Rorate Caeli

Good news: a ban on minarets in Switzerland



Minaret ban approved by 57 per cent of voters

It's official: no more minarets will be built in Switzerland

To the great surprise of pollsters and the regret of the government, the Swiss on Sunday said yes to a ban on the construction of minarets.

According to final results, 57.5 per cent of voters and a majority of cantons backed the initiative.
Good: other European nations should follow the example. While belfries and crosses remain the main structures to rise above houses and buildings in cities and villages throughout the great Continent, there will still be hope for Europe.

Update: Official press release of the Federal Council, the supreme executive authority of the Confederation:

'Yes' to popular initiative against the construction of minarets

Bern, 29.11.2009 - A majority of the Swiss people and the cantons have adopted the popular initiative against the construction of minarets. The Federal Council respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted. The four existing minarets will remain. It will also be possible to continue to construct mosques. Muslims in Switzerland are able to practise their religion alone or in community with others, and live according to their beliefs just as before.

The Federal Council and a clear majority of Parliament came out against the initiative. For the head of the Federal Department of Justice and Police (FDJP), Federal Councillor Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the outcome of the vote reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies, which reject our national traditions and which could disregard our legal order. "These concerns have to be taken seriously. The Federal Council has always done so and will continue to do so in future. However, the Federal Council takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies."

The four existing minarets are not affected by the ban. Mosques and Muslim places of worship can continue to be constructed and used. The Justice Minister stated that "Today's popular decision is only directed against the construction of new minarets. It is not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture. Of that the Federal Council gives its assurance." Freedom of religion was and is a key element of Switzerland's successful approach. The dialogue between religious and social groups and the authorities must continue and with fresh resolve. Indispensible prerequisites for an open and constructive debate are respect and openness towards those that hold different views.

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

- If someone wants to be Catholic, he must be open to others - said Archbishop Antonio Maria Veglio, president of the Pontifical Council for Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, when asked about the referendum.

Why you do not respect dignity of our Muslim neighbors? Their conscience? Conscience is Gods speaking!

Why you are happy to persecute them?

What they done to you? How can they love us if we do not love them as neighbors?

If we try to impose our will on them?

And if we are not open like archbishop says?

How can you be surprised if they make anger for that, because they don't know Jesus, don't know anger is sinful?

We should love muslims instead of annoy them by being malicious by law!

Listen to the archbishop of our own church!

Read what the church teaches before you forbid your neighbors to build religious buildings! Yes the minarete is a religious building because the muezzeen call the Muslims, our human brothers ! and neighbors!! who we should love!!!! to worship from this building!

Religious communities also have the right not to be hindered !!!!!!!, either by legal measures or by administrative action on the part of government !!!!!!, in the selection, training, appointment, and transferral of their own ministers, in communicating with religious authorities and communities abroad, in erecting buildings for religious purposes !!!!!!!!!, and in the acquisition and use of suitable funds or properties.

This is what the Second Vatican Council says! If you don't agree to minaretes you don't agree with that words and it makes you a sect!

And remember that you started when Muslims start demonstrations with fire on cars!

New Catholic said...

All righty, then.

servusmariaen said...

How many belltowers or spires or even churches for that matter are built in Islamic lands? There was an issue about 10 yrs ago in a swabian village near Augsburg about whether the minaret should be taller than the village Church tower and it was voted down. I praise God for this small miracle. There is quite a difference in showing respect to other faiths and allowing their culture to overtake that of Christendom.

Rick DeLano said...

Dear Anonymous:

Thank you for pointing out the catastrophic betrayal of Europe to Islam, which has been not merely acquiesced in, but positively carried out, by heretic universalists who insist that the Second Vatican Council required them to rejoice at Muslims being called to worship at a mosque instead of being converted by the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

You and I are of different religions, I now understand this.

I thank you for finally showing me in an unambiguous way, that you are not Catholic.

You hold to some strange new religion, and you have concocted this religion on the basis of terrible ambiguities in certain passages of the Council.

May God have mercy on you, and may God grant us, through the teaching of the Holy Father, a clear and forceful condemnation of your grotesquely heretical interpretation of the Second Vatican Council.

Jacob said...

I wonder what it is about the Swiss. Those who are from the Continent can help me since I have no firsthand experience.

