Bates then argues we should "attack religion". You point out that attacking seldom or never is a wise strategy. I agree. What we want is to encourage cooperation, and we should avoid attacks. What is needed is engagement, not disparagement. The Bush Administration's refusal to talk to Iran and other groups is very wrong headed. The recent contact Jimmy Carter made with Hamas has been seriously criticized, perhaps most strongly by people who endorse the Bush Administration's policies. The Hamas political party is composed of human beings. They are people who have grievances over the way they have been treated and have advocated and carried out attacks. They, as the underdogs, perhaps think that attacking is the only way they will make progress. Sometimes attacking does succeed in attracting attention to an unfair situation, but it makes it more difficult to achieve justice since the attacks appear to justify the opponents' hostility. Carter's courageous approach should be followed up, hopefully by the next U.S. administration.

On the other hand, there are different kinds of attack. Dawkins has written a book called "The God Delusion". This has been interpreted as an attack on religion. Well, in a way, it is. But it certainly isn't a physical attack. It's nothing like a suicide bombing incident. Nor is it an angry book. I mean the language is calm and reasonable. The book does an excellent job, moreover, of pointing out the dangers posed by certain types of religious beliefs.