Good move.

Jihad is central to the faith, yes, but it's meaning is struggle and you can have a jihad to cut down on fatty foods, stop smoking or to cure your dandruff as well as take up guns and fight the idolatrators.  It all depends on what focus you have, many religions have their firebrands the sad part is that many muslims don't feel they can stand up to the imams since many of these "leaders" tend to be educated and their culture teaches them to respect those of the book.  Not being an apologist but a realist and while many religions have their violent side its been the unstable region and oil money that has really disproportionately increased the radical Islamist reach.

Sorry, but Islamization of America?  Haven't seen it yet, and while I don't mind fearing things I can see boogeymen like that are just figments in some peoples imaginations.

Its A good move by the church. They should not be associated with anyone that advocates violence.

 The Archdiosese made the right decision to cx the hate monger Spencer. He is not an Islamic scholar and he does not represent Muslims. He makes his money with spreading hate and fear. There are many Muslims and Islamic scholars in the Boston area that would be happy to speak with members of any other faith. Geller and Spenser have worn out their hateful welcome with people of integrety and goodwill. As Dr. King ( Peace be upon him), stated,"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

not surprising that Catholic Church bans a speaker based on content; for the last 40 years, "the Church" has systematically gagged nuns, priests, laity and anyone else who dares to hold opinions which differ from whatever Pope reigns.

Yes, this guy is not a "scholar" but doesnt seem like the invite was based on his credentials.  Yes, this guy can be labelled a hatemonger but that is because of his opinions.  News to "the Church": this is America where we have free speech.  of course, they are free to be rude and disinvite a speaker because others object to his views.  apparently they, and many posting here, are unable to view this as an opportunity to engage in adult conversation and learn.  if the guy is so objectionable, doesnt that make it easier to learn??  what is so threatening that he needs to be disinvited.  rude but consistent with how "the Church" has operated since the passing of John XXIII and the gutting of the Vatican II reforms.  so, it's OK to view all women as inferior to men but THIS guy is a hatemonger?  ever hear of misogyny??

Many violent quotes from the Quran refer to specific times or battles. You can't take them out of context. There are as many if not more advocating peaceful interrraction with other faiths.

In other words, the Globe instigated canceling Spencer's talk. This is activism, not journalism.

Could the pulling of the invitation be seen as supporting Spencer's point of view. Would Muslims cancel an anti Catholic speaker? So now those that oppose Spencer's point of view lose the opportunity to voice their differences.

I don't agree with Spencer and strongly disagree with his interpretations.  However, I am not a big fan of muffling someone's, especially a public figures right to speak.  The best means of repudiating what he thinks is to let him speak.

It is indeed very unfortunate that Robert Spencer's invitation to speak has been cancelled. I have heard him speak and find him to be one of the  most engaging and  brilliant individuals that I have ever encountered . If he were allowed to speak, we  would learn about the methods and motives that Islamists are using worldwide in their push for Sharia achieved through both violent as well as cultural  Jihad.

Spencer's outstanding Jihadwach blog details the  the motives behind such abominations as  jailings of American pastors in Iran, church bombings in Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia, "honor killings " in the US and Europe, koranic basis for 21st century amputations, the theological basis for Egyptian President Morsi's statement that "Jews are the sons of Apes and Pigs", suicide bombings,the  muslim arrassment of Pro-Israeli students on our campuses , our inability to stop the likes of Ft Hood terror shooter Nidal Hassan. One also learned  two years ago in his blog why the vaunted "Arab Spring", would likely enable the likes of Al Qaeda and other violent terrorists.

Spencer knows the Koran backward and forward by heart and is always ready to debate Muslims and others on the hypocrisies therein, but their reaction is to smear him and stifle his important message. Spencer his truly a 21st century Paul Revere and the Catholic Mens guild would do well to re-extend the invitation.

Islam is a religion of peace.  Its apologists say so after every fresh Islamist atrocity.  Print a cartoon of the Prophet and you'll find out how peaceful Islam is.

Since Islamists don't like what Robert Spencer has to say (which is the unvarnished truth about Islam), they and their left wing fellow travelers marginalize Mr. Spencer by calling him a hateful bigot, etc.  This is part and parcel of the Left's playbook and is censorship, plain and simple.

"There is nothing hateful or bigoted about what I say,”said the hateful bigot.

The ads read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.”

New York Times earlier this month show Morsi referring to Jews as "the descendants of apes and pigs" and saying that Muslims should "nurse our children and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews…"

Also another interesting fact since the Globe is owned by the Times and prides itself on reporting the news: MEMRI posted the video of Morsi's anti-Semitism and its translation January 3, but it generated little attention until after Richard Behar of Forbes magazine wrote a scathing commentary on January 11 noting that Fox News had covered the story, and slamming the Times and other media for ignoring it.

Globe and Times ignoring anything that interfers with thier version of who the bigots and haters in the world are.

The Blogs Atlas Shrugs and Jihad Watch have been covering this shameful episode in depth.

Included in their coverage are some emails between the Globe reporter and Spencer. Here is one:

"Spencer to Wangsness:

Everything I have written in twelve books on Islam is documented from Muslim sources. No one needs take my word for anything -- they can check it out themselves. What I say about Islam is not unusual or eccentric -- numerous scholars who have the credentials that those you have spoken with require, and many ex-Muslims, have made the same observations about Islamic doctrine that I have. Karen Armstrong and I have both written two books about Muhammad. She is not a Muslim, holds no degrees in Islamic studies and is not an Arabic speaker. Yet they have no problem with her books and would probably recommend them. What is the difference? She paints a warmly positive view of Muhammad whereas I quote the material from the Muslim sources showing him acting violently, counseling warfare against non-Muslims, having his foes murdered, etc. This is material that those you have spoken with would rather not be known. The fact that they demand what they claim are validating credentials from me but do not demand the same from Armstrong indicates that their criticism is not with the accuracy of my work, but is motivated by another agenda. And the fact that they make these spurious arguments about credentials shows that they cannot dispute the accuracy of my work, and so have to make ad hominem attacks instead."

Freedom of speech is a precious right. It is shocking to me still that the left which I used to love, the side that started out by giving us Lenny Bruce and the Fugs and Timothy Leary and the Boston Avatar underground newspaper have wound up as they are today: embittered old crabs that hold true misogynists homophobes and those that represent institutional subjugation of women beyond criticism as if in some kind of twisted multicultural romantic spell?