Moral equivalence at its essence denounces any kind of moral hierarchy between political actors in a conflict, thus placing participants on equal moral grounds. It blurs the measures of right and wrong and eventually leads to a certain type of moral relativism.

This has been a recurring tactic of the American political Left throughout modern U.S. history. Some examples include equating the Viet Cong with the U.S. military during the Vietnam War as well as U.S. and coalition forces to the Taliban’s ‘freedom fighters’ in the recent U.S. War in Afghanistan. More recently, President Obama compared the Crusades to modern day Islamic jihadism.

Today, one sees another absurd comparison between non-violent Christians and radical Islamists, more specifically in this case, reasonable religious liberty protections and sharia.

In “Why I Oppose Mississippi Sharia Law 1523 ,” author Heddy-Dale Matthias makes no apologies for her disapprobation of Mississippi’s H.B. 1523. Heddy writes,

“I ask those who support this law to consider themselves living in an Islamic-majority state whose other-than-Christian legislature passes a Sharia law that allows workers in the Department of Motor Vehicles from refusing to issues drivers’ licenses to women, that allows judges to impose cutting off the hand of a criminal convicted of robbery, that allows a judge to impose the stoning of a woman (only) who commits adultery.”

Furthermore, Heddy goes on to exhort professional associations to overturn what she calls an “anti-life, anti-human law.”

By the merits of her argument an Islamic law permitting the stoning a homosexual because of his/her sexual preference is basically the same as a religious liberty law allowing a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex ceremony based on his/her religious convictions. Absolutely absurd, right?

This type of moral equivalence and argumentation is not only a danger to civil dialogue but it diminishes the brutality and intent of sharia (or its result, a global Islamic Caliphate). Also, by placing sharia on the same level as reasonable religious liberty protections one indirectly gives more legitimacy to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations (ex. Islamic Society of North America/ISNA) that have more of a softer and subtler approach of introducing Sharia law in the U.S. through a process known as “Civilization Jihad[.]” How can we expose the violence and prohibition of fundamental freedoms inherent in Islamic Law if we treat the subject so nonchalantly?

From Shariah: The Threat to America:

Sharia law provides a legal framework for violence up to and including legalized murder against apostates (people who have left Islam), homosexuals, blasphemers and especially women accused of various crimes.

Just this year in 2011, in Pakistan’s Sharia legal system, both apostates and blasphemers have been imprisoned and faced execution. Sharia criminal punishments are extreme, including amputations and lashings for numerous crimes.

Going forward, when invoking sharia it’s best to use accurate and valid analogies instead of using sensationalizing tactics that grab headlines. The battle against jihad depends on it.