Mark,

I have problems with the question "to what degree does any religion bear responsibility for those who speak in its name." It seems to me to be both vague and naive. The presupposition to such a question seems to be that a "religion" is a monolithic entity with a clearly defined hierarchy, set of beliefs, and code of conduct. Your reference to the Roman Catholic Church in your example is telling. It is the most monolithic of the big world religions. It is quite unusual in that respect.

I agree that "Muslims, like Jews, recognize no central doctrinal authority, rendering it more difficult, even for believers, to distinguish orthodoxy from heterodoxy and heresy." However, that does not go far enough. Such a situation renders it impossible (not just difficult) to hold those religions responsible for those who speak in its name. You cannot have "corporate" responsibility without a corporation.

So if there's no organization all we've got to bring to trial is scripture.

However, the notion that any of the scriptures of the world's big religions have a clear unequivocal meaning and a patently obvious interpretation to those who read it with an clear eye and open heart is IMHO naive and clearly false.

The scriptures of the world's big religions are complex and multi-layered and the product of real complex multi-layered human beings in a real complex multi-layered world. They normally seem to tell us a lot more about the people who composed them than the world the purport to portray. There's nothing modern or revolutionary about this view. Almost any theologian from the past few millennia would yawn and grant it.

I agree that it is silly to deny the existence of or ignore scriptural passages with a history of "problematic" interpretations. It is equally silly to look at the Qur'an as having a monopoly on such passages or Islam as having a monopoly on jerks who take advantage of such passages and interpretations.

Now, if all religions (with the possible exception of some forms of Buddhism) have an equally uninspiring record with respect to violence and fanaticism, it seems to me that the source isn't really scripture or problematic interpretations. Most religions acknowledge that most human beings rather consistently fall very short with respect to the ideals of those religions. They provide an interesting variety of explanations for this phenomenon: original sin, avidya (chronic ignorance), demon delusion, etc.

So one problem I have with the thread title is that as soon as you start playing the "proper interpretation of scripture" game (the theology game) you become just another small voice in the theological cacophony. And if you are not an adherent of the religion/scripture in question why should anybody bother to listen to you.