I watched the clips from Boston, the people rushing in, tearing down the fencing to help the injured, at their own peril, not knowing if there would be further explosions. As Joan Chittister wrote, "In the end, the sight of goodness undeterred has more power than all the forces on earth arrayed against it."

We certainly know more of the facts behind the tragedy and its real (non-Muslim) perpetrator. But are we in a better place when it comes to understanding what happened in Norway? I have my doubts.

Why should anyone be religious when so many of the wars and prejudice have been based on religion?

History simply does not support the hypothesis that religion is the major cause of conflict. The wars of the ancient world were rarely, if ever, based on religion.

OIC countries slightly less likely to see military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified.

If there's news of a Muslim terrorist, Islam becomes complicit in the crime. Yet few people are going to accuse Christianity of motivating the terrorism of the Hutaree militia.

Do horrors like the Hutaree militia represent the inevitable consequence of a religion whose central symbol -- the cross -- represents one of the most unpleasant and cruel tortures that can be inflicted?