Hugh Hewitt has written a pamphlet available online in either print or pdf form, called “Letter to a Young Obama Supporter“. It costs $6.00. If you’re a young Obama supporter, it likely contains information you’ve never heard, and should, if you really want to understand the issues.
In it, Hewitt focuses mainly on two issues, the economy and the Islamic terrorist threat. But first, he explains his understanding of why Obama is so attractive to young idealists, acknowledges Obama’s skill in delivering speeches, etc. He wants the twenty-somethings to understand that he “gets it”, the appeal of Obama and his “new kind of politician” image. Hewitt understands the excitement that millennials, perhaps the least racist generation in American history, have in seeing an African-American candidate get so far
He calculates, correctly, I think, that twenty-somethings who are already in Obama’s camp are probably not particulary concerned about abortion, gay marriage, Obama’s connections to black liberation theology, 1960s radical leftist American grown terrorists, corrupt local political fixers in the Chicago political machine, etc.
Not being quite as nice a person as Hewitt, I’ll just say that the young twenty-somethings are mostly ignorant of the association of black liberation theology with Communism (and the 100 million or so people murdered in Communism’s name in the 20th century). They are likely to know almost nothing about the phenomenon of radical leftist home-grown terrorists in the 1960s and 70s, and so won’t take seriously the fact that Obama associates with known conspirators to murder, assuming falsely that it is an exaggeration. (It is not.)
Sadly, so little real history is taught in our schools and universities that young adults are simply unarmed in the propaganda wars, with no real defense from the impression the left wants to build, that it’s all just right-wing hyperbole, and the left is really cool, open-minded and caring.
There is a special problem for evangelical millennials. Because of Obama’s extreme pro-abortion record and his “nuanced” support of gay marriage (he claims to be against it, but opposes referendums in California to overturn the recent state Supreme Court decision), it will be especially difficult for Christian twenty-somethings to be comfortable with him, if they are in the majority of young Christians who accept traditional teachings in these areas. They may attempt a couple of different rationalizations. They can try to talk themselves into believing that the President has no real role in these matters, or they can cling to Obama’s supposedly greater concern for the environment, the poor, universal healthcare, etc. It can be an “agonizing choice” for them, but they can come down on the side of Obama’s image as crusader for the poor and the environment, consoling themselves that those are “pro-life” issues, too.
It is, of course, a sham, a way to avoid acknowledging what they really do know, but don’t want to admit.
Herewith, some facts about Obama’s record on abortion, and the role he will play in it if he is President.
1) Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act as a state senator:
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.
Consider what this means: Obama believes that if an infant manages to survive an abortion, it should be allowed to die.
It was the ancient Christians who campaigned against the exposure of unwanted infants in the 2nd-century Roman world. Christians did not merely speak out against infant exposure, they worked to make it illegal, and succeeded. Christians now cannot do less, and still deserve the Name.
2) Obama will appoint radically Leftist judges, in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There would be no chance at all of the Supreme Court repealing Roe v. Wade, and returning supervision of abortion policy to the states, where it belongs. It is not impossible that such a court will follow the California and Massachusetts Supreme Courts in forcing all the states to accept gay marriage, perhaps under a sham interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Lets be clear: if abortion law is returned to the jurisdiction of the states, some will remain quite Left in their laws, but others will not. Yes, some people will go from states where abortion is restricted to states where it isn’t. But the total number of abortions is bound to be reduced, conservatively by at least 100,000 (that’s only a tenth). Approximately one million abortions per year are performed in the USA.
Imagine if we could do something to save the lives of 1,000,000 babies over the next ten years. That is actually a possibility if John McCain is elected, since he has committed to appointing constructionist judges who will interpret the Constitution for what it says, not for what they wish it said. If a McCain influenced Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it wouldn’t end abortion overnight. But it would reduce them by some large number. Can Christians settle for less, regardless of how appealing Obama may seem to the young?
I really don’t think so.
If you think so, perhaps you should consider revisiting your early Christian roots a bit. Forget Catholicism and Protestantism. Forget Orthodoxy. Forget the “emerging church”. Read Tertullian‘s Apologetics, which precedes them all. Tertullian is the guy who introduced the term “trinity” to Christian thought. He introduced the terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament”. He is a critical figure in the development of Christianity, only a couple of generations removed from the Apostles themselves.
Don’t argue with me, argue with him. And your conscience, as you decide how to vote in November, 2008.
