Abdulaziz Sachedina of the Washington Post is the latest to miss the boat. First of all read the article at:
Sorry to have to post the url and not just link it but blogger is still a little kooky.
Okay. What in the world is going on. Half the world know His Holiness B16 is pushing logical interfaith dialogue. He asks for basic human rights and freedoms to be given to people of all faiths not just christians, and the response he gets from the post is:
"The more one tries to defend the Pope’s remarks as being made “inadvertently,” the more the transparency of their real intention becomes obvious: To close the door on the dialogue between Muslims and Catholics permanently."
Oh yes, that's right. If he wanted to close the door on interreligious dialogue with muslims he should go to a predominently muslim country and insult them. Yes, this sounds like a wonderfully reasonable thing to do. OOOOOOr, maybe the Wall Street Journal has a nack for actually listening to what the Pope says and not watching Al-Jazeera for their editorials like the Post:
"Benedict XVI's evident intention is to engage the Islamic world, particularly its religious and political leaders, in an intense and long discussion of the religious, political and legal rights of their resident minorities, in other words, the Western tradition. The implications of this effort are obvious for achieving an acceptable modus vivendi with global Islam."
Oh so he does want to use interreligious dialogue so two faiths can come to an understanding. Hmmm. Interesting. So how can two different papers come up with stories on two different ends of the spectrum? The "Frances Myers Ball Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Virgina" says things like "No amount of apology can undo the harm the irresponsible comments about Islam and its founder have done to the prospects of dialogue between these two Abrahamic traditions," and "The Pope had no such noble intention to change the minds and hearts of Muslim militants." The WSJ's writer Daniel Henninger says "Benedict XVI's evident intention is to engage the Islamic world, particularly its religious and political leaders, in an intense and long discussion of the religious, political and legal rights of their resident minorities, in other words, the Western tradition."
If the Post can't get someone who is actually paying attention, they should just not cover it at all. Of course they do have their readership who were probably already saying this stuff before it ever got printed and now its just the "proof in the pudding." Anyway, for better analysis of this, I'd bet that the Curt Jester, Jimmy Akin or Mark Shea will have something up about this. Check them out.