The article is a biased opinion piece.
And this is your biased opinion. I read a book of his called "The End of Faith" and he makes a very solid logical case why Western secularism is morally superior to Radical Islam. His premise is based on moral realism and the rejection of relativism as a moral philosophy. You can read the book to see for yourself- this is the premise the bases his "opinions" on.
Yes, we all have our biases, don't we? His premise may well be based on moral realism- that's great, but it's only going to be correct to the extent that he gets his facts right. I think it's great that he rejects moral relativism. I reject it too, as does every liberal that I know. Moral relativism is a boogieman that the right likes to try to pin on liberals, despite its inapplicability.
The main threat posed by radical Islam is a direct result of Bush's vanity war in Iraq. That has dramatically increased anti-Americanism throughout the world, and has increased the threat of terrorism as well.
Oh, you mean on September 11, 2001, there was very little in the way of a terrorist threat, and the threat only emerged after the US invaded and occupied Iraq in March 2003?
I mean that Bush's initial response to 911, the invasion of Afghanistan, was fine, liberals supported, even celebrated that. Then he went and started his vanity war in Iraq, and caused terrorism (outside of Iraq and Palestine) to become demonstrably worse. The data is in this article: http://www.motherjon...q_effect_1.html
Do you consider Fox News to be a reliable source of information?