4 Things Christians Say When They Deny Religious Liberty to Muslims

Women attend a “Freedom of Speech Rally Round II” across the street from the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix, Arizona May 29, 2015. More than 200 protesters, some armed, berated Islam and its Prophet Mohammed outside an Arizona mosque on Friday in a provocative protest that was denounced by counterprotesters shouting “Go home, Nazis,” weeks after an anti-Muslim event in Texas came under attack by two gunmen.

A controversy is brewing over the proposed construction of a Muslim cemetery, mosque and training center in my town of Farmersville, Texas. Many local residents have expressed opposition to the project and have called upon our city government to block the construction of the facility. The relevant meetings took place while I was out of town, so I do not have first-hand knowledge of the situation.

Read more at christianpost.com/news/4-things-christians-say-when-they-deny-religious-liberty-to-muslims-141815/#ZdJabw2C16Up5jHO.99

Religious liberty to all religions was condemned for 200 years by the Catholic Church, so no surprise here.

We dont HAVE to call for liberty for our religion, only ours, because it is TRUE.

Those who want the power of the government to block the construction of Islamic facilities in Farmersville are doing things the Muslim way, not the Christian way. They’re doing things the Iranian way, not the American way. Muslims co-opt the apparatus of the state and use it to stack the governmental deck in favor of their faith and against competing faiths with which they disagree and which they perceive as dangerous to their Muslim way of life.

The author is conflating the “American Way” with the “Christian Way”, which is absurd while simultaneously comparing traditional Christian practice to the “Muslim and Iranian Way”. The traditional Christian way does not support religious pluralism. This is demonstrated by the 1000 year existence of Christendom, where the Church and the State intermingled and interacted to bring about a land suitable for Catholic Truth and the salvation of souls. Error was tolerated, but never given rights or placed on the same footing as the Divinely Revealed Truths of the Catholic Religion.

Now, obviously, I am not advocating a system like that of Iran. Iran’s system of “religious liberty” is fatally flawed because it is not rooted in the Truth of Christ.

This is a particularly foolish time for us to be articulating that point of view so persuasively. We’re less than a month past a Supreme Court decision in which four justices warned us about serious threats to religious liberty that are coming our way. How can we argue at the national level that we believe in religious liberty for all people while at the local level we’re running Muslims out of town?

Our Constitution is not Christian. It was composed by Deist Free Masons and is purely indifferent towards Christian Truth. This should throw up red flags However, for some reason, Americans have embraced the Constitution with nearly as much enthusiasm as they do Sacred Scripture. Which leaves them with the conundrum of attempting to rationalize and determine the concept of “religious liberty” through the lens of a purely secular document, instead of through the Divine Word of God and the Tradition of the Church.

The truth of the matter is that a Christian is never to strive for a world where all people have “religious liberty”. Frankly, such an idea is insulting to the truth of Jesus Christ. Why? Because “religious liberty” for all means that the errors of false religions are placed on the same footing as Divine Truth, essentially applauding the fact that many peoples live outside the Church with their souls in mortal danger. Such a concept should not be praised or worked towards. Until the “American Experiment” and the diabolical and French Revolution, the concept of universal “religious liberty” was entirely foreign to the Christian, because he understood that such a concept gave error rights that it cannot by nature possess.

I just find it a bit hypocritical that we don’t want any type of persecution, yet we think it is fine to do it to others. We want them out of our country, yet don’t you dare say that Christians don’t belong EVERYWHERE.

This attitude raises the dilemma: If Jesus Christ is the sole Way to salvation, can denying religious liberty to those who do not believe in Him and are therefore in error really be considered persecution (Important: the distinction must be made between toleration of other religions, which is permissible and necessary, and the conferral of “rights” on error, which is impermissible, and this must be done in the spirit of Christian charity)? Christians - and only Christians -DO belong everywhere. Our Lord commanded us to make disciples of all nations. It is difficult for the Americanized mind to grasp this because it sounds harsh and opposed to the concept of “liberty” that we have all grown up with. But liberty is not real if it is not rooted in Christ’s Truth. That is what the Church has always taught - and still does teach, albeit recently in a toned down manner. The Truth alone sets us free.

I am have always been surprised and disheartened at how little of an interest conservative Christians have taken in sticking up for Muslims in reasonable circumstances. Even if the Christians don’t feel interested in lending support out of a sense of charity, I would have thought pragmatism would take hold.

The article’s point #3 is sound: if all religion isn’t protected than no religion is protected. If the government can stop buildings because they’re Islamic, how long until people decide that they want to shut down buildings because they’re Christian? Muslims are one of that last groups of religious conservative active in the West. Now would be the time to build bridges and form alliances, not burn and break them.

Jesus commanded us to make disciples of all nations but he didn’t say that we should force people or deny them the ability to do what they want.

And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. (Matthew 10:14)

This is exactly what Paul did.

But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and went to Ico’nium. (Acts 13:51)

Paul was the greatest evangelist of all time. He argued with great intensity and often spoke very harshly, but at the end of the day he respected every human person’s right to freedom even if it meant that they were making a terrible choice.

