France to shut down up to 160 mosques


They found a big cache of weapons at one of these Mosques in France, where does that leave us?


Christian churches also attract loads of naive kids, criminals, and the mentally ill. But when they go off, it’s to do mission work, not kill or enslave non-believers.

Face the facts and stop making excuses


They’re closing mosques which use “takfir” language. Takfir means heretic or infidel. And, it just so happens that there are about 160 mosques that are using an unacceptable amount of “takfir language” so they’re being closed down. There are 2,600 mosques in France. Closing mosques which preach radicalism and hatred is a huge first step. Would you rather that all the radical mosques stay open? Because I’m sure ISIS and the jihadists would.

:amen: Well said! :clapping:

I don’t want a single Catholic Church to be preaching hatred and violence. It would terribly damage the Church. Why moderate Muslims don’t also feel that way, and if they do, how so many mosques can get away with it, is mind boggling. These 160 mosques weren’t attended by any moderate Muslims? Bc they certainly weren’t reported by any.

How fast do you think a Catholic Bishop would be informed of a priest who gave a hate-filled homily?


The worrisome thing is, when people do come up with the earnest argument, “this is just a minority of Muslims that are causing trouble”,

Well, whole nations are being ravaged by this extremism, are being brought to their knees, it be Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan and so on, some are large nations, some have reigning powers that are Theocratic dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia. Even the west is being damaged by all this.


In fact, most clergy can not even hint of controversial subjects; our sermon is always very non-offensive, it isn’t about the topic of the day, it be terrorism, illegal immigration or whatever, it’s usually tame.


In America it’s the Bishops who close the churches … and people take up , yawning … for the most part. :yawn: :shrug:

I appreciate your sentiment though.

Per France, this doesn’t come out of nowhere. There have been multiple acts of intolerable terrorism in the past few years … with the “terrorists”* < (sniveling cowards is a better word IMO)* loudly avowing their religious justifications for their acts. While it might be argued that houses of worship ought to be sanctuaries that the state respects … it might also be argued that a “sanctuary” might be used as a “front” by the unscrupulous (which would include terrorists).

France’s actions seem rather more moderate than ISIS … which has blown up some mosques altogether …

In America religious freedom is under assault by its government (see Obama vs. The Little Sisters of the Poor). The HHS mandates that force groups like the Little Sisters to have to commit sins to remain in the health care ministry are more hamhanded than France’s self-defense moves IMO.

In August 2011,

not long after the president had repeatedly vowed

not to use his health care law to violate religious liberty,

his administration announced that it would require all employers to pay for and provide insurance coverage for everything from sterilization to Plan B, a drug whose own FDA label warns can destroy life.

After much shock and outcry, the administration doubled down, and the Department of Health and Human Services issued the mandate. The biggest religious liberty lawsuit in American history ensued …

The status of the non-profit cases was in legal limbo until (November 2015), when the Supreme Court accepted the case of the Little Sisters et al. But between Hobby Lobby and today, we had an election.

In the 2014 midterms, every senator in a tight race who had opposed the Little Sisters was tossed. Some of those senators, such as Mark Udall of Colorado and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, had actually leaned harder to the left than the president himself and tried to jam a bill through Congress that would skirt the Supreme Court’s ruling and the Obama administration’s so-called compromise and make everyone, no matter what their religious beliefs, pay for things like abortion drugs.

Americans instead elected senators who had very vocally supported religious liberty. At the same time, polling found that a majority of Americans oppose the mandate by a 10-point spread. All the “war on women” rhetoric that got thrown around in that election cycle was quietly packed up and shelved away.

Back to France: For all the vaunted “intellectual and idealistic” kudos the French Revolution and “The Enlightenment” got per their “equality and fraternity” propaganda – intolerance and bloodletting were rampant and the Catholic Church experienced far more persecution that just mere Church closings.

The programme of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included:

confiscation of Church lands (1790), used as backing for the new assignat currency

destruction of statues, plates and other iconography from places of worship

destruction of crosses, bells and other external signs of worship

the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason and subsequently the Cult of the Supreme Being (spring 1794)

the enactment of a law on October 21, 1793 making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight.


The headline here is still also just speculation … as it hasn’t happened yet.


France operates on a very different set of principles than America.

‘Equality, Fraternity, Liberty’ places freedom into a very different setting than 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

ACLU has a mandate that comes from the very character of America. Any hypothetical FCLU simply cannot have that kind of mandate, for American style freedom is not a French value.


I wouldn’t be so hasty to trust American freedoms with the ACLU.

From what I have seen, their response when Muslims want to exercise religious freedom has been tepid compared to them going after Christians.

Not exactly the blind, balanced scales…


I’m just wondering what it’s going to take to convince people who just want to whine and scream about racism, islamphobia and the Crusades that there are almost ALWAYS problems when mass migrations of people move.

It’s really intellectual laziness to sit back in a safe neighborhood and say that opposing any kind of human movement or even just regulating it is somehow this travesty against humanity or that the underlying, chief motive is fear of their differences or the tone of their skin.


Says who?


Neither would I trust freedom to such a blatantly political outfit.

I don’t think that the ACLU was the best example of an advocate of absolute freedom, but I think that I understood the context in which Micelli was coming from by using that as an example, and thought it useful to point out that France has always had a very different conception of liberty than has America.


Would you mind specifying what percentage you are referring to when you say ‘vast majority’?


Path_Finder;13569429]The worrisome thing is, when people do come up with the earnest argument, “this is just a minority of Muslims that are causing trouble”,

It’s a delicate question.

  1. Not all Muslims are bad, but frankly, few people come out and say that they all are anyways. The idea of making that the central concern is absurd and flags for selfish motives.

  2. An ideology doesn’t have to be a majority to become a problem. In Germany, less than 2% of the population were formally Nazis.

  3. In some Islamic nations, many of the citizens at least say they would want sharia law, but in places like Israel, many Arab Muslims will confide they don’t want Muslim rule because the type of Muslim rule there wouldn’t be laid Sufism or something more laid-back like the Bedouin tribes may practice but a harsh government as seen in Iran or Saudi Arabia.


Oh, I agree.

In general I think a lot of American liberals who hold Europe as their ideal really don’t know what goes on there. The social and cultural policies of some EU nations would probably shock them, and the demographics may as well.


I disagree with you. I live in a safe neighborhood. Call me intellectually lazy if you care to, but I have considered the issue and have come to the conclusion that we must do something to help this massive exodus of people fleeing violence in their homelands, and that means accept our share of them and re-settle them in the US. It is the right Catholic thing to do.


I know many muslim people through professional association. I haven’t met any yet who aren’t like the average good person. There are a lot of muslims here in the US. There are very few reported incidents of violent actions or intentions by muslims here in the US. So I would say the vast majority is 99%.




If 160 mosques were so radicalised they had to be shutdown, can you imagine how many extremists there are running around France ?


It is a disturbing commentary on Muslim life in France too, that it is the government that is raising the issue whereas the Muslims in the country have so far been content to remain mute on the issue of so many of their own mosques being radicalized.
It is their religion that is being perverted by this, after all.


As I recall the treaty in place expects countries to provide aid but to support the refugees in localized refugee centers. This makes it possible for them to return to their homes when stability returns.

If your view is the new norm, then I’d like to ship 1-2million Mexican economic refugees off to parts unknown :thumbsup:

You are aware that most of the refugees aren’t even from Syria, right?

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