In the spirit of Christina Smerick's suggestion to know your opponent before challenging him/her (see preceding letter), check out Wikipedia's informative article on Fundamentalism. It delineates and clarifies various terms like fundamentalist, evangelical, charismatic, Islamist, etc.

My $0.02:

In her memoir, I wish Christine Rosen had talked about more her current spiritual/religious outlook as an adult. How did the fundamentalist experience of her childhood shape her current worldview and spiritual practice (or lack thereof)? How does having a spouse from a different religious background (Jewish, in her case) affect her views?

It seems almost de rigueur among liberal intellectual circles that once someone escapes from the stifling world of a strict obscurantist religious upbringing, that s/he automatically defaults to a secular non-religious agnostic/atheist worldview. But what about adopting a more expansive, open-minded form of spirituality? One that is not based on rigid dogma and fear of the "other"? There are many branches of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. that believe in a spiritual purpose to life, that believe in ethical living, but which do not preach hatred, fear, and an aversion to reason and scientific knowledge. It's possible to believe in God AND biological evolution (without resorting to viewing God as a magician), in holding progressive social views while also honoring ethics and standards of behavior, and in following a chosen spiritual path without judging other paths as aberrant or misguided.

I think most people in the world fall in between the two poles of strict fundamentalism and strict secularism, but they are never as vocal as those two groups.

Hi Jonathan, thanks for your comments. I think we agree. I definitely believe in a separation of state and religion, so in that regard, I would be a secularist. In my comment, I was thinking more of secular humanists, who tend to be agnostic or atheist in their worldview. Agree with you on the distinction.

I also didn't mean to suggest that anyone who resolves not to be a party to organized religion is automatically without spirituality. On the contrary, lots of religious organizations can be an *obstacle* to spiritual growth, from my experience. Many people find spiritual fulfillment through art, music, community service, and so on. If golf does it for you, more power to you! My only concern is with those who throw the baby (spirituality and a need for meaning) out with the bathwater (doctrinaire organized religion). It's understandable to react that way, but maybe they're doing themselves a disservice?

Lastly (and I'll also shut up after this), one sure way to spot fundamentalists of any stripe is that they almost never have a sense of humor about themselves or their beliefs.

Let’s be honest here. A LOT of Arabs/Muslims are extremely racist against Jews. They see Jews as greedy, money-hoarding, insular, inhumane, deceitful, and arrogant in their claim as "God’s Chosen People." Likewise, a LOT of Jews/Israelis are equally racist and view the majority of Arabs/Muslims as terrorists, thugs, violent savages, bigots, and culturally backward bumpkins.

No real progress or peace between these people will be achieved until each group purges this vile racism from its ranks. Peace cannot be built on mistrust, contempt, and antipathy. All political solutions will ultimately fail unless there is a change of heart, an awakening of the spirit.

Each community needs leaders that speak to this more magnanimous vision. Sadly, they only get petty politicians and religious leaders who reinforce divisiveness and bigotry.

"In 1916, the British incorporated Darfur, which had been an independent country for centuries, into colonial Sudan and then pathetically left it to crumble"

Another hellish chapter in the legacy of colonial rule. So many countries like Sudan, Iraq, India/Pakistan, and much of the Middle East and Africa were carved out by British or other European powers without regard for potential ethnic conflicts that would ensue. Add to that the whole ethos of nationalism which aims for racial/ethnic "purity" and you have the makings of endless war between ethnic majorities and minorities until the borders are finally redrawn. How may decades or centuries will such conflicts continue?

Either the world will be broken up into ethnic states (like Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Eritrea, and potentially Tibet, Balochistan, Kashmir, Kurdistan, etc.) or people will agree to live in republics based on principles of justice and equality. There's a lot of blood in the former option, but it seems more likely given human nature.