And it's an odd feeling. Maybe if I go rest for a bit, it will go away....

However, I think Christopher Hitchens is quite correct when he writes:

"The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name. For a start, it is the female victims of this tyranny who are "disenfranchised," while something rather worse than "disenfranchisement" awaits those who dare to disagree."

For instance, "honor killings", in which a female is killed by her male relatives in some brutal enactment of "justice" for a perceived "wrong" on the part of the girl (ie: she is raped and then is blamed - and killed - for the rape) - are completely abysmal and wrong. Such killings should never be tolerated in a free and just society.

Forbidding (and punishing by law) the act of "honor killings" has little to do with infringing on the supposed "rights" of people of different groups. It is a great moral wrong to permit death for girls and young women because of some horribly and wretchedly intolerant view that her family believes in, however deeply and sincerely. If people who practice "honor killings" in their own countries come to live in a place that holds such practices as completely despicable from a legal and humane point of view, then those who used to engage in such practices must now abide by the rules and laws of our land.

We are a society that does not permit "honor killings" and other equivalent wrongs in our own people, nor should we for those who emigrate here.

I believe the same about genital mutiliation. It's a horror that needs to be stopped.

Tolerance is for evil is an evil, itself.

I feel the same way! And I agree with you. "Respecting other cultures" is not the same as meekly standing by while people disrespect the basic laws of your culture. Some allowances can be made, but I think we can all agree that murder and irreperable harm are not among them.

After reading several responses to this column, including many of those who attack Hitch for "racism" (totally not appropriate - please tell me what "race" coincides with one's religious choice?) or other forms of bigotry, I ask you this:

Must a tolerant person be tolerant of others' (deeply profound, and often deadly) intolerance? What ever happened to standing up for universally accepted, basic beliefs of human rights, the rule of law, respect for pluralism, and an a seeking to enforce a simple, but old-fashioned sense of "Golden Rule" right from wrong? Naive, squishy cultural relativism and its failure to call out actual "evil" for fear of being branded as a racist, cultural imperialist, or the like has permitted radical extremists to thrive around the globe for many years -- as witnessed by the brutal kelptocracies in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, Mobutu's Congo, Nigeria; the regimes of many former Soviet republics; and the Iranian revolution and rise of the Taliban in the 90s.

It is incredible to me that other people who consider themselves progressives/liberals aren't more vocal in opposition to the so-called religion of Islam. It isn't a mere "faith" so much as an all-encompassing system of law and social organization that is fundamentally incompatible with Western democratic society. There is no equivalent of the vital concept of "render[ing] unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's" in Islam, where Ceasar (the law) and God are the same.

While the "tolerant" in the West may want to accommodate the "Islamic view" or cultural practices, rest assured that Muslim countries do not allow the same degree of respect and deference to outsiders/non-believers living in their countries. Pardon the tired phrase, but what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. Funny, too that liberals that despise the Christian fundamentalism of Jerry Fallwell are more comfortable with Islamic fundamentalism when Fallwell never made a woman wear a head scarf, ordered an honor killing, or issued an actual death warrant against a fiction writer!

Lest you think I'm some Bushie sympathizer - you should know that I am a capital-D Democrat who despises George Bush and the religious right, and strongly opposed the Iraq war from the time Hans Blix couldn't find a single whiff of WMD. While I believe in tolerance and inclusion, I believe that that one's tolerance should stop cold when it doesn't flow both ways.

I appreciate both of these responses to my post. I'm very liberal in outlook and most of the time, very at odds with many of Christopher Hitchen's views. Yet he makes some real sense in this latest article regarding the crimes of fundamentalism. Frankly, I just don't care much if the fundamentalist is chosing to shoot an abortion doctor Or chosing to kill a girl or woman who has been raped (or killing her for "committing" some other "crime") by holding a family get-together while they all watch her father strangle her.

It's hateful no matter how the person or people enact their fundamentalist extremism.

Raider

Yup. From one deeply bleeding liberal heart to another, I've "tolerated" enough of this crap and I am mad as hell and I an done making excuses for these murderous barbarians as well as ALL of their ilk who "tolerate it" by not speaking out loudly and clearly against the crimes their fellow religionists are committing in the name of their god.

There should be a huge Muslin outcry and outrage yet there is deafening silence. In their silence they become complicit IMHO. I am sick of it.

But we have to find a better way than the so-called Patriot Act to fight it. Sigh.

Mara5525, oh please...

"Fundamentalist extremists" are no more "fundamental" or "extreme" than a bleeding-heart liberal who demands tolerance of others' beliefs, as long as those beliefs don't discriminate against women, children, homosexuals, or anyone else based on religion, creed or ethnicity.

People who say they are "tolerant" or "liberal" should stop hiding behind those words and call themselves what they really are, secular humanists who believe in the maximum expression of human freedom without impinging on the rights or well-being of others. Such a belief is incompatible with most, if not all, organized religions and most "traditional" cultures.

In fact, the only system that seems to me compatible with this worldview is anarchy, in which every individual is a lawmaker unto herself and shares her secular humanist beliefs with everyone else.

Unfortunately, however, humans are neither developed enough morally or intellectually for this to be possible, so secular humanists must adopt a gentle form of state oppression to put their ideas into practice.

The question, then, is which fundamentalist regime one would choose to live under.