The can has been open for a long time, and it wasn’t opened by us. All that’s happening now is that we are being shown in stark terms just how violently intolerant and hypocritical Islam is.

Someone mentioned infallibility. As a Catholic I have to speak up and point out that the speech at the university is not covered by “infallibility”. Many people, both Catholics and others, do not understand the issue of infallibility. It only applies when the Pope is speaking on matters of morals and doctrine. The speech does not come under that category. This does not fully explain what infallibility means, but for the sake of other Christians who read the blog and leave comments, the best Scripture that I can offer has to be the Acts of the Apostles, at the First Council of Jerusalem ( believe that it is in chapter 15). It was the head of the church who rose and made a speech that ended the arguments regarding the reqirement of circumcision for Gentile Christians. The successors of St. Peter can only make an infallible statement, they are not personally infallible.

Now, back to the issue: the one thing that has me interested is the fact that most men and women who are capable of thinking with reason, even if they are not Catholic, or Christian for that matter, have backed Pope Benedict XVI. That speaks volumes. Thank you.

Which was his original point…..

If we reasonable deduct that the pope is apologizing so as to avoid more violence (he said he was sorry for the violent reaction) then the apology can be said to be a reasonable act. Could that act (an apology w/o merit) itself prove the triumph of reason? Or is that spin?

BTW – here is the mother of all apologies

“I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact and was in no way fair comment and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.” – A fish called Wanda.

We should confront it intellectually. Our response goes to the hart of what the pope was trying to convey. Good reading btw.
To respond with fear is to neglect reason and that only engenders more violence, (remember the cartoons?)

If God is transcendent, we are not; that’s why we have reason to work with.

Rather than respond with apologies, we should assist the Muslim world to become immune. For every imagined insult, we should respond with many more with even greater impact. How about making twelve cartoons showing Mohammad fornicating with goats? Wasn’t one of his harem a camel? One was a nine year old girl. A cartoon showing Mohammad abusing a small girl would be historically accurate.

I suggest a contest for the most outrageous rag head cartoon. Publish them everywhere and we shall have a vote once a year. The winner gets seventy one Muslim virgins (if he can find one the Mullahs missed).

One would think that Western intellectuals, with their oft-advertised penchant for “nuance” and “shades of gray”, would want to stand with Benedict rather than with his opponents, but apparently not.