It has been said by the apologists for the "very, very, limited" religious liberty of Vatican II that it does not state that there is a right to be wrong.

And yet there is no doubt that it gives immunity to those whose public worship is blasphemy and idolatry.  There cannot be a right to publicly outrage the First Commandment without penalty - yet Vatican II praises false religions that are offensive to God.

A Catholic state could never tolerate such outrages.

The strident Jєωs who become incensed at public nativity scenes would not be permitted to voice such impudence in a Catholic state.

How can we doubt that the very religious practices praised by Nostra Aetate are those that must be given immunity for public worship by Dignitatis Humanae?  Do we not even have the supposed leader of the Catholic religion offering worship in Mosques - sitting complacently in ѕуηαgσgυєs?  His predecessor offering an "apology" in the cracks of the Wailing Wall, calling upon St. John the Baptist to protect Islam?  Have we not seen Buddhas placed on the altars?

And yet these people have the temerity to tell us that they do not believe there is a right to engage in false worship?  Indeed, it seems they feel obligated to publicly imitate false worship.

They prove by their own actions what they mean by "religious liberty" - it means they praise and even publicly imitate the practice of false religions - while they attack the true one - altering all the Sacraments while insisting Catholics accept the principle of immunity for violations of the First Commandment.

How could a supposedly "traditional Catholic" show support for a state - a state whose very identity is premised on the Jєωιѕн identity that rejects the Christian religion? Where Jesus Christ is held up to mockery?  Who can believe someone is really opposed to Dignitatis Humanae, who shows public admiration for performers who engage in public blasphemies?