Okay, first of all, I will state that I basically agree the article makes a good point. The Islamic extremists who threaten violence against those who accuse them of being violent are a self-parody. Tragically, there is nothing funny about a parody in which people die, but it is a parody all the same.

I have two major exceptions to what is written in this article, though. The first is the use of the term "Islamofascist". Just because Karl Rove coined the term for Bush doesn't make it accurate. A Fascist is, according to the Oxford American Dictionary [paraphrasing for length], one who supports the policies of a strong central government with business interests controlling many of the government's actions. The basic theory of Fascism is that the interests of business align with the interests of a nation because a strong economy benefits everyone and makes the nation itself stronger. Hitler was not a Fascist; Mussolini was. But because the two of them were allies, we often assume their political systems were identical.

If you put aside the emotional connotations of the word "Fascist" as we commonly associate it with Hitler, then the word "Islamofascist" makes no sense at all. The Islamic extremists in al Qaeda are loyal to *no* central government and want a theocracy, not a plutocracy, to rule. One of the things they hate about Western democracy is that we allow our economics to drive our foreign policy.

The fact that al Qaeda is not a Fascist organization makes it no less evil, and I certainly do not mean to defend their terrorism. But if we are to defeat an enemy -- as we must defeat them -- we need to understand their motives, and applying a label that is not only inaccurate, but in fact is almost the opposite of the truth, does not help us to better know what it is that we fight. Just because a politician (of either party) found a convenient label doesn't make it right. Politicians do things like that, but it is our job as voters to think about issues, not just slogans.

In fact, if you again stay away from the emotional context of the word Fascist, and go back to its classical academic definition, then George Bush's administration is Fascist because he favors a very strong central government that emphasizes the role of corporations in making public policy. But they won't wear the label Fascist willingly because of its (again, incorrect) emotional context in the United States.

The second thing that bothers me about the article is that it doesn't go far enough in stating its deeper truth: that religious fundamentalism is a horrible, evil thing in any of its incarnations. Mr. Jonas writes:

"By now the whole world tiptoes around the sensibilities of medieval fanatics. We take pains not to offend ululating fossils who cheer suicide bombers. Or raise them. We prop up rickety regimes whose sole contribution to modern times is to nurture ancient grievances and revive barbaric customs. We worry about the feelings -- feelings! -- of people who stone their loved ones for sexual missteps."

This is all true. But take out the word "ululating" and replace it with "Bible-thumping". Take out the word "suicide" and replace it with "homicidal." What's left describes just as accurately the people who blow up family planning clinics, killing doctors and nurses in the name of "protecting life". Remember that the Old Testament of the Bible says that stoning is an appropriate penalty for adultery. We also "propped up" plenty of Christian despots, just as we have propped up Islamic despots. We fought a war to liberate Kuwait -- a nation in which women cannot vote or drive a car, and in which a royal family holds power without election -- from Iraq, yet we did not after liberating them insist on Western democratic government the way we now are trying to do in Iraq.

David Koresh, James Jones, Timothy McVeigh, Joseph Stalin, Joseph Mengele, and Adolf Hitler were all Christians. So were the people who brought you the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. So are the people who firebomb school buses in northern Ireland. The Ku Klux Klan are devoutly Christian. Do any of these people do the will of Jesus Christ? I seriously doubt it! Nor does al Qaeda, in my opinion, do the will of Allah.

Fundamentalist Jews in Israel want all-out war with the Palestines and Egypt. Fundamentalist Hindus and Muslims slaughter each other decade after decade in India and Pakistan. Falon-Gong fundamentalists commit acts of terror in China. Muslims brought down the World Trade Center and attacked mass transit in England and hotels in Malaysia. And on and on and on.

I'm not saying all religion is bad, and I certainly don't blame God for any of this. But in every war in history, both sides have claimed -- and probably believed, truly -- that God (or Allah, or Jehova, or ... Whomever) was on their side and that their enemies deserved nothing short of extermination.

The problem isn't God, but rather the people who think that faith in God alone justifies any action, no matter how extreme, against those whom they perceive to lack faith in the same God. Double standards are at work here, and I would remind Christians that Jesus said to cast out the beam in one's own eye before trying to remove a mote from someone else's.

The interesting thing is, Christian leaders keep talking about how "persecuted" they are here in the United States. The vast majority of our population are Christians. Our President, all or most of the Supreme Court Justices, and almost every member of Congress are Christians. Christian churches operate freely and openly in every city and town in the nation. In Texas there is a new mega-church that boasts 19,000 members in its congregation. Christians are free to wear symbols of their religion -- how many times a day do you see a gold cross on someone's necklace? -- or to put "Jesus Saves" bumper stickers on their cars, to go door-to-door soliciting for their faith, to lead prayers at public gatherings, or to send their children to private schools that indoctrinate in religious faith as well as secular knowledge. Christians in the workplace feel perfectly free to display crosses in their offices, confident that no one will discriminate against them for it.

Yet in spite of all that, Christians claim to be persecuted because the Constitution wisely prevents them from forcing their religious views onto the other 10% or so of Americans who don't share them. If Christians aren't allowed to force non-Christian children to pray to Jesus in public schools, they claim they are being persecuted. If Christians aren't allowed to put the Ten Commandments in the courthouse in Alabama, they claim that their teachings are being suppressed.

Try being Buddhist, or Jewish, or Hindu, or Sikh, or Muslim, or Wiccan, or agnostic, or atheist. Try putting a Muslim crescent or an image of Vishnu in your office, and see how long before your co-workers or your boss start giving you trouble for it. Try putting "Allah Akbar" on a bumper sticker and see how long before your car is keyed or worse. Go to your family reunion and suggest that instead of saying Christian "grace" before the meal, you'd like to lead the family in a prayer to Buddha. Christians "persecuted" in America? Give me a break.

Again, I am not condemning religion, nor Christianity, rather fundamentalism of any faith. People who let "blind faith" become a literal truth in their lives are the problem, not people who simply practice their faith within their own homes and houses of worship. The problem is not God, but rather those who are arrogant enough to presume to speak for God.

On the day that the tsunami hit Malaysia, I was having lunch at a local gyros sandwich place, and watching the tragedy unfold on CNN, conversing with the lady standing next to me at the counter. I casually mentioned that I had made an emergency donation to Doctors Without Borders that morning in response to the tragedy, and that I hoped many Americans would donate to a charity of their choice to help these poor victims recover. The lady grew very angry, and told me that she wasn't going to be donating to charity, but only praying. I said that prayer was good, but that the victims also needed medicine and food and shelter, and God expected us to do our part, too. She informed me, bluntly, that the tsunami was punishment from God because "Americans do not pray enough." I thought I must have misunderstood, so I asked her, point blank, "Are you actually saying that 200,000 people in Malaysia died today because people in America don't pray enough? That God is punishing them for my sin?" She looked me straight in the eye and said yes, that was exactly what she was telling me.

Praise the Lord! I'm sure Jesus would be so proud of her faith and devotion.

We do need to fight against Islamic extremists, but that is not the only battle that matters -- just the one in the headlines right now. We also need to be wary that in using Jesus to justify fighting the Taliban, we don't let our own religious fundamentalists build their American Taliban right here at home.

"We have met the enemy, and they are us." Theocracy is a horrible way to govern, even if the religion in charge is your own.