I guess I wasn't explicit enough for your linear view of history, dependent as it seems to be on the work of one elite scholar teaching at Yale, an elite bastion of liberalism. I probably should have said that the Reformation began the ineluctable process of changing Christianity from an intolerant and abusive religion, that routinely put people to death for apostasy --just like Islam is today -- to a religion of tolerance of many views, sects, and interpretations of Christianity that it is today. If you think Islam is a religion of peace then account for the rule of the Mullahs in Iran, the repressive regime in Saudia Arabia, and the paucity of Christian churches and population in virtually all countries where Islam is the dominant faith. Don't use Turkey as an example, their population is 90% Muslim and the only churches are relics in the somewhat liberal enclave of Istanbul.
Post Reformation there were competing interpretations of the Christian faith. In order to remain relevant the Catholic hierarchy was forced to purge their dogma of the excesses that led to the Inquisition and the Crusades. Excesses like those of the earlier Catholic church are still practiced widely today in the name of Islam by the Taliban, Hezbollah, the regime in Iran and elsewhere. Because here has never been an effective challenge to the to Islamic orthodoxy from the time of Muhammed Islam remains today intolerant belief system. From its inception it has been an aggressive, militant proselytizing belief system. Muhammed, his acolytes and successors condoned and promoted killing Jews and apostates of the faith. There has been no reformation of Islam. In spite of your unsupported claim of pluralism for the Sufi branch of the religion, Islam essentially unchanged since the 6th century AD. At least in part the reason for the absence of any change in Islam is that while a religion, it is also a totalitarian political system much like Marxism. Those of us who value our freedom, our western, Judeo-Christiian traditions and values, hard earned over many centuries, will continue to resist the intolerance and forced enslavement of Islam.
Your argument regarding the Cordaba caliphate in Spain and the common usage of the Mosque there for worship is risible. If Islam and the Muslims were so tolerant and accepted by all iin Spain, why were they eventually evicted from that nation? Could it be the dhimmis became fed up with their second class status and decided to live in freedom? You seem to think the Muslims were tolerant because they didn't force Christians to give up their faith once they invaded and subjugated them. In fact the Muslims gave the defeated Christians everywhere a simple choice: Convert to Islam or pay an annual tax and remain a Christiian without the rights of Muslims. I bet even your sacrosanct authority at Yale would acknowledge that fact. That's not what most of us would call tolerance on the part of rulers.
As for Joy Levitt's support for the Ground Zero Mosque site, there are always those everywhere and ofß all faiths who are blind to exogenous threats. Sorta like Neville Chamberlain.
Finally, could it be that those who defend Islam and its followers are one and the same as those who used to defend Marxism and the Soviet Uniion? Just asking.
Try http://www.gallup.com/poll/104731/muslims-want-democracy-theocracy.aspx, for some survey results re Sharia law
