How Are We Allies With Someone Who Would Execute Our Citizens for Choosing Christ?
The Religious Freedom Paradox in American Foreign Policy
The uncomfortable questions about U.S. partnerships with nations that criminalize religious conversion—and why every American needs to answer them
“In God We Trust.”
It’s on every dollar bill in your wallet. It’s our national motto. It’s not a suggestion or a historical footnote—it’s a declaration about who we are as Americans.
But I need to ask you something, and I need you to really think about your answer:
How are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are?
I’m not talking about disagreements over tax policy or trade deals. I’m talking about nations where converting from Islam to Christianity is a crime punishable by death. Nations that bar non-Muslims from entering their holy cities. Nations whose fundamental values don’t just differ from ours—they directly contradict them.
And we don’t just tolerate these nations. We partner with them. We train their military pilots on American soil. We station thousands of American troops on their bases. We sell them billions in advanced weapons.
Meanwhile, back home, Christian pastors are being told they’re “not welcome” in American cities. They’re being physically blocked from entering interfaith chapels in American airports.
So I’m asking you directly:
How does this affect your moral code?
Let’s Start With the Facts
I’m going to lay out some realities that are well-documented, verified, and impossible to dismiss as conspiracy theories or exaggerations.
Saudi Arabia, one of our longest-standing Middle Eastern allies and a major purchaser of American weapons, absolutely forbids non-Muslims from entering Mecca.
Not just discourages. Not just makes uncomfortable. Forbids.
There are highway checkpoints where travelers must prove they’re Muslim or be turned back. The U.S. State Department explicitly warns: “Non-Muslims are not allowed to travel to Mecca or the sacred parts of Medina.”
Imagine for a moment if we did this in reverse.
Imagine if Washington, D.C. had checkpoints barring Muslims from entering. Imagine the international outrage. The diplomatic fallout. The universal condemnation—and rightly so.
Yet we maintain strategic partnerships with nations that do exactly this.
How are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are?
Religious freedom is what our nation was founded on. Not oil interests. Not military strategy. Religious freedom. It’s literally the First Amendment. It’s why the Pilgrims came here in the first place.
“In God We Trust” isn’t just decorative text on our currency—it’s supposed to mean something about our national character.
So how do we justify this alliance? How do you justify it?
But It Gets Worse
Qatar hosts Al-Udeid Air Base, where 8,000 American service members are currently stationed. It’s a primary hub for U.S. military operations across the Middle East.
Qatar’s legal code prescribes the death penalty for apostasy—the term for a Muslim converting to another religion.
Let that sink in. A Muslim who chooses to follow Jesus, or Buddha, or simply chooses no faith at all, can legally be executed under Qatari law.
Now, Qatar hasn’t actually carried out such executions in modern times. The law sits on the books as a deterrent, a threat, a message about what happens if you step out of line religiously.
But the law exists. It’s real. It’s enforceable.
And in October 2025, we signed an agreement allowing Qatar to establish a training facility at Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho. Qatari F-15 fighter jets and pilots will train alongside American forces.
Read that again slowly:
We are training military pilots from a country that maintains the death penalty for converting to Christianity.
On American soil. With American trainers. Using American taxpayer dollars.
How are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are?
Religious freedom is what our nation was founded on. Our ancestors fled religious persecution to build a land where conscience could not be coerced. Where faith could not be compelled.
Now we’re hosting military forces from a nation that criminalizes the very freedom our founders died to establish.
How does this affect your moral code?
Can you reconcile this? Can you square teaching combat skills to representatives of a government that maintains the death penalty for choosing Christ?
For choosing any faith different from what the government approves?
And Now It’s Coming Home
Maybe you can mentally compartmentalize foreign policy. Maybe you can tell yourself that what happens in the Middle East stays in the Middle East.
But it’s not staying there anymore.
Dearborn, Michigan - September 2025
A Christian pastor named Ted Barham attended a city council meeting in Dearborn—the city where he lives, pays taxes, and votes.
The city was planning to name a street after Osama Siblani, a local newspaper publisher who had publicly praised Hamas and Hezbollah as “freedom fighters” and called Hezbollah’s leader a hero.
Pastor Barham objected. He thought naming a street after someone who supports designated terrorist organizations was inappropriate.
Mayor Abdullah Hammoud—Dearborn’s first Muslim mayor—didn’t just disagree with Barham.
He told him he wasn’t welcome.
The mayor’s exact words, captured on video:
“You’re an Islamophobe. And although you live here, I want you to know, as mayor, you are not welcome here. The day you move out of the city will be the day I launch a parade celebrating [that] you moved out.”
Let me be clear about what happened here:
An American elected official told an American citizen—a resident of his city—that he was not welcome in his own hometown for expressing disagreement about honoring supporters of terrorist organizations.
This happened in America.
In Michigan.
In 2025.
How are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are when those differences are now manifesting in American cities?
