Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Catholic Church--Muslim Brotherhood. No Difference

Not since Jimmy Carter have the left and their fellow-travelers in the mainstream media been pedaling so fast on moral equivalence. Strong Christian, Jewish or secular views are equivalent to the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood. And to believe otherwise is the moral equivalent of war (or hate, or ignorance, or something bad). Case in point--the repetition throughout the MSM of the thoughts of reporter Scott Shane in a New York Times article last week.

Not since Gen. George Patton was removed from his last important post for agreeing with a reporter that the Nazis were really just like the American Republicans and Democrats has there been such a ridiculous analogy. And Patton wasn't actually saying that at all. But the newshound reported it that way in order to get his sensational headline. Reporter Shane is stating his own view rather than distorting the view of someone else. And it's a beauty. "As the Roman Catholic Church includes both those who practice leftist liberation theology and conservative anti-abortion advocates, so the Brotherhood includes both practical reformers and firebrand ideologues."

That view might have had some validity five hundred years ago, but it's an utterly insane analysis today. First of all, I'm sure that Shane is either unaware of or hiding his knowledge of Pope Benedict's harsh rebuke of Latin American liberation theology when he visited there as a cardinal. Comparing a condemned form of Catholicism that is outside acceptable Church teaching to a very mainstream Brotherhood version of Islam is beyond explication. But that's not even the most serious trip down the primrose path of moral equivalence.

The Brotherhood practices a very acceptable and extremely popular version of Islam, including but not limited to murdering or subjugating all non-Muslims, the obliteration of an entire nation because of its religion (Israel, obviously), the subjugation and humiliation of women, and the murder of homosexuals. To the best of my knowledge, not even liberation theology supports that, let alone orthodox Roman Catholicism. I'm waiting for this alleged reporter to point out those important members of the Muslim Brotherhood who are "practical reformers." One condition only, I'm talking about living reformers.

Islam, and most certainly the Muslim Brotherhood, believe in sharia law, and sharia law only. And not the "moderate" kind of sharia. The kind that calls for death for apostates and rejection of democracy and/or any form of secular government. And yet the Obama administration and its MSM claque continue to spout the belief that the Muslim Brotherhood will peacefully participate in a reform government in Egypt. If there is a months-long interregnum during which the Brotherhood doesn't massacre its religious/political opposition, the useful idiots will proclaim peace for our time in Egypt and the entire Middle East. Stalin and Hitler both pretended to believe in democracy until they had absolute control of their governments. Peace is fleeting.

It should be noted that the Catholic Church disavows homosexual marriage but not homosexuals. Catholic dogma forbids abortion for Catholics but doesn't kill their own or abortion supporters who violate the Catholic belief. The official stand of the Vatican is that the Church must remain outside the secular government, but use its moral influence to change minds. Yet somehow this brainless Times reporter sees the Catholic position and its variations as identical to that of the Muslim Brotherhood. Morally speaking, of course.

Pope Benedict recently restated his Church's position on the separation of Church and state: "The priest is not asked to be an expert in economics, construction or politics. He is expected to be an expert in the spiritual life." What is the Muslim Brotherhood's official position? Well, let's take the word of one of the Brotherhood's founders, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi: "Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari'ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed."

"For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship and legislation, the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari'ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah's injunctions. It is indeed a false claim that Shari'ah is not proper to the requirements of the present age."

Too many laymen and far too many MSM "experts" simply don't listen to what the Islamists are saying. We have brought this up multiple times. Islam is both religious and political, and the two cannot be separated. To do so is apostasy. Ask any imam or ayatollah. The separation is merely tolerated right up until Islam has the upper hand. Then kiss that separation good-bye. Sharia is the foundation and jihad is the superstructure. There is simply no comparable belief in any mainstream Christian theology, no matter what the Times may think.

To prove the point about the Brotherhood merely biding its time until it can take control, here is a final quote: "The Muslim Brotherhood preaches the path of Allah, and is therefore participating [emphasis added] to fulfill Allah's command in peaceful ways, using existing constitutional institutions and a decision determined by the ballot box. The rule in Egypt must be republican, parliamentary, constitutional and democratic in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah [emphasis added]." Considering what sharia actually says, that last sentence is a factual and logical impossibility. And it sounds very much like what the Nazi Party said about its involvement in the Weimar Republic.

12 comments:

rlaWTX said...

peace in our time
& useful idiots...

LawHawkRFD said...

rlaWTX: The problem with the MSM summed up in one simple sentence. "Peace" when they mean "surrender," and support for our enemies couched as free speech. Walter Duranty flat-out lied about Stalin starving millions of people to death because they were in the way of his communist utopian agenda. Duranty got a Pulitzer Prize, his stories have been proven to be nothing more than communist propaganda, and the Times refuses to return the Prize. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

AndrewPrice said...

