From CNS:
Two of Pope Benedict XVI’s three foreign trips this year have generated interreligious incidents that quickly overshadowed the main message of the papal visits.

The author of the article lists various statements made by Benedict XVI about other religions that have “strained interreligious relations.” Well, I read over those statements, and what it looks like to me is that whenever B16 makes a statement about Church doctrine (which he was resposible for as Cardinal Ratzinger and continues to be as Pope) it’s offensive. Heaven forbid any of those easily offended ever pick up the Catechism. Their heads would explode.

What’s really annoying is that this CNS writer seems to be editorializing a bit…a little too much is implied or appears as opinion.

Courtesy of Jeff Miller over at the Curt Jester, we have this graphic that pretty well sums it up.

So, the current news is the Pope offended Muslims by quoting someone who once said that all that Mohammed has brought to us is violence, specifically related to spreading the faith by the sword.

Here’s a good bit of context surrounding that quotation:

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat.

But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: “For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.” Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry.

Clearly, this is an explanation of how compulsion to religion is incompatible with religion. Seems pretty cut and dried.

And the apologists keep telling us how Islam is a peaceful religion. Surely, a reasonable religion and its people would agree that spreading that religion by violence is indeed something to be avoided. If indeed that people were offended by having something like that said about their religion, they would request an apology, and move on. Heck, maybe just totally ignore it and move on.

Well, that is likely what many Mulims in the US and parts of Europe are doing. But, there are of course radical Islamists who say that this comment could lead to war, who are bombing churches (ironically, only one of them Catholic), and have caused the Vatican to strengthen their security.

Perhaps these radicals aren’t trying to spread their faith by the sword, but it seems they are trying to intimidate, dare I say, terrorize someone who suggests that spreading Islam by the sword is a bad idea.

Contrast this with the Christian response to Rosie O’Donut’s comments on The View. Granted, Rosie ain’t the Pope, but she did make comments about how radical Christianity (whatever that is) is as dangerous as radical Islam. Christians apparently hijack airplanes, bomb embassies and battleships, military barracks, and so on. How did I miss that? Anyway, rather than having Christians rioting in the streets, burning Rosie in effigy (which would take a while) and threatening war, most of us have chosen to ignore it. Some folks, like the American Family Association, are demanding an apology and reprimand from Rosie’s employer, neither of which is going to happen.

Apparently, people Down Under are taking revenge against other members of the stingray race for what one lone radical fascist stingray did to their national hero, Steve Irwin (aka The Crocodile Hunter.) They’re catching stingrays, killing them, and cutting off their tails.

Now, this makes about as much sense as killing any Muslim you see just because of what 19 Islamo-fascist terrorists did on 9/11/01, as well as in other subsequent attacks.

That said, I will be glad to “profile” and avoid being around stingrays, since we know of their potentially deadly powers.

DEAL WITH HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE THREATENS EDUCATION RIGHTS, ARCHBISHOP SAYS

Vancouver, Sep. 07, 2006 (CNA) - A recent agreement between the government of British Columbia and homosexual activists is an unwarranted intrusion on the rights of parents to determine how their children are educated, says Archbishop Raymond Roussin of Vancouver.

The archbishop, writing in the B.C. Catholic, says the agreement to make public school curriculum more positive toward homosexual behavior could lead to the introduction of inappropriate and morally objectionable material and restrict the right of parents to determine whether their children are exposed to such material.

To put it simply, a gay couple petitioned the school board to allow them to teach about homosexual history, positive homosexual role models, the contributions made by homosexuals, and legal issues relating to marriage and adoption from a homosexual perspective.

So, once again it’s clear that for some reason we must focus in on an individual’s orientation, not on the actual person and his/her accomplishments. It’s not enough to know all about Shakespeare’s work, we must also teach that he accomplished all this because/in spite of the fact that he was gay. P.S., I know the jury’s still out on whether or not he was gay. It was just an example.

Tell me there isn’t a homosexual agenda out there.