So let’s review…

People attack me as an idiot (tom), as a “venting second-waver” (Eric Free), as a "concern troll" (Laurent) or just tell me to “STFU” (BabyGrumpus). What insightful, constructive criticism…you should all be very proud.

Two people attacked my post by bringing up bras (Anonymous) and “hyper-sexualized photos of women” (peeps). Do you really think that as an avowed feminist (I explicitly say that in one of my posts) that I would be completely oblivious to these issues (although I am wearing a soft-cup bra right now…)?

At least five people responding to my letter linked me to the Bush adminisration and/or Neo-Cons. Again this small-minded vision of the world where any opponent of Islam must be an agent of Western hegemony prevails.

As for bringing up the yarmulke, bare-arms in Churches or any other distraction…I’ll quote my own previous post: “Well, I guess I'm the kind of person who doesn't show respect to archaic and sexist superstitions (of which the yarmulke is one as well).”

Not one of you was able to defend Islam or the headscarf on its own merits. You know deep down it is just a sexist superstition so you have to rationalize why it is ‘OK’ for Pelosi to wear it regardless of the symbolism of the act. Showing solidarity against the Republicans is more important to some I guess than expecting more than ‘business as usual’ (hence all the people bringing up the First lady and other donning headscarves) from Democratic politicians.

I oppose Bush’s policies on almost every issue because they conflict with my liberal values like the supremacy of reason, egalitarianism and universal progress. Likewise I oppose Islam, Christianity and Judaism (as well as many other religions) because virtually every doctrine and practice of those faiths conflicts with the same set of liberal values. Why is so hard for people to grasp that?

Well as expected 9 out of 10 responses to me were ad hominem attacks. Please criticize my ideas, not who you imagine me to be. I am decried nevertheless as a “liberal fascist” despite merely voicing criticism of an elected official representing my nation. I didn’t advocate violence or forced compliance in any way and yet I am also lumped in with neocons, Sean Hanity, Fox News watchers, Catholics, and a host of other right-wing bogeymen. I obviously make a lot people very uncomfortable by criticizing Pelosi vis-à-vis liberal/Emlightenment values. My suspicion is that I am being attacked ultimately for not showing solidarity against Bush and Co.

As far as I can see Nancy Pelosi, a democratically elected official visits a brutal dictatorship and you rationalize it as some noble act of diplomacy. While there, she dons a glaring symbol of the humiliation and sexism to which millions of women are subjected in the name of god and you rationalize it as a sensible show of cultural respect.

Rather than attacking me, why not contemplate if there is a point where you (literally you) refuse to rationalize your pragmatism further? Is there any regime too brutal, too undemocratic that you feel would simply not worth legitimizing by meeting with the murderer(s)-in-chief? If Pelosi wore a chador in Iran or abaya in Saudi Arabia (as US servicewomen were forced to do by military orders) or burqa in Afghanistan, would all that sit OK with you? Is there any limit on this cultural tolerance you espouse?

I admittedly am not comfortable with fully recognizing non-democratic nations but recognize how routinely this is done (although why the Legislative Branch is doing so is questionable). As for showing cultural respect in a manner which applies only to women, that I am not willing to accept, anymore than I accept it in St. Peters, synagogue or any other place people have chosen to bring up int heir responses. Ultimately I’d rather be uncompromising than be a coward or a hypocrite.

"Case in point, on CNN.com yesterday, the head of the Human Genome Project, a multi-billion dollar, global enterprise involving a great many of the top scientists in the world, and a project on the forfront of understanding the very nature of humanity and how we came to be, explained why he believes in God. Why he is certain there is a God, and why he, as one of the world's top scientists, has valid, scientific reasons for that. He believes, as I do, that the ver DNA that makes up our nature is far too elegant and developed to have happened by chance."

Why do believers tell us again and again how their faith is so strong, how it is based on such depth of study, etc. and then the minute a prominent external authority validates their beliefs they run shouting 'look, look, a scientists believes too'? A person of true faith would need no external authority to feel confident, whether the Bible or the head of the Human Genome Project.

Furthermore DNA is a cobbled together mess which reflects its evolutionary origins and no more shows signs of intelligent design than the macro-organisms it underpins. I am amazed again and again by believers who in the face of genetic diseases, inefficiencies in energy production, junk DNA and countless other signs of our evolved, imperfect nature stand in such wonder at life's supposed 'perfection'. The fact something works is a sign of competence, perseverence and perhaps luck, but not the perfection and omnipotence one would reasonably expect of god.