I offer these comments to be clear, and they must not be understood as an attack on you (for I have not had the pleasure of meeting you), merely on a position that you have taken.

As a Christian who has lived in the Near East for more than a quarter of my life and served in Muslim relief, I would like to express a point of view that I believe to be well-informed in this matter. Before I do, I want to analyze what I believe you said in your article, in order that I may not simply be dismissed as an unthinking fundamentalist. I understood the essence of your issues as five basic areas:

1. Your legal argument. You believe that Franklin's religious liberties are not as essential as two other concerns: a) the safety of coalition forces; b) the happiness of other Muslim regimes in the area that may react badly to the potential spread of the Christian message.

2. Your moral argument. You argue that Graham's actions (should they continue their relief plans and work in Iraq) is immoral, and that because "half" of his motivation in relief is the spread of the message of Jesus Christ, this is improper and wrong.

3. Your historical argument. You raised the specter of President Bush's use of the term "Crusade" in the opening, apparently to engender an image of an evil army of Christian invaders to a peaceful Muslim society long ago.

4. Your logical argument of bias. You accepted that Graham has a good reputation in relief work, and did not accuse him of any fault but his overt position against Islam, a religion he believes is "very evil and wicked." You use terms like "Islam-bashing icon" to reveal your level of distaste for Graham's opinions (if not his person).

5. Your Biblical argument. You admit your knowledge of the Bible may be insufficient to debate with Mr. Graham, yet you decided to use the Bible as part of your defense, citing Mattew 10:5 and concluding that the record of Jesus' teachings may not support the sharing of the message of Jesus at this time.