The cries of outrage have been coming from all the predictable quarters and suspects. Multicultists, Islamofascist apologists, and a host of others have called the Pope’s remarks during a lecture at Regensburg everything from “intolerant” to “bigoted” to “a prelude to a new Crusade” to God knows what else.
Only one thing seems to have escaped their notice: His Holiness is right. Benedict has always stated he is against any use of violence in the name of religion, so why should Islam be immune to scrutiny? As William Rees-Mogg points out in the Times:
Benedict did give offence — but no great religion should be immune from difficult questions.
This is true of any faith, whether it be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any one of the host of others. But where criticism of Christianity is outright celebrated in some quarters, any critique of Islam, no matter how minor or legitimate, is instantly labeled as proof of Western, racist, Islamophobic, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
This double standard is getting very, very old. And, it’s bullshit to begin with. As one writer points out:
But also like the Danish cartoon scandal, the real reason for the supposed worldwide Muslim “anger†isn’t the perceived slight to Islam. Rather, Muslim leaders have malevolently distorted Benedict XVI’s words and intentions, speaking of blasphemy and slander, as they see in the Pope’s comments a ready-made opportunity to subordinate Christendom’s highest and most important representative to Muslim demands. In other words, they want to turn him into a “dhimmi,†a person of another religion in an Islamic country who holds a second-class existence. Such Muslim leaders had a trial run with Denmark nine months ago, intimidating that small European country and showing the precariousness of liberal freedom in Europe, which has probably emboldened them now to go after bigger game.
Which begs the question: after Salmon Rushdie, Denmark, and Pope Benedict XVI, who is next?
