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.