There is no paralell: Jews were being persecuted simply for being Jews. No one is persecuting Catholics. No one is even removing Catholics from government service. Rather, the idea is that anyone may participate in public life in accordance with the law. Accept an office of profit or trust under the United States (or any political subdivision thereof) and take an oath to uphold the law, then either uphold the law or give up the office. That's not persecution.
"No one is persecuting Catholics. No one is even removing Catholics from government service."
Tell that to Miguel Estrada. Essentially modern secularism is telling the Catholic, "no judicial appointments, no pharmacy licenses, no medical school or medical licenses for you". That IS persecution, that IS interefernce in our right to the free exercise of our faith, that is (under your belief system regarding honor and an oath) a removal from office.
By defining "government service" as upholding laws that are incompatible with Catholic faith, they most certainly are doing exactly that.
Are you saying that the Nuremberg laws would have been okay if they'd permitted Jews to stay where they were, as long as they regularly ate pork barbecue and shrimp cocktails?
You bring me back to the Cuomo-Kerry Corollary: "The Only Good Catholic is a Bad Catholic."
What should be particularly disturbing to Catholic voters is that the largest single block of senators who are truly anti-American in their view of the political process are also the major anti-Christian voting block in the Senate: a group of thirteen "Catholic" senators, the most vociferous Culture of Death proponents (Biden, Collins, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, Landrieu, Leahy, Milkulski, Murray, Reed).
If you've been following the rhetorical trends around the judicial confirmation process, you'll have noticed that a nominee can be considered defective if he or she admits to being a practicing Catholic, rather than just an nominal one (e.g. Judge Charles Pickering.) By this do not, of course, mean merely "churchgoing": I mean one whose mind is convinced of of certain truths, and whose will is willing to live those truths.
This did not mean "breaking the law to live these truths." It meant --- in the case of Pickering --- acknowledging the Judeo-Christian roots of Western law, as anyone, even an honest agnostic jurist, should rightly do.
Beyond the question of Catholic fidelity to a religiously-informed sense of right and wrong: as I remember it, Robert Bork was "borked" mostly on account of his acknowledgement of the tradition of Natural Law.
And others ----- I could make a longer list --- have been deemed unacceptable because they were too Constitutionalist.
Our opponents allow the acknowledgement of nothing but positive law in its crudest form: whatever Just-So Story was handed down 3 hours ago by the robed oligarchs, s**** God, s**** our common humanity, and s**** the Constitution.
THAT concept of law is truly lawless. It deserves the obedience of nobody.
Sounds like a perfect formula for the advancement of evil; everytime there is an evil law passed, those who see it as evil ought to resign.
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.