I don’t know how you would infer that from my posts.

I didn’t say that Muslim intolerance should be tolerated.

I said that some Christians appear to be under the illusion that Christianity volunteered to be tolerant. It didn’t. It was made to be tolerant by secular politics. In Muslim states they need to separate Church and State, which isn’t easy as it takes alot of effort and infrastructure.

Anyway, the Vatican is a “city state” but you must agree that the whole country is populated by Catholics and who mostly serve a singular purpose.

If there ever came to be that a Muslim (or a person of any other religious believe) should make himself home at the Vatican and requires a place for worship, no one would be denying him that right or will put him to death for practicing any religion other than Catholicism.

Now can you say the same to the hundreds of thousands of non-Muslim (Catholics included) “foreign workers” who are employed in the country of Saudi Arabia?

That wasn’t the point.

The point was that the Vatican City can be classed as a state. I don’t know if they’d let a Mosque be built there or not.

So frankly, you’re the thick one.

No, I cannot. I am not a muslim. However, I would not object if someone tried. But, I don’t think there’s room in the Vatican, maybe just outside.

I was just making sure you weren’t implying that Christians are better than Muslims.

There was this vile hack from the Catholic press on Sky once who seemed to be entirely unaware of how brutal Christianity used to be.

But having said that, the Vatican City is a state and a modern state should allow religious freedom, the size is irrelevant, so Anorak wasn’t using a false premise.

what you say is entirely correct, the churches didn’t voluntarily relinquish their hegemony, they were neutered kicking and screaming.
I have no religious allegiances and therefore care nought for any of them. Western advances in all fields were only possible after the rejection of theocratic rule.

However, I couldn’t let the original comment which sought to create an equivalence between the limited geographical area of the Vatican city and the nation of Saudi Arabia, in its entirety, go by without comment. Any argument that seeks to compare apples with oranges is totally unsound by virtue of being founded on a false premise .

The only reason you can open a Mosque in Italy is because secular politics cut the balls off all the Christian Churches and stopped them burning heretics, putting blasphemers in jail and generally being the narrow-minded bullies that given total power they always are.

Spiritually I’m very fond of the Catholic Church, politically I would burn the Vatican down if it dared to impose it’s will on any state ditto The Church of England or The Church of Scotland or any other Christian sect. Our historical record is not good when it comes to tolerance and freedom.

Whoever posed the above question has, in one masterstroke, demonstrated his total lack of grounding in reasoning and logic.
Vatican city is analogous to Mecca and Medina, and to my recollection no one has proposed that a church or cathedral should be allowed to be built in either of those cities.
A better analogy would have been ” can you open a mosque in Italy?” and the empirical evidence is that not only “can you?” but that it has been done many times over. Which incidentally is not permitted of churches in Saudi Arabia

Next question ?…….and try and keep it within the bounds of logical reasoning..