My Turn: Pope Benedict's Comments on Islamic Terrorists  

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

It seems a lot of people are taking turns at either attacking the Pope or defending him. I suppose I should put my two cents in as well.

First, it must be said that Pope Benedict is clearly the George Bush, Sr. of the papacy. He was elected to the papacy for the same reasons that Bush was elected President - he had served his excellent predecessor well, and was therefore the logical candidate to succeed him.

This does not mean that we can expect the exact same kind of pope in Benedict that we had with John Paul, just as we did not get the exact same kind of president in Bush as we had with Reagan. Some things would be the same, while others would be different. Some things might even be tragic, such as President Bush's desire to kiss up to the Democrats in an effort to get along. It's a shame his son didn't learn from that mistake.

Pope John Paul attempted to make nice with the terrorists. They continued their malicious acts, using Israel's presence in the region and US support thereof as their excuse. Therefore, as wonderful and successful as John Paul was in his papacy in general, he obviously failed in this one area. Nobody's perfect, of course, but for Benny to not learn from this mistake in the wake of 9/11 and the continuation of Islamofascist terrorism after that day would be an even bigger mistake.

Of course there are peaceful Muslims in the world. Of course they should be outraged. But their outrage at Pope Benedict is misdirected. It is commonplace for Christians to denounce outrageous acts such as those crimes committed by rogue soldiers at Abu Graib, which were small-time compared to the downright heinous acts that these terrorists have commited. Where is the outrage coming from peaceful Muslims with regard to the car-bombs, suicide-bombings, hijackings, and beheadings?

All the Pope did was bring attention to the fact that the patterns of violence that these terrorists follow are not new, and that they date back to the days of that Byzantine Emperor that he quoted. For this, he has been lambasted by Muslims throughout the world, including those who consider themselves peaceful. Where is the corresponding outrage that should be directed to the terrorists, who are the ones actively participating in the carnage?

Again I ask - where was the outrage from peaceful Muslims at the Islamic terrorists who recently placed bombs in a plane bound for the US from England? Where was the outrage from peaceful Muslims at the Islamic terrorists who encouraged others to strap bombs to their belts and blow themselves up hoping to kill others in the process? Where was the outrage from peaceful Muslims at the Islamic terrorists who planted the car bomb that killed my former student? Where was the outrage from peaceful Muslims the last time an Islamic terrorist sliced off someone's head with a sword and filmed it for all to see?

Where was the outrage from peaceful Muslims when nineteen Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes and crashed them into fields and buildings, killing nearly 3,000 Americans in the process?

I don't know about you, but my memories of that day are filled with TV images of Muslims dancing in the streets. As far as the outrage from peaceful Muslims is concerned, I must have missed it.

If there is any outrage out there from peaceful Muslims against those committing these acts, it's far too quiet for me to hear. Still, I hear plenty of outrage against the Pope, who only spoke a few words rightly calling attention to the terrorists' intention to kill in the name of their religion, something Christians outgrew centuries ago. He didn't put any bombs on any planes. He didn't encourage anyone to commit suicide and try to take others along. He didn't plant any car bombs. He didn't cut anyone's head off. He didn't hijack any planes or encourage anyone to do so.

Seems to me any outrage against his Holiness is severely misplaced.