When American elected officials adopt the same attitudes toward religious dissent that characterize our foreign “partners”?
Religious freedom is what our nation was founded on. A Christian pastor should be able to object to honoring Hamas supporters without being told he’s unwelcome in his own city.
But when we normalize partnerships with nations that criminalize religious conversion abroad, should we be surprised when religious intolerance appears at home?
How does this affect your moral code?
If you’re a Christian, how do you feel knowing an American mayor told a pastor he wasn’t welcome?
If you’re not a Christian, flip the script: Can you imagine if a Christian mayor told a Muslim resident to leave town for objecting to something? Would that be acceptable?
Dallas-Fort Worth Airport - September 2025
Days after the Dearborn incident, Pastor Tom Ascol was traveling through DFW International Airport.
He approached one of the airport’s interfaith chapels—facilities explicitly designed to accommodate travelers of all faiths. Paid for with taxpayer dollars. Built to serve all Americans.
Inside, a Muslim Friday prayer service was in progress.
When Pastor Ascol tried to enter, a participant blocked the door. The man told Ascol he could only come in if he removed his shoes and sat in the back.
Ascol complied. He removed his shoes.
The man still physically blocked his entrance.
He made it clear, in Ascol’s words, that “this prayer service was only for certain kinds of people, namely Muslims.”
An “interfaith” chapel. In an American airport. Where one faith physically excluded others.
Think about that for a minute.
How are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are when their approach to religious space—exclusive rather than inclusive—is being practiced in American facilities designed for all faiths?
How does this affect your moral code?
Would you accept being turned away from a chapel in your own country?
Would you accept your pastor, your priest, your minister being physically blocked from entering a space meant for prayer?
If a Christian blocked a Muslim from entering an interfaith chapel, would you defend that action?
Why does the principle change based on which faith is doing the excluding?
The Questions That Won’t Go Away
I keep coming back to these two questions because they’re the only ones that matter.
Not “What does the State Department recommend?” or “What’s our strategic interest?” but:
How are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are?
An alliance requires shared values. Mutual respect. Some foundational agreement about what matters.
We don’t have to agree on everything. But surely—SURELY—we must agree on something as basic as the freedom to choose one’s faith without facing execution.
Religious freedom is what our nation was founded on.
“In God We Trust” declares that faith matters. That our relationship with the divine is central to our identity as Americans.
But which God? The beauty of America is that we’ve never mandated an answer.
Baptist, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist—all are equally American. All are equally free to believe, to worship, to convert, to change their minds about ultimate questions.
Our allies don’t share this value.
They don’t merely disagree on the margins. They fundamentally reject the premise.
In their legal systems, religious conversion is a crime punishable by death. Non-believers are barred from holy cities. State and mosque are fused, with religious law governing civil society.
So how can we call them allies?
And the second question:
How does this affect your moral code?
Not “What should the government do?” but “What do I believe is right?”
This is where it gets personal. Where you can’t hide behind policy papers or geopolitical complexity.
Do you believe people should be free to choose their faith?
If yes, can you support alliances with nations that would execute people for that choice? Can you support training their military? Housing their pilots on American soil? Selling them advanced weapons?
Do you believe in reciprocity?
If we allow Muslims complete religious freedom in America, should Christians have similar freedom in Muslim-majority nations? If yes, how do you reconcile partnerships where no such reciprocity exists?
Do you believe American citizens should be able to criticize foreign governments without elected officials telling them they’re “not welcome” in American cities?
If yes, what happened in Dearborn should alarm you.
Do you believe interfaith spaces should actually be open to all faiths?
If yes, what happened at DFW Airport should concern you.
These aren’t policy questions.
They’re moral questions.
They’re questions about who you are and what you’re willing to accept.
Where Does Your Moral Code Draw the Line?
Let me make this even more concrete.
Your tax dollars fund military cooperation with nations where converting to Christianity is punishable by death.
Not theoretically. Actually. The law is on the books. The threat is real.
American military trainers are teaching advanced combat techniques to forces from nations that bar Christians from their holy cities.
American bases host pilots from nations whose legal systems would kill someone for the decision you might make every Sunday morning when you choose to attend church. Or not attend. Or attend a different church. Or convert from one faith to another.
How does this affect your moral code?
If you’re a Christian, can you accept your government training the military of a nation that would execute Muslims who choose to follow Jesus?
Can you accept that in your prayers? Can you answer for that on judgment day?
If you’re not religious, can you accept your government partnering with nations that execute people for the “crime” of changing their mind about metaphysical questions?
Is religious freedom only important when it’s your freedom?
If you believe in human rights, in liberty, in the fundamental dignity of conscience, can you accept that America—founded on religious freedom—actively supports governments that deny it?
This Is About Complicity
These aren’t abstract policy questions.
They’re questions about what you will tolerate. What you will accept. What you will look away from because it’s complicated or because we supposedly get something in return.
