I'm pretty sure that the article IN NO WAY justifies or apologizes for killing of any kind, Muslim, Christian, whatever. That would be beyond ridiculous.

However, it's no secret that there are radical Muslim communities -- just as there are radical Christian communities! -- and saying something so inflammatory, so easily taken out of context, was irresponsible on the part of the head of any major religion.

And I say this in the full knowledge that someone is going to take my remarks out of context themselves...my best friend is a devout, hijab-wearing Muslim. I am a Roman Catholic. I was a bridesmaid at her wedding. I absolutely do not believe Islam to be an inherently violent religion.

But we all know that radical fringe communities can be violent, and to provoke them in such a manner was also stupid. Sure, it's not REALLY my fault if I drive down to the biker bar and start heckling them. And of course it's WRONG and VIOLENT of them to whomp my ass. But seriously...who would you think was the stupider one in that situation?

I don't know if Islam is guilty of any special proclivity to violence... religious zealots of every flavor seem to bear that preference. The truly unfortunate thing about Islam, at least by my understanding of it, is that it, unlike the other major religions, does have a proclivity towards /literalism./ Unlike the Christian or Hebrew Bibles, which most modern people (believers and non-believers alike) agree were never meant to be interpreted literally, the Qu'ran is, according to Islam, the direct result of God's words to Muhammad via Gabriel. In Islam, not only does God speak, but God speaks in Arabic!

And implied infallibility of the Qu'ran is one of its greatest weaknesses, because it is highly conducive to fanaticism (which I often see as interchangable with literalism).

As a progressive, liberal Christian, I believe that the beauty of the Bible comes from its multi-facetedness, the fact that you can read is so many ways and get so much out of it, without having to believe every word as literal. That is where my problem is Islam lies.

And that is apparently where Islam's problem with Islam lies, if this situation, as well as the Danish cartoon controversy, are to be understood. It may also be a cultural issue, but it seems to me that Islam takes itself entirely too seriously. I mean, you come across cartoons and social motifs that poke fun at or genuinely critique Christianity all the time. One of my biggest personal annoyances are the "Jesus is my Homeboy!" shirts. The serious, pious, reverent part of me wants to say "Jesus is not your homeboy, He is God!" But the part of me that actually lives in this world, the part of me with a sense of humor and abiding love for people (even and especially the ones who don't think the way I do), just laughs and moves on.

Muslims are not doing themselves any favors, or helping their violent image, by rioting and goings nuts at every perceived slight against their prophet. It isn't particularly theologically compelling for them to espouse the idea that their God is so weak that they have to jump to God's defense every two seconds, either.

Were the pope's words out of place? In the context of the global conflicts, there is little doubt that this slip, whether intentional or not, was probably not the best idea. But it would behoove the Muslim people to treat this small affront to their religion as just that: Small.

Lady Day,

There is no confusion here about Ms Bunting's article. Read what she says:

"Even the most cursory knowledge of dialogue with Islam teaches -- and as a Vatican cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI would have learned this long ago -- that reverence for the Prophet is non-negotiable. What unites all Muslims is a passionate devotion and commitment to protecting the honor of Mohammed. Given the scale of the offense, the carefully worded apology, actually, gives little ground; he recognizes that Muslims have been offended and that he was only quoting, but there is no regret at using such an inappropriate comment or the deep historic resonances it stirs up."

Ms Bunting absolutely is apologizing for the Muslim response here.

You are also very confused if you think the problem is with a few Muslim radicals. Ask your "best friend" what these words mean: dhimmi, jizya, taquiyya. Really, go ahead and do it. I think you'll find it to be very enlightening (especially that last one!)

By the way, I am very pleased that so many of my fellow liberals are starting to get it. Reading this thread has been truly gratifying, if for no other reason than to see how many American progressives are utterly repudiating the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, Muslim appeasing "liberalism" that Ms Bunting represents.

Was the Pope wrong for saying this? Yes! It was bound to inflame.

Was what the Pope said correct? Yes! And the reaction only helps prove that.

See you can sum that up rather easily. :-)

and his tradition continues! Go ahead liberals and pretend it isn't so.

I just noted that early in the article, Ms. Bunting referred to Muhammad as the "Prophet Muhammad." In a world where no secular journalist would ever refer to Jesus as "Jesus the Christ" or "Jesus, the Son of God/Man" or the "Messiah Jesus" or any other title which would immediately lend journalistic credibility to purely religious titles... that just strikes me as odd.

<<How come I've never read of any Muslim crusades into Europe?>>

Mmmm-- thank a teacher?

Which would that be? The one where half of America are fundamentalist Christians? Or the radical muslims who control policy in so many of the Arab countries? It seems the Pope is right in step with his bigoted comment.

Salon should be ashamed for publishing this anti-Catholic screed. This is as hateful an article as anything anti-semitic that's out there in the Islamic press, it's as misguidely mean spirited as Sinead O'Connors looney anti-pope diatribe several years ago. What chemicals fuel the writer of this article's brain, does she believe we all just fell off the haywagon when she declares in regards to the recent incidents that demonstrate the radical Islamic tendency toward violence "is a claim that has no basis in history or in current world events (a fact that still eludes too many Westerners)". Catholics didn't attack NYC and bring down the twin towers, though they did up until 9/11 cause alot of havoc in the UK in regards to the occupation of Northern Ireland. Thankfully, Irish Catholics since 9/11 have seen what terrorism looks like when others practice it and have come to their senses. Germany is a democracy now and the pope can voice his opinions like anyone else, the pathologic sensitivity exhibited by some practitioners of Islam and their tendency to want theocracies and four wives should be open to debate, threats of violence against those who speak their minds and polygamy in our western society are criminal offences. This is a truly peculiar article, as the writer, apparently a westerner herself, believes she's in a position to lecture 1.1 billion Catholics and all other westerners on their views of recent history and Islam. Why do I get the feeling that besides westerners and Catholics that the writer really doesn't like herself all that much either?