In response to this

It comes at an opportune time, ahead of the looming elections, in which our political philosophies and principals are put to the test through practice. One such test involves the mosque slated to be built in the region; and while supporting other’s rights to express their distaste with the project, I do not support their views of not allowing other’s similar rights.

The opinion which struck me as the most odd in this debate, was purported Tea Party leader Lou Ann Zelenik’s claims that, “Until the American Muslim community…condemn(s) those who want to destroy our civilization…we are not obligated to open our society to any of them.” Coming from the conservative libertarian viewpoint, I found this statement and those that accompany it, to be hypocritical at best. If such a political movement or a purported leader of it, which prides itself on the Constitution, openly threatens the Constitutional rights of fellow citizens, I am quite concerned as to how this person could be trusted with the powers to act on such threats.

It’s not just Mrs. Zelenik’s views though; upon further examination it has been an uproar among, what appears to be, a majority of residence. But lest I remind these individuals, that this right which has been afforded to them to show their outrage, also affords those in the Islamic faith the right to express their religious views without government abridging it. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights.”

This is not a country of one religion or one creed, if it were we would not be free. All liberty is individual; it is not of collective ideals, but of individual ones. Those of the Islamic faith are not asking that you or I convert to Islam, but in many cases, the Christian view is being forced upon them with government as its sword. You would be hard fit to find even two Christians of which agree upon every issue, nor two Republicans, nor two Democrats. If we pick at the seams of our free society through our collective ideas we will do nothing but undermine, not only the rights of others, but of ourselves. As Jesus once said, those who live by the sword will die by the sword; and in this case, many threaten the rights to both expression and of property as they wield the power to do so; a power which may not always be there.

In short, wearing the flag does not make you a patriot any more than wearing the cross makes you a Christian, nor does flogging others for their unconstitutional acts, while threatening the violation of others’ rights make you a Constitutionalist. I believe that people of all views in the matter, should take a step back and ask themselves if they are swimming with the stream or standing steadfast with the principals that they tout in their own name.

Free Market Mojo has conducted an interview with Reverend Robert A. Sirico that addresses this very issue, here’s a snippet and a link to the full interview:

FMM: A libertarian-minded Christian must, in effect, follow two sets of standards. A good example might be the gay marriage issue. Christian doctrine, typically, is opposed to a homosexual union, but the principles of individual liberty do not leave room for a government to intervene in such a case. How does a Christian transition his personal values to his political beliefs?

Father Sirico: I must confess that I’m somewhat dissatisfied with the word “libertarian” in much the same way and for some of the same reasons that I’m dissatisfied with what “capitalism” (a Marxist word to begin with). It is almost inevitably the case that when these terms are employed one gets bogged down in having to make distinctions as to why for example libertarianism does not necessarily mean libertinism, or why capitalism is not state-capitalism, etc.

If by libertarian you mean the belief that the political end of man is liberty, then I am comfortable (Lord Acton having employed the phrase). Further, if the political sphere is to be shrunk to administer the proper functions of government, rather than the pervasive and invasive state apparatus that we have grown accustomed to, then in the end it means to me that the libertarian idea is a modest one – not a whole philosophy of life, an aesthetic, and epistemology or a soteriology, etc., but merely a prescription on governmental intervention. It helps define the limits of government vis-à-vis human freedom, but could not tell us what we ought to do.

Christianity, on the other hand, goes beyond even a philosophy of life: it is an account of the meaning of existence and has and contains in it those moral norms which help man to flourish according to his nature, and how the human race can establish a right relationship with its Creator through the redemption wrought by Jesus Christ, who, in the words of the late pope, ‘reveals man to himself’.

Read the entire interview here.