Thom: When talking about how Jews lived in peace in Islamic countries you left out the fact that they were treated as second class citizens. The Koran may say don't force anyone but it also says that anyone or any entity that is not Islamic is inferior and needs to be under the rule of Islam.

This is one reason they hate us, we are not an Islamic nation so we are supposed to bow to them. We don't have to convert we just have to acknowledge that they are the rulers.

There are two unrelated points I'd like to make regarding today's show:

1) Regarding the first guest, who's main point seemed to be that the best, and possibly only, way to fight extremeist Islamic terrorism is to convert all the Moslems to Christianity - Can anyone point to a historical example where forcing a people to abandoin the faith of their ancestors for that of the "masters" (for want of a better word) turned out to be a good idea?

2) Regarding the economy - It often seems to me, Thom, that you are taking Limbaugh's infamous statement about FDR (He's dead! - Some of his policies are still hanging around, but we're trying to do something about that!), and substitute Ronald Reagan's name. Now, I personally have no problem with that, but can the guy who wrote "Cracking the Code" really fail to see the problem with this tactic? I just don't think that "REPEAL THE REAGAN TAX CUTS" is gonna play in Peoria.

-- Of course the "New Right" is wrong - that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

Thom's characterization of the radicals of Christianity and Judaism being a tiny minority is dead wrong. Murderous Christians have committed genocidal acts in the very recent past in Croatia, West Africa, and Northern Ireland. And widesprerad violent acts by Jews against Muslims, especially in Israeli occupied areas in the middle east is a public embarassment to Jews everywhere. And Muslims trying to characterize Islam as a peace loving religion that doesn't force membership at swordpoint is a joke, especially in countries permitting the Sharia law.

The terrorism of killing of innocent people -- for any reason -- is inherently immoral, in or out of the context of religion. While attacking military targets might be perceived as some distorted semblance of retaliation, the killing of innocent civilians, especially women and children, on the planes, and in the buildings, discos, restaurants, resorts, and embassies throughout the world, can never be justified.

This is the difference: When Christian radicals go overboard, like the ethnic cleansing by Milosovich in southern Yugoslavia, we don't give them sanctuary or safe haven. In Christendom, such men become pariahs, war-criminals, or worse.

Compare that to what has happened to Osama bin Laden and other terrorists throughout the Islamic world. Osama is being protected and supported -- even sponsored -- by a number of Islamic governments and individuals. If such a great number of Moslems don't support what he did, why are they hiding him?

Many websites supportive of Islam claim that terrorism is "abominable, abhorrent and permeates society and it is against the fundamental teachings of Islam" and rhetorically ask "Could a faith that has 1.3 billion followers the world over and over 7 millions in America actually advocate the killing and maiming of innocent people?" So my question is this: Why does Islam depend on the USA to keep the likes of Momar Khadafi, Saddam Husein, the Ayatollah in Iran, and Osama bin Ladin in check, and more specifically, if terrorism is not Islam, why doesn't Islam weed out its own hypocrites and imposters?

Until they do, the rest of us have no alternative but to suspect every woman wearing a burka of being a possible suicide bomber, and every Muslim man as a potential murderer of innocent women and children.

According to their Holy Books, Muslims cannot morally have Christians or Jews for "friends and protectors," Christians morally can't be "yoked together with unbelievers," and Jews are called to "come out from it and touch no unclean thing". It is a useless fallacy to assume they can ever "live together in peace" or even tolerate each other in any semblance of mutual respect. The best they can hope for is an uneasy truce, each knowing that any moment might spark the next round of violence against them, with religion once again taking the blame for mankind's inhumanity to mankind...