Reading the letters posted about this review almost makes me ashamed to be anti-war.

I am reading a lot of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”-style arguments about the nature of forgiveness and tsk tsking Bayard’s supposed bloodthirsty cheering of the war in Iraq.

You hippies need to put out the patchouli incense and work on your reading comprehension skills. Nowhere in the review did Bayard voice the slightest bit of support for the war in Iraq. And being against the war is not contingent upon “forgiving” al-Qaeda. He pointed out a central flaw in the logic of the book’s conclusion that you apparently can’t handle: “forgiving” al-Qaeda and not retaliating against it would neither stop its terrorist attacks or precipitate a reconciliation between it and the west. It is beholden to a radical ideology that would never allow these things. They want capitulation, not rapprochement. And it is explicitly anti Democratic. Say what you will about its brutality, the al-Qaeda radicals do not mince words on these points, unlike our own feckless political leaders.

Whether al-Qaeda should be “forgiven” or not is a discussion for ethicists, philosophers and religion. Bayard is right to call bullshit on such utopian idealism invading a book that ostensibly deals with concrete real world practicalities such economics and theglobal monetary system.

One does not have to “forgive” al-Qaeda to be against the Iraq war. Moreover, if you forgive al-Qaeda, then why not forgive Dubya and his administration for its lies, its corruption, the blood on its hands from the war? I certainly won’t forgive either one of them, and I don’t see why I should. I believe my position to be moral, logical, liberal and anti-war.

And who in the hell are you people to “forgive” terrorists who have never harmed you personally, for murdering 3,000 more people you’ve never met? That sounds presumptuous and rather stupid to me. Just vapid philosophizing.

No, I think most of the letter writers here excoriating Bayard are just doing it in a vain attempt to score some cheap ideological points. You disappoint me. You’re not even attacking the right target. Save it for Little Green Footballs, not Salon and not this review.

Just when I was thinking Atwood's book sounded painfully obvious and pedantic, Louis Bayard reminds me of the peril of that argument.

Louis, of the atrocities which have been, and are being, - perpetrated against the people of other nations by the government you and your ancestors have presumably funded with tax dollars, how many of them do you suppose The United States has sought, or will seek, forgiveness for?

As a nation, despite our pathological recidivism, we don't ask to be forgiven for anything. Occasionally - very occasionally - an official statement alludes to an episode of violence and misery we have willfully inflicted without just cause. When such vague acknowledgments occur, you can be sure they are political calculations of a last resort. Describing them as boilerplate apologies would be both generous and pathetically inaccurate.

I am not aware of a single instance in which my government has asked for forgiveness. Or maybe I'm just not aware of it. Rarely do I make it to Page 18A of the Saturday newspaper.

Addressing reader comments, you write:

As a spiritual practice, forgiveness CAN be unilateral; sometimes, that's the only way it can happen. But from a practical perspective, forgiving Al Qaeda would have done nothing to alter the dynamic of that relationship, other than to make us feel (possibly) better about ourselves.

How many of the victims in Iraq and Afghanistan do you estimate are Al Qaida operatives?

Your review of Ms. Atwood's book reflects a disturbing (and disturbingly common) belief that humility is weakness, and hubris, strength. The inverse is true, but it's a truth we are unlikely to discover anytime soon.

The unwillingness to distinguish narcissism from critical self-examination is the primary obstacle to saving our dying planet. Unfortunately, we simply will not do it.

Oh, and about those atrocities committed by your government in your name - atrocities for which the word forgiveness is unlikely to ever find itself attached: When the human beings we call collateral damage return the favor, perhaps you can take some comfort in the knowledge that our attackers may well have forgiven us spiritually.

You have succumbed to fear and dressed your capitulation in the perpetually stylish threads of pragmatism. It's a damn cheap suit, my friend.

Next time, try a little courage.

We have chosen to fight the hard way because even a low probability of creating another Japan makes even a couple of trillion a worthwhile expenditure.

Except we haven't fought the right target. Had the Bush Administration decided to go after Saudi Arabia in the wake of 9/11 - instead of kissing Saudi ass - at least they would have been going after the #1 financier of Islamic nutbaggery in the world. Of course, I'd expect a lot of blowback from any attack on the Saudis, but at least they were a quasi-legitimate target.

Iraq? That was like attacking New Zealand in retaliation for Pearl Harbor.

Humans have remade their relations with each other and Nature at least once in the past, when the transition was made from a hunting and gathering economy to a pastoral economy. Hunting and gathering peoples generally have strong ethics of extracting from Nature only what is required for the continuance of their lives, of controlling their numbers, and not acquiring exclusive control over possessions. The pastoral economies invented the concept of increasing one's possessions and control as a means of gaining status. This trend was reinforced in agricultural societies, from which we have inherited our notions of ethics and what is desirable in life.

We are rapidly approaching a nexus in human history that will require us to rethink our agricultural-economy values. That which has enhanced status in our society, possessions and abusive control of wealth, along with attendant resource depletion, are now or soon to be the cause of unprecedented suffering. These destructive values are not genetic, indeed, they run counter to the natural values of thousands of generations of our hunting and gathering ancestors. Our troubles stem from what has been taught to us and continually reinforced, the idea that success is measured by possessions and control.

Aggression and revenge are logical extensions of the struggle to acquire and dominate. We are finding out that, like an elephant in frenzy to swat the mosquito, there is the real possibility of falling from a precipice. As the world becomes ever more crowded and the possibilities for offense multiply, we may do well to react with calmness and humility rather than indulging in an adrenaline-intoxicated orgy of vengance.