You wrote yourself the Question and Answer to  #1:
Question : To comply with what Pope Leo teaches, should Congress amend the Constitution to remove its religiously indifferentirst First Amendment and adopt Catholicism as the State religion?  Answer - Everyone here knows about Pope Leo XIII's great encyclical about the nature of liberty, Libertas praestantissimum, where that pope insists that Catholicism needs to be each society's State religion.

So I assume this is another question:

2) During a lecture I heard on YouTube, a hero of mine, Fr. Gregory Hesse says that America needs that amendment because in our religiously diverse country, everyone needs to get along.  But I disagree because in a Catholic confessional state, non-Catholics may practice their religions because it's immoral to force those people to become Catholic.  Your thoughts?

As I understand you, your disagreement is with what Fr. Hesse said, you say they would not get along because the non-Catholics would still be allowed to practice their religions? You'll have to clear up what you are for and against. It appears that you are against Pope Leo XIII.


Just so you know how a Catholic confessional state worked in practice with the non-Catholic false religions, where the rubber meets the road, the Jews and Protestants for instance, were not permitted to evangelize in public, but they were allowed to meet in their meeting halls and ѕуηαgσgυєs, they just could not have public signs outside of the building to advertise the location.

The popes of Vatican II ordered all Catholic confessional states to remove Catholicism as the state religion from their constitution, a big indicator that the Vatican II church is a false religion.

I disagreed with Fr. Hesse because Catholic confessional states still let religious non-Catholics practice their religions in them.  I seem to remember that for a country to become Catholic confessional, most people there would first need to be Catholic.  Maybe this is just the wrong time for the U.S. to become Catholic.  Most people think that ought implies can.  But I wonder whether people are still obligated to do some things when current circuмstances prevent them from doing them.
 Maybe someday when the time is right, liberal democracy, which I reject, could help, say, the U.S., become Catholic.  Remember how Catholicism thrived in Salazar's Portugal and that in 2011, Hungary adopted generically Christian constitution.
[url[http://romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/2009/08/antonio-salazar.html[/url]
I'm a native-born American hereditary monarchist who wants to move to a kingdom where the sovereign rules.  I'm counter-revolutionary reactionary who lets Catholicism decide my politics.  Though I love my country, I'm eager to leave it.  But if I emigrate, my anti-immigration might make me a hypocrite.  If we talk about the economy, I'll sound like a conservative Republican.  But I won't join any American political party.
Here's my favorite blog.
https://bonald.wordpress.com

Do you think that is likely to happen?
I am concerned about the anti Catholic laws and regulations being promulgated by politicians and bureaucrats. That in California Catholic hospitals may be forced to perform abortions and sterilizations and participate in sex change operations. That pro-life organizations who dedicate themselves to helping pregnant women in distress may be required by the state to make abortion referrals.
Another anti Catholic attack is against the Hispanic people who wish to profess their faith by publicly wearing a Catholic rosary.
More anti Catholicism may be found in the public schools where the Faith is calumniated and ridiculed.

No, I believe it's highly unlikely to happen.  But I suggest that the country's religious indifferentism is partly to blame for the problems you describe.  Most progressives support the immoral practices you describe probably are irreligious.  Some secularists may support American religious liberty because they're libertarians.  Maybe they would tell you, "Sure, practice any religion in our free country."  While they  say that, their unspoken belief may be, "Since each religion is false, it doesn't matter what, if any, religion anyone practices."

Irreligion is incompatible with what the Declaration of Independence says about our Creator who gave us inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My question for other Americans is this.  Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, was a Freemason and Fremasonry is religiously indifferent.  Listen to John Salza's lectures about Masonry.  He's tell you that while a lodge initiates a new recruit, a Mason will ask him what religion he professes.  Whatever the candidate replies, the Mason will say, "Your faith is well founded."  So do we know what or whom the word "Creator" signifies in the Declaration?  In her book The Star-Spangled Heresy: Americanism, Solange seems to think that word stands for the Masonic Grand Architect.  But given Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ's religious indifferentism, I want to know what or whom "Grand Architect" stands for.

