'St. gilbert, would you believe me if I said I'm a Catholic American?'
The more you describe your position to me, the more I would be inclined not to believe you. You have yet to advocate a Catholic position.
'All true Catholics are Catholic supremiciststs? Not in the sense that supremicist is used today.'
Yes, all true Catholics are 'Catholic supremacists' in that they wish to see the True Faith defended, exclusively, by the laws of their country. They wish to see Our Lord Jesus Christ reign _supreme_.
'One can believe that Catholicism is the only true religion without disenfranchising everyone else.'
Clearly, you need to read more about the Faith and the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King.
'How about free will, st gilbert?'
How about it? I dont think I have advocated a position that would deny free will.
'If you think like God or He thinks like you, why hasn't HE stripped all these people of their evil freedoms and put only armed, adult, male Catholics in power?'
It is precisely because you do not (apparently) think as a Catholic, that you do not grasp the concept of Free Will.
God permits bad government in order to teach us the lesson that, without God, nothing truly good will come.
'Does He approve of forcing people into Catholicism ormaking their life a disenfranchised misery?'
You are attempting to compare two completely different concepts.
No, of course God doesnt approve of forcing people into the Faith against their will. Neither do I. That would of course be against Free Will.
As to the concept of 'disenfranchised misery', would you consider the Catholic peoples of Europe during the height of Christendom to be 'miserable'? Even if you did, would it matter *one bit* if they lived a miserable life *BUT DIED AND WENT TO HEAVEN*?
Your focus is on almost purely humanistic, temporal concerns. This is why you dont perceive the weakness in the position that you advocate.
'I would have the authorities answer for criminal behavior and you wouldn't, but you would consider them criminal for not defending a faith they don't believe in.'
No, now you are mis-stating my position. Of course I would have authorities answer for criminal behaviour. The question that begs is, 'To whom would these authorities answer?'
Also, no, I wouldnt consider a non-Catholic authority criminal for not defending a faith in which they did not believe. However, I would not have non-Catholic govern Catholics in the first place.
'You deny history when you say Catholics haven't been converting people in this country.'
You deny logic, common sense, and the Faith itself when you say that Catholic Tradition has made any significant impact here in America.
'Yes, they had some setbacks and persecutions, but they were as free to do those things as the Protestants were.'
_That_ is precisely the problem: heretics were permitted to spread their errors.
'I think they saw something you don't---that God wants people to come willingly to Him, not perforce.'
Of course I see that. However, again, you are confusing the issue. The issue is not a matter of whether or not people convert of their own free will; the issue is whether or not a Catholic society has the right to maintain itself as explicitly Catholic.
'The truth is, the Catholic Church did well in this country and we had our time to convert people.'
No, that is anything but the truth. The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by Protestants, Freemasons, Deists, and Pagans and has been anti-Catholic since its inception. That the Church made *any* inroads in such a hostile environment is, frankly, a miracle.
'You deny the truth when you say God was never allowed in this country because of the first amendment, solely because the first amendment didn't provide for Catholics alone.'
No, I speak facts: since the First Amendment expressly forbids the Catholic Church as the only true Church with the right to exclusive legal protection, it denies the Faith *by definition*. It tolerates every form of heresy, schism, etc. right along with what is left of Catholicism. I.e., it demotes the Faith to just another religious denomination.
That is most decidedly not a Catholic position to adopt.
'If God was not allowed in, then all the Catholic Churches, Masses and people were sans God.'
Now you are arguing ad absurdam. Of course, those truly Catholic Churches here in the U.S. have God in them, so to speak. However, that is despite the First Amendment, not because of it.
'Why the heck didn't God start the Church out in a Catholic country?'
If you are trying to perceive the mind of God, a better person to ask would be Him.
'Why didn't the Catholics of America make sure this was a Catholic only country?'
Because the country was founded by Protestants, etc. and not by Catholics.
'Why, why, why doesn't God, who has all the power, just Make everyone Catholic?'
Because that would deny Free Will.
'They are men in need of conversion.'
That is the only issue apparently upon which we agree.
'I've heard rumors that this country was founded by freemasons, etc., but I've never seen proof.'
Even if proof were offered, my guess is that you would deny it.
'I have read some of the founding fathers writings which sounded like they knew and kept the ten commandments.'
Rebellion against authority is forbidden by the Fourth Commandment. The Founding Fathers rebelled. It is as plain as that.
'I'm going to let you go on pretending that I issued a death threat, because every time you mention it, it reminds me of how juvenile you are. Besides, I also know that you have created me in your own mind and will hear nothing to the contrary.'
I am beginning to conclude that reasonable discourse with you is impossible.
I recommend that you pray and think seriously about your positions, because what you are advocating is anything but Catholic. This will become a problem if you intend to speak with other Catholics assuming you are coming from the same set of assumptions.
God bless you.