The anti-Catholic bigots who call for freedom of religion, while forcing Catholics to act without conscience protections, are part of Ellison's clique and the Totalitarian Obamanation. Catholics are called to be active contemplatives, their faith is an integral part of life. It is not limited to prayers and Sunday Mass. This is true for most people of faith. Dems want religion to be subordinate to the state. The state should not be a theocracy, nor usurp faith. It should be subordinate to Natural Law and a moral citizenship. Government should resume its role as representative, and not assume powers that are not Constitutional.

I am glad to read that one of our representatives is out and about and interacting with constituants. Where is my representative- Paulsen? I would definitely like to hear what he thinks about these local issues and I would like to see him out in the community giving updates and soliciting the comments of his constituents. Patch, could you contact him and cover his activities? As we approach 2012, there are many issues that many of us want to know where he stands.

John, If we all respect one another,and accept the Constitution and the Bill of Rights there is no conflict with Catholic Social teaching or Natural Law. It is when we don't follow the Constitutional limits that problems arise. Perception, precedes preference, which determines performance. It doesn't mean that orders come from a religious institution, but that a shared agreement on principles is already in place within the citizenry, a common set of basic beliefs, mutual understanding, and acceptance. There is no expressed need for further definition. By the way, the Catholic Church teaches that Freedom of Religion is a basic right. I sometimes wish the same could be said of common sense, and common scents.

Kevin, this line of discussion drags this thread quite a ways away from the point of the article, but while at first glance I see nothing wrong with what you have stated here, excepting a need to point out that what the Roman Catholic church teaches and what it does all too often are two very different things - even in terms of freedom of religion - but that again is a different matter. Regardless, since we are considering the virtues of the Roman Catholic church, reconcile for us the Church's Social Teaching and the history of Roman Catholic leadership in Social Justice in this country with its present involvement in the conservative movement and its evident wholesale embrace of present American Conservative political doctrine. And, I hope you would allow that in this country at least, freedom of religion means also freedom from religion or are you a supporter of the doctrine held by a large portion of the Right that you have to be a Christian to be worthy of a high public office?

When Ellison calls for bringing people of all faiths together, yet supports an administration that demands that those people of faith should conform their teaching and practice to the Obamanation view of life is the subject. As Thomas More said before he was executed by Henry VII, he claimed to be " the kings faithful servant but God's first". I would ask you how the Church embraces "ALL" of the present" Conservative Doctrine"? We Catholics are not a monolithic voting bloc, nor, I might add, are Conservatives. There are Social Conservatives,fiscal conservatives,and limited government conservatives. There are people who share some common areas of agreement but not all. You can have" Freedom from Religion" but no one is entitled to freedom from consequences, personal accountability,another persons property or wealth,nor are they above the law. You can attempt to amend the Constitution but you are not entitled to disregard it, or unilaterally deem it to be irrelevant.

Tell us Kevin, what god is first? What is "Obamanation"? What is an "Obamanation view of life"? The President is a practicing Christian, albeit not of the Roman Catholic sect like you and Newt Gingrich, but a Christian nonetheless and his Christian sect embraces the general Christian view of life and mans' place in it that places man below the Christian god, just as your Roman Catholic Christian sect does. Doubtless you use "Obamanation" pejoratively, but help us out here, just what do you mean by an "Obamanation" view of life? And where has the Constitution been disregarded by Obama? And you are right about no one being above the law; Bush and Cheney do need to be brought to justice. And, how does the tone you bring to this discussion in any way serve either your argument or the people of the state of Minnesota?