Is it because in their neutral mountain valleys, they've been isolated from Europe's wars and genocides and have no collective guilt weighing them down? Are they rather more expressive of their faith?

They've obviously not succumbed to the urge to enter into the national death spiral others have in Europe.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the US & other nations should follow Swiss style direct democracy?

The Swiss just voted to ban minarets on mosques and this is a great exercise of their unique form of direct democracy regardless of your views on the subject. But my question is why do the Swiss get to overrule their politicians and parliament and here in the US, we don’t have that right?

Let’s bring Swiss style direct democracy to the United States so Americans can vote on the Wall Street bailouts, government health care, whether to audit or abolish the FED, or require Congress declare war before we invade another country. Read why Switzerland is free and America is not and help restore citizen control over the US government and Congress currently under control of special interests. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/holland9.1.1.html

Anonymous said...

"Is it because in their neutral mountain valleys, they've been isolated from Europe's wars and genocides and have no collective guilt weighing them down? Are they rather more expressive of their faith?

They've obviously not succumbed to the urge to enter into the national death spiral others have in Europe."

They have succumbed. Average Swiss city-boy is as liberal as average French, German, etc. But there's Swiss countryside, the conservative villages, and Switzerland is not much urbanized.

Switzerland is located on an montainous area. There were few wars in Switzerland for the last 800 years...

Switzerland is rich because of its stable and reliable banking and economical in general system and attraction of rich people.

So in Switzerland there's degressive tax scale. The more you earn, the less you pay tax. Also, there's a large group of people who make a living from their richness, the acumulated capital. And they're very influential, they care for their money, they are in touch with reality, they realize that the leftist prejudices are lies at least in terms of governing a state.

Sometimes they ally with conservative (like elsewhere) Swiss peasants, and precisely their influence makes Switzerland so conservative in matters of politics.

In matters of customs - euthanasia is legalized in Switzerland (large part of the country is Protestant, so no surprise there). But the Swiss don't kill themselves, no. They kill old godless Germans there.

After all, the SSPX headquarters (and good part of vocations) are in Switzerland, and bishop Fellay is a Swiss small town boy.

Peter said...

When Islamic Lands (conquered CHRISTIAN LANDS) start allowing churches to be built, freedom to preach Christ, freedom to convert FROM the Moslem 'faith'.... THEN and ONLY THEN should the REST OF THE WORLD even allow a new Mosque to be built in their lands or ANY MOSLEM IMMIGRATION into their lands!!!!

Coming from the Middle East I am NOT as naive as most Americans and Europeans are about Islam and it utter hatred of Christians and Jews.

Some insight into Islam by Father Zakaria Boutros of Egypt:

http://islameyat.com/post_details.php?id=2424&cat=35&scat=169&

Catholic with Attitude said...

I think we ought to be cautious about rejoicing at such a move by the Swiss. Alright, it maybe Minarets but who is to say it's not our bell towers and spires next? Do not get me wrong, I am not pro-Islam, but I do worry about how secularist agenda is creeping in through the back door, perhaps one day to our surprise. As noted, crucifixes have been banned; there may be a time when all outward religious items are banned. Catholic or not, this is not good.

Check out the following on breaches of religious freedom in Europe: http://freedomandreligion.wordpress.com

Anonymous said...

dear anonymous 16:52

"Why you do not respect dignity of our Muslim neighbors? Their conscience? Conscience is Gods speaking!" (Anon)

1. Since when our Muslim neighbors "conscience" lies in a ... minaret ?
Minarets are your religious conscience ? really ? It seems insane or worshipping stones and cement so idolatry, don't you think ?
2. Those numerous Muslims who pray and practice without any minaret have no "conscience" to you ?

3. I would like Saudi Arabia to show us how the "religious conscience" of Christians is respected and the dignity of thousands of Christians in these Islamic states : can you post a link with the cathedrals, churches and their towers in Saudi Arabia and the emirates ?
Do you have a Youtube video so we can hear the bells of these churches ringing to call faithful to Mass on Sunday ?

Thanks in advance to quench our thirst of infos on respect and dignity and how these countries listen to the Abp Veglio's statement.
Then we'll know who "started" first as you say.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

"I wonder what it is about the Swiss. Those who are from the Continent can help me since I have no firsthand experience." (Anon)

Simple : real democracy with easy procedures to call for what they call "votation" (a referendum). The Swiss governement and the Swiss Parliament is entirely pro-islamic but the Swiss voters are not.

