Ecumenism at it's finest?

As I was driving around to various freelance writing duties this morning, I was listening NPR on the radio and in particular The Diane Rehm Show, which I mostly enjoy listening to.
Her guests the first hour were a Muslim scholar - can't recall his name - and a Catholic Cardinal or Bishop - can't remember his name.
Anyway, as I was listening to some explanations by the Muslim scholar as to why Muslims around the world were offended by the Pope quoting from Byzantine emporer Paleologus, I was struck by a line of reasoning the Muslim scholar shared that I was surprised to find no one questioned him about - even the Catholic priest.

While I can understand why Muslims the world over would be upset by what they saw as the trashing of the Prophet Muhammed by a Byzantine emporer and the quotation by Benedict - this was one of the explanations as to why Muslims have taken to the streets in violence - I'm amused and somewhat bewildered by some other statements the scholar talked about in terms of ecumenism, "paths" to God and "exclusivism."

Muslim scholar said because of Pope Benedict XVI's speech, in which he quoted Paleologus who apparently likened aspects of Islam to being evil, Benedict is really against ecumenism. And Muslim scholar condemns the Pope's position that there is no salvation for people outside of Jesus Christ. In that vein and with that thinking by the Pope, according to Muslim Scholar, the Pope is not promoting ecumenism.

My bewilderment here comes in where Muslim Scholar accuses the Pope of promoting the idea that there can be no salvation for those outside of Jesus Christ, which is simply not being tolerant of other religions. Now, this teaching is not a specific teaching of the Pope or of Christian peoples, in general, in order to tell others who's "in" and who's "out" in terms of salvation. This is a teaching of Jesus Christ himself. This isn't something made up by Christian people or the Pope to exclude others outside the faith. Take these words from Christ, for example: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me." Christ, by the way, wasn't being exclusive here. He invited all people to come into faith and become followers of his and in that way come to know the Father. He allowed everyone to make their choice of their own free will, but he was still clear on the point that he is the Way. And there are many other references that can be pointed to in which Christ claims he's the only Way. The point here is that if you're going to be a follower or disciple of Christ, you have to take all of his teachings, not just some of them. So to say that the Benedict is being exclusivistic is not valid because he is simply being a good Christian and going by what the Origin (Jesus Christ) taught. The Pope wasn't being exclusivistic in the terms that Muslim Scholar was accusing. Muslim Scholar would have to accuse Jesus Christ of being exclusivistic.

And in the same vein, all religions - not just Christianity - are exclusivistic with radically different teachings about how to reach "salvation." This is not simply a Christian invention.
If you understand any limited laws of logic, one in particular makes this point. This law of logic is knows as the Law of Non Contradiction, which is as follows: A cannot equal -A. It's a logical impossibility for the two to equal each other. And you can plug anything in there: Chair cannot equal Table; four cannot equal two; Hinduism cannot equal Islam; Judaism cannot equal Mormonism; etc.

So back to the point - all religions are exclusivistic and do not hold to the same tennets. All paths do not end in reaching God. If you follow the teachings of Muhammed, you cannot also follow the teachings of Christ because they are not the same and contradict each other. For example, a teaching of Islam indicates that the only way for someone to be wholly secured of salvation is to martyr him or herself for the faith. But you can't hold to that view and at the same time hold to the Christian view that a confession of faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to secure salvation. They're mutually exclusive teachings. I'm guessing that Muslim scholar - at least Muslims in general - would even deny that Christians have salvation as most Christians deny that Muslims have salvation. What it comes down to, then, is which religion seems most reasonable to you - the Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduist, etc. systems.

In any case, ecumenism, then, is the idea that two religious groups with opposing views can come together for a common goal like for instance the common goal of peace. While different religions can hold to different beliefs, they can work together for a common goal or end by trying to understand each other better without compromising their own beliefs. And toleration is really the idea that one person with a particular belief can tolerate - with loving, humble kindness - the opinion of someone else even though it may be wrong and vice versa. Tolerance does not mean that I cannot voice my opinions about a particular subject or view and say that, in my opinion, a particular view is wrong. Unfortunately, though, that is how the word "tolerance" has been wrongly cast as of late.

So, for the Muslim Scholar to accuse the Pope of being exclusivistic and against ecumenism for holding to Catholic/Christian doctrine is absurd, just like it would be absurd for the Pope to say that a Muslim holding to Islamic teachings is being exclusivistic.