I realize no one will take the time to read my blog with this title I already published and I don't blame them. So, I've removed it. Let me outline the points in a shorter version. This what I sent to a friend who said the blog was too long for her to read it, but she said, she read enough to disagree with me. That's OK too. My issue isn't primarily what's the right view about the religious issue. it is about those who want to make their religious beliefs the law everyone must follow.

My primary objection is to the demand we are required to vote solely on the basis of religious issues. I fully agree with those who believe  abortion is an important religious and a moral issue. However, I believe voting for president is too important to be as single religious  issue question. The job of president is too complicated and needs of this country too important to all Americans be decided on simply religious issues. We are facing serious economic issues, a pandemic crisis and potential world conflict. As Americans and Catholics, we are obligated to consider the candidates qualifications for these challenges. Furthermore, the Church does not  prohibit voting for pro-life candidates or require Catholics to vote on a single abortion issue.

Second, I believe that in the United States of America we should select judges who will judge issues fairly, honestly and with an open mind. Not judges who already have their minds on important issues. I think it is a violation of the Constitution to select only judges who we know will decide cases in our religious favor before the hearing even starts. Our judges, congressmen and presidents should represent all the people of America and  not just religious groups personal religious views.

Third, I do not believe that in America, where there is disagreement about religious beliefs, we should make our personal religious views a law everyone  must follow whether the believe the same  or not. I think in America people have freedom of religious belief. I think we would agree that in America it is not the role of  government to pass laws enforcing religious beliefs of one group on the rest of the whole country whose religious views are different. Abortion in America is a political issue because there are a sizeable number of people who believe it has a proper role under certain circumstances and another group who passionately believe it is morally wrong at all times. I do not think it is the constitutional role of government to make one group’s religious  views, a law everyone must follow.

Next, I believe those Christians are being  unchristian in their sweeping judgmental labeling of everyone who doesn’t agree with their religious views about this subject, sinners. Catholic voices insist you cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat. A Catholic priest posted a YouTube video in which he declared "here's a memo for clueless, baptized Catholics out there. You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat. He went on to say that "Catholics who vote for Democratic candidates repent of your support of that party or face the fires of hell." There are 40 million U.S. Catholics are registered Catholics. Are they facing the fires of hell? The fact  is, the teaching of Pope Francis, Pope Benedict XVI, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops all permit a Catholic to vote their conscience including voting for a candidate who is pro-life even while holding abortion is the unjust taking of life. Jesus condemned the self-righteous and judgmental. Catholic voters have a constitutional and moral right to vote consistent with their beliefs.

Lastly, I think it is wrong to back a candidate who is of a grossly morally unfit character in order  to make our moral views a law everyone must follow. How can Christians vote for a person who has been credibly accused of multiple extramarital affairs, given to vulgar speech, openly talked of grabbing women by the genitals and has been a flagrant liar. He has said in defiance of a central Christian tenant that he has never seen a reason to ask God for forgiveness. Christians, wanting his support, ignore or excuse this conduct by wrongly believing it is permissible for “the ends to justify the means” a belief that has been universally morally condemned.