Most countries in Europe are not using direct democracy for fear of the ruling classes to lose their grip on laws. In 2005, the French sent a big NO to the EU new treaty and Sarkozy had it voted in 2008 by Parliament only to bypass the popular vote.
Very few countries have a direct democracy like Switzerland... that's the explanation.

Ask yourself why there is such a strong appeal to referendums in the states of America to oppose the Court rulings ?

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

A glorious day for Switzerland.

Prof. Basto said...

Of course I like the fact that minarets will not be built. Islam is a false religion.

BUT...

In this present world in which there is often a dictatorship of secularism, of laïcité,

are we really sure that we want to recognize that a majority, perhaps a contingent majority, has the right to impede the free exercise of a religion?

I mean, buiding religious places of worship forms part of the freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion should be safeguarded as a fundamental right.

Otherwise, the FREEDOM OF THE CHURCH might be placed in peril.

Some protestant country, like the UK or Norway (countries that already have protestant State established Churches), for instance, may decide that the building of new Catholic churches is to be disconinued; the European Court of Human Rights may decide - just as they decided that a classroom is no place for a Crucifix - that there are too many Churches already, and that that affects the free development of one's personality, that should take place within a secular society.

So, you can see the peril. The State shouldn't have the authority to curb the freedom of religion.

We cheer now at our own peril. For we Catholics, too, will face persecution.

And the fact that we are the True Church will not protect us from secularist Governments, once it is established that a law, passed by a Parliament or via a referendum, can legitimately prohibit the erection of religious buildings.

It is in our interest to safeguard freedom of religion as a fundamental, individual right.

Anonymous said...

The Devil is in the detail:

If freedom of religion is not an inalienable constitutional right, if a plebiscite today can ban minarets, so a plebiscite tomorrow can ban Church bells.

Anonymous said...

"It is in our interest to safeguard freedom of religion as a fundamental, individual right."

It is in everybody's interest to safeguard freedom of THE TRUE religion as a fundamental individual and collective right.

Safeguarding freedom far false religions means that the wolves will catch many innocent souls and those favoring freedom for errors will be to blame.

Ludwig said...

I talked a Swiz seminarian in Germany he told me that today they will vote against it but wait 10 yrs the result will be different.

Prayers are the only answers. I am afraid that this joy will not be long.

Manu said...

The fundamental problem for Europe is this: A heavy secularized continent which has a so-called freedom of religion(except when it is dealing the Catholic faith). Freedom of religion does not exists, the state will either be an apostate state with ungodly laws as abortion, euthanasia and homosexual marriage or a Catholic state or in the worst case an Islamic continent(God forbid), those who believe in religious freedom do not understand the catholic doctrine of religious tolerance(tolerating an evil religion) expanded by Leo XIII and other popes.
And if Europe will persecute Catholics,then we must be like our fathers: strong in suffering and firm in the perseverance of our catholic faith, offering prayers and mortifications because this Europe went even further than the roman empire in its ungodliness.

Anonymous said...

Deo Gratias!

Jordanes said...

Why you do not respect dignity of our Muslim neighbors? Their conscience? Conscience is Gods speaking!

You're dead wrong, Anonymous. Only the RIGHTLY-FORMED conscience is God speaking. The improperly-formed conscience is NOT God speaking, and must be resisted and rejected.

Read what the church teaches before you forbid your neighbors to build religious buildings!

Dignitatis Humanae does not forbid the civil authorities from imposing suitable restrictions and limitations on the public practice of false religions such as Islam. I can assure you that the Church has no objections whatsoever to Germany's ban on the pseudoreligious scam "Scientology," nor their restrictions on the Arian Jehovah Witnesses cult.

And remember that you started when Muslims start demonstrations with fire on cars!

Okay, so you're afraid if we don't allow minarets, Muslims will riot. So we should let the Muslims supplant Christian cultures out of fear that the Muslims will attack and kill us and break our stuff. Got it.

Anonymous said...

