Violence and Christianity

Days since I have been (ridiculously) charged with slander: 1.
Days since the Talpiot Tomb could be considered meaningful to early Christianity: 4017.

David Murrow's book, "Why Men Hate Going to Church" has been recommended to me by both academics and popular. I hear it's really pretty good.

However, I cannot agree with the assumptions of his analysis between Islam and Christianity in this article. Assumptions that I see bleeding through:
1. Religion must deliver ("Men need to know Christianity works").
2. Religion should appeal to base instincts in people (i.e., "a gut level").
3. Tougher lines in the sand means numerical growth.

Let me address these:
Re: 1. Religion must deliver. This, of course, begs the question, "Deliver what?" Deliver power? (If so, power over what?) Framed in the context of Islam and its male-domination of power, Christianity cannot deliver. In fact, it is meant to disrupt the delivery service. Of course, the Christian faith is one of life change, and so it should help people achieve life change, but exactly what the change is might not be what the man wants to hear.

2. Religion should appeal to "gut levels." Frankly, no. It might; it might not. Many times Christianity calls people to control gut levels--food, water, sex, shelter. Murrow's use of Islamic ferocity as appealing is the perfect example. Christians are not to be ferocious (in violence).

3. Tougher lines might mean numeric growth. I agree with Murrow that this is why conservatives are growing and liberalism declining. However, it is not an assumption, when linked with Islam, that I think serves the point. Recalling New Testament commitment would be much more appropriate.

More importantly, have I avoided slander in this post?