I don't think that Mr. Hosni's statement about women's beautiful hair is laughable at all. I think that its a privilege to be able to bring beauty, in whatever form it may be, into this world. In terms of physcial beauty, I think that there are few things more beautiful than the human form.

This statement, on my part, is in no way intended to imply that physical appearance is the be-all and end-all of beauty, or that women should be presenting themselves with anything other than their own satisfaction in mind. I don't believe that Mr. Hosni intended to imply that either.

This letter is maddeningly frustrating to respond to because it lays out a series of incendiary charges without offering up any specifics or examples. I, as a GenXer, stand accused of being "cynical, selfish, noncommittal," and "smart but not wise." How does one respond to this, other than to tell the accuser to fuck off? He speaks of "flames and outbursts" "gross misunderstandings of history" and "lapses in logic" without giving any examples or explaning himself. Once again, what am I to say? All in all, it seems almost as if this letter is calculated to offend or provoke an angry response, which the writer can then point to to validate his maddeningly vague claims.

Regarding the alleged hostility of my generation to feminism, community, and (of all things) vegetarianism, I believe that the resentment that the writer is sensing relates to the clash between idealism and individualism. Although ideals can be a positive force for good in the world, idealists can be inflexible in their embrace of said ideals, and often fail to recognize the proper boundary between their ideals and another person's sense of self.

There is no latent rage on the part of GenX towards the Baby Boomers. This letter layed out a series of incendiary charges against GenXers - in addition to being anti-community and anti-feminist, we are "cynical" "selfish" "smart, but not wise" and prone to "flames and outbursts" "misunderstandings of history" and "lapses of logic" - without giving any specifics or examples that we can respond to. Naturally, it provoked a big, equally vague, hostile reaction from the 30 somethings. If such charges had been levied against baby boomers, you would have seen the same thing.

I will admit that I haven't had a chance to read all 51 pages of letters on this topic. What I did see, among most of the responses that I did read, was a vague, inarticulate, angry response to a letter that appeared to me to be calculated to provoke just such a response. I am not exonerating those who took the bait, and ratcheted their rhetoric to the point of near death threats. However, I think the factor that you are discounting is the haze of anger that allows people, once provoked, to project all of their malevolence onto the provocateur - something that they would not otherwise do. Like I said, if this letter had been written about Boomers 30 years ago, you would have seen the same response.

Keep it up. It is always interesting and enlightening to see the subtle connections between culture, community, and economy.

Having read a few of the hostile and contentious responses to this piece, I just want to state for the record that I thought it was great. I always find it interesting to hear how authentic believers happened upon their path to God. This one was most enligtening, both about the reader and the religion.

I have always felt that, at its best, there is a quiet dignity and a humbleness to Islam that I admire greatly, and I see those features in both Mrs. Dunn and her tale of conversion.

The book of Esther takes place while the Jews were living in captivity in Persia. In it, Esther hides her Jewishness for reasons of personal protection. This willful act of deception results in her being drafted into the King's harem, and ultimately placed in a position to convince the king not to allow his evil minister Hamen to go forward with his planned massacre of the Jews. Divine providence is implied.

In order to fit within the parameters of Liberalism, a religion must fundamentally be about personal choices, and not about a political agenda. Islam - like Christianity - wears both faces. All of us Liberals object to the idea of religion as ideology.

A debate can be had over which form of politicized religion - Islam or Christianity - is more egregious to us liberals. However, I am not sure that this is the place to have that debate. In this essay, Mrs. Dunn has presented us with a vivid portrait of the Islam of personal choice. Hers is a religion that we liberals can, and should, be respectful or at least tolerant of. I don't think that using the discussion of this essay as a forum for a broad attack on the most egregious forms of political Islam shows proper respect to the author, her essay, or her religion.

"This is a religion that does NOT allow Christians to proslytize in many Middle Eastern countries, on pain of death."

Here you are confusing Muslim states with the religion of Islam. There are certain political states that have characterized themselves as Islamic. These governments, unquestionably, are intolerant (as would Christian states be, if they existed). However, these states, though they call themselves Islamic, are not Islam. There are millions of Muslims all over the world who do not live in, or support, a Muslim political state. For these people, Islam is a personal choice.

As for the Muslims who do live in Muslim states, you and I both know that they didn't have much choice in the matter. It is where they were born. Most of them probably just want to live and let live, just like us, and probably have more in common with the personal choice Muslims mentioned above than the radicals who run their states.