From the page: - However, in his book The God Delusion, Professor Dawkins launches the fiercest attack on religion since Nero unleashed his lions on the Christians. - First, we aren't sure that Nero did anything to any Christians, since there is only weak evidence there were any Christians in Rome during his time. Mentions of Nero dealing with Christians were written decades after the fact and therefore are flavored by post-Nero propaganda. Nero in particular was hated by Romans (Christian and non-Christian) since he was a Grecophile, and after his reign, anti-Nero propaganda proliferated. The truth of Nero's reign is far more prosaic than most people now believe; many of the accusations leveled against him later, are either exaggerated, or without merit. - Second, comparing the writing of a book, no matter how negatively it views religion, to the brutal violence of throwing people to lions, is completely out of line. The two are in no way comparable. As for Dawkins' vilification of religion, his work was presaged by many older polemics against religion, among the best (and best-known) of which is Age Of Reason by Thomas Paine. Let's face it, the problems of hyperreligiosity have been well-known for centuries. Is Dawkins to be criticized for recognizing it and stating his own case? Or are religionists, for refusing to accept it, and instead equating the writing of polemics with physical attacks and outright violence?