15) The choice to believe is yours to make. I pray that if you are led to believe, that you would pray for true belief and seek out others that believe to help you grow in that belief. If you already believe, I encourage you to cling ever tighter to the faith and I look forward to worshiping beside you in the eternity before us.

Cheers.

The word of 2007 was “surge.” The word of 2008 is “bailout.” I want to say that all this bailing out and buying up of commercial stock and debt by the government is pretty foolish. The U.S. Government is now creating massive budget deficits (i.e. borrowing money) to replace private deficits (borrowed money) created when government run financial institutions (Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, established via Carter-era housing legislation) made bad decisions. Essentially we’re throwing good money after bad, which is going to cause big problems in the long run.

The expanded calls to now bailout the U.S. auto industry for making bad decisions in its own industry and the idea that such bailouts should come with new government mandates is an even bigger issue. This is incrementally moving us closer to communism where the central planners pick and choose how everything runs. This means we will get one-size-fits-all solutions that fit no one well. It also creates a single point of failure for decision making where mistakes made by a small core of leaders get to have massive repercussions (see the current mortgage crisis is just such an event).

I believe the U.S. Government’s current fiscal policy is ridiculous and foolish. Looking back through history, bad decisions dealing with debt on a similar scale was a major contributor to the causes of World War II and I don’t doubt that such an event may now loom on the horizon again.

A lot of folks are drawing parallels between President-elect Barack Obama and President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Many see this as a positive comparison and, given Obama’s announcement of infrastructure development plans, there certainly seems to be some similarity. Just remember, Roosevelt was a charismatic leader that presided over a 10 year slump in the economy. Some argue that his policies were a good portion of the reason for the length of that slump. His Presidency also ended in world war. I dearly hope that history does not repeat itself in this way, but things aren’t looking good for the home team.

Fortunately, while I don’t relish the thought of hardship, I know my God is sovereign and true and am not worried. There are worse things than economic hard times and war and death one can face. In the words of Jesus recorded in Luke 12:4-5, “I tell you, my friends, do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”

Cheers.

Life sucks. Reading my previous few rants, one might get the impression that I’m ticked off, gloomy, and upset. You might wonder if I’m depressed or sad that “my side” lost the election or angry that people voted for someone I think is the absolute wrong move. You’d be wrong. I may have strong feelings and opinions on these other subjects, but I’m actually pretty happy. Why am I happy?

I’ve got a good job at the moment and I can say without hesitation that I’m economically better off now than I was 6 months ago, a year ago, or 5 years ago, despite the losses in my 401k/403b and other investments. Of course, I can’t be sure I’ll keep any of it. And who knows what the future holds, but I’m happy anyway.

I have an adorable almost-two-year-old to entertain me. Someday he’s going to grow up into a teenager and probably cause me a large amount of grief (who doesn’t cause their parents grief as a teenager). At some point, Lord willing, he’ll have to start making his own decisions in life and he might choose to do something I find wrong and unthinkable. But, sometimes that’s how things go. A father can only do his best and then his son gets to make his own mind up on how to live.

I have a wife who does wonderful things for me. She cooks and is very diligent at taking care of me. She works very hard and I’m proud of her many accomplishments. Sometimes we disagree and have petty fights and such, but as bad as things could get, I’m not anxious.

If my happiness in life were dependent upon my employment or even my health and ability to provide for my family, I could easily be let down by layoffs, illness, or injury. If my joy was in my wife or son or family or friends or church or coworkers or any other group I take part in, any of them may prove false and betray my trust or simply abandon me. If I were only happy when politics were going my way, during times of peace and prosperity, if the man I elected is doing wonderful things, I should probably despair and die. I have yet to be fully satisfied with the work of any politician I’ve ever voted for, let alone the ones that win that I voted against.

My happiness would go up and down if it depended on these or any number of other things, but I try to keep a certain blessed happiness and laughter close by always. Jesus Christ is the source of my joy. If you want to make me a grim person, you could by ruining all of the things above and work to destroy everything else I hold dear, but I would still hold at my core a fierce optimism because of my love for Jesus Christ and the knowledge that someday, sooner or later, I will be united physically and spiritually with my Lord-Creator. That’s a joy that cannot be taken away.

Cheers.

With three weeks to go in the election, I caught a cab early in the morning from my hotel in Pittsburgh to head to the airport after the Pittsburgh Perl Workshop. One thing I really love about Pittsburgh is their cab drivers. On this trip to PIT, I met a German immigrant who started the conversation by saying, “I just can’t wait until this election is over.” I was pretty sure he and I were going to cast opposite votes as far as the presidential election was concerned, but I agreed wholeheartedly with him on this: “I can’t wait either.”