John, There is only one God, and its not Henry VIII or Obama. The statement means that his first obligation is to be true to God and his conscience, although it should not be necessary to be unfaithful toward your country, unless it places immoral demands, and then it is actually unfaithful to the citizenry. We don't have enough space allowed to show how often this administration has acted beyond Constitutional limits. That would be a good drinking game, if someone could survive that much alcohol. Which is a good reason Richfield liquor stores close early.The Obamanation view of life is simply that the truth comes from him and not from Him. If you knew what Catholic Social teaching is, why would you think it was anti-Constitutional? The main idea is we elect a government empowered within limits defined by the Constitution, and not to be expanded by the whim of a temporary majority, nor are we governed by the weather vanes of passing fads and fashions. I do agree with the idea that it is harmful when politicians and religious authorities try to assume each other's proper roles. They should be harmonious and generally in synch, while respecting each one's individual area of responsibility, and authority, another failing in the Obamanation.

@ Kevin, take a bow!

Kevin, take a hike! Why does EVERY story about Ellison devolve into idiotic arguments such as those that Kevin seems to have started. The story was about the Supercommittee. Ellison's comment was thoughtful and respectful and where religion fit into it is beyond my ken.

Kathleen, Good morning! The conversation arose due to Keith's efforts to bring all people of faith together, where he comments about a YouTube Video being pulled. His and Obama's efforts to co-opt religious figures into posing with him, and inferring an endorsements is what I find to be offensive. This is particularly true when the anti-Catholic bigotry expressed by this administration is too often ignored or condoned , particularly by people who claim some some ultra-high degree of tolerance and respect, where none exists. If you thought the whole article was about the committee, you might want to get past the headlines,if you want to be fully informed. It really is worth reading.

I follow national and state politics fairly closely, and never throughout the past several years of intense budget debates have I heard a call for a balanced approach that includes raising taxes on EVERYBODY. It doesn't seem reasonable that these significant gaps can be closed with cuts alone, and it also doesn't seem reasonable that we should ask ONLY the top 1% to chip in on the solution either. We all need to be a part of the solution.

Except! Obama, Keith X and the rest of the house and senate had every opportunity as they had a super majority and could pass anything they wanted. They didn't even get a budget done so now they sit here are criticize? You're right he needs to take a hike, bit its Keith X thats needs to take a hike! He is a HYPOCRITE!

I was typing when Brad put his comment in, I 100% AGREE BRAD.

Kevin, specifically, what anti-Catholic bigotry has Obama, the Obama administration, or for that matter Kieth Ellison shown?

Brad, we all are part of the solutions proposed by the Obama administration to close the gap, not just the 1%. The problem is that House GOP members take their pledge to Grover Norquist more seriously than their pledge to uphold the constitution.

Time and again President Obama has said that everything is on the table. Time and again he has said we all need to pay our fair share. Time and again the GOP has said they agree ... BUT they made this promise to Grover Norquist that trumps any obligation the have to do what is best for the nation and any obligation they have to fulfill their oaths of office. President Obama has even agreed that instead of letting the BUSH TEMPORARY TAX CUTS expire in their entirety they would only be reversed on income in excess of $1,000,000. That only re-imposes a partial fair burden on the super rich. The fact is that the GOP under George W. Bush drove the country into the ditch and the present GOP is doing all they can to keep it there simply because they are in thrall to the nation's super rich and their radical Tea Party led base is too bigoted to in any way help President Obama solve the problems we face as a nation. Brad, which oath should prevail? The oaths to Grover or the oaths of office? Brad, should the GOP continue to do all they can to prevent any success on the part of President Obama even if it means a total collapse of the economy?

John, I guess you misses the first two years of the Obama admin. The GOP couldn't do anything to stop whatever they pushed through, ence Obamacare! They had a SUPER MAJORITY.

Lol, the fact is the dems had the house and senate for most of Bush's admin. The fact is the dems under Clinton pushed the bills the put our country into a nose dive.

Brad, I agree with the principle of shared sacrifice and the need to cut spending in many areas. with a balanced increase in revenue. We would probably disagree on details, at least initially, but could likely either compromise or at least politely agree to disagree. The problem with pursuing the discussion here is all the incivility and dissonant noise in the room. Maybe more at some other time.

LOL, facts hurt I guess.

