John, I liked your letter, which was actually mature and civil towards me, but it startled me on one point and further clarifies my unwillingness to compromise regarding religious superstition on another.

The Left-Handed Thing:

Let me get this straight when you go to Korea, you have to use your right hand lest you give offense (I did not realize or abide by that when I visited there)? So at the end of the day you have to suppress an in-born characteristic so that people will be willing to give you money? OK, then where’s the line? What if they don’t like another inborn characteristic like say skin color or sex? I mean really, how far do you go to appease what is an utterly insane superstition? Ultimately do you really want to work with someone who doesn’t want to do business with you because you use your left hand?

Moreover are you sure you’re not just imagining the extent of a historic superstition? I mean I assume businesspeople in Korea are reasonably aware that the entire world does not adhere to Korean customs and may likewise be educated enough to grasp that being left-handed is an immutable aspect of a person’s biology. A lot of Westerners in their rush to be tolerant treat non-Westerns (irrespective of education or experience) as if they were irrational children and/or peasants incapable of dealing with contrary situations and absolved from the responsibility of adapting to a global society which does not share their traditional values. They might even be insulted that you imagine them to be so primtive in their outlook.

Yarmulke:

I will suggest that refusing to wear a yarmulke or adherence to any other religious superstitions is more important in the grand scheme of things than visiting a lifeless corpse, whose formerly-occupant soul (if such a thing exists) would likely be able to sense your feelings of friendship and love without the aid of some ritual gathering. Still if you really value the social expression of attending the funeral, then consider how shameful it is that a religion would demand that a mourner adhere to their beliefs in order to be allowed to pay their respects.

At what point do you challenge these people’s views? Are they seriously going to bar you from a friend’s funeral because you won’t appease their megalomaniac deity by wearing a little hat on your head? “Well, he may have been your friend, but if you won’t wear this little hat on your head get the fuck out, goyim!” Unless you push the issue, that person will never be forced to confront the absurd consequences of enforcing their beliefs. People need that kind of cognitive dissonance introduce into their lives if they are going to grow as rational, compassionate beings. Perhaps I am too young, but I have yet to see any good produced int his world by catering to superstition.

“How about a fool, then? For, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, as the man said. Anyway, "uncompromising," as far as I'm concerned describes someone who is narrow-minded and intolerent of different ideas or cultural values. We've come to expect this from the White House, but it's still jarring to hear it from someone on the left who purports to espouse "Enlightenment values"!”

Perhaps you need to read up on your Enlightenment philosophers but they were not respectful of tradition and cultural values, precisely because very few traditions can stand the scrutiny of reason. In fact the counter-Enlightenment philosophers like Maistre and Burke railed against Voltaire, Kant, Paine and company for their subversive effect on ‘values’. I am fully willing to accept ambiguity, inconsistency and uncertainty in life, but not superstition and irrationality in matters which affect others. On that point I am uncompromising.

“Can you genuinely not see how utterly patronizing it is for you to call the veil "a glaring symbol of humiliation and sexism," when for a great many Muslim women it is a proud symbol of cultural/religious identity that in secular states (France, Turkey) they struggle to be allowed to wear? Do you genuinely believe a tiny, harmless act of cultural courtesy is the same thing as capitulation to a dictator? This is an attempt to impose your own worldview willy-nilly on another culture.”

You lambaste me for criticizing the veil as sexist, but that is precisely what it is from an objective perspective. Women are given an arbitrary requirement to adhere to unquestioningly (via the alleged word of god) which does not apply to men. Whatever rationalization or seemingly bold excuses Muslim women offer, however interesting from a oscio-psychological standpoint and worth listening to out of courtesy, does not change the willfully inegalitarian aspect of their actions. You accuse me of a coercive intent without a shred of evidence (all I’m doing is voicing my opinion in this forum -- I never advocate coercion, ever, in fact that is what I am struggling against), but ignore the multitude of pressures which are required to make each new generation of women accept the veil and their pre-ordained place in Muslim (and Judeo-Christian) society. I guess like many corrupted ‘liberals’ the culture matters to you more than the individual who must endure its irrational dictates?

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.