Here's an excellent example of American religious indifferentism in our supposedly Christian country when I never hear what standards people use to tell whether America is Christian.  In the Treaty of Tripoli, Artile 11 says:

Article 11.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[url]https://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html[url]

It certainly is troubling. The defense I have heard for this was that it was a strategic move.

Nah, I don't believe this.  I believe that this was done deliberately to destroy Catholic states.  With Vatican II, the Jєωιѕн-Masonic fingerprints are all over it, and "an enemy hath done this."

Besides, has the Vatican EVEN ONCE asked Muslim countries to allow freedom of religion in their states?

Do you think that is likely to happen?
I am concerned about the anti Catholic laws and regulations being promulgated by politicians and bureaucrats. That in California Catholic hospitals may be forced to perform abortions and sterilizations and participate in sex change operations. That pro-life organizations who dedicate themselves to helping pregnant women in distress may be required by the state to make abortion referrals.
Another anti Catholic attack is against the Hispanic people who wish to profess their faith by publicly wearing a Catholic rosary.
More anti Catholicism may be found in the public schools where the Faith is calumniated and ridiculed.

Poche, those problems worry me, too.  So if I were, say, a hospital that some bureaucracy tried to coerce, I would need to close rather than abort the babies.  Years ago, after eHarmony refused to match same-sex couples, it caved to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ activists by building another website at http://www.compatiblematch.com.  I'm not judging eHarmony.  But I think it should have closed forever.
I remember an OBGYN doctor who closed his medical practice when he realized that artificial contraception is immoral.  He didn't know what would happen after he did that.  But opened a new office in another state where he delivered babies.  Sometimes we need to beg God for the grace to live heroically to fight evil, even when we'll suffer for that.  We can't compromise when compromise would kill unborn babies.
I love my country, but I don't love its government.  I blame liberal democracy partly for the an evil law here in New York State where babies can be murdered legally after birth.  I blame liberal democracy and the Democrat Party for partial-birth abortion.  
Democrats and maybe most Americans ignore an important point John Vennari made when he lectured at a Catholic Family News Conference.  Americans say that since they have rights, the also have duties.  But Vennari, RIP, and I believe that our duties determine our rights.  When you know what you're morally obligated to do, you can deduce your rights from your obligations.  If I were a husband and a father, I would have the right to do each moral thing I would need to do to feed, shelter, clothe, and protect my wife and our children.  What's more, the left needs to know that most rights presuppose the right to live because we need to be alive to do what we have a right to do.

Well, the trick with what you're saying is to define "privately".  If by privately, you mean in the internal forum, then, of course, since the Church cannot know what exists in the internal forum only, and God has given every soul the freedom to reject His grace and His truth in that internal forum.  So if that's what you mean by privately, then of course I agree.  But should the Church allow a Jew to "privately" own a copy of the тαℓмυd?  I don't believe so.  If found, they could rightly be confiscated.  Should a few Jews be able to gather at someone's home and celebrate Passover?  No.  As soon as something comes out from the internal forum into the external, the state has the authority to suppress it.  This is in principle, of course, and as a practical matter prudence might suggest being more tolerant.

Like I said in the first posting after the OP, and this is the actual way it was done in Brazil as told to me by a Brazilian (and I assume it was the same in all the other Catholic confessional states):

Last Tradhican said:
Just so you know how a Catholic confessional state worked in practice with the non-Catholic false religions, where the rubber meets the road, the Jews and Protestants for instance, were not permitted to evangelize in public, but they were allowed to meet in their meeting halls and ѕуηαgσgυєs, they just could not have public signs outside of the building to advertise the location.

Meg, than you for the excellent point about Marxism because it wouldn't have occurred to me,

I wouldn't want a Catholic confessional state to adopt Vatican II's novelties.  So it seems to me that for societies to become genuinely Catholic confessional ones, we'll need to wait until Our Lady of Fatima's Immaculate Heart to triumphs. Someday, I pray, a pope will rule that Vatican II was a robber council and vindicate trads who know that it's deeply flawed. In a lecture, Fr. Hesse said that he would make a video where he would tear Vatican II apart and put it where it belongs, in the trash can.  So I wonder what theologically neoconservative apostolates like EWTN are doing now when even Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Archbishop Vigano know that there's a rupture between Vatican II and what the Church taught before that disastrous council that began when I was about a year old.