Good Catholics can not be Democrats argues Kansas Irish American politician

Please stop calling people like this 'Irish American'..it gives all Irish a bad name.

There can be no constitutional religious test for public office, BrianO, but the US Constitution strenuously protects religious liberty for ALL, including the right not to worship or join with any religion. That means that when religions vie with each other for control, or lobby for control, over gov't policies and legislation-- as the USCCB has been doing-- the religious liberty of all others is in danger. I do not expect the German pope to see that his political ambitions are a form of would-be tyranny, but it's shameful, absolutely shameful, for the American bishops, who should know better, to exploit their freedom of religion and conscience, under Constitutional protection, in an effort to deprive non-Catholic women and families of their freedom of conscience. That's tyranny, freedom's opposite! And yes, the Constitution prohibits the "establishment" of a religion, whether attempted by government officials or by your Church officials!

All your catterwalling will not change the fact that the only protections of the Constitution is against the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion. And the free exercise of an individuals religion. Your argument is that a person's religion disqualifies him from public office, which is entirely incorrect.

It's not only politicians like Fitzgerald. The Catholic Association is trying to persuade voters, especially in the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, that Obama is against the Catholic Church. This group is distributing in churches a "score card" that compares Obama's record with Romney's and scores Romney "A" and Obama "F." The score card cites Romney's opposition to gay couples adopting children when he was governor of Massachusetts and Obama's HHS mandate for insurance companies to cover contraceptive services for female employees. Former Bush campaign director for Catholic outreach, Leonard Leo, who oversees the effort, says, “This is not simply about the contraceptive mandate; this is about the Obama administration yanking grant money to Catholic Charities.” Of course it's about money! And the price we'd all pay for that money going to Catholic agencies is suppression of freedom of conscience.

In obedience to the hierarchy, Fitzgerald jettisons his duty to represent the interests of all the people. On Jan 20, 2012, Benedict XVI told the American bishops, "I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God’s gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights" (available at conservatore romano.va site and others). Note the modifiers that Ben XVI routinely places before words like "rights": "authentic" human rights, by which he means to exclude women's access to contraceptives and efforts to end discrimination against gays and lesbians. Another of his favorite modifiers is "just" civil rights, which carries the same bias. The pope wishes "to preserve a civil order clearly rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition" and "the evangelization of American culture," in other words, to violate separation of church and state and freedom of conscience as protected by the US Constitution. It does not require "radical secularism" for us finally to respect fully the equal moral worth of all our citizens; it requires only protecting our basic freedoms from theocratic churchmen!

brianO@readabook, "try getting your nose out of the communist manifesto and try reading the Constitution, it really is a very straight forward document" And Bri don't think for a minute that we don't appreciate the depth of your scholarly interpretation of the Constitution which 'obviously' in the name of "freedom of religion" would sanction a duly elected member of the Legislative Branch as defined by the Constitution to assume the "Mantra" of "Father Fitzgerald" to preach to his Catholic constituents that only the Republican Party is commensurate with their Beliefs. Sorry Sir,I just have to go with James Madison's interpretation. Bri you seem to be losing your cool. Perhaps you're having difficulty with all these facts. Gotta Run Lenin,Trotsky,Stalin and the 'Boys' are waiting for me.

Steve Fitzgerald, you are a horses ass! This Irish American Catholic is voting for Obama 2012 because of idiots like you!

Anyone of Irish Catholic background especially (more than other ethnic groups ought to kiss the feet of those Founding Fathers who assured that there must remain a wall of separation between Church and State. This has largely held until recently with the ascendency of right wing Republican wing nuts like Fitzgerald, and other Irish Americans such as Paul Ryan, and Joe Walsh, and their ilk. The Wall of Separation is our only barrier that all may worship (or not if they choose) according to their conscience. Yet, this 2 bit politician radical Fitgerald has taken on the miter to excommunicate Catholic Democrats, with the implication that they are "unAmerican" as well. If Fitgerald and his ilk studied his people's history of the religious teats, land confiscations, martyrdom, penal laws, mandatory tithes, the grim sectarian tainted last several decades of carnage and destruction in the 6 counties, he and his minions would humbly shut their ignorant traps about the beliefs and religious purity of others. Jefferson and Madison and others appreciated Europe's sorry history of religious wars, killing and torture all in the name of God. How is it that Fitgerald, Walsh, Ryan and their ilk are the Cromwellian Roundheads of their time. If these people succeed will descend into the same sectarian, racist, bigoted pit that consumed our ancestors, and will threaten the freedom to practice our own beliefs for a long time to come. Fitzgerald's or for that matter many of the Bishop's partisan comments have no place in the American body politic.

@readabook, try getting your nose out of the communist manifesto and try reading the Constitution, it really is a very straight forward document.

Dear condescending idiot. The founders of the constitution had debate and came to consensus then wrote law. Their fear was that a government would force them to practice a religion they did not want to. Church of England comes to mind. Since their fear of a large federal governmental body would control their lives they put in restrictions of power so the GOVERNMENT would not establish a GOVERNMENT religion. INDIVIDUALS are free to practice their religion and they can hold office. If a muslim says " I am a muslim and I support sharia vote for me" and he is voted into office he can write legislation to be considered by the congress, as long as he does not establish Islam as a Government sponsored religion.

readabook | Oct 19, 2012, 10:00 AM EDT @ EIriamach, please read."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" ---THE US CONSTITUTION. That is what the law states, the congress can not establish a religion or stop exercise of a person's religion. So you somehow resent your earlier message to Eiriamach "falsely" under my name. Once again brianO shows us another of his guideposts to being a "Good Catholic". Perhaps you'll provide us the portion of the Bible that sent you forth.

@BrianO- You have a real problem with "Cognitive Dissonance" Eiriamach sends you an clear and concise interpretation from President Madison who drafted the constitution which was signed off by the Founding Fathers. "Entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others" The self righteous Fitzgerald usurped his duty as an elected official to "uphold the Constitution" by trying to cajole voters via his Personal beliefs. But BrianO in the true Republican spirit attempts to "Wow Us" with his superior legalese and for good measure throws in a gratuitous personal insult to our elected President. Oh Brian! Please "Stop Blowing Smoke" into all of our hard to reach areas. xoxoxo

@ EIriamach, please read."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" ---THE US CONSTITUTION. That is what the law states, the congress can not establish a religion or stop exercise of a person's religion.

For a party that purports to be "for the average person", how can they condone murdering the most innocent? I agree those most adamant about being "pro choice" are the first to protest when a serial killer is going to be executed, or jump in to action to save a whale that has beached itself. It makes no sense. Either you are for life, or you are against it. I agree one can not call ones self a good Catholic (one who follows what is taught) and be a Democrat who condones murdering babies.

All good Catholics began their calling when at an age of Catikism they are informed that all the wealth and worldly possessions on the planet do not equate to one single life. Yet they sit on all their wealth whilst thousands of children die dailly of starvation etc. Probally more than the number who die via abortion. Some will compare it to abortion whilst others will concede that it is worse due to the suffering of the inocent child starving to death. Time the church practiced what it preechs.