Saturday, April 8, 2017

MORE SERIOUS AND LESS SERIOUS MORTAL SINS


Under the Obama regime, 400,000 Syrian men, women and children died because of the dictator Assad. Of that number, 100,000 died from chemical weapons. Did the liberal media obsess on Obama's negligence, who btw, won a Nobel Peace Prize within his first year as president!

And in addition to this slaughter ignored by the Obama administration, an additional 5 million people fled their country of Syria creating the destabilizing refugee crisis facing Europe and America. This too only brought pious rhetoric from President Obama.

Children and babies died from conventional weapons and bombs. Are these less serious mortal sins?

And speaking of children, specifically babies, liberal, pro-choice America, is the slaughterhouse abortion clinics which also use chemicals to kill babies, less serious of a mortal sin than the babies killed by the chemicals in Syria?

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Your assumption, which I think is false, is that President Obama could have waved a magic wand, military or diplomatic in nature, to solve the problems of Syria.

Ezra Klein has produced a very informative video that offers a good, factual explanation of how and why Syria got into this current mess. He reports:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKb9GVU8bHE

It's about 5.5 minutes long.

Anonymous said...

By the way, no one from Assyria fled to Europe or America during the Obama administration.

ASSYRIA CEASED TO EXIST IN 605 B.C.

Henry said...

"And speaking of children, specifically babies, liberal, pro-choice America, is the slaughterhouse abortion clinics which also use chemicals to kill babies, less serious of a mortal sin than the babies killed by the chemicals in Syria?"

No, at least numerically, the slaughter of 50 million babies by butcherous abortion is surely far more serious than the chemical killing of dozens or hundreds of babies.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

You should be complimenting me that I have Scriptural names on my mind. :)

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

President Obama waved the magic wand to place the sexual revolution begun in the late 50's and 1960's on steroids and place a lot of governmental and judicial pressure on the Church to provide contraception and abortion services in our insurance policies. He would have loved too, to demand through law and judicial activism that the Church hire those who are actively opposed to the sexual moral teachings of the Church, those who promote gender ideologies about sex and marriage, to force the Church to capitulate to his amorality and that of the media and elitists who desire these changes.

He spent more time on these pelvic issues and demonizing God fearing Christians than those perishing in the Middle East and Syria in particular. And the press ignored what he ignored.

Anonymous said...

"Judicial activism" is an interesting term in that it is, in my experience, applied only in those cases when a person, such as yourself, disagrees with the actions of a judge or judges.

I will believe the argument when I hear a person, such as yourself, decry "judicial activism" or "activist judges" when the judge's decision BENEFITS that person or his/her interests, yet he/she slams those who made such a decision as "activists" and demands the self-beneficial ruling be overturned.

Dialogue said...

I think the Biblical Assyria was distinct from the Biblical Syria, right?

Anonymous said...

Aram, mentioned in the Bible, is the region that includes today's city of Aleppo.

The bible's Syria ("In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole world should be enrolled. This was the first enrollment, when Quirinius was governor of Syria." Luke 2:1-2) was a Roman Province. Ancient and current Syria cover much of the same territory.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous at April 8, 2017 at 9:53 AM:

Way to deflect and change the subject and not address the point Fr. McD made about Obama's pressure to force the Church to capitulate to the current mores of Leftist ideologies.

Your observation implies Fr. McD was complaining about Obama's methods, not the intent and end result of those methods. Fr. McD wasn't complaining about judicial activism per se, just how it was used by Obama to impose onerous regulations on the Church; regulations against long held beliefs and practices that have never, ever been considered evil or unfair. Your observation doesn't change the truth of the point Fr. McD made, but it is very crafty and devilish in it's intent to attack his point.

God bless,
Bee

Anonymous said...

Oh, Fr. McDonald WAS complaining about judicial activism.

And he was complaining about "Liberal media silence" which is also completely false. Take ONE MINUTE to google news about the issues he raises and you will find thousands of news reports available.

When a person doesn't get the facts right in the first place, I tend to ignore the analysis he/she may offer.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous on April 9, 2017 at 9:05 AM

If Fr. McD was complaining about judicial activism (which I don't think he was) he has a point as well, because using the judicial branch of government to circumvent the rightful role of legislatures to make laws that govern us, and using the concept of precedent to change how the law is applied; by installing Leftist judges and having them rule against the intent of that law or overturn that law, rather than apply principles to enforce that law, regardless of their personal POLITICAL view of that law, IS subversive and an end around the structures of our government. It is an abuse of our system of government. The same goes for giving power to agencies to create regulations that are in effect laws that were never debated or put into place by legislatures.

If Fr. McD and others celebrate when these techniques are employed for issues they endorse, then it is more than likely only out of a sense of gladness for upholding laws as they are written and intended to be interpreted.

I can see you are on the side of subversion, so I expect anything Fr. McD (or any of the rest of us who don't hold views like yours) offer as analysis will be rejected. That you believe you have rational and legitimate reasons to do so is your own delusion.

God bless,
Bee

Anonymous 2 said...

Bee:

Legislators are barely able to handle the statutes they enact. I shudder to think what a hash they would make of it if they were to attempt to address the level of necessary operational detail contained in the regulations implementing the statute (even assuming legislators had the time to do so). To address such matters requires a degree of specialized expertise that most legislators simply lack.

For example, take a look at the hundreds of pages in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as amended (a beast with which I am very familiar) and the thousands of pages of implementing regulations promulgated by the several implementing entities in the Executive Branch (Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, etc.), or the IRS regulations implementing tax statutes, and you will see how vital it is that legislators are able to delegate power to various Executive Branch departments and various agencies to issue implementing regulations.

Of course, if the legislature does not supply an adequate framework in the parent statute to guide the department or agency in exercising the power delegated to it or if the department or agency exceeds or abuses the delegated power in some way, then the department or agency’s actions can be challenged in the courts.