Instead of protecting Islamic interests, maybe the Church should be converting secularists. Every time I hear Europeans complain about the secularization of their continent, I want to tell them to get off their butts and do something about it. And, no, letting the Continent be overrun by Islam isn't a good solution to secularization. It is the equivalent of chopping off a man's head to cure his brain cancer.

New Catholic said...

Oops, I have just rejected a few comments by mistake. Sorry! (It is so sad that moderation is made necessary due to the abuses of a few; I wish we never had to moderate.)

NC

Anonymous said...

"Instead of protecting Islamic interests, maybe the Church should be converting secularists."

Very true. The Church always aimed at converting the elite (while not neglecting the common folk) in order to establish a Catholic state.

But the missionary activity of the modern Church is barely existing... and missionary activity aimed at elites, even more elites of the First World countries is literally non-existent (because converted elite will pose a danger to "freedom of religion"...) . What's more, nobody even thinks about it.

Until the Church will not change her attitude towards freedom of religion from the one expressed by prof. Basto to Catholic one, there will be no attempts to convert the ruling elite, and no real restoration will be made.

Anonymous said...

"Only the RIGHTLY-FORMED conscience is God speaking. The improperly-formed conscience is NOT God speaking, and must be resisted and rejected."

And how do you know that your conscience is rightly-formed?

M.A. said...

"'Only the RIGHTLY-FORMED conscience is God speaking. The improperly-formed conscience is NOT God speaking, and must be resisted and rejected.'

And how do you know that your conscience is rightly-formed?"

If you believe you must respect the convictions of every conscience, then your conscience, logically, is ill-formed and not of God. God is not a contradiction unto Himself. Therefore, a properly formed conscience will recognize that there is only one true religion and that all others must be from the father of all lies! Truth must abhor all contradictions in matters of Faith and morals. If God is not the author of falsehoods, He cannot expect us to respect what does not come from Him.

Anonymous said...

Like Prof. Basto and Catholic with Attitude, I worry about what implications decisions like this have for the Faith--and its institutions & symbols--in Europe.

For better or worse, the era of Christendom is over. The coercive use of state power to limit or regulate "mainstream" religions should give Catholics pause. The men and women who wield that power are, for the most part, no longer friends of the Church. We shouldn't celebrate just because their caprice happens to co-inside with our doctrine.

--crouchback

Prof. Basto said...

"It is in our interest to safeguard freedom of religion as a fundamental, individual right."

It is in everybody's interest to safeguard freedom of THE TRUE religion as a fundamental individual and collective right.

Yes, I know, and indeed my chief concern is that the FREEDOM OF THE CHURCH be safeguarded.

"Freedom of the Church" is quite different from "freedom of religion" in general.

Freedom of the Church means the freedom of Catholic institutions to preach the true faith & the freedom of Catholic institutions in receiving instructions from the Holy See without hinderance or interferance by State authorities.

The freedom of the Church -- the freedom of the Catholic Church -- is a liberty protected by documents as old as the Magna Carta.

However, the problem is: how do you protect the freedom of the Church, the freedom of the true Church, in the context of the modern States, that aren't confessional States, that aren't States in which the Catholic religion is the official religion, established by Law?

The way you do that is by guaranteeing wide freedom of religion. Now, of course freedom of religion is wider than Freedom of the Church, because freedom of religion includes the freedom of false religions to preach.

But freedom of religion does include the freedom of the Catholic religion, and so, if freedom of religion is guaranteed, the freedom of the Church is also safeguarded.

Now, we know that several modern States, and the Swiss Confederation too, are not confessional States; rather, they are secular States, that are not prepared to pass judgement that one religion is true and another is false.

If in a State of that kind there is a constitutional norm requiring the State, in spite of its non-confessional character, to tolerate religious expression, or requiring the State to protect religious freedom (in other words, the State does not have an official religion, and ergo is a secular State, but not an anti-clerical one), then the same level of protection will most likely be guaranteed to all religions, no more, no less, and the State will not pass judgement on which religion is the true one.

The widely proclaimed principle of modern constitutional law that all are equal before the law will require different confessions to be given the same degree of protection from State interference.

Now, what we have just witnessed in the Swiss referendum is a reduction of that degree of protection; for, if the legislation resulting from the vote is taken as valid before the Constitution, than this means that the Swiss State considers that its electorate is able to validly grant and remove permission for the edification of a certain kind of religious building.