Why did I get tired of the election? It was a number of things. The primaries started way too early. I didn’t really have a candidate to root for, just candidates to root against. Most of all, though, I don’t like the tone of the discussion that occurred. In fact, there wasn’t much discussion at all.

In this election, if you didn’t agree with the candidate someone else chose, it wasn’t because you had a different ideology or potentially legitimate concern, you were just an idiot and probably a bigot. This makes debate impossible because the only way debate happens is if you look at your opponents point of view to try and find where that view is valuable, contrast it with your own viewpoint, and then determine which is better and why. Of course, no one has time to do this all the time, but it is a good exercise to be in as much as you can if you want to continue to sharpen and strengthen your own position. When you start with the assumption that your opponent has nothing of value because he’s stupid or bigoted, you’ve cheated yourself out of the ability to determine the truth of your assertion. This latter sentiment seemed to me to be more prevalent than usual in this election.

It played itself out in a rather disturbing way when it came to the running mate of John McCain. For example, there was, early on, a popular video of Matt Damon saying that the choice of Sarah Palin was like a bad Disney movie and wondered if she really believed that dinosaurs walked around on earth 6,000 years ago. The implication is that no one but an utter moron could possibly believe such a thing. Therefore, everything she believes must be utterly moronic. This sums up my perception of the tone of criticism of her and anyone who agreed with any part of her platform.

Rather than confronting her views and saying, “She’s wrong. This is why.” The response was instead, “She’s stupid. Ignore her.” Instead of trying to figure out why she believes such things, I saw people ridiculing her northern accent. Instead of refuting her positions, people were ranting about how she pronounced the word “nuclear.” Some of these concerns were espoused by people I consider very intelligent and capable thinkers in other contexts. The majority of Palin’s ideas aren’t that controversial at all. She values family and friends. She believes in a strong work ethic. The things that are most important to nearly everyone are most important to her. The positions she holds that are debated are just a different way of viewing reality, not frank stupidity. She sees the world differently.

Similarly, “refutations” of some of my suggestions of why Obama might not be a good president were phrased using words like “ridiculous” and “puhleese.” This is language designed to suggest I was just an idiot without valuable input. They weren’t an attempt at rational discussion and debate. With this kind of response, I’m not even permitted to agree to disagree. Instead, I’m a dumb bigot hater whose trying to force my ideology on others. Yet, I don’t hate anyone. Disagreeing about which human behaviors and rights and entitlements should be granted or forbidden by government does not make me a hater anymore than having a more “open” viewpoint prevents them from being a hater.

It is so easy to just point at the other side and demagogically state, “Duh! He’s stupid.” It is not easy to look carefully, consider why that viewpoint is held, and then reply, “Well, he may be right on this point, but he’s wrong for all these other reasons.” We may disagree, but at least we’ve held a discussion. I may not be the best at this myself, but I really have tried.

For me, it came down to this in the election. Too many people have a very narrow definition of tolerance. When many say the world “tolerance” they mean, “I will tolerate your different point of view until you tell me I’m wrong. At that point you are a stupid bigot hater. Go to hell.” This is false tolerance. True tolerance is one that states instead, “I looked over your point of view and I’m not moved by your arguments. I disagree and I will fight you for the hearts and minds of others. May the best ideal win.” That’s idealistic, but that’s the world I long for.

Cheers.

I’ve tried a few times to sum up my beliefs and why I’m going to vote the way I’m going to vote, but I haven’t been able to write it as well as I want. Fortunately, the Interwebs are full of well-written articles that speak my mind. As such, I’m presenting this list of articles to explain my positions and why I will vote the way I vote.

• Foreign Policy: Is America really going to do this?
• Campaign Finance: With $605 million already, Obama asks only $10 more from each of us
• Taxes: If it redistributes like a duck …
• Economics: John McCain Warned Of Mortgage Collapse In 2005
• Abortion: Obama’s Abortion Extremism
• Special Needs: Kurt In Pittsburgh, the Palins, the McCains, and a Down-Syndrome Child
• Abortion: Trig Palin’s threat to the abortion industry
• Ideology: Pinch Yourself

That’s quite enough to convince me I’m making the correct decision.

Cheers.

