4 Things Christians Say When They Deny Religious Liberty to Muslims

[KendraDZ1902]

When we can build a Chapel in Saudi then I will support them building a Mosque in Texas

There are many in Houston

isgh.org/locations/

 

[johnnyc176]

The government made abortion legal, that doesn’t mean you HAVE to abort babies. Do you have any solid evidence that the government has rounded up women and forced abortions upon them? Or that they want to do this?

I wasn’t talking about women, I was talking about the unborn.

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I wasn’t talking about women, I was talking about the unborn.

Well, you would have to round up the women to force abortions, since the unborn are inside of the women.

 

[Virga]

I’m not advocating doing any more than is already being done by the FBI, CIA, and other agencies through current methods, both publicized and unpublicized. I am just frustrated by the lack of reporting of Muslim jihadists by other Muslims. I can only assume that peaceful Muslims either condone the actions of the jihadists or are afraid to try to prevent or report them. Peaceful Muslims who put the welfare of society ahead of the goals of terrorists make good citizens even if they are not Christian. I just wish there were more such folks out there because I hardly ever hear of them.

As mentioned previously, there are current methods already in place to keep an eye on suspected jihadists and other criminals. It just makes common sense to restrict/limit more immigration from countries known to have a noticeable jihadist sympathizer population in order to not be overwhelmed by the sheer numbers being monitored and to allow those who are truly suspects to receive the attention that is warranted.

Although it may sound morally high and mighty to pretend that Muslims are just another religion and they are benign in their aspirations and that Islam and Christianity are playing on a level playing field, that view does not reflect reality and does not reflect the stated goals of ISIS and other like-minded groups in the Middle East that are on a quest to conquer the world by force and convert everyone else to Islam by force and kill those who would prefer to keep their current faith.

Perhaps, if nothing changes, you might think differently when they come driving into your neighborhood one day years from now and tell you to convert or get your head cut off like they have done in Iraq, Syria, and other places. I would prefer to do something about it while we still can.

I’m not saying there shouldn’t be precautions against extremists. I hope that more is done especially with the persecutions going on in the Middle East. I did not interpret the final comment on restricting population as being related to immigration, but if it is, then I don’t disagree that there should be work done to prevent terrorists or sympathizers from entering the country.

The problem is the tone implied all Muslims must have some inside info on the terrorists that they’re not giving out. I’m sure there are a number, but that sort of suspicion is contagious and can easily develop into a witch hunt.

 

[johnnyc176]

Well, you would have to round up the women to force abortions, since the unborn are inside of the women.

I wasn’t talking about forcing abortion but the legalization and promotion of it is, in a sense, targeting a segment of society (the unborn) and used the ‘rounding up’ statement as analogy. Perhaps we don’t see it that way because those human beings are invisible to us.

 

[dmar198]

Our Constitution is not Christian. It was composed by Deist Free Masons and is purely indifferent towards Christian Truth.

First, can you name one Founding Father who was a Deist? Just one? Because I don’t think any of them were Deists. I think they all believed that God is involved in human affairs, that prayer works, and that God rewards good behavior in this life and in the next. I don’t think Deists believe that stuff.

Second, I think the Constitution ought to have a more explicit Christian emphasis, but I do think there are Some Christian ideas in it. For one, in its preamble, the phrase “the blessings of liberty” appears. I think that implies that liberty is a blessing that comes from God. Also, at the end of the Constitution, it is dated in the Year of our Lord. Additionally, the Constitution occasionally mentions individual rights. This mostly appears in the Amendments, but there are several places in the body of the Constitution as well. Catholic social doctrine has a long tradition of respect for individual rights, and that is ultimately where I think the Founding Fathers got that idea from (though filtered through Protestant educational institutions). I’m glad they are in the Constitution because they are evidence of the positive influence of the Catholic Church on Western society: some of our social doctrines made it into the Constitution, almost in spite of the non-Catholicism of its creators (with the exception of Charles Carroll).

 

[TimothyH]

True, Pope Pius IX could not have been writing about religious liberty in the 21st century in 1864. But principles don’t change. Surely we can draw out maxims from this encyclical that can be applied to any situation regarding the liberty of one’s conscience and the role of the state in the regulation of personal liberties. Sure, this encyclical doesn’t address the particularities of our conversation, but I think the pope’s insights are useful here. And by no means is this the only place in Catholic Tradition where such wordage and the expression of such principles can be found.

True, Pope Pius IX could not have been writing about religious liberty in the 21st century in 1864. But principles don’t change. Surely we can draw out maxims from this encyclical that can be applied to any situation regarding the liberty of one’s conscience and the role of the state in the regulation of personal liberties. Sure, this encyclical doesn’t address the particularities of our conversation, but I think the pope’s insights are useful here. And by no means is this the only place in Catholic Tradition where such wordage and the expression of such principles can be found.

“Liberty of conscience” in passage you cited means anarchy - a social system where all authority is removed and everyone lives exclusively by their own conscience.

The encyclical condemns “an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil.” Again, these mean anarchy.

The encyclical does not propose social constructs which give preference to the Catholic faith nor does it support placing roadblocks in front of other faiths. It simply condemns false liberty which is “restrained by no authority.” That’s all it says.

Every encyclical has a context. Most people don’t understand that an encyclical is written to a specific set of people facing a particular situation at a particular time in history. they have to be understood this way.

