i think it must be noted that there are many sects and interpretations of islam and that there should always be a distinction between a sect that espouses life and death by the sword and sects that are peaceful as most muslims are.

we as a nation are willing to accept many hateful people who despise blacks, gays, jews, bloggers, etc., doesn't this mean that we must also accept those who hate america and americans? the libertarian jew must tolerate the neo-nazi next door doesn't that also follow that the libertarian american must tolerate the islamic fundamentalist next door?
Jenny | 05.22.06 - 1:03 am | #

I don't see much of a conflict for libertarians. Tolerance means if certain people want to be Muslim, that's fine. If they want legal exceptions made for them (to murder non-Muslims or to force people to accomodate them) that's not OK.

Islam isn't equivalent to Jefferson or Paine. It's equivalent to Christianity or Naziism. If you want to do that in your own house, it's fine so long as you don't violate anybody else's rights in doing so. Multiculturalism is illiberal in that it subjugates the rights of certain groups to compensate for perceived injustices against other groups. By focusing on the individual, libertarians solve the dilemma of how to balance group interests...but that's what gets us in trouble with our leftish friends--and, increasingly, our rightish friends as well.
Sandy | Homepage | 05.22.06 - 1:04 am | #

I repeat my mantra: All religions are equally stupid. I support a person's right to be stupid. Just keep that shit away from me.
Baylen | Homepage | 05.22.06 - 8:06 am | #

I like how battling unbelief rates as first priority in Jihad.
David | 05.22.06 - 9:25 am | #

Great comments about an admittedly controversial post. Sandy, I like your comment but I differ in that across the globe radical Islam is seeking to be a political system, with sharia law, so the comparison to Jefferson is fitting.

Jenny, I agree that we must accept those who hate America, gays etc but the line is drawn when they want to inflict their beliefs to restrict the freedom of others. PS were I a Jew I would feel entitled to throw eggs at my Nazi neighbors.

Baylen, I am with you. As a gay person I fully support and don't get offended by Christian zealots condemning me to hell but when they bring those beliefs to the ballot box I get really pissed off. I honestly think that libertarianism, which cherishes individual freedom, is the only vehicle that can save us from religious domination of all sorts.
Leonardo | Homepage | 05.22.06 - 7:22 pm | #

Leonardo,
How can one completely separate their beliefs (religious or otherwise) from the way that one votes? I do think public servants have an obligation to do so (I strongly believe in the separation of church and state), but an individual has a right to vote with one's head, heart, or holy book if one wants...we may not like it, but each person gets a vote and can cast it as they wish, I think.

As for your comment about throwing eggs at nazis next door, it seems that this would be a provocation not a defense. I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense from an emotional perspective, I just don't think anyone has the right to attack someone or someone's property unless in self-defense; I think the law would agree. I know when I hear racist banter (especially lately with the immigration policy debate) I feel like punching someone right in the mouth...but I can't and I shouldn't for personal as well as legal reasons.
Minerva Oblongata | 05.23.06 - 9:55 am | #

The very tenets of Islam demand that all believe and that the faithful are to kill or convert all who do not believe. In my mind this makes Islam the enemy of all who value liberty be they Libertarian, Republican, or Democrat. Nothing racist about it, these are people that wish to impose their will on others. The Christians are just as bad but they don't stoop to openly killing those that disagree so they are a little more tolerable.
Snidely_whiplash | 05.24.06 - 3:46 pm | #