Any vote for Barak Obama is a vote to free and unfettered access to abortion for any reason by any woman under any circumstances. I’ve been told by one person that this statement is “ridiculous,” but what’s ridiculous is that anyone can believe differently. I will explain and use lots of fact checking sources so you can confirm that what I’m saying is true. I’ve already made the case for abortion being homicide, so I won’t restate my position here. Today I focus on how a vote for Barak Obama is a vote to make it easier to commit this form of homicide.

First, if we only check his voting record, we find that Obama has voted for every bill he could have to increase women’s rights in abortion and against every bill that might have. He did so by voting “present” rather than “nay”, but that’s just a technicality and the official voting policy of Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood rated him as 100% pro-choice. Here’s the list of things he voted against (by voting “present”):

• Voted “present” against SB 230, Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act
• Voted “present” against HB 1900, Parental Notice of Abortion Act
• Voted “present” against HB 562, Parental Notice of Abortion Act
• Voted “present” against SB 1093, Law to protect Liveborn children
• Voted “present” against SB 1094, Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion
• Voted “present” against SB 1095 Bill defining “born alive” defines “born-alive infant” to include infant “born alive at any stage of development.”

But don’t take my word for it, please see Obama’s voting record on abortion. You can also check Barak Obama on Abortion at OnTheIssues.org for additional information showing how this strategy of voting “present” was the official strategy of Planned Parenthood for trying to stop these bills.

Next, if we look at what he said, we find he is pro-abortion. My “ridiculous” critic stated that Obama has said that he’s not pro-abortion. However, there are a couple problems with making that statement. First, Obama does not believe that abortion is a moral issue, but an issue of women’s rights. To Obama the ability to get an abortion is required to support women’s rights. If that’s true, then he’s for women exercising their right to get an abortion. He’s pro-abortion.

If we take the view I hold, that abortion is homicide, then his position becomes even clearer. It wouldn’t matter at all whether it harmed women’s rights or not because it becomes a moral issue. You cannot be pro-choice on a moral issue. For example, if we time traveled back to 1855 and I told you that a certain Senator did not believe in slavery, but was strongly opposed to doing anything about it and had voted several times against restrictions, would you accept my statement that he was pro-choice on slavery? What if he voted to perform additional medical research using slaves and offered to greatly expand the number of slaves available for this research? What if he even wanted to make it so that those who are completely opposed to slavery had to help finance these projects with taxes and require those morally opposed to help produce these slaves? Would you still say he was pro-choice on slavery?

This is position we find Barak Obama holding. If I replaced the words “slavery” in the previous paragraph with “abortion” and “slaves” with “embryos” we would have an accurate description of Obama’s positions. (Read the next paragraphs for the evidence supporting these assertions.) This is essentially the argument being used to push the idea the idea that he is not pro-abortion.

The second problem with the argument is that he believes abortion is essential to medical research, which is also a statement of pro-abortion. If abortion is homicide, then embryonic stem-cell research which destroys the embryos is also abortive homicide. He support embryonic stem-cell research. He goes so far as to support a bill that encourages the creation of embryos and requires the destruction of these same embryos used for research. This comes under the guise of an “anti-cloning” bill, which is actually a pro-cloning research bill that forbids allowing clones to mature. (Source: Obama’s Abortion Extremism)

While he has stated on certain occasions that he disagrees with pro-lifers, but is willing to allow that disagreement to stand, he actually supports bills that would force pro-lifers to violate their conscience to provide for and even to perform abortions. He supports repealing the Hyde Amendment, which would allow the government to pay for abortions in certain special cases when a woman is too poor to afford one on her own. If the act were repealed and the government were to pay for such abortions, those who are morally opposed would be required to pay for them. He also supports the Freedom of Choice Act, which removes the rights of pro-lifers to refuse to participate in abortions, i.e., a single-mother who works as a nurse at your local hospital could lose her job if she conscientiously objects to helping perform an abortion under FOCA.

I think Robert George best summed Obama’s position up when he said, “In the end, the efforts of Obama’s apologists to depict their man as the true pro-life candidate that Catholics and Evangelicals may and even should vote for, doesn’t even amount to a nice try. Voting for the most extreme pro-abortion political candidate in American history is not the way to save unborn babies.”

If you’re opposed to abortion, you should look very carefully to Obama’s position on this topic and make your decision carefully. This is not the only issue important to me, but it’s an issue that is very important. It is also one that seems to be misunderstood by a great many that would stand with me on the issue, but seem to think Obama is somehow the best option on this issue. I don’t think you could be more wrong.