9:54am on Thursday, December 1, 2011 @ kathleen, you should check facts. Barry had a super majority, thats why the GOP couldn't stop obamacare, and a few others. Demint did NOT block the relief monies from going to Haiti.
There was a rumor that Coburn blocked the Haiti funds. However if you read what happened for yourself and not just listen to talking points you will find otherwise.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/rightnow?ContentRecord_id=32b1abcc-55bb-47b4-b775-52c57f91dd33

Clinton did have a surplus and in 95 he signed a bill and then another bill in 99 that allowed the banks and Fannie and Freddie to do what they did. You need to fix the problem, not the symptoms of the problem! Likewise, you need to find out where it broke to do so.

The 1% you speak of get most of their money from Passive income not earned income. There is only 4 types of income. The 1% get their wealth from passive income, WILL NOT BE AND IS NOT TAXED the way you want it to be. Therefore you are getting played!

http://multimastery.hubpages.com/hub/4_Different_Types_of_Income

Clinton's paying more attention to Monica Lewinsky than he paid to Osama Bin Laden, the attack by Jihadi Islamists on 9/11 that provoked no wars, the lack of enforcement by Clinton of the "NO Fly Zone" over Iraq, and the U.N.'s negligence of it's responsibilities in Iraq (Oil for Food) during the Clinton years, and the explosion of "Sanctuary Cities" contributed nothing to the problem? Let's not forget the coercive force put upon lenders to give home mortgages to unqualified people. Let's not forget the "Solyndra Syndrome" of the Obamanation and it's capitulation to extreme environmentalism (Isn't that a mental illness?) and those "Green Jobs" that cost so much Green and cost so many to lose their jobs. Let's not forget Johnson's unpaid for "Great Society". Like Pastor Wright said, "Chickens are coming home to roost". Right? Let's not forget a president who offers unicorns and fairy dust as solutions. B.S. may be the fertilizer for the fields that allowed us to have Tea Parties, but it is not a commonly useful fossil fuel when it is ditributed in words written on teleprompters. Does EPA stand for "Empty Promise Alert"?

Kevin, so far we've heard from you on everything but Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What do you have to offer as an opinion on those programs?

John, I don't know why there is a cap on income subject to payroll taxes, that contribute to the Social Security trust fund. I think all income should be taxed at the same rate, once, That means an end to inheritance taxes , corporate profits should be taxed at the corporate level, but that investment income would be tax free to the recipient. I subscribe to a limited Capital Gains Tax because taxpayer supported infrastructure most often contributed to those gains. Social Security recipients should be means tested for income, but not for assets. I think SocSec should be exclusively for retirees and the disabled. I think Medicaid should completely be a state supported program. Medicare needs to include prescription meds, yet it is entangled with issues that hurt it ,but are not necessarily within it. The extension of Patent Protection to a lesser amount of years, tort reform on both state and federal levels, protection from lawsuits for medical professionals, charities, churches,and hospitals is another area to consider. These and other areas effect Medicare , but not just Medicare, and should be revisited. Minors who are survivors of deceased parents deserve special consideration, as do minors born with disabilities. These last two issues should be left to the individual states,The reason is primarily that childhood is a temporary, and not permanent condition. Local communities can assume responsibility for local needs in many cases. Tax reform is needed.

Kevin, Touch them all! (It's a baseball reference John)

@kathleen, 99% of the time I'm using a qwerty! So...

Yes, I should've used "are" however, the 99% of which you speak don't feel like you!

Barry, is his birth name! Time to imbue oneself on facts and history again.

Another fact you need to read up on is that capitalism is what made us great! Therefore, the owners of companies that hire you made this country what it is.

Btw the word idiot offends me!

http://news.goldseek.com/GoldSeek/1281679980.php

You must live in a Glass house Kathleen. " I will not be lectured to by someone who does not know when to use "is" and when to use "are".".

"lectured to by" did you need "to"? I think not.

Cheers,