Religious freedom is what our nation was founded on.
But what does that mean if we’re willing to trade it away for strategic interests?
What does “In God We Trust” mean if we trust our relationship with God but are willing to partner with governments that would kill others for trusting theirs?
How are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are?
And more importantly:
How are YOU okay with being complicit in that alliance?
Because that’s what citizenship means in a democracy.
You’re not just a passive observer.
Your tax dollars fund these partnerships. Your government signs these agreements in your name. When American trainers teach Qatari pilots combat techniques, they do it with your support, your permission, your tacit approval.
Unless you object. Unless you demand something different.
The Question Is For You
How do these things affect your moral code?
If they don’t—if you can read all of this and feel nothing, question nothing, demand nothing different—then you’ve already made your choice.
You’ve already decided that religious freedom, for all the rhetoric, isn’t really what matters.
That “In God We Trust” is just a slogan.
That American values are negotiable when the price is right.
Our founders would be ashamed.
They risked death for religious freedom. They sacrificed everything for the principle that conscience cannot be coerced.
What are you willing to sacrifice?
What are you willing to stand for?
Or will you just shrug and accept that “this is how the world works,” even as it contradicts everything America claims to be?
What Will You Answer?
Our founders came to these shores fleeing religious persecution.
They enshrined religious freedom first in our Bill of Rights—not second, not fifth, but first.
They built a nation on the radical idea that conscience cannot be coerced, that faith cannot be compelled, that the relationship between an individual and God is sacred territory no government may invade.
They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor not for strategic partnerships or favorable trade deals, but for the principle that all people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”
Unalienable.
Not negotiable. Not contingent on geopolitical circumstances. Not subject to being traded away for a military base or oil contracts.
Religious freedom is what our nation was founded on.
It’s in our Constitution. It’s on our money. It’s in our national motto. It’s woven into every thread of our national identity.
So how are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are on this most basic principle?
How does this affect your moral code?
These aren’t questions for politicians to answer in position papers or for generals to address in strategy sessions.
These are questions for you.
For every American who sees “In God We Trust” and believes it means something.
For every American who values the freedom to worship—or not worship—according to their conscience.
Before we sign the next military agreement, before we sell the next weapons system, before we station more troops on foreign soil, we need to answer these questions honestly.
Not with excuses about complexity or explanations about strategic necessity, but with genuine moral clarity about who we are and what we stand for.
Are we the nation that stands for religious freedom, or the nation that partners with those who execute people for exercising it?
Are we the nation where “In God We Trust” means something, or where it’s just ornamental text on currency?
Are we the nation that defends the right to choose one’s faith, or the nation that trains the military forces of governments that criminalize that choice?
How are we allies with someone who is fundamentally different than we are?
The question is simple.
The answer should be too.
But first, you must ask yourself:
How do these things affect my moral code?
Because if they don’t affect it—if you can read about apostasy laws and religious apartheid and pastors being told they’re unwelcome in American cities and interfaith chapels being closed to Christians, and feel nothing, question nothing, demand nothing different—then perhaps we’ve already answered the bigger question about who we are as a nation.
Our founders would have answered differently.
They risked everything for religious freedom.
What are we willing to risk?
What are we willing to stand for?
The choice, and the answer, is yours.
Your Turn:
I want to hear from you in the comments:
How do YOU answer these questions?
Where does your moral code draw the line on foreign alliances?
What would you say to the pastor in Dearborn? The pastor at DFW Airport?
What should America do differently?
This conversation is too important to have alone. Let’s have it together.
If this article challenged you, please share it. These questions need to reach every American who still believes “In God We Trust” should mean something.
→ Share this article
→ Leave a comment below
→ Subscribe for more Courage & Caffeine
Peace in the chaos, Rebekah
Thanks for reading Courage & Caffeine by Rebekah Ricks! This post is public so feel free to share it.
If you found this article empowering, be sure to check out Rebekah Ricks’s books for more insight and courage:
Mama Didn’t Raise No Fool – Part confession, part rallying cry, and part survival guide for moms who are done being quiet. In this bold manifesto, Rebekah Ricks shares her personal journey of navigating faith, motherhood, and cultural chaos, ultimately learning to stand firm. She dismantles seven common lies that pressure mothers to stay silent and reveals the biblical truths that embolden you to stand up for your children with unwavering courage.
Forgotten Women: Ordinary Lives, Extraordinary Courage – A collection of inspiring true stories of ordinary women who faced impossible circumstances and chose courage anyway. Their stories will remind you that ordinary women can do extraordinary things when they rely on God, encouraging you to live out your faith with boldness.
The facts presented in this article are documented and sourced from U.S. State Department advisories, Department of Defense announcements, international human rights organizations, and contemporaneous news reports from the incidents described. While these events are factually accurate, the questions and conclusions drawn represent my opinion and are intended to provoke thoughtful examination of American foreign policy, national values, and personal moral convictions.