-Tim-
-Tim-

 

[R_H_Benson]

“Liberty of conscience” in passage you cited means anarchy - a social system where all authority is removed and everyone lives exclusively by their own conscience.

The encyclical condemns “an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil.” Again, these mean anarchy.

The encyclical does not propose social constructs which give preference to the Catholic faith nor does it support placing roadblocks in front of other faiths. It simply condemns false liberty which is “restrained by no authority.” That’s all it says.

Every encyclical has a context. Most people don’t understand that an encyclical is written to a specific set of people facing a particular situation at a particular time in history. they have to be understood this way.

-Tim-
-Tim-

Perhaps we could all use a fresh reading of Pope Leo XIII’s* Libertas Praestantissimum* and then reconvene this discussion.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

**The purpose of this section of the forum is for religious debate. If you are incapable of following the rules of this section of the forum, I suggest you stay off of it. People of any religion deserve the respect our Pope encourages.

Let me, once again, point out the rules for discussion for inter-faith dialogue in the sticky above the forum:

Members are free to discuss, dialogue, question, disagree with, and debate the doctrines and dogmas of both Catholicism and non-Catholic religions. However, all discourse must be civil and charitable.

Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters:
It is acceptable to question the doctrine or dogma of another’s faith
It is never acceptable to question the sincerity of an individual’s beliefs
Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.

These rules for posting are not open for debate.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=791722

Most of our regulars on NCRs have no problem posting within these guidelines. If you are not a regular on this sub-forum, I suggest you read before you post.**

 

[Tomdstone]

There’s a poster on the WN sub-forum that advocates putting all Muslims in “internment camps”.

I think that Hitler and Roosevelt were wrong to put innocent men, women and children in concentration camps and would vote against the Americans doing the same to all Muslims.

 

[ialsop]

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.

That was such an unCatholic statements. No all religions are true, geeeez!!

Catholicism is true because it is what God revealed to us, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

 

[ialsop]

One, you are just writing over me. I said who CURRENTLY on Earth gets to decide. Also, you can’t just go around yelling that something is true and that is it.
I have no indifference. I just believe in free will.
You fussing with me isn’t going to change my mind, ever.

GOD decides!!

Not all religions are true. And God is NOT tolerant!!! We do NOT have to be tolerant. Tolerance is the virtue of men with NO convictions.

 

[chrisb]

I find it challenging to extend religious freedom to faiths that haven’t went through authoritarian reforms.

Islam is predicated on an authoritarianism with it’s authority resting on the Quran, Sirat, and Hidath. This divides individuals into three castes based on their views of Mohammed.

There are three points of view in dealing with Islam. The point of view depends upon how you feel about Mohammed. If you believe Mohammed is the prophet of Allah, then you are a believer. If you don’t, you are a Kafir. The third viewpoint is that of a dhimmi, a Kafir who is an apologist for Islam.

Dhimmis do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet, but they never say anything that would displease a Muslim. This is the submission necessary for non-muslims to exist in Dar-Al-Islam and live. Dhimmis never offend Islam and condemn any analysis that is critical of Islam as being biased. I’m seeing a few here in this thread and we are systematically be taught in our society to be Dhimmis.

In Islam we are Kafir (unbelievers) and as unbelievers we are not extended rights under Sharia Law.

A Kafir can be mocked— 83: 34 On that day the faithful will mock the Kafirs, while they sit on bridal couches and watch them. Should not the Kafirs be paid back for what they did?

The Kafir is hated — 40: 35 They [Kafirs] who dispute the signs [Koran verses] of Allah without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers. So Allah seals up every arrogant, disdainful heart.

A Kafir can be enslaved — Bukhari 5,58,148 When some of the remaining Jews of Medina agreed to obey a verdict from Saed, Mohammed sent for him. He approached the Mosque riding a donkey and Mohammed said, “Stand up for your leader.” Mohammed then said, “Saed, give these people your verdict.” Saed replied, “Their soldiers should be beheaded and their women and children should become slaves.” Mohammed, pleased with the verdict, said, “You have made a ruling that Allah or a king would approve of.”

A Kafir can be raped — I759 On the occasion of Khaybar, Mohammed put forth new orders about forcing sex with captive women. If the woman was pregnant she was not to be used for sex until after the birth of the child. Nor were any women to be used for sex who were unclean with regard to Muslim laws about menstruation.

A Kafir can be beheaded — 47: 4 When you encounter the Kafirs on the battlefield, cut off their heads until you have thoroughly defeated them and then take the prisoners and tie them up firmly.

In Islam, Christians and Jews are infidels and “People of the Book”; Hindus are polytheists and pagans. The terms infidel, People of the Book, pagan and polytheist are religious words. Only the word “Kafir” shows the common political treatment of the Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, animist, atheist and humanist. What is done to a pagan can be done to a Jew or any other Kafir.

Islams failure to recognize the inherent worth of non muslims is a real problem within a society that does.

Note that I am speaking about the actual teachings of the religion and not individual Muslims but this is their faith and it’s not compatible with an society which values Liberty and individual rights. In Islam, there are only ‘group rights’ and they are not even.

 

[drac16]

When we can build a Chapel in Saudi then I will support them building a Mosque in Texas

The Chapel would have to be economically fruitful to get built, methinks. The Saudi government are all about money first, citizens later. It’s a sad fact.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

-Tim-

I agree with you.

Will only add, that personally, give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, just makes more sense every day, as the world heads to majority godless political powers, and its totalitarianism.