If you don't believe in Religious Liberty, then does that mean that you don't think people should have the freedom to worship God any way they please? What if a nation should decide to mandate a religion other than Catholicism?
First of all, keep in mind that many nations already do mandate other religions. The communist nations all mandated (and what few remaining still mandate) Atheism as their state religion. The Muslim nations all mandate Islam. Protestant nations have at various times mandated Protestantism. China forbids all ecclesial activities not performed under the auspices of their schismatic nationalistic Novus Ordinarian patriotic "church." Not surprisingly, the Church is strongest in such nations where She is not allowed since they treat Her precisely as She was treated in ancient Rome during the first few centuries. Unfortunately, Her existence in those countries is undocumented and we may never know the extent of Her influence in those places for a very long time. Under the test of persecution, just like the test of scholarship, most false beliefs soon melt away and disappear, but the true religion only thrives all the healthier.
People may call us "bigoted" or "prejudiced" because we believe that a Catholic nation should not permit any other religion to be recognized within its public and governmentally approved forum. We Catholics cannot afford to be afraid of being called names. In point of fact, it is only the proselytization by false religions which is to be limited, not the private practice of them. Many other religions, such as Judaism, Jainism, or Hinduism do not proselytize at all, but only gain members through the cradle, or by attempting to explain themselves to those who, on their own initiative, actively seek them out. It is therefore quite possible for such religions to exist peacefully within a Catholic state, but certain others such as Buddhism, Islam, and Fundamentalist Protestantism, do proselytize, and a Catholic state ought to limit that aspect of those religions, at least in the public forum. In particular, official public and civic recognition cannot be given to these or any other false religions by the Catholic state, in precisely the same sense that no school of Obstetrics which teaches the "stork theory" of child delivery should ever be accredited.
This is not a matter of trying to legislate people into the Church. The laws of any nation, by their very nature, can only regulate the exterior acts of a person, never their interior life. It is only one who has an interior life as a Catholic who is saved by being a Catholic. It is unrealistic for anyone to think they could mandate the interior life of another. Indeed, any attempt to force grown people to be "Catholics" without their interior consent would only produce false Catholics of the sort who gave us Vatican II. But we can regulate what people do exteriorly, in the public forum, and in particular limit their attempts to lead others astray.
Someone may want to say, "What are you Catholics afraid of, that people might find something out?" The response is, "All that we are afraid of is that these cranks and crackpots, having been unable (and often unwilling even to try) to convince the experts of their insanities, may then turn their efforts to those who are not qualified to see the flaws in their arguments, and thereby succeed in leading many astray and causing strife and social disorder." What would happen to the economy of a nation in which everyone was at liberty to choose for themselves what constituted legal tender? If one could say currency and another say bottle caps and another say tiddlywinks and so forth, and all such opinions had to be treated as being of equal validity? That would be sheer chaos!
A Catholic nation should protect its citizens from divisive, seductive, and stupid ideas and belief systems in the same manner as responsible parents should protect their children from them as well, or that laws against false advertising protect us from ineffective or dangerous "patent medicines." When everyone in a society has the same idea as to which way is up and which way is down, then each person knows where he or she stands in it. People who feel free to worship God any way they please could quite readily "please" to worship God by committing human sacrifice or ritual molestations, or any of a great many other abominations. In the name of "religious freedom," in the United States of America, cults have been allowed to brainwash and kidnap minor children from their parents, certain families have been permitted to get their children "high" on hallucinogens, and small children have been allowed to die rather than receive a blood transfusion or other medical treatment. None of those horrors could ever take place in a Catholic nation.
This is not a question of making everyone be the same like "cookie-cutter Christians" or members of a religious cult; it is only that everyone should live in the same Universe. People will differ in personality, interests, priorities, hobbies, and tastes as God intended, even as people within a single economy (as opposed to the "economic diversity" mentioned above where everyone decides for himself what constitutes money) will have different amounts of money, different ways of earning it, and different ways of spending it, but all are in agreement as to what is and what is not money.
It doesn't seem fair to me that the Catholic religion should be given special treatment by the civil governments.
On the contrary, it is God Who is totally fair by desiring that all civil governments give recognition only to the Catholic religion. He will judge all persons by the same standard, namely that standard taught by the Catholic Church. He plays no favorites. Even if God should excuse a particular soul from a specific duty on account of a legitimate ignorance or other reason on the part of that soul, the soul in question is not being judged by a different non-Catholic standard from the rest. Rather, that too is just another part of the Catholic standard. Catholic Moral theology teaches us that we are responsible for attempting to seek the Truth and to live in accordance with what we have learned, but also that we cannot be held responsible for any Truth which we have genuinely sought, but which Providence has failed to provide.
The Protestant will not be judged by Protestant standards; the Buddhist will not be judged by Buddhist standards, but all shall be judged by the Catholic standard. What could be more fair than to see to it that all souls are equally informed of the one standard by which they shall all be judged?
It seems quite arrogant of you to insist on the traditional Catholic standard as the only right standard.
Such dogmatism does not originate with me. Whenever Moses said, "Thus says the LORD, ..." there was no room for anyone to say rightly, "I think the LORD might be saying something else; tell you what, Moses, you go on thinking that the LORD told you that and I will go on believing that the LORD told me this and we can just respect each other, agree to disagree, and try to get along by talking about other things, how about that?" When Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," such a statement escapes total arrogance only by virtue of the fact that it is true because Jesus is God. The reliable popes have continued this arrogant-seeming dogmatism by pronouncing anathemas on all who disagree with their teaching magisterium. I in turn merely reiterate the teachings of the reliable popes, especially as they apply to the present situation of the Church.
Such seeming arrogance of the Church in Her persistent insistence on being the final and authoritative arbiter as to what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong, and what is good and what is bad, is more than justified. It is no different than the "arrogance" of a person who insists that everyone is obliged to believe that 2 + 2 equals 4, in a room full of fools who think that 2 + 2 can equal anything anyone likes. I can no more deny any Catholic teaching than make 2 + 2 equal to 5.