And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be upon your heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” (Acts 18:6)

Paul walked away and went to people who would listen. Acts of the Apostles is our model. Nowhere is it recorded in the Bible that the earliest Christians tried to change public policy in favor of Christianity, only that they tried to change hearts through love.


They have a God given right (free will) to choose the truth or not. They shouldn’t be persecuted just because they don’t believe. Also, this country is very protestant, I doubt you would want a mob of people yelling at you while you are trying to go to Mass, or up in arms that your parish wants a cemetery.
No, my mind is perfectly fine, thank you very much. You may want to take a look at post # 7. :slight_smile:

Let’s be clear: I am not advocating persecution. I attempted to make that clear in my previous post.

In sincerity, if these answers demonstrate the proper interpretation of the Holy Scriptures and a formed conscience, how then does a Catholic abide by the words of Pope Pius IX in his encyclical Quanta Cura:

And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

Yes, I agree, we should not persecute them. But they should be not allowed to spread Islam publicly. Why Because souls are at stake. Only ONE truth leads to Heaven.

So are we not helping souls to prevent a false gospel from swallowing them?

Not that Islam REALLY poses any spiritual threat to us…just PHYSICAL. SO thats another thing to consider. Is it persecution to push Muslims out from the public square when their book says to KILL us?

Then we shouldn’t be allowed to spread Catholicism publicly. If the truth will really set you free and there is only one absolute truth, why be scared of a lie? Maybe we should be out in the public square proclaiming the truth, not arming ourselves and protesting outside of places that preach a lie. :shrug:

No authority on earth has the right to prevent someone from proclaiming the Truth. Islam is not the truth. Catholicism is.

If the truth will really set you free and there is only one absolute truth, why be scared of a lie?

The motive is not that Christians are “scared of a lie”, so much as it should be that they desire the salvation of all people. That “lie” can be responsible for sending people to eternal damnation. It is our obligation as Christians to attempt to prevent such from happening.

Maybe we should be out in the public square proclaiming the truth, not arming ourselves and protesting outside of places that preach a lie. :shrug:

Perhaps the two go hand in hand, if done in charity, which in most cases would require disarming oneself.

We may think Catholicism is the Truth, but many, many others don’t. What person, currently on Earth, gets to decide? Again, you wouldn’t like it if a group decided to tell us that we aren’t preaching the truth, that we need to keep our mouths shut, and to stop building Catholic churches. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I don’t want to be told to keep my mouth shut, so I won’t tell others to. I tend to try to treat others like I would want to be treated…totally crazy, I know.

There’s a poster on the WN sub-forum that advocates putting all Muslims in “internment camps”. He got more than a few “amens” for that. I shudder to consider this might be a growing opinion.
Does anyone feel concern for the direction this country is headed in? :confused:

There is no tolerance on any side. It’s going to Hell in a handbasket.

But…but…St. Francis said to preach the Gospel and if necessary use words.

Oh no…proclaim the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, the Catholic Church? We couldn’t do that…that would be proselytizing. Don’t you know Jesus sent out the apostles to mingle?


The bigger question for me is why do people think they can block the construction of a building on someone’s property in the first place? It seems covetous to want to control what someone does with their property. But this doesn’t seem to bother most Christians.

Regarding point 3: ‘We are telling the government that we think they ought to choose between religions they like and don’t like and then use city government to make life impossible for the religions they don’t like.’

The government is already doing that. The government is mandating same sex marriage. It is mandating insurance coverage that violated religious conscious. If you think that maintaining indifference is the issue you aren’t paying attention and you’ll lose.

It is a rather strange thing. The constitution was a triumph of centralized, secular power. It is well past time Christians recognize reality.

I read some of the comments at the bottom of this article and the comments by Pumpkin1962 reflect mine on the subject. Here is an excerpt:

"***What this author fails to acknowledge is that the one thing any tolerant society cannot tolerate - is intolerance! And if ever a religion was intolerant… it is Islam! On almost every page of the Koran, Muslims are urged to kill or otherwise harm non-Muslims. There is no middle ground with these people. Their clearly stated aim is to take over the world.

When they are a tiny minority in a society they are peaceful and generally quiet, but as their numbers grow they become more and more assertive and vociferous. Check out the many videos online showing how neighborhoods in England are now effectively “no go” areas for non-Muslims. To tolerate the intolerant is like allowing a cancerous growth to develop. It will eventually destroy its host.**

Over the past 2000 years we Christians have evolved and advanced to a state where we can peacefully co-exist with religions we consider false. When Muslim-dominated societies in the world demonstrate a similar evolved and advanced attitude towards non-Muslims then we will welcome you here with open arms… but until that day, your intolerant religion will not be tolerated here!" How many churches are there in Saudi Arabia?". *

Editorial comment:
I am not advocating harming peaceful Muslims in any way, but peaceful Muslims of good will should report the jihadists in their midst to the authorities if they want to prove they want to peacefully co-exist with the community at large and be part of the solution and not the problem. Until then, they should be watched vigilantly and their numbers be capped and restricted if we want to ensure a safe society for our children and children’s children.

in the areas where Islam is the State Religion OR areas where Islam is the primary Religion…
…Christians and other Religious minorities unquestionably suffer greatly.
…This is probably the perspective the people in Tx. are coming from.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.