Yes, It is a President’s Job to Fulfill God’s Will

Everybody knows Barack Obama is a hypocrite, so when he said at the annual National Prayer Breakfast, “killing the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will,” it was no surprise from this very pro-abortion president.

And part of that is because Obama wasn’t talking about abortion, but about terrorism: “Extremists succumb to an ignorant nihilism that shows they don’t understand the faiths they claim to profess, for killing the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will.”

The hypocrisy comes from the fact of this president complaining about a religious movement that kills “innocents” while he himself is a strong advocate of the religious viewpoint that approves of killing the most innocent, unborn children.

When I pointed this out yesterday, a liberal friend asked if it was the president’s job to fulfill God’s will. Being a secularist, my friend lives in dread of God’s will ever being imposed on him or anyone, but it’s still an interesting question.

Obviously, there’s nothing in the Constitution saying specifically that the president (or Congress or the courts for that matter) must perform God’s will, so if there is such a duty, it must be discerned by logical inference (you know, the same way the Supreme Court “found” the right to privacy and hence abortion in Roe v. Wade).

“We hold these truths to be self-evident” is how the Declaration of Independence begins. Secularists desperately want the Declaration to be seen as irrelevant to our country’s laws because it goes on to make very clear that our rights as individuals come from God (not Congress), and that government is subordinate to the people, who establish government to protect our rights, not to pick our pockets or to give the wealthy their own country club from which to order us around.

Since it’s God’s will that humans have rights and it is the president’s job to protect those rights, by extension it is the president’s job to do God’s will.

That the American government is founded on Judeo-Christian principles is demonstrated repeatedly in the writings of the Founding Fathers. Secularists twist our history and interpretation of the Constitution to fit their own peculiar view in which the only religion allowed publicly is theirs: atheism and its various permutations (“denominations” if you will).

Secularists put a lot of stock in the fact that the word “God” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, either in the Preamble or in the First Amendment. The reasons why the word “God” doesn’t appear are textually obvious: the subject in the Preamble is “we the people”; the subject in the First Amendment is Congress — as in “shall make no law.”

But the entire Constitution is soaking in Judeo-Christian concepts that make the overall document, and thus our government, possible. No serious reading of history and the Founding Fathers can conclude otherwise.

In fact, while Congress was working on crafting the Bill of Rights, it asked George Washington to issue a proclamation to the people thanking God for the rights we enjoy. His proclamation begins, “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor. …”

Washington was there at our founding. He WAS a founder. Therefore, in any debate between Washington’s view of our government and the modern secularist interpretation, Washington wins, hand down. Secularism as a viewpoint didn’t even exist in the 18th century and would have been as alien an idea to the Founding Fathers as someone from Zeta Reticuli would be alien to us.

The secularist spin on history simply doesn’t hold any water.

So what did the Founding Fathers think was God’s will regarding abortion?

The Founding Fathers probably never imagined a time when 55 million unborn children would be killed for the sake of convenience. So they rarely addressed abortion as a concept.

Again, we have to infer from what they did say. The first point is in the Declaration of Independence, which declared the God-given right to life as being a “self-evident” truth. Not only that, but it is the first listed right. It makes sense. If you don’t have a right to live, all other possible rights are moot.

Many of the Founding Fathers wrote repeatedly about the right to life. That’s indisputable, but in regards to abortion, the question, as it is today, is when does life begin. The Founding Fathers were limited by the science of their day, but they drew logical conclusions.

Benjamin Franklin wrote a satire featuring two women characters, Celia Shortface and Martha Careful, making fun of another publisher who wrote about techniques for inducing abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. Franklin did not appear to object to the idea of abortion so much as the public discussion of “women’s secrets.”

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration, wrote about the subject in an 1805 medical manual. He seemed to regard abortion or miscarriage in the first three months as being of no moral consequence, equating it with any other expulsion of blood or bodily fluids.

Thomas Jefferson wrote with admiration of native American women and the techniques they used to induce abortions in early pregnancy, necessitated he said, by the difficulties of their lives in the wilderness, which sometimes involved following their men to war and enduring famine.

So were the Founding Fathers pro-abortionists? Hardly.

Of all the discussions of the issue, there seems to be a common theme that if an abortion is to be done, it is only acceptable in the first three months. Further, as some of the Founding Fathers pointed out, and as was codified in Colonial law, the life of a baby was legally protected as soon as the mother felt the first movements in her womb, around the fourth month.

Justice James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration and the Constitution, regarded as the “most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” said in his “Lectures on Law,” “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

The fourth month was the earliest that 18th century medicine could confirm that a woman was carrying a viable — that is, living — infant. Movement of the child would indicate to a doctor of that era that there was a reasonable chance of the baby being successfully carried to term.

It cannot be overstated that it is from that moment that the law protected the child’s life, not because it was some arbitrarily concocted number but because simply knowing for certain that there was a baby growing in a woman’s womb morally required all those involved to acknowledge that child’s right to live. Thus, the government, which was created to defend everyone’s rights, also had a legal and moral obligation to step in if needed to protect that child.

But science has changed. We now have ultrasound and tests that can verify a woman’s pregnancy very shortly after conception.

We also know, without any doubt by any rational mind, that a human embryo is human from the instant of conception. It doesn’t begin as a mere “lump of tissue” then magically turn into a human at some point. It is a human in his earliest, most vulnerable stage of development. Don’t believe it still? Show me the human being who didn’t begin as a fertilized egg, then maybe the point will be arguable.

Also undeniable is that “self-evident” right to life. Another definition of self-evident is, “not disputed by anyone who is sane.”

Yet, many people choose to deny logic and ignore a child’s rights. That’s why many pundits have concluded that supporting abortion is a religious view that defies reason.

And that brings us back in a roundabout way to President Obama’s comments about terrorism. He essentially is complaining about people who see certain other people as inconvenient “things” that stand in the way of what they want. Terrorists do not acknowledge rights, at  least not those of their victims, and they do it in the name of their twisted view of “God.”

Obama and other abortionists do essentially the same thing, denying the rights, the very humanity, of their victims in the name of their religion. Because their religion is secularism (Obama’s dubious claims to Christianity notwithstanding) , the subject of their worship is the person in the mirror. In secularism, which is just a strain of atheism, each person is his own moral standard.

The result is chaos, which explains a lot about our modern world.

So is it the president’s duty to do God’s will? Yes, in the limited sense of protecting human rights. And despite secularist phobias, that’s what you want in a democracy, because it’s only divine authority that ultimately grants your rights. Without God, you and I are just pieces of talking meat to be used by the state as needed.

Is the president fulfilling his duty by promoting and supporting abortion? Absolutely not. He is failing in his most fundamental duty, to protect the rights of all Americans.