Christian Science and Jihadists

I am not particularly familiar with The Christian  Science Monitor. It does not appear to be connected to “mainstream” Christianity — and is instead evidently another Obama administration support organ, like MSNBC, but with a religious slant.

In a recent article, they speak favorably of the Muslim Brotherhood, a “people-powered political movement” modeled on “political Islam, which combines the passion of religion with the power of the ballot box.” They wrote favorably of Qatar’s “bet” on the Brotherhood.

The fact that, as a result of the Brotherhood takeover of Egypt it became the worst country in the world for women does not apparently faze the CSM. The Muslim Brotherhood is the core organization behind nearly every terrorist operation in the world, from Palestinian terrorists to al Qaeda, and their operations in the US aiming to destroy us are well known. (They’re also occasional guests of the White House; a peculiarity that fits a different pattern and likely explains the CSM‘s position..) Supporting these people is ill-advised indeed. Such support is so foolish, so self-destructive, that it can only by justified by groups like the Obama administration.

And Qatar. Perhaps the logic is similar, but it is clearly not working: Qatar’s deal with the Brotherhood is essentially “we’ll fund you and protect you as long as you don’t oppose us.” So, Qatar is the one place in the world the MB is not critical of. Indeed, Sheik Yusuf al Qaradawi makes his daily calls to 60 million people for the slaughter of Israel and the destruction of America from a powerful radio broadcast network owned by the Qatari royal family. (Al Jazeera is also owned outright by Qatar.)

And yet they consider themselves “modern” and to some extent “Westernized.” Women can drive and vote, though it’s against the law for men to work in women’s clothing shops and the clothing is Shariah-traditional.

On that voting aspect … yes, women can vote, but no one is allowed to vote for elected leaders. All leaders are appointed by the Royal Family. The subjects “vote” for a council which meets and comes up with “suggestions” for the Royal rulers — two-thirds of which are never even acknowledged. Just recently, this little impotent council asked for the authority to investigate “daily violations of the civic laws” — not even criminal matters — and to be allowed to be witnesses in court. The answer was simply “No.”

The subjects have been promised a real vote for decades, for an actual body with some legislative power — but this was just blown off again, to at least 2016.

My question is not “why does Qatar support the Muslim Brotherhood?” — it is “why does The Christian Science Monitor do so?”

Of course, they are lock-step with Obama in other areas — attacking the US Second Amendment in other pieces, for example, including a ridiculously biased “quiz” on the Second Amendment.

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

  • Citizen Tom

    Christian Science is not particularly Christian, and it has nothing to do with science.

    Never have had much interest in Christian Science, but I use to think the Christian Science Monitor interesting. That was in my more “Liberal” days.

    Recently I read this post and did a little research.

    Because of your post, I checked their website.

    All Christian sects emphasize one aspect of the faith at the expense of others. Human nature, I suppose. Nonetheless, I don’t think early Christians became Christians for the sake of their health. For the apostles, the central features of the faith were Jesus’ death and resurrection. God is love? Yes. But Jesus paid a high price to rescue us from our wickedness, not disease and bad health.

    Why does The Christian Science Monitor support the Muslim Brotherhood? Here is a guess. When we think life is about us, we get some screwy ideas. We see only from one point-of-view (our own), and we have more trouble understanding that others have very different agendas. Thus, Liberals, Progressives, or whatever it is they call themselves these days have trouble understanding just how dangerous Muslims are to us. They are too self-centered to grasp the world-view of Muslims. Instead of trying to understand Muslims, Liberals project their own beliefs on Muslims. Hence, we get multiculturalism, and that’s a thoroughly nutty thing to believe. Yet irrational as it is, multiculturalism is core to modern Liberalism.

  • *chuckle*

    They went out of their way to mention a few mass murderers who used a particular weapon. No reference, of course, to the many millions of other owners of those weapons who have been law-abiding or even saved lives with them.

    Incidentally, most of the commenting activity takes place on LiveJournal; you’re welcome there, of course.

    ===|=================/ Keith DeHavelle

  • Douglas_Kubler

    I blew the CSM quiz, sure the decision was Starsky vs. Hutch.