In a blistering critique, conservative commentator Jeannie DeAngelis warns that progressive voters—particularly pro-choice feminists—have made a catastrophic political miscalculation by supporting Muslim candidates with ties to extremist ideologies. The irony, she argues, is thick: those who championed ‘reproductive rights’ and moral relativism may have handed power to leaders who fundamentally reject both.
The Unholy Alliance
The article zeroes in on Michigan’s newly elected Senator Abdul El-Sayed, whose past leadership roles in Muslim student organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood raise red flags. DeAngelis highlights his refusal to condemn atrocities under Mohamed Morsi’s Brotherhood-led Egyptian government, which cracked down on dissent, persecuted religious minorities, and rolled back women’s rights—including advocating for female genital mutilation (FGM).
‘Do American voters think it’s a good idea to elect politicians who believe the Quran’s law is morally supreme over the Constitution?’ DeAngelis asks pointedly. The answer, she suggests, is that progressive voters were too blinded by their disdain for Christian conservatives to recognize the far graver threat posed by Islamist hardliners.
A History of Betrayal
The piece draws parallels to the Muslim Brotherhood’s documented strategy of gradual societal transformation through political infiltration. El-Sayed’s involvement with the Muslim Students’ Association—a group tied to the Brotherhood—hints at ideological alignment, DeAngelis argues, despite his campaign rhetoric about inclusivity.
She cites Brotherhood-backed policies under Morsi: opposition to UN women’s rights initiatives, marital rape protections, and even mobile FGM clinics. ‘The feminists who believe Muslim senators will usher in pro-choice laws are apparently unaware of history,’ she writes, noting that Islamist movements consistently subordinate women’s autonomy to religious doctrine.
The Relativism Trap
Here’s the core paradox DeAngelis exposes: If moral relativists insist no objective truth exists, on what grounds can they object when Islamists impose their own ‘truth’—one that might eventually target them? She compares progressive abortion rhetoric (‘my body, my choice’) to ISIS’s genocidal logic against Yazidis: both groups claimed authority to decide who qualifies as ‘human.’
‘What happens when those who say everyone is entitled to their own truth empower leaders who punish dissent with death?’ she asks. The article’s most chilling implication is that moral relativism, by rejecting universal rights, leaves its adherents defenseless against authoritarianism.
A Warning Ignored
DeAngelis doesn’t just blame voters; she indicts the broader left for what she sees as hypocritical alliances. While decrying Christian ‘theocracy,’ progressives embraced Islamist politicians whose views on gender and liberty are diametrically opposed to feminist ideals. The outcome, she warns, could mirror the Middle East’s repression—but this time, with American progressives on the receiving end.
The piece ends with a stark question: When the new political allies they’ve empowered come for their rights, who will the relativists appeal to for protection? After all, in a world without moral absolutes, there’s no principle left to defend them.
Source: www.americanthinker.com — https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/11/how-moral-relativism-ushers-in-moral-repression/