The American Spectator

But Miss O’Donnell does raise a point when she uses the word “radical” to describe those she disparages. One assumes that she refers to those who actually live the faith they find in their Bible. Strangely though, when this same description is used in reference to followers of the Qu’ran — whose “Verse of the Sword” commands, “slay the unbelievers wherever you find them,” which abrogated his earlier exhortation that there be “no compulsion in religion” — there are howls of indignation.

Which brings us to a bizarre conundrum: if, as many Muslims and leftists contend, that the Christianity of the West is as much or even more responsible for bloodshed and injustice than Islam, why is the former held to such a higher moral standard of responsibility than the latter? Why is it that America’s motives are suspect?

Charges of racism and Islamophobia in the War on Terror are laughable as well as intellectually untenable. As if our enemy is racially homogeneous, or our fear of them is in any way irrational. What does defy logic is that a scholarly discourse meant to spur debate on faith and reason that resulted in so much unreasonable behavior, is treated as the cause for rebuke.

In some ways though, this entire incident may be a blessing in disguise. If, on the one hand, Muslims around the world seek to accept the invitation to the intellectual dialogue extended by the Pope, there may be hope that further bloodshed can be averted. But, if violent acts such as the cowardly murder of an Italian nun in Somalia continue, then they will have demonstrated that the thrust of the Pope’s contention that “not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature,” may indeed apply to them.