You Dog of Rome

Catholic bashers are out in force and having a field day.

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI "sincerely regrets" offending Muslims with his reference to an obscure medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman," the Vatican said Saturday.

But the statement stopped short of the apology demanded by Islamic leaders around the globe, and anger among Muslims remained intense.

...An Iraqi insurgent group threatened the Vatican with a suicide attack over the pope's remarks on Islam, according to a statement posted Saturday on the Web.

I think threatening the Vatican with a suicide attack is "evil and inhuman."

Does that threat come in the name of Islam? Is it in accordance with Islamic teaching?

"We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life," said the message posted in the name of the Mujahedeen Army on a Web site frequently used by militant groups. The message's authenticity could not be independently verified. The statement was addressed to "you dog of Rome" and threatens to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home."

It is extremely offensive to me as a Catholic for the Mujahedeen Army to address Pope Benedict as "you dog of Rome."

It is extremely disturbing to me to hear that some Muslims (Can I call them Islamofascists?) are threatening to break crosses in the Pope's home.

Those people are thugs, not people of God.

They brag about adoring death.

I think an apology is most definitely in order -- a clear, unequivocal apology.

Muslim leaders must immediately apologize for degrading the Holy Father and threatening him. They have offended a billion Catholics the world over.

Muslims must apologize for burning Pope Benedict in effigy.

Muslims must apologize for firebombing churches.

...The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that says the church "esteems" Muslims.

Benedict "thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions," Bertone said in a statement.

...Mohammed Bishr, a senior Muslim Brotherhood member in Egypt, said the statement "was not an apology" but a "pretext that the pope was quoting somebody else as saying so and so."

"We need the pope to admit the big mistake he has committed and then agree on apologizing, because we will not accept others to apologize on his behalf," Bishr said.

I need the extremist Muslim leaders to admit the big mistakes that they have committed -- endorsing the killing of thousands, hijacking civilian airliners, destroying the World Trade Center, and taking Westerners hostage and beheading them, all in the name of God.

I need the moderate Muslim leaders to admit the big mistake that they have made: Staying silent, failing to condemn the atrocities of their fellow Muslims.

Then, they all must agree to apologize, because I will not accept others apologizing on their behalf.

Oh, wait a minute... No statements have been made to apologize on behalf of Muslims.

Muslim leaders don't issue apologies, so there aren't any apologies to refuse to accept on the basis of their inadequacies.

Never mind.

Okay.

The Islamic extremists want Holy War and every infidel dead. We know that.

The more moderate Muslims want respect for being a peaceful people, yet they hesitate to decry the crimes of the Islamic extremists. We know that, too.

No surprises there.

And it's also no suprise that a liberal rag like The New York Times would run an editorial bashing Pope Benedict, "The Pope's Words."

There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”

Of course, The Times takes the Pope's words out of context, just like the raging Muslims.

Would the editorial board care to weigh in on the bombing of Christian churches by those poor, insulted Muslims?

Would the editorial board care to comment on burning Pope Benedict in effigy?

Would the editorial board care to discuss the threat of a suicide attack on the Vatican?

Answers: No, no, and no.

The Times fails to address the barbarous reaction of those sensitive, offended Muslims.

Next, the true colors of The Times editorial board become evident.

...In 2004 when he was still the Vatican’s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey’s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was “in permanent contrast to Europe.”

A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.

These dolts on the editorial board don't know what they're talking about.

They don't get Catholicism and they don't get Pope Benedict's message of tolerance.

POPE BENEDICT SPEAKS OUT AGAINST VIOLENCE.

The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

This really ticks me off.

How self-righteous!

How stunningly hypocritical!

"Tragic and dangerous" when a pope "sows pain" -- GIVE ME A BREAK!

Clearly, The Times is bending over backwards to bash Pope Benedict and Catholics.

Where does The Times get off calling for a "deep and persuasive apology" from anyone?

Would The Times care to apologize to Karl Rove for promoting Joe Wilson's flat out lies?

Would The Times care to apologize for its efforts to destroy the Commander in Chief and his administration while the country is at war?

Would The Times care to apologize to all Americans and free people throughout the world for exposing secret counterterrorism programs that aid in keeping us safe?

Would The Times care to apologize to the public for being misleading (lying) about what it calls the "domestic eavesdropping" program and "domestic spying"?

I think some "deep and persuasive" apologies are in order. Surely, The Times wants to demonstrate that words can also heal.

I'm wondering how the board managed to write this editorial without bringing up Pope Benedict's time in the Hitler Youth.

Once again, The New York Times and Islamic extremists are on the exact same page.