I don't know what that's supposed to mean, exactly.  I prefer pluralism, multiculturalism...

"Politically correct" is also a useless concept used to bludgeon people.  And the idea of the freedom to be "Un-PC" is generally used by the powerful to get dissenters to shut up about their rights.

Religious freedom vs. human rights is absolutely a false choice.  Religious freedom is a human right.  So is freedom from pain and fear.  There can difficulties in weighing everyone's rights and shaking out the most equitable society.  

It's a really important distinction, though, to separate beliefs from practices.  Free exercise of religion is a great goal, but it stops at the point where individuals are harmed.  (And maybe where society is  harmed, but that's a bit of slippery slope.)  Freedom of belief, though, needs to be absolute.  And freedom of speech about those beliefs.

Ms. Ali blames Islam atrocities.  But we need not accept her contention of that entire faith as complicit, in order to join in ending the suffering.

When we elect to discuss religious freedom / tolerance in terms of basic human rights - it's a very dangerous conversation indeed:

Often, Westerners will pretend to have this conversation by discussing the evils of Islam. I say pretend because we always stop short of discussing the evils of Western religions.

The ugly truth is that virtually every organized religion on this planet has the subjugation of females as a central theme.

that no ones religion in this culture can be allowed to physically harm anyone else. I mean, to use an extreme example, if you believe in human sacrifice, you're not allowed to do it here. Well, in the US I mean, I'm not an int'l law expert...
but then what about all the other types of harm one can do to a child under the guise of free exercise of religion?

My husband grew up knowing a family that wouldn't allow its oldest and brilliant daughter to go to college (got 1600 SAT) because she was a girl. They let her take book-keeping and home ec at the community college and then moved her and her brothers to a private compound, God knows where... they claimed this was some tenet of their belief system, some sort of "off-brand" Christianity, as I ironically refer to it.

(Please don't shoot -- I'm a liberal Catholic!)

the subjugation of females isn't a tenant of any major religion, I don't think- but it is a tenant of the way those beliefs are interpreted and enacted via formalized structures.  The Bible refers to Mary Magdalene as a disciple- the church turned her into a prostitute.  I think that it's hard to separate the faith from the institution, in many cases.  I know that I struggle to teach my children about my faith so that they can build their own, while working within the institution of the UCC.  It's tricky stuff, but I believe (and choose to believe that many share my belief) that faith= nurturing and support for everyone.  If it's about violence, hate, or destruction, it's not faith- it's perversion of faith.

My .02.

is a lousy word anyway, IMO.  it is often used with a negative connotation as in the US... in fact the second definition for it in my microsoft word dictionary said "the act of putting up with somebody irritating or unpleasant".  the first was about acceptance, but i think the term gets mixed up between those two definitions all too often.

so, moving past language... having been left in the dating game far too long, i dated two different guys who were fundamentalists of two different religions (as an agnostic/atheist- i'm still deciding myself).  i truly believed i was being open-minded.  both men were complex and had very good traits that i really liked, but their belief system became a major wall in each relationship. was i supposed to be accepting of the idea that gay people, people who divorced, people who had abortions, people who weren't born int he right part of the world to practice that religion, etc... were all going to hell?  i really struggled with what religious "tolerance" was, and still do.  

what i've come up with so far, is that i won't "tolerate" anything in the name of religion that i wouldn't otherwise accept.  if it's a discriminatory, harmful, or dangerous practice, it doesn't matter to me why you believe it's ok.  people have believed and practiced all sorts of appalling things in the name of religion... i won't name them, 'cause they're obvious and i don't want to point out any one person's religion.  but cloaking abusive behavior in the name of a sacred text or tenet seems far from sacred to me.

I haven't read her book, but I know a little bit about her life having followed her activities in the Dutch parliament since 2004.  She comes from a background of privilege, and strikes me as something of a spoiled child, though she is quite obviously very well spoken and has an engaging personality that makes her a natural politician.  

Last year I was in Amsterdam and had a chance to talk with some people involved in progressive Dutch politics, and they were apparently quite glad to see Hirsi Ali go.  They told me that she caused more problems than she solved, and that her own actions resulted in her ousting from parliament.