Which means that the Swiss electorate can somewhat validly infringe upon religious freedom. And given that, in the eyes of the Swiss secular State, there is no difference between Islam and the Catholic Church, the same restriction that today has been imposed against Islam can tomorrow be imposed against the Catholic Church.

That is why, whenever the State is not a confessional State professing the Catholic religion, we must ensure that freedom of religion is protected; now, even if the State were a Catholic one, valid arguments could be made in support of toleration for minorities.

But especially when the State is not a Catholic State, then we must defend religious freedom; because only religious freedom protects the freedom of the True Catholic Church within a lay State.

That is why I don't see a reason for celebration in this case. Today, the liberty of the false religion of Islam was affected, but tomorow, the same secular State may well turn against the Church of God.

Jordanes said...

And how do you know that your conscience is rightly-formed?

If it is conformity with the divinely-revealed Catholic faith and the natural law, it is rightly-formed.

New Catholic said...

Prof. Basto,

The vote does not change anything in practice. There are already dozens and dozens of mosques in Switzerland, and only four of them with minarets. Muslims will keep worshiping in all freedom.

It is, therefore, a symbolic vote. A powerful symbolic vote. A line in the sand.

Anonymous said...

"We cheer now at our own peril. For we Catholics, too, will face persecution."

Will?

HA!

Will?

We've been getting hammered since Day 1, chief!

Prof. Basto said...

To anonymous 23:57:

Indeed!

The Roman Martyrology is filled with examples of that persecution.

But it is also true that in many places the Church has been recognized the necessary liberty to preach the True Religion in peace.

And yet, in the present age of radical secularism, the Church is less and less respected in those countries where it was formerly a respected and even a venerated institution.

And the activists of secularism are always ready to attempt to curb the liberties of the Church.

Their ultimate attempt is to erase every aspect of Christianity from our culture. In this season of Advent, the "Christmas Wars" come to mind: Happy Holidays as the politically correct greeting in place of Merry Christmas; nativity scenes banned, etc.

So surely the same legal principles that are established when veils are banned, when minarets are banned, can, and someday will, be used against Holy Mother Church.

Anyway, let us pray for the peace and security of the Church... the glory of God and of his Holy Church is our common goal.

Anonymous said...

I was just about to say what Prof. Basto has already said so eloquently:

This isnt a stand against Islam by Christian Swiss...it's a stand against Religion in general by Secularist Europeans.

The only reason they havent gone after Catholicism yet...is because the new presentation of the Faith is so palsied and weak as to be practically neutered.

In other words, the only reason they went against Islam instead of us first...is because they don't consider us powerful enough to be a threat to secularism.

This isnt happy news at all. It's a victory of Secularism over Religion, not Christianity over Islam.

Dan Hunter said...

"And how do you know that your conscience is rightly-formed?"

One knows his conscience is rightly formed by obeying the Magisterium of the Church which is everything Christ has revealed to man.

Error has no rights.

False religions, which are all religions that are not Catholic,have no right to exist.
They may be tolerated for the civil good, but that is all.

Steve said...

I'm so glad this topic came up. This is where the Second Vatican Council and how we should practically deal with the reality of the modern world makes sense. Not to deny the ideal of a state that is faithful to natural and divine law, but to frankly acknowledge where the world is now (not during the time of Charlamaine) and how to deal with it "wise as serpents and innocent as doves," IN ORDER TO BE FREE to redirect society toward the true Good, who is God and his divinly revealed Catholic faith. It's time that we traditionalists re-read the Council documents in continuity with Tradition, and stop allowing Bugini to color our interpritation and admit, that maybe, just maybe, the Holy Spirit did win out in the letter of the council; where if it's followed in line with Tradition, than maybe we won't have to reject it whole sale.

New Catholic said...

"This isnt a stand against Islam by Christian Swiss...it's a stand against Religion in general by Secularist Europeans."

Accurate exit-polling information would have to be available for such a sweeping conclusion. The signs do not point in that direction, though: in the highly secularized big cities, only 39% of voters voted yes; the main support for the ban came from the small towns and rural areas. The highest numbers for the "yes" vote came from the still largely Catholic Italian-language areas.

Source:
http://tinyurl.com/yks4osj

Peter said...

I wouldn't be so sure that this ban doesn't simply equal a secular response. Not only will minarets be banned, but any new crosses and steeples ...

