Select Page

John Kerry make an impassioned plea to American citizens about the use of chemical weapons in Syria and he described the impact of the chemicals on humans.

Bodies contorting in spasms. Human suffering that we could never ignore or forget. Anyone who could claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their moral compass.

There is a real disconnect by our political leadership on the issue of using chemicals to eliminate certain unwanted humans. John Kerry and others are very exercised over the use of chemical executions by the Syrian government on their citizens. On the other hand, those who are trying to move Americans to get behind launching an attack on Syria to punish them for killing their people through this method also defend the right to use chemicals to burn to death a human in the womb. They turn a blind eye to the suffering of those humans. The number of humans executed in America this way far greater than the count in Syria.

The United States has deemed that only those humans the politicians deem worthy of human rights will have their human rights protected. My question is, “Why cannot the Syrian government also decide which humans should be deserving of human rights protections?” Why does the Syrian Government have to embrace or live by the “moral compass” John Kerry or other U.S. political leaders demand they follow? If human rights are not for all humans but are simply arbitrary on what basis can one nation, in this case the U.S., decide their arbitrary definition should apply to another nation, in this case Syria?

Although I did address the question of Human Rights? Only for Some Humans in the MCOI Journal, from time to time a story unfolds that demonstrates the double standards employed by pro-abortion advocates. If morals and consequently a “moral compass” is not objectively set but purely culturally subjective, one nation cannot really insist that another nation with a different “moral compass” adopt or submit to changing their morality.

In truth, from a secular perspective, morals are pragmatic and subjective. From a biblical perspective, morals are objective and set by God. In practice we discover that morals originate outside of ourselves but may be applied differently. It has been pointed out that, for example, in some cultures (Hinduism) it is wrong to eat animals. Jains go so far as to weat a mask and sweep as they go so as to not step on or inhale a bug. In America though, we love our hamburgers, fried chicken and BBQ ribs! To some it seems to be a clear difference in cultural morals. Actually, it isn’t true. It is just a difference in carrying out the same moral values. You see, in America, we don’t eat grandma. Hinduism and Jainism believe in reincarnation and the cow or fly is grandma reincarnated! So in both cultures it is wrong to eat grandma!!!!!!!!! (I bet this is a relief for grandmas around the world).

My question is, if it is wrong to execute humans through chemical means in Syria, why isn’t it just as wrong to execute humans in America with chemicals?