I think Submission was excellent, but it was also intentionally provocative and inflammatory, and she has yet to follow up on that work.  I believe Hirsi Ali needs to experience some personal growth before she will ever become a truly effective voice.  You can't abandon a belief, and then attack it from the outside as an ex Muslim as Ayaan has done, that is not a path to reform, that path only leads to conflict, and that is exactly what Hirsi Ali has sought in her approach.  It's very simple equation, she has been badly harmed, and she has retaliated against the entire Islamic faith as opposed to directing her ire where I believe it rightly belongs, on to those who were directly responsible.

And to be completely clear, no religious belief has ever oppressed anyone, people oppress people, not religions.  It seems to me Hirsi Ali was abused by her family members, and she has transferred her problems with them to the entire Islamic system of belief.  Sure the Islamic world has some serious systemic problems, open oppression of men women and children, but these are problems that those in the West were quite willing to ignore and overlook as long as the oil kept flowing, hardly any in the West gave a damn about the plight of the people of the Islamic world and the Middle East, certainly not the conservatives and the right wingers in this country, not until 9/11 and the attacks in Europe, not until it came home to our own backyard.  As Reverend Wright and Malcolm X. so aptly put it, a case of the chickens coming home to roost.  The West and our support of dictatorships throughout the Islamic world have allowed these problems to go unaddressed for generations.  Though they have become far more pronounced with the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism which is one of the only forces to stand in direct opposition to the oppression of the Islamic peoples which has been instigated by Western powers.  When a people are left with nothing else they often fall back upon fundamentalist interpretations of faith.

 Hirsi Ali continues to make reckless blanket condemnations of Islam, hardly bothering to differentiate between the religion itself, entrenched patriarchy and the rising influence of Islamic fundamentalism which are at the heart of the problems in the Islamic world.  Over and over again she's made the statement that Islam is not a religion of peace, a viewpoint that marginalizes Ms. Hirsi Ali and makes her very appealing to certain right wing elements in this country, elements who have an interest in scapegoating Islam and propagating fear among the US population in order to exert a measure of control for political purposes.  They asked Hirsi Ali to join the conservative "think tank" The American Enterprise Institute and she accepted, but as we all know not much higher thinking goes on in such places.  Hirsi Ali directly attacks Muhammad, what in the Christian world is the equivalent of a direct attack upon Jesus.  That's not how you set about reforming religious interpretation and a society.

Though she may in fact be in some minimal danger in Europe, where she's chosen to return, here in the United States I would say that she's in no more danger than the average African-American.  In fact I would say that as a person of color she's probably in statistically far more danger from the average local law enforcement establishment in this country than she is from Islamic fundamentalists.

Ayaan has gone back to Europe, in an apparent effort to continue playing the hunted martyr routine, as opposed to facing what I believe are her true demons, instead she chooses to demonize all Islamic belief and inflame tensions between the West and the Muslim world, when she could be building consensus and bringing people together.  As a member of the Dutch parliament Hirsi Ali had real opportunities to help women and children who were facing oppression, but now she's just another talking head spouting off to anyone who'll listen.  In my view she has the potential to reach a higher level of awareness, but she needs to undergo a personal awakening and find the strength to move beyond the damage that was done to her by her family.  Until she deals with her own issues, Ms. Hirsi Ali will remain her own greatest impediment.

In closing let me just say that on a personal level I really like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, she's hard not to like.  I sympathize with the pain she suffered and I look forward to the day when Ayaan gets her head straight.  On that day I will become one of her most ardent supporters, because I believe she has the potential to achieve true greatness.

here, but I cannot understand why seemingly sensible, progressive people find it so easy to tolerate intolerance as long as it presents itself with a Muslim face, but are completely intolerant (rightly so) of non-Muslims who are so intolerant.

I'm not saying that all Muslims, or even a sizeable fraction, are intolerant fanatics, but at least be honest in assessing where that intolerance eminates.

Then there is the moral equivalence game in which any criticism of Islam must be qualified by self-criticism of Western religions.

Islamic fanatics are, in essence, right-wing religious fascists who treat women no better than dogs. That may sound harsh, but I have scores of Middle Eastern friends who would readily agree.