Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Lower Tahquamenon Falls, Upper Peninsula, Michigan. Click to enlarge.

To the Editor:

Re “Jihad and the French exception,” by Farhad Khosrokhavar (Opinion, July, 20): I take issue with Mr. Khosrokhavar’s critique of the French adherence to “Laïcité,” or secularism.

The French firmly believe in the separation of church and state, understanding that religion is a private matter based not on science, or rational thinking, but on faith. Mixing religion and politics only leads to confusion and Dogma.

It is not France that is too rigid in its policy, as Mr. Khosrokhavar suggests, but the Muslim religion in particular, which demands adherence to the Koran, in political as well as private life. There is no separation of mosque and state, there has never been a reformation, and those who want to reform the religion are often considered heretics and worse.

There is no rationale for killing French citizens. It is the Muslim community that rigidly holds to their religion, and it is that community which must become more “pragmatic and sensible,” not the other way around.

ELLEN SHIRE

Gagnac-sur-Cère, France

Note from KBJ: The diagnosis is correct. Islam is pre-modern. France is post-modern. Something must give. We'll see how many bombings, beheadings, slashings, shootings, and automobile crushings it takes before the French people take action to preserve their culture and their way of life. By the way, French philosopher René Descartes might take issue with the claim that religion is not based on rational thinking. What are the so-called proofs of the existence of God?

Oh. My. God. The New York Times is the public-relations arm of the Democrat Party, and this moron doesn't see it.

With integrity and consistency, your credits are piling up.

Here.

Here.

To the editor:

The Times’ editorial board castigates Republican National Convention attendees in Cleveland for the tone of their “intemperate rhetoric” in calling for accountability for Clinton’s actions, even saying they “could hurt the country by making it harder for Republicans to work with her if she is elected.”

It’s interesting that The Times never questioned Clinton’s “pugnacious partisanship” when she was asked in a Democratic presidential debate last year who she was most proud to call her enemies and her response was “probably the Republicans.”

Is The Times at all concerned that naming Republicans as her enemies might hurt the country by making it harder for her to work with them if she is elected?

How convenient for The Times to fall on the side of the Democrats.

James Willis, Oxnard

Note from KBJ: The most vile language in American politics emanates from the Left, as do the loudest denunciations of vile language. Can you say "projection"?

Who says rockers are airheads?

Upper Tahquamenon Falls, Upper Peninsula, Michigan. Click to enlarge.