Thanks. He's a professional Apologist but there is a core question that he never answered, but based his defense of religion on. "Is there any religion that is true?"


He goes on by defending the historical acts of Christians but never comes to grips with the authority of religious acts from a god directing them to do so.

Religious Totalitarianism is a necessity by virtue of the authority of the god of the believer. Thomas Friedman, on that issue at least, is inherently correct.

"Our battle is not against terrorism per se, but against any religion that claims to be true."

In other words, religion is the enemy. It empowers people falsely by virtue of a supreme deity to do ...

Thanks. He's a professional Apologist but there is a core question that he never answered, but based his defense of religion on. "Is there any religion that is true?"


He goes on by defending the historical acts of Christians but never comes to grips with the authority of religious acts from a god directing them to do so.

Religious Totalitarianism is a necessity by virtue of the authority of the god of the believer. Thomas Friedman, on that issue at least, is inherently correct.

"Our battle is not against terrorism per se, but against any religion that claims to be true."

In other words, religion is the enemy. It empowers people falsely by virtue of a supreme deity to do evil.

9/11 was a faith based initiative. And I'd have to agree with the perspective of the caller.

PS: Thanks for the info. I agree with clipmark, but not the defense of the author.