Moral equivalence is just another tool used by the left to try to take apart the institutions that keep American together. They don't really believe that violent, extremist Islam is the same thing as modern Christianity nor do they want Islam to spread. What they want is to use the moral equivalence argument to destroy Christianity and Democracy so they can replace our society with one premised on socialism. Then, they think, they'll dispatch Islam as well. But that's a stupid and very dangerous game to play, because fundamentalist Islam, like Nazism or Communism, is not something you can just handle when you finally get around to it.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

This reporter is either stupid, or he is an enabler of the worst sort.

I have no problem with stupidity as long as if it only affects the stupid person. Darwin awards and all that.

When a reporter/commentator offers a naive view of this particular subject, it becomes like a snake wrangler handing a poisonous snake to an unsuspecting visitor and saying, "This is the nice one. Not like the last one.", or a zoo-keeper stating, "These polar bears are tame."

Totally irresponsible. The problem is that some of these guys actually believe it.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Exactly right. In 99% of the cases, "moral equivalence" is actually a way to distort logic and facts in order to advance an anti-American agenda. I'm sure there are a few of these useful idiots who actually believe the nonsense they're spouting, but most are just conscious liars. Sadly, they often get away with it because too many people have no sense of history and context. So comparing medieval Christianity to present-day Islam seems to make sense.

rlaWTX said...

I know some pretty smart people who seem to believe this nonsense too. I can't wrap my brain around the paradox...

Tennessee Jed said...

Christianity in general and Roman Catholicism in particular are the only politically correct things for the lame stream media types to bash. (Other than Sarah Palin who actually falls under Christianity.)

LawHawkRFD said...

Joel: Some of these less-than-intelligent "journalists" have repeated the same lies and distortions for so long that they have actually come to believe them. I will not excuse Scott Shane so easily. He is working in the grand tradition of the New York Times and Walter Duranty. He has decided that the anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Israel caesaropapists of the Muslim Brotherhood are worthy of success, so any journalistic support given to them is legitimate in his mind. Truth, honesty, fair comment, legitimate analysis, and simple logic are impediments to good journalistic agendas on the left. So they must be disposed with, and when caught in the act, the lies must be denied.

Joel Farnham said...

LawHawk,

From what I know of Duranty's reports of the Soviet Union, he got away with it because no free journalist was willing to go against what the New York Times deemed fit to print. The few willing journalists didn't get visas.

Fortunately, we have the Internet now and a lying POS doesn't get a free pass any more.

T_Rav said...

LawHawk, to play devil's advocate for a moment, it could be that this guy--they're still called journalists, right?--wasn't trying so much to equate the Church with the MB as to make a point that it, like Catholicism, has multiple wings and tendencies. Which is a fair point. I mean, the Nazis had an expropriate-the-wealth, outright socialist movement, as well as a cartel-based, militant nationalist movement. (Of course, they both still hated the Jews.)

But you're right; liberation theology was publicly and repeatedly disavowed by John Paul and Benedict, which this guy appears to have ignored. And he completely neglects to mention the fact that even if what he's saying about the MB is true, there's very little to suggest that the momentum is not on the side of the "Let's kill all the infidels!" group.

StanH said...

“Everything is relative man,” a cute counter culture catch phrase that has led us down the primrose path many times in the past forty years. The moral equivalence arguments as Andrew has pointed out is simply a way for the left to deflect a serious discussion about anything. This same dumbass course was taken by Carter with Iran…how’d that work out? Flash forward, and these idiots are setting the stage for WW III, as Chamberlain did in WW II. The analogy would follow, we have the NAZIs in lowlands of Poland, what do we do? I’m really disappointed, as a baby-boomer, our generation has proven itself spoiled, and in many ways undeserving of this great country. We had better get these bastards the hell out of power, before it’s to late. God I hate these dumb SOBs!

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: The people who invented deep and meaningful philosophical arguments such as "make love, not war," and "food, not bombs" are now in charge of the universities and the editorial offices of the mainstream media. While they were out learning how not to bathe, and how to pass around sexually transmitted diseases they forgot to learn how to think and argue a point logically. The MSM encourage not only the leftist point of view, but actively encourage their so-called reporters to find the biggest potential scandal or moral lapse, sex it up, and avoid any contrary evidence whatsoever. Thus, personal opinion becomes editorial opinion becomes "news." If the facts don't fit the predetermined conclusion, manipulate, ignore, distort or simply lie about the facts. The Times is the master of deception here, and all the rest of the MSM are mere wannabes and hangers-on.

Post a Comment