I am having a hard time getting the picture of the Ottoman empire straight in my head. It appears that they were very tolerant of religion compared to their European neighbors but that same policy, if enacted today, would not be seen as liberal or enlightened. Was their treatment of religious minorities, or different ethnic groups all THAT different or was it just better than the worst fo the worst at the time?
Like the other guy said, it depends on the time period. By WWI the Ottomans committed what some people characterize as the world's first organized genocides against the Armenians and the Greeks in their territory.
Earlier, the Ottomans were comparatively tolerant--one example of this is the Millet system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_%28Ottoman_Empire%29) under which religious minorities were able to be semi-autonomous, with their own courts and laws. This gave Christians/non-Muslims certain rights within their own communities, protected them from having Islamic law forced upon them, and probably helped protect Orthodox Christian identity in the Empire, but they were still clearly inferiors, and any dispute involving a Muslim would be handled in Muslim courts.
The general posture of the Ottomans toward minorities seems to be that they are inferior, but protected. This isn't exclusive to the Ottomans, and had been the standard policy for most Muslim rulers. Non-Muslims were usually protected, but had to pay an extra tax.
The Ottoman empire was a very big place and had existed for a very long time. Perhaps focusing on a certain portion if Ottoman history would be better? The Ottoman empire was very different in the 15th century than it was during WWI.