islam

I used to read LibertarianRepublican.net quite a bit. However, they've slowly gotten more and more Republican and seem to rarely have any Libertarian-leaning posts any more. But a post about a Canadian article about a burqa ban caught my attention because it is so far off from Libertarianism.

The headline? "Canadian makes a Libertarian argument for a Burqa Ban"

The problem? Such a ban goes against a key principle of Libertarianism. That principle is liberty for all. In this case, a burqa ban infringes upon the individual liberty of a Muslim woman to wear a burqa according to the guidelines/rules/laws/whatever of her religion of choice.

There are examples of where judgments were appealed all the way to the Oklahoma Supreme Court because a judgment cannot be enforced without jurisdiction, specifically Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Co., 1990 OK 66, 796 P.2d 276.

In this case, Brazilian law was to apply in an agreement which had been breached and was being litigated in Oklahoma. There are many precedents, both at the State and Federal levels, to recognize foreign law in civil contract disputes. The protection against applying foreign law that is contrary to American concepts is Due Process through comity according to Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U.S. 113 (1895).

Ronald Rotunda of Pajamas Media asks, "What Are D.C. Police Doing Enforcing Sharia Law?"

From the article:

The Islamic Center, housed in a magnificent building in Washington, D.C., has been around for over a half-century, but it is seldom in the news. Unless you drive by (on Embassy Row) you would not know that it there. Because it is supposed to be a peaceful place of worship, we would not expect local police to enter.

Yet last March they did. Three D.C. Metropolitan police officers entered the center, at the direction of an imam, and removed six Muslim women. Their crime? They were worshiping peacefully in the main prayer hall after the imam announced that women were forbidden to enter that area.

From the Washington Post:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that plans by a small church in Florida to burn the Muslim holy book are "outrageous" and "aberrational" and do not represent America.

...

"We want to be judged by who we are as a nation, not by something that is so aberrational and we will make that case as strongly as possible."

Burning books, including the Bible and Qur'an, is an American freedom protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. So why is the Secretary of State in Obama's Administration speaking out against an act of freedom, an act that (as long as it isn't a Qur'an) her side of the aisle generally supports?

From Time Magazine:

Although the American strain of Islamophobia lacks some of the traditional elements of religious persecution — there's no sign that violence against Muslims is on the rise, for instance — there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that hate speech against Muslims and Islam is growing both more widespread and more heated. Meanwhile, a new TIME–Abt SRBI poll found that 46% of Americans believe Islam is more likely than other faiths to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Only 37% know a Muslim American. Overall, 61% oppose the Park51 project, while just 26% are in favor of it. Just 23% say it would be a symbol of religious tolerance, while 44% say it would be an insult to those who died on 9/11.