As a writer the most important thing to accomplish is to get your point across. When it's all done you sincerely hope you haven't been misunderstood or offended anyone.

Luckily the most heated response I've received said my column was self-indulgent, retarded and irrelevant. Perhaps this will change.

I am glad I'm not Salman Rushdie, the Indian born writer whose latest novel The Satanic Verses has prompted rioting in Pakistan, six deaths, injuries and bounties on the author's head issued by the Iranian government and religious community. The Ayatollah Khomeini has promised a reward of one million dollars to the assassin, two and a half million if the assassin is Iranian.

Those who oppose the novel claim it is offensive to Moslems in its suggestion that Mohammed was fallible.

Khomeini has been quoted as saying that Rushdie and his publishers,"are hereby sentenced to death." Egypt, Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, France, West Germany and South Africa also have banned the novel.

In defense, Rushdie claims the novel these people are protesting is a novel he did not write. He says it is impossible for the rioters to have read his book, since it is not for sale in their country.

The novel he did write examines topics such as the plight of Third World immigrants in England, Islamic fundamentalism and the fate of faith in the modern world.

The novel revolves around two characters who, after a plane crash, transform into polar beings of good and evil. One character sprouts horns and hooves and winds up in the streets of London. The other dons a halo and is used, by Rushdie, as a literary equivalent to Mohammed.

Saturday, Rushdie issued a formal apology to Moslems saying he regretted the distress his book caused to sincere followers of Islam. Apparently the apology was not enough since another Iranian holy man has offered five million to any person who kills Rushdie.

The reaction to this novel is comparable to Martin Sorcese's "Last Temptation of Christ." Christians of all denominations were outraged by the film's treatment of Jesus Christ.

Like the rioters who had not read Rushdie's book, many Christians who were offended had not seen the film. Certain leaders of the religious community urged their followers to unite and boycott the film.

Luckily these leaders did not make the film inaccessible to those like myself who had a desire to see it. As a Catholic, I was not offended at all and was patient enough to sit through two hours and forty minutes of Scorcese's film with an open mind.

I was rewarded with a highly spiritual, visceral and realistic portrayal of Christ's divinity and humanity. I realized the film was not an attack on Jesus Christ, but an examination of his character's relationship to God and humanity.

The commotion came from an isolated incident in the film which, when taken out of context, detracted from Scorcese's purpose. He wanted to portray Christ as both divine and human.

Similarly, Rushdie believes Moslems have misinterpreted his novel. Could it be the book is not an attack on Islam? Perhaps those who read the book will find that Rushdie is challenging Islam -- in fact all religions -- to elicit a resurgence of faith.

Just as a true reading of Huckleberry Finn shows that Twain, through his portrayal of Jim and flagrant use of the word "nigger," merely was challenging the ignorant Southern society that surrounded him.

The book was not an attack on blacks, but instead, a slap in the face to Southern whites and their narrow attitudes. American literature never would have moved beyond its infant stage if each book involving controversial issues had been banned.

Protests also arose about Monty Python's Life of Brian. Again, the film was not a direct attack on any religious figure. It was a satire about people who follow others blindly and ignore the true purpose of religion.

I believe in the right to oppose, disagree or boycott something that causes harm to people or their community. I cannot however, even in the case of religious blasphemy, condone an international death threat.

Khomeini believes the death threat will unite the Moslem community. I agree that the Moslems should unite if they think they've been offended.

However, murder will not unite, but instead lead to more international misunderstanding and violence. The Islamic nation wishes to show its strength to the world but assassination will weaken the western world's view on Islam.

Even if the book is blatantly sacrilegious to the Islamic world, the Moslem community should not unite to form a hit squad, but rather unite in a positive expression of their faith while still denouncing the book.

If Rushdie truly has offended Islam then he will be dealt with, I'm sure, by a higher authority than Mr. Khomeini. Islam has survived stronger things than novels.