Truly we are accountable to God above all else. And His justice is perfection as He has us each, individually, building the scales whereby we will be judged, individually:
Blessed [are] the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. - Matt 5:7
Concerning the matters involved in this dispute, whereas the Constitution does not require a religious test of anyone running for office I would apply such tests because I am accountable to God, not man. He truly is my Father Who art in heaven. Loving Him is the one and only Great Commandment.
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. - Matthew 22:37-38
Likewise I could not vote for a Muslim because the faith requires absolute submission to itself which is against Christ and includes Sharia law in its beliefs - all of which clearly is antagonistic to God Himself and to the principles of the founders as evidenced by the foundation documents of this great country.
And frankly I do have "religious test" problems with both apparent candidates in this election.
Looking at the fruits - Obama, while confessing he is Christian, behaves as if he is Muslim at heart, e.g. canceling the National Day of Prayer while hosting a day of prayer for Muslims in the same year. We are to watch for wolves in sheep's clothing.
But I haven't been able to join with Obama in prayer either. So I would have to continue to join in prayer for our country with other Christians who mean the same Person when they say "Our Father."
Of the two though, Obama's beliefs have been evidenced and the more he bows to Islam the more anti-Christ and anti-Christian this country becomes.
He must be voted out of office on the basis of that religious test, whether my reasoning is Constitutional or not.
I believe we have reached a point in America in which purism is not possible if we are to pull America back from the brink. We cannot weigh the constitutionality of our beliefs, or demand adherence to Christian beliefs, purely when considering the person(s) for whom we vote.
The intent of the two axoms regarding not throwing out the baby with the bath water and choosing the lesser of two evils have probably never been more urgent than they will be this November.
The deceit and utter disdain, for both the foundations of our republic and its Christian underpinnings, that this administration has exhibited is mind-numbing. And what makes matters even more unpalatable is the fact that the hypocrisy includes visible, public affirmations of both, while much of the administration's behind-the-scenes activity is aimed at diluting, if not destroying, both our Founders' vision and the impact that Christian doctrine had on that vision.
But God will not be mocked -- Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows ... Gal 6:7
... which isn't to say that Christians should simply serve as spectators, resting on that promise alone -- Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking lies. Turn from evil and do good; seek peace and pursue it ... Ps 13-14.
Turn from, Seek and pursue are not passive verbs. Christians are not exorted to simply rest on God's promises, but rather to implement His teachings.
In today's America, turning from evil and doing good seems to require the kind of 'religious test' you are suggesting, A-G. When our leadership espouses a false Christianity, while at the same time embracing a religion that is openly and violently opposed to Christ's teachings, I (as I believe you) think we must see as our first priority in doing good the removal of that leadership. If an alternative leader's concept of God does not coincide with what we see as Christian doctrine, the fact that he is the only viable alternative, and the fact that he is not working to remove the Christian underpinnings of our republic, must provide reason enough for our support. Mitt Romney is an honest and decent man, as are all of the Mormons I have known personally. For that reason, although I cannot campaign for him, I can and will campaign for his success in removing a dangerous, deceitful man who uses a false Christianity for political purposes while elevating and subsidizing a religion that seeks both the death and subjugation of non-believers.
If such a litmus test is unconstitutional, it is only because our Founders never dreamed that the survival of America as a free republic would depend on its implementation.
May God bless and strengthen you and yours in these troubling times ...
~ joanie
As it is your privilege to do, dearest sister in Christ!
On further reflection, the "religious test" issue was originally intended by We the People of the United States of America, who ordained and established the Constitution for "the benefit of ourselves and our posterity," to operate as a constraint on the government, not on the People.
Obama can say all day long that he is a (Reverend Wright-style) "Christian"; but I feel sure he is not even that. I'm not sure he is a Muslim, though he was fathered by one (if what Obama himself tells us is true), and as a child was educated in Indonesian Muslim madrassas.
I just think he is an atheist, pure and simple. He is his own "god."
I just can't wait to see whether (or not) the Obama campaign raises the issue of Romney's father's birth in a polygamous Mormon colony in Mexico. (Notwithstanding that George Romney was not himself a polygamist.) He would be very bold to try this, given that his own father, a Kenyan Muslim, was polygamous, having had four wives. I'm not even sure that Obama's mother — Stanley Ann Dunham — was one of them. All her public records (including marital records) are sealed.
Oddly, all public records WRT Dunham's parents are sealed as well. You just can't find out anything about these people....
In short, Obama may very well be a bastard.
So, is this news???
Thank you so very much, dearest sister in Christ, for your outstanding observations!