This is very interesting to me. I've been studying Reformed theology here at Westminster Seminary California, and while I can't speak much for the constitutional rights that are violated, as I'm not an expert in that area, I can speak somewhat for the Reformed position of the rights that the church has in the civil arena. They would say that all of us, Christians or pagans, operate in a period of common grace on this earth. In such a situation, we as Christians share the civil arena with non-Christians, and all of us should be protected by the Civil Magistrate, i.e. the State, to worship as we please. The State has obviously granted rights to other faiths to worship as they please; they should uphold Christians' rights to worship as they please, which they do. However, they should grant freedom for members of any faith to share with any member of any other faith the message of their own faith, provided it is done without compulsion or disturbance.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 33, Section 3, (and this is most interesting because, while it was written in England, it was revised in this section for the American version), states:

"Civil magistrates may not...in the least, interfere in matters of faith...[No] law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination...It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance."

This was written when there were mostly Christians in the New World, and the issue was between various denominations of Christians, as the rest of the section indicates, but since then, with the inclusion of many more religious, the situation should remain the same: each denomination of each religion should be provided freedom to worship, and each member should be granted freedom to share with others in a non-threatening, non-disturbing way. The evangelists were clearly operating within this context, so it appears that while their rights were constitutionally violated by the Civil Magistrate on the grounds of the constitution, they were also violated by the Civil Magistrate on the grounds of the principles of separation of Church and State, originally informed by Christian documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith.

One more thought: I used to think that in such situations, Christians should resign themselves to the fact that the world is getting worse, and that Christians will face, and should humbly submit themselves to more persecution as things progress. However, while this is true in one regard, according to the Reformed, and I think, Biblical position, there are two kingdoms (it's called the Two Kingdoms Theory) of this earth: one of the Church, and one of the State. Christians live and operate in both kingdoms, but while their main focus of evangelism and missions is according to the kingdom of the Church through preaching and teaching the gospel, they are no less qualified for citizenship in the kingdom of the State, as we share this life with non-Christians in it, and are owed just as many rights as non-Christians have in it. To make Christians stop peacefully distributing literature to Muslims on a public street is showing preference to the Muslim religion; and Christians should not resign themselves to functional pacifism, accepting their fate of persecution, but stand up and demand the same rights that non-Christians are granted.

Great post, Mark, thanks for sharing this!