some of the ideas proposed in the book. Harris seems to be "okay" with the war on terror and with the so-called "collateral damage" in "wars of necessity." What Harris misses is that the war in Iraq was absolutely NOT necessary. Harris has skirted the issue of the Iraq War to some degree, but thinks the war with Afghanistan was necessary. How necessary was it if we can't keep the Taliban from regaining control? One thing is certain: We can't go to war against every Muslim state to keep WMDs out of Muslim hands. We couldn't even win a war against a demoralized people (the Iraqis). What makes him think we could win a war against a more powerful Muslim nation?

Let's just say I agree with some of Harris's positions on religion, but not some of his other conclusions. I think he'd agree with the Pretzeldent's assessment: "They hate us for our freedoms."

Yeah, Harris has made me think, but I think I am going to have to say no to the war on terror (i.e. Islam). We just make more and more enemies by doing it this way. I guess I'm rejecting his claim that Muslims are inherently more violent than Christians, as well as his claim that even if we hadn't done anything to the Muslim peoples of the world, they'd still want to slit our throats. I definitely believe fundamentalist Islam makes these people more dangerous than they would be otherwise, but it is not the only ingredient.