Speaking for myself, I try to cut people on Free Republic a little slack because I can understand why they are concerned and feel threatened by militant Muslims. Other Muslims feel threatened by them, too. They are certainly dangerous. That said, the libertarians here like to talk about sacrificing liberty for security. I'd like to see some people talk about sacrificing one's compassion and understanding of others for security, too.
If you look at the articles on stereotype accuracy that I posted above (they point out that stereotypes can be reasonable and useful), you'll see some points about how reasonable people use stereotypes such that they are useful and not necessarily bigoted. That said, I think they also paint a pretty clear line between a reasonable stereotype and bigotry. If you try to claim that every member of a stereotyped category fits the stereotypes perfectly or refuse to adjust your stereotypes for individuals based on their personal differences from the stereotype, I think you've crossed the line. It's one thing to say that militant Muslims who want to destroy the United States can't be negotiated with. It's quite another thing to say that all Muslims, including women, children, and men just trying to live their lives and provide for their families, can't be negotiated with and are all horrible people, especially just because one has decided to accept Osama bin Laden's definition of what a good Muslim is.
Excellent series of posts, QA.