“But I can't resist pointing out how wildly she misconstrued my comment about "Enlightenment values" and how entirely she misunderstands the Enlightenment itself, which was about nothing at all if it wasn't about toleration of religious and political minorities.”

You are simply fabricating a view of the Enlightenment to accommodate your beliefs, which in fact are much more in keeping with Romanticism. Only certain modern ‘liberals’ seeking to rationalize self-censorship and their patronizing use of minorities as political pawns (see the Mohammed Cartoons affair), have come to imagine the Enlightenment as some multicultural well-spring. The Enlightenment was founded on the supremacy of reason (hence the associated term The Age of Reason).

Any “tolerance’ advocated by Enlightenment philosophers would have been predicated on the minority not being a danger to the rights of others, and certainly would not have absolved them in any case from an unwavering critique of their views. Just see Voltaire’s comments on Jews and circumcision, or Kant arguing against homosexuality or the education of women. These are both interesting examples because they show in Kant’s case the failure to exercise reason outside of his prejudicial traditions and cultural context (Christian and German), and in Voltaire’s case offer a scathing commentary on tribalism and its machinations which is no less valid or applicable today (however uncomfortable his reasoning is to those who espouse ‘tolerance’).

“…and polite acknowledgement that maybe Islam--a faith to which about a third of humanity subscribes--might be worthy of being accorded a little respect.”

So might makes right? 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong? Your attitude is grossly disturbing. I don’t care how many Muslims there are; Islam must earn respect and when I read the Qur’an, study the life of Mohammed and examine the current state of Islamic societies I see a violent, divisive, exclusivist faith founded on utterly irrational claims. Why would I respect that?

p.s. I am not in any way against all religion only religions based on faith rather than reason. Asking questions of our spiritual purpose and seeking to find answers based in objective evidence is probably the most important and noble things humans can do.

...for closing up this letters section with your baseless accusations. Your letter typifies the immature ad hominem attacks I've received.

You are about dozenth person to accuse me without a shred of evidence of being a Republican, Catholic/Christian, NeoCon, Bush supporter, Fox News watcher, etc. I in fact have the exact same criticisms of Laura Bush or any other person who panders to sexist superstitions, regardless of their political or religious affiliation.

I'm a feminist critic of religion and tradition, but I guess seeing all critics of Islam as conservatives comforts some 'liberals', because they don't have to contemplate how irrational their defense of a misogynistic culture and violent, inhumane religion is under their avowed principles. Then again so many 'liberals' today are far more about hating the conservative Christian agenda (and thus embracing any enemy of it) than formulating a consistent progressive agenda which will address our various national and international problems (climate change, health care, etc.).

I often find Cole's tendency to blame Middle Eastern excesses of violence on Israel and the US rather than say the people actually committing the violence tiresome, but in this case he laid out quite clearly the absurdities in many of McCain's comments. I used to think someone like McCain would have been the best option in a war like this for Commander in Chief, but to be honest I've come to realize that contrary to the common view military experience in no way translates to strategic competence. And yet the AP today has an article on how so few of the 2008 candidates is a veteran. Maybe they were all too smart to unquestioningly follow orders...we can only hope.