Gideon Ertner said...

"While belfries and crosses remain the main structures to rise above houses and buildings in cities and villages throughout the great Continent, there will still be hope for Europe."

Er... the only problem is - they don't!

In most larger cities and medium-sized towns across Europe the Church towers and belfries have been eclipsed by the towering temples of the continent's now dominant religion - skyscrapers full of offices set out for the worship of mammon.

New Catholic said...

Mostly in larger cities, Mr. Ertner. In small cities and towns throughout the Continent, that is not the case.

Gideon Ertner said...

Prof, I am convinced that Dignitatis Humanae was crafted, at least in part, in anticipation of a Communist takeover of Western Europe. I think many of the council fathers thought as you do. And on the face of it it sounds very pretty. But the trouble is - it won't work!

No matter how much we religious people plead with the secular state to ensure freedom for all religions - whenever a Catholic/Evangelical/Muslim/Jewish doctor is on duty in the emergency department and encounters a woman who has been raped, her 'secular' right to receive a potentially abortifacient pill will trump his 'religious' right to act in accordance with his conscience.

The big lie of secularism is that it can co-exist with religion. It cannot. There will always be huge tensions between secular principles and religious ones. Yet the vast majority of Catholics have taken up belief in this lie - but not the Muslims, who have always known that secularism is inimical to religion and have always found the idea of a state which does not bow to religion absurd. Therefore they will prevail in the struggle against the state while we will not - unless we unambiguously denounce relativism and insist on the rights of truth.

Garrett said...

Even if it comes from Catholic faithful and not the secularists, it doesn't really matter.

The point, New Catholic, that people are trying to point out here is that a religion's freedom to design its houses of worship in a certain way has been taken from it - simply by a majority vote.

We might think it's great, because it's Islam. But, as others have been warning you, just wait and see. As soon as the majority of the people want to ban steeples, etc., they'll have this precedent to look to.

This is a very worrisome thing for the Church, even if right now the repercussions are only being felt by the false religion of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Let me see if I understand this. Saudi Arabia considers itself to be essentially the Holy Land because of the cities of Medina and Mecca, in effect an extremely large Vatican State for Moslems. There are no churches or bell towers there. Of course there were no mosques with minarets in the Papal States or today's Vatican either. Presumably people outside these unique areas should be able to have their places of worship (along with minarets or bell towers) without restrictions. Under the Islamic conquest not only were bells not permitted to be rung but churches were not permitted to be built. Christians hid behind walls and kept their heads down if they knew what was good for them. The Prophet Mohammed hated the sound of bells. I suppose if Christians unconsciously ape the negative attitudes of Islam then Islam has scored a victory. Who is converting whom? Let the Moslems have all the mosques with minarets they want in Europe if they are actually filling them with people, whereas the churches are practically empty except for the tourists. The United States is full of churches with silent bell towers. Start ringing those bells if you want to make a statement. The Moslems appear to actually have the courage of their convictions, misguided as they are. Secular agenda not withstanding, there seems to be a case of the dog in the manger here.

LeonG said...

Accusations concerning persecution of Mahomatens in Europe are completely invalid. In fact, one might even accuse Europeans of being Christophobic with persecution of Chrsitianity being on the agenda at some imminent future point.

Anonymous said...

Saudi Arabia considers itself to be essentially the Holy Land because of the cities of Medina and Mecca, in effect an extremely large Vatican State for Moslems. There are no churches or bell towers there. Of course there were no mosques with minarets in the Papal States or today's Vatican either. Presumably people outside these unique areas should be able to have their places of worship (along with minarets or bell towers) without restrictions.

Non-Muslims are not allowed to physically enter the holy cities of Islam.

We used to have the same sense of sacrum when the non-baptized were not allowed to remain inside the church for Mass of the Faithful. Some Orthodox Churches still practice this custom.

Godless state treating all contradictory religions equally is a ridiculous idea in itself, a lie that the Muslims didn't buy. In that case we have been more stupid. The sooner we renounce the idea of freedom of religion, the better. Sorry, liberals.

New Catholic said...

Garrett, I understand the "point" perfectly... No need to explain it.

Since nothing new will be added to this debate, it is time to close this comment box.

Thanks to all who voiced their views here.

NC