This post is just a little less ranting and a little more analysis, but this "maybe the Pope just didn't know" theme has been bothering us all weekend. First it was the BBC, who had their guy suggest that maybe the Pope has just been too sheltered the last couple of decades and so he didn't know better. And then there was the end of the NYT article (discussed more below) where Ian Fisher takes a not very subtle pot-shot at the Pope's cosmopolitanism and suggests (through quotes, of course!) that the reason this happened is because there wasn't anyone on hand trained in the mysterious ways of the Islamic world. One of the quotes is "They have nobody to really ask.. Whoever looked at it and let that go through is someone who doesn’t understand Muslims at all."

Now correct us if we're wrong, but isn't Pope Benedict being criticized for not realizing that Muslims would violently riot if he read the speech (and that specifically they've grown far more inclined to riot violently in the last few years). Seriously, is there any other way to read these smug and condescending passages other than as "the Pope is just so naive - you can't say things like that about Muslims any more - if you try they'll riot wildly". And is there any other way to understand the smugness and condescension except as evidence that this is how sophisticated people think - that they accept the current geopolitical environment, and that only people who lead "sheltered lives" and don't have "experts on Islam" around are stupid enough to think that you can just say whatever you really think out loud.